The Divrei Torah in this section have been translated by Rav Reuven Ungar, Director of Alumni Affairs

Meshech Chochma on Education

By: Rav Reuven Ungar

Insights into the parsha, from Rav Meir Simcha HaKohen, Rav of Dvinsk and author of the Ohr Sameach on the Rambam. Translated and elaborated upon by Rav Reuven Ungar.

"And to their families, they exited from the ark" (Bereshit 8:19). In Masechet Sanhedrin (108b), Chazal record the view of Rabi Yochanan, who comments that they left to their families but not to themselves (lemishpechotayham yatza'u, velo hem). What concept is Rabi Yochanan conveying to us?

The survival of inhabitants of the ark was supernatural. Only the special providence of Hashem enabled the family of Noach and the animals to endure the destructive environment of the flood. Indeed, the verse "And G-d remembered Noach and the beasts and the animals in the ark" (8:1) indicates the unique Divine protection necessary to endure such a climate. Chazal mention that the remembrance refers to the feeding of the animals for the duration of the yearlong stay in the ark (Bereshit Raba, 33:4).

This begs the question: why didn't Hashem see if fit to annihilate the inhabitants of the world in a split second?! If supernatural modes of conduct will be employed, why extend this state of affairs to a full year? The difficult maintenance of the animal kingdom on the ark could have been avoided. What purpose did the 12 month stay on the ark accomplish?

The animal kingdom had sunk to a stage of total self-corruption (Hishchit kol basar et darko al ha'aretz). The nature of the animals desired to perpetrate evil. All previous norms of conduct had been violated and discarded.

This presented an educational challenge. The animals had to embark on a process of re-education. This was to be accomplished by a strict regimen of abstinence from intimate relations, adapting themselves to limits of consumption and by accepting the authority of man (who fed them). Subsequent to 12 months of this behavior, the animals were prepared to rejoin their natural habitat.

In regards to intimate relations, the animals exited to their families- they would no longer stray towards different species. Rabi Yochanan reveals that the animals did not revert to themselves. This profound change figuratively transformed the animals into new creatures. Passersby would remark that these are different animals!

Education is not achieved by the snap of a finger. Changing ones' nature is subject to intensive work- on intellectual, emotional and practical levels. There are no short cuts in chinuch.

Revealed and Concealed Components of Rabbinic Enactments- Part II

By: Rav Yechezkel Yakovson

A shiur from Rav Yechezkel Yakobson, Rosh Yeshivat Sha'alvim. This is a translation from an article that originally appeared in the HaMa'ayan publication.

Summary of Part I: A tradition exists from the Gra that Chazal did not list all of the reasons for their enactments and decrees. Frequently, Chazal express a halachic concern for an enactment, but conceal a wider, educational factor that generated the decree.

The opening Mishnah of Masechet Ketubot records the rabbinic requirement of a virgin to be wed on Wednesday evening. If the groom encounters doubts as to the virginity of his bride he will immediately approach the Jewish court of law (beit din) the next morning (beit din was in session on Monday and Thursday mornings).

At first glance, it is difficult to comprehend what is the benefit of such an enactment. Even if the bride was not a virgin, she would remain permitted to her husband, due to the existence of two doubts (sefek sfeka). 1. Perhaps the illicit union was non-consensual. 2. Even if it was consensual, perhaps the union transpired while the woman was single (before betrothal- erusin).

Rashi responds that (subsequent to the complaint of the groom in beit din) perhaps witnesses will testify that the bride willingly committed adultery while betrothed- thus forbidding her to the groom. Tosafat maintain that Chazal primarily designed this enactment for situations of one doubt (a wife of a kohen, who is forbidden even when violated against her will, or a women who was betrothed before the age of 3, where it is apparent that the illicit union transpired while she was already betrothed). As an aside (agav) to the cases of one doubt, Chazal extended the requirement to be wed on Wednesday evenings to all virgins.

Yet, both of these explanations apparently remain difficult. According to Rashi, if a double doubt is permitted, why did Chazal require us to create conditions that will encourage witnesses to testify? In reference to Tosafot, why should the majority of couples be obligated to wed on a specific evening to solve halachic concerns relating to the majority? In addition (as the Pnei Yehoshua points out, predicated upon the position of Rabeinu Yonah), even the women who are in the category of one doubt will be believed if they voice specific claims that explain their apparent lack of virginal status. Should 99% be subjugated to the concerns of a microscopic minority?!  Furthermore, the gemara records that at a specific stage in history this enactment generated a tremendous violation of privacy amongst Jewish women. The nations required brides being wed on Wednesday evenings to engage in relations with the local chieftain. Chazal would not repeal the enactment, for the local decree was of a temporal nature. This is truly incomprehensible- in order to solve a narrow halachic concern that may occur amongst a fraction of young couples, all Jewish brides must suffer?!

It appears that the enactment to be wed on Wednesday evenings is primarily educational and designed to strengthen the institution of modesty (tzniut) in the Jewish People. All potential brides should be aware that beit din is in session on the morning subsequent to the marriage. This functioned as a deterrent for  women from participating in illicit relations.

Likewise, this institution encouraged husbands to complain in beit din, if the need would arise. The terminology at the end of the Mishnah supports this thesis; all husbands (not only in cases of double doubt) were invited to air their claims if their was an apparent lack of modesty. Thus, the enactment of Chazal was designed to safeguard and strengthen the purity of the Jewish family.

The Rishonim endeavored to explain the rationale of the specific halachic issue that Chazal mentioned. Yet, the broad benefit of this enactment spanned far beyond the case(s) mentioned by the Rishonim. Thus, Chazal did not repeal their enactment even in the face of terrible external factors. For the local decrees were of a temporal nature, and the enactment of Chazal was designed to uphold the sanctified state of the Jewish home.

Be'ezrat Hashem, next weeks' installment will engage another enactment of Chazal and investigate the apparent and concealed reasons that generated it.