מדוע אנחנו עדיין צמים?

 

ניתן להבין בהחלט את התמיהה על המשך הצומות בזמן הזה. תמיהה זו עולה ביתר שאת בשעה שאנו קוראים את הקינות, ורואים כי אין קשר בין המציאות שהקינות מתארות ובין המציאות של ימינו: ברוך ה', שבנו לארץ ישראל והקמנו את המדינה. השאלה "האבכה בחודש החמישי?" צצה ועולה כשם שעלתה בימי בניין בית שני.

לאמתו של דבר, מדובר בטעות קשה מאוד. כל מה שנתן בידינו ריבונו של עולם הוא התקדמות עצומה מול הגלות, אולם כאשר אנו בוחנים את מצבנו מול חזון אחרית הימים והמקום אליו אנו נדרשים להגיע לאור חזון נביאינו - אנו נמצאים בפער עמוק ונורא. חזוננו הוא הר בית ה' בראש ההרים, התחדשות הנבואה והקשר המיוחד בין ישראל ובין ריבונו של עולם, מעמדנו בעולם לאור "כי מציון תצא תורה ודבר ה' מירושלים", חידוש משפט ישראל על פי התורה, ועוד ועוד. כשאנו משווים את מעמדנו היום ליעד הזה, ולעובדה שהוא היה קיים במידה מסוימת אלא שחרב - אנו מתמלאים חורבן פנימי עמוק. איככה לא נבכה? איככה לא נחוש בחיסרון? איככה נבטל את הצום על החורבן?

על כן, ניטיב כולנו לעשות אם נפנה את תשומת לבנו לא למחשבות על ביטול הצומות, כי אם להפך: על חיזוקם וכיוונם ליעדים האמיתיים שלהם. תחושות ההודאה והשמחה מוצאות ביטוי במעגל השנה בחודש אייר; עולמות החורבן, האבל והתיקון מכוונים לימי בין המצרים. אחוז בזה וגם מזה אל תנח ידך.


נערך ע"י צוות אתר התנ"ך

לקריאת המאמר המלא באדיבות ישיבת אורות שאול

Volver al capítulo

למה דווקא צום החמישי?

 

בימי שיבת ציון ובניית המקדש העם תוהה האם הצומות על חורבן הבית הקודם יבוטלו, וכך העם שואל את הכהנים והנביאים: "האבכה בחדש החמשי הנזר כאשר עשיתי זה כמה שנים?" (ג)

העם שואל על החודש החמישי, כלומר על צום תשעה באב. מה שמפתיע הוא שהעם שואל את השאלה בחודש התשיעי, חודש כסלו. מדוע העם מוטרד מצום החמישי ולא מהצום שקרוב למועד שבו הוא שואל, צום עשרה בטבת?

המלבי"ם מציע שהסיבה לכך היא משום שתשעה באב חמור יותר משאר הצומות. כך שאם יש צורך לצום בתשעה באב אולי יש צורך גם לצום בשאר הצומות, ואילו אם לא צריך לצום בתשעה באב, אז וודאי שאין צורך לצום בשאר הצומות.

נראה שניתן להציע אפשרות אחרת. הצומות כולם מלבד תשעה באב, מייצגים את תהליך החורבן. כל אחד מהם הוא נדבך נוסף לחורבן שעליו צמים בתשעה באב. כלומר צום תשעה באב מייצג את שיא התהליך של החורבן. לכן שואלים העם דווקא על צום החמישי: האם יש צורך לצום את הצום שמייצג את שיא התהליך של החורבן, או שמא אין עניין לציין את החורבן של המקדש הקודם?

מרכז הדיון כאן הוא לא בצום קל או חמור, אלא בשאלה מה מייצג הצום. תשעה באב בניגוד לכל הצומות האחרים מייצג את החורבן ממש, כשיא השבר, ולכן יש לתהות דווקא עליו. 


סוכם ונערך ע"י צוות אתר התנ"ך מתוך שיעור שהועבר בימי העיון בתנ"ך

לשמיעת השיעור המלא

Volver al capítulo

מראות זכריה

 

א. מראה הקרנות והחרשים (ב',א-ד)

לאחר ההחלטה הכללית על שיבת ה' לירושלים באים שני מראות המייצגים את יישום ההחלטה. המראה נחלק לשני שלבים הקשורים זה בזה. מראה ארבע הקרנות (א-ב), ומראה ארבעת החרשים (ג-ד). במראה הראשון המהווה הכנה למראה השני רואה זכריה את הקרנות ובמראה השני מראהו ה' את החרשים. כיצד מהווה מראה זה הגשמה של ההחלטה הקודמת? (א', טו).

ב. מראה האיש המודד (ב',ה-ט)

מראה זה בדומה למראה הקודם נחלק לשני שלבים – הוראת המלאך הראשון (ה-ו), ותיקונה בידי מלאך אחר (ז-ט). גם שני שלבים אלה רמוזים במראה הראשון (א' ,טז,יז). מה הצורך בשני שלבים אלה ומה מסמל כל אחד? שני נימוקים מובאים בדברי המלאך לביטול התכנית המקורית של בניית החומה. עמדו על ההבדל בין הנימוקים (מהם השלכותיה של בניית החומה) ולאיזה מישור מתייחס כל אחד.


למעבר לדף הלימוד המלא מתוך התכנית "מתן על הפרק"

Volver al capítulo

The Shechem Incident and Yaakov's Patience

           The Torah in Parashat Vayishlach tells of the abduction and defilement of Dina, Yaakov’s daughter, and makes a point of noting Yaakov’s surprisingly calm reaction: “Yaakov heard that his daughter, Dina, was defiled, and his sons were with his cattle in the field, and Yaakov was silent until they arrived” (34:5).

            Rav Avraham Saba, in his Tzeror Ha-mor, suggests two possible explanations for Yaakov’s silence.  First, he writes, “This shows his wisdom and patience, that he was experienced in tribulations and horrors.”  People who have yet to grow accustomed to crisis and hardship are prone to react with hysteria or resort to drastic measures when they confront trouble.  According to the Tzeror Ha-mor, the Torah notes Yaakov’s clam reaction to emphasize Yaakov’s ability – borne out of years of hardship – to retain his composure under duress, to calmly process difficult situations without reacting impulsively or hysterically.

            Secondly, the Tzeror Ha-mor suggests, “Perhaps this alludes to the fact…that he accepted the judgment and remained silent, for he was the cause, having sent all his sons with the cattle, for if some of them were home, they would have accompanied her and protected her.”  According to this approach, the Torah’s description of Yaakov’s “silence” refers to his accepting a degree of responsibility for what happened.  The Tzeror Ha-mor in this interpretation seeks to explain the relevance of the fact that “his sons were with his cattle in the field” in this verse, and he suggests that this is the reason for Yaakov’s “silence.”  Yaakov realized that by sending all his sons to tend to his sheep, he left Dina alone and unprotected, and thus he bore some level of guilt for the tragedy that had befallen his daughter.

            These approaches teach us two important lessons regarding the proper way to handle adversity.  First, we are reminded to remain calm, patient and level-headed.  Whereas Yaakov’s sons resorted to drastic measures to respond to the crisis, Yaakov, who was far more experienced in dealing with hardship, urged patience.  Secondly, the Tzeror Ha-mor teaches us the importance of recognizing our mistakes that may have contributed to the difficult situation.  Rather than simply feel angry at others, Yaakov was humble and honest enough to acknowledge his own misjudgment which helped precipitate the crisis.  One of the ways we can turn unfortunate circumstances into learning opportunities is by considering whether our mistakes are partially to blame for the situation, and then working to ensure that these mistakes are not repeated in the future.

Volver al capítulo

Yaakov's Staff

The opening section of Parashat Vayishlach tells of Yaakov’s preparations for his dreaded reunion with his brother, Esav, who was approaching with an army of four hundred men. Yaakov’s preparations included an impassioned prayer, in which he expressed his gratitude for the kindness God had showered upon him until that point: “I am unworthy of all the kindnesses…that You have performed for Your servant, for I crossed this [river], the Jordan, with but my staff, and I have since become two camps” (32:11).  Yaakov recalls how he had nothing but his staff when he left Canaan twenty years earlier, and had since built a large family and amassed a considerable fortune.

The Tosafists, in Da’at Zekeinim to Parashat Teruma (Shemot 25:5), draw an intriguing association between Yaakov’s staff and the Mishkan constructed by Benei Yisrael in the wilderness. According to the Da’at Zekeinim, this staff was used to construct the beri’ach ha-tikhon, the central beam that ran from one end of the Mishkan to the other to hold it together. This staff was preserved by Yaakov’s children and their descendants throughout the Egyptian exile, and was then used to form the central beam of the Tabernacle. 

The question naturally arises as to the meaning behind this association drawn between Yaakov’s staff and theMishkan. How might Yaakov’s staff be relevant to the construction of a Mishkan as a “home” for the divine presence?

Yaakov makes mention of his staff in this context to emphasize his state of impoverishment as he made his way to Charan, the fact that he had nothing but a walking stick. Symbolically, then, this staff represents extreme austerity. The Mishkan, by contrast, was a luxurious structure with furnishings made from gold and other precious materials.  The wealth and grandeur on display in the Mishkan, which was needed to give honor to God, could potentially lead us to mistakenly afford excessive importance to material wealth. Looking at the Mishkan, we might reach the conclusion that serving the Almighty requires the kind of opulence needed to construct His Earthly abode. Da’at Zekeinim therefore reminds us that the “beri’ach ha-tikhon,” the central “beam” which supports the Mishkan and underlies the concept it represents, is Yaakov’s staff.  At the core of the Mishkan experience is the sense of “be-makli,” that ultimately we own nothing, as everything is mercifully given to us by our loving, compassionate Father. The grandeur and majesty of the Mishkan does not reflect its essence; its essential quality is not gold and silver, but rather a simple walking staff, our ability to feel our dependence on God and to connect with him meaningfully without allowing ourselves to be distracted by material luxury.

Volver al capítulo

Yaakov Proceeding at His Pace

     After Yaakov and Esav’s peaceful reunion, Esav proposes that they join together: “He [Esav] said: Let us go and journey, and I will go alongside you” (33:12).  Yaakov declines, explaining that this would be difficult on his children and flocks: “My master knows that the children are delicate, and my sheep and cattle are nursing; if they are pushed one day, all the sheep will die.  My master shall please pass in front of his servant, and I will proceed at my slow place, as appropriate for my property and the children…” (33:13-14).  Yaakov explained to Esav that he must travel at a slow, relaxed pace because of his children and animals, and therefore he could not join together with Esav, who would travel too quickly.

            The Tolna Rebbe noted the symbolic significance of this exchange between Yaakov and Esav.  The figure of Esav is widely regarded as a symbol of the forces of evil which threaten to derail us from our mission and destiny.  And one of the spiritual dangers that threaten us is Esav’s offer that we try to keep us with his rapid pace.  Impatience is one of the greatest impediments to spiritual growth and progress.  If we try to advance in instantaneous leaps, and to change and grow overnight, we are doomed to failure.  In all likelihood, we will either undergo a short-lived change, convince ourselves that we have grown and achieved when we have not, or just despair.  Growth must proceed “at my slow pace,” one step at a time.  If we expect too much of ourselves, our chances of success are near zero.

            In his response to Esav, Yaakov emphasizes in particular the delicate nature of his children.  The Tolna Rebbe noted that the notion of slow, incremental growth is especially vital in the area of child-rearing and education.  Pushing a child beyond his limits, and setting unreasonably high expectations, can easily overwhelm a child and lead to despair and resentment.  “Chanokh le-na’ar al pi darko” – “Educate a child according to his path” (Mishlei 22:6).  Each child must be led along the route most suitable for him or her. Some require an accelerated route to high achievement, whereas others need to progress more slowly.  Pushing children to progress and advance beyond their capabilities is a tactic of “Esav,” a manifestation of the impatient impulse that too often drives us to demand immediate results. 

            In all areas of life, we need to follow Yaakov’s example of “va’ani etnahala le-iti” – to set reasonable expectations of ourselves and others, and understand that ambitious goals require a great deal of time and effort to realize.

Volver al capítulo

Shimon and Levi: Blaming Yaakov?

  We read in Parashat Vayishlach of Shimon and Levi’s violent assault on the city of Shekhem in retaliation for the city’s prince’s abduction and rape of their sister, Dina.  The brothers deceived the people of city by offering to engage with them in commerce and marriage if they underwent circumcision.  The people agreed, and Shimon and Levi capitalized on the frail condition of the city’s men, and launched their assault, killing every male and looting the property.  Yaakov condemned the attack, charging that Shimon and Levi endangered the family through their violence.  This narrative concludes with Shimon and Levi responding to their father’s harsh censure, rhetorically asking, “Ha-khezona ya’aseh et achoteinu” – “Shall he turn our sister into a harlot?” (34:31).

            It is worth noting that Shimon and Levi did not ask, “Shall our sister be turned into a harlot,” but rather, “Shall he turn our sister into a harlot?”  At first glance, this seems to be a reference to Shekhem, the man who had seized and defiled Dina.  We might, however, question this interpretation, as Yaakov made no mention of Shekhem in his censure which evoked this response, and, moreover, they had killed the entire city, and not only Shekhem.  If they were trying to defend their violent reaction on the basis of Dina’s violation, they should, seemingly, have cast the blame on the entire city – all of whom they obviously held accountable – and not just Shekhem.

            If the pronoun “he” in Shimon and Levi’s response does not refer to Shekhem, there appears to be only one other possible explanation – one which is suggested by Rav Yehuda Henkin (Bnei Banim, vol. 2, Chiba Yeteira, p. 41), who boldly asserts that Shimon and Levi speak here of their father.  As Rav Henkin notes, the Torah does not describe Shimon and Levi as responding to their father’s criticism; the Torah’s wording is, “They said,” not “They said to him.”  Yaakov had spoken to Shimon and Levi, but they did not respond to him.  The remark, “Shall he turn our sister into a harlot” was made when Yaakov was not present, and it was made about him.  Angered by their father’s condemnation of what they perceived as an appropriate and courageous measure, they accused him of disregarding their sister’s honor.  In their minds, they acted to defend Dina, and by opposing their actions, they charged, Yaakov was turning his back on their sister.

            Shimon and Levi’s reaction is, unfortunately, typical of how many of us tend to respond to criticism and opposition.  Rather than seriously consider and address the real concerns that Yaakov raised regarding their violent action, Shimon and Levi simply dismissed him as disinterested in defending Dina’s honor.  If he did not agree with their way of handling the situation, then, in their minds, he did not share their conviction and their pain over what happened.  Instead of listening to Yaakov’s concerns, Shimon and Levi concluded that he ignored their concerns.  Many of us are guilty of this mistake when arguing and debating.  Rather than addressing the actual issue, we cast aspersions on the other person’s commitment to our goals and values.  Shimon and Levi’s angry reaction to Yaakov’s criticism shows us the wrong way to engage in argument and debate.  The right way is honestly and objectively considering the various sides of the issue, without challenging the sincerity and virtue of our opponents.

Volver al capítulo

Lacking Self-Regulation: The Brothers and Shechem

    The Torah in Parashat Vayishlach tells of Dina’s abduction and defilement by Shekhem, and describes her brothers’ reaction upon hearing of the tragedy: “Va-yit’atzevu ha-anashim va-yichar lahem me’od” – “The men were distressed, and they were very incensed.”

            Rabbenu Avraham ben Ha-Rambam, in his Torah commentary, cites his grandfather, Rabbenu Maimon, as noting the distinction between the two verbs in this phrase – “va-yit’atzevu” and “va-yichar.”  The first implies sorrow and distress, whereas the second denotes rage and a desire for revenge.  “Va-yit’atzevu” means that Yaakov’s sons were pained by the misfortune that befell their sister, whereas “va-yichar” means that they felt inclined to exact revenge from the perpetrator and his abettors. 

Rabbenu Avraham’s emphasis on this distinction is perhaps intended to underscore the two separate stages of the brothers’ emotional reaction to the news of their sister’s abduction: first sorrow, and then anger.  By noting the difference between these two emotions, Rabbenu Avraham reminds us that they need not coexist; it is possible to feel sorrow without feeling angry.

Too often, anger flows directly from sorrow.  In our frantic effort to relieve ourselves of the emotional pain of sorrow, we become angry and seek to hit back at the person who caused us the pain.  In the case of Yaakov’s sons reacting to their sister’s defilement, the feelings of vengeance are understandable and perhaps even valid.  However, this case marks the exception, rather than the rule.  Far more often than not, the response of “va-yichar” is inappropriate.  Even when we experience “va-yit’atzevu,” when we feel aggravated, despondent or distressed, we should hesitate before allowing ourselves to reach “va-yichar.”  We are capable, and usually expected, to live with the discomfort of sorrow without resorting to anger.  Seldom is revenge the solution to emotional pain.  We must train ourselves to deal with life’s frustrations and challenges without anger, recognizing our ability to handle difficult feelings without rage and hostility.

Volver al capítulo

The Form of Yaakov's Assailant: Scholar or Idolator

     The Torah in Parashat Vayishlach tells the famous story of Yaakov’s confrontation with a mysterious assailant who attacked him one night as he made his way back to Canaan in preparation for his feared reunion with Esav.  Seeing that he could not defeat Yaakov, the man asked Yaakov to release him, and Yaakov agreed only after the man blessed him, giving him the name “Yisrael.”  It is generally understood that the assailant was an angel sent by God to sabotage Yaakov’s return to Canaan, and who symbolizes the conflicts and struggles that Yaakov’s descendants would have to endure over the course of their history.

            The Gemara in Masekhet Chulin (91a) cites two views regarding the appearance of this angel: one opinion is that the angel appeared to Yaakov as an idolater, whereas the other claims that the angel disguised as a pious scholar.

            How might we understand these two possibilities?  Why did Chazal suggest specifically these two disguises as the possible appearances of the assailant that symbolizes Am Yisrael’s struggles and confrontations?

            The likely explanation is that Chazal here alert us to the fact that spiritual adversaries come in different forms, and can sometimes appear as our ally.  While our foe is often unmistakably an “idolater,” a temptation or ideology that is clearly at odds with our belief system, such that the need to oppose it is obvious, other “assailants” assume the appearance of a “scholar,” of wisdom and piety.  Sometimes we need to oppose and struggle against a belief, outlook or approach that outwardly seems noble and virtuous, but is, in truth, foreign and hostile.  When we confront an “assailant” of this kind, we might be misled by its noble appearance to yield and surrender.  The Gemara teaches us that the strength, persistence and determination with which Yaakov defeated his assailant is necessary even if when we come upon an adversary which appears as a “scholar,” when we are threatened by foreign values and ideals that initially strike us as noble and spiritual.

Volver al capítulo

Reuven's Well-Intentioned Mistake

            The Torah in Parashat Vayishlach (35:22) briefly tells of the sin committed by Reuven, Yaakov’s oldest son, who is described as having slept with his stepmother, Bilha.  Rashi, based on the Gemara’s discussion (Shabbat 55b), famously asserts that Reuven did not actually engage in a forbidden relationship with Bilha, but rather committed a different offense, which the Torah describes in hyperbolic terms to underscore its severity.  Namely, Reuven moved Yaakov’s bed from Bilha’s tent into the tent of his mother, Leah.  As Rashi explains, Yaakov had kept his bed in the tent of his favorite wife, Rachel, and after her passing – which, as indicated by the Torah, occurred just prior to Reuven’s sinful act – Yaakov moved his bed into the tent of Bilha, Rachel’s maidservant whom she had Yaakov marry.  Reuven considered it a slight to his mother’s honor that Yaakov chose to make his permanent residence with Rachel’s maidservant, rather than with Leah, and so he boldly brought Yaakov’s bed out of Bilha’s tent and into Leah’s tent.

            The Maharshal, cited in Siftei Chakhamim, elaborates on this account, suggesting a possible reason for why Yaakov chose to move his bed into Bilha’s tent after Rachel’s tent.  Accordingly to the Maharshal, Yaakov would have preferred moving his bed into Leah’s tent, rather than in the tent of one of the maidservants.  However, Yaakov wrongly assumed that this was not Leah’s wish.  After Yaakov had regarded Rachel as his primary wife throughout the years, ever since he married the two sisters, Yaakov assumed that Leah would not want Yaakov’s primary residence to be with her.  Therefore, he decided to move his bed into Bilha’s tent.  Reuven, however, knew his mother’s preferences, and realized that to the contrary, Leah would find it insulting to have Yaakov move his bed into Bilha’s tent.  He therefore took the initiative and moved the bed into Leah’s tent.

            Rav Chaim Elazary, in Netivei Chayim, observes that according to the Maharshal, Reuven acted in a manner which he thought would be beneficial for both his parents.  Whereas it is commonly understood that Reuven sinned by inappropriately opposing his father, it seems that according to the Maharshal, Reuven acted to help his father, who wanted to move his bed into Leah’s tent.  Reuven moved the bed to fulfill Yaakov’s wishes, not to protest his father’s decision.  And yet, the Torah condemns his action in the strongest possible terms, equating it with outright adultery.  The lesson to be learned is that even the best intentioned actions, done with sincere motives and out of a genuine desire to help another person, can constitute grievous offenses.  Even when we think we are helping our fellow, and even when feel confident that we know better than that person what can help him, this does not necessarily entitle us to interfere with his private affairs without his knowledge.  Reuven’s mistake was in trying to resolve this matter through bold, independent action, rather than through communication, by speaking to his father about the situation.  The Torah here teaches us that sincere motives do not justify all actions, and that careful consideration is needed before we try to help other people without their consent.

Volver al capítulo

Pages

x

Lee el Tanaj cómodamente. ¡Instala nuestra App en tu pantalla de inicio!

📲 Instala nuestra App

Toca el botón de Compartir (el icono de un cuadrado con una flecha hacia arriba) en la barra de Safari, desliza hacia abajo y selecciona 'Agregar a la pantalla de inicio'.