Exchange

מגד גבעות עולם pg. 33

The Battle For Kedusha

In the Al Hanissim for Chanukah we say that the Greeks stood against עמך ישראל and then later in the paragraph we mention again ישראל.  However, in the Al Hanissim of Purim there is no mention of ישראל.  Why this difference?  The midrash says the Greeks said to write on the horn of an ox אין לכם חלק באלוקי ישראל.  Why the horn of an ox and why did they choose this strange expression of אין לכם חלק?

The midrash Tanchumah Ki Sesa (34) says אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר שַׁלּוּם: כְּשֶׁאָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמֹשֶׁה כְּתָב לְךָ, בִּקֵּשׁ מֹשֶׁה שֶׁתְּהֵא הַמִּשְׁנָה בִּכְתָב. וּלְפִי שֶׁצָּפָה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שֶׁאֻמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם עֲתִידִין לְתַרְגֵּם אֶת הַתּוֹרָה וְלִהְיוֹת קוֹרְאִין בָּהּ יְוָנִית, וְהֵם אוֹמְרִים אָנוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל. וְעַד עַכְשָׁו הַמֹּאזְנַיִם מְעֻיָּן. אָמַר לָהֶם הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לָאֻמּוֹת: אַתֶּם אוֹמְרִים שֶׁאַתֶּם בָּנַי, אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ, אֶלָּא מִי שֶׁמִּסְטוֹרִין שֶׁלִּי אֶצְלוֹ, הֵם בָּנַי. וְאֵיזוֹ הִיא? זוֹ הַמִּשְׁנָה שֶׁנִּתְּנָה עַל פֶּה, וְהַכֹּל מִמְּךָ לִדְרֹשׁ אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר שַׁלּוּם: אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמֹשֶׁה: מָה אַתְּ מְבַקֵּשׁ שֶׁתְּהֵא הַמִּשְׁנָה בִּכְתָב. וּמַה בֵּין יִשְׂרָאֵל לָאֻמּוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: אֶכְתָּב לוֹ רֻבֵּי תּוֹרָתִי. וְאִם כֵּן, כְּמוֹ זָר נֶחְשָׁבוּ. אֶלָּא תֵּן לָהֶם מִקְרָא בִּכְתָב, וּמִשְׁנָה עַל פֶּה.  The fight of Haman wasn't against the unique nature of Yisroel.  To the contrary, he acknowledged that Jews are different and therefore wanted to kill them.  The fight of the Greeks was to fight against our status of ישראל.  They claimed they are just as good as us, they are just as wise, learned and moral as the Chosen Nation.  Hashem says that the response is תורה שבעל פה.  How is this an answer to the claim of the Greeks, now the Torah is written and translated into Greek (English) as well?  What the Greeks missed was that we aren't the Chosen Nation merely because of our wisdom or morals; it is because we are connected to Hashem.  There is a kedusha that we have that the Greeks can never equal.  It is that kedusha that is symbolized by the תורה שבעל פה.  How is it possible for a mere mortal to add to the Torah that is the 'חכמת ה?  It is only because a Jew has an inherent kedusha that can never be matched.  That is why we stress that the Greeks stood against עמך ישראל, it was the name Yisroel which represents our Godly aspect which the Greeks wished to steal.  In the words of the Maharal ולפי הדברים אשר בארנו למעלה, כי כוונת היונים לבטל התורה והקדושה של ישראל, כי המצווה לנו היא המעלה שכלית האלוקית, ובודאי בטול התורה הוא בטול ישראל. ומצווה זאת גם כן היא בבית המקדש, אשר כל כוונת היונים היה לבטל התורה השכלית והקדושה מישראל, ועיקר הקדושה הוא בית המקדש. ולפיכך קבעו הדלקת הנרות, זכר לנס שנעשה להם במצות ההדלקה.

This is מדיוק in the Al Hanissim as well.  We say להשכיחם תורתך ולעבירם מחוקי רצונך.  Why does it say תורתך, just say תורה?  Furthermore, why does it say מחוקי רצונך, just say מהחוקים?  And why do we only mention the חוקים?  The Al Hanissim is highlighting that the Greeks understood the study of Torah, they viewed it as wisdom like any other.  However, they couldn't understand that its תורתך, that the Torah is studied as the Torah of Hashem.  That is why they objected to the חוקים, this was beyond human understanding and therefore they didn't say any point in it.  It was fulfilling the mitzvot not as a intelligent moral guide, just to fulfill the 'רצון ה that bothered them.  The proof that or impetus for doing the mitzvot isn't because it because sense, rather because Hashem commanded is that we do the חוקים.  That is why the Al Hanissim says ולעבירם מחוקי רצונך for that is what bothered them. 

In Minhagay Chasam Sofer Ch. 9 it says  בחנוכה הזהיר להתעסק בלימוד תוה״ק יותר מבשאר  הימים, והספיד מאוד על זה שמבלים ימים האלו בהבלי שחוק  כי אמר [כאשר גזכר ג״כ בספרים] שעצת היצה״ר הוא להפריע את העם מעבודת ה׳ ומתלמוד תורה בימי  חנוכה אשר תקנו לנו חז״ל להודות ולהלל, והלימוד הוא  ענין גדול בזמן הזה כי אז נמסרו סודות התורה למשה רבינו ע״ה.  Where doe he get that this is the time that the סודות התורה were given to Moshe Rabbenu?  In light of the Tanchuma we understand for it is the מִּסְטוֹרִין, the סודות that is the refutation to the Greeks.

The Maharal says that the Greeks said to write on the horn of an ox to remind us of the sin of the agel.  They were saying that you aren't connected to Hashem for immediately after Mattan Torah you rebelled and sinned against Hashem.  That was the message of אין לכם חלק, there is a God, but He isn't connected to you. (Based upon Yerach Lamoadim, Yemei Chanukah and Maamer from Rebbe Riyatz 5708.)

חכמה מול בינה

There is the famous question of why is Chanukah 8 days if the miracle was only seven days?  The Ballei Mussar point to the words in the מעוז צור, בני בינה ימי שמונה that it is the בינה of the Hasmonaean that understood that even what appears to be normal is also a miracle and worthy of giving thanks for.  In the language of Rav Tzaddok, he says that the holiday is 8 days to correspond to the 8^th sefirah (going backward) of בינה.  Why is there this emphasis of בינה during Chanukah?  Why is the מנורה the symbol of victory over the Greeks?

The יונים had a certain סוג of חכמה that Chazal refer to it by its own name; חכמת יונית and Chazal decry it very much.  What is so bad about חכמת יונית?  Maybe the answer lies in the words בני בינה and חכמת יונית.  The battle between the Greeks and us is the battle between חכמה and בינה.  What on earth does this mean?!  חכמה is the initial brainstorm that comes to a person.  בינה is when the details are worked out.  For our applications, חכמה is the way things appear at first glance and בינה is when the details are worked out.  The חכמה of the Greeks is to analyze and study that which can be seen and tested by human eyes and minds.  However, that which can’t be seen or fathomed by the human intellect they don’t accept.   To see beyond that which is seen at first glance, to take a deeper look, wasn’t in their capability.  That is why the חכמת יון has no room for דברים רוחניים that can’t be measured on a scale.

The Kabbalists say that חנוכה is named for חנה כו.  Chana’s womb was closed, the connection between חכמה and בינה (connection between husband and wife,) wasn’t able to produce.  It is Chanukah that adds the בינה  toחכמה  and allows the results to come forth.

In the יום יום for ו' אלול it says: הצמח צדק סיפר: הבעל שם טוב מאד חיבב אור, ואמר: 'אור' בגימטריא 'רז', מי שיודע את הסוד שבכל דבר, מסוגל להאיר.  The lights of Chanukah represent that there is a secret, more than merely meets the eye.  That is the physical nature of light as well; it illuminates a dark room and shows a person there is more there than s/he could see in the dark.  It is the light of the menorah that represents that there is more than what can see by themselves; there is a עולם מלא  that goes beyond the human intellect.

Pharaoh calls Yosef צפנת פענח which according to many commentators means the one that reveals secrets.  Why is that the name given to Yosef?   Yosef’s success revolves around interpreting that which is hidden in messages of dreams.  Yosef is able to see the hand of Hashem guiding him through his twisty journey of life.

Don't Use The Lights

The Gemorah in Shabbos (21b) saysאמר רבי זירא אמר רב מתנה ואמרי לה אמר רבי זירא אמר רב פתילות ושמנים שאמרו חכמים אין מדליקין בהן בשבת מדליקין בהן בחנוכה בין בחול בין בשבת אמר רבי ירמיה מאי טעמא דרב קסבר כבתה אין זקוק לה ואסור להשתמש לאורה.  Rashi explains why it is prohibited to benefit from the Chanukah light שיהא ניכר שהוא נר מצוה וליכא למיחש להטייה.  On the very next page the Gemorah gives a different explanation for the prohibition not to use the candles and that is not to cause ביזוי מצוה.  In the words of the Gemorah, אמר רב יהודה אמר רב אסי אמר רב אסור להרצות מעות כנגד נר חנוכה כי אמריתה קמיה דשמואל אמר לי וכי נר קדושה יש בה מתקיף לה רב יוסף וכי דם קדושה יש בו דתניא ושפך וכסה במה ששפך יכסה שלא יכסנו ברגל שלא יהו מצות בזויות עליו הכא נמי שלא יהו מצות בזויות עליו:  So why does Rashi say a different explanation on the preceding page?  Rashi seemed to learn like many Rishonim that the second Gemorah is coming to add a chiddush on the first Gemorah that even just to count money, which is only a light, short time usage of the candles is also prohibited.  This approach is followed by the Rosh, Rif and Ramban.

The Baal Hameor takes a variant approach.  He says that the two statements in the Gemorah are in disagreement.  The first Gemorah holds that the prohibition is derived from the candles of the Mikdash. Just as those candles have kedusha and are prohibited from mundane usage, so too the candles of the menorah.  According to the Baal Hameor the second Gemorah isn’t a stringency like the other Rishonim, on the contrary, it is a leniency, for since the prohibition is only because of ביזוי מצוה, to use the menorah candles for another mitzvah purpose will be permitted.  [The other Rishonim maintain its ביזוי מצוה even to use the lights for another mitzvah purpose.]  Seemingly, the Rishonim go לשיטתם, according to the approach of Rashi that the first Gemorah prohibits the usage of the lights so that its clearly designated  as a mitzvah candle, then one can entertain the possibility that a light, short time usage doesn’t detract from this recognition.  However, according to the Baal Hameor the explanation is the comparison to menorah, then there no reason to make such a distinction, hence he learns it’s a machlokes.

However, this doesn’t seem to hold water in the Ran that says the סברא of the menorah and yet explains the Gemorah of the other Rishonim?  However, this may be answered by looking carefully at the Baal Hameor and the Ran.  The Baal Hameor says: כיון שהם זכר לנרות ושמן של היכל אסורות הן בהנאה כל עיקר.  According to his view Chazal treat the menorah as a איסור הנאה just as the menorah.  They viewed one's personal lights like the menorah of the mikdash lights.  However, the Ran doesn't say that its an איסור הנאה, he says that since the mitzvah came about through a miracle of the menorah, hence they said you can't use the lights.  He doesn't say that there is an issur hanah as the Baal Hameor does. In other words, according to the Baal Hameor one's personal menorah has kedusha like the menorah of the mikdash and is prohibited in hanah.  The Ran holds they prohibited usage of the lights to appear like the menorah of the mikdash and in his view one can entertain that a small usage will not take away from looking like the menorah of the mikdash. 

In the הנרות הללו we say קודש הם.  According to the opinion of the Baal Hameor this nusach makes sense for the issur is based upon the kedusha of the nerot pattered after the mikdash.  However, according to most Rishonim its difficult for the prohibition is based upon the candles looking like they were lit for the mitzvah or because of ביזוי מצוה, but what does that have to do with them being kodesh?  However, the Ramban says that the idea of ביזוי מצוה is because during the time of the mitzvah there is kedusha upon the mitzvah object, hence its prohibited to "embarrass" the mitzvah.  According to this we can make some sense of the text קודש הם (based upon Yerach Lamoadim.)     

Yosef And Chanukah

Many of the Chassidic books say that Yosef was unique among the shevatim for he had the ability to live in Egypt, occupy a prominent position in the government and still be faithful to his heritage.  This challenge was not the cup of tea for the other brothers.  They chose to be farmers, aloof from the rest of the world to be undisturbed in their search of God.  It is Yosef that is the paradigm of the Jew in exile.  Despite all the challenges thrown at him and his lack of living in a state conducive to his service of God, he didn’t stray from the path of his upbringing.

The Degel Machene Efraim and the Ohav Yisroel both connect Yosef to the 6 orders of the Mishna.  In the words of the Ohav Yisroel, וילבש אותו בגדי שש. ר"ל שרומז בזה שהקב"ה הלביש את יוסף בוא"ו מדות הק' דהוא אתקשרותא דכולא כנ"ל וירכב אותו במרכבת המשנה ר"ל בשית סדרי משנה סוד כללות התורה שבע"פ. והבן.  In the words of the Degel, וירכב אותו במרכבת המשנה אשר לו והנה תיבת אשר לו נראה מיותר וי"ל בזה דהנה הבעה"ט פירש כי בן זקונים הוא לו זקנם ר"ת זרעים קדשים נשים מועד וכו' ע"ש והנה מדבריו דברי אלקים אשר הופיע עליו ברוח קדשו נראה שמסתמא היה שורש נשמתו מן משנה וזכה שנעשה מרכבה לבחי' משנה והוא שאמר גם בגשמיות זכה לרכוב במרכבת המשנה והוא שדייק לומר אשר לו היינו שהיה מדריגתו ושורש נשמתו שהיה מרכבה למשנה כנ"ל והמש"י.  Why is Yosef connected to the Mishna?  Just as Josef had to forge his own path through exile, so too it is the תורה שבעל פה that carries us through the dark days of exile.  As the Gemorah in Sanhedrin (24a) says  במחשכים הושיבני כמתי עולם אמר ר' ירמיה זה תלמודה של בבל.  In the darkness of exile, it is the תלמוד בבלי  that ensures our safety.

That is one of the messages connecting Mekatz to Chanukah.  Yosef teaches us that it is the תורה שבעל פה that creates the orot to light up the dark days of the golus.

Chassidus(she) Mesillas Yesharim

In Ch. 13, the Ch. about פרישות, the Messilas Yesarim discusses that perishut is necessary to be able to bring a person close to Hashem.  He explains in detail that excess pleasure that doesn't enhance one's service of God should be eliminated.  He then goes onto ask so why didn't Chazal prohibit these pleasures?  He explains that these measures of abstinence are not within reach of most individuals.  ואם תשאל ותאמר, אם כן, איפוא, שזה דבר מצטרך ומוכרח, למה לא גזרו עליו החכמים כמו שגזרו על הסייגות ותקנות שגזרו? הנה התשובה מבוארת ופשוטה, כי לא גזרו חכמים גזרה אלא אם כן רוב הציבור יכולים לעמוד בה, ואין רוב הציבור יכולים לעמוד בה, ואין רוב הצבור יכולים להיות חסידים, אבל די להם שיהיו צדיקים.  In English, If you ask: if this is so necessary and essential, why did the sages not decree this like they decreed on the various fences and enactments? The answer is clear and simple for "our sages do not impose an enactment upon the people unless the majority of the public will be able to abide by it" (Bava Kama 79b). The majority of the public are not capable of being Pious so it is sufficient for them that they be Tzadikim (righteous).
He continues to say that however, for those that can obtain this level of חסידות going above the letter of the law becomes an obligation for them.  אך השרידים אשר בעם החפצים לזכות לקרבתו יתברך, ולזכות בזכותם לכל שאר ההמון הנתלה בם, להם מגיע לקיים משנת חסידים אשר לא יוכלו לקיים האחרים הם הם סדרי הפרישות האלה כי בזה בחר ה', שכיון שאי אפשר לאומה שתהיה כולה שוה במעלה אחת, כי יש בעם מדרגות מדרגות איש לפי שכלו.  And clearer a few lines later: וכבר מצאנו לאליהו זכור לטוב שאמר לרבי יהושע בן לוי במעשה דעולא בר קושב (ירושלמי תרומות פ"ח): כשהשיבו, ולא משנה היא? אף הוא אמר לו, וכי משנת חסידים היא.We see from here a chiddush that there are different levels of expectation depending upon a person's level of spirituality.  The Shulchan Aruch is for regular people but for some, more is expected.
He then continues to say that the greater people in the nation are able to have an effect upon the lesser people and inspire them. הנה לפחות, יחידי סגולה ימצאו אשר יכינו את עצמם הכנה גמורה, ועל ידי המוכנים יזכו גם הבלתי מוכנים אל אהבתו יתברך והשראת שכינתו. וכענין שדרשו ז"ל בארבעה מינים שבלולב (ויקרא רבה פ' ל): יבואו אלה ויכפרו על אלה.  In English, Behold, at least there should be a few treasured individuals who prepared themselves completely, and through these few the non-prepared will also merit to receive His love, blessed be He, and the indwelling of His Shechina (Divine presence). As our sages, of blessed memory, expounded on the four species of the Lulav: "let these come and atone on those" (Vayikra Raba 30).
What is unclear is how does this work, how do the בלתי מוכנים receive the love of God and the presence of the Shechina through the מוכנים?  Is this automatic or does one have to attach one self to the מוכנים?  (Quotes and translation from Sefaria.)

טבוח טבח וחנוכה

From the sefer Meor Yichezkal.

Window Of Opportunity

In his formidable adolescent years, Yosef in thrust into a pit, soled into slavery, tempted by his master's wife, thrown into jail  and endures plenty of other hardships.  After such events, one would expect Yosef to become jaded with life.  However, we don't see that at all, quite the contrary, he remains faithful to his family and never shows any signs of depression.  How was Yosef able to maintain his feelings for life after going through such hard times?

The Gemorah in Sanhedrin (99b) says ת"ר (במדבר טו, ל) והנפש אשר תעשה ביד רמה זה מנשה בן חזקיה שהיה יושב ודורש בהגדות של דופי אמר וכי לא היה לו למשה לכתוב אלא (בראשית לו, כב) ואחות לוטן תמנע ותמנע היתה פלגש לאליפז (בראשית ל, יד).  Why is it this possuk specifically that he makes fun of, there are plenty of pessukim of names at the end of Vayishlach?

The Meor Einayim explains that there is a specific message in this possuk that Menashe picked up on and was bothered by.  He says that תמנע is related to the word מניעה, if a person says that I can't keep the Torah because I have too many difficulties, that is a פלגש לאלפז, it is just an opening to the evil forces.  Menashe felt that his many מניעות were indeed an excuse for his evil actions.  Hence, he was very bothered by this possuk.  He is mistaken, says the Meor Einayim, for the מניעות aren't there to derail a person, they are there to bring the person even closer to Hashem.  The extra effort isn't meant as a deterrent, its meant to raise a person's commitment to Hashem,.  It is up to the individual to see the window of opportunity that God is opening up for him/her.  As someone once said, "when God closes a door he opens a window."

When Yosef is talking to his brothers Vayigash (45:5,) he says וְעַתָּה אַל תֵּעָצְבוּ וְאַל יִחַר בְּעֵינֵיכֶם כִּי מְכַרְתֶּם אֹתִי הֵנָּה כִּי לְמִחְיָה שְׁלָחַנִי אלקים לפניכם.  He views his journeys in Egypt not as a slave sentence placed upon him because of his brothers actions, he views it as a mission of Hashem, as a שליחות.  Yosef understood that all the roadblocks placed in his path weren't there to derail him from being Yosef Hatzaddik, it was to make him into Yosef Hatzaddik.  It was this attitude that gave Yosef the power to survive through all of his journeys. 

Zerach And Peretz: Two Types Of Tzaddikim

The possuk (38:30) says  וְאַחַר֙ יָצָ֣א אָחִ֔יו אֲשֶׁ֥ר עַל־יָד֖וֹ הַשָּׁנִ֑י וַיִּקְרָ֥א שְׁמ֖וֹ זָֽרַח.  Rashi says אשר על ידו השני – ארבע ידות נכתבו כאן, כנגד ארבעה חרמים שמעל עכן שיצא ממנו.  Why would the possuk hint to the sins of עכן, the descendant of זרח, right as זרח is born?!  Says the Maharal (its based upon the Ramban): כנגד ד׳ חרמות. בב״ר (פה, יד.). ואם תאמר ומאי בא לרמוז כאן ענין עכן שמעל בד׳ חרמות, ויש לך לדעת כי לא היו אלו הבנים - בנים דעלמא, אבל היו בנים נולדו בגזירת השם יתברך, ויש בהם דברים נעלמים המורים על עניניהם, והיה ראוי להיות מן פרץ מלכות בית דוד ומן זרח מצד עצמו ראוי לצאת ממנו עכן שמעל בחרמות, ושינוי תולדה בזרח מורה זה, כי היה חידוש שיוציא העובר את ידו ולהשיבה, וזה מורה על עניני הבנים מה שהיה בעצמות כל אחד ואחד מן הבנים. וענין זה דבר גדול כי האחד שהוא פרץ - ממנו המלכות, שהמלך מושל לוקח במשפט, כמו שכתוב בפרשת המלך, והשני גם כן לוקח בכח היד, אבל הוא מעילה במה שאסור לו. כי שני הבנים פרץ וזרח דומים ללבנה וחמה, ששניהם הם מושלים ומלכים בעולם, וכל מלך פורץ גדר לעשות לו דרך במשפט (סנהדרין כ ע״ב), אבל אינו פושט יד ולוקח דבר שאינו שלו בממשלת יתירה. ולכך ישראל מונים לירח המאור הקטן, וזכה פרץ להיות ממנו מלכות בית דוד, ופורץ גדר לעשות לו דרך ויצא תחלה. אבל זרח הוא כנגד החמה, שגם הוא מלך, ופושט יד ביותר לתקפו יותר מן הראוי למלך, ולכך אין ראוי למלך, ויצא ממנו עכן פושט יד ליקח שאינו ראוי לו מועל בחרמות, וזה היה מורה מה שנתן יד לפשוט בדבר שאינו ראוי לו. ומפני שכח זה הוא לו מן השמש, שהרי נקרא ״זרח״ על שם זריחת השמש (רמב״ן פסוק כט), מעל בד׳ חרמות, נגד כח השמש שנתלה ביום הרביעי (לעיל א, יז). ובפרק נגמר הדין (סנהדרין מג ע״ב) סבירא ליה למאן דאמר בג׳ חרמים מעל ולמאן דאמר בה׳ חרמים - ד׳ בימי משה ואחד בימי יהושע, נטה רש״י אחר ב״ר (פה, יד) מפני שהוא יותר מסתבר, שכן מצאנו שהיה גם כן ד׳ דברים שמעל בימי יהושע, ועיין בב״ר, והטעם מבואר למעלה. ויש לומר עוד בב״ר לא חשיב רק אותם שהיו בימי משה, כי אותו שהיה בימי יהושע שקול בעצמו כארבע, שהיו בו ד׳ דברים, ועיין שם בב״ר:

What does this mean?  Zerech is like the sun, it constantly gives the same amount of light and doesn't change.  This is the way of the straight path of the tzaddik, he constantly remains faithful to his Creator and doesn't deviate.  However, ultimately this isn't the greatest power.  It is the בעלי תשובה that rise above the tzaddikim.  That is Peretz, he is connected to the moon that waxes and wanes, he has high points but also stumbles and has to get up again.  This is the path that Mosiach will teach.  מלך פורץ לו גדר, even after the fence is broken, he teaches the path of teshuva.  Zerach attempts to mimic this path and that is why Zerach tries to get out before Peretz.  That was the intent of Achan as well.  However, it is Zerach's job to be the straight tzaddik.  It isn't in his DNA to be able to to sin and overcome it.  That is the job of Peretz and that is why Mosiach will descend from him for it is only in his capability to be able to return all those that have gone wayward (based upon Rav Tzvi Einfeld and Likutay Sichos volume 30.)

Briskor Rav's Chassideshe Shalosh Seudos

From עובדות והנהגות לבית בריסק  volume 2 pg. 67

Maybe the previous story has something to do with it. Though I don't understand the logic.

Your Own Niggun

In honor of the auspicious days of 19-20 Kislev.
There is a story recorded by the previous Rebbe of Chabad as follows.  A year after the Tanya was published in 1796, a group of chassidim came to its author, Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi, with a problem: They couldn’t understand the Tanya. Said Rabbi Shneur Zalman, “You can’t get half of anything. To understand the Tanya you need the music that comes with it.” It was from that point on that he began to teach the chassidim his melodies (from here.)  Why does one have to know the song to understand the book?

Rebbe Nachman (Likutay Moharan part 2 Torah 63) writes:  דַּע, כִּי יַעֲקֹב אָבִינוּ, כְּשֶׁשָּׁלַח אֶת בָּנָיו עֲשֶׂרֶת הַשְּׁבָטִים לְיוֹסֵף, שָׁלַח עִמָּהֶם נִגּוּן שֶׁל אֶרֶץ־יִשְׂרָאֵל. וְזֶה סוֹד: קְחוּ מִזִּמְרַת הָאָרֶץ בִּכְלֵיכֶם וְכוּ' (בראשית מ״ג:י״א), בְּחִינַת זֶמֶר וְנִגּוּן, שֶׁשָּׁלַח עַל־יָדָם לְיוֹסֵף, וּכְמוֹ שֶׁפֵּרֵשׁ רַשִׁ"י: מִזִּמְרַת – לְשׁוֹן זֶמֶר וְכוּ'. כִּי דַּע, כִּי כָל רוֹעֶה וְרוֹעֶה יֵשׁ לוֹ נִגּוּן מְיֻחָד לְפִי הָעֲשָׂבִים וּלְפִי הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁהוּא רוֹעֶה שָׁם, כִּי כָל בְּהֵמָה וּבְהֵמָה יֵשׁ לָהּ עֵשֶׂב מְיֻחָד, שֶׁהִיא צְרִיכָה לְאָכְלוֹ. גַּם אֵינוֹ רוֹעֶה תָּמִיד בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד. וּלְפִי הָעֲשָׂבִים וְהַמָּקוֹם שֶׁרוֹעֶה שָׁם, כֵּן יֵשׁ לוֹ נִגּוּן. כִּי כָל עֵשֶׂב וָעֵשֶׂב יֵשׁ לוֹ שִׁירָה שֶׁאוֹמֵר, שֶׁזֶּה בְּחִינַת פֶּרֶק שִׁירָה, וּמִשִּׁירַת הָעֲשָׂבִים נַעֲשֶׂה נִגּוּן שֶׁל הָרוֹעֶה.  In English: {“Take from the choice products of the Land in your pouches, and bring down to the man as tribute some balsam and some honey, and gum, resin, pistachio nuts and almonds” (Genesis 43:11).} Know! when our forefather Yaakov sent his sons, the ten tribes, to Yosef, he sent with them a melody of the Land of Israel. This is the deeper meaning of “Take from the ZiMRot (choice products) of the Land in your pouches…”—the concept of ZeMeR (song) and melody, which he sent through them to Yosef. This is as Rashi comments: me’zimrat—it connotes zemer.  For know! each and every shepherd has his own special melody, according to the grasses and specific location where he is grazing. This is because each and every animal has a specific grass which it needs to eat. He also does not always pasture in the same place. Thus, his melody is dictated by the grasses and place he pastures. For each and every grass has a song which it sings. This is the concept of Perek Shirah. And from the grass’s song, the shepherd’s melody is created.

The Tanya says in his intro. that his sefer contains a message for everyone because ביודעי ומכירי קאמינא.  The book isn't written as a general self-help book, it has a specific message for every soul.  It's not a broadcast but a direct ping to the IP address of your soul.  Of course you can give an intellectual explanation of the words of the book without the song, but then it won't necessarily be speaking to you.  It will be nice words from a holy book but won't transform the individual.  In order to tap into the message, to really understand the book, one must know the niggun and be able to match it up with one's one's own personal niggun.

The Yerushalmi Shabbos  says:  בקושי התירו לומר דברי תורה בשבת.  So what is one supposed to do on Shabbos if not learn?  The Alter Rebbe (Torah Or pg. 113 at the top) explains that Shabbos is the time for niggun.  Shabbos is a day of when one is able to tap into the niggun of their soul and let it burst forth.

It is when everyone plays their strings together that the song of the greatest conductor is complete.

Two Approaches To Evil

Last year this blog mentioned that their are conflicting views between the midrash and Zohar if Yaakov's greeting of Esav is to be viewed in a positive or negative light.  These two paths way be reflective of how our view of the yetzer harah/evil should be.  As discussed on this blog here  there are two ways to view the evil forces.  The simple approach is to say that it should be avoided at all costs, not touched with a 10 foot pole.  If we take that view, one indeed would be critical of Yaakov for starting up with Esav.  The other approach is a more complicated rout and that is to find the light even within the evil forces.

According to the Kabbalists, Esav was an example of an evil that contained inside of him tremendous light.  As mentioned a few weeks ago, Esav was the ancestor of many of the scholars that were converts.  Rebbe Akiva was indeed one of those descendants.  This blog discussed in the past that Rebbe Akiva is of the view that there is no true evil, one just needs to pry free the hidden good from within.  In light of his roots, it is no wonder then that Rebbe Akiva is of that school of thought for that is where he came from!  The Gemorah in Chagigah (14b) says that Rebbe akiva warned those entering the Pardes, אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: כְּשֶׁאַתֶּם מַגִּיעִין לְאַבְנֵי שַׁיִשׁ טָהוֹר, אַל תֹּאמְרוּ מַיִם מַיִם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: דֹּבֵר שְׁקָרִים לֹא יִכּוֹן לְנֶגֶד עֵינָי  When you approach pure marble stone, do not say, “Water! Water!” as it is said (Psalms 101:7), “He who speaks falsely will not be sustained before My eyes.”  Rebbe Nachman (Likutay Moharan #51) explains that warning was not to separate between the מים עליונים ותחתונים, between the realm of טמא פסול ואסור and the realm of טהור כשר ומותר.  In the Pardes one must see the truth that there is no difference, they all stem from the same place.  The other members that entered the Pardes weren't able to hold onto this message and stumbled along the way.

It is Rebbe Meyer, a student of Rebbe Akiva that internalized this message.  It is Rebbe Meyer that had written in this Torah כתנות אור in place of עור (Berashis Rabbah 20:12.)  In the world of Rebbe Meyer, the עור can be stripped off and the אור revealed. ר' מאיר דייק בשמא (Yoma 83b,) it is ר' מאיר (light) that sees the light in everything (see idea from Maggid on this Chazal here.)  That's why it is Rebbe Meyer that can take the good from inside Acher and bring it to fruition.  Acher's fault was in his inability to distinguish between the his outside self which had become tainted and his inner core which remained the talmid chacham.  Just as he got confused in the Pardes, so too he was confuded about himself.  The Bavli records that Elisha ben Avuyah told Rabbi Meir he can’t do teshuva because he heard from a bas kol everyone should do tesuva except for Acher.  If the bas kol said that he can't do teshuva, what was to be expected from Acher and how is it possible that his teshuva wouldn't be accepted, teshuva always works?  The answer lies in a slight change between this story and the version of the Yerushalmi (Chagiga chapter 2 law 1 pg. 9b.)  There it says Elisha heard everyone can do teshuva except Elisha ben Avuyah.  Why the switch from Acher as is recorded in the Bavli to his name, Elisha in the Yerushalmi?  Furthermore, what’s the debate, which one did he hear, Acher or Elisha ben Avuyah?  Rav Solevetchik (5 deroshes, derush 5 part 9, pg. 124-129 in Hebrew edition) explains that Elisha really heard except for Acher.  This event, the Yerushalmi says, occurred on Yom Kippur that coincided with Shabbos when he was riding a horse behind the Kodesh Hakadashim.  Elisha felt hirhuray teshuva on this day of Yom Kippur and the bas kol came to aid him.  Elisha thought the Dr. Jekyll side of himself and the Mr. Hyde side of himself were one and the same.  He couldn’t differentiate between Acher, the apostate and Elisha, the holy Tanna.  The bas kol was saying Acher can’t do teshuva but Elisha can, it was a reminder that at his core he remained that holy Tanna.  The Bavli is recording what was actually said.  The Yerushalmi on the other hand is recording the perception of Elisha.  Elisha didn’t get the message.   He failed to make the distinction between his two personalities and understood the bas kol to mean that Elisha can’t do teshuva.  Rebbe Meyer on the other hand was able to make this distinction and took the holy Tanna, Elisha ben Avuyah part from out of its husk of Acher.     

According to the Kabbalists, Yaakov was quite aware of the great power that existed within Esav and by meeting him he was attempting to extract this power and bring it forward.  By accomplishing this, joined together with Yaakov, the final redemption would be brought.  This view of attempting to take out the good from within the evil is championed by the Zohar that looks at the inner dimension.  The peshat goes with the straight view that the evil is bad and must be avoided at all costs and hence is critical of Yaakov.

The Real Fight

The Sefer Hachinuch says about the mitzvah not to eat the gid haneshe: משרשי מצוה זו, כדי שתהיה רמז לישראל, שאף על פי שיסבלו צרות רבות בגלות מיד העמים ומיד בני עשו, יהיו בטוחים שלא יאבדו, אלא לעולם יעמד זרעם ושמם, ויבא להם גואל ויגאלם מיד צר. ובזכרם תמיד ענין זה על יד המצוה שתהיה לזכרון, יעמדו באמנתם ובצדקתם לעולם. ורמז זה הוא לפי שאותו מלאך שנלחם עם יעקב אבינו, שבא בקבלה (בר''ר עח) שהיה שרו של עשו, רצה לעקרו ליעקב מן העולם הוא וזרעו ולא יכול לו, (שם לב כו) וצערו בנגיעת הירך. וכן זרע עשו מצער לזרע יעקב, ולבסוף תהיה להם תשועה מהם. וכמו שמצינו (שם שם לב) באב שזרחה לו השמש לרפאתו ונושע מן הצער, כן יזרח לו השמש של משיח וירפאנו מצערנו ויגאלנו במהרה בימינו, אמן.  According to the Chinuch the point of the mitzvah is to strengthen our faith in Hashem by remembering that Yaakov was victorious over the angel of Esav that came to kill him.  Rav Bakshi-Doron asks if this is what we are supposed to be remembering, why would we choose an event from the fight with the angel of Esav and not the fight with Esav himself?  The fight with the angel is shrouded in mystery and from the text we don't even see the man that Yaakov fought with has anything to do with Esav?  Furthermore, Yaakov gets wounded in this fight but in his "fight" with Esav he comes out completely unscathed, seemingly that is more fitting to strengthen our faith?  And why is the whole fight with the angel of Esav unclear from the Chumash and even from the commentary of our sages its still unclear what was going on?

He explains that the Torah is teaching us what is the true fight against Esav.  If Esav is coming with an army its easy to recognize the danger that awaits.  There isn't much room to debate that maybe he has just come to offer his assistance and means no harm.  However, when the angel of Esav comes it is much harder to see the danger ahead.  When he comes with promises of education, enlightenment, arts, sophistication, technology and money it is very difficult to see the danger in it.  Esav says this well help you.  We will bring you out of poverty and the entire world will be opened before you.  We have hidden our knives in the kitchen and will invite you into our house.  This danger is indeed shrouded in mystery.  Has Esav actually had a change of heart, has he let the past be past and decided to actually act as עשו אחינו or is it a ploy to attempt to take the Jew out of the Jew?  This is why remember the fight with the angel of Esav for this danger requires more of a reminder.  The reminder is where Yaakov was hit in order to show the main test is when the going gets tough we must not forsake our faith and must keep in mind that tomorrow the sun will shine again and we shall be healed in its rays.
The following excerpt is from עובדות והנהגות לבית בריסק עמ' יז.

     

Gid Fat

The Gemorah in Chullin (92b) says that the fat attached to the gid hanashe it technically permitted but ישראל קדושים נוהגין בו איסור.  The Rambam rules in Maacholos Assuros (8:2) that one who eats this fat receives מלקות מרדות.  The Netziv in his commentary to the Sheiltos points out that we see the Rambam holds even though the Gemorah refers to the prohibition as a mere minhag, it became established as a full fledged Rabbinic prohibition.  There are two ways that we can understand this minhag/prohibition.  Either its a new issur on the fat of the gid or its too extend the issur of igd hanashe to the fat as well.  This matter seems to be a debate between two opinions in Tosfos Chullin (97a) בתוס ד"ה שאני חלב דמפעפע בע"ד וא"ת אם כן במתניתין איכא שומן הגיד דמפעפע ואפילו נצלה נמי ליתסר כוליה ונראה לר"ת דשמנו של גיד אינו מפעפע והרב ר"מ מפרש כיון דשומן הגיד לא מיתסר אלא מדרבנן דגזרו ביה אטו הגיד כשאין הגיד אוסר גם בו לא החמירו.  According to Rabbenu Tam, the fat of the gid is its own issur and will follow its own parameters.  According to the Ram, the prohibition of the fat is only an extension of the issur gid and hence it can't cause more of a prohibition than the gid itself.  (They go לשיטתם in the beginning of the perek (89b) בתוס ד"ה אם יש בה בנותן טעם אסורה - תימה דילמא אסורה משום שמנו של גיד אבל בגידין אין בהן בנותן טעם ולפירוש הר' מאיר אתי שפיר דפירש דאין להחמיר ולאסור בשומן שבגיד כיון שהגיד עצמו אינו אוסר ור"ת מפרש דלשמנו של גיד לא הוה קרי גיד סתמא.

Based upon this idea we can explain the Rambam.  In Koban Pesach (10:11) he says כְּשֶׁאָדָם אוֹכֵל אֶת הַפֶּסַח חוֹתֵךְ הַבָּשָׂר וְאוֹכֵל וְחוֹתֵךְ הָעֲצָמוֹת מִן הַפֶּרֶק וּמְפָרְקָן אִם רָצָה. וּכְשֶׁיַּגִּיעַ לְגִיד הַנָּשֶׁה מוֹצִיאוֹ וּמַנִּיחוֹ עִם שְׁאָר הַגִּידִים וְהָעֲצָמוֹת וְהַקְּרוּמוֹת שֶׁיּוֹצְאִין בִּשְׁעַת אֲכִילָה. שֶׁאֵין מְנַקִּין אוֹתוֹ כִּשְׁאָר הַבָּשָׂר וְאֵין מְחַתְּכִין אוֹתוֹ אֶלָּא צוֹלִין אוֹתוֹ שָׁלֵם. וְאִם חֲתָכוֹ חֲתִיכוֹת חֲתִיכוֹת כָּשֵׁר וְהוּא שֶׁלֹּא יֶחְסַר אֵיבָר.  The Raavad asks א''א בחיי ראשי אין איסור גדול מזה שיצלה הפסח עם גיד הנשה ועם שמנו ועם תרבא דתותי מתנא ועם קרומות שבראש ואם אזכה ואוכל פסח ויביא לפני כזה הייתי חובטו בקרקע לפניו.  How can the Rambam allow you to roast the Pesach together with the forbidden fats; they will impart their forbidden taste to the whole lamb?  The Kesef Mishne says י''ל שלא עלה על דעת שרבינו מתיר לצלותו עם חלב האסור מן התורה אלא גיד הנשה שאין בגידין בנ''ט ושמנו שאין בו איסור אלא שישראל קדושים נהגו בו איסור ובפסח לא נהגו כדי שלא יבא לחתך בו אבר אבל חלב האסור מנקרים אותו ואפילו החוטים והקרומות האסורים משום חלב מסירים אותם אע''פ שאין אסורים אלא מדרבנן כמבואר בפ''ח מהמ''א דייקא נמי דקתני שאין מנקין אותו כשאר הבשר דמשמע שמנקין אותו אלא שאינו כשאר בשר.  He explains that the Rambam agrees the forbidden fats must be removed, its only the fat of the gid which is only a minhag that doesn't have to be removed.  The difficulty with this is that we already have shown that the Rambam holds the gid fat isn't just a minhag, its a Rabbinic prohibition?  However, based upon the principle of the Ram we understand that the gid fat can't effect an issur more than the gid itself.

However, this understanding  runs contrary to what the Rambam says elsewhere. In Maacolos Assuros (15:17) he says וְכֵן שֻׁמָּן שֶׁל גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה שֶׁנָּפַל לִקְדֵרָה שֶׁל בָּשָׂר מְשַׁעֲרִין אוֹתוֹ בְּשִׁשִּׁים. וְאֵין שֻׁמַּן הַגִּיד מִן הַמִּנְיָן. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשֻּׁמַּן גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. הוֹאִיל וְגִיד הַנָּשֶׁה בְּרִיָּה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ הֶחְמִירוּ בּוֹ בְּאִסּוּרֵי תּוֹרָה.  We see the Rambam holds even though the gid itself doesn't impart taste, the fat of the gid that does impart taste will prohibit, not like the Ram in Tosfos that the fat of the gid can't prohibit more than the gid itself.  So why in the Laws of Pesach will the fat of the gid not prohibit the Pesach?  I know that you can do some fancy lomdus footwork to explain this but it doesn't resonate well with me so I leave it to the reader to decide how to reconcile these halochot in Rambam.

The Emrei Emes (5694) says the idea of the minhag to dig out the fat of the gid represents that we must dig out even the roots behind the middos that been Esavized (made up that word.)

Jesus The Baal Shem

The Gemorah in Avodah Zarah (17a) פעם אחת הייתי מהלך בשוק העליון של ציפורי ומצאתי אחד ומתלמידי ישו הנוצרי ויעקב איש כפר סכניא שמו וכו' אמר לי כך לימדני ישו הנוצרי (מיכה א, ז) כי מאתנן זונה קבצה ועד אתנן זונה ישובו ממקום הטנופת באו למקום הטנופת ילכו.  This is the text as it appers in Sefaria, however in the standard Gemorah that we gave there is no mention of ישו.  In Oz Vehadar it is cited in the שינוי גירסאות and that is clear that its the Yaavetz's text there who proposes that there were two ישו's to make up for the different time periods that he seems to be appearing in.

שבת פרק יד הלכה ד (ומקבילה זהה בעבודה זרה פ"ב ה"ב)(עז.) [ אינו מופיע במהדורות הרגילות]: "מעשה בר' אלעזר בן דמה שנשכו נחש ובא יעקב איש כפר סמא משם של ישו פנדירא לרפותו ולא הניח לו רבי ישמעאל אמר לו אני מביא ראייה שירפאני לא הספיק להביא ראייה עד שמת בן דמה אמר לו ר' ישמעאל אשריך בן דמה שיצאת בשלום מן העולם ולא פרצתה גדירן של חכמים דכתיב ופורץ גדר ישכנו נחש ולא נחש נשכו אלא שלא ישכנו נחש לעתיד לבוא ומה הוה ליה מימר אשר יעשה אותם האדם וחי בהם".  As noted in the bracket, in the text we have it doesn't say משם של ישו פנדירא, however we already see from the Gemorah in Avodah Zarah that he was a student of ישו.  Furthermore, in some editions it brings שינויי נוסחאות that say משם של ע"ז.  The same story also appears at the end of the Ch. 2 in Tosefta Chullin and in Bavli Avodah Zarah (27b) and there is no mention of ישו there either.  What exactly משם means is unclear to me, does it mean he would magically heal people by mentioning his name or was the healing using his instructions?  It sounds like from the Rishonim that compare this Gemorah to mentioning the name of an avodah zarah on a wound that the healing was done with his name. 
See more about this here and what seems to be a very weak apologetic to say its not referring to Jesus here.

טוב ויפה

In honor of 9 and 10 Kislav.  We say every day in davening after shema, ויציב וכו' טוב ויפה הדבר הזה.  What is the difference between the words טוב ויפה? A few English translations I looked at translate as good and beautiful.  What it means that the words of shema are beautiful?  I believe that the difference is similar to what this blog write here as to the difference between hod and hadar.  Hod is the external reflection of an inner purity and pristine character.  Hadar is an external beauty but under the nice exterior may lie a malfunctioned engine.  The same kind of idea may be the difference between tov and yaffe.  The word tov indicates that there is a potential inside to the matter.  There is a goodness inside that can be brought out if handled properly.  Yaffe is an external, appealing look to the matter but it may be rotten inside.  [Yaffe is the same word as יפת, they had an emphasis on external beauty.]  Based upon this we can understand what Yehosua and Caleb said טובה הארץ מאד מאד (Shelach 14:7.)  How was this a response to what the meraglim said that its ארץ אוכלת יושביה?  They were saying that yes, externally it may appear difficult to conquer Eretz Yisroel but you have to be able to see the inner goodness inside the land and that goodness is not something to be passed up.  The words of shema are indeed טוב, there is an inner light to them but it is also יפה, one who keeps Torah properly has an external 'beauty', a חן that radiates upon their face.

[There are five times in Tanach that woman are described as טובת מראה, Rivka, Batsheva, Vashti, Ester and Achasvarosh gathered all the woman that where טובת מראה.  The one that bothers me a little according to the above explanation of טובה is Vashti.  I believe the only man described as טוב is דוד, it says he was טוב ראי (Shmuel 2 16:12.) ]
 
This meaning of טוב is hinted to us in the first letter of it, ט where the edge of the ט sticks into the letter to hint to the fact that the food is inside.  As the Zohar (into. 3a) says: עָאלַת אָת ט (תרומה קנ''ב ע''א) אָמְרָה קַמֵּיהּ רִבּוֹן עָלְמָא נִיחָא קַמָּךְ לְמִבְרֵי בִּי עָלְמָא דְּאַנְתְּ בִּי אִתְקְרִיאַת טוֹב וְיָשָׁר. אָמַר לָהּ לָא אִבְרֵי בָּךְ עָלְמָא דְּהָא טוּבָךְ סָתִים בְּגַוָּוךְ, וְצָפוּן בְּגַוָּוךְ, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב, (תהלים לא) מָה רַב טוּבְךָ אֲשֶׁר צָפַנְתָּ לִירֵאֶיךָ הוֹאִיל וְגָנִיז בְּגַוָּוךְ לֵית בֵּיהּ חוּלָקָא לְעָלְמָא דָא דְּאֲנָא בָּעֵי לְמִבְרֵי, אֶלָּא בְּעָלְמָא (שמות קנ''ב א) דְּאֲתֵי.  In English: The letter Tet entered and said: “Maker of the world, it would be good to create the world with me, for it is by me that You are called Tov.” The Creator replied: “I will not create the world by you, for your goodness is concealed within you and is invisible. Therefore, it cannot take any part in the world that I wish to create, and will only be revealed in the world to come (from Sefaria.)  This is why a pregnancy is 9 months for the potential of the fetus takes 9 months to develop as a  whole, complete baby.

[The Ketones Pasim in Behaloscha brings from the Baal Shem Tov says the ט inside the word חטא is the hidden good that exists in the חטא.  What teshuva does is that it removes the outer klipah of the sin and the hidden good is revealed.  Its also noteworthy that the word טוב and the word חטא have the same numerical value if you add the כולל.]

That is why the Sefer Yitzirah says that the letter of the month of Av is ט.  The month of Av currently is seen as a month of great destruction but that is only the outer appearance.  Underneath that cover there is a tremendous spiritual light and potential.  That is alluded to in the letter ט, hence it is the letter of the month.  And of course the day that will be the greatest holiday, the day that contains the greatest light, is the 9 ^th day of the month.

Based upon this Zohar the Bnei Yissaschar (Kislav maamer 2 #22) answers the question of the Rishonim (Abudraham Chanukah,) why is there no ספיקא דיומא for Chanukah?  He cites from numerous sources that Chanukah is the holiday where there is a revelation of the hidden light that was stored away in creation.  [As Rav Eliyahu Ovadyeh explains, that doesn't mean that one will see all the mysteries of creation; its not about fixing others, the light is for a person to be in tune with their inner self, to see the depths of their own soul.]  Based upon this the Bnei Yissaschar explains if there would be 9 days of Chanukah for ספיקא דיומא, then the holiday would be 9 days representing a hidden good.  However, since the essence of the holiday is about the revelation of the hidden light, not its concealment, then it would be inappropriate for the holiday to be 9 days.

9 has the potential for good but it itself is incomplete.  The good isn't realized yet. The first 9 sefirot contain all the power to create the world but it can't come into actualize without the 10 ^th sefira of malchus to flow into.  That is the power of the 10 ^th sefirah.  It is the conduit for the hidden good of the first 9 sefirot to be actualized.  That is the שלימות of 10 for the power of 9 to come to fruition.
(Many of the ideas advanced here are inspired by the writings of Rav Yitzchak Ginzburg. The links for the articles are here, and here.)

Two Yaakovs

At the end of last parsha we are already told Yaakov left, so why does it repeat it at the beginning of our parsha?In last weeks parsha, the Torah doesn't put emphasis on Yaakov's leaving, rather on where he was going: וַיִּשְׁמַ֣ע יַעֲקֹ֔ב אֶל־אָבִ֖יו וְאֶל־אִמּ֑וֹ וַיֵּ֖לֶךְ פַּדֶּ֥נָֽה אֲרָֽם.  In this week's parsha it emphasis the leaving:  וַיֵּצֵ֥א יַעֲקֹ֖ב מִבְּאֵ֣ר שָׁ֑בַע.  Why is the emphasis changed from going to leaving?  There are two types of Yaakov.  There is the Yaakov of Parshas Toldos and then there is the Yaakov of Vayetzeh.  The Yaakov of Toldos is the son of Yitzchak.  We are introduced to him as the son of Yitzchak.  He is the איש תם יושב אוהלים, the timid son one who learns Torah and only under his mothers tutelage emerges as the son that will carry on the legacy of the Avos.  Then Yaakov is forced to leave with his parents wishes and must travel to פַּדֶּ֥נָֽה אֲרָֽם, but he doesn't leave the old Yaakov behind, his goal is merely to get to point B and he even takes a 14 year detour to learn in Yeshiva before heading out toward his final destination.  In our parsha we are introduced to a new Yaakov.  This Yaakov leaves behind the old Yaakov, he leaves בְּאֵ֣ר שָׁ֑בַע.  He is no longer Yaakov the son of Yitzchak, he is now Yaakov, his own man building his own life.  That is why the Torah repeats that Yaakov left, for in Toldos we are told he was going at his parent's request to Lavan's house.  In our parsha, we learn that he leaves behind his past and goes forward as his own man.  In the words of Rav Hirsch: יצא יעקב מבאר שבע – על אף שהכתוב כבר אמר: ״וילך פדנה אדם״ (לעיל פסוק ה׳), הוא פותח שוב: ״ויצא יעקב מבאר שבע״; מכיון שביציאה זו החלה פרשה חדשה, אשר כל עיקרה: חייו העצמאיים של יעקב.

Many of the Chassidic books point out that the numerical value of  צא is 91, which is the numerical value of the שׁם הוייה (26) and שׁם אדנות (65) combined.  The Yaakov of Toldos is the Yaakov of שׁם הוייה.  He is living for the most part aloof from the world involved in the ד אמות שׁל הלכה.  The Yaakov of Vayetzeh is involved in the שׁם אדנות, in the טבּע of the world.  He now works as a shepard and has to put up with the schemes of Lavan.

Rashi says that Elifaz took away all of Yaakov's possessions and he came to Lavan empty handed.  Why was Yaakov forced to come to Lavan in such a lowly state?  We find in this parsha that Yaakov is very devoted to sheep, there is almost no mention of other animals.  Yet, we see at the beginning of next parsha that indeed, he owned many types of animals.  So, why is Yaakov so connected to sheep?

In order to ready himself to shed his old self and not get derailed from, his connection to Hashem, Yaakov had to be completely devoid of any personal hope that he may have and be forced to rely completely upon Hashem.  It is this recognition that allows Yaakov to change his role in the play of life.  This is symbolized by the sheep of Yaakov.  The word צאן is related to the word צא.  [To steal two sentences from the weekly email I receive on etymology of hebrew words from Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein (posted online here.)  "Like seh, the word tzon is also a general term which refers to both goats and sheep, most commonly to an entire flock or herd. Rabbi Shlomo Pappenheim of Breslau (1740-1814) traces the root of tzon to the letter TZADI, which means “goes out.” This refers to the fact that, in contrast to other domesticated animals, the dainty ovicaprids tend to always “go out” of the barn even in the winter (while the heavier bovines tend to stay inside when it is cold)."]  What allows Yaakov to complete the צא is the צאן.  It is the docile nature of the sheep, that submissiveness to every situation Hashem put him in that Yaakov wished to emulate.  (Largely based upon Likutay Sichos volume 15, here in English.)

The Or Hachayim says that the journey of Yaakov can be read as a parable for the journey of the soul into this world.  Tucked cozily under the כסא הכבּוד the soul is enjoying the the life of שׁם הוייה.  Suddenly its thrust into the world of the שׁם אדנות and must find the sheep to avoid getting lost on the windy pah of life.

The Vav Before Yaakov

We say in Shemone Esrei אלקי אברהם אלקי יצחק ואלקי יעקב.  I'm not sure if the following question is a valid question or is just a grammatical rule but the truth or lack there of in a question doesn't change the vort.  Why is a 'ו added before Yaakov's name.  The same thing occurs in the words following, הגדול הגבור והנוראו, where a 'ו is only added before the last word.  Many say that those three words correspond to the three Avos; again the 'ו is added to Yaakov's middah.  Why does Yaakov get the additional 'ו? 

The word vav as seen in its shaped as a hook represents the connection between heaven and earth.  Its the representation of the ladder connecting these two worlds.  As mentioned in this post, the three Avos correspond to the three Battei Mikdash.  Avrohom is chesed, a heavenly השפאה that corresponds to the first Beis Hamikdash.  The second one didn't have the same heavenly miracles, it was "earned" from below, corresponding to Yizchak, gevurah.  It is the third Beis Hamikdash that will be the connection of both of these powers, which is Yaakov, tiferet.  (See more about this here and in Machsavas Hachassidus by Rav Yoel Kahn Ch. 7-10.)  That's why it is Yaakov that gets a vav before his name and attribute in Shemone Esrei for it is he that connects the strings of heavens and earth together.  [It is of course noteworthy that Yaakov takes a vav to guarantee the final redemption as Rashi Bechukosai 26:42 says.  Yaakov guarantees that the attachment between heaven and earth shall never be broken; hence he takes a vav.]  This may be the intent of the Alter Rebbe in Torah Or Beshalach סב. where he says: ולכן כתיב הגדול הגבור והנורא שלהיות בחי׳ נורא צ״ל תחלה וי״ו הוא בחי׳ המשכה מלמעלה למטה להיות בחי׳ נורא.

Avos Prayers

Rashi (28:11) says ויפגע – לשון תפלה, כמו: אל תפגע בי (ירמיהו ז׳:ט״ז), למדנו שתיקן תפילת ערבית.  This rounds out the three prayers of the day.  Avrohom prayed Shacharis, Yitzchak prayed Mincha and Yaakov Arvit. The Gemorah in Berachot (26) brings a debate if the the tefillot are כנגד אבות או כנגד קרבנות.  Yet the Gemorah (27b) brings Rav holds Maariv is a rishus.  If the tefillot are כנגד קרבנות we understand since there was no korban at night, its only כנגד the fats that might have been offered at night.  However, if tefillot are כנגד אבות, then why would it be a rishus?  There are a few answers offered in the Achronim (see Torah Temimah, Nitziv on Shieltos 8, Pnei Yehoshua) and it boils down to that the prayer of Yaakov was only specific to the place and time and hence unfit to be a limud for future generations.  

However, even though maariv is a reshus the Rishonim prove that it can't be a straight optional prayer for the Gemorah also says (26b) for missing maariv one must pray Shacharis twice.  Why, you just chose not to pray?  It must be its not a simple option.  What exactly is it is a debate among the Rishonim. Here we will focus on the Rif's interpretation.  He says that originally maariv was a reshus but then Klal Yisroel accepted it as an obligation.  The Rambam Laws of Tefillah (1:6) seems to echo this view: וְאֵין תְּפִלַּת עַרְבִית חוֹבָה כִּתְפִלַּת שַׁחֲרִית וּמִנְחָה. וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן נָהֲגוּ כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּכָל מְקוֹמוֹת מוֹשְׁבוֹתֵיהֶם לְהִתְפַּלֵּל עַרְבִית וְקִבְּלוּהָ עֲלֵיהֶם כִּתְפִלַּת חוֹבָה.  However, later in Ch. 10 law 6 the Rambam says: מִי שֶׁהָיָה עוֹמֵד בִּתְפִלָּה וְנִזְכַּר שֶׁכְּבָר הִתְפַּלֵּל פּוֹסֵק וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּאֶמְצַע בְּרָכָה. וְאִם הָיְתָה תְּפִלַּת עַרְבִית אֵינוֹ פּוֹסֵק שֶׁלֹּא הִתְפַּלֵּל אוֹתָהּ מִתְּחִלָּה אֶלָּא עַל דַּעַת שֶׁאֵינָהּ חוֹבָה.  If maariv became adapted as obligatory then why does the Rambam say the person is davening a mere תפילת נדבה?  Reb Chayim explains that the Rambam is indeed distinct from the Rif.  In the Rif's eyes, the prayer of maariv became accepted as an obligatory prayer and the prayer now has the same status as that of Shacharis or Mincha. However in the Rambam's eyes, yes, the obligation on the individual is equal to that of the other prayers, but the חפצא of the prayer remains a תפילת נדבה.  This is what the Rambam means in 1:6 that its not an obligation like the other prayers, the individual must pray, but the prayer itself is defined as a נדבה.

The Rambam Laws of Tefillah (1:5-6) וְכֵן תִּקְּנוּ שֶׁיְּהֵא מִנְיַן הַתְּפִלּוֹת כְּמִנְיַן הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת. שְׁתֵּי תְּפִלּוֹת בְּכָל יוֹם כְּנֶגֶד שְׁנֵי תְּמִידִין. וְכָל יוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ קָרְבַּן מוּסָף תִּקְּנוּ בּוֹ תְּפִלָּה שְׁלִישִׁית כְּנֶגֶד קָרְבַּן מוּסָף. וּתְפִלָּה שֶׁהִיא כְּנֶגֶד תָּמִיד שֶׁל בֹּקֶר הִיא הַנִּקְרֵאת תְּפִלַּת הַשַּׁחַר. וּתְפִלָּה שֶׁכְּנֶגֶד תָּמִיד שֶׁל בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם הִיא הַנִּקְרֵאת תְּפִלַּת מִנְחָה וּתְפִלָּה שֶׁכְּנֶגֶד הַמּוּסָפִין הִיא נִקְרֵאת תְּפִלַּת הַמּוּסָפִין: וְכֵן הִתְקִינוּ שֶׁיְּהֵא אָדָם מִתְפַּלֵּל תְּפִלָּה אַחַת בַּלַּיְלָה שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵיבְרֵי תָּמִיד שֶׁל בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם מִתְעַכְּלִין וְהוֹלְכִין כָּל הַלַּיְלָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא ו ב) ״הִיא הָעֹלָה״ וְגוֹ׳‎, כָּעִנְיָן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהילים נה יח) ״עֶרֶב וָבֹקֶר וְצָהֳרַיִם אָשִׂיחָה וְאֶהֱמֶה וַיִּשְׁמַע קוֹלִי״. וְאֵין תְּפִלַּת עַרְבִית חוֹבָה כִּתְפִלַּת שַׁחֲרִית וּמִנְחָה. וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן נָהֲגוּ כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּכָל מְקוֹמוֹת מוֹשְׁבוֹתֵיהֶם לְהִתְפַּלֵּל עַרְבִית וְקִבְּלוּהָ עֲלֵיהֶם כִּתְפִלַּת חוֹבָה:  He says the times of prayer are patterened after the korbanot.  however in the Laws of Kings (9:1) he says בָּא אַבְרָהָם וְנִצְטַוָּה יֶתֶר עַל אֵלּוּ בְּמִילָה. וְהוּא הִתְפַּלֵּל שַׁחֲרִית. וַיִּצְחָק הִפְרִישׁ מַעֲשֵׂר וְהוֹסִיף תְּפִלָּה אַחֶרֶת לִפְנוֹת הַיּוֹם. וְיַעֲקֹב הוֹסִיף גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה וְהִתְפַּלֵּל עַרְבִית.  It appears from this Rambam that the obligation of the prayer times is derived from the Avos; which one is it, korbanot or Avos? 

Rav Solevetchik explains the Rambam as follows.  There is no open possuk that says one must pray to Hashem, the Rambam says at the beginning of the Laws of Tefillah מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה לְהִתְפַּלֵּל בְּכָל יוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כג כה) ״וַעֲבַדְתֶּם אֵת ה׳‎ אלקיכם מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁעֲבוֹדָה זוֹ הִיא תְּפִלָּה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יא יג) ״וּלְעָבְדוֹ בְּכָל לְבַבְכֶם״ אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים אֵי זוֹ הִיא עֲבוֹדָה שֶׁבַּלֵּב זוֹ תְּפִלָּה.  It is from the Avos that we derive that the fulfillment of ועבדתם את ה' לבבכם is through tefillah.  However, they didn't establish specific times to fulfill this obligation.  It is the korbanot that we derive the exact times of prayer.

Rav Kook explains the machlokes if the prayers are established based upon the prayers of the Avos or korbanot as follows: השלמת העבודה השלמה תהי' ע"י שישתלם האדם תחלה בשלימות עצמו, לפי טבע נפשו הישרה להיות דבק באלהים חיים בכל לב ונפש, שזו היא באמת גם יסוד ההערה השכלית שזכרה בחוה"ל שער עבודת האלהים. אמנם תכלית העבודה תבא בהיותה חוזרת אח"כ לעבודת כלל ישראל, וחוזרת בסוף הימים לתיקון עולם במלכותו ית'. והתפילה מחוברת באמת מרגשי לב טבעיים, להשתפך נפש כל אדם לפני יוצרו, גם היא בנוי' ברובה על ענינים לאומיים הנוגעים להשלמת כלל עם ד'. הגאולה, השבת השופטים, צמיחת קרן לדוד, בנין ירושלים, השבת העבודה לציון. צריך התבוננות על איזה מרכז נוסדה אם השתפכות הנפש הפרטית היא בה היסוד והתוצאות הלאומיות מאיליהם תבאנה, או שעיקר יסודה היא השלימות של העבודה הלאומית, שמתלקטת מטהרת לבו של כל יחיד. והנה האבות שהיו עובדי ד' בעוד לא היתה האומה הישראלית בעולם, ועיקר ההדרכה האנושית שהיתה לשעתם, היתה עבודת ד' הפרטית בלא קישור לאומי. אמנם התמידין המה עבודת ד' של ציבור כללי משותף לכלל ישראל. ע"כ ח"א אבות תקנום, כנגד רוממות הנפש הפרטית שלעולם היא דרושה לכל יחיד לשלימות עבודתו, וח"א כנגד תמידין תקנום, בסדר ותכלית עבודת ד' כללית שמקורה ביסוד ותכלית עבודת כלל ישראל.

Directions II

A few weeks ago this blog posted a question as to why the directions mentioned to Avrohom and Yaakov are switched when they are promised the land.  I would like to like a add a third set of directions, different from the other two.  When Moshe is instructed to view Eretz Yisroel, Hashem tells him: (Vaeschanan 3:27) עֲלֵ֣ה  רֹ֣אשׁ הַפִּסְגָּ֗ה וְשָׂ֥א עֵינֶ֛יךָ יָ֧מָּה וְצָפֹ֛נָה וְתֵימָ֥נָה וּמִזְרָ֖חָה.  Why is this order different from the other two?

There is a more basic question to add which is that the general rule is that we turn to the right, so why are the directions given to Yaakov said in that order?  The Rebbe explains The rule of כל פימות שאתה פומה לא יהיה אלא דרך ימין applies when one follows the normal order.  However when it comes to ופרצת, that is beyond the regular order, there are no boundaries left.  In that case the rule of going to the right isn't followed. Therefore it starts in the right where the sun sets, when things are dark.  From there one travels קדמה, to Hashem Who is called קדמונו של עולם.  The next directions reflect the person changing a בעל תשובה to a צדיק.  The Baal Teshuva must distance himself completely from any temptation of averah, that is צפון, which the Kabbalists say represents gevurot.  Then he transfers to a tzaddik and becomes נגבה which the Kabbilists say represents chesed. (Toras Menachem volume 37 pg. 149-152.)  However, that may be all well and dandy regarding Yaakov but why do the other directions not go right either?  I am still sitting in the dark and need directions in these matters.

Comming Back

The following is from Rav Zeven.

The Besht teaches a person is where his mind is.  Yaakov had to leave in the physical sense but he was always in Eretz Yisroel.  Golus isn't solved by settling in but by never leaving.

Mesorah To Be A Tzaddik

The Seer Bear Miriyam brings a question on the haftorah.  It says וצדקים ילכו בם ופשעים יכשלו בם.  Why does it say וצדקים with a vav, it should just say צדקים? He brings:

The True Esav

Rashi says Yaakov kicked to get out by the beis midrash and Esav kicked to get out by the avodah zarah temple. The Maharal points that the yetzer harah doesn't yet exist until a person is born, it wasn't that the yetzer harah was causing Esav to sin, it will built into his hardware to desire to sin.  In Noach (21:8) he says the same idea to explain the Gemorah in Yoma (83a) about the children that even in the womb were evil, the idea is that there inclination is to evil.  We learn from the Maharal that even if a person is born with an innate tendency to do evil, it is still their responsibility to curb it (Sifsay Chayim.)  This is of course, a true and important lesson.  However, I would just add that its not that Esav had to become something that he was not in order to overcome his inclinations, rather he just had to look deeper into himself.

The Kabbalists teach that what Yitzchak saw in Esav was the great converts that would descend from him most notably Rebbe Akiva.  That is the meaning of ציד בפיו, he contained within himself the power of תורה שבעל פה.  The name עקיבא has the same letters as יעקב plus an 'א.  The Avodas Halevi says that יעקב is עקב plus the 'י of the bittul of chachma.  Esav contained the potential to be greater than that, to reach the levels of keter represented by the 'א.(Haderech Pnemiyah.)  On the inside Esav contained tremendous potential but he had to be able to overcome his outer instincts to reach his inner power.  Esav's failure was to reach into his inner talents that were hidden under the deep exterior.

Noach Or Toldos

The opening words in parshas Noach and parshas Toldos are virtually the same.  Noach opens אֵ֚לֶּה תּֽוֹלְדֹ֣ת נֹ֔חַ and Toldos opens וְאֵ֛לֶּה תּֽוֹלְדֹ֥ת יִצְחָ֖ק בֶּן־אַבְרָהָ֑ם.  Yet the name of parshas Noach is Noach and parshas Toldos  is called Toldos.  Why is there a discrepancy in the name, or at least Noach should be called Toldos and only after that’s used up should Toldos be called Yitzchak?

As explained here, there was a major difference between the outlook of the Avos and the outlook of Noach.  Noach was satisfied by saving himself from the terrible generation but the Avos wanted to bring others under the banner.  Based upon this we understand that the name of the parsha isn’t just taking the first word of the parsha but it reflects the essence.  Noach is named Noach for the parsha is about Noach surviving the generation that completely was washed away.  Toldos is named Toldos is order to reflect the idea that the Avos wanted to give to others their message of God.  They wanted to make Toldos. (Based upon Likutay Sichos volume 25.)

Yitzchak: The Olah Man

Rashi at the end of Vayera (22:12) says that the entire command of the akedah was not to slaughter Yitzchak, rather just to bring him up to the mountain. כשאמרתי לך קח מוצא שפתי לא אשנה, לא אמרתי לך שחטהו אלא העלהו, אסקתיה אחתיה.  The simple reading of Rash is that the there never was a need to slaughter Yitzchak, merely to bring him up to the mountain.  This is difficult for then the entire akedah, that we mention as a zechut in our prayers all the time is really just a mistake?  And how did Avrohom misunderstand his prophecy?

Rashi (26:2) says אל תרד – שהיה דעתו לרדת מצרים, כמו שירד אביו בימי הרעב מצרימה, שאתה עולה תמימה, ואין חוצה לארץ כדיי לך.  In the Midrash it says that there would be a real pesul of יוצא for Yitzchak to leave Eretz Yisroel.  Why would there be such a pesul that only takes effect after shechita and Yitzchak never was supposed to be slaughtered, only brought up to the mountain?  And what does Rashi mean that Yitzchak is a עולה תמימה, of course, every עולה is תמימה?  Rashi (26:1) says One of the reasons Yitchak was blind was דבר אחר כשנעקד על גבי המזבח והיה אביו רוצה לשחטו, באותה שעה נפתחו השמים וראו מלאכי השרת והיו בוכים וירדו דמעותיהם ונפלו על עיניו, לפיכך כהו עיניו.  Why did the angels cry, if the command was only to bring Yitzchak up to the mountain, then obviously he won't be shechted?

Rab Chayim explained that the command to bring Yitzchak up wasn't just to bring him to the mountain, it was that when he is brought to the mountain, he will have the status of an עולה and as an outgrowth will be obligated in all the עבודות of the עולה.  The direct command wasn't just bring him up to the mountain and then take him down, but that through bringing him up the mountain Yitzchak will become a עולה.  What Hashem came to tell Avrohom was that there was no direct commend to shect Yitzchak for if that was the case it wouldn't have been fulfilled.  Since the command wasn't to shect Yitzchak, rather, just to bring him up and only as an outgrowth he will become an עולה, therefore there can be a פטור אונס on the avodot of the korban and Avrohom did fulfill Hashem's command.  According to Rav Chayim, Yitzhak had the status of an עולה but the dinim of avodah weren't fulfilled.

Now we can understand all the Rashi's in our parsha as well.  For a regular עולה is becomes הקדש when the owner is מקדיש it but the שם עולה only applies after the shechita.  Yitzchak is the only עולה that the שם עולה is on him when he is still תמימה, when he is still alive.  That's why Yitzchak had a פסול יוצא  for he had the status of a korban already in his lifetime. And that's why the angels cried, for with out a command from Hashem to stop then Avrohom would've had to continue to slaughter Yitzchak.

Thanksgiving Of The Rabbis

I saw in a Siddur with English translation that translated מודים דרבנן as Thanksgiving of the Rabbis. What came to mind instantly is the Agudah Convention on Thanksgiving weekend.  That is the Thanksgiving of the rabbis.  They have their own Thanksgiving.

Where Does The Kedusha Of The Land Come From

The Rambam in the beginning of the Laws of Terumot (1:3) says הָאֲרָצוֹת שֶׁכָּבַשׁ דָּוִד חוּץ לְאֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן כְּגוֹן אֲרַם נַהֲרַיִם וַאֲרַם צוֹבָה וְאַחְלָב וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמֶּלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל הוּא וְעַל פִּי בֵּית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל הוּא עוֹשֶׂה אֵינוֹ כְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְכָל דָּבָר וְלֹא כְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ לְכָל דָּבָר כְּגוֹן בָּבֶל וּמִצְרַיִם. אֶלָּא יָצְאוּ מִכְּלַל חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ וְלִהְיוֹתָן כְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא הִגִּיעוּ. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה יָרְדוּ מִמַּעֲלַת אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁכָּבַשׁ אוֹתָם קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּכְבּשׁ כָּל אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶלָּא נִשְׁאַר בָּהּ מִשִּׁבְעָה עֲמָמִים. וְאִלּוּ תָּפַס כָּל אֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן לִגְבוּלוֹתֶיהָ וְאַחַר כָּךְ כָּבַשׁ אֲרָצוֹת אֲחֵרוֹת הָיָה כִּבּוּשׁוֹ כֻּלּוֹ כְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְכָל דָּבָר. וְהָאֲרָצוֹת שֶׁכָּבַשׁ דָּוִד הֵן הַנִּקְרָאִין סוּרְיָא.  The indication is had Dovid conquered it after the rest of Eretz Yisroel then it would be part of Eretz Yisroel.  The Radvaz asks why, true that כיבוש may work to create an obligation of Terumot, but how do we know that lands not promised to Avrohom Avenu can have the same level of kedusha as the rest of Eretz Yisroel?  It is clear from the question of the Radbaz that he assumes what gives kedusha to the land of Eretz Yisroel is the promise to avrohom Avenu, not an act of conquest.  It would seem that he goes l'shitaso in the Laws of Sanhedrin (4:6.)  The Rambam says that what defines Eretz Yisroel regarding the law that semicha can only be administered in Eretz Yisroel is the land that was conquered when we entered the land the first time, after leaving Egypt.  The Radvaz notes that even if it wasn't conquered in the second Temple era and it lacks the obligation of the mitzvot of the land (see Rambam Terumot 1:5,) it still will have kedusha of Eretz Yisroel affecting the law of semicha, the mitzvah to live in the land etc.  We see he holds that it is the act of conquest, כיבוש that creates the halachik obligation on the land but the spiritual, intangibles, the kedusha of the land, emanates from the promise to Avrohom Avenu (see more about this in Mishnas Yaavetz Yoreh Deah siman 26.) 

The Rambam in Shabbos (6:11) rules that one may tell a gentile to write a bill of sale that he is buying the land from him on the Shabbos, because the rabbis didn't impose the prohibition of telling a gentile when it comes to the mitzvah of yishuv Eretz Yisroel.  The Rambam rules the same applies to Suryah.  This ruling stems from Gittin (8b.)  The issue is that the Gemorah there is going in the opinion that כיבוש יחיד is a valid כיבוש, however, the Ramban that rules in the Laws of Terumot that it doesn't constitute a halachik כיבוש, so how does he rule that there is yishuv Eretz Yisroel regarding Suryeh as well?  The simple approach would be that yes, כיבוש יחיד isn't valid vis a vis the obligations on the land but kedusha there is.  It is the kedusha of the land that determines if their is a mitzvah of living on the land and that is present in Suryah.  However, this flies directly in the face of the Ridvaz that the kedusha eminates from the proise to Avrohom (or maybe from the first כיבוש,) however, Suryeh which wasn't part of that shouldn't have kedusha at all?  What is interesting to me is that the Mahari Kurkos seems to suggest this idea in the Rambam while at the same time mentioning that the kedusha stems from the promise to Avrohom.  If that's the source of it, how can it apply to Suryah?

[This whole assertion of the Radvaz would seem to be debated by the Rishonim in Gittin (2a) if there can be kedusha to the land even if the land wasn't conquered by the second Temple era, see תוס' ד"ה ואשקלון וברמב"ן וריטב"א and I'm too lazy to elaborate further.]

Another point of interest is the Magen Avrohom (306:20) when questioning the Rambam in a similar vein, assumes the heter to tell the gentile to write the bill of sale is only to avoid a negative of לא תחנם, not the possitive of yishuv Eretz Yisroel.  If that's the case, even if one where to entertain that Suryah had kedusha, there still is no negative prohibition in selling one's house to a gentile there and the answer would be out the window.  However, I don't know why the Magen Avrohom assumes this way when the terminology of the Gemorah and the Rambam is that the אמירה לעכו"ם is permitted for the positive mitzvah of yishuv Eretz Yisroel?  Furthermore, in my ignorance, I don't understand how does the lav of לא תחנם permit the issur, לא תחנם is not to sell the house to the gentile in the first place, however, here it is already sold to him so you aren't saving yourself from any prohibition?  Unless I am misunderstanding the lav?

As a point of clarification, when I said the kedusha emanates from the promise to Avrohom, I didn't mean that it started then.  It could very well be it has special kedusha from creation, but I'm focusing on kedusha as it applies to our activities of yishuv Eretz Yisroel and other such laws.