Vayishlach osam Moshe mi’midbar Paran al pi Hashem kulam anashim roshei B’nei Yisroel heimah (13:3) In relating that Moshe sent spies to scout out the land of Israel, the Torah refers to the spies using the expression anashim. Rashi notes that this is difficult to understand, as the term anashim is normally used to describe important men of stature. Why is this word used in conjunction with the spies, who incited the Jewish people to rebel against the Divine plan for them to enter and conquer the land of Israel? Rashi explains that this term is used to teach that at the time the spies were sent, they were still righteous and had no plans to sin by speaking negatively about the land of Israel. However, he seems to emphasize that the spies were righteous for one hour, a claim for which there is no apparent source or proof. Why does Rashi use this peculiar expression? When Rav Eizel Charif was eight years old, he was asked to explain Rashi’s intention and responded with a brilliant derivation for this assertion. Hashem later decreed (14:34) that as a result of the sin of the spies, the Jewish people would be required to wander in the wilderness for 40 years, corresponding to the 40 days that the spies sinned when scouting out the land. If each day – which contains 24 hours – was punished with an additional year – which is made up of 12 months – of wandering, it comes out that for each hour of the spies’ expedition, the Jews were punished with an additional half of a month in the wilderness. The Jews left Egypt on 15 Nissan, the first day of Pesach. They entered the land of Israel on 10 Nissan (Yehoshua 4:19), which is five days short of the requisite 40-year decree. Further, Rashi writes (Devorim 1:2) that even had the Jews merited to immediately traverse the desert and enter the land of Israel, the journey would have taken eleven days. This period of time cannot be included in the calculation of the additional time they were forced to wander as a result of the sin of the spies. In light of these considerations, it comes out that one half of a month is missing from the 40-year period to which they were sentenced. In order to resolve this difficulty, Rashi concluded that the spies had proper intentions for the first hour of their mission, and it was therefore fitting that half of a month should be reduced from their punishment. Vayomer Hashem el Moshe ad anah yena’atzuni ha’am ha’zeh v’ad anah lo ya’aminu bee (14:11) Parshas Shelach revolves around the sin of the spies who were sent by Moshe to scout the land of Israel. They returned with a negative report about their findings which discouraged the rest of the Jewish people from wanting to enter the land. Although their actual sin – speaking negatively about Eretz Yisroel – is explicitly spelled out in the Torah, the deeper underlying root of their actions is not so clear. What was it that caused them, and the rest of the nation who accepted their scurrilous report as fact, to stumble so badly? Rav Avrohom Yaakov Pam points out that there seems to be a contradiction regarding the

בראשית ברא אלקים את השמים ואת הארץ (1:1) On Simchas Torah, we complete the annual cycle of the public reading of the Torah by finishing Parshas V’Zos HaBeracha, and we immediately begin reading the Torah anew with Parshas Bereishis. The person who is honored to be called up to the Torah for the final Aliyah in Parshas V’Zos HaBeracha is referred to as Chosson Torah, and the person who receives the Aliyah for the beginning of Parshas Bereishis is called Chosson Bereishis. The Rokeach (371) rules that in addition to reciting the normal blessings said by one called up to the Torah, the Chosson Bereishis should also say the שהחיינו blessing, thanking Hashem for allowing him the opportunity to once again begin studying the Torah. Although others disagree with the Rokeach and our custom is not to make this blessing, we can still derive an important lesson from this opinion. Although clearly a moment which is celebrated with much enthusiasm and joy, in what way is the fresh start of the Torah a cause to recite this rare blessing? Our Sages teach that every word in the Torah can be interpreted in 70 distinct ways. Rav Moshe Tukechinsky, who served as the Mashgiach of the Slabodka yeshiva in B’nei B’rak, suggests that this number is no coincidence. Dovid HaMelech writes (Tehillim 90:10) that the average life span of a person is 70 years. Hashem placed in the Torah a corresponding number of levels so that a person won’t be complacent with his previous understanding, but will seek to discover a new layer of depth in each successive year. However, Rav Tukechinsky adds that it is unreasonable to expect a person to begin this project in the first few years of his life, when his intellect isn’t yet adequately developed for the task. Rather, this lifelong project begins at a person’s Bar Mitzvah, when the Torah considers his mind sufficiently advanced to hold him responsible for his actions. It should come as no surprise that Rav Tukechinsky died at the age of 83. Rav Moshe Wolfson notes that in secular studies such as mathematics, at the end of each school year the students must turn in their old books and receive new, more advanced books at the beginning of the next year. In contrast, Jews around the world study the very same Torah, Mishnah, and Gemora beginning in their youth and continuing throughout their lives, as the Divine wisdom contained therein may be accessed by each student on his personal level. Many of us, this author included, grew up with a perfunctory introduction to the basic “stories” of the Bible – Adam and the forbidden fruit, Noach and the flood, Moshe and the ten plagues, and the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai. Although at that point we may have thought that we understood the full depth of the Torah, we are now mature and intelligent enough to recognize the folly and arrogance of this belief. The Mishnah (Avos 5:26) teaches: Delve into it (the Torah), and continue to delve into it, for everything is contained within it. This is a lesson that each of us, no matter where we are on our personal path of Jewish growth, would do well to contemplate and internalize, and it is for this fresh opportunity to do so that we offer our

V’sheretz haye’or tzefardim v’alu u’ba’u b’veisecha … uv’chadarecha uv’misharosecha (7:28) The Gemora in Pesachim (53b) relates that the righteous Chananya, Mishael, and Azaryah allowed themselves to be thrown into a fiery oven rather than flee or bow down to Nebuchadnezzar’s idolatrous statues. The Gemora explains that they derived the propriety of their conduct from the frogs in Egypt. They reasoned that if the frogs, which didn’t have a mitzvah to die in sanctification of Hashem’s name, nevertheless willing entered the Egyptians’ hot ovens, they, who had such a mitzvah, should certainly be willing to perform it by being thrown into the burning furnace rather than transgress or flee. The Shaagas Aryeh questioned their calculation. Although it is true that the frogs didn’t have a mitzvah to sanctify Hashem’s name, they did have a separate obligation to enter all of the places enumerated in our verse, which include the ovens. If so, how could Chananya, Mishael, and Azaryah derive a source for their actions from the frogs when they didn’t have instructions to enter the fiery oven? At the age of seven, the Vilna Gaon answered that our verse simply states that there must be some frogs in each of these locations. However, no individual frog was commanded to enter any specific place. Therefore, every single frog could have exempted itself from entering the ovens with the claim that it would infest a more comfortable location and leave the ovens for the other frogs. From the fact that we nevertheless find that individual frogs were willing to enter the ovens even though they weren’t explicitly commanded to do so, Chananya, Mishael, and Azaryah were able to derive the propriety of their actions. Upon hearing this clever answer, the excited Shaagas Aryeh picked up the young Vilna Gaon and kissed him on the forehead. Applying this brilliant insight on a practical level, the Darkei Mussar notes that many times a teacher, parent, or communal organization asks for volunteers to assist with a project or act of kindness. Not a single hand goes up as each person excuses himself with the thought that somebody else can do it. The Vilna Gaon teaches that we must learn from the frogs that “the buck stops here” and take responsibility to personally see to it that the job gets done properly. Vayomer Hashem el Moshe emor el Aharon n’tei es mat’cha v’hach es afar ha’aretz v’haya l’kinim b’chol eretz Mitzrayim (8:12) Although we typically associate Moshe with bringing the 10 plagues upon Egypt, a careful examination of the verses reveals that Hashem actually commanded Moshe to have Aharon bring about the first three plagues. Rashi explains that because Moshe had gratitude to the river which had protected him when he was placed there as an infant, it was inappropriate for him to strike the water for the first two plagues (blood and frogs). This sense of appreciation is understandable, as the water sheltered him, and it was there that Pharaoh’s daughter discovered and rescued him. However, regarding the third plague – lice – Rashi’s explanation that it was inappropriate for Moshe to strike the same ground which protected him by hiding the body of the Egyptian that he slew is difficult to understand. Although Moshe thought that nobody saw the killing, in reality Dasan and Aviram

V’yikchu li terumah me’eis kol ish asher yidvenu libo tikchu es terumasi (25:2) In the 1920s, the yeshivos of Poland were so strapped for cash that they were unable to pay for even the most basic necessities. A meeting of leading Rabbis was called in Warsaw to discuss the issue. In order to publicize the dire straits, representatives of a number of leading newspapers were also invited. After Rav Zalman Sorotzkin finished his speech detailing the financial difficulties and appealing for emergency aid, one of the reporters cynically asked how Rav Meir Shapiro had recently succeeded in collecting so much money to build a new magnificent building to house his yeshiva in Lublin, and why that money hadn’t been used to sustain the struggling existing yeshivos. Rav Sorotzkin responded by questioning why with regards to the construction of the Mishkan no donations were mandatory and Hashem relied on the generosity of the Jews to supply the necessary materials, while with respect to the communal sacrifices He obligated every Jew to contribute and wasn’t willing to trust that voluntary contributions would suffice. The opposite would have seemed more logical, as everybody recognizes that the sacrifices brought in the Mishkan were more precious to Hashem than its physical structure, as the former represents its purpose while the latter is merely the means to this end. Rav Sorotzkin explained that Hashem recognized that when it comes to collecting funds for the building of impressive edifices, people are quick to donate. Unfortunately, when additional funds are needed to maintain the buildings and help them accomplish their objectives, the money supply suddenly dries up. When it came to building the Mishkan, so much gold and silver were voluntarily donated within a few days that Moshe was forced to proclaim that they should stop bringing more (36:5-6). Nevertheless, without the requirement that every Jew donate money for the purchase of communal sacrifices, Hashem recognized that the donations wouldn’t be sufficient to maintain the daily functioning of the Mishkan. Similarly, the function of yeshivos is the study of Torah. The buildings merely serve as a means to enable this learning to occur. Nevertheless, people are quick to contribute money to dedicate rooms and entrances to create the physical structure, especially when that donation can be immortalized with a plaque. Sadly, few are those who are interested in giving money to pay for the ephemeral needs such as food and utilities, which are necessary to keep the building running and enable it to serve its true purpose. Rav Sorotzkin concluded that with this psychological insight, we now understand that Rav Meir Shapiro was so successful in his fundraising campaign because the money was going toward his beautiful new building. In a few short years, when the structure will be finished, he will unfortunately have the same difficulties covering his daily operating expenses that the other yeshivos are currently experiencing and with which they so desperately need help. V’tzipisa oso Zahav tahor mibayis umichutz t’tzapenu (25:11) Rav Chaim Volozhiner once asked his teacher, the Vilna Gaon, to help him understand a difficult passage in the Zohar HaKadosh. The Gaon responded by noting that with regard to the Aron, which was made of wood, the Torah writes that it should be covered with gold on the inside and on the

V’haya ha’dam lachem l’os al ha’batim (12:13) The Tosefos Yom Tov writes (Demai 7:3) that some people ask a powerful question based on the verse in Chaggai (2:9) “Gadol yihyeh kavod habayis hazeh ha’acharon min harishon” – the glory and honor of the last Beis Hamikdash will be even greater than that of the first. This verse is referring to the second Temple, which was destroyed almost 2000 years ago. In referring to it as the “last” one, it seemingly indicates that there won’t, G-d forbid, be another. The Tosefos Yom Tov answers that many times the word “last” doesn’t mean the final one. Rather, it refers to the last one vis-à-vis the first one, even though there may indeed be others that come after it. Although this sounds a bit foreign grammatically, he cites two places where the Torah uses such language. One is in Parshas Shemos (4:8-9, the other is in Bereishis 33:2), in which Hashem tells Moshe that if the Jews won’t believe the first sign, they will trust in the last sign. Hashem adds that if they won’t believe the “last” sign, they will surely believe the third one in which Moshe will turn the water of the river into blood. The Kehillas Yitzchok brings a clever hint to this proof from our verse, which literally means that the blood of the Passover-sacrifice will be a sign on the doors for Hashem to skip over that house. However, it can also be understood as stating that the blood (which was the third proof of Moshe’s legitimacy) will be a sign for you regarding the Temples, as if anybody attempts to prove from Chaggai 2:9 that the second Temple was the final one, we may now answer that the blood mentioned in our verse proves that it isn’t so. UV’nei Yisroel asu kidvar Moshe vayishalu mi’Mitzrayim klei Kesef u’klei zahav u’semalos … v’gam tzeidah lo asu lahem (12:35-38) The Torah testifies that prior to the actual Exodus from Egypt, the Jewish people followed Moshe’s instructions and borrowed expensive vessels and clothing from the Egyptians. Rav Isaac Sher points out how unbelievable it is that at the time when almost three million Jews were preparing to leave Egypt to travel into an unknown desert, they were busy borrowing luxury items and didn’t spend even a moment to prepare any food with which to sustain themselves. This was due to the simple fact that the Jews were commanded to borrow these items from the Egyptians, but regarding food there were no such instructions. In fact, Rashi writes (11:2) that they weren’t even commanded to borrow the vessels and clothing, but merely requested. Even so, their sole focus was on fulfilling Hashem’s will. They understood and fully believed that just as He brought a miraculous end to their back-breaking enslavement, so too would He sustain them through the next stage of His Divine plan for them as long as they demonstrated their complete trust in Him and willingness to do His bidding. Rav Yaakov Kamenetzky similarly notes that after waiting generations for the redemption, the long-awaited moment arrived shortly after midnight on the night of the slaying of the first-born. Pharaoh had had enough and finally announced their total and unconditional freedom. Nevertheless, not a soul attempted to act on

Parshas Mikeitz is traditionally read on the Shabbos which falls out during Chanuka. The mystics teach that the parsha read during a Yom Tov is connected to the themes and events of that festival. The Chida notes one such connection. He points out that the letters comprising the first four words in the parsha – vayehi Mikeitz sh’nasayim yamim – are an acronym for V’ka’asher Yochanan hishmid Yevonim miBeis Kadsheinu tzivanu shenadlik neiros temanya (=Shemoneh) yomi meChanuka, yanichena mitzad yemin mehayotzei – when Yochanan destroyed the Greeks from the Holy Temple, we were commanded to light candles for the eight days of Chanuka, and to place the menorah on the right side of the door (relative to the person leaving the house). Additionally, Rav Shimon Schwab suggests that Pharaoh’s dreams, in which the weak cows swallowed the strong cows and the thin stalks consumed the healthy stalks, embody one of the central concepts that we celebrate on Chanuka, namely that Hashem delivered the mighty and numerous Greek army into the hands of a few weak and poorly armed Chashmonaim. Finally, Rav Moshe Wolfson points out that the most well-known question asked regarding Chanuka is that attributed to Rav Yosef Karo, namely that that if enough oil was found to last for one day, there was only a miracle on the last seven days, in which case Chanuka should only be commemorated seven days instead of eight. Rav Karo is best known for his commentaries on the Tur and Rambam, which are respectively entitled “Bais Yosef” and “Kesef Mishneh.” The names of his works appear almost nowhere else in Tanach, but both are mentioned in our parsha (43:18-19, 43:12), alluding to his prominent connection with the festival of Chanuka.  V’hinei sheva paros acheiros olos achareihen min haye’or ra’os mareh v’dakos basar (41:3)             There are numerous discrepancies between the Torah’s description of Pharaoh’s dream and the way in which he subsequently related it to Yosef. For example, although in the dream he saw seven cows of ugly “mareh” – appearance, he told Yosef that they had ugly “to’ar” – form. What is the difference between these seemingly synonymous words, and why did Pharaoh switch from one to the other? The Torah praises Rochel (29:17) by noting that she was beautiful in her “to’ar” and her “mareh.” Rashi explains that these apparently equivalent phrases are not redundant. The term “to’ar” refers to the external beauty of a person’s physical face, while “mareh” describes the internal, spiritual shine which radiates forth from within, and the Torah emphasizes that both of them were present in Rochel. Now that we understand the linguistic difference between these two words, we can appreciate why Pharaoh changed from one to the other. Egyptian society was so absorbed in the hedonistic pleasures of this world that they were buried with their possessions. They couldn’t imagine an afterlife consisting of anything but more of the same physical pleasures which they viewed as the pinnacle of happiness. In light of this, Rabbi Mordechai Biser explains that in his dream, Pharaoh was shown a destruction which would permeate to the inner core of his corrupt society, yet precisely because he was so indulgent, he wasn’t able to grasp the hint. In his eyes, beauty was skin deep, and he was unable to

 V’ashbiacha b’Hashem Elokei HaShomayim V’Elokei ha’aretz asher lo tikach isha liv’ni mi’bnos haC’naani asher anochi yosheiv b’kirbo ki el artzi v’el moladti teilech ul’kachta isha liv’ni l’Yitzchok (24:3-4) When Avrohom instructed his trusted servant Eliezer regarding the selection of a wife for his son Yitzchok, he was very insistent that Eliezer not choose a wife from their Canaanite neighbors, but rather from Avrohom’s original homeland and family in Charan. Avrohom lived amongst the Canaanites and rejected the possibility of allowing Isaac to marry one of them due to their idolatrous ways. However, in light of the fact that the women in Charan worshipped idolatry just as did the Canaanites, what was the benefit of sending Eliezer to seek a wife from his homeland? The Derashos HaRan (Derush 5) explains that Avrohom’s objection to a Canaanite daughter-in-law wasn’t based on their idolatrous practices, but rather on the immorality and lack of proper character traits they exhibited in their behavior. Although Avrohom’s relatives in Charan also worshipped idols, he knew that at the core their values and ethics were wholesome and intact. As immodest and unethical behavior originates in one’s very essence and can be passed on to one’s children, the Canaanites were thereby disqualified from marrying into Avrohom’s family. On the other hand, matters of philosophical belief are taught, not inherited. The idolatry of Avrohom’s relatives could therefore be remedied much easier by simply educating and exposing them to belief in Hashem. The Ran’s point that intellectual knowledge and pursuits aren’t passed through the generations is illustrated by the following amusing story. One of my Rabbis spent several years living in Jerusalem. As he was interested in the practical aspects of applying the knowledge he had spent many years acquiring, he obtained permission to sit in the central Rabbinical Beis Din and observe the various happenings. One day a woman came before the Beis Din for a proceeding. When asked for her last name, she replied, “Einstein.” Curious, my Rabbi respectfully waited until the end of the session and then approached the woman to inquire about her identity. Sure enough, she explained that she was none other than the great-granddaughter of the illustrious Albert Einstein. At this point, with her ancestry clarified, my Rabbi couldn’t help but ask if she followed in the path of her famous great-grandfather and spent her spare time studying advanced physics and the theory of relativity. Albert Einstein’s great-granddaughter replied that she never understood the subject and found Albert’s work totally uninteresting and incomprehensible. The path that our children will take and the families they will raise are beyond our control. Although we will try our utmost to shape their goal and priorities in life, they will ultimately be influenced and determined by factors beyond our control. What is in our power, however, is to work on our own character traits and to encourage our children to marry those with similar giving dispositions, which will become a permanent part of our spiritual legacy as it is passed down from generation to generation, just as we learn from Einstein’s theory of “relative”-ity. V’eileh sh’nei chayei Yishmael me’as shana u’shloshim shana v’sheva shanim vayigva vayamas vayeia’sef el amav (25:17) Parshas Chayei Sorah concludes by recording that Yishmael died at the age of 137. Since the Torah only relates

Vayishlach osam Moshe mimidbar Paran al pi Hashem kulam anashim roshei B’nei Yisroel heima (13:3) In relating that Moshe sent spies to scout out the land of Israel, the Torah refers to the spies using the expression “anashim.” Rashi notes that this is difficult to understand, as the term àðùéí is normally used to describe important men of stature. Why is this word used in conjunction with the spies, who incited the Jewish people to rebel against the Divine plan for them to enter and conquer the land of Israel? Rashi explains that this term is used to teach that at the time the spies were sent, they were still righteous and had no plans to sin by speaking negatively about the land of Israel. However, he seems to emphasize that the spies were righteous for one hour, a claim for which there is no apparent source or proof. Why does Rashi use this peculiar expression? When Rav Eizel Charif was eight years old, he was asked to explain Rashi’s intention and responded with a brilliant derivation for this assertion. Hashem later decreed (14:34) that as a result of the sin of the spies, the Jewish people would be required to wander in the wilderness for 40 years, corresponding to the 40 days that the spies sinned when scouting out the land. If each day – which contains 24 hours – was punished with an additional year – which is made up of 12 months – of wandering, it comes out that for each hour of the spies’ expedition, the Jews were punished with an additional half of a month in the wilderness. The Jews left Egypt on 15 Nissan, the first day of Pesach. They entered the land of Israel on 10 Nissan (Yehoshua 4:19), which is five days short of the requisite 40-year decree. Further, Rashi writes (Devorim 1:2) that even had the Jews merited to immediately traverse the desert and enter the land of Israel, the journey would have taken eleven days. This period of time cannot be included in the calculation of the additional time they were forced to wander as a result of the sin of the spies. In light of these considerations, it comes out that half of a month is missing from the 40-year period to which they were sentenced. In order to resolve this difficulty, Rashi concluded that the spies had proper intentions for the first hour of their mission, and it was therefore fitting that half of a month should be reduced from their punishment. V’he’arim betzuros gedolos me’od (13:28) Upon their return from examining the land of Israel the spies gave a negative report which was full of details intended to scare the people and incite them to rebel against the idea of entering and conquering the land. One of the facts they related is that the cities were heavily fortified. Rashi curiously explains that their intention was to stress the fact that the walls of the cities were round. This is difficult to understand. Why was the shape of the city walls relevant, and what could have been their negative intention in relating such a seemingly trivial detail? Rashi writes (Vayikra 14:34) that in warning the people about the possibility of tzara’as striking their homes, Hashem was actually conveying