The Power Of An Oath

Why did Avrohom need to make Eliezer take an oath to take a proper wife for Yitzchak if he was a faithful servant?  The answer is that an oath is not just away to guarantee the faithfulness of the person but gives the person the power to fulfill his mission.   The shevua is what brings to the front the hidden power of the neshamah and its connection to Hashem.  The language of shevua -oath is related to the word savah-satiated because it fills the person with the power to complete his mission.   That is why Avrohom made Eliezer take a shevua; he was giving  him the power to overcome all obstacles that might stand before him.  Avrohom sensed the internal struggle that Eliezer had to go find a wife for Yitzchak and pass over his own daughter.  Therefore, Avrohom gave him the strength to overcome his personal interest in the mission being unsuccessful. See the Or Hachaim that when Avrohom made him swear he wouldn’t take a wife from Canaan the intent was at Eliezer.  That is why the neshamah is given an oath before it comes into the world to be a tzaddik and not a rasha (Niddah 30b) so that it has the power to overcome all the challenges of this world.(Based upon Likutay Sichos volume 1.)

The Midrash says that Eliezer for being a faithful servant left the category of the cursed Canaan and became blessed.  The Sfas Emes says that this is a lesson for every person.  We are servants of Hashem and if we fulfill our mission we become in the category of the blessed.  The Sfas Emes says that this happens specifically on Shabbos.  The midrash says that the face of Eliezer mirrored that of Avrohom.  The bracha of Avrohom became recognizable on Eliezer’s face.  So too on Shabbos our faces change as the bracha shines through. (Sifsai Tzaddik.)  By overcoming the challenges hurled our way through the power of the shevua administered to us we can awaken the hidden connection that we have to Hashem and become barach.   

Who Is The Proper One

If I would ask you who would seem a better candidate as a shidduch, one who serves avodah zarah, eats nevalos v'trefos etc. but has exemplary middos or one who follows every letter in the Code of Jewish Law but has terrible middos, whom would you choose?  Avrohom made Eliezer swear that he would not under any circumstances take a wife for his son from the people of Cn'aan, only from his own family.  What did Avrohom find that his family had over everyone else, they seemed just as bad?  Did Avrohom just want to keep the wealth in the family😊?  The Derashos Haran Derush 5 explains that good middos are hereditary.  Since Avrohom had good middos it must be that such a gene ran in the family.  On the other, hand averos aren't hereditary, they are a person's choice and will not have any impact on the children.  So Avrohom wasn't worried about the averos, he was worried about the lack of middos.  The Ran understands averos can be changed, middos cannot.  I'm not sure scientifically what the Ran means, it is quite a chiddush.  However, it does seem in the aforementioned question the Ran would choose the averyon over the one with the bad middos (though admittedly I might be exaggerating things.)

Anyway, we glean from this Ran the importance of good middos.  Based upon this we can maybe understand a little bit the famous midrash that comments on how the story of Eliezer is repeated in great detail in the Torah and  every word he said is recorded as opposed to many laws which are merely hinted to in the Bible, yafeh sichasan shel avdeh avos yoser m'torasen shel banim.  What is the greatness of the sichasan shel avdeh avos? Rav Lessen explains that Eliezer was the chozer of the Torah of Avrohom and had  aspirations for Yitzchak to marry his daughter.  How disappointing must it have been for him for his wish not to be fulfilled.  If I was in his situation I might do the mission Avrohom sent me on, but it would be with a heavy heart and done as fast as possible without much care for the results.  The Torah understood that Eliezer did his mission wholeheartedly and therefore recants every detail in order to show us how a person has this ability to perfect his middos to do conquer his/her desires to do the will of God.  It is the sicha of perfected character traits that is yafeh more than the Torah of the banim.

לבי אומר לי that the explanation of the midrash is the sicha shel avdeh avos is the later generations discussing the learning, middos and actions of the previous generations.  This may be apikorses, but a person might know all four volumes of the Shulchan Aruch inside and out, he has torasen shel banim.  However, if this person has no understanding of how the previous generations acted and paskined then he won't be able to come out with the proper hanhagah.  That is why these days there are many seforim that write halachos but can't seem to come to a proper conclusion, the authors have torah, but are lacking the sicha of avseh avos.  This is why Chassidim take time to gather together (whether they call it a zits, sheves achim, farbrengen) to tell over stories of the previous generations to learn from the avos how the avdeh avos should act.  It is a sicha shel avdeh avos that compliments and sustains the torasen shel banim.       

The Oath

The Gemorah Shevous (38b) derives from the fact that Avrohom made Eliezer take his oath while grabbing onto the milah that one must hold onto an object of a mitzvah when he takes an oath administered by beis din.  Tosfos asks why don't we learn from the oath of Eliezer that every oath requires one to hold an object of a mitzvah? The Rosh suggests an answer that the limud from Eliezer is just an asmoctah, the din is only rabbinic to scare a person.  The Ramban says this same idea even assuming the din is a Torah requirement.  See Torah Temimah for a different approach.  Interesting as well to note his challenge on the Rosh that what basis does he have to say the derash is merely an asmochtah.  It would seem since Tosfos didn't give this answer that he holds the grasping of a mitzvah object isn't to scare the person, its a chomer in the oath.  An oath that is taken while holding an object of a mitzvah is more chomor than an oath taken without holding a mitzvah object.  
The Gemorah says that the oath should be administered with a sefer torah but for a talmud chacham its enough for him to swear holding tefillin.  Why is a talmud chacham different?  If the reason of holding a mitzvah object is to scare the one swearing,  its understandable for the talmud chacham understands the severity even when just holding tefillin.  It could be even Tosfos agrees that which object is held is measured by what will scare the person.  The basic idea of holding a mitzvah object is to make the oath more stringent, but the exact object is decided by "scare points." See Tosfos as to how we derive a sefer torah if Eliezer was holding milah, ועדיין צ"ע.
The Gemorah says that is the oath is administered without the plaintiff holding a object of mitzvah that it is considered making a mistake about something that is in a mishna.  According to Tosfos the din is understandable for the oath wasn't a good oath in this scenario.  However, according to the Rosh why should the oath not be good, he took a proper oath?  The Rishonim say that we also light candles and blow them out to scare the plaintiff, if those are lacking we don't have to redo the oath?  The Meiri that answers this question that we are afraid the person feels without holding an object of mitzvah the oath is only rabbinic and that he is willing to violate, therefore we make him redo it where he knows its a Torah oath to see if he will retract. 

How To Mourn

An interesting phenomenon I noticed when my grandmother passed away.  Many of my relatives (but not all) didn't want to weep in public.  Only when no one was around did they let their emotions out.
Chazal point out the strange terminology around Sarah's death.  The possuk (23:2) says vayavo Avrohom, Avrohom came, where was he when Sarah died?  Did he leave Sarah to die alone?  Chazal explain that Sarah died when she heard the news of the akedah and that's where Avrohom was coming from.  Rav Hirsch has a different take.  He says that the word bo means to "betake oneself out of the open into the house."  Thus the possuk means that Avrohom shut himself apart from everyone slse to weep and mourn for Sarah.  He suggests that's possibly why there is a small caf in libcoseh, to indicate that the emotions expressed outwardly were in a small measure.  It seems that Rav Hirsch understands that it is best to not be to outwardly emotional over obe's loss of a relative, even as such a great life partner as Sarah was to Avrohom.  It is unclear to me why Rav Hirsch held of this approach.  Possibly its just a yeki thing, that one should not show any emotions.  I was thinking of a different explanation.  If one lets all their emotions out in public then s/he has no time to absorb the meaning of the loss into themselves.

Ger V'toshav

This is a piece I saw from a Conservative rabbi.  "In his negotiations to secure a permanent burial place from the Hittites, Abraham describes himself as a “ger toshav.” In Biblical Hebrew, the word “ger” means a sojourner, someone just passing through. As opposed to the home-born, the “ger” had no inherited rights. A “toshav” means a temporary resident, one who may choose to dwell in a given place, usually for a long period of time, but is not considered a full citizen. (See RashI and ibn Ezra on Genesis 23:4.) Grammatically, the term “ger toshav” is a hendiadys, a construction that joins two seemingly independent terms. In Abraham’s case, it connotes ambivalence. It is as if Abraham is saying that he is unsure whether his neighbors consider him a resident or an alien – but certainly not a full citizen. Abraham is expressing his self-perception that he does not fit in.

What may seem to be an arcane grammatical phrase is really an ancient antecedent to an ongoing issue. How do we as Jews view ourselves? Are we Jews who happen to reside in Canada, France, Argentina, or the United States? Or, are we Canadian, Frenchmen, Argentinians or Americans who happen to be Jews? Experience has shown that this question belies an easy answer.

Despite the signal contributions Jews had made to Spanish culture, economics, and politics, these contributions were overlooked when theology and chauvinism demanded that Jews be expelled from Spain in 1492 – a mistake admitted by King Juan Carlos in 1992. In the euphoria that followed emancipation, Jews rushed to integrate into Western society. For a while, all was good: Jews in Germany, for example, played a pivotal role in shaping the country’s character. A Jewish jurist wrote the Weimar constitution. Kafka brought German literature into the existential world as Buber revolutionized theology. Freud explored the limits of the mind while Einstein expanded the limits of physics. Schoenberg brought new life to music with his twelve-tone system, building on the musical heritage inherited from Mendelssohn. All these innovations enriched the world as well as the reputation of Germany. Yet when the fever of anti-Semitism gave rise to Nazism, Jews were again labeled as alien. The echo of Abraham’s ambivalence still reverberates today.

The only place on earth in which the question of the status of Jews is not in doubt is Israel. This is the very point emphasized by all the founders and thinkers of Zionism. Israel is the one safe haven in which we need not even ask the question."

Interesting to note that Rabbi Rakkefet likes to say over from Rav Solovetchik a similar idea.  Though I believe the Rav understood the message to be that we have a dual existence of being alienated from Western culture, a ger, but at the same time a toshav, fitting and contributing to Western society.  This idea from the Rav isn't just a cute vort but is key to his Weltanschauung and understanding of modern-orthodoxy.  We may blend into Western society but have to know that there are boundaries of halacha.

Eliezer

In Parshas Lech Lechah (15:2) Avrohom says “what can you give me I don’t have any children and Eliezer my servant will inherit me.”  Chazal have a derash on the words of the verse that describe Eliezer as ben damasak that Eliezer was dolah umashkeh metoroshon shel Avrohom which means that Eliezer taught the Torah of Avrohom to the masses.  This is seemingly a great praise of Eliezer, so why would Avrohom mention this when he was trying to “complain” that Eliezer would inherit him?  In our Parsha we find that there is a switch in terms for how Eliezer is referred to.  He is originally referred to as eved, slave then he is called iesh, man and finally reverts back to eved.  Why the change in language?  In Parshas Chukas there is a midrash cited in the Daas Zekanim that Og is Eliezer, how can it be that Eliezer the servant of Avrohom who taught Torah, would go fight against Klal Yisroel? 

The Meor VAshemesh in Lech Lechah explains Avrohom’s point was that Eliezer can only give over my Torah but has no ability to be mechadash on his own.  Eliezer was completely nullified before Avrohom and that’s where his whole Judaism stemmed from, but he hadn’t figured out his own path how to serve Hashem.  That is a denigration of Eliezer for a person isn’t supposed to do Judaism because that’s what his father or master did, but he is supposed to figure out the proper path in life by himself.

We can now explain our Parsha.  First Eliezer is going on his mission as a pure slave doing the bidding of his master.  When he arrives, he must decide who is the right match and must do an action of his own to figure out how to find the right match.  Therefore, he is called an iesh for he did an action on his own accord not simply being a servant following orders.  This was his chance to advance and become an iesh (to find his own path in serving Hashem not just copying Avrohom.)  However, he came to Laven and said eved Avrohom anochi- I’m merely a slave following Avrohom not my own being, that I acted on my own accord was a temporary change based upon necessity, so he goes back to being called an eved.   

Now we understand how Eliezer became Og.  His whole service of Hashem came from his service to Avrohom.  Once Avrohom passed on, Eliezer lost his whole source of his service of Hashem and therefore went on to become Og.

In next week’s Parsha, Rashi tells us that the prayers of Yitzchak were answered over those of Rivka because Yitzchak was a tzaddik the son of a tzaddik as opposed to Rivka who was the daughter of a rasha.  Why is the son of a tzaddik a reason to have his prayers accepted more it would seem that the son of a rasha had more work to do to become a tzaddik and that should be a reason that his prayers are accepted more?  The Michtav MeEliyahu explains that the son of a tzaddik has a harder job to find his own path of avodas Hashem.  Yet Yitzchak was successful as Avrohom emphasized the attribute of chesed as oppose to Yitzhak who was known for the attribute of gevurah.  The Panim Meiros says the reason why each one of the avos is mentioned independently in the shemonah esraih is since each one found their own path in avodas Hashem and didn’t just take what their father gave them.

A Field, Marriage And Connecting To God

The Torah juxtaposes the death of Sarah and her burial in maras hamachpalah and the marriage of Yitzchak.  What is the connection between these two events?  Why is the acquiring of a wife through money learnt from buying a field (as it says in Kiddushin 4a,) and specifically from buying maras hamachpalah? How is the whole saga of the marriage of Yitzchak and Rivka applicable to our lives? What is the significance of the cave being doubled?

The maras hamachpalah is in Chevron which is related to the word chibur which means connection.  The maras hamachpalah in Chevron represents our deep connection to Hashem which always exists subconsciously. Jerusalem is the place which demonstrates our outward love to Hashem.  It’s the place of the Beis Hamikdash where we can serve Hashem in a complete fashion.  However, when we sin, and that connection is no longer apparent then Jerusalem becomes defiled in the hands of the gentiles.  However, we still have the maras hamachpalah which represents that there is a hidden buried connection to Hashem that always remains within us and can never be severed.  The burying of the Avos in the cave represents the Avos which are buried within our heart.  The Chidushay Harim says that we say magan Avrohom in Shemoneh Esrai because there is a little Avrohom which exists within all of us which contains the hidden ahavah to Hashem.  That’s why the doubling of the cave is significant for it represents the both the inner and outward connection to Hashem that we have.   That’s why we learn kiddushin from the acquisition of the maras hamachpala for it symbolizes that in a successful marriage there always must be apparent an inner connection between the husband and wife.  That is why parsha of marriage in the Torah is juxtaposed specifically to the purchase of the cave for marriage is supposed to contain within in a deep connection that will never be severed because of what happens on the outside.  The same thing is true regarding our relationship with Hashem which is referred to as a marriage in Chazal. No matter what actions we take we always retain that eternal connection to Hashem.  (Based upon Emunos Etechah.)  The midrash says that Chevron was given to Caleb and from his hands to the Leviem.  The Rebbe explains that since Chevron is the place of this deep connection to Hashem it’s only fitting that it should belong to the Leviem who are the ones who are charged with the task of bringing a person closer to Hashem.

The Knife

The Gemorah (Zevachim 97b) derives from the verse (22:10) "Avrohom took the knife," that a keli as opposed to the harp edge of a reed is required to do the shechita of kodshim.  Rashi Zevachim (98a) understands that this means that the shechita must be done with a kli shares.  This would seem to run at odds with Rashi Menachos (82b) that explains the chiddush of the Gemorah is that an act of shechita is requires on a korban and its not enough to do melika.  According to Rashi Menachos the rule is just coming to tell us you need shechita but you don't see the need for a kli shares.  The Rishonim  (Tosfos Zevachim 47a and Rishonim Chullin 3a) debate this point if the halacha says that a keli is required or its not enough with any keli but a kli shares is required.  The Achronim ask how do we see in the verse that it was a kli shares?  Furthermore, the Rambam (Maaseh Karbonos 4:7) rules that the requirement is to use  kli shares but ex post facto any shechita is good (even without a keli.)  Why is the law only lichatchila?

The question seems to be is this law of a keli required for the shechita of kodshim is that a rule in shechita which is only said in regard to kodshim or is it in a rule in kodshim.  The Rishonim that understand that a keli sharas is required is because they understand if the law says a keli is required it must be a law in kodshim.  If its a law in kodshim than it has the laws of kelim d'hekdash and requires a kli sharash.  It's not some extrapolation from the verse that tells us the requirement of kli sharash, its part of the requirement of keli.  This is the opinion of the Rambam as well.  Therefore, he follows the general rule that by kodshim laws are binding even ex post facto only if there are two verses telling us the law.  Here, there aren't two verses, therefore the rule isn't binding b'deavad.  The Rishonim that don't require a kli sharash just any keli, hold that the law is telling us a law in slaughtering.  It happens to be that this rule of slaughtering only applies to animals of kodshim only, tbut we can't extrapolate from there any requirement of kli sharash (Dibros Moshe Chullin daf 12.)

The Ritvah (Chullin 3a) says that a kli sharas is necessary to be mekadash the blood of the korban (as the Gemorah says in Sotah 14b) but its not a kli sharash gamur and therefore there is no pesul of yotzeh, of the blood leaving the mikdash.  What does he mean, what is a kli sharash gamur or not gamur?  Rav Dovid Elon (Masseh Yad volume 2) explains that we find two types of kli sharash.  We find kli sharash that cause kedusha to other things like the kalim used to receive blood of a korban or put minachos in.  We find a second kind of kli sharash, that which is kodesh in its own right, but doesn't make other things kodesh such as the menorah and aron.  The Ritvah means that the shechita knife has to be kodesh but it isn't mekadesh the blood (see also Tosfos Rosh in Sotah.)  The problem is that this seems to be the opposite of what the Ritvah is saying.  The Ritvah says that the knife is a kli sharash in regard to give kedusha to the blood, clearly he is saying it is a kli sharash to be mekadesh the blood?

An Internal Laugh

When Avrohom confronts Sarah as to why she laughed about bearing a son, Sarah denies the matter and says "I didn't laugh."  The Ramban asks how could it be that a great prophetess like Sarah would deny that what Hashem told Avrohom?  Furthermore, how would Sarah lie to Avrohom in any circumstance?  My great-grandfather explains that possuk 12 says vatizchak Sarah b'kerbah, Sarah laughed internally.  The laugh of Sarah was an emotion deep down in her depths, it was so deep even she didn't realize it and therefore denied the episode.  The mussar is clear.  Sometimes a person will feel that they are doing the right thing but deep down they no its wrong.  One must be in tune with their inner feelings to see what is driving their actions.

True Mesiras Nefesh

Rashi (22:2) says that had Avrohom failed the test of the akedah then people would have said that the fulfillment of the first 9 test wasn't mammash.  Everyone asks why is this so, if a person gets one failing mark in a term it doesn't mean that the tests he passed were worthless?  If the mesiras nefesh of Avrohom is such a great merit, why don't we mention him entering the fire in Or Casdim in our prayers as we do the akedah and why does that story not appear in the Chumash at all?  

The Rebbe (Likutay Sichos volume 20) explains that the akedah wasn’t just the conclusion of the tests of Avrohom, it was the proof of that the fulfillment of all the tests was true mesiras nefesh.  What made the mesiras nefesh of Avrohom unique, we find many people that are willing to give up their life for a cause?  The answer is that those that are willing to give up their lives for their causes have a power of mesiras haguf, not mesiras nefesh.  It is a calculated sacrifice where one feels that in order the cause its worth it to part with their life.  Mesiras nefesh is when one doesn’t feel it makes sense to give up their life, but they do it anyway.  It is a power which is greater than logic, as Chassidus explains, it is a power which stems from the yechidah she’benefeshi, the innermost part of the neshama which is a power greater than that of the sechel.  When it came to Or Casdim one could have thought that Avrohom was zealous about his religion just as others may be, it was worth it for him to jump into the fire and not destroy his life's work.  However, the akedah was not that way, it wasn't worth it for Avrohom to sacrifice his life, for no one was around to know what he was doing and furthermore sacrificing his son ran contrary to Avrohom's entire life work of chesed.  So Avrohom's giving up of his life was true meseres nefesh, it required a power that defied logic.  By passing this test it proved that the first tests were also fulfilled because of neseras nefesh and not just meseras guf.  

Hashem says how can I conceal from Avrohom my plans of destroying Sedom and therefore he tells him and then Avrohom prays.  Why do we need the preamble of Hashem saying how can I conceal this from Avrohom, why do we need any reason, many prophets received prophecy about nations?  And what is the continuation of the pessukim that Avrohom will give over the way of Hashem to his children, why is this relevant?  The Chasam Sofer (intro. to Teshuvos Yoreh Dayeh) explains that a navi has to be in the state of mind ready to accept prophesy.  Avrohom was not constantly in that state of mind because he was willing to give up on his spiritual advancement in order to teach the masses.  That's why there has to be an explanation here as to why Avrohom received the prophesy.  That's the continuation of the pessukim, the reason why Avrohom wasn't always ready to accept prophesy was because he was teaching the derech Hashem.  The Chosem Sofer concludes from here that one must be willing to forgo spiritual growth in order to teach others.  This is an example of true meseras nefesh, where one is willing to give up on their spiritual state for the sake of Hashem, in order to spread his word to others.  True mesiras nefesh is to do that which runs contrary to one's benefit for the sake of Hashem.

I Am Dirt

Avrohom in his prayers to spare the towns of Sedom said "I am dirt and ashes."  Chazal (Chullin 89b) say that for these words Avrohom was rewarded with the mitzvot of afar parah adumah and afer soteh.  Why are these mitzvot the reward for this statement?

The Meshech Chochma explains that natural growing things such as plants are not susceptible to accept tumah.  It is only where there is the work of man involved that things become susceptible to accept tumah.  We see from here that naturally things are pure, it is human involvement that makes things fitting to accept tumah.  The Avos became "purified" by negating their own ego, their own feeling of self before Hashem. This is reflected in the statement of Avrohom where he says he is" dirt and ashes."  By nullifying himself before Hashem, Avrohom was able to purify himself from the "poison" that was put into mankind by the sin of the aitz haddas.  The dirt used in the process of checking a sotah allows the woman to become pure (sotah is called tameh,) and return to her husband.  Similarly, the ashes of the parah adumah are used to make a person tahor and Hashem.  Since Avrohom returned to his natural state of earth and became purified, therefore he merited to receive mitzvot of purity.

The Maharal has a similar approach.  His focus is on that earth is where man comes from and its returning to the original, pure source that effects purity.  Similarly, through afer sotah a woman returns to her husband and a person returns to a state of purity through afer parah adumah. I would add to this what the Maharal writes in Netzach Yisroel (chapter 57) that earth is element that is the basis of everything; the ultimate returning to the source is to feel that one is reduces to his/her most basic element of earth.  

It is interesting that Avrohom doesn't say "I am dirt and ashes" as a preamble to his first prayer, only when continuing to beseech for a second time to save Sedom does he start off with this statement of humility.  Why does he only express it in the second prayer and not in the first?  Rav Dovid Solevetchik suggests that the first prayer of Avrohom was one that was al pi din as Avrohom said "how could God not be just."  The additional prayers were asking to save lifnim m'shuras hadin and for that Avrohom had to say I have no zechus to be listened too, I'm asking lifnim m'shuras hadin.  

I would like to suggest a different approach.  The first request of Avrohom was prayer that was fine.  However, to continue to beseech God is dangerous.  Unless one is sure that his intentions are completely pure and for the sake of the honor of Hashem, excessive prayer wouldn't be allowed for it would be second guessing God's judgement.  It's only allowed if one is confident that his/her prayer is merely leshem shamayim. I think that the intro. of Avrohom wasn't part of his prayer, it was a physiological test to see if he had any outside feelings that were encouraging him to continue praying.  If he had any feelings other than kovod shamayim he wouldn't be able to say "I am dirt and ashes."  Only after Avrohom guaranteed himself that his intentions were completely leshem shamayim was he able to continue praying without concern of second guessing God.

Humanist vs. God

The Chovos Halivavos (gate of Love of Hashem chapter 4) says that Avrohom was tested in his love of Hashem three ways, bichal levavcha, nafshecha u'miodecha.  He was tested 1) monetarily in regard to if he would take money from the Sedomite king, 2) bodily, if he would do bris milah, 3) life, if he would sacrifice Yitzchak.  It sounds from the Chovos Halivavos that the test of Avrohom was would he fulfill the word of Hashem begrudgingly or would he do it with heslavus, feeling and wholeheartedly.  A similar idea is expressed in the Igros Kodesh section of the Tanya, Letter 21.  He asks what was the greatness of the akedah, many people have given up their life for Hashem's sake? He explains that the test was to see if Avrohom was willing to do the akedah with zrizus.

The midrash says that as Avrohom was preparing to slaughter his son his heart was happy to fulfill the word of Hashem but tears were streaming down from his eyes.  The midrash derives this from the fact that through the story of akedah it says Yitzchak, however when it comes to tying up Yitzchak on the alter it says Yitzchak bino, to indicate that Avrohom had feelings that Yitzchak was his son and cried.  It seems that through the whole journey to the place of the akedah Avrohom didn't view Yitzchak as his son, he viewed him as a korban, as a cheftzah shel mitzvah and therefore, was able to fulfill the commandment of Hashem with great simcha.  But in the final moment, when it came time to actually slaughter his son, the emotional wellsprings of fatherly love opened up within him.   

Rav Yitzchak Eizek Sher (see Chachmas Hamitzfon) is bothered why did Avrohom cry, didn't he know that Hashem's commandment is for the best?  He explains that part of the commandment was to feel bincha, yechidcha, asher ahavta, he had to feel love for Yitzchok and still be willing to slaughter him.  Therefore, Avrohom couldn't suppress the feelings of love for his son for part and parcel of the commandment was to feel the emotions of fatherly love, but yet overcome it to fulfill the desire of Hashem.

I am not convinced about the whole question of Rav Yitzchak Eizek Sher.  I think that itself is the point of the midrash, true there is a commandment from Hashem and Avrohom was wholeheartedly willing to fulfill it but that doesn't uproot the natural love a father has for his son.  Was Avrohom supposed to have no feelings as he was sacrificing his own son?  Are we expected to be men of steel and have no feelings at all?  Or, one has feelings, but they must bow to the will of God?  Rav Sher seems to be assuming if one gets a commandment of Hashem then one's feelings must go along.  I'm not so convinced.         

Living Near Avrohom

The possuk (18:8) says וְהֽוּא־עֹמֵ֧ד עֲלֵיהֶ֛ם תַּ֥חַת הָעֵ֖ץ וַיֹּאכֵֽלוּ.  Why does the verse stress that Avrohom was above them when they ate?  The possuk (18:16) says that Avrohom escorted the malachim out.  Why do we need to know this detail?

The Gemorah (Bava Metziah 86b) says that malachem don’t eat.  If so, how did the  malachim eat the food Avrohom gave them?  The Gemorah says it looked as if the malachim were eating, but in reality they didn't.  Tosfos cites the midrash disagrees and holds they actually ate. What is the explanation of the Gemorah, if a malach has no ability to eat, then how could they eat now?  What does the Gemorah mean that a malach can't eat, are they lacking a mouth?  What the Gemorah means is that a malach only does actions that are for the service of Hashem.  The malachim can’t fathom how the physical act of eating can be used for the service of G-d, therefore they will never eat.  However, because the malachim were in the presence of Avrohom, who used food as a vehicle to bring people to recognize Hashem, they were able to comprehend how eating can be used for the Divine service.  Hence, in that state of mind the malachim were able to eat.  (Based upon maamar of Lubavitcher Rebbe 5713.)

There are various interpretations as to why did the malachim asked Avrohom about Sarah.  The Chidusha Harim in the name of the Zlotchover explains that the malachim asked Avrohom אַיֵּ֖ה שָׂרָ֣ה אִשְׁתֶּ֑ךָ since they heard in the heavens that Avrohom was a great tzaddik, but they couldn't detect from his actions anything great.  All they saw was that he was a great chef that prepared delicious cuisine.  Therefore, they asked maybe the greatness isn't in you, its in your wife.  Avrohom responded she is in the tent hidden from sight, her greatness is concealed as well.  What the malachem didn't understand was that Avrohom's preparation of the cuisine was precisely his greatness.  The greatness of Avrohom was that he was able to bring holiness and inspiration through the simple actions of helping others.  Malachim act with strict judgement, they couldn't comprehend how chesed could be used as a means of holiness.  That is what Avrohom was teaching them, that's why the possuk stresses that Avrohom was above the level of the malachim, and he was raising them up.

The Shem M'Shmuel teaches that by escorting a person out there remains an attachment between the giver and the recipient.  Therefore, Avrohom escorted out the angels to entrust the malachim with the new ideas he taught them. The effects were felt immediately as the malachim waited to give Avrohom time to pray to save Sedom.  It is only because of the lesson of Avrohom to care for others that the malachim were willing to give Avrohom a shot at saving Sedom and not eradicate them immediately (Based upon Sifsay Tzaddik.)

The midrash says that some Tanaim would read the parsha of Lot every Shabbos.  Why would they read the parsha of Lot?  The commentators explain the lesson is teach a person to distance from areyos.  If that’s the case, why read the parsha of Lot and not Achare Mos or Kedoshim that deal with areyos explicitly?  The Sifsay Tzaddik explains that Chazal are teaching us an additional lesson here.  When Lot was near Avrohom he had no trace of a desire for areyos for the kedusha of Avrohom affected him.  However, Lot didn’t realize this and thought he himself was free of the desire for areyos.  Because Lot was mistaken as to where he was really holding he didn’t set up proper safeguards and was in violation of the issur areyos.  Chazal are trying to teach us that one must realize where he is truly holding and not believe in his tzidkus. We see from here the effect one receives from their surroundings.  Both Lot and the malachim received a positive hashpah from Avrohom.  We also find this in the opposite direction in last week’s parsha.  Rashi (12:11) cites the agada that Avrohom recognized the beauty of Sarah as he was nearing Egypt.  Why as he was nearing Egypt did Avrohom see her beauty?  The Meor Einayim (Shemos) cites the Baal Shem Tov that the presence of being in Egypt, a place of people who were shtufai zima had an effect even on Avrohom.  This is obviously an important lesson for people that are either in a position to have an effect on others, or those that may be affected by their surroundings.

The Secret Of Avrohom

Rashi (13:11) says Lot said, “I don’t want Avrohom and his God.”  What does it mean to separate from the God of Avrohom and why does he use the name elokim specifically?  Furthermore, we find even after departing from Avrohom, Lot fulfilled mitzvot, he ate matzoh, took in guests etc. (see 19:2,) so what does it mean he separated from the God of Avrohom?  What influenced bring the word of the Lord to the heathens, what was spurring him on?  Why was the mitzvah of bris milah specifically given to Avrohom?

The Rambam explains (Sefer Hamitzvot #2) that the reason Avrohom was driven to convince others was because of his great love of Hashem.  If a person has a great love of something, then that is what s/he likes to talk about.  Avrohom loved Hashem, therefore he spoke about Hashem.  Lot was a robot, he went through the motions of doing the mitzvot, but it didn’t have an impact on him.  There was no feeling put into his fulfillment of mitzvot and therefore it didn’t impact his kids or those that surrounded him.  Avrohom didn’t just fulfill mitzvot, he lived with Hashem.  Godliness permeated everything he did.  He was full of love and feeling for Hashem and that’s why he was able to affect his children and those around him.  Lot wanted no part of this.  This service of Avrohom and Elokie Avrohom was not for him.  Lot didn’t want to live a Godly life; to fulfill mitzvot, yes; live with God, no (based upon the writings of my great grandfather, Rav Dov Yehuda Schochet.)

The Gemorah Shabbos (130a) says that any mitzva that Klal Yisroel accepted with simcha they still fulfill with simcha.  The Gemorah proves that milah was accepted with simcha based upon the possuk (Tehillim 119:162) שָׂ֣שׂ אָ֭נֹכִי עַל־אִמְרָתֶ֑ךָ כְּ֝מוֹצֵ֗א שָׁלָ֥ל רָֽב.   How does the Gemorah know that the possuk is referring to milah (see Rashi there)?  Rav Shwab suggests a novel approach.  He asks that the possuk is a self-contradiction, if its motzeh that sounds like one happened upon it, however shallel sounds like it had to be won through battle?  He explains that the main point of a mitzvah is the fight against the yetzer harah.  That’s why it’s called shallel.  However, milah is unique for one performs it without choice and has no fight to fulfill it; that is the motzeh, the finding of the treasure (Rav Shwab says that he told it to Rav Issur Zalmen who approved of the vort.)  However, why is bris milah performed at such a young age?  Why is milah considered a mitzvah if there is no need for a fight against the yetzer harah?  What makes it unique?

The Rambam in his Perush Hamishna end of chapter 7 of Chulin says that we don’t do milah because of the commandment given to Avrohom, rather we do it because it was given to Moshe at Sinai.  The Rambam says this part of a general principal that all commandments must come from Sinai.  If so, why is the blessing of the milah that the father says, “to enter in the bris of Avrohom Avenu”, why mention Avrohom if that isn’t the source of the commandment?  The answer is that there are two dinim in the mitzvah of milah.  There is the specific mitzvah of milah, but besides the specific mitzvah there is a bris represented by milah as well.  Yes, the commandment of milah is from Sinai but the covenant that exists between us and Hashem is inherited from Avrohom.  At Sinai we entered a covenant with Hashem via the commandments.  However, the bris of Avrohom is a deeper bris.  This bris is unbreakable, it is the connection between the essence of a person and Hashem (see Likutay Sichos volime 30.)  That is why bris milah is performed without any understand, for the connection to Hashem is above sechal, it isn’t limited by the boundaries of one’s sechal, its above sechal. (see Machshovos Chassidus by Rav Yoel Kahn chapters 5-6.)  It is specifically because of the covenant that milah isn’t required to be fulfilled after a fight with the yetzer harah.  A Jew needs to battle in order to fulfill mitzvot but in regard to the covenant it is automatic.  Milah is the only mitzvah that has a physical change on the body.  Because Avrohom became completely permeated with Godliness, therefore he merited that even his body should become perfected through a mitzvah.  

The New Avrohom

Why does Avrohom get rewarded for leaving his house but not Lot?  It would seem that Lot who left voluntarily should get at least the same credit as Avrohom? The true test for Avrohom was not the physical act of leaving, rather it was to leave behind all connections to his previous life and to become a new person that was totally devoted to Hashem.  The possuk says” veescha lgoy gadol”, I will make you into a great nation.  The midrash Tanchuma is bothered it should have said veesumcha, and I will put you in position to be a great nation?  The midrash answers that Avraham was being made into a new person by leaving his father’s house behind.  Lot left his home physically, but not emotionally and spiritually.  He still had that connection to the bad roots of his upbringing inside of him.  The Michtav MeEliyahu points out contradictions in Chazal if Lot is a tsaddik or a rasha.  He reconciles the contradictions by differentiating between the outward appearance and the internal being of Lot.  Lot externally looked like he was a great person but inside he never changed himself.  How could Lot go from living with Avrohom to living together with the horrible people of Sedom?  It seems a tremendous switch in lifestyle?  The answer is that he didn’t take the hashpea of living together with Avrohom to heart.  Internally he remained a Sedomite and jumped at the opportunity to join them.

Rashi (end of Noach) says that the death of Terach is recorded at the end of Noach even though it didn’t occur yet so that it wouldn’t seem as if Avrohom didn’t fulfill the commandment of honoring his father. The Maharal at the end of Noach asks but his father was still alive? Is the Torah lying to us?  The answer is that vis-a-vis Avrohom Terach was dead.  Avrohom became completely detached from the influences of his father that he grew up with.  It is the changing of his roots, of his internal makeup that is the reward for Avrohom. It could be the reason Avrohom was commanded in the mitzvah of milah was to part of the process of becoming a new person.  Through making a physical change on the body Avrohom was literally transformed into someone else.   

Avrohom And The Strings

The Tanchuma says that because Avrohom told the King of Sedom he wouldn’t take anything from him “mchut v’ad sruch naal” (14:23) we merited to receive the mitzvah of techelas and chaletzas naal (see Meshech Chachma that elaborates on this connection to chalizta.)  The merit of chut is to receive the string of techelas and the merit of naal is to receive chaleztas naal.  The Gemorah in Chulin 89a says that the reward for sruch is to receive teffilin (Rashi explains that both sruch and retzuah are the same thing so we merit the retzuaos of tefillin.)  Obviously Avrohom didn’t merit to receive these mitzvot just because he used the magic words, there must be some connection between his actions and these mitzvot, what is it?  Are these just random mitzvot which match the words that Avrohom said or is there some common denominator here? Rashi in Noach (9:23) says that because Shem covered Noach, therefore he merited that his children would receive the mitzvah of tzitzis.  The Levush asks if that’s the case why does Avrohom need additional merit to receive the mitzvah if Shem already merited it?  He answers by distinguishing between Shem who merited the mitzvah of tzitzis and Avrohom who merited the mitzvah of techelas.  What is the difference, why does Avrohom merit to receive the string of techelas and Shem merit the white strings? [As an aside, it sounds from Rashi there that the garment becomes part of the mitzvah for he says that Shem merited tallis of tzitzis and that’s what makes it parallel to the story where Shem covered his father with a garment.]

The midrash says that Chanoch was a shoemaker and every stitch he put in the shoe he was meyached yechududim.  The simple interpretation of the Chazal is that even in basic, ordinary actions Chanoch had lofty intentions.  However, what is the significance that he was a shoemaker, why do we need to know what profession he had?  The shoe represents the chumrious of this world.  It is the part of the body furthest from the brain and is the most course.  (That’s why now we are in the heels of the times of Mashiach, we are very distant from any feelings of true spirituality vda”l.)  What Chazal are trying to convey to us is that Chanoch was able to connect the chumri of this world with Hashem.  When one uses a string to tie something, s/he is joining two things together.  Chanoch was connecting everything in this world with Hashem, everything was used and done for a lofty purpose.  However, Chanoch was acting on the micro level.  Avrohom was acting in this vein but in a macro level, he wanted the world to recognize their connection to Hashem.  The midrash (39:3) has a derash on the possuk (Shir Hashirim 8:8) “achos lanu ketana” instead of translating achos as sister, translate it as acha, to mend a rip.  The midrash says that Avrohom repaired the world like one who mends a rip.  The world was being “ripped” away from Hashem as the midrash (19:7) says through the sins of every generation Hashem became distanced from the world.  Chanoch tied shoes but Avrohom was tying the strings of the world (see Netziv on the possuk here.)

The common denominator between all these mitzvot is that they all are prime examples of tying the “strings of the world” with Hashem.  The white strings of the tzitzis represent the or memaleh kol almin, it’s the or makif protecting a person.  The techelas string is the or pnemi inside the tzitzis.  Techelas comes from the root word of kol, everything, it is the inner light inside of everything. (see Mictav Me’Eliyahu volume 5 in his explanation of techelas.)  [It works especially well according to Rambam that there are 7 white strings representing the totality of teva and the eighth string is techelas meaning the inner dimension of the seven.]    Techeles is the Godly light that exists in everything in the world.  It is a reminder that we can connect the light of God to the world.  Shem was a tzitzis man, he served Hashem, learned Torah etc. but he lacked the techelas, his avodah didn’t affect the world.  Avrohom introduced the techelas, he understood that one’s avodah must bring kedusha to the world.  Teffilin is like the word naftula elokim neftalti, it means connection (see Rashi Vayetzeh 30:8.)  When wearing teffilin we are connecting Hashem into the world (that’s why all mitzvot are hukash to teffilin (Kiddushin 35a) for it is a prime example of a mitzvah from the language of tzavsah, the connection to Hashem that comes about from a mitzvah.)  The mitzvah of chalitza is to untie the connection that still exists between the dead brother and this world via the yavum.  The untying of the shoe represents the untying of the brother’s connection to the world.  Because Avrohom was uniting the world with Hashem, therefore he merited to receive these mitzvot which are connecting (or untying) a connection with the world.

Viewpoints On A Midrash

The midrash (39:8) says when Avrohom reached sulomo shel tzur he saw the people pruning and plowing and said this is the place to live.  What greatness did Avrohom see in this?  How did Avrohom see from these basic agricultural actions the kedusha of Eretz Yisroel.  I will share the approach of a Chassidic master, baal mussar and the Rebbe.  I believe these different approaches aren’t just distinct views in the midrash but reflect a whole different world view as to how to learn Chazal.

The Mear Ve'shemesh explains that the pruning and plowing of the soul.  Avrohom saw that the people were going up the sulom of kedusha to tzur olamimim, Hashem by pruning out their evil traits.  The plowing of the midrash refers to digging even deeper into the soul.  Not only did they work on their traits when they were young but even after they grew older they still dug into the depths of their soul to see that there were no traits of evil inside of them.  The Meor Ve'Shemesh is from the school of the Chassidic masters which understand Chazal to be referring to the soul of a person.  They view Chazal from the realm of the avosas hanefesh.

Rav Yeruchem (in his intro. to the Daas Torah) understands that Avrohom saw that everything was exactly beseder.  Everyone was doing what they were supposed to do and things were running smoothly.  Everything is an extension of the spiritual reality.  If everyone was acting in the proper line of order that means that spiritually everything was in order as well.  This is an example of the mussar approach, to view Chazal in a physiological realm.

The Rebbe (see Likutay Sichos volume 15 sicha 4 on Lech Lecha) has a different approach.  He cites the Gemorah in Sanhedrin (99b) that people were created to work.  The conclusion of the Gemorah is that man is created for the work of Torah toil.  Why is man created in order to work?  The Rebbe says because Hashem wanted man to be able to have the ability of creation like Himself.  How does man create something original?  Through work and creation.  The main chidush a person can enact in the world comes from the spiritual effect of  Torah on the world.  However, the initial thought of the Gemorah also remains true to a degree as well.  The physical work is necessary to make the the world ready for change.  When Avrohom saw that the land was worked on physically and used for a creative purpose, he saw the land was ready for the chidush of Torah.  Since the land was already worked on in a physical form, it was now a complete vessel to contain the light of the Torah.  Avrohom didn't just see the physical working of the land, he saw the spiritual harvests of the work.  The land had the potential to contain the light of the Torah and could therefore contain the ability to create an oasis of kedusha. This interpretation is reflective of the Chabbidi approach that the world can be worked on and changed for the better.