​Parashat Bo speaks of the last three of the ten plagues, the plagues of the locusts, darkness, and death of the bechor [בכור] (literally the “eldest” or “firstborn,” pl [בכורים]).  The Parasha then turns to a discussion of lamb [טלה] and matsa [מצה] (“unleavened bread”).  Each of these topics, in order, are discussed in close proximity to the others, thus perhaps implying some sort of relationship or connection between each topic.

In the previous Parashat (Va’era), we read about the first seven of the ten plagues that HaShem visited upon Par’o as the result of Par’o intransigence with regard to letting the Hebrews depart Misrayim.

Parashat Bo begins with the plague of the locusts and then the plague of darkness.  Only then did Par’o somewhat capitulate.  “And Par’o called to Moshe and said, ‘Go, serve the Lord; only let your flocks and your herds stay behind. . . .’” Shemot 10:24.

Many might view Par’o’s seeming capitulation as success for Moshe Rabbeinu and the Hebrews.  If Moshe Rabbeinu simply compromised by agreeing to leave the Hebrews’ livestock in Misrayim, Par’o would allow the Hebrews to leave the country.

Moshe Rabbeinu, however, does not compromise.  Instead, he replies, “Thou must give us also sacrifices and burnt offerings, that we may sacrifice to the Lord our God.  Our cattle also shall go with us; there shall not be a hoof be left behind. . . .”  Shemot 10:25-26.

Some might have said Moshe Rabbeinu’s refusal to compromise with Par’o, who was at that time the most powerful man in the world, was foolish.  But contrary to what these “moderates” might have said, Moshe Rabbeinu understood that Par’o’s refusal to unconditionally allow the Hebrews to leave Misrayim was nothing less than a rejection by Paro of HaShem and HaShem’s kingship over the world.  Recall that when Moshe first approached and said to Par’o, “Thus says the Lord, God of Yisrael, ‘Let my people go, that they may hold a feast to Me in the wilderness,” Shemot 5:1, Par’o replied, “Who is the Lord, that I should obey His voice and let Yisra’el go?  I know not the Lord. . . .”  Shemot 5:2.

Par’o, of course, did not agree to Moshe’s request that the Hebrews be allowed to take their livestock with them when they depart Misrayim and then revoked his offer to allow them to leave without the livestock.

The Torah then “interrupts” the story of the plagues to instruct Moshe regarding the festival of Pesah (Passover).

​Shemot 12:3-9.

Returning to the plagues, the Torah then tells us about Par’o’s renewed intransigence that results in the plague of the firstborn [בכורים], that is, the death of the firstborn in every house, except of course, for the houses of the Hebrews.  Par’o, who had finally had enough, called for Moshe Rabbeinu and his brother Aharon and said, “Rise up and get you out from among my people, both you and the children of Yisra’el; and go, serve the Lord as you have said.  Also take your flocks and your herds. . . .”  Shemot 12:31-32.

Ramban (Moses ben Nahman, 1194–1270), explained the reason for the commandment to slaughter, roast, and eat a lamb:

​Ramban, Commentary on the Torah, Shemot, p. 118-119.

Regarding matsa, Maimonides (Moshe Maimonides, 1138-1204), explained, “Due to the fact that the idolaters would sacrifice only leavened bread, and they would offer up all manner of sweet food and would smear their animal sacrifices with honey, . . . [HaShem] warned us not to offer to Him any of these things, leaven or honey.”  The Guide for the Perplexed, 3:46.  Likewise, it has been said that “Whoever eats [leavened bread] on Pesach is as if he prayed to an idol.”  The Zohar, 2:182.

Hames [חמץ] (“leavened bread”), has also been said to symbolize “arrogance” or “pride.”  For example, the Talmud relates, “Rabbi Alexandri would end his daily prayers with the following supplication: ‘Master of the Universe, You know full well that it is our desire to act according to Your will; but what prevents us from doing so? — the yeast in the dough. . . .”  Maseket Berakhot, 17a.

Similarly, the Nitziv (Rabbi Naftali Tzvi Berlin, 1817-1893), wrote that:

​Nitziv, Commentary to Shemot, 13:3.

Thus, three lessons that can be learned from Parashat Bo are that, just as:

1.  Moshe Rabbeniu did not compromise with Par’o, who denied HaShem, so too, we should not compromise with those who deny HaShem, including, and perhaps especially, those who deny that HaShem gave Eretz Yisra’el to the Jewish people;

2.  The Hebrews exhibited faith in HaShem by obeying HaShem’s command to slaughter the Egyptian’s god — the lamb.  So too, we should have faith in HaShem and not be afraid to expel from Eretz Yisra’el – as HaShem has commanded – those who deny that HaShem gave Eretz Yisra’el to the Jewish people; and

3.  Hames [חמץ] (leavened bread) is not eaten during the festival of Pesah because it symbolizes arrogance or pride.  So too, we should be humble in general, and in our service to HaShem in particular, and recognize that it is not the superior capabilities of the Israeli military (IDF) that protects Eretz Yisra’el and the Jews who live there, but rather, it is HaShem who protects after we do our part.

שבת שלום
Shabbat Shalom!

Parashat Va’era is permeated with HaShem’s command that Moshe Rabbeinu and his brother Aharon petition Par’o to “let the Children of Yisra’el go out of his land.”  Shemot 6:10-11.  This command is repeated no less than eight times throughout this Parashat, in various forms, including the famous injunction “Let My people go, [so] that they may serve Me.”  See, Shemot 6:13, 6:29, 7:2, 7:15-16, 7:26, 8:16, 9:1, 9:13.

Par’o, as we know, did not comply.  Parashat Va’era then describes seven of the ten plagues that HaShem inflicted upon Misrayim.

The Hebrews were slaves in Misrayim; the Exodus freed them from that slavery.  One might thus conclude that following their exodus from Misrayim, the Hebrews were a “free” people.

If “freedom” is the opposite of slavery, then the Hebrews, after leaving Misrayim, should have been “free” to act without constraint.  But they weren’t.  They were taken to Mount Sinai, given the Torah and all its commandments — Torah laws — and then led to Eretz Israel and commanded to conquer the Land.

As slaves in Misrayim, the Hebrews were obligated to follow the laws of their slave masters.  If they failed to do so, there were consequences.  After the exodus from Misrayim, the Jews (formerly the Hebrews) became obligated to follow the laws of the Torah.  Likewise, if the Jews failed to follow the laws of the Torah, there were (and still are) consequences.  It’s true the consequences for failing to obey their human slave masters in Misrayim were likely more immediate than the consequences for failing to obey the laws of the Torah, but this is not a qualitative difference; it is merely a difference of timing.

As proof of this point, recall that HaShem did not instruct Moshe to “Let My people go, so that they may be free.”  Rather, His instruction was, “Let My people go, [so] that they may serve Me.”

So, we see that, although the exodus from Misrayim resulted in the termination of Misrayim control over the Hebrews, the exodus did not result in the Hebrews being able to act without constraint.  Rather, the exodus simple changed the identity of their Master.

Being able to act without constraint is a better description of sovereignty than it is of freedom.  Sovereignty, by definition, includes, among other things, the legal right to make and enforce laws.  The Misrayim government was sovereign in that it possessed the legal right to make and enforce slavery laws against the Hebrews.

HaShem, the Master of the Universe, is the ultimate sovereign.  He created everything, including the Torah and all of its laws.  The Misrayim government, when it existed, was sovereign in its time and place.  Unlike the Misrayim government, the Master of the Universe was, is, and will always be sovereign over everything, for all time.

“Freedom,” on the other hand, describes the ability (or lack thereof) to make free-will decisions within the context of the laws which have been established by a sovereign.  Under a Misrayim, Socialist, or other type of dictatorial sovereign, the range or scope of that free-will is quite narrow.  By contrast, under a Torah law-based system, the range or scope of free-will is quite broad.

Some people today may believe that they are “free” to decide whether to follow the laws of the Torah or, G-d forbid, to completely reject the authority of those laws.  These individuals, however, confuse “freedom,” the ability to make free-will choices within the context of rules established by the sovereign, with sovereignty itself, which is the legal right to make (or exempt themselves from) laws.

When a person chooses to replace the Torah with something else, that person is not making a choice between individual sovereignty and slavery, but rather, between whether his “master” will be the Master of the Universe (HaShem) or some other, inferior, master.

Take, for example, Socialism and its close cousin Communism, which seek to abolish religion (among other things) so that there is no (apparent) authority which is higher than the State.  Those who follow this path by substituting the lowercase “g” of government for the uppercase “G” of G-d have merely substituted one “master” for another.  Both have laws and both have methods of enforcing their laws.  Those who make the small “g” of government their god soon discover that their range or scope of free-will decision making — their “freedom” — is quite narrow.

A currently-popular method of implementing Socialism is through use of the god of radical environmentalism.  Fundamental among the tenets of radical environmentalism is the belief that maintaining the earth in its “natural” state is more important than providing for the needs of man, and that mankind is the ultimate threat to the environment.  Thus, radical environmentalism promotes the small “g” of government to advocate for laws that, for example, purport to control climate change (formerly known as “global cooling,” until it was determined that the earth is not cooling); restrict the development of land; and control the number of children that are born, either through abortion or through various other means of population control.

The radical environmental agenda, like its Socialist parent, is diametrically opposed to the Torah.  “HaShem created Mankind in His own image, in the image of G-d, He created him, male and female, He created them.  And HaShem blessed them, and HaShem said to them, be fruitful and multiply, replenish the earth, and subdue it. . . .”  Bereshit 1:27-28.  “Subduing” the earth, of course, does not mean destroying the earth.  It merely means harnessing its potential and putting that potential to productive use for the benefit of mankind.

Lastly, there is the god of hedonism, a philosophy that essentially provides that each person can decide for himself what conduct is moral, immoral, permitted, or prohibited.  Although one might erroneously believe that the ability to make such choices constitutes individual sovereignty, the truth is that such individuals are merely enjoying the freedom to make free-will decisions within the framework which has been established by the sovereign under which they live.  For proof of this fact, one need only look to the situation where the individual’s determination of what is permitted conflicts with the rule laid down by the sovereign.  This approach, obviously, is also diametrically opposed to the Torah.

There is a famous saying that, although a person is entitled to his own opinion, he is not entitled to his own facts.  Although a person may be of the opinion that he is “free” to choose his god, that “freedom” does not change that fact that HaShem is the Creator and Master of the Universe, and that it is the laws of the Torah to which each of us (Jew and Gentile, alike) will ultimately be held accountable.

As humans, we usually don’t fully know what future consequences will result from our actions.  Accordingly, it’s not surprising that events don’t always unfold the way we anticipated or hoped.

HaShem, the Creator and Master of the Universe, on the other hand, gave us the Torah as our “owner’s manual” for life.  Living within the laws of the Torah, although perhaps not always perceived as being easy, especially when one is accustomed to living according to a different value system, is actually the best and, perhaps surprisingly, the easiest way to live life — easiest because HaShem knows exactly what the consequences will be for each and every one of our actions and, being the loving and merciful G-d that He is, He gave us the Torah to guide us and help us make the most of our lives and the lives of others.

May we all be blessed to exercise our free-will — our freedom — to choose HaShem and His Torah.

שבת שלום
Shabbat Shalom!

​Parashat Shemot introduces us to Moshe Rabbeinu, who was born in Misrayim at a time when the government issued a decree that, if followed, would have required all male Hebrew babies to be killed shortly after birth.  Moshe Rabbeinu, however, survived the infanticide decree, grew to adulthood, married, and started a family.
 
Then, one day when he was at work, shepherding sheep for his father-in-law Yitro, Moshe Rabbeinu had an encounter with HaShem, at what is known as the Burning Bush.  “And the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the midst of the bush; and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, but the bush was not consumed.”  Shemot 3:2.  “G-d called out to him out of the midst of the bush. . . .”  Shemot 3:4.
 
During the subsequent conversation that occurred between HaShem and Moshe Rabbeinu, HaShem told Moshe “I am the G-d of thy father, the G-d of Abraham, the G-d of Yizhaq, and the G-d of Ya’aqov.”  Shemot 3:6.
 
HaShem continued:

​Shemot 3:7-8.
 
One obvious question is why did HaShem take the Hebrews out of Misrayim, rather than simply solving their difficulties with the Egyptian government and thus making life in Misrayim tolerable.  Another obvious question is why did HaShem promise to take the Hebrews to Eretz Yisra’el, rather than, for example, to Brooklyn, London, Paris, Madrid, Baghdad, Tehran, or some other place.
 
The answer, of course, is because Eretz Yisra’el is holy; it is The Holy Land; The Promised Land.  The Torah is singularly focused on this point.

​Bereshit 12:1-3.
 
“And the land which I gave to Abraham and Yizhaq, to thee [Ya’aqov] I will give it, and to thy seed after thee will I give the land.”  Bereshit 35:12.
 
The Torah explicitly states the reason for the Exodus.  “I am the Lord your G-d, Who brought you out of the land of Misrayim, to give you the land of Kena’an [Eretz Yisra’el], and to be your G-d.”  Vayyiqra 25:38.  This pasuk is often misquoted as “I am the Lord your G-d, who took you out of Egypt to be your G-d,” omitting the all-important phrase “to give you the land of Eretz Israel.”
 
The Talmud states:

​Maseket Ketuvot, 110b.
 
Halacha, that is, Jewish Law, states that the misva of living in Eretz Yisra’el is timeless; it is still the Halacha today.  “If [a husband] proposes to ascend to Eretz Yisra’el and [the wife] does not want to [go], [the husband] must divorce her. . . .  [And if the wife] proposes ascending [to Eretz Yisra’el] and [the husband] does not want to [go], he must divorce her.”  Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 75:4.
 
Life is short.  There are many unforeseen circumstances and events which occur in a person’s life, not to mention that the world is changing faster now than ever before.  So, instead of singing “Next year in Yerushalayim,” let us make it “This year in Yerushalayim,” while it is still possible to make Aliyah.
 
שבת שלום
Shabbat Shalom!

By: HaRav Menashe Sasson
מאת: הרב מנשה ששון​

Parashat Vayhi opens with Ya’aqob Abinu extracting a vow from his son Yosef to “carry me [Ya’aqob] out of Misrayim and bury me in” Eretz Yisra’el.  Bereshit 47:29-31.  Ya’aqob then sits up on his deathbed and says to Yosef, “G-d Almighty appeared to me at Luz, in the land of Kena’an, and blessed me, and said to me ‘behold . . . I will give this land to thy seed after thee for an everlasting possession.’” Bereshit 48: 2-4.

After Ya’aqob passed, Yosef had him embalmed, Bereshit 50:2, and then transported his remains to Eretz Yisra’el for burial.  Bereshit 50:7.

Parashat Vayhi closes with Yosef ill and about to die.  “Yosef said to his brothers, “I die and God will surely visit you and bring you up [to Eretz Yisra’el] out of this land [of Misrayim], to the land of which [HaShem] swore to Abraham, to Yizhaq, and to Ya’aqob.’”  Bereshit 50:24.  Yosef then extracted a vow from his family that they “shall carry up [to Eretz Yisra’el] my bones from here.”  Bereshit 50:25.  “Yosef died, being a hundred and ten years old, and they embalmed him and he was put in a coffin in Misrayim.”  Bereshit 50:26.  Later, in Parashat Beshallah, we learn that Moshe Rabbeinu did, in fact, take “the bones of Yosef with him,” from Misrayim to Eretz Israel.  Shemot 13:19.

Parashat Vayhi thus opens and closes with Ya’aqob and his son Yosef both extracting from their relatives a vow that their remains be removed from Misrayim and buried in Eretz Yisra’el.  In both instances, reference was made to Eretz Yisra’el as being the land that HaShem promised to the Jewish People and in both instances the body of the deceased was embalmed before it was transported to Eretz Yisra’el.

Contrary to the events which are described in Parashat Vayhi, Halakha (Jewish Law) clearly states that a deceased person should be buried within twenty-four hours of death, or at least as soon thereafter as possible, and that embalming is prohibited.

The fact that Parashat Vayhi repeats that both Ya’aqob and Yosef insisted on being buried in Eretz Yisra’el suggests that the importance of being buried in Eretz Yisra’el, even if one was not able to live in Eretz Yisra’el, is so great that it constitutes an exception to the general rules of prompt burial and no embalming.

The Biblical source for the concept that the body of a deceased person should be buried within twenty-four hours is derived from the passuk which states, “And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he is put to death, and thou hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt surely bury him that day (for he that is hanged is accursed by G-d.”  Debarim 21:22-23.

The Talmud explains,

​Maseket Sanhedrin 46b.
 
The Talmud continues:

​Maseket Sanhedrin 46b.

Thus, we see from the Gemara that the Biblical source which requires burial on “that day” refers to a person who was executed for a capital offense, not to an individual who died of natural causes, or an illness, accident, or the like.  We also see that Halakha permits a delay in conducting the funeral where the purpose of the delay is “that the burial will be conducted with greater dignity.”

Lastly, we know that Halakha discourages embalming, as the desecration of human remains is forbidden.  However, just as it is permitted to delay a funeral so that the funeral “will be conducted with greater dignity,” so too it is permitted to do that which is needed for dignity and hygiene to preserve a body for burial.

Parashat Vayhi shows, through Ya’aqob and Yosef, that there no greater dignity for a deceased than to be buried in Eretz Yisra’el.  Thus, the delay in burying Ya’aqob and the exhuming of Yosef’s remains, transportation, and reburial in Eretz Yisra’el was, of course, proper.

A lesson we can learn from Parashat Vayhi is that while it is preferable for a Jew to live and die in Eretz Yisra’el, “the land of which [HaShem] swore to Abraham, to Yizhaq, and to Ya'aqob,” if that is not possible, the best alternative, as we learn from Ya’aqob and Yosef, is to be buried in Eretz Yisra’el.

שבת שלום
Shabbat Shalom!

​Parashat Vayyiggash marks the beginning of the Egyptian exile.  The Egyptian exile is instructive because, as we know,

​Ramban on Genesis 12:6:1

In other words, history repeats itself.  Just as the Israelites moved to Egypt, made significant contributions to that country’s success, and then became a disfavored minority upon whom blame can be assessed for every perceived wrong, real or perceived, so too, Jews in the United States and other diaspora countries will suffer the same fate.

​The reason for the Babylonian exile was punishment for sin.

​Masekhet Menachot 52b.

Although one reason for the Babylonian exile is punishment for sin, the Jewish people will, ultimately, repent and return to both HaShem and Eretz Yisra’el.

The second reason for the exiles is perhaps more surprising:

​Masekhet Pesachim 87b.

Rabbi Elazar lived during the years following the destruction by the Romans of the second Beit HaMikdash.  Although the purpose of the Babylonian exile (which occurred concurrently with the destruction of the first Beit HaMikdash), and perhaps arguably the subsequent exiles, was punishment for sin.  However, at least one purpose of the current exile is to create Jewish converts, a purpose which, unfortunately, has largely gone unfulfilled.

In Rabbinic literature, converts are sometimes referred to as “Holy Sparks” and the process of attracting converts is referred to as “gathering” those “Holy Sparks.”

The source of these Holy Sparks can be traced all the way back to the beginning of the Torah itself.  “And the earth was astonishingly [תהו] empty [ובהו], and darkness [וחשך] was upon the face of the deep [פני תהום], and the Spirit of HaShem [ורוח אלהים] hovered upon the surface of the waters.”  Bereshit 1:2.

“Astonishingly” [תהו] refers to the Babylonian exile (423-371 BCE); “empty” [ובהו] refers to the Median (Persian) exile (371-356 BCE); “darkness [וחשך] refers to the Greek exile (318-138 BCE); “face of the deep” [פני תהום] refers to the current, Roman exile (approx. 63 BCE through the present); and the “Spirit of HaShem” [ורוח אלהים] refers to the Messianic period at the end of days. Bereshit Rabba 2:4.

The Babylonian, Median (Persian), and Greek exiles have all come to pass, just as the Torah tells us they would.  We are now in the fourth, and last, the Roman, exile.  And as we shall see shortly, we are “knocking on the door,” so to speak, of the Messianic era.

​We know that the appearance of Mashiach and the beginning of the Redemption will occur no later than 6,000 years from creation.  Masekhtot Rosh Hashana 31a, Sanhedrin 97a; Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer, Gerald Friedlander, Sepher-Hermon Press, New York, 1981, p. 141; Zohar 1:117a, Zohar Vayera 119a.

Each 1,000 years is analogized to one day, which means that each hour consists of approximately 41.67 years.  The current year from creation, the year on the Jewish calendar, is 5783.  Thus, there are 217 years, or approximately 5.21 hours left in the “day” that constitutes the final 1,000 years.

Thus, if we assume that the “day” which constitutes the final 1,000-year period will end at 6:00 p.m., the current “time” is approximately 12:48 p.m.

Recall that Mashiach may come at any time and that the 6,000 year “deadline” for the arrival of Mashiach is the latest time at which he could appear.

​Conclusion

We know that there will be four major exiles, the Babylonian, Median (Persian), Greek, and Roman exiles; that 3 of the 4 exiles have come to pass; that we are in the fourth exile; and that the dual purpose of the exiles is to punish the Jewish people for sin and to gather converts, Holy Sparks,” from the four corners of the world.

We also know that the Messianic period can begin at any time, but not later than the year 6000 from creation; that we are currently in the year 5783 from creation; and that, if each 1000 years represents one day, it is now almost 1:00 p.m. on the last day before Mashiach will come no later than 6:00 p.m.

Lastly, our Sages teach that only 20 percent – 1 out of every 5 – Israelites left Egypt during the Exodus; meaning that 80% stayed behind!  Rashi, Shemot 13:18.  Who were these 80 percent?  They are whom we would classify today as assimilated Jews; those who would prefer to stay in galut rather than come to Eretz Yisra’el.

Time is rapidly running out.  May HaShem bless all the Jewish people, as well as those who want to convert to Judaism, to make and finalize their preparations and to make Aliyah (immigrate to Eretz Yisra’el) without further delay.

שבת שלום
Shabbat Shalom!

In Parashat Miqqez, we learn that, because of a famine in Eretz Yisra’el, Ya’aqob sent his sons, Yosef’s brothers, the brothers who had sold Yosef to the Yishme’elim, to purchase food in Mizrayim.  Bereshit 42:1-5.  Unbeknownst to Ya’aqob and Yosef’s brothers, Par’o had appointed Yosef to the position of “governor of the land [of Mizrayim] and [it was] he that sold [food] to all the people of the land.”  Id. 42:6.

When the brothers approached Yosef to purchase food, “Yosef knew his brethren, but they knew them not.”  Id. 42:8.

On a simple level, the pasuk “Yosef knew his brethren, but they knew him not” can be understood as saying that Yosef recognized his brothers because, when the brothers sold Yosef to the Yishme’elim, which was the last time they had seen each other, the brothers had beards, but Yosef, being young, had not yet grown a beard.  Thus, Yosef recognized his brothers, but his brothers did not recognize him.  Rashi, Bereshit 42:8, citing Masekhet Ketubot 27b; Masekhet Yevamot 88a; Bereshit Rabba 91:7.

A deeper explanation is that “’Joseph recognized his brothers’ when they were given over to his hand, he recognized that they were his brothers and had mercy on them.  ‘But they did not recognize him’ when he fell into their hand, by [not] treating him in a brotherly manner.”  Id., citing Bereshit Raba 91:7.

We often refer to our fellow Jews as our “brothers” and “sisters.”  If our fellow Jews are our “brothers” and “sisters,” there must be a lineage that creates this familial bond.  And, indeed there is.  That familial lineage was formed at Har Sinai, with the giving of the Torah.  When the Hebrews gathered at the base of Har Sinai, they prepared themselves to receive the Torah by, among other things, agreeing to accept unconditionally all of the precepts of the Torah and then learn the details of those precepts at a later time and by bathing, immersing in a mikveh (ritual bath), of sorts.  In other words, the Hebrews arrived at Har Sinai as non-Jews, converted to Judaism, received the Torah, and then departed Har Sinai as Jews.

Thus, we see that the source of the bonds that make our fellow Jews “brothers” and “sisters” is the Torah and, G-d forbid, without the Torah there is no such thing as Jews, Judaism, or Jewish “brothers” and “sisters.”

Today, unfortunately, there are many Jews who do not recognize the Torah as Divine.  There are also many Jews who, although they accept the Torah as having been Divinely given, do not recognize that it is HaShem’s will that all Jews reside in Eretz Yisra’el.

May all Jews be blessed to recognize the Torah as Divine and that it is HaShem’s will that all Jews “recognize” their brothers and sisters, and to do so by moving to, and living with them in, Eretz Yisra’el.

שבת שלום
Shabbat Shalom!

Hanukkah [חנוכה], which means “inauguration” or “dedication,” is an eight-day rabbinic holiday which begins on the 25th day of the Hebrew month of Kislev, and which typically occurs during the Gregorian month of November or December.  Hanukkah is sometimes referred to as the “Festival of Lights,” an apparent reference to the candles that are lit on each night of the holiday.
 
Hanukkah celebrates the Jewish military victory, circa 2nd century BCE, of the Maccabees over the Seleucid Empire, an ancient Greek, Hellenistic empire which was founded by the Macedonian Greek general Seleucus I Nicator.  Under the later rule of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the Greek Seleucid Empire conquered Eretz Yisra’el, which then consisted of both Judea, Yerushalayim (Jerusalem), and other areas in Medinat Yisra’el (modern-day State of Israel).
 
Under the rule of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, thousands of Jews in Eretz Yisra’el were massacred; Jewish religious practice in Eretz Yisra’el was banned; the Beit HaMikdash [בית המקדש] (Holy Temple in Yerushalayim) was desecrated through the erection therein of an alter to the Greek god Zeus and the sacrificing therein of pigs; and, Jews were ordered to worship Greek gods.
 
During the persecution of Jews by the Greeks, Mattityahu haKohen ben Yohanan (“Mattityahu”), while in his hometown of Modi’in-Maccabim-Re’ut, aka: Modi’in (which is about 35 kilometers southeast of Tel Aviv and about 30 kilometers west of Yerushalayim; not to be confused with Modi’in Illit), was ordered by a Greek official to sacrifice a pig to the Greek gods.  When Mattityahu refused, a secular “Hellenist” Jew volunteered to perform the sacrifice.  Mattityahu then killed both the secular Jew and the Greek official.  Thus, the Maccabean Revolt [מרד החשמונאים], which consisted primarily of guerrilla warfare, was born.
 
The Maccabees’ most consequential victory was the conquest of Yerushalayim and the capture of the Beit HaMikdash [בית המקדש].
 
Although only enough kosher oil for one day was found in Beit HaMikdash [בית המקדש], that small amount of oil burned continuously for eight days, which was long enough for new, kosher oil to be squeezed from olives. Hanukkah is thus celebrated for eight days.
 
During the decades that followed, the Maccabees continued their insurgent activities, using guerrilla warfare tactics against not only the Greek occupiers and oppressors, but also against the secular “Hellenist” Jews who sympathized and cooperated with the Greeks.
 
The Maccabees achieved some degree of success.  Although Eretz Yisra’el was still officially under the control of the Greek Seleucid Empire, the Maccabees acquired a degree of informal autonomy, which it used to raise an army and continue prosecuting a civil war against the secular “Hellenist” Jews.
 
The Hasmoneans, some of whose members were related to the Maccabees, rose to power.  Unfortunately, the Hasmoneans, unlike the Maccabees, presided over great spiritual and moral decline within the Jewish nation.  The last two Hasmonean rulers, the secular “Hellenists” Jews Hyrcanus and Aristobolus, had a dispute.  In their attempt to settle the dispute, Hyrcanus and Aristobolus invited the Romans into Eretz Yisra’el to mediate and, hopefully, to help settle the dispute.  The rest, as they say, is history.
 
As the late American broadcaster Paul Harvey might have said, now you know “The Rest of the Story.”
 
Subsequent to the time when the Jewish people, with the help of the Maccabees, conquered Yerushalayim, Jewish sovereignty over Eretz Yisra’el and Yerushalayim was lost for more than 2,000 years.  In the Hebrew year 5708 (1948 on the Gregorian calendar), that sovereignty was regained, and subsequently retained though what can only be described as open miracles which were bestowed on the Jewish nation by the grace of Heaven.
 
Unfortunately, not a lot has changed since the time of the Maccabees.  The Jewish people still have an enemy who contends that the Jewish people are not the rightful owners of Eretz Yisra’el and who, by force of arms, seek to dispossess the Jewish people of Eretz Yisra’el.  There are still Hellenized Jews in Eretz Yisra’el and, just as during the times of the Hasmoneans, these Hellenized Jews occupy positions of political power, although they look to Washington, D.C., rather than to Rome, for salvation.
 
As no Jew in his right mind wants another Jewish civil war, we must continue to pray for Devine assistance, while simultaneously using the democratic process to transform Medinat Yisra’el from its current status as a Hellenized, Jewish state in name only, into a state which is guided by Torah and Halakha and, thus, is truly Jewish.
 
חנוכה שמח
Hanukkah Sameach

Parashat Vayysehev begins “וישב יעקב,” which literally translated means “and Ya’aqob sat down” in Eretz Yisra’el.  Bereshit 37:1.  The Midrash interprets this pasuk as saying that Ya’aqob sought to dwell in tranquility in Eretz Yisra’el.

Ya’aqob had endured a hard life.  From birth, he and his brother Esav were at odds with each other; Ya’aqob was taken advantage of during his years at Laban’s house; his daughter was raped; his sons killed the rapist and all the other men in the city where the rapist had resided, and then destroyed the entire city.  As a result, Ya’aqob lived in constant fear of retaliation.  Nevertheless, the Midrash rebukes Ya’aqob for seeking a life of tranquility:

Bereshit Rabbah 84:3.

There are quite a few Jews who live in America and other countries of the galut [גלות] (exile) who have “retired,” that is, who have stopped working for a paycheck or other income and who have begun to rely on funds disbursed from a retirement account to pay their living expenses.

A small percentage of those “retirees” have made Aliyah.  Unfortunately, however, most do not.

As the old Chinese proverb goes, we live in “interesting times.”  Whether these “interesting times” are a blessing or a curse will depend in large part on our individual choices concerning how we live our lives.

For a Jew, there can be no greater blessing than to live in the Land to which HaShem referred when he told Abram (whose name HaShem later changed to “Abraham”) to “Get out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, [and go to] the land that I will show thee, and I will make thee a great nation.”  Bereshit 12:1.

There are many obstacles to making Aliyah.  Moving to Eretz Yisra’el is neither easy nor inexpensive.  Living in Eretz Yisra’el is not the same as living in galut [גלות].  Retired Jews, like most Jews who live in galut [גלות], are not fluent in Hebrew, the language of the Jewish people and the official language of Medinat Yisra’el (the state of Israel).  The cost of living in Eretz Yisra’el is higher than in many other countries, although there are major metropolitan areas in galut [גלות] where the cost of living is higher than in Eretz Yisra’el.  Taxes are high in Eretz Yisra’el; however, taxes are high – and rising – in other countries, as well.

Health care in Medinat Yisra’el is also a concern for those who make Aliyah, and often more so for retirees, whose health care needs are often greater than that of younger individuals.  The good news is that health care in Medinat Yisra’el is much more affordable than in many western countries.  The bad news is that, because Medinat Yisra’el has a socialized (government-controlled) health care system, the level of health care service is not what one might expect in a free-market system.  The bottom line, however, is that Olim (persons who make Aliyah) can obtain in Eretz Yisra’el the health care services they need.

After retirees make Aliyah and get settled in their new homes and communities, there is ample time and opportunity to become conversant in Hebrew; learn Torah on a level that cannot be experienced in galut [גלות]; travel within Eretz Yisra’el and personally experience locations that, heretofore, one has only been able to read about; become involved in helping other Jews; and, of course, to make new friends.

Although galut [גלות] may seem “comfortable” or “tranquil,” we learn from our Parasha that our purpose in this world [עולם הזה] is to work, to be productive, to not live in tranquility.  Being “productive” does not necessarily mean working for a salary or running a business, but it does mean doing something that benefits others.

A Jew who makes Aliyah benefits other Jews, both individually and as a nation, simply by being physically present in Eretz Yisra’el.  From that starting point, the possibilities for a “retired” Jew who lives in Eretz Yisrael to be of benefit to other Jews increases exponentially.

As we learn from our Parasha, “retirement” as that term is commonly understood, a life of tranquility, is not what HaShem intends; rather, it is a really bad idea.  As religious Jews, we want to do HaShem’s will.  So, if you are approaching retirement, or have already retired, you might want to consider whether HaShem would prefer that you live a tranquil retired life in galut [גלות] or whether HaShem would prefer that, as He instructed Abraham Abinu, you “Get out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, [and make Aliyah to Eretz Yisrael].

May all Jews, “retired” or not, merit to make Aliyah and live in the Land which HaShem promised to Abraham Abinu.

שבת שלום
Shabbat Shalom!

​Some 3,500 years ago, “Ya’aqob [and his family] came to Shalem [שלם], a city of Shekhem [שכם], which is in the land of Kena’an, . . . [and] he bought a piece of land on which he spread his tent. . . .”  Bereshit 33:18-19.
 
The modern-day city of Shekhem [שכם] is located approximately 49 kilometers (30 miles) north of Yerushalayim.
 
The seller of the land was a man named Hamor.  Id.
 
Dina [דינה], the daughter of Ya’aqob and Le’a, “went out to see the daughters of the land.  And when Shekhem [שכם], the son of Hamor [חמור] the Hivvite [literally, “Donkey the Hivvite”], prince of the country, saw her, he took her, lay with her, and defiled her.”  Bereshit 34:1-2.
 
Hamor [חמור] attempted to negotiate with Ya’aqob a marriage between Shekhem [שכם] and Dina [דינה].  Rather than consent to a marriage of his daughter to a rapist, Ya’aqob’s sons – Dina’s brothers – Shim’on and Levi devised and implemented a plan that would leave all of the males of the city of Shalem [שלם] in a weakened physical state, and then attacked and killed them all, plundered their belongings, and took their wives captive.
 
Ya’aqob’s response to his sons Shim’on and Levi was: “You have brought trouble on me to make me odious among the inhabitants of the land, among the Kena’ani and the Perizzi, and I, being few in number, they shall gather themselves together against me, and slay me, and I shall be destroyed, I and my house.”  Bereshit 34:30.
 
The questions raised by this event include whether Shim’on and Levi were justified in taking revenge against (1) Shekhem [שכם], as an individual, and (2) the entire population of Shekhem [שכם].
 
Maimonides ruled that gentiles are:

M.T., Hilchot Melachim 9:14.
 
As with other Biblical texts, our task is to determine how to best understand and apply the lessons of this Parashat to current times.  To do so, we start with two postulates: (1) the acts of Shim’on and Levi were justified, and (2) Shim’on and Levi were acting on behalf of the Jewish nation, and not as individuals.
 
We learn from the text of the Parasha itself that the acts of Shim’on and Levi were justified.  Rather than rebuking Shim’on and Levi for having sinned, the righteous Ya’aqob said to Shim’on and Levi only that: “You have brought trouble on me to make me odious among the inhabitants of the land . . ., I, being few in number, they shall gather themselves together against me, and slay me. . . .”  Bereshit 34:30.  As the text of the pasuk clearly states, Ya’aqob’s objection to the conduct of Shim’on and Levi was based not on moral grounds, but rather, on practical considerations.  Maimonides and other commentators concur.
 
Regarding the Halakhic justification for their acts, Maimonides ruled that because Shekhem [שכם], the individual, had committed the capital offense of kidnapping and because the “country” known as Shekhem [שכם] had violated the Noahide laws through their failure to establish a court system which would administer justice, the actions of Shim’on and Levi’ were justified.
 
Thus, rather than having two individuals (Shim’om and Levi) who were acting in their capacity as individuals to avenge the rape of their sister, our Parasha tells the story of one nation – the Jewish nation – acting through two of its citizens (Shim’on and Levi), retaliating against another nation (the “country” of Shekhem [שכם]) for a wrong that the latter nation had committed against a citizen of the former nation.
 
Understood in this light, the lesson for our times is clear: when a member of another nation, for example, the nation of the descendants of Yishma’el, commit a capital offense against a citizen of the Jewish nation (a Jewish citizen of Medinat Yisra’el, the modern-day State of Israel), and the nation of which the offender is a member fails or refuses to administer justice in accordance with the requirements of the Noahide laws, the Jewish State is fully justified in retaliating against both the offending individual and the offending nation.
 
The justification for Jewish retaliation is even stronger in cases where the offending nation does not merely fail to administer justice in accordance with the Noahide laws, but rather, affirmatively encourages such lawless and immoral behavior by paying “salaries” and “pensions” to its citizens who terrorize members of the Jewish nation.
 
May HaShem bless Medinat Yisra’el with true Jewish leaders who will govern Medinat Yisra’el in a manner which is consistent with the Torah and not be, as was Ya’aqob, concerned with being “odious among the inhabitants of the land.”

שבת שלום
Shabbat Shalom!

​Man Was Created to Toil [כי-אדם לעמל יולד].  Iyyob 5:7.  Likewise, the Talmud states: “Rabbi Elazar says: Every man was created for labor, as it is stated: ‘Man is born for toil.’”  Masekhet Sanhedrin 99b.
 
For textual evidence that Man Was Created to Toil, we need look no further than one of the opening pesukim [פסוקים] (verses) of the Torah.  HaShem “took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and to keep it.”  Bereshit 2:15.
 
A few perekim [פרקים] (chapters) later, HaShem tells Moshe Rabbeinu “When thou hast brought the people out of Mizrayim, you shall serve HaShem upon this mountain.”  Shemot 3:12.  In other words, HaShem was telling Moshe Rabbeinu that he need not fear Par’o and that after departing Mizrayim, the Jewish people would receive the Torah on Har Sinay [הר סיני].
 
Juxtaposing these two pesukim [פסוקים] (verses) raises the obvious question of whether man was created to engage in physical work (e.g., to till the garden. . .) or to engage in spiritual pursuits (e.g., to serve HaShem).
 
Parashat Vayyeze opens by informing us that “Ya’aqob went out from Be’er Sheva and went toward Haran.”  Bereshit 28:10.  That is, Ya’aqob left his parents’ home where he had lived and studied Torah in peace his entire life.
 
On the way to Haran, Ya’aqob stopped at the yeshiva [ישיבה] of Shem and Eber, where he studied Torah for fourteen years. The reason for this delay was to allow Ya’aqob to learn how to survive in the spiritually-hostile environment that was Haran.  Shem, who had lived during the generation of the Flood, and Eber, who had lived during the generation of the Tower of Babel, were particularly suited to teach Ya’aqob these lessons.
 
Parashat Vayyeze tells us that after leaving Shem and Eber, Ya’aqob continued on to Haran where, despite many difficulties with his wicked uncle Laban – involving both business and personal affairs – Ya’aqob married both Rahel and Le’a, fathered children, and became successful in business, which involved a joint venture with Laban.  Bereshit 30:31-34.
 
This brings us back to where we started: Man Was Created to Toil.  That is, man was created to work.  Just as Ya’aqob had to work, both for his benefit and for the benefit of his family, so too all of mankind was created to work.
 
Simply knowing that man was created to work does not, of course, provide any meaningful guidance as to what occupation or profession should be engaged in by any particular man.  To begin to answer this question, we need to examine the general nature of man.
 
As Rabbi Tatz explains:

​Akiva Tatz, Will, Freedom and Destiny, at 15.
 
In other words, HaShem, being the Creator, represents the epitome of free-will, that is, the ability to choose.  Man, having been created in the image of HaShem, likewise possesses free-will.
 
Explaining the boundaries, that is, the limits, of free-will, Rabbi Tatz writes:

Id. (italics original), at 33.
 
Choosing an occupation or profession is a decision which is qualitatively different than, for example, choosing which pair of shoes to wear or which flavor of dessert to eat, as choosing an occupation, unlike the latter choices, affects people other than the person who is making the choice.
 
In the opening perek [פרק] (chapter) of the Torah, HaShem commanded all of mankind to “Be fruitful and multiply, replenish the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”  Bereshit 1:28.  To “subdue” and “have dominion over” something does not mean to destroy that something.  Rather, “subdue” and “have dominion over” something means to put that something to productive, beneficial use.
 
So, we see that to “subdue” and “have dominion over” the earth and all that is in it means, among other things, to cooperate with other human beings for the purpose of harnessing and putting to productive use all of the earth’s various resources.  Cooperating with other human beings for this purpose necessarily means selecting and pursing an occupation or profession.
 
Having thus concluded that choosing an occupation or profession is a moral choice which is made through the exercise of free-will, we now turn briefly to the question of which economic system is best-suited for creating an environment which is conducive to making this moral choice.
 
There exist two, and only two, economic systems.  Although neither system exists, or has existed, in its purest form or to the exclusion of the other system, we can identify those two systems as Socialism and the Free Market.  Socialism, in very general terms, connotes an economy in which the State owns or controls business and industry.  The Free Market, on the other hand, connotes a system which is based on individuals (including voluntary associations of individuals) interacting economically with others on a voluntary basis.  It follows that only a Free Market affords an individual the ability – the freedom – to make the choice – the moral choice – of which occupation or profession to pursue.
 
One of the most often-cited arguments against a Free Market economic system is the question of how, or even whether, the State should provide for those who, for whatever reason, are unable to provide for themselves.  This is where the conversation typically turns to “Tzedakah” [צדקה], often translated as “charity,” but more accurately translated as “justice.”
 
However, prior to addressing “Tzedakah” [צדקה], it’s appropriate to discuss the related concept of “nehama d’kisufa” [נהמא דכיסופא] (Aramaic) or “lechem shel busha” [לחם של בושה] (Hebrew), which in English means “Bread of Shame.”
 
The Chakhamim [חכמים] (Sages) described receiving “unearned benefits” as the “Bread of Shame,” recognizing that the normal response to having received unearned benefits is to feel a sense of shame or embarrassment.  In a similar vein, this feeling of shame or embarrassment has been analogized to a child who, as he matures, seeks independence and who wants to “do it myself.”  Thus, giving an adult unearned benefits is similar to treating him as a child, that is, to shaming him.
 
The Ramchal explained that HaShem’s “purpose in creation was to bestow of His good to another” and that HaShem “alone is the only true good.”  Moshe Chaim Luzzatto, The Way of God, Sixth Revised Edition, (Feldheim 1998), at 37.  In other words, given that HaShem is “the only true good” and that the purpose of creation “was to bestow” HaShem’s good[ness] on mankind, it follows that man, who was created in the image of HaShem, Bereshit 1:27, can receive HaShem’s goodness only by connecting with HaShem, which, in turn, can be done only by emulating HaShem’s middot [מדות] (lit. “measures,” commonly translated or understood to mean “character traits”), to the extent humanly possible.
 
Since HaShem is not dependent on others, connecting with HaShem, and thus receiving His goodness, means, at least in part, being as self-sufficient as is humanly possible; that is, not partaking of the Bread of Shame through the acceptance from others of unearned benefits, regardless of whether those “others” are private individuals or the State.
 
The Talmud is in accord, stating that “one who benefits from his hard labor is greater than a God-fearing [person].”  Masekhet Berakhot 8a.
 
It’s quite difficult to understate the importance of being financially self-sufficient.  The great commentator Rashi stated that “one who is poverty-stricken is considered as if he is dead.  Rashi, Commentary on Shemot 4:19.
 
Returning to “Tzedakah” [צדקה], Maimonides sets forth a hierarchy for the giving of charity.  The highest, or most preferred level, involves helping someone to become financially self-sufficient through, for example, helping him start a business or finding a job.  The lowest, or least preferred levels involve the giving the poor unearned benefits, that is, the Bread of Shame.  See generally, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Matanot Aniyim.
 
Returning to Parashat Vayyeze, we see that Ya’aqob, by learning in the yeshiva of Shem and Eber, prepared himself spiritually to deal with the wicked Laban.  After leaving the yeshiva, Ya’aqob traveled to Haran and, notwithstanding Laban’s numerous schemes, remained a holy and pious Jew who built his business and took care of his family, all while successfully fighting the corrupt influences of the secular world.
 
Ya’aqob’s Torah learning allowed him to understand that man was created to toil; that HaShem gave, and thus expected man to exercise his, free-will; that the choice of a profession is a moral choice; and that to be poverty-stricken is akin to being dead.
 
May we all be blessed to learn from, and successfully emulate, Ya’aqob’s example in our modern, contemporary world.

שבת שלום
Shabbat Shalom!

​In Parashat Toledot, which, loosely translated, means “history,” “generations” or “born of,” we read the story of Ribka’s pregnancy with the twins Ya’akob and Esav, from whom two great nations descended.  Ya’akob, as we know, was righteous.  Esav, on the other hand, was the manifestation of idolatry and other evils.
 
The Torah then tells us: “And the children [Ya’akob and Esav] struggled in her [Ribka’s] womb,” Bereshit 25:22, and that HaShem told Ribka that “Two nations are in your womb, Two separate peoples shall issue from your body; One people shall be mightier than the other, And the older [Esav] shall serve the younger [Ya’akob].”  Id., 25:23.  There is also Midrash halakhah that states, “It is a well-known rule that Esav hates Ya’akob.”  Sifrei, Bamidbar 69.  The implication of the clash between Ya’akob and Esav, which began in the womb, and the Midrash that Esav hates Ya’akob, is clear: the battle between good and evil will persist for a very long time.
 
Ya’akob’s name was later changed by HaShem to “Yisra’el.”  Your name shall no longer be Ya’akob, but [rather, you will be known as] Yisra’el.”  Bereshit 32:29.  Ya’akob’s descendants are the Jewish People, the nation of Yisra’el.
 
The descendants of Esav, on the other hand, are associated with the color “red.”  “The first one emerged [was born] red, like a hairy mantle all over, so they named him Esav.  Then his brother emerged [was born], holding on to the heel of Esav; so they named him Ya’akob.”  Bereshit 25:25-26.  Parasha Toledot also tells us that Esav liked a certain type of red stew.  “And Esav said to Jacob, ‘Give me some of that red stuff to gulp down, for I am famished’ — which is why he was named Edom.”  Bereshit 25:30.  In Hebrew, the word “red” is “edom.”  Thus, the descendants of Esav are known as the nation of Edom.  Esav had a son Eliphaz.  Eliphaz had a son, Esav’s grandson, Amalek.
 
Throughout history, the Amalekites and their descendants have sought to commit genocide against the Jewish people.  The spiritual descendants of Esav, the Amalekites, have included: Haman, in the Book of Esther (which recounts events which occurred in modern-day Iran); the ancient Romans; Nazis; and Stalinists.
 
According to tradition, the modern-day descendants of Esav-Edom are mostly Western Europeans, more specifically, Christians, some of whom ultimately emigrated to, and founded, the United States.  Interestingly, the United States flag and the flags of many European countries contain the color red, the color of Esav-Edom.
 
Are all, or even a majority of, Europeans, Americans, or Christians, Amalekites who hate Ya’akob?  That is, do they hate the Jewish People?  No.  Of course not.  Many have a deep love of the Jewish People and have never held — or even considered holding — Amalekite beliefs.  In fact, the founders of the United States were deeply committed to Tanakh and the United States has been a staunch ally of the State of Israel, ever since the State of Israel was established in 1948.  That does not, however, change the fact that, Biblically, members born into the Christian faith are the spiritual descendants of Esav-Edom.
 
Notwithstanding this spiritual legacy, HaShem gave each person free-will, that is, the ability (and responsibility) to make moral choices and decisions.  Thus, a person is not irrevocably bound to his or her spiritual heritage.  The purpose of Torah is not to confine an individual to his spiritual heritage, but rather, to assist each individual — Jew and non-Jew alike — in achieving his innate potential through the exercise of free-will.

Ramban, Commentary on the Torah, Bereshit at 169, quoting Tanchuma Lech Lecha 9a. 
 
As we learned four weeks ago, in Parasha Noach, HaShem made a promise to never again bring upon the earth a flood that is intended to destroy the entire world, as He did when the world was exceedingly corrupt in Noach’s time.  Rather, HaShem gave the world the Seven Laws of Noach, which all the peoples of the world were commanded to follow.
 
In about three months, we will read Parasha Yitro, which relates the giving of the Torah to the Jewish People at Mount Sinai.
 
The result of these two events, the giving of the Seven Laws of Noach and the Giving of the Torah to the Jewish People, means that there is only one true “religion.”  That true religion is the Torah, which, on a macro level, creates two classes of people: Jews and Noahides.  Thus, by definition, all other religions are religions which reject Torah and which, therefore, constitute idolatry.
 
So, what is a spiritual descendant of Esav-Edom to do?  It’s simple:  Persons who were not born to a Jewish mother, that is, persons who are not Jewish, should seek out an Orthodox rabbi who can assist them in learning, and living in accordance with, the Seven Laws of Noach.  Alternatively, those who were not born to a Jewish mother may convert to Judaism; however, there is no requirement for them to do so.
 
In a similar vein, persons who were born to a Jewish mother, thus making them Jewish, but who have not yet had an opportunity to learn Torah and Halakha (Jewish Law) need only to embrace Judaism by seeking out an Orthodox rabbi and to begin learning and practicing Judaism.
 
It’s not easy to critically evaluate beliefs that a person has, for their entire life, assumed to be true; nor is it easy to so significantly change one’s life, especially considering the impact such change is likely to have on personal and familial relationships.  This, however, is the high cost of ultimate truth.

שבת שלום
Shabbat Shalom!

​Parasha Hayye Sara tells the story of the death of Sara, saying that: “Sara died in Qiryat Arba, which is in Hebron, in the land of Kena’an.”  Bereshit 23:1-2.
 
Abraham, seeking to purchase a burial site for Sara, went to the elders of Qiryat Arba and, through the elders, tendered to Efron the Hitti, an offer to purchase the Cave of Makhpela ([מערת המכפלה], literally, The Cave of Doubles).
 
Addressing the elders of Qiryat Arba, Abraham said:

​Bereshit 22:8-9.
 
“Efron the Hitti answered Abraham . . . , saying ‘No, my lord, hear me.  The field I give thee, and the cave that is in it, I give thee. . . .  Bury thy dead.’”  Bereshit 23:10-12.  Abraham responded, “But if thou wilt give it, . . . I will give thee the price of the field. . . .”  Id., 23:13.
 
Efron then states his price: “My lord . . . , a piece of land worth four hundred shekels of silver; what is that between me and thee.  Bury thy dead.”  Id. 23:15.  After Efron negotiates with Abraham by asking, “What’s a mere four hundred shekels between “friends,’” Abraham accepted Efron’s offer to sell the field, which included the Cave of Makhpela [מערת המכפלה] and paid Efron the purchase price.  Efron then transferred title of the field and cave to Abraham.
 
The Ramban (Moses ben Nahman, aka: Nahmanides (1194 (Spain)-1270 (Jerusalem)) explains that Abraham desired only to purchase the Cave of Makhpela [מערת המכפלה]