STAM
TORAH
PARSHAS
BO 5778
“THE
LADLE’S MESSAGE”[1]
Rav Shabsi Yudelevitz zt”l, one of the great maggidim of Yerushalayim
of the last generation, recounted an experience he had during one of his visits
to America.
He was invited to speak at a bar mitzvah celebration of an
American boy, whose family’s religious commitment was somewhat wanting. In his
speech, Rav Shabsi noted that ultimately there are no secrets. He quoted the
Gemara[2]
which says that the walls of a person’s home testify about him on the Day of
Judgment. The objects we own, the chairs we sit on, the walls of our homes, and
even the food we eat, testify about our mitzva observance before the celestial
courts.
Rav Shabsi continued that it’s vital for a Jewish male to put
on tefillin every weekday of his life. He then lifted a golden ladle off the
table in front of them, and announced to the bar mitzvah boy that if he
wouldn’t put on tefillin, the ladle itself would testify against him! With
that, in front of the entire assemblage, he placed the ladle in his pocket.
The next morning, Rav Shabsi helped the boy put on tefillin
for the first time.
After davening, the boy’s father told Rav Shabsi that the
ladle he had taken was not only very expensive, it was also a family heirloom,
and was part of a set.
Rav Shabsi replied that he had no intention of keeping the
ladle, and it would be returned imminently. He asked permission to hold onto it
a bit longer. He explained that since he had announced to everyone that the
ladle would testify about whether the boy put on tefillin or not, he wanted to wait
until after shachris so he could ask the ladle if the boy put on his tefillin that
morning.
The father thought the Rav was mocking him, but he didn’t say
anything.
The next day, the father asked Rav Shabsi what the ladle
said. Rav Shabsi replied that the ladle began crying that the first day after
his bar mitzvah, the boy already neglected to don his tefillin. The father
asked Rav Shabsi why he was falsely accusing his son. Rav Shabsi said he would
ask the ladle again. He walked out of the shul, and came back a few moments
later shaking his head. He insisted that the ladle was still crying that his
son hadn’t put on tefillin.
At that point, the father became annoyed, and demanded that
the ladle be returned. Rav Shabsi replied that he he wanted the boy to put on
the tefillin in front of everyone, so they could see the ladle testify. They
agreed that the next morning, the boy would put on tefillin before shachris at
the bimah, in view of everyone.
The next morning the shul was packed. Everyone wanted to see
how the ladle would testify. The bar mitzvah boy nervously began taking out his
tefillin, as everyone tensely watched. Suddenly, there was a loud thud.
Everyone looked down to find the ladle lying on the floor at the bar mitzvah
boy’s feet.
People were stunned; the Rav had performed a miracle. The
ladle had truly testified!
Before Rav Shabsi left, the Rabbi of the shul asked him what
forces of kabbala he had employed to make the ladle appear. Rav Shabsi replied
that the day before, when he had helped the boy put on tefillin, he had snuck
the ladle into his tefillin bag before closing it.
When the father demanded that he return the ladle, it became
clear that his son hadn’t put on tefillin, otherwise he would have discovered
it in his bag. The following morning, when he began to don the tefillin, the
ladle fell out!
During my youth, we had a book at home called “If a Siddur
Could Talk”[3].
The book opened by asking the reader, “Of course a siddur can’t talk. But if it
could… what do you think it would say?” The book then related the purported experiences
of various children with davening, and what their siddurim mighty say about how
they daven.
Its an intriguing concept, especially because the gemara[4]
seems to say that the question isn’t merely what our siddur would say, but also
what would our tefillin say, what would our action say, and what would our
Shabbos table say.
The Mesillas Yesharim[5]
writes that regarding self-improvement, there is a concept of יפשפש במעשיו
and another concept
of ימשמש במעשיו. יפשפש implies that one should search
his actions, to discern whether they are positive or negative. One then must
strive to increase his good deeds and decrease his negative behaviors. ימשמש literally means ‘to feel out’, or probe
his actions. One should analyze his positive and laudable actions, so that he
can improve them constantly, never settling for ‘good enough’, at the sacrifice
of ‘even better’.
Any person who is serious about
accomplishing greatness in whatever endeavor he wishes to achieve mastery,
understands this concept. He must first recognize his deficiencies, so he can
circumvent them and work on improving his performance despite them. However, he
also realizes that his greatest achievements will come from building upon his
successes, and striving to improve what he already excels at.
At the Seder on Pesach night, we state
“Blessed is the One who has guarded his promise to Yisroel, blessed is He.”
Hashem did not merely fulfill His pledge to Avrohom Avinu that he would
take his progeny out. He guarded that pledge, and anticipated the
opportunity to redeem it. Then He did so, in a most magnanimous and loving
manner.
When it became evident that the nation
could not endure another 190 years of servitude and affliction, Hashem
“calculated the end” and used a tactic of counting the promised four-hundred
years from the time of the birth of Yitzchak[6].
When the physical exodus occurred, the nation left with tremendous wealth and a
feeling of dignity and glory. They did not rush out like fugitives escaping in
the night. Their former captors and persecutors waved them on meekly and
reverently.
The Torah describes the fateful night of
the exodus as “Leil Shimurim”. That terminology is mentioned twice in the same
verse: “It was a night of שמרים for Hashem, to bring them out of Egypt; that same night is
Hashem’s one of שמרים for all of the B’nei Yisroel for all generations.[7]”
Rashi explains that the second time the
word שמרים is used it refers to divine protection.
The anniversary of the night of the exodus is a night of divine protection for
Jews throughout the world. However, the first time the word שמרים is used it refers to anticipation and excitement. That night was a night of
anticipation for Hashem, as it were, as He excitedly waited for the opportunity
to redeem His nation.
One guards something he feels is
precious and valuable, and wants to protect. In the Haggadah we bless Hashem who, not
only fulfilled His promise, but guarded it with anticipatory love.
When we recognize that Hashem loves us
and treasures our every action, it becomes evident that we should seek to at
least reciprocate, by trying to perform mitzvos and serve Hashem with that same
feeling of love and yearning.
On Shabbos morning we sing about the one
who is “השומר שבת הבן עם הבת”. We aren’t
singing about one who merely fulfils the laws of Shabbos, but one who safeguards
the Shabbos with excitement and love. It’s a feeling that he passionately
shares with his children – his son and his daughter.
Part of what we remember when we recount
the experience of the exodus, is how Hashem clearly acted out of love. He
didn’t just fulfill His promise to ‘be done with it’. He demonstrated that
there is a relationship and a partnership.
Our goal must be to serve Hashem with
those same feelings.
“Blessed is the One who has guarded his
promise“
“A night of anticipation for Hashem, to bring them
out of Egypt”
Rabbi Dani Staum,
LMSW
Rabbi, Kehillat New
Hempstead
Rebbe/Guidance
Counselor – Heichal HaTorah
Principal – Ohr
Naftoli- New Windsor
[1] Based on the
lecture given at Kehillat New Hempstead, Shabbos Kodesh parshas Bo 5772.
[2] Chagiga 16a
[3] Published in
1987 by Yocheved Yosef; the book was more recently reprinted in 2005
[4]
ibid
[5] Chapter
3 (based on Gemara Eiruvin 13b)
[6] The promise
was that “the descendants of Avrohom would be strangers in a land not theirs”
for four hundred years. As soon as Yitzchak was born, and at that time Eretz
Yisroel was not the property of Avrohom, the four hundred years could
technically begin, even though that wasn’t the original interpretation of the
decree.
0 comments:
Post a Comment