True conflict

By On · Add Comment

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.

To Run or Not To Run

By On · Add Comment

As Avraham recovers from his circumcision, the temperature gets blazingly hot, with the intention that Avraham relax and recover.

. וַיֵּרָא אֵלָיו ה’ בְּאֵלֹנֵי מַמְרֵא וְהוּא יֹשֵׁ בפֶּתַח הָאֹהֶל כְּחֹם הַיּוֹם. וַיִּשָּׂא עֵינָיו וַיַּרְא וְהִנֵּה שְׁלֹשָׁה אֲנָשִׁים נִצָּבִים עָלָיו וַיַּרְא וַיָּרָץ לִקְרָאתָם מִפֶּתַח הָאֹהֶל וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ אָרְצָה

Hashem appeared to him in the plains of Mamre; and he was sitting at the entrance of the tent when the day was hot. He raised his eyes and noticed three men were approaching him, and he saw them. He ran toward them from the entrance of the tent, and he prostrated himself to the ground.

His location “from the entrance of the tent” is established when the setting is described, yet repeated when he departs. Why?

The Kehilas Yitzchak explains that the Gemara in Brachos teaches that one who  leaves a synagogue should not take large steps while leaving - he shouldn’t appear happy when finishing a mitzvah. There is also a halacha in he Shulchan Aruch that it is a mitzvah to run towards any mitzvah.

If someone is switching from one mitzvah to another, should he run or not? A paradox is presented:  if he runs, it appears to devalue the first mitzvah; if he doesn’t run, then he isn’t doing the mitzvah of running to perform the second mitzvah!

The resolution is that if the first mitzvah is greater than the second, then he shouldn’t run; so as to not devalue the first and greater mitzvah. If the second mitzvah is greater, the he should run in order to fulfill the second greater mitzvah with haste and zeal. What if the two are equal? He should walk the first half of the journey and run the second half, in this way he fulfills both his obligations.

So how did Avraham conduct his behaviour? The Gemara in Shabbos teaches that taking in guests is greater than speaking to Hashem.

If so, when Avraham went to take in guests, although previously speaking to Hashem, the second mitzvah was greater than the first, Avraham had to run the entire journey.

Therefore the Torah writes that he ran towards them to praise his eagerness to run towards the second mitzvah the entire journey; “from the entrance of the tent”.

Its All Relative

By On · Add Comment

Hashem sends two angels, 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. Sedom knew the concept idea of kindness and chessed; they just twisted it in the most perverse way.

Chazal teach that if someone were too tall for a bed, they would cut off his legs so he would fit. Give Tzeddaka, plenty of it, just don’t let the pauper use those coins to buy food in the city. Sedom took the attribute of chesed and warped it to what they saw as ethical, what they believed kindness to be.

Lot brings the angels, disguised as travelers  into his home, prohibited by law in Sedom. He offers them food and lodging, punishable by death. A mob gathers to dispense justice, and when the people of Sedom want to attack the travelers, Lot offers his two daughters in their place, and is willing to give up his own life to save his guests. The angels intercede, striking their attackers with blindness. They subsequently inform Lot that he must flee from Sedom to save himself.

Rashi (19:29) says that Lot merited from being rescued 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 have told the Egyptians who would then kidnap Sarah, kill Avraham, and Lot would inherit all of Avraham’s property; but instead he kept his mouth shut.

Lot’s only true merit was from not informing on Avraham and Sarah; he had nothing else.

Why in the world would Lot not get any merit for hosting guests in the incredible manner delineated above? Lot was willing to give up his life for them; yet his only merit came from not getting his uncle killed?

Rashi (19:17) also says that the angels warned Lot not to look at Sedom being destroyed because Lot himself wasn’t fit to be saved through his own merit, but only through Avraham’s merit which is controversial to what I just said above.

Rav Dessler says that if a person was taught as a child all the laws of Shabbos and he grows up in a Shomer Shabbos house, then he doesn’t get much credit for not turning on a light on Shabbos. This person doesn’t really have a choice in the matter. He knows not to (and why not to) turn on a light on Shabbos. The disgrace that he would be in his friends and family’s eyes, stop him from even thinking about it. Thus his struggle in life doesn’t include the will he/won’t he use the lights on Shabbos, but something more sophisticated; such as will he study Torah for a bit on Shabbas? Or will he be haughty when he interacts with friends?

The point is that every Jew is on their own level with their own respective trials and tribulations. But something that you are so accustomed to do, that you are taught to do your whole life, stops becoming a test for you eventually – it literally becomes natural. The Evil Inclination has no pull over something so naturally ingrained into a person.

Lot grew up in the house of the kindest man who ever lived – the epitome of chessed. After living with Avraham for so long, and following his example day by day, Lot became so accustomed to hosting guests, to the point where he had no choice in the matter. Lot had to be kind to people, he’d been living that way for so long. If so, says Rav Dessler, Lot’s conduct of self sacrifice are not as valuable as they appear. There is still merit received for mitzvos done with no choice, but it wouldn’t have been enough to save Lot.

On the other hand, Lot had extreme passion for financial success.

As we see later  Lot parts from Avraham due to a financial disagreement. If Lot would’ve informed on Sarah, he would have been phenomenally wealthy. He would inherit Avraham’s property and live a happy life. This was truly a difficult test for Lot, in a field he hadn’t had training or experience. Lot conquered his inclination for money, and didn’t tell on Sarah.

Through this act alone, which appears fairly insignificant to the unenlightened eye, Lot merited to be saved from the destruction of Sedom.

The value of our actions is directly proportional to the effort expended to perform them.

Embittered Lives

By On · Add Comment

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

In the Haggada we read how וַיְמָרְרוּ אֶת חַיֵּיהֶם – They embittered their lives (Shemos 1:1)

The Vilna Gaon points out how this is very subtly hinted to by the notes. The notes on וַיְמָרְרוּ אֶת חַיֵּיהֶם are קדמא ואזלא, which literally 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 and 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 historical events?

He answers that 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.

Out of Context

By On · Add Comment

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 says that for displaying such humility, his descendants would earn the mitzvos of the ash 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.

There is an obvious yet superficial connection of dust todust, ash to ash; yet how are Sotah and Para Adumah a relevant reward to his humility for saying Afar v’Efer?

The Dubner Maggid tells a story of an upstanding member of society who made a wedding for his son, and the townsfolk and leaders were invited. There was a top table for the family, and next to it, another for the rabbis. A rabbi invited arrived, wished congratulations, but when taking his seat, felt unworthy of sitting in the presence 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 less worthy corner into one worthy of having the great rabbis 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 is suggested by the Beis HaLevi: Dust of the earth has no past, but immense potential for the future, it is the cradle of life; it grows plant life, which in turn sustain animal life etc. Ash has no future whatsoever, but has a detailed past, being the charred remains of something that once lived. Avraham intended to mean that he had no past, like earth, and and no future, like ash.

Hashem inverted this, by giving the Mitzvah of Sotah, which cleans the woman’s past through dust, and Para Adumah which purifies the persons future through ash.

Breaking the chain

By On · Add Comment

There are just four appearances of a שלשלת (Shalsheles), a rare cantor’s note in the entire Chumash– in Lech Lecha 19:16 – in Chayei Sarah– 24:12, in Vayeshev 39:8 and in Tzav 8:23. The Shalsheles is a tremendous literary device

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 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 prays 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 emotion.

Looking back at Lech Lecha, we see from Rashi that the Torah 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. The person it is used about has transcended. See how wise Chazal are, even when ascribing the musical notes to the words.