Category: Torah portions of the Week

The basic principle can be found in a seemingly insignificant detail of the story of Jacob and his reconciliation with his brother, Esau. Esau had proclaimed his intent to murder Jacob, so Jacob had fled to his relatives in Mesopotamia. While there, he married and had 12 children. Now, 20 years later, he was returning to the land of Canaan. He did not know if his brother had reconciled himself to Jacob's existence, or if he still harbored murderous intent. So Jacob makes a plan.

His plan is based on the concept of three things: appeasement, preparation for battle, and prayer. Let's focus on the first of the three, appeasement. Jacob takes "whatever animals came to his hand," and prepared to send them as a gift to his brother Esau. The commentary written by the sainted Chofetz Haim asks why he Jacob did not intentionally take the best of his flocks? Why only "whatever animals come to hand?" He answers that Jacob observed the Torah's laws, and among them are the laws of kosher slaughtering of animals.

Esau, on the other hand, did not observe these laws. Therefore, Jacob didn't want to hand his animals over willingly to his brother, who would slaughter them in a nonkosher method, and cause them to be on a lower level of holiness. Apparently, being slaughtered in the kosher fashion as a spiritual effect even on animals!

Jewish law puts an emphasis on kindness to animals, and avoiding cruelty to them. A Talmudic story about one of the great rabbis illustrates the point. The rabbi was standing, when an animal which was due to be slaughtered escaped from the shochet, the ritual slaughter, and hid between the rabbi's legs. The rabbi told the animal, "go and submit yourself, because this is why you were created." Even though he was technically right, the rabbi was stricken by illness and attributed it to his sin of being insensitive to that animal. Later, he corrected his sin and was healed.

Another detail in the appeasement efforts of Jacob makes a similar point. Jacob had sent all the animals with his servants and slaves. The Chofetz Haim explains that Esau might have thought that the slaves were also for him. Thus, Jacob specifically instructs them to say, "these (we) are belonging to Jacob your brother, and are sending this gift to you...". In other words, Jacob was not giving his servants to Esau. Why not? Because, the rabbi explains, as long as they were in Jacob's household, they also were observing the laws of the Torah. If Jacob would give them to his brother, their holiness would be diminished, as they would cease observing the Torah.

From both of these stories we see a unique responsibility upon Jacob. It is not enough that he is nice and respectful of his servants, and kind to his animals. It is not enough to treat others well, there is a stronger obligation. He must uplift them! He must enable them all to reach their maximum spiritual potential. Even the animals have spiritual potential, and being part of a Torah household means living on a higher level. Thus, Jacob would not single out the animals to be given to Esau, rather he left it to chance, to "whatever comes to his hand."

Similarly, even if Esau would provide his servants with the most wonderful accommodations and pampering treatment, it would still be a disservice for Jacob to give them to him. Why? Because he would be lowering their spiritual level. Jacob could not afford to be humble, he had to know that his way of life was superior because of its greater spirituality. He had a responsibility to his servants to help them achieve their highest possible level.

Sadly, many leaders in the world today lead by reading polls. They don't seek to improve their people, they seek to appease them and please them. Even when Jacob was appeasing Esau, he did not allow himself to compromise the spirituality of anyone, or anything, under his influence.

However, Jacob also failed to do this in one element of his repatriation with Esau. After the reunion, Jacob's daughter Dina is kidnapped and raped by the Prince of Shechem. Our sages claim that this was punishment for how Jacob treated Dina when he was approaching Esau. Basically, he hid her in a box so that his brother would not see her and desire to marry her. Now, he may have thought that he was preventing her from being brought to a lower level by marrying Esau.

In truth, however, Dina would have had the power and influence to reform Esau! Jacob prevented this, he missed an opportunity to uplift and inspire his brother, and what followed was a punishment for that. While the appropriateness of such a "punishment" can be debated, the principle we are discussing shines clearly through: we must do everything to uplift and inspire every human being upon whom we have influence.

So, if the Jews would rule the world, it would be their responsibility to protect and inspire all of humanity. Indeed, as the Jews control the state of Israel, they must work to educate and uplift all residents of the land. We have a duty to fight off the negative influences, to expel the preachers of hate and to put an end to the vile anti-Semitic incitement and brainwashing taking place. We need to throw our weight around and make sure that all children are educated in the ways of God, specifically in the seven basic Laws of Morality that mankind received in the time of Noah. "Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal," are among the basics.

It is our job to make sure that everything we touch turns to spiritual gold.

The Israelites chose what would seem to be repentance. They proclaimed, "Here we are, we shall go up, for we have sinned." They are ready to go into the Promised Land, they will follow God's command. But Moses warned them to cease, because "You should not be routed by your enemies, because God is not with you."

God had told Moses not to allow the people to enter Israel. He had sworn an oath that they must wander in the wilderness for 40 years, until the adult generation that sinned with the spies had passed from the earth. Once God has taken an oath, there is no option for nullifiication. NOT precipitating an entry to the land becomes a Divine commandment. Thus, even though it would seem that the Israelites wanted to repent, by proceeding to attempt to conquer Israel they are committing a new sin.

This moves the goal posts, and brings the question on to God. Why did He swear that they must perish in the wilderness? Why not leave an opening for repentance, and why not embrace the children of Israel's desire to correct yesterday's wrong?

I would like to suggest two answers. The first relates to the manner in which the Israelites, newly freed slaves, connect to the rest of the world. Sovereignty requires maturity, and the ability to carefully weigh all options before making decisions. To run your own country, and run it stably, is not easy. It requires a steadiness and a commitment to foundational values.

The history of the Israelites in the wilderness was the opposite of this. Every time they camped, there was a crisis. When there was no water, people already cried out that they wished to return to Egypt. In the section prior to this story in the Torah, the Israelites resented the manna that was their food, and desired the delicacies of Egypt. Going back to the golden calf, the moment Moses seemed to delay his return, the people panicked and demanded that that calf be created. What is the common denominator of all of these stories?

A lack of stability, and emotional volatility. If this is the way that the people run their affairs, sovereignty will be a disaster for them. They will be completely vulnerable to fear and weakness, and to the seduction of the pagan ways of life surrounding them. In other words, they might quickly sin, thus forfeit God's protection, and hasten their exile.

Modern history has taught us the dangers of granting sovereignty to a volatile people that is not ready for it. When the United States invaded Iraq, many believe that by setting up a democracy, a Middle Eastern civil society would emerge. This naive approach ignored the deep ethnic hatreds and primitive ways of dealing with them that were prevalent in the lands of Iraq. By putting on the outer garment of free elections, the West fooled themselves into believing that the people wearing those garments would be transformed. It did not work that way, and Iraq today is an anarchic mess.

Perhaps for this reason God wanted the Israelites to remain in the desert, even if their next-day-repentance was sincere. God loves his people, and wanted them to be completely ready to enter the holy land. One could say that the spies episode was a test of that readiness. If the people had a steadiness of faith, they would not have been moved by the fear mongering of the 10 spies. They might have said, "It's a challenge, but God will be with us and we can meet that challenge." Had they done so, they would have proven that they were no longer subject to the winds of emotion.

A second, complementary reason for God's desire not to allow the Israelites to succeed on the day after is the lesson of the day after itself. In other words, God wanted to teach them how to deal with failure. After all, the entire exodus has been leading up to the entrance to the land of Israel, and the spies were the first part of making that dream a reality. It blew up in their faces. How do you deal with that?

God sees into the hearts of men, and knew that the repentance the people expressed on the day after was really Freudian denial. What had happened yesterday caused them such shame, that they wished to make believe it had never happened. They stood before Moses and said, "Here we are." Whatever happened yesterday was somebody else. We are here.

The danger of denial is that it prevents identifying and healing the flaw that is being denied. Something was fatally wrong with that generation, and had the Israelites been able to go into Israel the next day, that fatal flaw would have remained untreated. As we have said, that flaw was an instability, and emotional volatility.

King David said, "Yay though I walk through the valley of the shadow of deepest darkness, I fear no evil, for You are with me." There are two concepts that are crucial to the religious person's identity and success: Belief and Faith. Belief means knowing that God exists. The Israelites were certain of God's existence, their belief was complete. After all they had seen in Egypt and at Mount Sinai, it would've been nearly impossible to lack a strong belief.

Faith, though, is another story. Another word for Faith is Trust. Trust that God will protect, trust that God's instructions are good, thus that God has our interests at heart. King David was expressing trust, that no matter how terrifying the world around him became, he knew that God was with him. As a result, he concludes the psalm by saying, "Only goodness and kindness shall pursue me all the days of my life, and I shall sit in the House of the Lord for the length of days."

King David was the greatest sovereign of the entire monarchic era. That was thanks to his Faith, his trust. It was this kind of Trust that was missing from the desert generation. Without it, they would not have lasted as a sovereign nation in the land of Israel. God saw that they needed the time in the desert to gain this trust, to follow God wherever He led them.

"I have remembered the kindness of your youth, as you walked behind Me in the desert." God wanted a new generation to enter the land, a generation that had grown up with this level of Trust. Perhaps the word "youth" might be taken literally, to refer to the children of the Exodus generation, who would be the ones to enter and build sovereignty in the land of Israel.

A third, additional answer, thus emerges. God wished to show this new generation that His word, when accompanied by an oath, will be fulfilled no matter what. If his oath to keep them in the wilderness would be fulfilled, then his promise to bring them into the land of their fathers and bless them would certainly be fulfilled. With that faith, they would be ready to assume the responsibilities of sovereignty. They would be stable, they would be firm, they would be unafraid and unaffected by the threats and temptations of the peoples around them.

As the Israelites stood before the Red (Reed?) Sea, pursued by the Egyptians and cornered, Moses stood to give them a lecture on faith. God rebukes him and says that he must simply tell the people to walk forward, into the sea. There is only one taker, a man named Nachshon ben Aminadav, the prince of the tribe of Judah. He proceeds forward, and wades into the sea.

Nothing happens. The water gets up to his knees, waist, shoulders, and still nothing happens. Is he to commit suicide in front of the entire people? When he finally gets in up to his nostrils, his last chance for air, then the sea majestically splits.

Later, after the people have passed through, and then witnessed the drowning of the entire Egyptian army, the Torah tells us that the people "believed in God and in Moses, His servant."

Why now, after all they saw in Egypt with the ten plagues, do they finally believe in God? And why did the Torah not tell us so at the beginning, at the moment when the sea split? Why wait till after they had already crossed and seen the demise of Egypt? Thirdly, why did Nachshon have to get in up to his nose before the sea split? Was that really necessary? Of course it was. How so?

The Psalmist recites, in the paragraph beginning "When Israel left Egypt" that, "The sea saw and fled, and the Jordan withdrew backwards." The chapter continues with the question, "What, o sea, caused you to flee, and o Jordan River to withdraw backwards?" The answer, "From before the Lord, who initiated the world, and from before the Lord of Jacob."

One may ask, were not the Israelites destined to leave Egypt because of their ancestors' merit? The chapter implies that at the beginning, when it describes the exodus as being so that "Judah should be His holy one, and Israel [should be] His kingdom." That is why they left, so why wonder why the sea split and the Jordan, at the entrance to the Land of Israel, withdrew?

And the answer is, indeed, the ancestors' merit was not sufficient, and their own merit was also lacking. God had made a condition with the sea already at the time of creation. "You must split at the exact moment, many generations hence, when the Israelites arrive on their way out of Egypt". The sea split not because Israel deserved it, but because it was pre-programmed to. that is what the verse means when it says, "From before the Lord, Who initiated the world."

The next phrase, however, gives us more: "Before the God of Jacob." There are three names in this chapter: 1. Israel, 2. Jacob, and 3. Judah. Let's look at the first two, because therein lies the difference and the secret of true faith.

Jacob was promised by God that he would return safely to the land of his fathers after fleeing his brother's wrath. And yet, when he was about to cross the Jordan upon his return, he was seized by fear that his brother would annihilate him and his whole family. Why the fear, if he had a Divine promise?

I believe Jacob doubted himself, not God. He felt inadequate, and feared that God would withdraw his trust from him, thus abandoning him to his fate. And this is the faith that Jacob lost at that point, his faith in God's trust. Previously, about Abraham it was written, 'He believed in God, and God considered it righteousness." Just righteousness? Should belief be a fundamental?

Rather, Abraham believed in God's Trust, that even if his descendents aren't, at that moment, worthy of miracles, God will still show His trust to them and thus make them worthy in the future. Even if they are lacking in merit, God's trust will transform them, IF they believe in it.

This is what Nachshon accomplished. He was challenging God, and, in effect, saying "If You trust me to go forth and change the world, then you will let me cross this sea. If You do not extend trust to me, then my life is of no import and it will end here." Faith means believe in God's Trust, and walk through the sea.

So, too, the Israelites did not need to see the splitting of the sea to believe in God's existence. They needed to see that Egypt would not annihilate them as they emerged on the other side. They needed to see that their path was clear to the future. Only then, after they saw Egypt destroyed, did they believe that, warts and all, they had God's Trust.

And why does God extend His trust so? Because He knows that we are a nation of Judah, the third name in the list. This refers to Nachshon, who came from the tribe of Judah. He knows that we desire to go forth into the world and transform it. "Judah shall be His holy one." This refers to that which is said at Sinai, "You shall be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation."

Because Judah, and all Israel who follow his example, dreams of fixing the world, God gives His trust, and splits seas and rivers for him. Jacob had doubts about whether he deserved God's trust. After he struggled with the angel, his name was changed to Israel. Now he believed that God's trust was forever. Nachshon, therefore, had no hesitation about walking into the sea.

Ours is to have faith that God trusts us. That trust creates a responsibility on our part to live higher lives, and go forth into the world to fix it, piece by piece.

The major event in the Torah portion is the sin of the Golden calf. In that case, it is a bit easier to understand why a death sentence was brought upon the worshipers. After all, people have just received the 10 Commandments, and their entire identity was predicated upon true monotheism. To then, 40 days later, start running around worshiping a golden calf and proclaiming, "These are the gods who brought you out of Egypt," is certainly a terrible terrible sin. What caused the people to do it?

I believe it is hinted at in the way the people phrased their request to Aaron to make a God for them. They needed it, they explained, because, "We do not know what has happened to this man, Moses." The key word in that sentence is "Man".

Moses was certainly a man, so why emphasize his humanity? The answer is because they knew that, although Moses was as human as anyone else, he was not just a man. He was a man of God. They had seen him ascend Mount Sinai when God spoke, they saw him in Egypt being God's agent. This was no ordinary man. He had in him an abundance of an element that is crucial to human fulfillment and purpose: Holiness.

By erasing Moses's holiness, the people demonstrated a rejection of the Torah's holiness, and perhaps even of God's. They sought to bring religion down into the physical world, rather than elevate the physical world towards heaven. Moses was a man, a great one, but a man in this world. If he can't be with us, we want something else physical, in this world. Why did the people not turn to Aaron to lead them if Moses was now missing? Because Aaron oozed holiness, and the people were not interested. They wanted something physical that they could control, a golden god would do just fine.

Holiness is the key ingredient in our lives, or it should be. I remember, as a child, asking a theoretical question. Can a person steal religion? What if a person observes the Sabbath perfectly, but claims they do so not because of God, but because they like it. Do they get credit for this Mitzvah? A friend suggested that one can, indeed, be guilty of theft in so doing. The Talmud tells us that a person should fulfill the Commandments for the sake of heaven. If given the choice between fulfilling the Mitzvah not for the sake of heaven, or not doing it at all, one should do the Mitzvah, because it will help them eventually grow to fulfilling Commandments for the sake of heaven.

In other words, the only value of keeping the religion without God in it is the hope that by continually doing so, God will become part of the picture. On its own, it has no value. I believe this is hinted at in one of the rules of the daily prayer service. The central prayer, the Silent Devotion, contains a series of 19 blessings. The first three are considered a group, and can not be separated. For example, if one omitted a crucial phrase in the third blessing and remembered it later in the prayer, they cannot just go back to that third blessing. They must go back to the beginning of the prayer, since the first three cannot be separated. What are those first three?

The first blessing is about the heritage of the Jewish people, describing our relationship with God, and his relationship with the patriarchs. The second blessing deals with our faith in God, how He sustains all life, heals the sick, revives the dead, brings us rain and sustenance. The third blessing describes God's Holiness. It would seem that the first two are sufficient, since they outline our belief in the Jewish people being chosen, and our faith in God running the world.

And, yet, it is not enough. Even if you believe perfectly, and practice perfectly, but do not have a sense of Holiness, your life is deeply lacking. So much so, that it may not even be worth living. If religion is just a higher form of mundane, and does not touch the mysteries of heaven, our life is simply a biological fact. With no deeper spiritual meaning, we are as dead people, having no lasting influence.

This is why the Priests must wash their hands and feet before entering the sanctuary. It is because of Holiness, it is because they will be in the presence of the Lord. A person's hands represent the deeds they do in their life. Their feet represent the places they travel through during their existence. Both of these must be sanctified before coming into the Tabernacle. By doing so, the Priests recognize the Holiness of the presence of God in His house.

To not wash hands and feet implies erasing the sense of Holiness from the Tabernacle. It becomes another job, to make sure that the religious services are properly delivered, and nothing more than that. It is going beyond "Moses, the man," is saying "this building, the Tabernacle." A life without Holiness is a life bereft of meaning. The Talmud says that there are two sins that ignorant people die from: 1. They call the Ark (where the Torah is kept) a "chest." 2. They call a synagogue a "community center." In other words, by erasing Holiness from religion, life loses its meaning.

It is forbidden to touch the Torah scroll with one's bare hands. The Talmud states that whoever "holds the Torah while naked (meaning that their hands are not covered), will be buried naked." The Talmud asks how this can be? The answer given is that the person, while not physically naked, will be buried without reward for this deed of touching the Torah -- presumably to honor the Torah by tightening or supporting it. They will be "naked from that Mitzvah." What does this mean?

It means that the person who does so, who grabs the Torah with their bare hands, fails to show respect to the Holiness of the Torah scroll. Now it would've been sufficient for the Talmud to say that they will not get reward for having honored the Torah by touching it and fixing it. Why go to the funeral and state, "they will be buried without this Mitzvah?" Because a life without Holiness is akin to death. Even when a person observes a technically perfect religion, if they do not honor the Holiness and strive for it, the religion is simply a mundane mode of living. It is only physical, and the physical perishes in the end.

A Jew washes their hands in the morning, first thing after awakening. Why so? One explanation is because a person might have scratched themselves during the night and got in their hands dirty. Cleanliness is next to godliness, and they say. Another explanation is because the person was one sixtieth dead during the night. Sleep is considered 1/60 of death, and death is impurity. Thus, we purify our hands in the morning when we return to life and have our full soul reinstated in our bodies.

To me, this goes beyond just cleanliness. By washing our hands in the morning, we are embracing Holiness for the entire day. We are dedicating the day to the pursuit of heaven, just as the Priests prepare themselves to enter the Tabernacle by washing. The Talmud says that a person who fails to wash their hands in the morning will be fearful the entire day long. Fearful of what? Well, as King David says, "though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for Thou art with me." When we are dedicated to Holiness, our souls sense God's presence and protection. Without it, we are afraid of what the physical world might bring.

To truly live, a person must seek out and strive for the mystery of Holiness in everything they do. In the words of a song I once wrote, "I would take a piece of heaven, and with my piece of heaven, I would transform the world."

The Israelites were commanded to have a Passover offering, a lamb, on that fateful night of liberation. Part of that command involves their wardrobe while eating the sacrifice. "Your loins shall be girded, your staves in hand and your shoes on your feet." Why specify what they Israelites were to wear?

My teacher, Rabbi Aaron Soloveichik, explained the singular historical fact that Jewish liberation never followed the pattern of many other liberation movements. The French Revolution, for example, was followed by a bloodbath of all those who were deemed enemies of the regime. The same happened in many other countries throughout history. When one group rebelled and took control, they usually became equally barbaric to those whom they had just defeated.

Not so the Jewish people. The Israelites were commanded to "love the Egyptian, for you were a stranger in his land." On the surface, one would think they should avenge all of the suffering they were put through! Certainly on a natural level, the Israelites should have desired to smash a few Egyptian faces. Nothing of the sort happened. How is that possible?

I believe there were two critical reasons for the Israelites to be enslaved in Egypt. They both relate to God's ultimate purpose for this world -- Tikkun, correcting. Fixing that which is broken takes precedence, in God's hierarchy of priorities, over rewarding that which is already fixed. As they say, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. We are all part of the chain of humanity and human history, and as such, must make sure that the weakest links will still hold under pressure.

God's main tool for fixing the world is none other than the nation of Israel. I believe that's why our history has been what it's been. All of that oppression prepared us to go forth and fix the world. How so?

First of all, I believe we were enslaved in order to impress upon us the urgency of this mission. By experiencing suffering, by experiencing the worst injustice in this world, we become sensitized to the need to rid the world of such things. The people of Israel are always in the forefront of the fight for human rights and human welfare. We simply can't stand suffering, and dedicate ourselves towards its alleviation. Jews are always working to find the cure to the worst diseases, marching for the rights of the oppressed, contributing huge amounts of charity to help the poor, to strengthen education, to fix the world! This sensitivity is a direct outgrowth of our having "been there".

The nation that left Egypt marched forth with a sense of mission. We were headed for Mount Sinai, we were headed to receive God's law and finally understand how to make this world a beautiful place for all those who live in it. But still, why was that not also the case in the French Revolution? Why did those who rebelled for equality and brotherhood become oppressors who denied the equality and brotherhood of others?

This question brings me to the second reason for the Egyptian slavery. It was so that we do not become overly attached to this material world. It was so that we disdain physical things, and elevate spiritual purpose above all else. Egypt was a deeply materialistic society. It was hedonistic, licentious. Wealth and power were the highest attributes one could aspire to.

I believe that the terrible cruelty of the Egyptians made the Israelites reject them and their materialistic culture. One rabbi, a Holocaust survivor, once commented that he expected the Jewish people to forever reject all Western culture after the second world war. It should have been seen as being worthless, if such "high culture" could not prevent the countries that practiced it from becoming barbarians. It would've been expected for the Jews to throw out the German poetry and music that covered over the deep hatred that resided in their souls.

In truth, it is not the culture that was to blame. It was the elevation of that culture above all else. It was the stress put on the pleasures, physical or emotional, of this material world. The Israelites learned to put this world in its place. They learn to keep physical things subservient to spiritual things. When you are a slave, this physical world holds no attractions for you. A piece of bread is the most precious thing in the world to a man who is starving.

Rabbi Soloveichik stresses that there were two elements of liberation at the time of the exodus. First, there was the physical liberation from slavery. If that were all there was, though, we probably would have descended into vengeful behavior. After all, if this world is about feeling good, then we should want to punish those who made us feel bad. That, in and of itself, would probably feel good.

So there was a need for another element of liberation. Spiritual freedom. Spiritual freedom is only possible when we are not enslaved by our physical desires. That is the meaning of the wardrobe requirements of the liberation evening. Girding our loins means subjugating our physical drives to the spiritual goal of reaching Mount Sinai. We did not leave Egypt to feel good. We left Egypt in order to fix the world. That is the highest spiritual goal anyone could set.

In a sense, one could say that without the spiritual liberation, there really was no freedom. Yes, we would be losing the Egyptian taskmaster, but gaining the taskmaster of our own uncontrollable drives. Spiritual liberation, which is only possible through controlling our physical desires and de-emphasizing the material world, is what really set us free.

Thus, we gained two crucial tools for our job of fixing the world. We gained a sensitivity to all human suffering, and we gained an understanding that the spiritual, not the physical, is the key to true freedom. Without both of those elements together, you could not succeed in our mission. With them, we are and we will.

He saw his cousin, Rachel. That vision gave him super strength. And it was not just because she was pretty! Let's examine this.

This was not Jacob's first encounter with a stone. As he was fleeing Esau's threat, he came to a place to be called Bet El, and slept there. He put a stone under his head, and then dreamed a great prophecy of a ladder stretching from Earth to Heaven, with angels ascending and descending. God then appeared and promised Jacob that He will be with him as he goes to his mother's home town, and that He will return him to The Promised Land after all has blown over.

Jacob, upon awakening, takes the stone he slept upon and makes it into an altar. He then promises that, if God will fulfill His pledge and give him protection and bring him back home, then this stone will become a House of The Lord. Indeed, this would some day be the site of the Holy Temple.

This "promise" Jacob makes is hard to understand, because he conditions it on God fulfilling His word. Is there even a question? God's word is as good as done. What was Jacob doubting?

Jacob was doubting himself. The vision he saw in his dream was no less than a clear representation of the way this world works. There is a physical element, the Earth, and a spiritual element, Heaven. Heaven, the spiritual part of our existence, has the power to defeat any physical limitations. Viktor Frankl, the psychologist who was a prisoner in Auschwitz during the Holocaust, sought to understand how the prisoners, in flimsy garments and suffering from malnutrition, could stand for hours in the Polish winter at roll call and still survive. He came to the conclusion that a spiritual sense of purpose, an overpowering Why, gives a man the power to deal with almost any obstacle and find the How.

Jacob, in distinction from his father, knew his lot was to live in the physical world. Isaac had been deeply sheltered, by his parents and by God, and his interactions with the mundane were none too successful. God had to intervene for him quite a bit. For Isaac to be spiritual was relatively easy, as his whole life had been spirituality. But for Jacob, it was not so clear. His brother Esau was completely "Earthy", and he knew he'd have to deal with all types.

So I believe Jacob doubted himself. He doubted that he would keep the "stones", the earthiness, connected to the "Heaven", his spiritual direction. He was afraid that the ladder he saw in the vision would disappear. Thus, he conditions his promise on God helping him, being with him, keeping him connected.

Thus we see the significance of the stone. It represents the earthy part of our existence. On its own, it is heavy, almost unliftable. But when a powerful spiritual call is heard, the earthy must yield. Jacob, as he first arrives at the well, inquires about his mother's family in town. He is told by the local shepherds that, indeed, they know his uncle Lavan, and behold his daughter, Rachel, is now approaching with his flocks.

So Jacob knows who this pretty girl is! She is his cousin, and she is someone whom his parents have urged him to find to marry. He sees, in that instant, that God is truly with him, and that he has fortuitously come to the right place. Jacon's Ladder is still in place. The excitement of that discovery powers his lifting of the stone.

And so it is with all of us. Our worlds our filled with earthy challenges, with heavy stones to lift. If we are depressed and doubtful, they are heavier still. But if we are inspired with a spiritual mission, if we are overjoyed by the faith that God is connected to us, those stones become light. We can lift them, we can be superhuman.

So it is with the State of Israel, which by all logic should not exist. Surrounded by hostile nations that outnumber her by 30:1, she should never have been able to survive th onslaught. And yet here she is, growing and thriving! That is only because of Jacob's Ladder, of the power of the spiritual connection. As long as the Jewish People sense

Esau and Jacob were very different voice. Esau was a hunter, a man of the fields. Jacob was a scholar, a man of the tents. Their parents also differed on their approach to the boys: "Isaac loved Esau, for his hunting was in his mouth. And Rebekah loved Jacob." Later in life, when Isaac came to give the blessing of the firstborn to Esau, Rebekah engineered Jacobs receiving that blessing through deception. It is this story that is the most edifying, so we shall look at it in great depth.

Isaac told Esau to go out into the fields and hunt for him a feast. Thereupon, Isaac would give the blessing to Esau. Esau duly went out to do his father's bidding, while Rebekah overheard the entire exchange. She called Jacob in quickly, encouraged him to pose as Esau and receive the blessing. This could work because Isaac had grown blind at this point in his life.

The trick works, Isaac is fooled and gives the blessing to Jacob. Just as he leaves, Esau arrives with his feast. When he hears his father tell him that someone else had come and received the blessing, Esau is distraught. He begs his father for some blessing, any blessing. After Isaac gives him a secondary blessing, he leaves his father's tent with a promise upon his lips: to kill his brother Jacob after his father Isaac has departed.

Along with the sale of Joseph, this is one of the tragic tales of the book of Genesis. I wish to understand one thing. Why did Isaac require Esau to bring him hunted meat in order to bless him? Was physical enjoyment so important to Isaac? That is certainly impossible to believe. And yet, as in the quote above, we know that Isaac's love for Esau was due to his "hunting in his mouth." What was the significance of this?

Now, Esau was, according to our sages, an evil person. He stole, he killed. We see this in his desire to kill his brother after his father passes away. Why, then, does Isaac wish to bestow the blessing upon him? Why does Rebekah have to conspire with Jacob to get the blessing for him, who truly deserves it? What was Isaac thinking?

I had an intriguing thought on this: perhaps Isaac knew all along that Esau was not nearly as righteous as Jacob, and that he did commit violent acts. Perhaps he also saw that Esau had potential, that he could repent and become a great person. I know people who were completely out of control in their high school years, who became very serious and respected teachers of Torah. I wonder if Isaac was not trying to nudge Esau in that direction.

Very often, responsibility changes in person. The incident early in their lives when Jacob got Esau to sell him his birthright in exchange for some lentil soup may have been what set the tragedy of Esau in motion. Perhaps had Esau kept the birthright, and the responsibility of leadership that comes with it, he might have developed into a different man. As it was, after Jacob had procured it, Esau walked away "and despised the birthright."

According to a rabbinical source, when Isaac sent Esau to get the hunted meat for him, he included a proviso that the meat not be stolen. Firstly, this interpretation indicates that Isaac was aware of Esau's behavior. Secondly, it seems to me that this might be a test. Isaac knew that Esau excelled in honoring him, and this gave him great satisfaction and hope. Perhaps, even if in the outside world he misbehaved, is respect and honor for his father might transform him. It might indicate that there is strong good within him. Thus, Isaac gave him a simple instruction: nothing stolen.

And when he returned, he returned with stolen goods. The blind Isaac senses the opening of purgatory the moment Esau enters. When Jacob had entered, Isaac had smelled the aroma of the Garden of Eden. In the Garden of Eden, there was no theft. Everything belonged to Adam and Eve. But purgatory is for sinners. Thus, Isaac knew that Esau had failed the test, and he then reaffirmed the blessing for Jacob. He had hoped to reform his older son, but realized it was not happening.

I wish to add a new twist to this whole story. Our sages tell us that there are two types of love: 1. A love which is dependent upon a physical factor. 2. A love which is not dependent upon anything physical at all.

The first half of love lasts only as long as that physical factor does. Then it can turn into hate or indifference. The second type of love will last forever. I believe that Isaac and Rebekah represent these two types of love. Isaac loved Esau for a reason, because of the "hunting that was in his mouth," because of his deep respect for his father. An alternative translation of the phrase, "because of the hunting that was in his mouth," could be "as long as the hunting was in his mouth." The word "ki" can mean "because" and it can also mean "during" or "as long as."

I believe that Isaac loved Esau for deep psychological reasons, although he knew intellectually that it was not a well-placed love. Nonetheless, he sought out physical reasons, signs of hope, indications of a goodness that was not there, to justify the love. And, perhaps with the right influence, Esau might have been reformed. Had Jacob not bought his birthright, had the blessing been delivered as planned, maybe Esau would've stepped up to the plate. Much later, when Jacob is returning to the land of Israel, he hides his daughter Dina, lest Esau desire for a wife. Some rabbis are critical of this, claiming that she would have succeeded in reforming him. It is speculation, although Esau did moderate as he aged.

Rebecca, on the other hand, loved Jacob unconditionally. The Torah as no criteria that caused it. That is the difference. A strong emotion can be an indication of a true course of action, as long as the emotion is not accompanied by nagging doubts, and as long as it does not require any justification. Rebecca's internal sense was that Jacob was thoroughly good, and Esau was not. Isaac wanted to loved Esau and favor him, and had to justify it by his remarkable honoring of his father. That wasn't enough.

So be careful when the emotions are not pure, when you feel you need to justify them to choose a course of action. Many women married men who were abusive in nature by justifying their love and grasping at straws to believe that they are not the monsters they are. On the other hand, a true emotion, with no doubts and no need of justification, is a true indication of where the heart is and should be taken seriously.

A colleague of mine, Cantor Ira Rohde of New York, contrasts The Song at the Sea with Haazinu. The former is an expression of joy, meant to be sung loudly to the whole world. The latter is meant to be an internal song, as Moses is commanded to teach it to the Israelites and "put it into their mouths." In other words, this song goes inward, not outward. It doesn't convert its Sabbath to a Sabbath of Song. It is memorized, and placed into the heart.

Even so, where is the happiness? Does it not need to be happy?

Maybe it doesn't, or maybe the last verse, which prophecies the end of the exile and how "The land shall atone for its people," is enough happiness to justify its designation as a song. Perhaps. Maybe we can look further.

Rabbi Levy Yitschak of Berditchev claims that the entire song has an undertone of happiness to it, perhaps a deeper happiness than even The Song of the Sea. He quotes the Talmud saying that the purpose of exile was for the Jewish nation to attract converts. He continues to explain that those converts were the sparks of holiness among the nations which gave them the merit to contest Israel.

Once those sparks leave the nations and cleave to Israel, the nations have depleted their holiness and will cease. That is the meaning of the phrase, "And he taught it to the Israelites until their completion." The completion referred to is that of the nations. Thus, the exile itself prepares the ultimate redemption. That is happy.

The Torah, however, gives other reasons for exile. Specifically, it is punishment for sins of idolatry, to a certain extent sexual licentiousness, and the violation of the Sabbatical Year. So what does the Talmud mean when it says that exile is for Jews to attract converts? How can the Talmud contradict clear verses in the Torah?

These three sins, idolatry, the sabbatical year and sexual immorality all have one thing in common: they represent a subordination to the physical world, rather than to God, who is above the physical creation. Sexual immorality is an addiction to physical pleasures. It is devoting one's actions to material things. The sabbatical year represents a recognition of God's dominion over the land, by extension over physical possessions. One who violates that has put their material possessions over God's dominion. Idolatry, at its core, represents obedience to the forces of nature. The pagan gods are gods of nature, of the sun, of the River Nile, of fire and water, and so forth.

Another strange reading that we do is the book of Ecclesiastes, a fairly depressing work about the futility of pursuing material things. Why is this strange? Because we read it during the holiday of Sukkot, a holiday called "the time of our rejoicing." Why read such a depressing book?

Because it is not really depressing. It is liberating. Once we learn that true happiness and human fulfillment lie in a Godly life of spirituality, we can feel that true happiness.

I think the same thing is implicit in Haazinu. When the Jews go into exile, they live among the nations that are unburdened by the Torah and its laws. A Jew who looks at all of the restrictions that his religion places upon him may feel jealousy towards his Gentile neighbors. They can indulge freely in physical pleasures. The Canaanite nations created religions that sanctified orgies. They can dedicate their deeds to physical pleasure, and dedicate their property to material desires. Jews might be jealous.

And then, something incredible happens. Converts to Judaism arise. Jews do not proselytize, and yet there are Gentiles who either join the Jewish religion, or adopt many Jewish ethics and practices. Indeed, many evangelicals subscribe to the exact Torah values of spirituality and the subjugation of materialism to it that we have talked about.

A Jew may find himself in Los Angeles, for example, where he sees the palaces of the rich and famous. And then he finds out that that rich and famous person is studying Kabbalah. He looks at a billionaire like Donald Trump, and then he finds out that Trump's daughter has converted to Judaism and leads an observant lifestyle. And the Jews says to himself, "perhaps this materialism thing isn't enough, perhaps I have everything a human needs in my own traditions!"

I believe Rabbi Levy Yitschak is telling us something deeply significant. He is telling us that Haazinu is showing us the true power and joy of the Torah lifestyle. Wherever the Jews go, their presence awakens the sparks of spirituality among the nations they live. They raise up those sparks, and the ones who reach highest convert. It leaves the pagan ideology to wither and die, "until their completion." The exile represents the victory of Torah over all other ideologies.

That is a truly happy message. That's why it's a song, because the rebuke of the section implies the wonderful treasure that we have. "Blessed are you, oh Lord our God, who has chosen us from amongst the nations and gave us His Torah." Just as Ecclesiastes is a truly happy book, because it shows us that true happiness is not in material things, so too is this chapter.

Jethro wanted to go home. His son-in-law, Moses, did not want him to leave. Jethro had come to the Israelites immediately prior to their receiving the Torah, and had witnessed the revelation. Now he wished to return to his land, the land of Midian, and this made Moses concerned. "Please do not leave us," he said, "for you have known our encampment in the desert, and you will be for us [like] eyes."

The commentators are divided on the question of whether Jethro agreed with Moses and stayed with the Israelites or returned to his land. There are also a number of interpretations as to why he Moses wanted him to remain. The Torah gives great emphasis to this dialogue, so it must be of tremendous significance for the future of the Jewish people. What is that significance?

The most literal reading implies that Jethro would be helpful as a guide in the desert. I have trouble accepting this, as the Israelites were led by God sending a pillar of cloud to direct them through the desert. There must be more to it than that.

The Kli Yakar suggests that the phrase, "encampments," implies more than geographical locations. Every place where the Israelites encamped, they struggled with God. They misbehaved, they complained, they staged minor rebellions. Jethro had proven his worth earlier by urging Moses to revamp the judicial system of the Israelites. He proposed a system of smaller and larger courts, so that no Israelite was too far from justice.

Moses saw that Jethro had unique insight into the social fabric of the children of Israel, and that he might have the key to preventing his episodes of misbehaviors and minor rebellions. "You shall be for us [like] eyes," means you will guide us to be more faithful to our God. The Kli Yakar implies that Jethro remained with the Israelites, agreeing with Moses. The observation I have on that is that it seems to not have worked. Immediately after this section in the book of Numbers, the rebellions begin in earnest, culminating with the sin of the spies and with Korach. It would be easier to say that Jethro left, and that's why everything fell apart.

Perhaps, according to this interpretation, the lesson is that even though the plan was implemented, it failed. Often, we plan everything as best we can to succeed, but success does not come. The big question is, what does one do after the disaster? Give up? Try the plan again? Try a new plan? There is no one proper answer, although I am sure the giving up is the wrong one.

The Oznaim Latorah follows the Seforno who claims that Moses's intention was actually directed outwards, towards the rest of the world. Jethro was a great theologian, who had explored all the other religions before arriving at Judaism. Indeed, he converted. Moses was concerned, however, that should he leave the Israelites, the Gentile world would take that as a sign that he was also rejecting the Israelites Faith. This would constitute a great desecration of God's Name.

Jethro responded to Moses by saying that he intended to convert his people to the Jewish faith, and that's why he wanted to return unto them. This, however, did not alleviate Moses's concerned, but Jethro had a solution for it. His children would remain with Israel, thus no one would doubt that Jethro had indeed embraced the God of Israel and his Torah. He, himself, would then be free to travel amongst the nations of the world and share the Divine message with them. A worthy compromise.

These two interpretations have Moses looking inward and outward, respectively. He looked inward by seeing Jethro as a positive influence on the children of Israel, and he looked outward by seeing Jethro as a role model for the nations of the world. My feeling is that Jethro chose not to remain, but did leave his children with the Israelites, as the Seforno writes. Why, though, did Moses not think of this compromise? Did he not feel that it was important for a Jethro to reach out to humanity?

I am sure he did, but I believe he also was greatly afraid of the potential disintegration of the Jewish people. The Kli Yakar's concern was a valid one. How would Jethro ensure that they improved? By being there and being Jethro. When Moses says, "you shall be for us [like] eyes," I believe he is saying something very powerful. The eyes he refers to are not Jethro's, but the people of Israel's. The literal translation would be then, "You shall be for us, for our eyes [to look upon]." The Israelites will look to you, and realize that this great theologian is watching them. That will make them behave better. If, indeed, Jethro left, Moses's plan was never implemented and never tested. If he remained, then it failed, as we mentioned before.

The Seforno's approach makes another powerful point. I believe that Moses was saying to Jethro that he can still accomplish this goal of converting his people, and, at the same time, make the Israelites better. How?

The answer is Purpose. As long as a person has a Purpose in life, a goal that inspires them, all other things become secondary. I rarely feel hungry on Yom Kippur, because I'm so focused on the prayers and rituals of the day, that my attention and energies are elsewhere. As soon as the day is over, I can think about my stomach, and I realize how much I would love to have that bagel and lox.

Jethro reminds the Israelites of their mission in the world, to spread knowledge of God and adherence to His morality. When the Israelites look at him, they see the whole world looking back at them. They realize that their actions send a message. If they are committed to fixing the world, they will take care to send the right message. A responsible parent will not behave dangerously or foolishly if their children are watching.

But once a mission is no longer ones focus, indulgence in temporary pleasures becomes very tempting. When Jethro left, even if he left his children behind, the immediacy of the mission of Israel became weakened, and they started to slip into materialism. First, they rebelled against the Manna that God provided for them and, instead, craved meat and fish and other foods. Then came their ultimate rejection of mission, in the form of the sin of the spies and the people's refusal to go up into the Promised Land.

Having a life mission is not a luxury, is the only way to ensure that one lives and inspired life of meaning and high ethical standards. Having a Jethro to remind us of this is an important part of having that mission.

There is a saying: The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I don't know if I accept that, but I do believe that the road to heaven is NOT paved with good intentions. It is paved with good deeds. Intentions without deeds are sterile and irrelevant. Deeds are where the magic is.

With that as an introduction, let us look at one particular sacrifice called a "Shelamim." The Shelamim is translated as a Peace Offering, and according to most opinions, is not brought as a result of sin and brings no atonement. Instead, it is brought as a celebratory sacrifice. One who is successful in business, has enjoyed a personal milestone or just wishes to bring a sacrifice will bring a Shelamim.

According to Rashi, the great commentator, the Shelamim is so called because it brings peace to the world. That seems to be quite a claim .. and a stretch. Certainly it is a good deed, but how does it affect the world?

On a similar theme, there is a saying we repeat in our Sabbath prayers: Torah scholars increase peace in the world. What does this mean, how is this so?

I believe the answer lies in the interface between thoughts and deeds. The successful businessman did not have to bring a Shelamim. Yet he did. Why? Because he realizes that thoughts without deeds are sterile. They wither and die, like a flower that was never watered. The wise one realizes that to keep the blessings in his life, he must utilize them, and to keep the inner happiness in his life, he must express it. And that, of necessity, affects the rest of the world.

You see, a person who brings a sacrifice as thanks for his good fortune has internalized the importance of sharing. He shares his joy with God, with the Kohanim who get a portion of the offering, and with his friends and family. The quantity of meat from the sacrifice that must be eaten within two days time requires him to share the feast with others.

By sharing his fortune, he sends good vibes out into the world and inspires others to share as he does. That is the core of the saying about Torah scholars as well. They, by their example, inspire others to follow it. That is the way the world is changed.

The Book of Leviticus is also known as Torat Kohanim, the book about the priestly class. The founder of that tribe was Aaron, Moses' brother. About Aaron it is said in the Ethics of the Fathers, "Be (his) disciple. Love peace, pursue peace. Love people and bring them close to Torah." It is not enough to love peace, one must pursue it. It is not enough to love people, one must bring them close to Torah.

Thoughts and feelings are not enough. Deeds are required. That's how the world gets fixed.