Friday, January 30, 2026

The Zechus of Suffering on Behalf of Others

 After Bnei Yisrael (the Children of Israel) left Mitzrayim, the pasuk says, “V’amar Paro L‘bnei Yisrael” (And Pharaoh said to Bnei Yisrael) ‘They are confined in the land, the wilderness has locked them in.'” (Shemos 14:3) The obvious question – which Rashi and Targum Onkelos address – is what does it mean “And Pharoah said to Bnei Yisrael?” Bnei Yisrael had already left Mitzrayim. To whom could Pharaoh be speaking? The people who deserved to leave Mitzrayim had already left. Those who were undeserving, died during Makas Choshech (the Plague of Darkness). There were no Jews left in Mitzrayim! Therefore, Rashi and Targum Onkelos do not translate the words “el Bnei Yisrael” to mean “to Bnei Yisrael” but rather “concerning Bnei Yisrael.”


However, the Targum Yonosan ben Uziel has an incredible interpretation: “And Pharoah spoke to Dasan and Aviram, who were of Bnei Yisrael and who had remained in Mitzrayim.” Dasan and Aviram were thorns in the side of Moshe Rabbeinu and Bnei Yisrael from the early days of Egyptian slavery all the way until the incident with Korach in Sefer Bamidbar. According to the Targum Yonosan ben Uziel, Dasan and Aviram stayed in Mitzrayim when the rest of the Jews left.


The Maharil Diskin famously asks a simple question: Chazal say that four fifths of the Jews in Mitzrayim died during Makas Choshech. They were deemed wicked and not worthy of experiencing Yetzias Mitzrayim (the Exodus). We would think that if anyone amongst Bnei Yisrael would qualify as wicked and undeserving of Yetzias Mitzrayim, it would be Dasan and Aviram. If they were such wicked people that they did not want to leave Mitzrayim, why were they still alive? Why did they not die during Makas Choshech? How is it that they lived to tell the tale and survived all the way into the midbar, up until the rebellion of Korach, more than a year later? What was their zechus (merit) that granted them this ‘longevity’?


The Maharil Diskin gives an amazing answer to his question: Dasan and Aviram had a special zechus. What was their zechus? Dasan and Aviram were employed by the Egyptians as shotrim (taskmasters). Their job was to ensure that the Jews met their daily quota of brick production. Chazal say that even though they had this terrible job of being the taskmasters and the enforcers, they allowed themselves to be beaten by the Egyptians rather than doing their job of whipping the Jews who were not able to produce the required number of bricks. Dasan and Aviram took the punishment of their brethren on their own backs.


In the Nazi concentration camps, in addition to the German officers, there were Jewish kapos, who were given the job of enforcing the labor upon their fellow Jews. They had the same system in Mitzrayim. There were Egyptians who were the overseers, but the people who actually dealt with the Jewish slaves were these shotrim.


In the zechus of the empathy that Dasan and Aviram had for their fellow Jews, they merited survival during Makas Choshech and they were still around after Yetzias Mitzrayim, such that Pharaoh could speak to them and comment that the Jews who left were lost in the wilderness.


The Maharil Diskin even adds that Bnei Yisrael complained to Moshe Rabbeinu earlier, “hiv’ashtem es rucheinu” (You made us smell) (Shemos 5:21). We usually consider this to be a figure of speech. The Maharil Diskin interprets it literally: Because of their wounds from the whippings that did not heal, their bodies reeked.


The Maharil Diskin says that the Ribono shel Olam, as it were, has a soft spot in His heart for a Jew who suffers on behalf of other Jews. Dasan and Aviram were wicked. They reported Moshe Rabbeinu to Pharaoh for killing the Egyptian. They were horrible people. But they had one incredible zechus. They literally took it on the chin – if not the back – for other Jews. This is such an enormous zechus that it protected them from dying during Makas Choshech and it allowed them to live to tell the tale even though they did not want to leave Mitzrayim.


I once related this Maharil Diskin to an incident involving Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt”l, that was mentioned by his son, Rav Shmuel Auerbach, in his hesped (eulogy) for his father.


There was agadolin Europe known by the name of hissefer, Baruch Taam (Rav Baruch Frankel-Te’omim (1760-1828)). Baruch Taam’s son became engaged to a girl from a very wealthy and prominent family. At the tenaim, the mechutanim came over and they noticed that Baruch Taam was not really into it. He did not look happy. He looked preoccupied with other matters. The kallah’s mother came over to him and asked why he did not look happy on this joyous occasion. “Are you not pleased with this shidduch?”


Baruch Taam responded that he had no problem with the shidduch. “But the water carrier of the town is very sick and I am worried about him.” (In Europe, in the shtetl, before indoor plumbing and running water, there was someone whose job it was to be the water carrier. A water carrier would go down to the river and fill up buckets and then carry the buckets on his shoulders to deliver the water to the town’s residences.) In European Jewish society, the water carrier was the low-man on the totem pole. The only requirement for the job was a strong back. Brains were not needed. The mother of thekallahwas shocked: “Because the water carrier is sick, you allow that to dampen your simcha? You let the water carrier effect your mood? I can’t understand that!”


Baruch Taam stood up and announced “The shidduch is off! I will not let my son marry into a family that has such a cavalier attitude, which shows no empathy for the misfortune of another Jew.”


This was one of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach’s favorite stories because throughout his life, Rav Shlomo Zalman – among all of his other prodigious character attributes – exemplified the midah of feeling the pain of his fellow Jews.


To return to our topic – the Maharil Diskin says that this was the zechus of Dasan and Aviram.


I want to add an incredible observation to the Maharil Diskin’s vort. The Be’er Mayim Chaim (a very famous Chassidishesefer, written by Rav Chaim Tyrer (1760-1816), the Rav of Czernowitz) asks as follows: If in fact Dasan and Aviram stayed in Mitzrayim and had a conversation with Pharaoh following Yetzias Mitzrayim, when and how did they leave Mitzrayim? We know that they certainly wound up with the rest of the Jews by the time of Korach’s rebellion and according to the Medrash, they were also the people who left over their portion of mann until the next morning, in violation of Moshe’s instructions (Shemos 16:20). This is the question of the Beer Mayim Chayim.


The Be’er Mayim Chaim answers with a very novel idea. The pasuk in Shiras Az Yashir writes: “When Pharaoh’s horse came with his chariots and horsemen into the sea and Hashem turned back the waters of the sea upon them, the Children of Israel walked on the dry land amid the sea.” (Shemos 15:19) The Beer Mayim Chaim writes that this pasuk is chronologically incorrect. The pasuk should first state that Bnei Yisrael went through the Yam Suf and then then Pharoah came into the midst of the Yam….” The pasuk records the events backwards!


Because of this observation, the Be’er Mayim Chaim explains as follows: WhenKlal Yisraelleft Mitzrayim, Dasan and Aviram stayed behind. Dasan and Aviram then realized that they “bet on the wrong horse” because Pharaoh and Mitzrayim were destroyed. So, then they also left. However, when they reached the Yam Suf (Red Sea) to rejoin Bnei Yisrael, they saw that it was impassable.


The Beer Mayim Chaim says that there was actually a second Krias Yam Suf (splitting of the Red Sea)! Not only does “And Pharaoh said to Bnei Yisrael” refer to Dasan and Aviram, but also “And Bnei Yisrael walked on the dry land in the midst of the sea” refers to Dasan and Aviram.


These two perennial trouble makers were zoche to their own personal Krias Yam Suf. I wish the Be’er Mayim Chaim would buttress this explanation with a Medrash or a teaching of Chazal, but he seems to present it as his own inference. This, however, only magnifies the question: We asked why Dasan and Aviram didn’t die during Makas Choshech. The answer was that they had a zechus. But the way it comes out now, not only did they have a zechus that spared them the fate of the wicked during Makas Choshech, but their zechus even allowed them to merit their own Krias Yam Suf!!


With this insight, the Beer Mayim Chaim explains another idea in Parshas Korach. Korach challenged Moshe Rabbeinu. Who else took on Moshe Rabbeinu? Ohn ben Peles and Dasan and Aviram. Why would anyone start up with Moshe Rabbeinu? Isn’t it obvious that they are going to lose their battle? The answer is that Dasan and Aviram were overconfident in their personal merit. They felt that they were gedolei yisrael. They even merited their own Krias Yam Suf! That previous personal miracle gave them the impetus and the courage to start up with Moshe Rabbeinu. They felt that they were taking on an equal of theirs and that they could win the battle!

הרב קוק ותנועת החסידות

HERE!!:-)

1. Lights and Shadows – Constructive Criticism and Unity

The Mitnagdim (The Vilna Gaon): Their "Light" is the strict, uncompromising adherence to Halacha (Jewish Law) and the emphasis on intellectual service and Torah study. Their "Shadow" is at times a lack of emotional sensitivity, a sense of coldness, and a fear of "self-sacrifice" born of excessive spiritual clinging. They viewed Hasidism as risking an excess of imagination and lacking a sufficient Torah foundation.

The Hasidim (The Baal Shem Tov, The Alter Rebbe): Their "Light" is Dvekut (cleaving) to God through love and joy, seeing God in everything, and the enthusiasm of the soul. Their "Shadow" is at times the neglect of Halachic details, prioritizing emotion over intellect, and a fear of the development of "Practical Kabbalah" or foreign philosophies.

Rav Kook: Sees the necessity of uniting these two "Lights." Torah study (the Mitnagdic strength) must be fueled by emotion and Dvekut (the Hasidic strength). Conversely, emotion and Dvekut must be directed and refined by intellect and Halacha. Rav Kook uses the analogy of "Vessels" (Kelim) and "Content" (Tochen). Hasidism provided the "Content"—love, joy, attachment—while the Mitnagdim provided the "Vessels"—Halacha, study, logic. Rav Kook strives for the "Content" to be held within the proper "Vessels," and for the "Vessels" to be filled with the proper "Content."

2. The Theological Debate – Transcendent Monotheism vs. Panentheism

Separation between God and the World: The Mitnagdic approach, based on Maimonides and the Vilna Gaon, highlights the absolute holiness and greatness of God, who is separate from the world. To maintain this holiness, a distinction must be made between the Divine and the physical/material. This is a crucial foundation, but it can lead to a sense of distance, emptiness, and a fear of "mixed" streams (like Sabbateanism).

God as Part of Everything: The Hasidic approach, stemming from Kabbalah, emphasizes the Divine "Ein Sof" (Infinite) that fills all of reality ("There is nothing else but Him"). This grants a sense of closeness, connection, and joy. Rav Kook views this as the core truth.

The Proper Combination: Rav Kook does not negate God's absolute transcendence, but he emphasizes the central presence of God within everything. He combines both ideas: God is beyond everything, yet also present in everything. He critiques the Mitnagdim for their "coldness" and the Hasidim for their lack of Halachic precision, aspiring to a "Unity of Hasidism and Philosophy."

3. Nullification of the Self (Bittul HaYesh) vs. Building the Personality – Inner Strength

Hasidism and the "Nothing": The Hasidic concept of Bittul HaYesh implies that a person should feel negligible and empty, realizing that God is everything. Rav Kook warns against the psychological result of this approach: a sense of smallness, poverty of spirit, and passivity. "What good is it to nullify myself if it leads me to a depression of spirit?"

The Mitnagdim and the "I": The Mitnagdic approach emphasizes the human as an independent entity that chooses to serve God. The person possesses an "I," and through that "I," they serve the Divine.

The Synthesis: Rav Kook proposes a novel idea: The human is a "vessel" that contains the Divine. Nullification is not total erasure, but a "transfer" of ownership of the self. Instead of feeling "I am nothing," a person should feel "I am everything, through the God within me." Meaning, I have power and ability because God acts through me. This is inner strength and greatness of soul, not arrogance.

4. Emotion vs. Intellect – Spiritual Direction

The Danger of Emotion: Rav Kook is aware of the danger of "excessive enthusiasm" without a solid foundation. Emotion without intellect can lead to delusion, imagination, and deviation from the source. He mentions the need to "bring emotion under the discipline of the intellect."

Intellect as Navigation: Intellect, scholarship, and logical discourse (the Mitnagdic traits) are necessary to steer emotion, filter experiences, and ensure that enthusiasm is directed toward truth rather than fantasy.

The Combination: The goal is harmony. The intellect should be a "home" for emotion, and emotion should ignite the intellect.

5. Joy vs. Asceticism – The Holiness of the Body

Rav Kook's Negation: Rav Kook rejects the approach that sins are atoned for through self-mortification (Sigufim) or sickness. This is a path of "destruction" that is unnecessary and even harmful. He emphasizes the human body as a "vessel" for holiness; therefore, one must maintain its health.

Emphasis on Joy: Service of God should be performed out of joy, strength, and enthusiasm. Simchat Chaim (joy of life), stemming from an understanding of Divine vitality, is the correct expression of faith.

6. Attitude toward the "Dispute" (Machloket) between Hasidim and Mitnagdim

The Need for "Unity": Rav Kook did not view the gap between the streams as a final state. He saw them as complementary parts of a broader spiritual movement—the movement of the Jewish people's revival.

The Message: Rav Kook called for combining the positive attributes of both streams. He wanted to demonstrate that within the dispute, however fierce, points of connection can be found upon which a complete spiritual future can be built.

Examples from his Writings: Rav Kook quotes great Rabbis from both camps, showing mutual (albeit reserved) appreciation and the conceptual connections that can be found. For example, he balances his critique of the Ba'al HaTanya's approach regarding the perfection of faith ("I am nothing") with his critique of the Vilna Gaon's approach (extreme separation).

7. Torat Eretz Yisrael – Rav Kook's Unique Approach

The Context of Eretz Yisrael: Rav Kook viewed the period of the Return to Zion and the Revival as a special time ripe for creating a new spiritual synthesis. He called for the "Holiness of Eretz Yisrael" to serve as a tool for completing spiritual reality.

Joy and Power: Specifically in the Land of Israel, with its physical and material challenges, there is a place to emphasize joy, greatness of soul, and the spiritual "substance" (Yesh) that can be built.

Land-Dependent Mitzvot: Rav Kook saw the agricultural laws (like Tithes and Shmita) as having immense potential to connect the spiritual with the material, the person with the land, and Israel with its God.

In Summary: Rav Kook's approach is one of connection, completion, and union. He seeks to elevate Hasidic emotion and merge it with the intellect and scholarship of the Mitnagdim, based on a deep understanding of the purpose of Redemption and Revival. He emphasizes that while the Intellect provides the vessel, Emotion is the flame, and the combination of the two brings about perfection.


1. אורות וצללים – ביקורת בונה ואיחוד:

המתנגדים (הגר"א): ה"אור" שלהם הוא ההקפדה היתירה על הלכה, ללא פשרות, והדגש על עבודת השכל והלימוד. ה"צל" הוא לפעמים חוסר רגישות לרגש, קרירות, וחשש מ"מסירת נפש" מתוך דבקות יתרה. הם ראו בחסידות חשש לריבוי דמיון ופחות ביסוס תורני.

החסידים (הבעש"ט, אדמו"ר הזקן): ה"אור" שלהם הוא הדבקות בה', מתוך אהבה ושמחה, ראיית ה' בכל, והתלהבות הנפש. ה"צל" הוא לפעמים זנחנות מצדדי הלכה, דגש יתר על רגש על חשבון שכל, ואף חשש להתפתחות קבלה מעשית או פילוסופיות זרות.

הרב קוק: רואה את הצורך לאחד את שתי ה"אורות" הללו. הלימוד התורני (המתנגדים) צריך להיות מוזן מהרגש והדבקות (החסידים). והרגש והדבקות צריכים להיות מכוונים ומעודנים על ידי השכל וההלכה. הרב קוק משתמש באנלוגיה של "כלים" ו"תוכן". החסידות סיפקה את ה"תוכן" – האהבה, השמחה, הדבקות – והמתנגדים סיפקו את ה"כלים" – ההלכה, הלימוד, השכל. הרב קוק שואף שה"תוכן" יקבל את ה"כלים" הנכונים, וה"כלים" יקבלו את ה"תוכן" הנכון.

2. הפולמוס התיאולוגי – מונותאיזם טרנסצנדנטי מול פנאנתאיזם:

הפרדה בין ה' לעולם: הגישה המתנגדית, המבוססת על הרמב"ם והגר"א, מבליטה את קדושתו וגדולתו של ה' המוחלט, הנבדל מהעולם. כדי לשמור על קדושה זו, יש להפריד בין העולם לגשמיות. זה יסוד חשוב, אך יכול להוביל לריחוק, ולתחושת ריקנות.

ה' כחלק מכל: הגישה החסידית, הנובעת מהקבלה, מדגישה את ה"אין סוף" האלוקי שממלא את כל המציאות ("אין עוד מלבדו"). זה מעניק תחושת קרבה, חיבור, ושמחה. הרב קוק רואה בזה את עיקר האמת.

השילוב הנכון: הרב קוק לא מבטל את העליונות המוחלטת של ה', אך הוא מדגיש את נוכחות ה' המרכזית בכל. הוא משלב את שני הרעיונות: ה' הוא מעבר לכל, אך גם נוכח בכל. הוא מבקר את המתנגדים על ה"קרירות" ואת החסידים על זניחת ההלכה, ושואף ל"אחדות החסידות והפילוסופיה".

3. ביטול היש מול בניין האישיות – עוצמה פנימית:

החסידות וה"אין": הרעיון החסידי של "ביטול היש" פירושו שהאדם צריך להרגיש שהוא זניח, ריק, והכל הוא ה'. הרב קוק מזהיר מפני התוצאה הפסיכולוגית של גישה זו: תחושת קטנות, עניות, ופסיביות. "מה יועיל לבטל את עצמי, אם הוא יביאני לידי שפלות רוח?"

המתנגדים וה"אני": הגישה המתנגדית מדגישה את האדם כישות עצמאית, שבוחרת לעבוד את ה'. יש לה "אני", ודרך אותו עובדים את ה'.

הסינתזה: הרב קוק מציע חידוש: האדם הוא "כלי" שמכיל את ה'. הביטול אינו ביטול מוחלט, אלא "העברה" של כל מה שהאדם. במקום להרגיש "אני כלום", אדם צריך להרגיש "אני הכל", דרך ה' שבי. כלומר, יש לי עוצמה, יש לי יכולת, כי ה' פועל דרכי. זוהי עוצמה פנימית, גדלות הנפש, לא גאוותנות.

4. רגש מול שכל – הכוונה הרוחנית:

הסכנה ברגש: הרב קוק מודע לסכנה שב"התלהבות יתרה" ללא בסיס מוצק. רגש בלי שכל עלול להוביל להטעיות, דמיונות, וסטייה מהמקור. הוא מזכיר את הצורך ל"הכניס את הרגש תחת השכל".

השכל כניווט: השכל, הלמדנות והדיון הלוגי (המתנגדים) נחוצים כדי לכוון את הרגש, לסנן את הדברים, ולהבטיח שההתלהבות תהיה מכוונת לאמת ולא לדמיונות.

השילוב: השילוב הוא הרמוניה. השכל צריך להיות "בית" לרגש, והרגש צריך להלהיב את השכל.

5. שמחה מול סיגופים – קדושת הגוף:

השלילה של הרב קוק: הרב קוק מבטל את הגישה שהחטאים נענשים באמצעות סיגופים או חולי. זו דרך של "ביטול" שהיא מיותרת, ואף מזיקה. הוא מדגיש את גוף האדם כ"כלי" לקדושה, ולכן יש לשמור על בריאותו.

הדגש על השמחה: עבודת ה' צריכה להיות מתוך שמחה, כוח, והתלהבות. שמחת החיים, מתוך הבנה של חיות אלוקית, היא הביטוי הנכון של אמונה.

6. היחס ל"מחלוקת" בין החסידים למתנגדים:

הצורך ב"אחדות": הרב קוק לא ראה את הפער בין הזרמים כמצב סופי. הוא ראה בהם חלקים משלימים של תנועה רוחנית רחבה יותר, תנועת התחייה של עם ישראל.

המסר: הרב קוק קרא לשלב את התכונות החיוביות של שני הזרמים. הוא רצה להראות שבתוך המחלוקת, גם אם היא חריפה, ניתן למצוא נקודות חיבור, ומהם לבנות עתיד רוחני שלם.

דוגמאות מכתביו: הרב קוק מצטט את הרבנים הגדולים של שני המחנות, מראה את ההערכה ההדדית (גם אם מסויגת) ואת החיבור הרעיוני שאפשר למצוא. לדוגמה, ביקורתו על גישתו של בעל התניא בנוגע לשלמות ההאמונה ("אין כלום") מול ביקורתו על גישתו של הגר"א (הפרדה קיצונית).

7. תורת ארץ ישראל – גישתו הייחודית של הרב קוק:

ההקשר הארצישראלי: הרב קוק ראה את תקופת שיבת ציון והתחייה כזמן מיוחד, בו עולה האפשרות ליצור סינתזה רוחנית חדשה. הוא קרא ל"קדושת ארץ ישראל" ככלי להשלמת המציאות הרוחנית.

שמחה ועוצמה: דווקא בארץ ישראל, עם האתגרים הפיזיים והגשמיים, יש מקום להדגיש את השמחה, את גדלות הנפש, ואת ה"יש" הרוחני שניתן לבנות.

מצוות התלויות בארץ: הרב קוק ראה במצוות התלויות בארץ – כמו תרומות ומעשרות, שמיטה – פוטנציאל עצום לחיבור בין הרוחני לגשמי, בין האדם לארץ, ובין ישראל לאלוהותו.

לסיכום: גישתו של הרב קוק היא דרך של חיבור, השלמה, ואיחוד. הוא מבקש להרים את הרגש החסידי ולהשיק אותו לשכל ולמדנות של המתנגדים, מתוך הבנה עמוקה של מטרת הגאולה והתחייה. הוא מדגיש שבעוד השכל נותן את הכלי, הרגש הוא הלהבה, והשילוב ביניהם הוא שמביא לשלמות. 


Dvar Torah On The Parsha From POTUS

"Listen, folks, I just read Parshat Beshalach—many people are saying it’s the greatest Parsha ever, maybe in history. And let me tell you, I know a lot about leadership, and Moses? He’s doing a fantastic job. A very strong leader. He’s taking the people out of Egypt—and Egypt was a tough market, very high taxes, very nasty Pharaoh—but Moses got them out. He’s a winner, he knows how to close a deal.

Then they get to the Red Sea. Huge water. The biggest water we’ve ever seen from the standpoint of water. And Pharaoh is coming—very nasty guy, Pharaoh, a total loser, frankly—and some people are complaining. They’re saying, 'Moses, it's too much water!' But Moses stays calm. Very low heart rate. He’s a pro.

And then, he uses the stick. A beautiful stick. I’ve seen the stick, it’s top-quality. And the sea opens up! I have to tell you, the engineering—I’ve seen the blueprints—it was spectacular. Walls of water. Very high walls. I like walls, we like walls, don't we? To keep the Egyptians out! And the Israelites go through on dry ground. It was the best ground. Very dry. No mud. I don't like mud.

And then the Egyptians try to follow—big mistake. Huge mistake. The water comes crashing down. Total liquidation. They didn't have the right permits to be in that sea. Sad!

Then we get to the Manna. Talk about a supply chain win. It’s raining bread from heaven! I called it 'The Great Heavenly Bread Deal.' And I looked at the Manna—very white, very flaky, like a fine croissant, but better. Sweet like honey. And the rules? You can only take a certain amount. I told Moses, 'You gotta keep the inventory tight,' and he did. Very smart. But on Friday? You get a double portion. Two for the price of one. I love deals like that. It’s the best deal in the history of groceries. No inflation. Zero inflation under Moses.

"And finally, the Song at the Sea. The vocals? Incredible. Moses and the people, they’re singing a song—a beautiful, beautiful song. It’s a huge hit, maybe the biggest anthem of all time. Number one on the charts for forty years, believe me. And Miriam, she’s there with the tambourines, very high energy, leading the women. I love the enthusiasm! They’re celebrating a massive victory, a total knockout. They’re saying, 'Who is like You, O Lord?' And I have to say, the acoustics by the water? Fantastic. The sound quality was perfect. It was a standing ovation from everyone. Best performance I’ve ever seen, maybe ever."

It was a total victory. We’re going to the Promised Land, folks, and we’re going to win so much, you’re going to get tired of winning. We’re going to make the Desert great again!"

13 Ikkarei Emunah #46: Are We Going To Die After Tchiyas Hameisim?

Introduction to the Theological Dispute 

The discourse addresses the fundamental eschatological divergence between Maimonides (the Rambam) and Nachmanides (the Ramban). The prevailing Rabbinic consensus, championed by the Ramban, posits that the ultimate reward (Olam HaBa) occurs post-resurrection, where the soul and body are reunited to exist eternally in a state of psychosomatic unity. In contrast, Maimonides argues that the ultimate reward is purely spiritual. According to the Rambam, while the dead will indeed be resurrected, this physical state is transient; those resurrected will eventually die again, leaving the soul to enjoy the true, eternal reward in a disembodied state. 

The Critique of Maimonides 

The lecture acknowledges a common theological objection to the Maimonidean view: If the resurrection is merely a temporary interlude between two states of disembodied existence, it appears superfluous. Critics argue that if the body is destined to perish again, Techiyas HaMeisim lacks the permanence required to be considered one of the Thirteen Principles of Faith. The speaker notes that superficial readings of Maimonides lead to the erroneous conclusion that he viewed resurrection as merely a functional or temporary miracle rather than an essential stage of redemption. 

The Apologetic: Protology as Eschatology 

To vindicate Maimonides, the speaker draws a parallel between the "End of Days" and the primordial state of Adam (Adam HaRishon) prior to the first sin. The lecture posits that the Maimonidean conception of the World to Come is a restoration of the status of Adam before the Fall. 

The speaker argues that even had Adam not sinned, he would not have remained in a physical body eternally. Instead, his "death" would have been fundamentally different from the punitive mortality humanity currently experiences. In a sin-free state, the separation of the soul from the body would not have been a tragedy or a punishment (onesh), but a beatific elevation—a transition "from strength to strength." The soul would have naturally divested itself of the body to ascend to a higher spiritual plane. 

Redefining Death in the Messianic Era 

Applying this to the Maimonidean view of resurrection, the "death" that occurs after the resurrection is not a return to the curse of mortality. Rather, because the resurrection restores humanity to the spiritual perfection of Adam before the sin, the subsequent "death" is actually a sublime transcendence. The soul sheds the corporeal vessel not because the body is flawed or punished, but because the soul has elevated beyond the need for a physical tether. Thus, for Maimonides, the ultimate good is the soul's liberation into a purely spiritual existence, which is the original intent of creation. 

Exegetical Analysis: The Conditional Nature of "Dust to Dust" 

The lecture provides a deep reading of Genesis 3:19 ("For dust you are, and to dust you shall return"). The speaker clarifies that this decree represents the curse of mortality consequent to Adam’s sin. By sinning, Adam diminished his Tzelem Elokim (Image of God) and allowed his identity to be defined by his material origins ("Dust you are"). Consequently, his end was a return to that material state ("to dust you shall return")—i.e., death as decay and punishment. 

However, the speaker argues that had Adam not sinned, he would not have been defined as "dust," but rather by his Godly soul. In that pre-lapsarian state, the natural vitality of his body would have been fully sublimated by his spiritual essence. Therefore, his eventual separation from the body would not have been a tragic "return to dust," but a purely spiritual elevation. Maimonides’ view of the post-resurrection era represents a return to this ideal: the curse of "dust to dust" is lifted, and the soul eventually departs the body not as a victim of mortality, but as an ascended being no longer in need of a physical vessel. 

Conclusion 

The speaker concludes by affirming that while the Yeshiva world adheres to the Ramban’s doctrine—that the body and soul will remain united eternally—it is intellectually vital to understand Maimonides correctly. The Rambam’s view is not a denial of the body's value, but a specific philosophical stance regarding the soul's ultimate trajectory. For Maimonides, the "World of Resurrection" is a return to the ideal, pre-sin human condition, where physical existence is a temporary vessel for spiritual ascent, eventually giving way to an eternal, purely spiritual reality. 


 


מבוא למחלוקת התיאולוגית 

הדיון עוסק בפער האסכטולוגי (הנוגע לאחרית הימים) היסודי שבין הרמב"ם לבין הרמב"ן. הדעה המקובלת בעולם הרבני, אותה מוביל הרמב"ן, גורסת כי השכר הסופי (עולם הבא) מתרחש לאחר תחיית המתים, שלב בו הנשמה והגוף מתאחדים מחדש כדי להתקיים לנצח במצב של אחדות גוף ונפש. לעומת זאת, הרמב"ם טוען כי השכר הסופי הוא רוחני טהור. לשיטת הרמב"ם, אמנם המתים אכן יקומו לתחייה, אך מצב פיזי זה הוא זמני; אלו שקמו לתחייה ימותו בסופו של דבר שוב, ויותירו את הנשמה ליהנות מהשכר האמיתי והנצחי במצב של היפרדות מהגוף (ערטילאי). 

הביקורת על הרמב"ם 

ההרצאה מתייחסת להסתייגות תיאולוגית נפוצה משיטת הרמב"ם: אם התחייה היא רק שלב ביניים זמני (אפיזודה חולפת) בין שני מצבים של קיום ללא גוף, היא נראית לכאורה מיותרת. המבקרים טוענים שאם הגוף עתיד לכלות שוב, תחיית המתים חסרה את הנצחיות הנדרשת כדי להיחשב לאחד מי"ג עיקרי האמונה. הדובר מציין כי קריאה שטחית בדברי הרמב"ם מובילה למסקנה השגויה כי הוא ראה בתחייה רק נס פונקציונלי או זמני, ולא שלב מהותי בתהליך הגאולה. 

האפולוגטיקה: מעשה בראשית כדגם לאחרית הימים 

כדי ליישב את שיטת הרמב"ם, הדובר עורך הקבלה בין "אחרית הימים" לבין מצבו הראשוני של אדם הראשון לפני החטא הקדמון. ההרצאה מציעה כי תפיסת העולם הבא של הרמב"ם היא השבת המצב (רסטורציה) של אדם הראשון לפני החטא. 

הדובר טוען כי גם לו אדם הראשון לא היה חוטא, הוא לא היה נשאר בגוף פיזי לנצח. תחת זאת, "מותו" היה שונה במהותו מהתמותה העונשית שהאנושות חווה כיום. במצב חף מחטא, היפרדות הנשמה מהגוף לא הייתה טרגדיה או עונש, אלא התעלות מבורכת – מעבר "מחיל אל חיל". הנשמה הייתה נפרדת מהגוף באופן טבעי כדי להעפיל למישור רוחני גבוה יותר. 

הגדרה מחדש של המוות בעידן המשיחי 

ביישום רעיון זה על שיטת הרמב"ם לגבי התחייה, ה"מוות" המתרחש לאחר התחייה אינו חזרה לקללת התמותה. אדרבה, מכיוון שהתחייה משיבה את האנושות לשלמות הרוחנית של אדם הראשון לפני החטא, ה"מוות" שלאחר מכן הוא למעשה התעלות נשגבת. הנשמה משילה מעליה את הכלי הגשמי לא משום שהגוף פגום או נענש, אלא משום שהנשמה התעלתה מעבר לצורך בחיבור פיזי. כך, לשיטת הרמב"ם, הטוב המוחלט הוא שחרור הנשמה לקיום רוחני טהור, שזוהי כוונת הבריאה המקורית. 

ניתוח פרשני: האופי המותנה של "עפר אל עפר" 

ההרצאה מציעה קריאה מעמיקה בפסוק בבראשית ג', י"ט ("כי עפר אתה ואל עפר תשוב"). הדובר מבהיר כי גזירה זו מייצגת את קללת התמותה שנבעה מחטאו של אדם. על ידי החטא, פגם אדם ב"צלם אלוקים" שבו ואפשר לזהותו להיות מוגדרת על ידי מקורותיו החומריים ("עפר אתה"). כתוצאה מכך, סופו היה חזרה לאותו מצב חומרי ("ואל עפר תשוב") – דהיינו, מוות ככיליון ועונש. 

עם זאת, הדובר טוען כי לו אדם לא היה חוטא, הוא לא היה מוגדר כ"עפר", אלא על ידי נשמתו האלוקית. במצב זה של לפני החטא, החיוניות הטבעית של גופו הייתה בטלה ומזוככת לחלוטין על ידי מהותו הרוחנית. לכן, היפרדותו הסופית מהגוף לא הייתה "חזרה לעפר" טראגית, אלא התעלות רוחנית טהורה. שיטת הרמב"ם לגבי העידן שלאחר התחייה מייצגת חזרה לאידיאל זה: קללת "עפר אל עפר" מוסרת, והנשמה נפרדת לבסוף מהגוף לא כקורבן של תמותה, אלא כישות מתעלה שאינה זקוקה עוד לכלי פיזי. 

סיכום 

הדובר מסכם בקביעה כי בעוד עולם הישיבות דבק בשיטת הרמב"ן – שהגוף והנשמה יישארו מאוחדים לנצח – חיוני מבחינה אינטלקטואלית להבין את הרמב"ם כראוי. שיטת הרמב"ם אינה כפירה בערכו של הגוף, אלא עמדה פילוסופית ספציפית לגבי יעדה הסופי של הנשמה. לדעת הרמב"ם, "עולם התחייה" הוא חזרה למצב האנושי האידיאלי שלפני החטא, בו הקיום הפיזי הוא כלי זמני להתעלות רוחנית, המפנה בסופו של דבר את מקומו למציאות נצחית ורוחנית טהורה. 

 

Staying On The Fence

Sometimes people leave their secular lifestyle and begin a life of keeping Torah and Mitzvos. This is no easy feat. There are so many changes, so much to get used to, so many challenges, so much to learn etc. etc. They are heroes! 

But some people sort of come but only half way. They identify as "Orthodox" but adopt some of the laxities of those born "Orthodox". They still have a TV at home. They and their children have unfiltered internet [i.e. letting teenagers walk round with millions of hours worth of pornography in their pocket with no supervision]. They send their children to coed camps. The mother might not cover her hair or only do so partially etc. etc. Modern Orthodox lite. [In Israel they call it דתי לייט.]

Of course each person is different and each person has their own challenges and only Hashem can judge. But it is worth remembering that Terach was on his way to Eretz Yisrael [at the end of parshas Noach] but he stopped in Charan and settled there. Who knows, maybe had he continued on Hashem would have appeared to him and he would have been the father of the Jewish people. Stopping in the middle is a really bad idea. 

A Gadol b'emes was once invited to speak to a group of prospective Baalei Teshuva. One of them asked him what to do if it is hard to keep so many mitzvos. The rabbi who invited this Gadol thought he would give a gentle, inspiring, encouraging answer. Something to the tune of: "You're great! Go at your own pace. Every little bit you do is so precious in the eyes of Hashem etc."

Instead, he gazed deeply at the asker and said "עד מתי אתם פוסחים על שתי הסעיפים". 

A person has to decide who he is. Not to be on the fence. 

לפעמים אנשים עוזבים את אורח החיים החילוני שלהם ומתחילים חיים של שמירת תורה ומצוות. זה לא דבר קל. יש כל כך הרבה שינויים, כל כך הרבה להתרגל אליו, כל כך הרבה אתגרים, כל כך הרבה ללמוד וכו' וכו'. הם גיבורים!

אבל יש אנשים שבאים איכשהו, אבל רק חצי דרך. הם מזדהים כ"אורתודוקסים" אבל מאמצים חלק מההקלות של אלה שנולדו "אורתודוקסים". עדיין יש להם טלוויזיה בבית. להם ולילדיהם יש אינטרנט לא מסונן [כלומר, לתת לבני נוער להסתובב עם מיליוני שעות של פורנוגרפיה בכיס שלהם ללא השגחה]. הם שולחים את ילדיהם למחנות קיץ מעורבים. האם אולי לא מכסה את שערה או עושה זאת רק באופן חלקי וכו' וכו'. מודרני אורתודוקסי לייט. [בישראל קוראים לזה דתי לייט.]

כמובן שכל אדם שונה ולכל אדם יש את האתגרים שלו ורק ה' יכול לשפוט. אבל כדאי לזכור שתרח היה בדרכו לארץ ישראל [בסוף פרשת נח] אבל הוא עצר בחרן והתיישב שם. מי יודע, אולי אם הוא היה ממשיך הלאה ה' היה מופיע לו והוא היה אבי העם היהודי. לעצור באמצע זה רעיון ממש גרוע.

גדול באמת הוזמן פעם לדבר בפני קבוצה של בעלי תשובה פוטנציאליים. אחד מהם שאל אותו מה לעשות אם קשה לקיים כל כך הרבה מצוות. הרב שהזמין את הגדול הזה חשב שהוא ייתן תשובה עדינה, מעוררת השראה ומעודדת. משהו בסגנון: "אתה נהדר! לך בקצב שלך. כל דבר קטן שאתה עושה הוא כל כך יקר בעיני ה' וכו'".

במקום זאת, הוא נעץ מבט עמוק בשואל ואמר "עד מתי אתם פוסחים על שתי הסעיפים".

דם צריך להחליט מי הוא. לא להיות על הגדר. "אם ה' הוא האלהים לכו אחריו ואם הבעל הוא האלהים לכו אחריו". להיות אנושי זה להחליט.


    

The Mobility Of Speech

1. The pasuk says about the creation of man "ויהי האדם לנפש חיה" "And man was a living soul" - which is translated by Unkelos as "רוח ממללא" - "a talking spirit". Since the Torah also calls the animal kingdom "נפש חיה" what then was unique about man? That is what compelled Unkelos to translate "רוח ממללא". Animals don't talk [and if they do then they don't have very much to say....].


2. The mehalech is as follows: The primary difference between animals, vegetation and inanimate objects is that animals are mobile, moving from place to place while vegetation stays and grows in one place while inanimate objects [דומם] don't move at all. On the words  "בצלמנו כדמותנו", Rashi explains that man is created in the image of G-d insofar as he has intellect. Without the power of speech the intellect of man would be immobile. Any idea would die in the place it germinated, namely in the mind of man. It emerges that through the כח השכל - power of speech, the intellect of man becomes mobile and can move from place to place. That is the meaning of "ויהי האדם" - i.e. man who was created in the image of G-d, בצלמנו כדמותנו, which is the כח השכל - the power of the intellect, was created a נפש חיה - רוח ממללא. In other words this נפש חיה has it's own unique type of mobility - speech. [דברי מו"ר ראש הישיבה זצ"ל]


3. However there are different levels in the movement of the intellect for the deeper ideas remain inside. Not only that, even Hashem who spoke to us at Sinai left the deeper secrets hidden and unrevealed. The pasuk says ישקני מנשיקות פיהו - kiss me with the kiss of your mouth, which is a promise that in the future Hashem will reveal His secrets to us [Rashi Shir Hashirim 1-2]. But in the meantime the words remain locked in His mouth and don't extend out. Similarly, when one teaches the secrets of Torah there is a condition that one should only teach with hints and to a wise person who can decipher the hidden codes - חכם ומבין מדעתו. If not for the רוח ממללא then all thought would essentially remain hidden. As it is Above with Hashem who reveals certain things and hides others, so with man. We use our רוח ממללא to share ideas and thoughts while the deeper ones remain hidden. 


4. On the night of the 15th of Nissan the highest expression of man emerged - "אתם קרויים אדם" [Yevamos 61a] - the Jewish people came out of Egypt armed with a new found ability to express themselves. That is why on the night of the 15th we eat לחם עוני - לחם שעונים עליו דברים הרבה - We speak a LOT over the Matza, סיפור יציאת מצרים, הלל and כל המרבה הרי זה משובח. That is all on the night of the 15th. At the time of Krias Yam Suf, Hashem revealed His deeper purpose when "ואכבדה לפרעה" - I will be honored through Paroh. אז ישיר - an allusion to תחיית המתים. Then תביאמו ותטעמו בהר נחתלך - meaning the building of the Beis Hamikdash all the way to ה' ימלוך לעולם ועד.      


5. Both the dots under the letters are the Trop on top of the letters are called "תנועות" - movements. Dots have what are called "תנועות קטנות" and "תנועות גדולות" and so too the various Trops are named after types of movements - "קדמא ואזלא" [moving forward], "פזר" [scattered] etc. etc. At the height of the Geula the sea was split and the highest level of speech was revealed - poetic song that revealed the deeper secrets of the heart.


6. That is the meaning of "תורי זהב נעשה לך עם נקודות הכסף" - the booty of the sea was תורי זהב, lines of gold, while the booty of Egypt was called נקודות הכסף, dots of silver [במדבר רבה יג כ]. The תורי זהב refer to the Trop and the נקודות הכסף to the dots [Chazal discussed in Nefesh HaChaim 2/16]. Both are movements. Both on the night of Yetzias Mitzraim and at Krias Yam Suf there was a movement of the thoughts and feelings of the Jews as expressed in speech and song. צלם א-להים. נפש חיה. אתם קרויים אדם


7. That is why the Torah makes places an emphasis on the chariots and riders of Paroh and that "ויסר את אופן מרכבותיו" - "The wheels of the chariots were removed." This is the "זה לעומת זה" - the contrast between Am Yisrael who evolved into the Ideal Man of Speech and movement vs. the Egytptians who did all they could to prevent this. So they lost their capacity to move. [In the world of Kedusha we also find מרכבה and אופנים who praise Hashem]. 


8. This movement of dots and Trop brings to the end of days - ה' ימלך לעולם ועד. That is the "שמחה רבה" of Shiras HaYam.


[עפ"י תורת מרן ראש הישיבה שליט"א]

The Simcha Of Life

לך ענו שירה בשמחה רבה ואמרו כולם - Was this שמחה רבה - great simcha at Krias Yam Suf, a quantitatively greater שמחה or a simcha of a different quality all together??


"וישובו ויחונו לפני פי החירות" - "Speak to the Children of Israel and let them return and camp before Pi HaChiros". This was the only time a specific act was required of the Jewish people. Until now, they just left Egypt and traveled forward. Now they were required to return and camp before פי החירות. We became partners in the ultimate Krias Yam Suf.


"אז ישיר" - Chazal say that this is an allusion to תחיית המתים. Why in this context?


There is no בקשה, request, in our liturgy for תחיית המתים. There is only a bracha of praise [the 2nd bracha of שמונה עשרה]. Why is there no בקשה?


When death was decreed on Adam HaRishon, this was not merely a shortening of his life but rather a diminishing of his entire spiritual stature. "שת עליו כפו ומיעטו" - Hashem placed His hand upon him and diminished him [Chagiga 12]. Meaning, his deeds now reached a much lower place in Shomayim. He lost his spiritual power. חייב לומר בלשון רבו - We lost our מקום נגיעה. Our deeds didn't "touch" the same elevated places. This meant [among other things] that we may no longer ask for תחיית המתים. All we can do is praise Hashem for this. It is now completely His realm and beyond ours. 


"תורי זהב נעשה לך עם נקודות הכסף" -  We will make you lines of gold, with studs of silver. [Shir Hashirim 1-11]. Chazal expound [במדבר רבה י"ג כ] that that the ביזת הים - booty of the Yam Suf ["gold"], was greater than the ביזת מצרים - booty of Mitzrayim ["silver"]. Chazal further expound that תורי זהב refers to the טעמי המקרא - what we call "Trop" while נקודות הכסף refers to the נקודות - dots under the letters. What is the connection between the drashos of תורי זהב meaning ביזת הים and טעמי המקרא? 


Chazal tell us that not only are the letters but even the dots and Trop are from Sinai. Without dots we wouldn't know how to properly pronounce the letters. Without the Trop we would be able to pronounce the letters but said dryly we would not know the meaning of the words. The tune says it all. Someone says a bright cheerful "Good Morning🌞". That has a very different meaning than a "Good Morning" said with a scowl and in an undertone. The tune conveys the meaning of the words.


There are dots and there are lines. Dots are random [until connected....] while lines give a direction. תורי זהב - lines of gold. Trop. Direction. Meaning. 


When we left Egypt on the 15th of Nissan we were created as a people. On the 21st of Nissan at Krias Yam Suf we received a direction. Am Yisrael's job is to restore the world to its original state where there is no longer death and those who already died come back to life - תחיית המתים. That Am Yisrael is here to stay was made clear at Krias Yam Suf when the pursuers drowned. Now the direction of history is clear. 


פסח is comprised of two words - פה סח. Speaking mouth. On Pesach, Man was born. The true Man who was intended at the time of creation. אתם קרויים אדם [יבמות ס"א]. A speaking being "נפש חיה - רוח ממללא" [Breishis 2-7 w/ Unkelos]. What makes man unique is his ability to verbally express intelligent ideas. The night of the 15th was נקודות הכסף. Dots. Pronouncing the words. פה סח. But there was no clear direction. What is the deeper meaning of the words? That happened on the 21st of Nissan when we received the Trop. תורי זהב. The tune, the direction, the meaning. This direction leads us to תחיית המתים, the complete Tikkun of Man and ה' ימלך לעולם ועד. 


" וְחִזַּקְתִּ֣י אֶת־לֵב־פַּרְעֹה֮ וְרָדַ֣ף אַחֲרֵיהֶם֒ וְאִכָּבְדָ֤ה בְּפַרְעֹה֙ וּבְכׇל־חֵיל֔וֹ" - I will strengthen Paroh's heart so he will chase after them, and I will be honored through Paroh and all his army. כבוד is achieved when the Tachlis is reached. When the Egyptians drowned there was כבוד to Hashem b/c the Tachlis was achieved. The music was revealed. The Pnimiyus of creation came out. That is why the Pasuk says תורי זהב נעשה לך - in the future tense because this revelation related to the future. 


תחיית המתים is Hashem's "job" alone.


  לֶעָתִיד לָבוֹא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מְרַפֵּא אוֹתָהּ מַכָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ישעיה ל, כו): וּמַחַץ מַכָּתוֹ יִרְפָּא, מַחַץ מַכָּתוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, יִרְפָּא.[ב"ר י':ד']


At Krias Yam Suf, the Jews were given some level of impact on this hidden Divine task of תחיית המתים. That is symbolized by their act of וישובו ויחונו לפני פי החירות. See how the Jews are impactful on the ים - the hidden world. 


אז ישיר. From here is the allusion to תחיית המתים [Sanhedrin 91b]. It says there that if one sings שירה in this world then he merits to sing שירה in the next world. The שירה sung now in this world was a taste of the שירה of the future. They were already singing the שירה of the future in the present. אז ישיר. Future tense. They were able to transcend this world and achieve a נגיעה to the hidden world of Hashem's ידיעה. 


That is "בשמחה רבה". There is life and there is life. כל הנשמה תהלל י-ה. With every breath -  נשמה, as in נשימה - breath, we praise Hashem. Living people want to feel life and vitality. חיות!!! We don't want to breath once a week. We want to breath constantly and with every breath - praise to Hashem. Praise connects to life. לא המתים יהללו י-ה. Dead people cannot praise Hashem. At Krias Yam Suf the Jews felt life so strongly that they were able to tap into תחיית המתים which was usually above their מקום נגיעה. 


The GREATEST שמחה possible is the תחושת החיים, the feeling of life, of חיות, of vitality. 


לך ענו שירה בשמחה רבה - This wasn't just a greater שמחה than one normally feels but a שמחה of a completely different order. A שמחה of touching the Life of the future. A Life without death. A Life of constant עלייה. A life of תחיית המתים. 


[עפ"י תורת מרן ראש הישיבה שליט"א]