A Thought on Parshas Lech Lecha

"...va'heh'emin b'HaShem va'yach'shav'eha lo tzedaka..." "...and he trusted HaShem, and He considered that righteousness..." (15:6) The flow of this passage requires explanation. HaShem tells Avram not to fear anymore. He promises him great rewards in the form of a homeland, and then promises him innumerable descendants. Avram trusts in HaShem, and then the verse says that "HaShem considered that to be righteousness" on Avram's part. Then, HaShem instructs Avram to bring forth offerings. He does, the sun sets, he gets sleepy, then gets scared. The sequence here needs clarification. Avram is told not to be afraid, but he ends up getting afraid. HaShem promises him things, and he believes HaShem, and for this, HaShem considers him righteous. But then, Avram gets scared. The Gan ponders what appear to be, at first, inconsistencies and paradoxes here. First, in our verse, he asks, why would HaShem regard Avram's trust in Him as a display of righteousness - isn't it easy to believe the One Whom one believes in?! Second, whenever HaShem speaks to Avram, we do not find that Avram ever gets scared. Even as he is encountering a vision, a dialogue with, HaShem, he is not scared. When he obeys HaShem's instructions to bring offerings and then big predatory birds swoop in, Avram shoos them away and is not scared. Then, it gets dark, he gets sleepy, and Avram gets scared? Surely he wasn't scared of the dark! If he was righteous for trusting in HaShem, why the sudden fear when sun sets? Avram is not even afraid after his old-age circumcision, despite the danger and pain that he was in. Why be scared now? The Gan offers this interpretation: "He considered that righteousness" is not a reference to HaShem, but is a reference to Avraham. The verse means he, Avram, not He, HaShem. Avraham accepted HaShem's pledge to reward him with a homeland and bless him with descendants, and he considered that promise a righteous covenant. Tzedaka can mean just, and it can be charitable. The charity was that Avram would be granted children despite his old age. The justice was that they would then be able to survive as a people, and endure through having a land of their own. So, although some other commentaries (see Rashi) interpret the verse as " He (HaShem) considered Avram's trust a righteous act", the Gan reverses the object and the subject here, and sees it as a reference to Avram's perception of HaShem's promises to him. Now for the fear. The Gan suggests that all went well, as Avram brought forth the offerings, until the birds showed up and he shooed them away. That unexpected event triggered a feeling in him that although he trusted that he would have descendants and that they would inherit a homeland, there would also come a time when they, and their land, would be threatened. He saw in the appearance of the predatory birds a symbol of future threats. While still trusting and not worried about himself, he projected ahead with worry for the welfare of his future progeny. He did not want his eventual children to suffer! He did not want them to experience threat and danger. This worry, writes the Gan, led to Avram feeling faint. Although it was still daylight, his world began to darken. That dark pallor evoked more worry in him, for now he felt that his own ability to think clearly and to interpret the events around him was fading. The passage then explains his subsequent prophecy, wherein HaShem structures the symbolic meaning of the predators' appearance, as well as the symbolic meaning of Avram succeeding in shooing them away. There would indeed come a time when his descendants would be threatened yet that would be temporary. The Jewish nation would later ascend and arise victorious. For Avram, the worry and fear were not born out of doubt, but out of a momentary sense of uneasiness over how to understand the vision which he had apprehended. Not being able to think clearly troubles the heart, the mind and the soul. When a person cannot make sense of his experiences, especially when he knows that HaShem intends for those experiences to convey a message, one's inner world looses its luminosity. What greater shock to a prophet than to find that he cannot make sense of a prophecy! It must be worse than a radiologist seeing chiaroscuro shadows but no shapes. So, HaShem provided Avram with the interpretative meaning of those confusing symbols, which was also an act of righteousness from Above. Good Shabbos, D Fox

A Supplement to Parshas Noach

This is the supplement to my Parshas Noach Thought based on the Gan. I made an offer to anyone who was inspired by his commentary to provide his additional insights about how the seeds of living human conflict also entered the Ark. "...v'Dodanim..." "...and the people of Dodan..." (10:4) The Torah lists the descendants of Noach's three sons. These became the nations and societies which filled the world and populated it. One of the grandsons of Yefes, through his son Yavan, was Dodan, who spawned a nation. The Gan observes that this nation, or person, is mentioned in Divrei HaYamim (Chronicles) 1:1:7, but is called Rodanim. The dalet is written there as a reish. The Gan suggests that this teaches us a lesson with the same theme as he introduced (in my Parsha Thought). Dodanim comes from the word Dod, which means an uncle, and is also a synonym for "dear friend". Rodan comes from the word Rodeh, which means to oppress. Dodan was in fact an "uncle" of us Shem-ites (Jews), and the descendants of Yavan (who became the Greeks) were in some ways dear ones to the Jewish people. After all, both cultures shared a love of intellectual exploration, aesthetic genius, understanding the cosmos and appreciating a unified society. Uncle Yefes, and his son Yavan, and his son Dodan, were at times in history on a parallel path with our own nation. However, with the passage of time and with the rise of idolatry, epicureanism and the misdirecting of those philosophical and theological values, the Greeks competed with us then persecuted us. They made that choice to embrace falsehood and to belittle truth. They became allegiant to that Sar of Sheker. Ultimately, they fell into misfortune. Visited Greece lately? "...Keetim..." "...the people of Keet..." (ibid.) Our sages, have taught that the people of Keet were the anthropological core of what would become the Romans. They too were at one time our dear ones (see Avoda Zara 9a). With time and tide, this changed dramatically and, as the Gan writes, "they are still, because of our iniquities, pursuing us......". They too adopted the ways of that Sar of Sheker. "...min ha'aretz ha'hi yatza Ashur..." "...Ashur left that land...and built Ninveh..." (10:11-12) Even before the dispersing of nations following the Tower of Bavel, the Torah tells us that Ashur left the region. The Gan notes that there are midrashim which teach that he went on to become the Nation of Ashur, whom we know as the Assyrians. He founded the metropolis of Nineveh. We know that Nineveh was the city which the prophet Yona was sent to save by inspiring them to repent their sinful ways. Why was Nineveh given this chance to repent? The Gan reasons that it was in the merit of Ashur, who must have detected early on the decadence of his civilization, and for that reason, he abandoned that part of the world, left the land, and set out to establish a better world for his descendants. In that merit, Ninveh, which at one time had been founded on more moral and humane principles, was given the opportunity to correct its now decadent ways. The Gan even cites a midrashic Targum which translates "min ha'aretz ha'hi" into the Aramaic "min aizta ha'hi" - Ashur departed by rejecting their falsehoods." The Gan then cites his father, Rabbeinu Yosi, that when we read in Tehillim (83:9) which lists the nations who conspire against Israel with treachery, the verse says "v'gam Ashur nilvah im'am" - even Ashur ended up joining them. This means that even though Ashur started off as one of our dear ones, he too ended up giving up truth for the decadent life, turning against truth, justice and morality. Each of these interpretations illustrate the inclination in ourselves to give allegiance to the Sar of Sheker, which leads us to impurity and misfortune, with which that force is allied. Good Shabbos. D Fox

A Thought on Parshas Noach

"...u'mi'kol ha'chai..." "...and from all that lives..." (6:19) Noach is instructed to round up representatives from all living creatures and bring them into the Ark. The verse prefaces, though, that this order also includes "all that lives." This would seem like a redundant clause, in that Noach is told with great specificity which animals and what amounts of each type to bring in. What is added by the words "all that lives"? The Gan offers a midrash. He notes that our sages teach that beyond animals, beasts and people, HaShem also created anima, pulsating forces which are present within the creation and have an energy which is manifest in our internal struggles and challenges. These "living" forces were also contained within the Ark, and were meant to endure as part of human reality within the psychosocial world that would emerge after the flood. The midrash cited by the Gan says that the "Sar of Sheker" - the force of dishonest or deceptive energy, sought entrance into the Ark. Noach resisted this, pointing out that only creatures who have mates were to remain as part of the eventual world. Nothing pairs up with Falsehood. It stands alone and cannot exist with anything that is stable, essential or meant to be part of human ascendancy. So then, the "Sar of Sheker" courted the "Sar of Pachas", the force of misfortune, claiming that those two entities can coexist. They agreed to be mates and partners. The "force of misfortune" partnered with the "force of dishonesty", with the stipulation that anything that dishonesty gains will eventually become the domain of misfortune. The fortune earned by dishonest dealings was melded with ultimate misfortune, and a shiduch was made in the Ark. The Gan then offers that this is the equivalent of (as we would say in English) "cheaters never prosper." Those two energies, the temptation to sway from the truth and the consequence of eventual disappointment, survived the flood. They are a part of life. My question: are they from the "pure" or the "impure" creations?! The Gan continues: "...l'chayos zera..." "...to bring live descendants..." (7:3) If the objective of bringing animals into the Ark was to keep the world populated with living creatures, why did the pure animals need 7 of each gender? One of each would have allowed for procreation, as it sufficed for the unclean animals! The Gan, quoting the Bechor Shor, explains that this was Noach's clue that HaShem meant for him to deduce that the pure animals need to brought as offerings. We need to relinquish some of our goods, some of our fortune, in order to be selfless and to recognize that HaShem is the Highest Power. That is why the pure animals came in more amounts than necessary for procreation. We make use of good things, and do so in the service of HaShem. Impure things can come in pairs, but pure things should be abundant. Thus, we learn from this that the two living forces of Falsehood and Misfortune, since they are only a pair, are regarded as impure entities. There is no way that one can deign to serve HaShem under the pretense of using dishonesty, falsehood, deceit, crime and mis-appropriated fortune. Those will always be part of the "impure" parts of our world. Our mortal challenge, our existential struggle, is to determine if we will choose a life of purity, namely, one of being - at times - selfless in the pursuit of drawing close to HaShem, or if we content ourselves with life's impurities, which do not lead to goodness that endures. The Gan draws on verses 10:4, 11, and 12 to illustrate this but I will save those astounding insights for those who contact me and ask for them. For now, however, I will allow this to suffice as we begin acclimating to this exciting Rishon. Good Shabbos. D Fox

A Thought on Parshas B'reishis

5775 INTRODUCTION Well I must admit that I had begun to get discouraged about not finding a new Rishon to study this year. I had been roaming the shops of Israel, Lakewood, Brooklyn and elsewhere, and had been asking my friends Rabbi Eli Mayer Cohen, Rabbi David Derovan, Rabbi Yossi Neuwirth and others who know the literature and its availability. Even this past year's choice, the Panae'ach Raza, I had had to borrow from Rabbi Cohen in that it is long out of print. Over the last months of 5774 I had considered going back to one of the Rishonim whom I've already studied, and gleaning new insights, or even moving on to a very very early Acharon with the rationale that the cusp years of the 15th and 16th centuries might be regarded variously as the era of the very very late Rishonim. After all, I did include Rabbeinu Ovadia Seforno many years ago with the argument that his commentary did get included within volumes which covered earlier Rishonim. I was even considering devoting this year to an edition entitled Baalei HaTosfos al haTorah which includes the commentary of Rabbeinu Ovadia of Bertinoro, an Italian sage who is usually counted among the early Acharonim. Were my Rishonim years going to be over? And then I walked into the Garden. Now let me explain. These last few years have introduced me to the less well known commentaries of some of the early Baalei Tosfos - we studied Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel, the Bechor Shor, Rabbeinu Avigdor, the Panaeach Raza. In some of those commentaries or in the notes published along with them, I occasionally came across an odd abbreviation which seemed to be a source being cited. The first time I saw it quoted - it was the Hebrew letter gimel followed by an apostrophe then the letter nun, - I assumed that it was a misprint and it was supposed to read Raish apostrophe Nun which would have been a reference to either Rabbeinu Nissim Gaon or Rabbeinu Nissim the Rishon, both known as "the Ran" just as Rabbeinu Shlomo Yitzchaki is known as Rashi. Now, I have some of the writings of both of those sages known as "the Ran" and turned to them in order to cross reference the comments which I assumed were being cited in one of their names. This was to no avail however and it soon became clear to me that this G'N abbreviation was not the same as the R'N, and I slowly came to understand that there was some source either abbreviated as G'N or there was a sefer written by another Rishon which was entitled "the Gan" or Garden. I asked around, I looked around, but after exhausting my best sources, I was still in the dark and not in the Garden. Which brings me to this past summer in mid-Tamuz on the day before the Fast of the 17th, I chanced into a seforim store in the Old City of Jerusalem and walked straight up to a shelf where at eye level was a volume entitled "Sefer HaG'N." The Book of the Garden. I grabbed it, paid for it and got back to my room as fast as I could. I had finally discovered that there was indeed a sefer called "the Gan" and my search was now over. I had a commentary to study for the year 5775! Thank G-d! Now just who was the author of this elusive volume? The Gan was written by Rabbeinu Aharon ben Yosi haKohen. He is cited by the Panae'ach Raza over one hundred times. Based on analysis of his writing style and his focus, it is apparent that he lived in Northern France in the early 1200s. He was a student of three disciples of Rabbeinu Yitzchok the Elder, who was a great-grandson of Rashi and founder of the Tosafists school of Talmudic commentators. He appears to have been a great sage in that he cites the Talmud, the Midrash and rabbinic authorities who preceded him. His father Rabbeinu Yosi haKohen was also a Torah scholar, in that he is also cited within the Sefer. Why did he call his work "The Book of the Garden"? The great Chida (Rabbeinu Chaim Yosef Dovid Azulai, 18th century) suggests that the Torah is generally regarded as having 53 parshios (this is mentioned in the Zohar) and the gematria of 53 is of course nun-gimel, which comprise the letters that spell Gan. Thus, it may have been the intention of Rabbeinu Aharon ben Yosi haKohen to hint at how his commentary covers the 53 parshios of the Torah which are the "GaN' or Garden. I am very excited about this find and I thank HaShem for leading me down the Garden path. Let us begin a year iyH of study together in the Sefer HaGan. ********************************* A Thought On Parshas Bereishis "...va'yitzar HaShem Elokim es ha'adam..." "...and HaShem formed the man..." (2:7) The Torah tells us that HaShem formed man. The verb here means "to give form to." It is spelled in an atypical manner, in that rather than being written with a single yud it has two. This begs an explanation. The Gan writes that whereas we could infer from the word that the Torah is alluding to two forms of humans, that is, man and woman, another message of the two letters is that the Torah wants it known that the human being is a two-dimensional creation, unlike other living things. Human beings have a mundane, this-worldly aspect in common with all creatures, but we also have a higher-source nature, which the verse depicts as coming straight from HaShem kavayachol. We were created with this duality, which explains the double yud. The Gan gets graphic: we have a lower dimension like all animals in four ways - we eat and drink, we procreate, we excrete, and die as do animals. In contrast, we walk upright, we have wisdom, we are curious, and we communicate as do the angels above. Our verse comes to teach us, then, that HaShem created man as a blend of lower and higher world qualities. The Gan writes, "HaShem said - if I create man as a higher entity, he will live forever. If I create him in a mundane way, he will die. As a combination of both life forms, I will make his existence conditional. When he lives a sublime life, he can endure. If he fails, he cannot endure." The mundane body will expire. The spiritual self can live forever. The verse continues "va'yipach b'apav nishmas chaim - and HaShem infused man with the spirit of life." The Gan observes that we have five terms associated with man's nature. Nefesh refers to the G-d given life power which generates cardiac functioning and circulation - that part of being alive which continues with the beating heart. Ruach refers to life's energy and consciousness, which are the vibrancy of the body, and the soul. Neshama is the power which generates respiration, which is the breath of living, neshima. Chaya refers to neurosensory activity, the power to know that we exist in time and space. Yechida refers to individual essence, or character, which makes a person unique despite the common qualities which all human beings share. This is the mind, as distinct from the brain and the body. The word chayim is plural, signifying the duality again - we have two lives, one as creatures and one as transcendent creations, and in our verse, this nishmas chaim marks our two paths of existing. Our mission in this existence is to prioritize this higher quality of being an individual, which are the four facets of our higher dimension which he cites earlier: aiming to walk upright in character, to utilize our gift of wisdom to further the good of G-d on this earth, to pursue with wonder the quest for ascendance, and to share with others by imparting our spiritual adventures. Now that the first set of holidays closes and we begin this new cycle of learning from the Gan, Rabbeinu Aharon, may the machzor's message of "v'keravtanu la'Avodas'echa" - You have called to us to serve You" be our single goal in actualizing our duality. I welcome the Gan into our lives this year, and may his teachings inspire and guide us. Good Shabbos. D Fox