Vol.

21 Issue #5

Parashas Bereishis

Heaven Haven

Rabbi Elihu Abbe

(YUHSB 04, RIETS 11)

The Shabbas table is set. Sparkling grape juice

fills the beautiful silver Kiddush cup and warm
delicious challos are ready to be enjoyed together with
your favorite dip. You sense the aroma of your favorite
foods and the sweet nigun of welcoming Hashems
holy malakhim with Shalom Aleichem. Meiein olam
haba!
Wouldnt it be awesome if every moment of
our lives could be filled with these feelings of pleasure
and kedushah?
Hakadosh Baruch Hu created Adam harishon
and placed him in Gan Eiden. Eiden means pleasure.
A garden of pleasure! The pessukim relate that Hashem
created in Gan Eiden all varieties of beautiful trees
with good tasting fruit. A stream flowed from Eiden
to water the Gan: a postcard-type scene of the most
perfect utopia. The gemara in Sanhedrin (59b) tells us
that the angels roasted meat and prepared wine for
Adam to enjoy. Hashems intent was for Adam and all
of humanity to live this life of endless pleasure for
eternity.
Adam ate from the eitz hadaas and suffering
was introduced to the world, but the purpose of
creation did not change. Hashems intent is still, as it
always was, for humanity should live a life of meiein
olam haba. Our challenge now is to rebuild that utopia,
and to enjoy the process and find satisfaction in our
efforts.
Rav Volbe, in his seifer Alei Shur, asks the
following question. The Mesillas Yesharim teaches us
that Hashem created the world in order to give us
pleasure. However, the mishnah in Pirkei Avos (6:11)
learns from a passuk that Hashem created the world for

27 Tishrei 5776

His own honor. Seemingly this is a contradiction. Rav

Volbe answers that of course Hashem didnt create the
world simply for His own honor. Hashem is the
ultimate perfection, lacks nothing, and has no need for
us to honor Him. Rather, Hashems intent was, as the
Mesillas Yesharim says, to give us the greatest pleasure
possible. What the mishnah is teaching us from the
passuk is that the greatest pleasure attainable is that
sweet spiritual feeling of closeness to Hashem. That
sweet feeling that we can do something to be marbeh
kevod Shamayim; the greatest pleasure attainable is
enjoying the process of working together with
Hakadosh Baruch Hu, kaveyachol, to bring back that
beautiful utopia of Gan Eiden, which all of creation
will enjoy for eternity.
To enjoy kirvas Elokim and the process of
being marbeh kevod shamayim is a very high madreigah.
What can we do to facilitate reaching that level?
Shabbos is meiein olam haba (Berachos 57b).
Shabbos is a day where we use the pleasures of
delicious foods and menuchas Shabbos to raise our level
of simchah so that we can be mekabeil penei Shekhinah
and enjoy kirvas Elokim. The same way Neviim would
enjoy sweet music so that the Shekhinah could rest on
them, and the same way that Yitzchak Avinu enjoyed
his favorite food so that he could properly bless
Yaakov.
Shabbas is not the only opportunity for this.
We can add that enjoyment of kirvas Elokim to
everything we enjoy. Why be satisfied with just
enjoying a meal, when we can also enjoy a heartfelt
birkas hamazon with kirvas Elokim?
Another important component to attaining the
pleasure of kirvas Elokim is limmud haTorah. The Bach in
Hilkhos Talmud Torah tells us that when we learn
Torah the Shekhinah is brought down to us and we can
feel a greater closeness to Hashem. The Chofeitz

Page 2

Chaim discusses how limmud haTorah is the mazon

hanefesh, the sustenance for our neshamos. When
Torah fills our hearts we become closer to Hashem,
and we become more capable of enjoying ruchnius. A
heart filled with Torah will be able to enjoy a heartfelt
bentching much more easily than a heart deprived of its
mazon hanefesh of limmud haTorah.
Hopefully, through our simchah and kirvas Elokim we
will merit to build the utopia of the yemos haMashiach!
Long Lasting Implications

Eli Fink(17)

,
And He said: 'What hast thou done? The voice of thy
brother's blood cry to Me from the ground.(Genesis
4:10).

Rashi comments on this passuk that the word is

written in the plural form to teach us that Kayin didn't
just kill Hevel; he also killed all his descendants after
him. The mishnah in Sanhedrin daf 37a says that the beis
din needs to careful when judging cases of dinei nefashos
because not only is the life of the defendant on trial,
but also that of all his potential descendants. The same
mishnah teaches that anyone who kills one person is
considered to have killed the entire world, and anyone
who saves one person is considered to have sustained
the whole world.
Reb Chaim Brisker said that the reason Kayin
killed Hevel wasnt because Hashem rejected his
korban; rather it was because Hashem accepted Hevels
over his own.
There is a midrash in Pirkei DRebbi Eliezer
that says that besides for the chok by shaatnez where we
dont know the reason for the mitzvah, there is also a
mishpat aspect. He says that when Adam instructed his
children to give korbanos to Hashem, Hevel offered the
finest of his unshorn sheep while Kayin offered some
leftover flaxseed. This led to Kayin being jealous that
Hashem accepted the korban of his brother, and not
his, and he killed his brother. According to Pirkei
DRebbi Eliezer, is the mishpat aspect of why we cant
wear shaatnez.

Vol. 21 Issue #2

What the Torah is teaching us is that jealousy

could cause one to destroy the world. The Torah gives
an extreme case of someone killing their brother, but
it is not limited to that. The way we interact with
people whether its positive or negative could also
affect their whole day which could affect their whole
family. Ones actions and words are impactful and can
cause serious harm.
However, there is also the flipside described
in the mishnah: saving an entire world. Any time we
interact positively with someone else we have the
potential to put them in a good mood which could
translate to their whole family. Rabbi Frand says that
when you teach someone else Torah, you arent just
teaching them but you are also teaching thousands of
his descendants.
The Torah is teaching us that we have a
recurring choice to make many times in our lives while
interacting with people. We have a chance to impact
people either in a positive or negative way for
generations. What Kayin did was permanent, and so
too our actions can have lasting negative or positive
implications that we must be cognizant of.
Seraph Snakes: A Supernatural
Spokesperson

Noam Putterman(18)

F
, F F
Now the serpent was the shrewdest of all the wild beasts
that God had made. He said to the woman, Did God really
say: You shall not eat of any tree of the garden?
(Genesis 3:1)

At first glance, this verse seems rather trivial:

the introduction to the infamous story of the snakes
seduction of Chavah. The use of the root arum in two
consecutive verses would seem to be merely a stylistic
technique. Upon closer inspection, this whole episode
in fact poses some philosophical issues, which in turn
are dealt with by the Rishonim.
The Seforno writes quite a drashic peirush,
saying that the essence of the snake was the Satan-the
evil inclination. He continues, saying that things are

Page 3

named based on their characteristics: in Yermiyahu a

king is likened to a lion while enemy soldiers are
compared to vipers. Thus, the Seforno writes, the
passuk uses the snake as a metaphor in describing the
yeitzer haRa: a snakes devious nature and ability to
lurk in the shadows and cause great damage is parallel
to the abilities of the yeitzer haRa.
The Ibn Ezra raises difficulties with the
Sefornos understanding of the snake. If in fact, the
snake was the yeitzer haRa, then Hashems curse of the
snake would be rather strange: How then could the
Satan slide on its stomach and eat dust?,(Ibid.) cursing
the metaphysical Satan with physical handicaps!-? The
Ibn Ezra then suggests the opinion of Rav Saadya
Gaon, who says that only man has the ability of
knowledge and speech, so it must be (by the donkey
of Bilam as well) that a heavenly angel spoke for the
snake. This solves our difficulty with the Seforno, but
raises a plethora of questions. Why was the snake
cursed if it was not speaking, rather the angel?
Shouldnt the man have been tested by the snake if it
was he who was commanded (Genesis 2:17)? How
could a heavenly angel attempt make Chavah sin?
These questions are raised and subsequently
answered by the Radak. As a prelude to the Radaks
answer, it is important to note that most mephorashim
translate arum as cunning or sneaky, and not as a
stylistic repetition of a root previously used. With this
in mind, the Radak answers that Hashem knew that
the snake was in fact cunning, and coveted Chavah (see
the first Rashi in the perek, which says that because
Adam and Chavah were having relations the snake was
jealous and hatched his plan), so thus Hashem sent the
angel not only to test Chavah, but to accommodate
his jealousy. The Radak brings a proof from masechet
Shabbat 104a, ba litma potchin lo, literally, one who
comes to defile it, [the path] is opened before him.
Hashem was, in a sense, fulfilling the snakes plan
because Hashem knew that that was what the snake
desired. Thus, it makes sense that the snake was
punished his intentions were evil, and a punishment
was meted out. To answer our final question, the
Radak writes that the snake approached Chavah and
not Adam because he was under the impression that
Chavah would be easier to seduce. Thus, all our
questions are answered: the snake was punished based

Vol. 21 Issue #5

on his thoughts (this runs into a contradiction from

Kiddushin 39b of machashavah raah ein hakadosh barukh
hu mitzrapeh lemaaseh Hashem does not count
thinking about sinning as sinning itself), the angel was
an agent of Hashem to fulfill the snakes plot, and the
snake was simply looking for easy prey to feed on.
Avoiding these philosophical issues, the
Chizkuni writes that it must be that the snake had
eaten from the prohibited tree prior to speaking with
Chavah, and thus he was acting on his own accord.
Otherwise, how could the snake have been classified
as arum? (The Chizkuni understands arum to mean
sly). Thus, the snakes punishment was deserved based
on his own actions.
The converse statement of ba litma potchin lo
is ba litaheir mesayim oto: One who comes to purify is
assisted. With Hashems help, we should strive to
purify, not like the wretched snake who slyly fell
victim to jealousy and sought to defile, and hopefully
our actions as Ovdei Hashem who do not cause
embarrassment will lead to the building of the bayit
shelishi.
Whos on First: Determining the
First Mitzvah in the Torah

Tani Finkelstein(17)

At first glance, the question of what the first

mitzvah in the Torah is would seem to be a very simple
question. In just the first perek of Bereishis, Hashem
already commands Man with the task of peru urvu, be
fruitful and multiply(Genesis 1:28). However, it is
not so simple.
There is a very cryptic gemara in Horayos 8b,
which appears to address this question. It asks eizo hi
mitzvah shenemrah batechilah? and answers that the first
mitzvah was the issur of avodah zarah. As Rashi explains
there, the reason the gemara assumes this was the first
mitzvah, is because it is the first mitzvah in the Aseret
Hadibros at Har Sinai. The gemara then proceeds to
bring a challenge from the fact that Bnei Yisrael were
commanded with ten mitzvos in Marah, which was of
course before Matan Torah. Upon this challenge, the
gemara retracts from its original statement.

Page 2

There are a few major problems with this

gemara. Firstly, why would it even entertain the idea
that the first mitzvah was avodah zarah? They werent
oblivious of the mitzvos that were commanded before
Matan Torah! And if you thought that the gemara might
have just been referring to the first mitzvah given at
Sinai, the challenge of the gemara from pre Matan
Torah proves that wrong.
The second problem is equally baffling. Why
is the gemara asking a kashya from the ten mitzvos
commanded in Marah, if we all know that many other
mitzvos were commanded before Matan Torah as well?
There was peru urvu, milah, gid hanasheh, kiddush
hachodesh, korban Pesach, and many more. So why the
challenge specifically from Marah, which was later
then all of those mitzvot we just mentioned?
Tosafos here actually ask this very question.
What is strange, however, is the pre Matan Torah
mitzvos that he lists in his challenge. He asks: what
about milah, shefikhus damim, and gilui arayos? One can
assume that Tosafos do not think that those were the
only mitzvos given before Marah, but it is still odd why
he specifically asks from those three mitzvos.
Regardless of that, Tosafos answer is even more
confusing. He says that the gemara didnt bring a
challenge from those mitzvos because they were
commanded to the Benei Noach, as opposed to at
Marah, where only Bnei Yisrael were commanded
these mitzvos. There is a problem with Tosafos in
regards to our topic namely why he seems to blatantly
ignore the mitzvah of hachodesh hazeh lakhem(Exodus
12:2) in parashat Bo, as well as all of the other mitzvos
there. Those mitzvos were given to all of Kelal Yisrael
and were also before Marah, so Tosafos answer is
seemingly incorrect.
One could perhaps try to defend Tosafos
answer. Perhaps they are saying that Kelal Yisrael did
not really gain their nationhood and status as Bnei
Yisrael until after yetzias Mitzrayim, and before that,
they were still technically Benei Noach. That would
mean that they were still considered Benei Noach
when they were commanded in hachodesh hazeh
lakhem(Ibid.) and the other mitzvos in parshas Bo. In
Marah, however, they had already left Mitzrayim and
had become Bnei Yisrael, and that is why the gemara
only brings a challenge from there. The only problem

Vol. 21 Issue #2

with this explanation would be that if they were only

Benei Noach when commanded hachodesh hazeh
lakhem,(Ibid.) it should have been repeated at Sinai. It
is also implied by the first
Rashi in Chumash that they
had already become Yisrael,
and not just Benei Noach (see
R Chayim Paltiel, Bereishis
1:1).
The Beeir Sheva, an
early acharon, takes a different
approach to beautifully explain
the shakla vetaria of the gemara.
He points out that there is an
opinion in the gemara in
Sanhedrin 56b that the first
mitzvah given to Adam was
avodah zarah, and perhaps that
is what the gemara in Horayos
is referring to when it assumes
that avodah zarah is the first
mitzvah. Then, explains the
Beeir Sheva, the gemara brings a kashya from Marah,
because at Marah, the mitzvah not to worship avodah
zarah was repeated. Why was the issur of avodah zarah
commanded again at Marah? Hashem did not recommand the mitzvos of milah or gid hanasheh. The
repetition of avodah zarah then, explains the Beeir
Sheva, revealed that Adam had not accepted that
mitzvah on behalf of Kelal Yisrael, as Avraham did by
milah. That is why the gemara specifically brought a
kashya from Marah.
I would just point out that that peshat would
appear to be difficult to reconcile with the famous
comment of Rambam in Peirush HaMishnayos in
Chullin (7:6), where he writes that we keep all of the
mitzvos we have now because we were commanded at
Har Sinai through Moshe, and NOT because of any
commandment before that time. For the example,
Rambam explains, we dont keep the mitzvah of milah
because Avraham was commanded to, but rather
because we were commanded at Sinai to do as was
done by Avraham. That doesnt really sound like
Avraham accepted it on behalf of Kelal Yisrael, as the
Beeir Sheva had suggested.