Archive for the ‘04.Vayera’ Category

True conflict

Avraham’s ultimate test was Akeidas Yitzchak, but the test runs much deeper than it appears at face value. It seems the basic difficulty was that he had to sacrifice his son, although Hashem had said that this very same son would be his heir, and the future of Avraham’s covenant.

The Ran explains that there is much more to it, and points out a major subtlety, that adds a whole new dimension into what was required of Avraham. Hashem says: קַח-נָא אֶת-בִּנְךָ אֶת-יְחִידְךָ אֲשֶׁר-אָהַבְתָּ, אֶת-יִצְחָק, וְלֶךְ-לְךָ, אֶל-אֶרֶץ הַמֹּרִיָּה; וְהַעֲלֵהוּ שָׁם, לְעֹלָה – Please take your son, your only son, whom you love, Yitzchak, and go, for yourself, to the land of Moriah, and sacrifice him,max a burnt offering. (22:2).

The Ran point out that Hashem said קַח-נָא – “please take”. This was a request. It was not a command, it was not an instruction; sacrificing his son was something Hashem desired, but did not demand. It is quite possible that if Avraham had refused, he would not have violated Hashem word, as Hashem had not issued an instruction.

This enhances our view of the difficulty this task posed. Hashem did not require it, and Avraham did not “need” to go through with it. It would just please Hashem were he to go through with it, it ideas his choice. He was not compelled to do it at all.

The Slonimer Rebbe adds a further subtle reference to the turmoil he faced. The pasuk says
that as Avraham approached the place, וַיִּשָּׂא אַבְרָהָם אֶת-עֵינָיו וַיַּרְא אֶת-הַמָּקוֹם–מֵרָחֹק – Avraham lifted his eyes, and saw הַמָּקוֹם from a distance. (22:4)

Classically, this means that he literally “saw the place”. But הַמָּקוֹם is also a name of Hashem – He is “The Place”, He is everywhere, the Omnipresent.

In this context, וַיִּשָּׂא אַבְרָהָם אֶת-עֵינָיו וַיַּרְא אֶת-הַמָּקוֹם–מֵרָחֹק means that Avraham looked around, and felt a distance between himself and Hashem. Avraham was doing what he felt he ought to do, when he knew that what he was doing did not feel right. It tore him apart – he’d spent his whole life fighting idol worship and sacrifice, and yet here he was, about to sacrifice his son, throwing away his entire future, and Hashem had not even demanded it. וַיַּרְא אֶת-הַמָּקוֹם–מֵרָחֹק – Avraham looked around, and felt a distance between himself and Hashem.

We read this on Rosh Hashana, and perhaps, apart from the obvious merit this story brings, perhaps we can also relate to this on a personal level. Things aren’t always clear cut what we have to do, what’s right. We don’t always “feel it”, but sometimes, we have to persevere with what we have to do, and we will come out better for having done so.

Print/Pdf

On Brotherhood and Accountability

One of the curses in the parsha is וְכָשְׁלוּ אִישׁ בְּאָחִיו – Each man will stumble over his brother (26:37)

Rashi remarks that apart from the obvious physical tripping, the pasuk is also referencing tripping over the sins of our brothers. Rashi utilises the famous maxim of כל ישראל ערבין זה לזה – which means that all of Israel are accountable for one another.

R’ Yehoshua Hartman explains that the Maharal inquires how this is the case (more…)

Print/Pdf

To Run or Not To Run

א. וַיֵּרָא אֵלָיו יְ־הֹוָ־ה בְּאֵלֹנֵי מַמְרֵא וְהוּא יֹשֵׁ בפֶּתַח הָאֹהֶל כְּחֹם הַיּוֹם

1. Now the Lord appeared to him in the plains of Mamre and he was sitting at the entrance of the tent when the day was hot

ב. וַיִּשָּׂא עֵינָיו וַיַּרְא וְהִנֵּה שְׁלֹשָׁה אֲנָשִׁים נִצָּבִים עָלָיו וַיַּרְא וַיָּרָץ לִקְרָאתָם מִפֶּתַח הָאֹהֶל וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ אָרְצָה

2. And he lifted his eyes and saw, and behold, three men were standing beside him, and he saw and he ran toward them from the entrance of the tent, and he prostrated himself to the ground.

Why are the words “from the entrance of the tent” repeated in verse 2, what is the torah trying to teach us?

The Gemoro in Brachos 6b says:

אמר רבי חלבו אמר רב הונא היוצא מבית הכנסת אל יפסיע פסיעה גסה – One who  leaves shul shall not take large steps while leaving.

The reason for this is that he shouldn’t be happy when leaving a mitzvah.

The Shulchan oruch in Orach Chaim Siman 90 Seif 12 writes: It is a mitzvah to run towards a shul, or to do any other mitzvah.

Now,  if someone is running from one mitzvah to a second, should he run or not? If he runs, he is “embarrassing” the first mitzvah. If he doesn’t run, then he isn’t doing the mitzvah of running to perform the second mitzvah!

Rather we must say: If the first mitzvah is greater than the second, then he shouldn’t run; so as to not embarass the first and greater mitzvah. If the second mitzvah is greater, the he should run in order to fulfill the second greater mitzvah with Zerizus (alacrity). What if the 2 mitzvos are equal? He should walk the first half of the journey and run the second half, in this way he fulfills both his obligations.

The Gemoro in Shabbas 127a writes:

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב גדולה הכנסת אורחין מהקבלת פני שכינה - Taking in guests is greater than speaking to Hashem.

If this is true, then when Avraham went to take in guests although he was speaking to Hashem, then since the second mitzvah was greater than the first, Avraham had to run the entire journey, as we learnt before.

Therefore the passuk writes that ”He ran towards them from the entrance of the tent “, because he had to run towards the second mitzvah the entire journey; from the entrance of the tent

(Kehilas Yitzchak)

Print/Pdf

Its All Relative

In the middle of this weeks parsha, Hashem sends two Melachim, one to save Lot and the other to destroy Sedom. The people of Sedom became so twisted and corrupt that Hashem had to destroy the entire city. I once heard a good vort that Sedom had the idea of Chesed, they just twisted it in the most perverse way.
If someone wouldn’t fit on a bed because he would be to tall, they would cut off his legs so he would fit. If someone made a woman miscarry, he would have to rape her to pay back for her lost child. Give Tzeddaka, give plenty of it, just don’t let the pauper use those coins to buy food. Sedom took the middah of chesed and warped it to what they saw as ethical, what they held kindness was.
Lot brings the travelers (Melachim) into his home, (which no one is allowed to do in Sedom) offers them food and lodging (which is punishable by death), when the people of Sedom want to sleep with the travelers Lot offers his two virgin daughters in their place, and then is willing to give up his own life to save his guests. The Melachim then strike the attackers with blindness and inform Lot that he must run away from Sedom, in order to save himself.
Rashi (19:29) says that Lot merited from being saved from Sedom because when Avraham put Sarah in a box before going into Egypt, Lot didn’t tell the Egyptians that Sarah was hidden inside. Lot could’ve told the Egyptians who would then steal Sarah, kill Avraham, and Lot would bequeath all of Avraham’s property, but instead he kept his mouth shut.
Here we see that Lot’s only true merit was from not telling on Sarah and he had nothing else.
Here’s a pretty simple question. Why in the world would Lot not get any merit for doing the most incredible hachnasas orchim that this world has ever seen? Lot was willing to give up his life for these travelers and his only merit comes from not trying to kill his uncle? Furthermore Sarah according to Rashi, Baal Haturim, and T.Y was Lot’s sister! So Lot gets an incredible merit for not trying to give over his own sister to Egypt and kill his uncle, but nothing for what he did for the Melachim?
A pretty good question no? Rashi (19:17) also says that the Melachim warned Lot not to look at Sedom being destroyed because Lot himself wasn’t fit to be saved through his own merit, but rather only through Avraham’s merit which is controversial to what I just said above. Please see Sifsei Chachamim on this Rashi for the answer)
Rav Dessler in Michtav Me-Eliyahu (Sefer Alef page 116) in Nikudas Habichira gives us an incredible answer. He says basically that if a person was taught as a child all the halachos of Shabbas and he lives in a Shomer Shabbas house, then he doesn’t get much merit for not turning on a light on Shabbas. This person doesn’t really have a choice in the matter. He knows not to (and why not to) turn on a light on Shabbas, and the disgrace that he would be in his friends and family’s eyes, stop him from even thinking about it. Thus his ikkur tafkid in this world isn’t will he turn on the lights on Shabbas, but rather will he learn for five hours on Shabbas, or will he be haughty when he explains pshat to his Chavrusa Avrumi etc.
The whole point is that every Yid is on their own level with their own tests, but something that you are so accustomed to do, and that you are taught to do your whole life, stops becoming a test for you eventually. The Yatzer Harah won’t even try to get you because he knows that you are accustomed to doing this certain mitzvah and you won’t change.
Lot was brought up in the house of a man who was the epitome of a baal chessed. After living with Avraham for so long, and following his example day by day, Lot became so accustomed to doing Hachnuchas Airchim to the point where he had no Bchira in the matter. Lot had to be kind to people, he has been living that way for so long. If this is the case, says Rav Dessler, then Lot doesn’t get any merit for doing the tremendous acts of Hachnuchas Airchim that we see in this weeks parsha. (There is still merit received even for mitzvos done with no bechira, but it wouldn’t have been enough to save Lot)
Lot, on the other hand, had extreme physical desire for money.
As we see pashut in the Chumash,  Lot separates from Avraham due to Taavas Mommon (A desire for money). If Lot would’ve told on Sarah he would’ve been rich. He would inherit Avraham’s possessions and live a happy life. This was Lot’s true test, or in other words, Bechira (free will). Lot conquered his evil inclination for money, didn’t tell on Sarah and through this one act, which looks completely insignificant to the naked eye, merited to be saved from the destruction of Sedom.
Print/Pdf

And they embittered their lives

In the enslavement in Egypt, we are told how:

וַיְמָרְרוּ אֶת חַיֵּיהֶם” – and they embittered their lives… (Shemos 1:14)

Hashem told Avraham that his children would be enslaved in a land not their own for 400 years. Yet we find that they left after just 210 years of actual enslavement. Where are the missing 190 years?

There is an answer suggested that Egypt treated the Jews much worse than they should have, so as we say in ברוך המקום during Seder night:

ש”הקבה חשב את הקץ – Hashem reckoned the end. What “end” is this talking about? Hashem hastened the גאולה and reckoned off קץ - 190 (from 400)- leaving us with 210.

The Vilna Gaon points out how this is very subtly hinted to by the notes on וַיְמָרְרוּ אֶת חַיֵּיהֶם are קדמא ואזלא, which means “they got up and went”. Additionally, the numerical value of this is 190! They were over-embittered to a value of 190, so they got up an went!

R’ Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld points out that the redemption from Egypt was only completed 7 days after it began, when the Red Sea parted and when Paroh and his army were destroyed, so where is this reflected in events?

He answers the 400 years were counted from Yitzchak’s birth. The extra week is found at his circumcision. Yitzchak was only circumcised 7 days after his birth – so only became Jewish then, and only 400 years from then were the Jews genuinely free.

Print/Pdf

Out of Context

וַיַּעַן אַבְרָהָם וַיֹּאמַר הִנֵּה נָא הוֹאַלְתִּי לְדַבֵּר אֶל אֲדֹנָי וְאָנֹכִי עָפָר וָאֵפֶר – And Abraham answered and said, “Behold now I have commenced to speak to the Lord, although I am dust and ashes.”

The Gemara in Chulin 88b says that the reward for saying this was that his children would earn the Mitzvah of the ashes of the Para Adumah (Red Heifer) and dust of the Sotah (a woman brought to the Temple accused of adultery was forced to drink a concoction which had dust from the foot of the Altar in it).

Beyond the obvious yet superficial connection of dust/dust, ash/ash, how are Sotah and Para Adumah a relevant reward to Afar v’Efer?

The Dubner Maggid tells a story of an upstanding member of society who made a wedding for his son, and all the people and rabbis were invited. There was the top table for the family, and next to it, another for the rabbis. The greatest rabbi invited showed up, wished Mazal Tov, but felt unworthy of sitting in the prescence of the other rabbis, and quietly sat in the corner elsewhere. The host felt that the rabbi had not been accorded due respect, and he requested that the whole table of rabbis move to the table in the corner to join this great rabbi. He manipulated the context to make the supposedly unworthy corner into one worthy of having the great rabbi sit there.

The Dubner Maggid explains that this is precisely what Hashem did; He took what Avraham said, and changed the context from dust and ash with all their negative connotations, to dust and ash as Mitzvos, the essence of the Torah, the absolute opposite of dust and ash.

Another explanation was suggested by the Beis HaLevi: Dust of the earth has no past, but immense potential for the future; it can grow plant life, which itself is alive, can then sustain other life etc, whereas ash has no future whatsoever, but in the past was part of a living thing. Avraham meant he had no past, like earth, and and no future, like ash.

Says the Beis HaLevi, Hashem inverted this, by giving the Mitzvah of Sotah, which cleans the woman’s past, and Para Adumah which purifies the persons future.

Print/Pdf

Breaking the chain

There is an interesting debut appearance in this week’s sedra – in 19:16 – a שלשלת (Shalsheles), a rare cantor’s note. It is only to make 3 further appearances in chumash – in Chayei Sarah– 24:12, in Vayeshev 39:8 and in Tzav 8:23. What does the shalsheles delineate?

In Chayei Sarah, we find that Eliezer, Avraham’s most trusted servant, is charged with finding a wife for Yitzchak. He is not allowed to take a wife from Canaan. The Midrash tells us that Eliezer had a daughter and it could have been in his mind that he might ‘just not have found’ a suitable wife outside Canaan. This could have left the path open for his daughter. Nevertheless, Eliezer overcomes any personal attachments and davens that Hashem heed his master’s request. This triumph over his own desires is signified by the Shalsheles on the word ויאמר – the opening word of his prayer.

In Vayeshev we see the tremendous personal struggle that Joseph had to overcome. Indeed, by running out and leaving his coat behind in the hands of his master’s wife, he got himself into more trouble in some ways. But on a personal level, he could not afford to be in the house a moment longer, refusing his master’s wife’s advances. That very word – וימאן (and he refused), has a שלשלת on it, denoting the breaking of his own potential negative desires.

As for the final appearance – in Tzav – the Midrash tells us that Moshe Rabbenu was the Kohen Gadol until the end of the Miluim, the first week of the Mishkan’s use, at which point he had to hand over the position to his brother Aharon (according to various sources, because he had argued at the burning bush). It must have been hard for him. Yet he overcame any personal desires and handed over the baton wholeheartedly. His final act as High Priest was וישחט…no surprises about the musical note on this word, at the point of his breaking with his own emotions…

Looking back at our Sedra, we see from Rashi that the Pasuk tells us that the angels had to grab hold of Lot because he was tarrying…leaving behind all his possessions. The first word of the Pasuk, which means he hesitated, contains a שלשלת – he overcame his physical desire for wealth and grabbed reality with both hands…literally.

It is no accident that Shalsheles actually means a chain. Furthermore, if you listen to its sound, it is elongated (3x a פזר – Pazer, another musical note – which is long already), yet comes to an abrupt end, thus breaking the chain. See how wise Chazal are, even when ascribing the musical notes to the words…

Print/Pdf

ראש חודש ניסן

This Weeks Parsha

Israel: Bechukosai

Categories