MarCheshvan 5762

PARSHAT TOLDOT
Put your Heart where your Mouth is

"Yaakov was an "Ish Tam", a wholesome man, abiding in tents" [1] (Bereishit 25:27). Rashi explains the term "Ish Tam": "He is not expert in all these; as is his heart, so is his mouth, one who is not sharp in deceiving is called 'tam'" [2] . We would never accuse Avraham and Yitzchak of deception, yet Yaakov is specifically singled out: "grant truth to Yaakov" [3] (Micha 7:20). Yaakov's particular specialty was being a man of truth (similarly, the pasuk continues "chesed to Avraham", does this imply that Yitzchak and Yaakov were not involved in acts of chesed? G-d forbid! The pasuk is telling us that it was Avraham Avinu in particular who excelled in performing acts of chesed.

Just how far did Yaakov actually cleave to the truth? We can gain some insight by analyzing the way in which he "deceived" his father Yitzchak, in usurping the Brachot that were intended for Esav. Yaakov had no choice but to act contrary to his nature (This was commanded in a prophecy to Rivka - see Onkelos to Bereishit 27:13 and Ramban 27:4). Yet even while lying, Yaakov did his best to ensure that the words that came out his mouth were true. Yaakov's response to his father's asking "who are you my son" [4] (Bereishit 27:18), was "it is I, Esav your firstborn" [5] (ibid. 19). The Zohar tells us that while saying these words, Yaakov was thinking "I am who I am and Esav is your firstborn" (see Rashi for a similar interpretation). How are we to understand this? Does the fact that Yaakov had a different meaning underlying his words, classify his statements as true? If someone were to ask you "who are you" and you were to0 respond "I am Ehud Olmert, mayor of Yerushalayim", and deep down you would have in mind "I am who I am, Ehud Olmert is mayor of Yerushalayim", would that indicate that you were speaking the truth? Obviously not! It is clear, therefore that had Yaakov not been forced to act in this manner, he certainly would not have uttered such "truths". Of what difference is it then, what is in the speaker's heart if the words themselves are lies? As we have explained, Yaakov had no choice - he had to lie and deceive because he was commanded to do so. In spite of this, however, he tried as best he could to keep as far away as possible from an outright lie. Despite the implication of his words, he did his best to think of an interpretation that was not a lie. We see just how abominable lying was to Yaakov Avinu, the Man of Truth.

My Rebbe HaRav Dessler zt"l had another interpretation of this incident. HaRav Dessler explains that when Yaakov said "It is I, Esav your firstborn", he meant precisely what he said. He was "Esav", but not the man going by the name of Esav, rather the person who had the characteristics that Yitzchak thought present in Esav, thereby rendering him deserving of the blessings. You my father Yitzchak think that "Esav" is the righteous among your two sons, if so "It is I, Esav your firstborn" - I am truly the righteous among your two sons, therefore I am the "Esav" you are looking for. Had Yitzchak known the true nature of Esav, he would certainly have desired to bless Yaakov and not Esav. We can illustrate this point by using the following parable (I do not recall whether Rav Dessler himself used this explanation or someone else): If I were to approach you and ask you "what time do you have" and you know that your watch is a few minutes fast. If you were to respond "I have eleven o'clock" and you know full well that this is not the correct time but only what your watch says, you would not be giving me the answer I was looking for. I am not interested in what time your watch says (unless of course I am a watchmaker who wishes to ascertain whether your watch is in need of repair). I need to know the time, to find out whether I must hurry for my bus or Minyan. I want to know the true time. I phrased my question "what time do you have" to tell you that you need not take a survey of all watches in the neighborhood to see what the precise time is. If a person knows however that his watch is fast, he is required to give the correct (objective) time because that is what he was asked. This is what Yaakov Avinu does, Yaakov knew that Yitzchak Avinu had no interest in blessing an evil person, Yitzchak was simply mistaken in thinking that Esav was the greater tzaddik (see Rashi Bereishit 28:25). Given those facts, Yaakov spoke to Yitzchak in Yitzchak's term "it is I, Esav your firstborn", I am the tzaddik among your two sons, which is the characteristic that think belongs to Esav, therefore and I am the "Esav" upon whom you wish to bestow your blessings.

Yaakov's truthfulness when he was coerced into lying, clearly indicates just how complete this character trait was within him - "as is his heart, so is his mouth". There was no contradiction between what he said and what he felt. Those not on Yaakov's level may at times, rather than telling the truth when they are in fact lying, lie when they are in fact telling the truth. The words of the sentence may be factually true, but there is a lack of "as is his heart, so is his mouth", the heart is not in agreement with the words of his mouth. Let us take for example, a person who refers to another with the title "HaRav HaGaon" yet in his heart does not believe for a minute that this person is deserving of such a title, he only wants to flatter him. Should the person truly deserve the title, the one describing him may be speaking the truth, yet his statement lacks "as is his heart, so is his mouth", which is akin to lying. If we are speaking of someone who does not deserve such a title, then what he is saying is an outright lie. Similarly, if someone refers to himself as being insignificant, yet in his heart thinks very highly of himself, only modesty dictates that he must speak of himself in such terms. He may truly not be anything special, he may in fact be even "smaller" than the way he describes himself, yet if in his heart he feels that he is on a higher level, than playing himself down indicates a lack of harmony between what he says and what he feels: he lacks "as is his heart so is his mouth".

Iyov was arguing with his cohorts. They claimed that his suffering was due to his actions. Regarding this, Hashem told Elifaz: "My anger burns against you and against your two friends, for you did not speak properly about Me as My servant Iyov did" [6] (Iyov 42:7). Iyov in fact was wrong, Hashem did have reason to harm him for his actions. Hashem, however forgave Iyov for what he had said, for Iyov spoken from a broken heart and "a person is not held accountable while he is in pain" [7] (Baba Batra 16b). But you, Elifaz and friends, who claim that Iyov's punishment resulted from his sins! Your words are true, yet "you did not speak properly about Me" - you are not speaking from the depths of your heart - deep down you do not believe this to be the cause of his sins (Elifaz and his colleagues were prophets, yet it appears they spoke beyond what the Divine Spirit dictated). Hashem is rebuking them for their lack of "as is his heart, so is his mouth", and it is for this reason that "my wrath burns against you and against your two friends".

This lack of harmony between mouth and heart can often lead to a violating the prohibition of "genevat daat" (intentionally misleading someone). We are told "do not insist that someone dine with you when you know they are not going to" [8] (Chullin 94a). For example, if one were to say to his friend "why not join me for lunch tomorrow", and then later on say "sorry, I forgot, tomorrow is the fast of the Tenth of Tevet". (There was never any intention of inviting this person to lunch, it was simply a way of having him think that he was his friend and concerned with his well-being. Had the following day not been a fast day, he would never have invited him in the first place). The Gemara extends this prohibition further "one may not mislead any human being, even a non-Jew" [9] (ibid.). If, however, he knows that he would have invited him even when he knew the other would accept the invitation, he would be permitted to invite him despite knowing that he will turn him down in this case (so it seems from the Gemara, see Sm"a on Choshen Mishpat 228:9).

As we see with Yaakov Avinu, there are times when one may change the facts. Chazal tell us that Hashem Himself acted in a similar manner. When informed that she was to have a child, Sarah responded "after I have withered shall I again have delicate skin? AND MY HUSBAND IS OLD" [10] (Bereishit 18:12). Hashem, relayed to Avraham that Sarah had said "I (Sarah) have aged" [11] (ibid. 13). Why did Hashem feel the need to alter the facts? Because "great is peace for even Hashem altered the facts for its sake" [12] (Baba Metzia 87a). How are we to understand this? Was Hashem worried that Avraham would, G-d forbid, begin to quarrel with Sarah for having said that he is old? Rather, if relaying Sarah's precise words would have somehow harmed even ever so slightly the great love that Avraham had for Sarah, this too falls under the category of lying for the sake of peace. (The Ramban points out that Hashem did not really alter any words that Sarah had said. Sarah after all said: "after I have withered shall I again have delicate skin, and my husband is old". Sarah described herself as being old and wondered how she could possibly regain her youth and have a child. Hashem relayed this fact to Avraham, and simply OMITTED the rest of the sentence in which she described her husband too as being old. There was nothing in what Hashem told Avraham that was not mentioned by Sarah, He simply left out the part that may have interfered with the tranquility that existed between Avraham and Sarah. If Hashem altered the facts for the sake of peace, we certainly are permitted to do so. We must, however, do our utmost and to follow in the footsteps of Yaakov and lessen the lie as best we can.

We can derive from here that if one hosted a very difficult guest and he feels he must take leave of his guest with by saying "I was happy to see you", it is recommended that he think in heart "I was very happy to see ... you finally get up and leave my house"! This, of course is only if he feels the need to make such a statement. It would be better, of course not to say anything if he does not truly mean to imply the simple meaning of his words. With all the intentions one has in his statement, it still lacks "as is his heart, so is his mouth". Escorting a guest whom one feels does not deserve such honor also constitutes a clash between the heart and the mouth. One may act in such a way at times in order to keep the peace, yet this is not ideal. The Chazon Ish once had a visitor, and when he took his leave the Chazon Ish instructed one of his students to escort him. When asked whether he really felt this person was deserving of such an honor, the Chazon Ish replied that he did not think so but given that the man himself thought he was worthy of an escort, it is only proper that he send him one. The Chazon Ish, in this case did not wish to hurt his guest in any way. On the surface, one would say that what the Chazon Ish did was worse than what Hashem said to Avraham. From now on the guest will feel that even the Chazon Ish realizes how much respect he deserves! The Chazon Ish obviously felt that this was permitted to keep the peace. With this in mind, however, the Chazon Ish felt that giving the man what he thinks he deserves can be classified as keeping the peace.

The Gemara records a dispute regarding whether one may veer from the truth in order to flatter the wicked. The discussion revolves around Yaakov having said to Esav: "inasmuch as I have seen your face, which is like seeing the face of a Divine being, and you were appeased by me" [13] (Bereishit 33:10). Reish Lakish is of the opinion that Yaakov truly meant to flatter Esav, to make him feel that "seeing your face is as important to me as having seen the face of an angel" - we see from here that we may flatter the wicked in this world. R' Levi differs claiming that Yaakov had no intention of giving Esav any compliments. Yaakov's intent was rather to intimidate Esav. Yaakov wanted Esav to know that he had better not "start up" with him, for Yaakov is accustomed to being in the company of angels. This can be compared to "a man who invited his neighbor to a meal and the latter perceived that he wished to kill him, so he said to him 'the taste of this dish of which I am partaking is like the dish I tasted in the king's palace" [14] (Sotah 41b). The intention here is that the host realize that his guest is very close to the king, he frequents the king's house, and it would therefore not be wise to start up with him. According to R' Levi this was what Yaakov had in mind.

Chazal tell us that Yirmiyahu was guilty of flattering Chananyah ben Azur, a false prophet. Chananaya ben Azur had said: "Thus said Hashem .. in another two years I shall return to this place all the articles of the Temple of Hashem that Nebuchadnezzar king of Bavel took from this place" [15] (Yirmiyahu 28:2-3). Rather than shouting "you false prophet - Hashem said no such thing", Yirmiyahu responded: "Amen, may Hashem do so! May Hashem fulfill your words that you prophesied" [16] (ibid. 6). There is at least one opinion in Chazal that this was a form of forbidden flattery and it lead to Yirmiyahu's being taken into captivity years later by the king because he was betrayed by none other than Yirayah ben Shelemyah ben Chananaya, the grandson of this false prophet (see Yirmiyahu 37:1-16). Chazal explain "whoever flatters an evil person will finally fall into his hand, if he does not fall into his hand he will fall into the hand of his sons, and if he does not fall into his sons' hand he will fall into the hand of his grandsons" [17] (Sotah 41b).

The permission we have to alter the facts for the sake of peace has its limitations, and according to the view we just quoted, it would not be permitted if it involves flattery of the wicked, unless the situation is life threatening. We find such a case when Ulla arrived in Eretz Yisrael from Bavel. He was escorted by two people who began to argue and eventually one arose and killed the other. When asked by the murderer whether he had acted properly, Ulla replied "certainly, you must now complete what you have begun and cut his throat completely". A period of time later, Ulla came to R' Yochanan and related what had transpired. He was perturbed by his decision, and asked R' Yochanan whether perhaps he was guilty of being an accomplice to sinners. R' Yochanan reassured Ulla that he had indeed acted properly, for he was saving his own life. Had he not answered the murderer in such a fashion, Ulla perhaps would have been the next victim (see Nedarim 22a). This of course refers to the particular issue of lying in a case of "pikuach nefesh", ideally there must harmony between the mouth and the heart.

We must achieve this harmony in our prayers as well. The Gemara points out the Moshe Rabenu described Hashem as "the great, the mighty, and awesome G-d" [18] (Devarim 10:17). Years later Yirmiyahu came along and referred to Hashem as "the great and mighty G-d" [19] (Yirmiyahu 32:18). Why not "the awesome"? Because "aliens are destroying His Temple, where are then, His awesome deeds?" [20] (Yoma 69b). The Babylonians were about to enter and destroy the Beit Hamikdash, they were about to enter the Temple and defile it - they have no awe of G-d, in the very place described by Yaakov as "how awesome is this place" [21] (Bereishit 28:17). If the Babylonians had no fear of Hashem, how can He be described as "awesome". Later on Daniel and then Nehemiah said "the great and awesome G-d" [22] (Daniel 9:4, Nehemiah 1:5). What happened to Hashem's might? "Aliens are enslaving his sons, where are His mighty deeds?" [23] (Yoma 69b). Where do we see His might, when His people are being enslaved by the other nations? We cannot refer to Him as mighty under such circumstances! Along came the Anshei Knesset HaGedola and declared: "on the contrary! therein lie His mighty deeds that He suppresses His wrath, that He extends long-suffering to the wicked. Therein lie His awesome powers: for but for the fear of Him, how could one single nation persist among the many nations". [24] (Yoma 69b). It was in the depths of the exile and destruction that we witnessed Hashem's might and His awesomeness. A sheep was thrown among a pack of seventy wolves, yet could not be destroyed. Can there be any greater indication of His might? The fact that He was not quick to punish the wicked, does this not display His awesome powers? "'Who is like You among 'eilim' - the mighty ones, Hashem' (Shmot 15:11) - who is like You among 'ilmim' - the mute ones? (in Hebrew the spelling is almost identical) [25] (Gittin 56b). Hashem hears the wicked curse Him yet remains silent. It is specifically in these trying times that we are able to say "the great, the mighty, and awesome G-d". It is for this reason that the Anshei Knesset HaGedola established this phrase in the Shmone Esrei that we recite today.

Following this explanation, the Gemara asks "now the Rabbis (referring to Yirmiyahu, Daniel, and Nehemiah), how did they act thus and abolish the institution that Moshe instituted?" [26] (Yoma 69b). If Moshe referred to Hashem as "the great, the mighty, and awesome G-d", what gave these prophets the right to detract from this description? The Gemara responds "because they knew about Hashem that He is truthful, they therefore would not speak falsehood to Him". [27] (ibid.). The prophets knew that Hashem is Truth and desires truthful prayers. The Torah may describe Hashem as "the great, the mighty, and the awesome G-d", and the prophets were well aware that this was the ultimate and eternal truth. In light of their particular circumstances, however, they did not feel these truths in their heart. Their minds may have believed all this to be true, but they did not feel they had the right to mention specific praises in their prayer that were not in their heart - "as is his heart, so is his mouth".

A wise man z"l once explained to me why in the pasuk "one thing I asked of Hashem, that shall I seek" [28] (Tehillim 27:4), David Hamelech use the double language - first saying "one thing I ask", then "that shall I seek". He claimed that there are people who pray for something in particular but do not really mean what they are saying. One may ask Hashem "give dew and rain for a blessing" [29] , yet in his heart he prays "just not tonight, I have a wedding to go to". Similarly one may pray "gather us together from the four corners of the earth" [30] while what he really feels is that it would be better that Hashem wait on this until he completes his university degree in America. David's request "would that I dwell in the House of Hashem all the days of my life" [31] (Tehillim 27:4), is not simply mouthing words that are printed in the siddur. It is "that shall I seek" - this is my true wish and desire. The Chafetz Chaim was always amazed that a Jew could ask Hashem each and every morning "and enlighten our eyes in Your Torah and cleave our hearts in Your Mitzvot" [32] and not even bother to open the Gemara immediately after davening to see if perhaps his prayers were answered and he now would finally understand the Gemara! This is because our prayers are not sincere enough, they do not come from the heart, while the prophets who would not utter any words that they did not truly feel.

What can we say of ourselves, are our prayers sincere? Do we feel as David did "one thing I ask of Hashem, that shall I seek"? Do we truly desire everything we pray for. Each morning we ask "Our Father, the merciful Father, Who acts mercifully, have mercy upon us" [33] . I can think of no other place in davening in which three phrases of mercy are mentioned without interruption. What are asking Hashem mercy for? Is it for health and prosperity? No, rather "instill in our hearts, to understand and elucidate, to listen, learn, and teach" [34] . We all pray for wisdom, but does it really matter to us whether we have uncovered the correct "pshat' in the Gemara. Do we really mean what we are saying? What about "bring us back our Father to Your Torah" [35] ? Do we feel that we must repent and return to Hashem? Me? I am not the one who needs to do tshuva, I am only saying this because it is written in the siddur, this bracha however only applies to others. Teddy Kollek, for example needs to do tshuva - if only Hashem would enlighten him to repent! I am doing fine. What about "forgive us, our Father for we have erred" [36] ? That certainly does not apply to me, it is Shimon Peres who must seek forgiveness for his sins! We will never actually say this, for we will always give the standard line that we must do tshuva. What do our hearts say? What do we feel deep down? Do we feel complacent that what we are always acting correctly?

When we ask Hashem: "restore the service to the Holy of Holies of Your Temple" [37] , are we longing for the service in the Beit Hamikdash? Are the two sheep brought daily with the Korban Tamid truly missing from our lives? We are not missing anything, we are simply reading from the siddur. How sincere are our prayers really? Man must strive for at least some sincerity in his prayers - "For we hope for Your salvation all day long" [38] - do we really long for a salvation? There are two interpretations of this prayer, and we should have both in mind: 1) We are awaiting His salvation, that He should save us from the current Intifada and all our other troubles, 2) We are waiting for Him to save Himself. The Chillul Hashem today is very widespread, there are so many heretics, both among our own people and among the other nations. We pray that this situation will finally disappear and Hashem's Name will be sanctified throughout this world. These two interpretations are in fact interdependent, for "the salvation of Hashem is the salvation of Israel" [39] (Vayikra Rabba 9:3). We must desire this from the heart and not just pay lip service to it.

Each morning we quote from the Mishna that states: "the study of Torah is equivalent to them all" [40] (Peah 1:1) - the reward for Torah study is equivalent to all the Mitzvot that were previously enumerated in this Mishna. We have no tools with which to measure the reward for Talmud Torah, for "better is one hour of bliss in the world to come than the whole life of this world" [41] (Pirke Avot Perek 4, Mishna 17). If we were to gather together all the pleasures of this world, all the money, diamonds, food, drink, and whatever else this world may have to offer, it would not compare to even one hour of bliss in the World to Come. With this in mind, let us attempt to define the reward for Talmud Torah in terms that we can relate to - shekels or dollars. Among the other things enumerated in the Braita is "bikkur cholim" - visiting the sick. Fulfilling this Mitzvah involves much more than inquiring after his welfare and wishing him a "refuah shlema". To fulfill "bikkur cholim" we must take measures to insure that he has a doctor or nurse, should he need, perhaps even funding to travel to chutz la'aretz for an operation. The expenses incurred from fulfillment of this Mitzvah can run into the hundreds of thousands of shekels. What about "hachnassat kallah" - providing for the bride. It is not enough to dance at the wedding and partake of the festive meal. If necessary we must provide her with an apartment, furniture, clothing, a washing machine, and whatever else a bride may need. This is not to mention the expenses of the wedding itself - the hall and the band. Here too, the expenses can reach a sum total of hundreds of thousands of shekels.

Given that Hashem rewards us in Mitzvot beyond the expenses we incurred in its fulfillment, we can safely say that the reward awaiting one who fulfills "bikkur cholim" and "hachnassat kallah" amounts to hundreds of thousands of shekels. If after all that, we come and declare "the study of Torah is equivalent to them all", it must be that each word of Torah we learn increases our bank accounts by at least that amount. If we would be able to check our Heavenly Bank statement, it would read "this morning you learned this number of words and we have credited your account with several hundred thousand shekels". If we truly felt this, we would do our utmost to increase our learning as much as possible. There would no longer be as many excuses that would interfere with our learning, on the contrary, we would be unable to even sleep and eat! Unfortunately we have no access to this bank statement, yet no doubt it is there. How internalized is this notion to us, do we truly feel that "the study of Torah is equivalent to them all"?

HaGaon HaRav Sholom Schwadron zt"l once delivered a drasha in Shaarei Chesed in which he pointed out that even in the spiritual realm, one must learn to be "mevater" - to give up that which may be rightfully his for the sake of the other. He cited the story of R' Yisrael M'Salant who one day was observing his mother's yahrzeit and as is customary wished to act as "shliach tzibbur" in her memory. Another Jew approached him and asked if he could lead the services instead as it was his daughter's yahrzeit. Although the halacha clearly rules in favor R' Yisrael - the yahrzeit for a parent takes precedence over one for a child (not to mention that R' Yisrael was the Gadol HaDor and it would certainly have been fitting to have him serve as "shliach tzibbur"), R' Yisrael relented and allowed the other person to serve as chazan, observing how pained the man would have been had he been denied this privilege. Thus R' Yisrael reasoned that the chesed he is doing with this individual serves as a greater source for elevating his mother's soul than had he served as chazan.

One of the people in the audience arose and said that such a story is all well and good when speaking of R' Yisrael M'Salant who understood the true value of Kaddish and Tefilla. He understood the opportunity that he was relinquishing, and it was very noble of him to allow another to take his place. "But me", said the man in the audience, "I have a hard time parting with ten lirot! If I would allow another to take my rightful place as chazan, it would only indicate that the honor was worth less than ten lirot to me". R' Sholom did not know how to answer, the man was telling the truth. If he were to forego the opportunity, it would be because it meant little to him. R' Yisrael knew what he was sacrificing, and thus his act was very praiseworthy. To many the value of tefilla is not internalized, giving up such an opportunity for a fellow Jew would not only not have the same meaning - but would even perhaps be considered degrading to the tefilla.

We believe that the Torah is more valuable than all of the world's treasures combined, as we sing on Simchat Torah "The Torah of Your mouth is better for me than thousands in gold and silver" [42] (Tehillim 119:72). We may believe it intellectually, but do we live that feeling? That is far more difficult. Anyone can tell you that the Torah is holier than anything else, that the Torah must honored and respected. In spite of this, I cannot tell you how many times I have seen Gemaras and other holy books placed upside down on the shelf. What about sefarim that are lying upside down on the table? Furthermore, and this is something that the halacha objects to as well, I have often seen other objects on top of the sifrei kodesh - a fountain pen, a coat, a Hebrew English dictionary to name but a few. These may aid us in our learning, but in and of themselves they have no sanctity. They are nothing but the perfumers and cooks that serve the Torah. Does the cook have the right to lord over the queen? Chazal tell us that "whoever honors the Torah is himself honored by people" [43] (Avot 4:6) - it is our duty to honor the Torah.

Achav was a totally evil king, he was guilty of many terrible acts, including worshipping Avoda Zara. In spite of this, he merited being king for twenty years because of his respect for the Torah (see Sanhedrin 120b) - he fought against Hadad king of Aram who wished to take the Sefer Torah away from him (see Melachim I, perek 20 and Rashi there pasuk 6). The sons of Eli, in spite of their sins, had a great deal of kavod haTorah. When word came of the war against the Plishtim, we are told: "the wife of Pinchas was soon to give birth, and when she heard the news about the capture of the Ark of G-d and that her father-in-law died, and her husband, she crouched down and gave birth for her labor pains came upon her" [44] (Shmuel I 4:19). We are then told: "as she was about to die, those standing around her spoke to her 'fear not, for you have borne a son', but she did not answer and she did not take it to her heart. She called the boy 'i kavod' (lack of honor) saying 'glory has been exiled from Israel because of the capture of the Ark of G-d'" [45] (ibid. 20-21). She then repeated "glory has been exiled from Israel, for the ark of G-d has been captured" [46] (ibid. 22). All the suffering she went through were insignificant compared to this tragedy - her husband had died, her father-in-law the judge and Kohen Gadol had died, all the decrees that had been decreed upon the house of Eli were beginning to be fulfilled (see Shmuel I 2:27-36). What does she care about? "The ark of G-d has been captured". Similarly, her father-in-law Eli was able to handle the defeat of the Jewish people and the death of his two sons. But when he heard of the Ark being captured, he fell from his chair and died (see Shmuel I 17-18). These were people who felt kavod haTorah and knew what it means to respect and honor the Aron. They understood that as holy as the Beit Hamikdash was, its sanctity stemmed from the Tablets and the Torah that were in the Aron that was housed in the Kodesh HaKodoshim (see Menachot 27b). We too must internalize this. We must understand the values of our holy Torah and the immense value of kavod haTorah.

This week begins the month of Kislev - the month of the battle of the Jewish people against the Greeks. The Greeks were very wise people, great philosophers. The Rambam, in fact, writes very highly of their scholars, in particular Aristotle. Greek wisdom, however, in the words of R' Yehuda HaLevi "has no fruits, only flowers" [47] . Greek wisdom has no internal content, it is only external beauty. We must ensure that our wisdom is internalized that the Torah's wisdom is in our hearts and not treat it as lofty external ideas, it must become a part of us. The story is told of a Roman philosopher who dictated to his servant published an article discussing the pitfalls of anger. His servant was once careless, and spilled ink over the article. What did the philosopher do? He took out his sword and slew his servant! We see what can happen if one's wisdom is purely external. The Torah is the wisdom of Hashem, and our souls are His image. The wisdom of the Torah therefore must be recognizable upon us, it must become a part of our self. If we can manage to do so, then with Hashem's help we will be continuing in the path of Matityahu and his sons.