The Blessings

The meforshim ask why did Yitzchak use the name of Elokim, which is the name of din when giving the berachos, the blessings are chesed, not din? Yitzchak says about Yaakov, ראה ריח בני כריח השדה אשר ברכו ה'  and then continues ויתן לך, which seem to mean that the discription of Yaakov is part of the blessing, what is the blessing, that he should have a good scent?  Why in the blessings of Yaakov does it mention dew before the growth of the fields but in the berocha to Esav it’s said in reverse order?

The Shem Me’Shmuel explains the verse ויתן לך אלקים to mean that you shall find G-d in all matters.  The name Elokim is used to describe the Godliness that is hidden in everything (Elokim has the numerical value of Teva-nature.)  This was the essence of the berochos given to Yaakov, that he should recognize that everything contains Godliness within it.  The Chofetz Chaim explains the different in the language of the berocha is that for Yaakov the dew is mentioned first because Yaakov understands parnasa comes from the heavens foremost as opposed to Esav who appreciates what comes from this world.  Yaakov was looking for Hashem to be recognized within the parnosa that he received.

 The Sforno comments the beracha isn't for Yaakov to be able to purchase good cologne, rather the berocha is that Yaakov should appreciate that Hashem not only gives the basic necessities of food that every animal has but He also gives you a pleasant smell which is a pleasure for both the body and the soul.  This is the first of the berochos because it sums up the point that the berochos are meant to recognize that the berochos aren’t meant to receive physical pleasures, its to bring out the ruchnious that exists in everything (see Bad Kodesh.)   

The meforshim wonder why is there no apparent spiritual blessing given to Yaakov?  Based upon what we said it’s understood that the berocha is to recognize how the physical berochos can be used to further enhance one’s service of Hashem.  That is the explanation of the midrashim that explain the berochos as referring to the learning of Torah for that is the outgrowth of the berocha.

Lacking In Brains or Lacking In Heart

This Shabbos is the yartzheit of Rav Aharon Kotler, so it is only fitting to share some of his words.
The midrash says on the words  למה זה לי בכרה that the word זה refers to Hashem as it says זה קלי ואנוהו.  From here the midrrash says that Esav denied the existence of Hashem.  This Chazal is very difficult for if Esav didn't believe in Hashem then why did he care about the בכורה at all,  why the need to sell it and why was he upset that Yaakov took it?  Furthermore, Rav Kotler asks how could it be someone who saw Yitzchak Avenu could deny Hashem?  Even one who saw the Gra couldn't remain in denial of God (this is what Rav Kotler claims).  [I also found the following line in B'ekvos Hayerah pg. 15 at the end of the page, מספרים עליו על הגרא ז"ל שכל מי ששמעהו אומר בשעת קבלת שבת יום אם בקולו תשמעו מיד היה נעשה לבעל תשובה]  for sure if one saw Yitzchak all the time like Esav, he would know there is a God?

Rav Aharon Kotler explains that Chazal don't mean that Esav didn't acknowledge the existence of Hashem, he knew there was a God but he chose to ignore Him if he felt it interfered with his desires.  The word זה means something you can point to.  Esav was fully cognizant of Hashem to the point that he could point to Him, however he said למה זה לי, I don't want Hashem for I don't want ruchnious, I want only gashmious.

Quite too often in life we know what's right and wrong, that's not the issue.  It is the lack of desire for ruchnious that drives our (my) decisions.  The lesson is that one must have the desire for the proper thing in order to do what's right.  

My great-grandfather explains in a different manner.  He cites many statements of Chazal in various places that call a kofer such as Tosefta Shveis (3:5) that one does an averah only because of denial of God.  Does this mean everyone who commits a sin denies God?  He explains based upon the Tanya in letter 25 that explains the Chazal that one who gets angry is as if he served avodah zarah.  Why is getting angry tantamount to avodah zarah?  The Tanya says if a person had complete faith that everything Hashem does is for the best, he would not have gotten angry.  Similarly, in all the statements of Chazal, they are pointing out that the misdeed stems from a certain lack of faith in Hashem.  Chazal are pointing out the source of averaos and in our case, Esav stemmed from a measurement of denial in God.  It is indeed an intellectual lack of faith in Hashem that Chazal are highlighting in Esav.

We see from here that it is indeed a lack of faith in Hashem to be able to forgo ruchnious, to have the gall to not to the desire of Hashem is indeed a denial of Hashem.

The Laugh Of Yitzchak

Why is Yitzchak named after the laugh of his mother when she heard she would give birth, why that an important fact to highlight in his name?  In this week’s parsha it says that Avimelech saw Yitzchak and Rivka laughing.  Why does it use such an expression to describe their relationship?  Why does the Torah use the language of ויעתר to describe the prayers of Yitzchak and Rivka as opposed to any other prayer where such a terminology isn’t used?

Yitzchak was named after laughter because he was born with the ability to bring holiness into a world which seems completely divorced from Hashem.  One laughs when something that is unexpected happens.  The ability to bring kedusha into this world seems completely impossible and when it happens it causes laughter.  Therefore, it is quite fitting that the first child born into compete kedusha is named laughter for it sums up the essence of Judaism.  The ultimate laughter will be in the future when all the sparks of holiness in the world will be uplifted and the world will finally be united with Hashem.  That’s why it’s specifically Yitzchak who is associated with the (near) future days and will be our defendant in judgment (see Shabbos 89b.)

The name Rivka is related to the word רבקה של בקר- a yoke of cows.  That means that she had the   ability to control her own cow, she ruled over her animal soul.  The union of Yitzchak and Rivka is therefore referred to as tzchok for it’s the ultimate unity of two kinds of tzchok.  The Yitzchak model of tzchok is the ability to bring kedusha into the world for he was born into holiness.  Rivka on the other hand came from reshaim and her tzchok was that even so she was able to perfect herself.  (Based upon a mammar from the Alter Rebbe 1809 with explanation of essay by Y.Y. Jacobson.)

The Zohar says that the language of vayetar is related to the word vayechtar which means that a furrow was dug for their prayers to be accepted.  The midrash quotes in the name of Rav Levi a parable to explain the idea of a king whose son wanted to get gold, so the king was tunneling from the inside to give him the gold and the son was tunneling from the outside to get to gold.  We see from here that it wasn’t natural for Yitzchak and Rivka to have children and it required a new tunnel to be created for them to have children.  That’s why specifically in this situation the language of vayetar is used for in this situation the tefillah created a new existence.  (Nesivos Shalom.) The Shem M’Shmuel points out that the midrash puts the tunneling of the king before the tunneling of the son.  That means even before a person actually prays, once he has in his mind that he will pray Hashem already grants the request.  

Why was it necessary for Yitzchak and Rivka to have children in a non-natural manner?  Based upon what we said above its self-understood that the existence of Klal Yisrael doesn’t make sense in the parameters of the world and therefore there was a need for a new form of existence to be created for the formation of Klal Yisroel.

Chinuch

ויגדלו הנערים-Chazal point out that only after Yaakov and Esav become of age was it recognizable the differences between them.  Rav Hirsch says that Chazal are pointing out to us that the difference between Yaakov and Esav started in the lack of proper chinuch.  Already from in the womb it was obvious that Yaakov and Esav were of different natures.  It behooved Yitzchak and Rivka to realize that each one of the brothers required his own path of schooling, חנוך לנער על פי דרכו.  However, that wasn’t the case, rather each one went to the same school and was taught exactly in the same way.  Therefore, as they graduated from their days of school it was quite a surprise to everyone how twins who both went through the same schooling system could be so different.  In reality, this difference was there the whole time, but it wasn’t paid attention to.  Yaakov was fine with sitting in yeshiva learning all day but for Esav that didn’t work.  He didn’t have the sitzfleisch to sit and learn all day.  The lesson is that the chinuch of every child must be tailor-made to fit with his/her personality and strengths/weaknesses.  Of course, this is easier said than done because you can’t have a separate school for every child.  However, one could suggest that there should at least be two tracks, one for those that cut it and another for those that don’t.  But the mesoreh of yeshivos wasn’t to do like this.  I actually (surprisingly?!) will defend the position of the yeshivos.  The Mictav M’Eliyahu vil. 3 pg. 355-360 distinguishes between the Lithuanian yeshivos and the school of Rav Hirsch.  In the Rav Hirsch school where secular studies were encouraged, everyone emerged as a fine, frum Jew but they didn’t produce gedolei Torah.  On the other hand, in the Lithuanian yeshivos it was 100% learning.  There were many that ‘fell out’ of the Lithuanian schools and were lost to all the isms of the day.  However, they were able to produce gedolei Torah of the greatest caliber.  Rav Dessler seems to feel its worth it to lose some souls in order to produce the finest and best gedolei Torah.  The question obviously is do you agree with Rav Dessler’s assertion and #2 shouldn’t it (at least in today’s day and age) be possible to be have the best of both worlds?

The Death Or Life Of Sarah?

This week's parsha is called the life of Sarah.  This seems quite ironic as the whole parsha takes place after Sarah's death; it would seem more fitting to be named after the passing of Sarah or something of that ilk?  There is a major difference between Avrohom and Sarah.  Avrohom is called av hamon goyim, he has a connection to the entire world.  Avrohom spread the word of God to the entire world.  Sarah on the other hand, limited her haspah to kedusha, to Yitzchak, who would be the heir to develop Klal Yisroel.  That's why it was Sarah who wanted to drive out Yishmoel as opposed to Avrohom who wanted to keep him.  All the events of this week's parsha reflect the teaching of Sarah that everything must be for the sake of kedusha, for Klal Yisroel.
When it came to buying the maares hamachpaleh, Avrohom tells the people occupying the land that he would either buy it or take it because the land is rightfully his.  This event was an example that the Eretz Yisroel was put in the hands of the gentiles only if they will give it over to Klal Yisroel.  If they aren't fulfilling their mission then it will be taken away from them.  The obvious connection is the marriage of Yitzchak to continue the building of Klal Yisroel.  But even in the whole episode of the conversation with Eliezer this point is made in dramatic fashion as Besuel is struck dead for objecting to the marriage.  This is also reflected in the end of the parsha, where Yishmoel comes around and acknowledges that Yitzchak is the main son of Avrohom.  It is a person's goals and aspirations coming to fruition that define their lives (based upon Likutay Sichos volume 15.)
We should live in a manner which will make the 11 people killed in the Pittsburgh massacre this past Shabbos 'living' a chayeh Sarah, to live 'being Jewish' just as they were killed just for being Jewish . 

When Sod Is Peshat

The end of the parsha is quite cryptic.  The whole episode of Avrohom marring Keturah and the children they had.  Who is she, why did Avrohom marry her, why do we need to know about them, why did Avrohom give them an inheritance of a shem tumah?  All of these questions are difficult and have been addresed from Chazal downward but it still is very difficult.  The Gemorah says (Zevachim 62b) that the nephews of Rav Tarfon were sitting with him and no one was saying anything.  So he said ויוסף אברהם ויקח אשה ושמה יוחני.  They said the possuk doesn't say יוחני, it says קטורה, so Rav Tarfon called them bnei keturah (Rashi explains that they don't know how to learn.)  Obviously, this Gemorah needs explanation, why did Rav Tarfon read the possuk wrong, why was that a way of expressing the ignorance of those around him?  Rav Schwab quotes Morenu Rav Yaakov Rosenheim (see here) in the name of a gadol that we understand the nigleh of Torah via the three lower dimensions of the neshama which are nefesh, ruach and neshama.  Similarly the depths of Torah, the nistar, can be understood (by those that know) via three dimensions and they are chayeh, yechidah and nefesh yeserah.  He said that this parsha can only be understood in the light of pnemious hatorah.  That is what Rav Tarfon was saying, יוחני stands for yechedah, v'chayeh, nefesh yeserah.  Rav Tarfon thought maybe his nephew's weren't discussing halacha or briskor lomdus because they were kabbalists and were quietly pondering their kabbalistic thoughts.  Therefore, Rav Tarfon was hinting to them the process of understanding the depths of Torah so they can discuss those thoughts instead of just thinking.  However, they didn't get the hint and Rav Tarfon derived they were just ameh ha'aretz.  Rav Shwab seems to be acknowledging there are aspects of Torah that could only be understood based upon pnemious hatorah, which is an opinion the Lubavatcher Rebbe advanced as well.  I am just surprised that a yeki would say the same thing.
A simple lesson from the whole episode is reflective of what  this blog says here that even as Avrohom grew older he was still active and sought to raise more children.

To Live Life

The possuk (24:1) says ואברהם זקן בא בימים.  The midrash and commentators are bothered that it was already stated in last week's parsha that Avrohom was old, so why the repetition now?  The Rebbe (Likutay Sichos volume 35) explains that the additional chiddush here is in the words bah bayamim.  What does it mean bah bayamim?  (See Ramban and Even Ezra and the Sicha inside for why Rashi must have learnt differently.)  The Rebbe explains that literally it means to come into the days like bah el habayis, means to enter the house.  It means that the person put all his/her capabilities and strength into every day of their life.  Every day was a new experience that left a lasting imprint on the person.  Generally, as a person grows older they become agnostic to their surroundings, they don't care about what happens around them.  They life days of emptiness.  As they retire, they in essence retire from living meaningful life.  The possuk is stressing that Avrohom even as he grew older and older didn't just let time pass, he lived life to its fullest and every day left its mark.  Just as this was true in the daily activities of life, so too in terms of spirituality Avrohom used every minute to its fullest as the Zohar says on this possuk.  According to Rav Hirsch that is part of the meaning of chayeh sarah, all her years were full of life, each moment was meaningful and precious.  

The following paragraph is from The Jewish Times vol.9 no.6 -April 24, 2015, a recording of Rav Menachem Genack's memories of Rav Aharon Lichtenstein.  "I remember in the summer of 1967, Rav Aharon, who was already a Rosh Kollel, playing a game of full-court basketball with other students of the Rav in Onset, Massachusetts. At one point in the game, Rav Aharon turned to me and said, “It is not ethical to play just offense and not defense.” Although his comment was tongue-in-cheek, it reflected his forethought and seriousness with which he undertook his every action" (from http://www.mesora.org/jewishtimes477.pdf.)  This is an example of someone who was bah bayamim.  Everything he did, he put in 100%
Getting older shouldn't be an excuse for not doing things properly.  Just because a person is not in yeshiva as he was in his youth doesn't mean that he's too old to daven or learn with the same intensity as he used too, truncated because of lack of time, yes, to not live with the same intensity, no.  This isn't just a lesson for those that are growing older in years, it is a lesson for everyone.  Too often as we run through our daily lives with all its "bustling activity" we are just walking through life, not 'living life'.