From amidst this difficult day that we are experiencing, when a pregnant woman and her four daughters were murdered by áï òååìä on their way from their home in the settlement of Katif, we will deal with a unique mitzva that appears in our parasha – the mitzva of Kiddush HaShem, (literally “Sanctification of the Name,” ie. sanctifying God’s name.)

The source for this mitzva is derived from the verses in our parasha:

“Do not desecrate My holy name. I will be sanctified among Bnei Yisra’el; I am God Who makes you holy; Who takes you out of the land of Egypt to be your God, I am God.”

(Vayikra 22:32,33)

The various commentators question the placing of these verses here, in Parashat Emor.

For example, the Ibn Ezra explains that these verses were directed at the kohanim (priests), that while they are performing their priestly duties in the correct manner, God’s name is then sanctified in the world.

Yet we must ask – what then is the second verse “Who takes you out of the land of Egypt to be your God, I am God?” It would appear that this verse applies to all of Yisra’el, and not solely to the kohanim, for it was not only the kohanim who experienced the exodus from Egypt.

The Rambam understands this verse as applying to all of Yisra’el, and thus establishes that these verses indeed are the source of the mitzva of Kiddush HaShem.

The Rambam write as follows:

“The ninth mitzva – the commandment that we were commanded regarding Kiddush HaShem, as the verse states: ‘I will be sanctified among Bnei Yisra’el.’”

(Sefer HaMitzvot, Postive Mitzvot, 9)

The Rambam then continues and clarifies what this mitzva of Kiddush HaShem is:

“And the matter of this mitzva is: we are commanded to publicize this true religion publicly, and we must not be afraid in so doing of any harm of any kind, to the extent that should an oppressive tyrant call on us to deny God – we will not heed him, rather we will give ourselves up to sure death, rather than allowing him to even think that we denied (God,) even though our hearts believe in Him.”

(ibid.)

The Rambam then elucidates his explanation further, adding an example from our history:

“This is the mitzva of Kiddush HaShem about which all of Bnei Yisra’el were commanded. That is to say that we should be prepared to die at the hands of the tyrant over our love of God and our faith in His unity – just as Chananya, Mi’sha’el and Azarya did in the days of the evil Nebuchadnezzar, when he forced them to prostrate themselves before an idol; and every person, including the Jews, prostrated themselves (before the idol.)”

(ibid.)

The Rambam explains that during that period, during Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, God’s name was desecrated for the following reason:

“And there was no-one who sanctified God’s name. And this was a great disgrace for Yisra’el that they all neglected this mitzva, there was no-one to fulfill it, for they all feared.”

The fear, therefore, brought great shame and disgrace upon Yisra’el, for the fear prevented them from sacrificing themselves thereby sanctifying God’s name (with the exception of Chananya, Mi’sha’el, and Azarya.) We must reiterate that the shame was not the prostration before a foreign god, but rather that the entire ideology had collapsed – and no-one protested or even spoke out. No one stood up and said that living in this manner is simply not living – this is the essence of the shame that came on Yisra’el who had abandoned this mitzva.

Despite the fact that the Torah teaches us the concept:

“‘‘And he shall live through them,’ (Vayikra 18:5) – and he should not die through them.”

(Sanhedrin 74a, et al.)

Yet from the location of the verse “Va’chai ba’hem” – “And he shall live through them,” which serves as an introduction to the parasha of arayot (forbidden sexual liaisons) which have the law of “ye’ha’reg v’lo ya’avor” – “one should be killed rather than transgress (them),” we derive an insight which serves as the fundamental basis for the concept of “Va’chai ba’hem.”

This insight is that only a society (as the collective and as individuals) which knows that there is a moral red line which the moment it is crossed life loses its meaning (that representative of this final boundary are the three cardinal sins of idolatry, murder, and acts of sexual immorality which share the law of “ye’ha’reg v’lo ya’avor,”) only a society like this may apply the concept of “Va’chai ba’hem.”

But a society which constantly changes its values, which does not internalize the concept that there are certain issues which do not allow life to continue as usual, even if the price that must be paid is a heavy one, or in other words, when there is a society that does not sanctify God’s name, then it is this society that the Rambam describes: ““And there was no-one who sanctified God’s name. And this was a great disgrace for Yisra’el…”

The Rambam then adds the following:

“And God already promised, through Y’sha’yahu that Yisra’el’s shame will not be complete at that time, but some young men will appear at that difficult time, who will not fear death, and they will disregard their own blood and publicize the faith, and they will sanctify God in public, as God commanded us through Moshe Rabbenu, as the verse states: ‘No longer will Ya’akov be shamed; no longer will is face grow pale,’ (Y’sha’yahu 29:22)”

What is this shame that Ya’akov will be spared?

This is the shame caused when there are none who sanctify God, this is the shame that was spared of Ya’akov our forefather, as the Rambam adds:

“‘For when he sees his children, my handiwork in his midst who will sanctify my name – they will sanctify the Holy One of Ya’akov, and will venerate the God of Yisra’el.’ (Y’sha’yahu 29:23)”

Now how does everything we have said emerge from the two verse we opened with – the verse which commands us about Kiddush HaShem, and the following verse which states that God “takes you out of the land of Egypt to be your God, I am God?”

The Rambam addresses this point, quoting the Sifra:

“And the Sifra states: ‘It is for this purpose that I took you out of Egypt – in order that you shall sanctify My name in public.”

Thus the purpose of the exodus from Egypt was in order that Yisra’el will sanctify God’s name.

Against the backdrop of what we have explained we can now understand the Sifra.

Egypt is the archetype of desecration of God’s name. A slave empire whose economic might is based on the Nile, and which is led by Pharaoh - who considers himself a deity.

Yisra’el, who leave Egypt, are charged with shattering this îçùáú äùçõ wherein man is the master, and with showing from where it is that man draws his strength.

On this difficult day, when a pregnant mother and her four daughters were slaughtered on the Kisufim route, on a day like this, we must wake up and begin a process of soul searching – to what extent do we sanctify God’s name?

We will examine this concept of ardent upholding the sanctification of God’s name through a Gemara in Masechet Sanhedrin, which portrays an interesting character, G’viha ben P’sisa.

Rashi on the Gemara notes that G’viha ben P’sisa “had a curvature in his back.” With this concludes any background information we have of this individual.

Before studying the four stories that we will bring from the Gemara, we will mention that the first incident relates to a dispute between “An apostate,” ie. a Sadducee, and G’viha ben P’sisa regarding the resurrection of the dead.

Thereafter we find three stories that describe the legal proceedings held before Alexander the Great between a number of nations of the world and Yisra’el, while in all these disputes G’viha ben P’sisa represents the Jewish nation in a very unique manner.

Let us begin our examination of these stories.

The Gemara begins as follows:

“An apostate said to G’viha ben P’sisa: Woe to you evil (people) who claim that the dead will live (in the future) – he who is alive dies, will he who is dead live?”

(Sanhedrin 91a)

This apostate thus claims that since those who live ultimately die, their life-giving force thus coming to an end and thereby bringing death – how then will the dead, who possess no life, live? (“Ha’hu mi’na” – literally “that apostate” generally refers to a Sadducee, although there are places where this term has other connotations.)

“He answered him: Woe to you evil (people) who claim that the dead will not live – they who have not existed, live; how much more so those who did (once) exist!”

G’viha ben P’sisa answers that this apostate believes that a child prior to birth – who has not yet lived - will live, therefore certainly those who already lived will live again.

Let us clarify the Gemara thus far. This Sadducee claims that even those alive today lose their life-force as time moves on, this life-force ultimately coming to an end when a person dies. Thus those who have lost all their life-force and died – is it possible that they will return to life?

G’viha ben P’sisa answers using a logical a fortiori argument. A person who is born – seemingly receives his life-force ex-nihilo, out of nothing, and suddenly he becomes alive; is it not logical then that someone who has already possessed a life-force should most certainly be able to return to life?

The subtle argument within G’viha ben P’sisa claim is that life is not a result of physical existence, but rather life is the force that activates and controls the physical, and its subsistence is not dependent on the physical. (Indeed the life-force may dissociate from the physical – but the death of the body is not death of the soul.)

The Gemara then continues on to describe the reaction of the Sadducee to G’viha ben P’sisa:

“He responded: ‘You called me ‘evil?’

If I stand up I will kick you – removing your curvature!’”

The Sadducee responds that he will kick G’viha ben P’sisa so hard that he will straighten the curvature of his back straight!

G’viha ben P’sisa then answers him sarcastically:

“He said to him: ‘If you do that, you will be deemed a skilled doctor, and you may claim a large fee.’”

This is the first story, whose conclusion certainly raises a smile, yet also leaves a question mark.

What style of argument was G’viha ben P’sisa employing? Was this only verbal sparring, or is there a hidden dispute regarding the resurrection of the dead behind the word play and G’viha ben P’sisa’s hunchback?

We will continue on to the next stories, holding our questions for later.

The Gemara begins with the next title:

“The Rabbis taught: ‘On the twenty-fourth of Nisan the Di’mos’nai were removed from Yehuda and Jerusalem.”

Rashi explains the term “Di’mos’nai” as follows:

“Di’mos’nai – Thieving rogues who wanted to seize part of Yehuda and Jerusalem.”

Rashi also adds afterwards:

“And in Megilat Ta’anit this is considered one of the days when a miracle occurred to Yisra’el, and it was established as a Yom Tov (Festival,) and thus it states ‘On the twenty-fourth of Nisan’ – to indicate that it is a Yom Tov when eulogies are forbidden due to this miracle.”

As we will see, there was a dispute between the nations surrounding Yisra’el and Am Yisra’el, with Alexander the Great as the arbitrator. Since Yisra’el triumphed at that international trial, on the twenty-fourth of Nisan, the Sages instituted that day as a day on which Tachanun (the supplicatory prayer recited after the Shemoneh Esrei of the morning prayer service) is not recited. (We will discuss the date of the twenty-fourth of Nisan and these events later.)

This, then, is the first incident:

“The Rabbis taught: On the twenty-fourth of Nisan the Di’mos’nai were removed from Yehuda and Jerusalem. When the Children of Africa instigated legal proceedings against Yisra’el before Alexander the Great.

They said to him: ‘The land of Canaan is ours, as the verse states: ‘The land of Canaan according to its boundaries,’ (Bamidbar 34:2,)’ and Canaan was the forefather of these people.”

People from “Africa,” the descendants of Canaan claim Eretz Yisra’el for themselves, with the simple and powerful claim that even the Torah of the Jews describes the land as “The land of Canaan,” and not as “Eretz Yisra’el” – “The land of Israel.”

The verse that they use as proof for their claim is not coincidental – this is the verse that describes the boundaries of the land of Canaan – of their land. To paraphrase their claim – they claim that the land is entirely theirs, and not the Jews’.

Alexander the Great, whom the Africans wish to distance from the Jews, calls on the Jews to respond to the severe claim. One again the persona of G’viha ben P’sisa appears.

“G’viha ben P’sisa said to them: ‘Permit me to represent the Jews before Alexander the Great. If they defeat me – you can say: ‘You defeated a commoner. And if I win you can tell them: Moshe’s Torah defeated you.’”

We will soon see that G’viha ben P’sisa turn of language that if he is defeated the Sages can claim that “You defeated a commoner,” and if he is victorious then they can claim “Moshe’s Torah defeated you” is not simply sharp use of the tongue.

In any event, the Sages realize that ‘they have nothing to lose,’ and thus:

“They permitted him to attend the arbitration.”

And then G’viha ben P’sisa’s argument begins:

“He said to them: ‘What is the source for your proof?’

They answered: ‘From the Torah.’

He said to them: ‘I will also bring you a proof from the Torah, as it states: ‘And he said ‘Cursed is Canaan; a slave of slaves shall he be to his brothers,’ (Bereshit 9:25.)’

A slave who acquires possessions – to whom does the slave and to whom do his possessions belong?

And not only that, but it is a number of years that you have not served us…”

G’viha ben P’sisa argues that the descendants of Canaan are in fact slaves to the Jews, and whatever a slave acquires – is the acquisition of his master. And more so, the descendants of Canaan owe the Jews for the years they have not been their slaves!

Here too we will note a very interesting fact. We are witness to a meeting between the three sons of No’ach: Yeffet’s representative is Alexander the Great from Macedonia, (which is a descendant of Greece, the descendant of Yeffet.) Shem is obviously represented by G’viha ben P’sisa, and Cham is represented by the Canaanites, Canaan being Shem’s son.

The verse that G’viha ben P’sisa quotes is also very intriguing.

“And he said ‘Cursed is Canaan; a slave of slaves shall he be to his brothers.’”

(Bereshit 9:25.)

This verse is what No’ach said after he found out what Canaan did to him after he had become drunk. (There are various interpretations of what this act was. One explanation is that Canaan had relations with No’ach, another is that he castrated him. In any event it was an act of severe sexual misconduct.)

Noa’ch then says: “Cursed is Canaan; a slave of slaves shall he be to his brothers.” Who are his brothers? Shem and Yeffet!

In a certain respect, when G’viha ben P’sisa quotes “a slave of slaves shall he be to his brothers,” we may understand that he weakens his argument, for he indicates that Greece also has rights to Canaan, and thus to the land of Canaan.

It may seem that G’viha ben P’sisa was not concerned about this, yet we may also understand this in another light as we will understand from the continuation of our examination of this incident. Let us continue with the development of the stor for now.

“Alexander the Emperor said to them: ‘Answer him!’

They replied: ‘Give us a stay of three days,’ which he did.

They researched, and could not find a response. They immediately fled, leaving their fields sown, and their vineyards planted. That year was the year of Sh’mitta, (the Sabbatical year).”

This incident thus ends with a great salvation. We will now move on to the next story in the Gemara.

“In similar fashion, once the Children of Egypt instigated legal proceedings against Yisra’el before Alexander the Great.

They said to him: ‘The verse states: ‘God gave the people favor in the eyes of the Egyptians, and they lent them (various articles).’

Give us the silver and gold that you took from us!”

Before we examine this story we must recall that Noa’ch’s son, Cham, had four sons: Egypt, Canaan, Kush (whom Nimrod descended from,) and Put (according to our Sage this nation assimilated completely into other nations.)

We see the descendants of Cham, Egypt, charging that Yisra’el return all the silver and gold that the Jews received from the Egyptians immediately prior to the exodus, on the basis that the valuables were simply being ‘lent’ to the Jews.

Once again G’viha ben P’sisa requests the Sages’ permission to appear before Alexander the Great.

“G’viha ben P’sisa said to them: ‘Permit me to represent the Jews before Alexander the Great. If they defeat me – you can say: ‘You defeated a commoner. And if I win you can tell them: Moshe’s Torah defeated you.’”

And once again the Sages accede to his request:

“They permitted him to attend the arbitration.”

G’viha ben P’sisa argues as follows:

“He said to them: ‘What is the source for your proof?’

They answered: ‘From the Torah.’

He said to them: ‘I will also bring you a proof from the Torah, as it states: ‘The inhabitation of Bnei Yisra’el during which they dwelled in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years, (Bereshit 12:40.)’

Give us the wages of the six hundred thousand whom you enslaved in Egypt for four hundred and thirty years!”

Despite the fact that Bnei Yisra’el were only in enslaved for eighty-six years of their stay in Egypt, G’viha ben P’sisa quotes a verse that describes those four-hundred and thirty years in order to undermine their claim.

The incident continues in a similar fashion to the previous story:

“Alexander the Emperor said to them: ‘Answer him!’

They replied: ‘Give us a stay of three days,’ which he did.

They researched, and could not find a response. They immediately fled, leaving their fields sown, and their vineyards planted. That year was the year of Sh’mitta.”

It may very well be that that “year of Sh’mitta” was the very same year, or it may have been the following Sh’mitta, seven years later. In any event, once again a period of great distress for the Jews became a great salvation.

The final story tell us as follows:

“In similar fashion, once the Children of Yishma’el and K’tura instigated legal proceedings against Yisra’el before Alexander the Great.

They said to him: ‘The land of Canaan belongs to us and to you, for verse states: ‘These are the descendants of Yishma’el, son of Avraham,’ (Bereshit 25:12,) and the verse states: ‘These are the descendants of Yitzchak, son of Avraham.’ (ibid. v. 19.)”

Here we find a fundamental difference in the case as it unfolds before Alexander the Great. The litigants are no longer solely the descendants of Cham, but also of Shem, for Yishma’el is the son of Avraham and Hagar. Avraham is a descendant of Shem, and Hagar is an Egyptian, and thus a descendant of Cham.

It is this descendant of the mixed lineages of Shem and Cham, Yishma’el, who tries to take his place of greatness. Indeed Sara instructed Avraham to take Hagar in order to establish offspring for himself, yet is also Sara who realizes that:

“For the son of that slave-woman will not inherit with my son, with Yitzchak.”

(Bereshit 21:10)

Another fundamental difference is with regard to the claim that the litigants make. Unlike the Children of Africa and the Children of Egypt, the Children of Yishma’el and K’tura do not demand the exclusive rights to the land in question. They claim that “The land of Canaan belongs to us and to you.” (The Children of Africa claimed that the entire land was theirs, and the Children of Egypt demanded all the riches of the Jews, for the Jews had an immense debt owing to them.)

Let us recall that Yishma’el and his children are all circumcised, and even more importantly that Yishma’el was circumcised by Avraham himself, before the circumcision of Yitzchak. The Brit Mila – the Covenant of Circumcision – is in fact the covenant of the land of Israel. Therefore this final claim seems to have a stronger basis.

Again G’viha ben P’sisa proposes his assistance to the Sages:

“G’viha ben P’sisa said to them: ‘Permit me to represent the Jews before Alexander the Great. If they defeat me – you can say: ‘You defeated a commoner. And if I win you can tell them: Moshe’s Torah defeated you.’”

And again the Sages consent to his proposal:

“They permitted him to attend the arbitration.”

“He said to them: ‘What is the source for your proof?’

They answered: ‘From the Torah.’

He said to them: ‘I will also bring you a proof from the Torah, as it states: ‘Avraham gave all that he had to Yitzchak; but to the concubine-children who were Avraham’s, Avraham gave gifts,’ (Bereshit 25:5,6.) A father who gives ag’tin to his children, placing one above the other – can the one child have any claim on the other?”

Rashi explains the term “ag’tin” as follows:

“A written note, in order that one should not claim his friend’s portion, just as Avraham gave to Yishma’el that he should not have any claim on Yitzchak’s inheritance; can Yishma’el make any claim?”

Again we see that this story is different from the others by its conclusion. The descendants of Yishma’el do not request a stay three days in order to prepare a response, and we are also not told of their reaction to this argument. We are not told whether they left their fields and fled. The Children of Yishma’el did not leave the land, they are still here…

The Gemara asks in closing:

“What are these ‘gifts?’”

The Gemara questions what those gifts were that Avraham gave to his children of his concubines. There is a subliminal question hidden within the Gemara’s simple question – for after the Torah tell us that Avraham gave Yitzchak “all that he had,” what then was left to give as gifts after having giving all his possessions to Yitzchak?

The Gemara answers:

“Rav Yirmiya bar Aba says: ‘This indicates that he handed them the name of tum’a (impurity).’”

Rashi explains:

“The name of tum’a – witchcraft and black magic”

Let us examine this issue.

It would seem that the children of the concubines received a large amount of possession,, no less than Yitzchak received. But Avraham determined that the ‘name of k’dusha (sanctity)’ would belong to Yizchak, whereas Yishma’el would then receive the name of tum’a. (The k’dusha is then referred to as “all that he had” in the verse, for this includes all reality.)

It is here that in addition to the practical-technical struggle that the spiritual power struggle between faiths and values begins.

The Yishma’elites strive against us seemingly in the name of the one and same God that we share, but a gigantic ravine divides between the message that Yisra’el brings to the world, and the intentions of the Yishma’elites and their Islam towards the world.

We must note that the final dispute between G’viha ben P’sisa and the Children of Yishma’el and K’tura was not decided by Alexander the Great, for this is the war of the descendants of Cham with the descendants of Shem. This is the familial struggle between one son of Avraham, and his brother, Avraham’s second son.

When No’ach and his children were in the ark, they witness how a corrupt world is demolished due to the rampant sins of theft, robbery, and sexual licentiousness. The world is obliterated for there was no pure corner left. And then No’ach leaves the ark, desiring to establish a pure society. He drinks wine, and then Cham perpetrates the evil that he does. (As we mentioned previously, some of our Sages understand that he castrated No’ach, others understand that he engaged in homosexual relations.)

Cham reveals “his father’s nakedness,” (Bereshit 9:22.) No’ach now understand that the ‘bright tomorrow’ that he hoped would dawn on the world in flood’s wake had not yet arrived. Evil was still present in the world.

No’ach identifies Canaan as the most corrupt of Cham’s children, and he thus sends him to “the Land of Canaan,” a land where it is easy to be earth-bound and connected to the land. Then the Jewish nation appears, with her great mission of bringing the world to that great, bright tomorrow.

This is the nation that exits Egypt - Egypt of the Egyptians the descendants of Cham - and reaches the Land of Canaan, another country ruled, and named for a descendant of Cham. But the Jews are commanded:

“Do not perform the practice of the land of Egypt in which you dwelled, and do not perform the practice of the land of Canaan to which I bring you.”

(Vayikra 18:3)

As if to say: “You, Yisra’el can elevate the world, make sure you do not fall in the trap of Cham who brought to the world’s descent.”

In the dispute before Alexander the Great, the Children of Cham quote a verse which describes Eretz Yisra’el as “the land of Canaan with it boundaries.” There is a hidden truth in the verse directed at Yisra’el – our boundaries are dependant on what extent we make the Land of Canaan into the Land of Israel. For then we will be able to retain the Land of Canaan with all its boundaries.

Canaan represents destruction and ruin. Of course the possibility exists of dealing with Canaan though its elimination from the world, but this is not the way of Yisra’el. The manner of Yisra’el is that even evil can be mended and made into good. Even regarding Amalek, about whom the verse states:

“You shall obliterate the memory of Amalek from under the heaven,”

(Devarim 25:19)

Our sages explain that the verse states “under the heaven” – Amalek has no repair, and its obliteration is its only mending, yet above the heaven, ie. at its root level – Amalek can be rectified. (Cf. Mitzvot ha’R’i’ya, ‘Ahava.’)

We must remember that sometimes evil proudly rears its head in the world due to Shem’s laxity in rectifying Canaan.

G’viha ben P’sisa tells Alexander the Great that regarding the Children of Canaan’s claim, Canaan is the slaves of slaves to his brothers, (plural.) He is not concerned about mentioning that Canaan is also the slave of Yeffet, for Yeffet too, who is the majority of the world’s population, has in his best interests to curb and mend the Canaanite evil and depravity. Then, when the land of Canaan in all its boundaries is elevated to the ‘The Land of Israel,’ the entire world benefits, for then the Jews have taken the land to its destiny, building it into a “house of prayer for all the nations,” Y’sha’yahu 56:7.)

Then the Children of Egypt come forward to litigate Yisra’el. Egypt represents the philosophy embodied in Pharaoh’s words to Moshe:

“Who is God that I should heed his voice?”

(Shemot 5:2)

In other words: there is no authority higher than me. The obvious result of such an approach is the slaughter of Jewish children, and the harsh enslavement of the Jewish nation.

Egypt, who also stems from the evil of Cham, represents the aggressive ideology wherein one believes that he is the centre and purpose of everything. Thus anyone lower than him in stature is his slave. This value-system is expressed by wealth, silver, and gold.

Indeed we find G’viha ben P’sisa disputing the Sadducee, (in the first incident which opens this collection of stories.) It was during that historical epoch that the Sadducees began gaining support and power. The dispute which revolved around the issue of the resurrection of the dead not only referred to the individual, personal resurrection, but can also be understood with regard the collective, national resurrection.

G’viha ben P’sisa stands bent as a result of his hunched back, hinting at the degraded status of the Jew, but this is not to last forever, for in the future the fortunes will be reversed.

G’viha ben P’sisa asks no fame or fortune for himself. He tells the Sages: “And if I win you can tell them: Moshe’s Torah defeated you;” something which also reveals G’viha ben P’sisa as the representative of the Jews and Judaism.

In his dispute with the Sadducee who argues that there is no such thing as the resurrection of the dead – we understand that this is also a claim on the collective, national level. G’viha ben P’sisa answers him using a logical argument that only that which is seen to live, but is not truly alive, is terminated by death. He whose life is eternal – cannot be affected by death, and it only appears that something has come to its end.

Then the Sadducee became enraged and retorted to G’viha – “I will kick you so hard that I will straighten your curved form!” G’viha is unfazed, and replies: “Kick! Your kicks, and those of all our enemies ultimately straighten our posture, making us stand tall!”

The matters then proceed. Alexander the Great, a descendant of Yeffet sits in judgment over the representatives of two world approaches. The first is that of Yisra’el, which represents the holy, and the second is that of the Canaanites, which represents the abominable. G’viha teaches Alexander the Great that the Children of Yeffet must not succumb to the Canaanite abominations, for the Canaanite power is destined to serve Canaan’s brothers in slavery.

The same is true of the dispute with the Children of Egypt, only with a different emphasis, as we illustrated previously.

But then the Children of Yishma’el enter the scene. Here a different struggle takes place, for as we mentioned, the descendants of Yishma’el have different strengths. They are armed with the b’racha (blessing) of Avraham (“May it be granted that Yishma’el live before you” - Bereshit 17:18,) and also carry the Brit Mila – the covenant of circumcision. Thus they approach in a cunning, sly manner. Seemingly, they do not desire to remove Yisra’el from the land. They claim: “The land of Canaan belongs to us and to you.” But they know full well that through this claim they can gradually hinder Yisra’el from fulfilling her destiny in the world.

Let us now consider the surprising date on which all his occurs – the twenty-fourth of Nisan. Is there any special significance to this date?

We have already met this date twice in the Tanach.

The first time was at the exodus from Egypt. As we recall the splitting of the Sea of Reeds took place on the twenty-first of Nisan, and then the Torah states as follows:

“Moshe led Yisra’el away from the Red Sea, and they went out into the Shur Desert. They traveled for three days in the desert without finding any water.”

(Shemot 15:22)

In other words the date is the twenty-fourth of Nisan – which is three days after the splitting of the sea, which as we noted took place on the twenty-first of Nisan – and matters develop as follows:

“Finally they came to Mara, but they could not drink any water there, for the water was bitter, and hence the place was called Mara (bitter.) The people complained to Moshe saying: “What shall we drink?” And he cried out to God, and He showed him a certain tree, and he threw it into the water, and the water was sweetened. It was there that He taught them a decree and a law, and there He tested them. He said: ‘If you Obey your Lord and do what is upright in his eyes, carefully heeding all His commandments, and keeping all His decrees, then I will not strike you with any of the sicknesses that I brought on Egypt – for I am God Who heals you.”

(ibid. v. 23-26)

We thus see that on the twenty-fourth of Nisan it was possible to sweeten bitter waters, and on this day we were also instructed with some of the Torah laws, “It was there that He taught them a decree and a law.”

What else occurred on the twenty-fourth of Nisan?

On the twenty-fourth of Nisan Daniel saw his vision of the end of days:

“And on the twenty-fourth of the first month, as I was by the side of the great river, which is Chi’dekel; I lifted up my eyes, and looked, and behold a certain man clothed in linen, whose loins were girded with fine gold of Ufaz; his body was like the beryl, and his face like the appearance of lightning, and his eyes like torches of fire, and his arms and feet colored like burnished brass, and the sound of his words like the voice of a multitude. And I Daniel alone saw the vision, for the men who were with me did not see the vision, but a great trembling fell upon them so that they fled to hide themselves. So I was left alone, and saw this great vision, and no strength remained in me, for my appearance was horribly changed, and I retained no strength.”

(Daniel 12:4-8)

The verse continues with the angel describing Daniel’s mission to him.

“Now I have come to make you understand what will befall your people at the end of days, for the vision is for days yet to come. And when he had spoken such words to me, I set my face towards the ground, and I became dumb.”

(ibid. v.14,15)

In the continuation Daniel summarizes:

“And I heard but did not understand, then I said: ‘O my Lord, what will be the end of these things?’ And He said: ‘Go Daniel, for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. Many shall purify themselves and make themselves white and be tried, but the wicked will act wickedly, and none of the wicked will understand, but the wise will understand.”

(Daniel 12:8-10)

In any event we have already learned in the past, in the name of the Zohar, that “b’m’tivta d’m’shicha” – to the Bet Midrash of the Mashiach only those who know how to turn bitter to sweet and darkness to light will enter. (Paraphrasing the Zohar.)

On the twenty-fourth of Nisan in the desert we learned that it is possible to turn bitter to sweet, it is possible to rectify and elevate reality. On this day the secrets of the end of days were revealed (even though they remained sealed,) and on the twenty-fourth of Nisan a summit was held for all Noa’ch’s descendants. A summit between Yeffet who ruled the world, between the descendants of Cham who wanted to undermine the birthright of Yisra’el, and between the hunchback Jew, the descendant of Shem.

On this day the difference between the sanctification of God’s name and the desecration of His name becomes clear; and on this day Yisra’el’s destiny is made clear.

Translated by Sholem Hurwitz.

Copyright Keren Yishai/Rav M. Elon