The True Esav

Rashi says Yaakov kicked to get out by the beis midrash and Esav kicked to get out by the avodah zarah temple. The Maharal points that the yetzer harah doesn't yet exist until a person is born, it wasn't that the yetzer harah was causing Esav to sin, it will built into his hardware to desire to sin.  In Noach (21:8) he says the same idea to explain the Gemorah in Yoma (83a) about the children that even in the womb were evil, the idea is that there inclination is to evil.  We learn from the Maharal that even if a person is born with an innate tendency to do evil, it is still their responsibility to curb it (Sifsay Chayim.)  This is of course, a true and important lesson.  However, I would just add that its not that Esav had to become something that he was not in order to overcome his inclinations, rather he just had to look deeper into himself.

The Kabbalists teach that what Yitzchak saw in Esav was the great converts that would descend from him most notably Rebbe Akiva.  That is the meaning of ציד בפיו, he contained within himself the power of תורה שבעל פה.  The name עקיבא has the same letters as יעקב plus an 'א.  The Avodas Halevi says that יעקב is עקב plus the 'י of the bittul of chachma.  Esav contained the potential to be greater than that, to reach the levels of keter represented by the 'א.(Haderech Pnemiyah.)  On the inside Esav contained tremendous potential but he had to be able to overcome his outer instincts to reach his inner power.  Esav's failure was to reach into his inner talents that were hidden under the deep exterior.

Noach Or Toldos

The opening words in parshas Noach and parshas Toldos are virtually the same.  Noach opens אֵ֚לֶּה תּֽוֹלְדֹ֣ת נֹ֔חַ and Toldos opens וְאֵ֛לֶּה תּֽוֹלְדֹ֥ת יִצְחָ֖ק בֶּן־אַבְרָהָ֑ם.  Yet the name of parshas Noach is Noach and parshas Toldos  is called Toldos.  Why is there a discrepancy in the name, or at least Noach should be called Toldos and only after that’s used up should Toldos be called Yitzchak?

As explained here, there was a major difference between the outlook of the Avos and the outlook of Noach.  Noach was satisfied by saving himself from the terrible generation but the Avos wanted to bring others under the banner.  Based upon this we understand that the name of the parsha isn’t just taking the first word of the parsha but it reflects the essence.  Noach is named Noach for the parsha is about Noach surviving the generation that completely was washed away.  Toldos is named Toldos is order to reflect the idea that the Avos wanted to give to others their message of God.  They wanted to make Toldos. (Based upon Likutay Sichos volume 25.)

Yitzchak: The Olah Man

Rashi at the end of Vayera (22:12) says that the entire command of the akedah was not to slaughter Yitzchak, rather just to bring him up to the mountain. כשאמרתי לך קח מוצא שפתי לא אשנה, לא אמרתי לך שחטהו אלא העלהו, אסקתיה אחתיה.  The simple reading of Rash is that the there never was a need to slaughter Yitzchak, merely to bring him up to the mountain.  This is difficult for then the entire akedah, that we mention as a zechut in our prayers all the time is really just a mistake?  And how did Avrohom misunderstand his prophecy?

Rashi (26:2) says אל תרד – שהיה דעתו לרדת מצרים, כמו שירד אביו בימי הרעב מצרימה, שאתה עולה תמימה, ואין חוצה לארץ כדיי לך.  In the Midrash it says that there would be a real pesul of יוצא for Yitzchak to leave Eretz Yisroel.  Why would there be such a pesul that only takes effect after shechita and Yitzchak never was supposed to be slaughtered, only brought up to the mountain?  And what does Rashi mean that Yitzchak is a עולה תמימה, of course, every עולה is תמימה?  Rashi (26:1) says One of the reasons Yitchak was blind was דבר אחר כשנעקד על גבי המזבח והיה אביו רוצה לשחטו, באותה שעה נפתחו השמים וראו מלאכי השרת והיו בוכים וירדו דמעותיהם ונפלו על עיניו, לפיכך כהו עיניו.  Why did the angels cry, if the command was only to bring Yitzchak up to the mountain, then obviously he won't be shechted?

Rab Chayim explained that the command to bring Yitzchak up wasn't just to bring him to the mountain, it was that when he is brought to the mountain, he will have the status of an עולה and as an outgrowth will be obligated in all the עבודות of the עולה.  The direct command wasn't just bring him up to the mountain and then take him down, but that through bringing him up the mountain Yitzchak will become a עולה.  What Hashem came to tell Avrohom was that there was no direct commend to shect Yitzchak for if that was the case it wouldn't have been fulfilled.  Since the command wasn't to shect Yitzchak, rather, just to bring him up and only as an outgrowth he will become an עולה, therefore there can be a פטור אונס on the avodot of the korban and Avrohom did fulfill Hashem's command.  According to Rav Chayim, Yitzhak had the status of an עולה but the dinim of avodah weren't fulfilled.

Now we can understand all the Rashi's in our parsha as well.  For a regular עולה is becomes הקדש when the owner is מקדיש it but the שם עולה only applies after the shechita.  Yitzchak is the only עולה that the שם עולה is on him when he is still תמימה, when he is still alive.  That's why Yitzchak had a פסול יוצא  for he had the status of a korban already in his lifetime. And that's why the angels cried, for with out a command from Hashem to stop then Avrohom would've had to continue to slaughter Yitzchak.

Thanksgiving Of The Rabbis

I saw in a Siddur with English translation that translated מודים דרבנן as Thanksgiving of the Rabbis. What came to mind instantly is the Agudah Convention on Thanksgiving weekend.  That is the Thanksgiving of the rabbis.  They have their own Thanksgiving.

Where Does The Kedusha Of The Land Come From

The Rambam in the beginning of the Laws of Terumot (1:3) says הָאֲרָצוֹת שֶׁכָּבַשׁ דָּוִד חוּץ לְאֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן כְּגוֹן אֲרַם נַהֲרַיִם וַאֲרַם צוֹבָה וְאַחְלָב וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמֶּלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל הוּא וְעַל פִּי בֵּית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל הוּא עוֹשֶׂה אֵינוֹ כְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְכָל דָּבָר וְלֹא כְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ לְכָל דָּבָר כְּגוֹן בָּבֶל וּמִצְרַיִם. אֶלָּא יָצְאוּ מִכְּלַל חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ וְלִהְיוֹתָן כְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא הִגִּיעוּ. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה יָרְדוּ מִמַּעֲלַת אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁכָּבַשׁ אוֹתָם קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּכְבּשׁ כָּל אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶלָּא נִשְׁאַר בָּהּ מִשִּׁבְעָה עֲמָמִים. וְאִלּוּ תָּפַס כָּל אֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן לִגְבוּלוֹתֶיהָ וְאַחַר כָּךְ כָּבַשׁ אֲרָצוֹת אֲחֵרוֹת הָיָה כִּבּוּשׁוֹ כֻּלּוֹ כְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְכָל דָּבָר. וְהָאֲרָצוֹת שֶׁכָּבַשׁ דָּוִד הֵן הַנִּקְרָאִין סוּרְיָא.  The indication is had Dovid conquered it after the rest of Eretz Yisroel then it would be part of Eretz Yisroel.  The Radvaz asks why, true that כיבוש may work to create an obligation of Terumot, but how do we know that lands not promised to Avrohom Avenu can have the same level of kedusha as the rest of Eretz Yisroel?  It is clear from the question of the Radbaz that he assumes what gives kedusha to the land of Eretz Yisroel is the promise to avrohom Avenu, not an act of conquest.  It would seem that he goes l'shitaso in the Laws of Sanhedrin (4:6.)  The Rambam says that what defines Eretz Yisroel regarding the law that semicha can only be administered in Eretz Yisroel is the land that was conquered when we entered the land the first time, after leaving Egypt.  The Radvaz notes that even if it wasn't conquered in the second Temple era and it lacks the obligation of the mitzvot of the land (see Rambam Terumot 1:5,) it still will have kedusha of Eretz Yisroel affecting the law of semicha, the mitzvah to live in the land etc.  We see he holds that it is the act of conquest, כיבוש that creates the halachik obligation on the land but the spiritual, intangibles, the kedusha of the land, emanates from the promise to Avrohom Avenu (see more about this in Mishnas Yaavetz Yoreh Deah siman 26.) 

The Rambam in Shabbos (6:11) rules that one may tell a gentile to write a bill of sale that he is buying the land from him on the Shabbos, because the rabbis didn't impose the prohibition of telling a gentile when it comes to the mitzvah of yishuv Eretz Yisroel.  The Rambam rules the same applies to Suryah.  This ruling stems from Gittin (8b.)  The issue is that the Gemorah there is going in the opinion that כיבוש יחיד is a valid כיבוש, however, the Ramban that rules in the Laws of Terumot that it doesn't constitute a halachik כיבוש, so how does he rule that there is yishuv Eretz Yisroel regarding Suryeh as well?  The simple approach would be that yes, כיבוש יחיד isn't valid vis a vis the obligations on the land but kedusha there is.  It is the kedusha of the land that determines if their is a mitzvah of living on the land and that is present in Suryah.  However, this flies directly in the face of the Ridvaz that the kedusha eminates from the proise to Avrohom (or maybe from the first כיבוש,) however, Suryeh which wasn't part of that shouldn't have kedusha at all?  What is interesting to me is that the Mahari Kurkos seems to suggest this idea in the Rambam while at the same time mentioning that the kedusha stems from the promise to Avrohom.  If that's the source of it, how can it apply to Suryah?

[This whole assertion of the Radvaz would seem to be debated by the Rishonim in Gittin (2a) if there can be kedusha to the land even if the land wasn't conquered by the second Temple era, see תוס' ד"ה ואשקלון וברמב"ן וריטב"א and I'm too lazy to elaborate further.]

Another point of interest is the Magen Avrohom (306:20) when questioning the Rambam in a similar vein, assumes the heter to tell the gentile to write the bill of sale is only to avoid a negative of לא תחנם, not the possitive of yishuv Eretz Yisroel.  If that's the case, even if one where to entertain that Suryah had kedusha, there still is no negative prohibition in selling one's house to a gentile there and the answer would be out the window.  However, I don't know why the Magen Avrohom assumes this way when the terminology of the Gemorah and the Rambam is that the אמירה לעכו"ם is permitted for the positive mitzvah of yishuv Eretz Yisroel?  Furthermore, in my ignorance, I don't understand how does the lav of לא תחנם permit the issur, לא תחנם is not to sell the house to the gentile in the first place, however, here it is already sold to him so you aren't saving yourself from any prohibition?  Unless I am misunderstanding the lav?

As a point of clarification, when I said the kedusha emanates from the promise to Avrohom, I didn't mean that it started then.  It could very well be it has special kedusha from creation, but I'm focusing on kedusha as it applies to our activities of yishuv Eretz Yisroel and other such laws.

The Backstabbing Satan

Rashi says that Sarah died after she heard about the akedah.  Everyone asks why would she die from the akedah if Avrohom managed to live through it?  It is unusual for the Torah to record the length of life of a woman so why is the length of Sarah's life recorded? The Nesivos Shalom explains that the Torah tells us the lifespan of Sarah in order to teach us that this was the length of life she was supposed to live.  It wasn't the news of the akedah that caused Sarah to die prematurely, rather it happened to be at that time she reached the last of her final chapter.  He says that this was all part of the Satan's plan to fool Avrohom.  We say in akedah, והסר שטן מלפנינו ומאחרינו.  We understand what is שטן מלפנינו that tries to stop us from doing good deeds, but what is שטן מאחרינו?  That is the Satan that tries to mess us up even after the deed is done.  The Satan tried to make it seem as if the death of Sarah was caused by the akedah and that may cause Avrohom to regret his great act.  With just those thoughts, he would lose everything.  Avrohom was able to see through the facade of the Satan and realize that it was just Sarah’s time to go.   It is quite often that when one experiences a letdown after doing something good, s/he will feel that it’s no good deed goes unpunished.  This is the שטן מאחרינו, Satan trying to inspire feelings of regret for doing the right actions. 

This is reflected in the place of Sarah’s burial itself.  חברון has the same letters as חורבן but also has the word חבור in it.  It is the שטן מאחרינו that determines even all that happened will lye in ruin or will lead to a greater attachment with Hashem (based upon Haderech Pnemiyah.)

The Tumah Perspective

Chayeh Sarah (25:6) וְלִבְנֵ֤י הַפִּֽילַגְשִׁים֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר לְאַבְרָהָ֔ם נָתַ֥ן אַבְרָהָ֖ם מַתָּנֹ֑ת וַֽיְשַׁלְּחֵ֞ם מֵעַ֨ל יִצְחָ֤ק בְּנוֹ֙ בְּעוֹדֶ֣נּוּ חַ֔י קֵ֖דְמָה אֶל־אֶ֥רֶץ קֶֽדֶם׃.  Rashi says נתן אברהם מתנות. פֵּרְשׁוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ שֵׁם טֻמְאָה מָסַר לָהֶם (סנהדרין צ"א). דָּ"אַ מַה שֶּׁנִּתַּן לוֹ עַל אוֹדוֹת שָׂרָה וּשְׁאָר מַתָּנוֹת שֶׁנִתְּנוּ לוֹ, הַכֹּל נָתַן לָהֶם, שֶׁלֹּא רָצָה לֵהָנוֹת מֵהֶם:  The Targum Yonasun and Rashbam assume not like the Gemorah.  In the words of the Targum: וְלִבְנֵיהוֹם דִפְלַקְתּוּן דִלְאַבְרָהָם יְהַב אַבְרָהָם נִכְסִין וּמְטַלְטְלִין לְמַתְּנָן וְתַרְכִינוּן and Rashbam מתנות - ממון הרבה.  The Rishonim ask why would Avrohom give a name of טומאה, evil forces to the sons of the Pilagshim?

It may be that the gift that Avrohom gave to the sons of the Pilagshim was also a gift to Yitzchak.  How so?  The שֵׁם טֻמְאָה that Avrohom gave doesn't only mean an actual power to bring tumah into the world, its a perspective.  Almost all false, evil and destructive ideas start with what appears to be true and noble intentions.  The Rambam (beginning of Laws of Avodah Zarah,) traces the root of avodah zarah itself to thoughts that it was the right way to serve Hashem.  It is such ideas that Avrohom didn't want to seep into the heads of his true descendants, the descendants of Yitzchak. To avoid such confusion he gave over the perspective of tumah to the sons of the Pelagshim so that it will be obvious that their ideas couched in whatever noble, peaceful, progressive form they package it in, it will be able to be revealed as merely another act of tumah.  Avrohom saw that in the future these tests of faith will become present and he sought to thwart it by attaching their message to falsehood. (Based upon Torat Hanefesh by Rav Chayim Zeitchik.) 

Large Vessels

This is an incomplete idea, but as a certain R.Y. likes to say, “it’s a starting point.” Thanks to a friend of mine for giving me some of the m.m.’s on this topic.  The Mishna in Kelim (15:1) says הַשִּׁדָּה, וְהַתֵּבָה, וְהַמִּגְדָּל, כַּוֶּרֶת הַקַּשׁ, וְכַוֶּרֶת הַקָּנִים, וּבוֹר סְפִינָה אֲלֶכְּסַנְדְּרִית, שֶׁיֶּשׁ לָהֶם שׁוּלַיִם, וְהֵן מַחֲזִיקִין אַרְבָּעִים סְאָה בְלַח, שֶׁהֵם כּוֹרַיִם בְּיָבֵשׁ, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ טְהוֹרִין.  The reason, explained in the Gemorah in many places, including Bechorot (38a,) cited in Bartenura here is דומיא דשק בעינן מה שק מיטלטל מלא וריקן אף כל מיטלטל מלא וריקן.  There is a hekesh from wooden vessels being susceptible to tumah to sack (Shemini 11:32,) so it has to be similar in that it can be moved even if its full as opposed to these large vessels that cannot.  Rashi in Eruvin (14b) and Menachot (31a) explains the din שמחזיקים מ' סאה בלח שהן כוריים ביבש יצאו מתורת כלי ואין מקבלין טומאה.  It’s not just a גזירת הכתוב that since its not similar to sack, these vessels don’t receive tumah, but the logic is that they lose their name of being a כלי. 

This understanding may be supported from the fact that we find regarding other dinim such large vessels aren’t considered כלים.  The Tosefta Yadayim (1:6) states that one may not use such a vessel for נטילת ידים and the Chasdei Dovid gives the explanation since its not considered a כלי.  The Gemorah in Shabbos (35a) brings this Mishna to prove that large vessels can’t be moved on the Shabbos because they are no longer in the category of כלים.  Similarly, in Ohalos (9:12) we find that this type of a vessel acts as a אהל to block tumah.  This idea of viewing these vessels as a אהל and not as a vessel is also reflected in Eruvin (35a. [see Rashi and Ritva there].) 

This idea is used by the Pnei Yehoshua Shabbos ((83b-84a) and the Mishna Achrona Kelim (24:1) use this idea to explain the opinion of the Rambam that there isn’t even any טומאת מדרס on these vessels.  Tosfos Shabbos (84a) holds there is for it can still be used to sit upon.  They point out that it sounds like the Rambam disagrees and explain because it’s not considered a vessel and is hence not subject to טומאת מדרס. 

However, we do find two places that seem to contradict this assertion.  The Mishna in Parah (5: 5) says one may use a boat to sanctify the waters of the פרה אדומה even though they require a vessel to sanctify them (see Tos. Yom Tov for possible different interpretation of the Mishna.)  We see from this Mishna even large vessels constitute as vessels.  This runs contrary to the understanding that they aren’t considered vessels? [One may easily escape this difficulty because there is an opinion in Tractate Shabbos (ibid) that a boat isn’t susceptible to tumah because of a special possuk and the Tannah may be following that opinion.]  However, what must be understood that regarding other vessels besides wood, where there is no hekesh, even large vessels are tamah as we see the Gemorah in Shabbos says regarding earthenware vessels.  According to the above approach they should be tahor for they aren’t vessels? 

Its also noteworthy that Tosfos in Pesachim (109b) brings that the Yerushalmi asks how could the yam Shlomo made be valid as a mikvah it should make the water מים שאובין and invalidate the waters?  Tosfos proves from here that even large vessels are considered a כלי and will make the water שאובין.  [Tosfos may hold that large vessels are considered כלים, see Tosfos in Menachos, Shabbos 35a.]  However, will Rashi agree to this din?  [See שיעורי ר' יחיאל מיכל in all the places and משנה טהרות.]

Peshat

Rav Yeruchim Levovitz in his into. to the Daas Torah brings many proves that peshat goes a lot further than the simple translation and understanding of the words.  He demonstrates that it goes way beyond that and encompasses two aspects.  One aspect is to know all the letters of the Torah and teir order, irrespective of their standing in the possuk as we see in Kiddushin (30a) that the earlier generations knew all the letters of the Torah. The other idea is a derived from a gEmorah about a possuk in our parsha. The Gemorah in Berachos (61a) says אמר רב נחמן מנוח עם הארץ היה דכתיב וילך מנוח אחרי אשתו (Shoftim 13:11) and he shouldn't have walked behind his wife.  The Gemorah continues אמר רב אשי ולמאי דקאמר רב נחמן מנוח עם הארץ היה אפילו בי רב נמי לא קרא שנאמר ותקם רבקה ונערתיה ותרכבנה על הגמלים ותלכנה אחרי האיש ולא לפני האיש.  We see since he didn't derive this halacha from the possuk, the Gemorah views it as if he doesn't know the possuk at all.  Deriving the halachot from the possuk is also part of the peshat. In his words:

רצה והחליצנו

                                                          The Abudraham on רצה והחליצנו.

 The Arizal says the intent should be on the meaning of removing - that is the malach of the week.

Salty Solutions

The Zohar says that the three men Avrohom saw were the three Avos.  How could Avrohom see them if two of them didn’t exist yet and one of them is himself?  The possuk says וירא אליו, why doesn’t it say whom Hashem appeared to?

The Meor Einayim says that the parsha contains a lesson for all of us.  That’s why it doesn’t say who Hashem came to for the Torah is hinting that there is a lesson when Hashem comes to every individual.  He says Hashem comes to every individual in אלוני ממרא, meaning at the strength of one’s rebellions against Hashem.   Where a person finds it the hardest, that is where Hashem appears to him.  That is where he is given the opportunity to shine.  How? והוא יושב פתח האהל כחום היום, the doorway is opened for him when he feels the passion of the thoughts of teshuva implanted in his mind by Hashem.  In his words -זהו וירא אליו ה׳ כתב סתם ולא כתב אל אברהם כי קאי על כל אחד מישראל שמתראה אליו השם יתברך דהיינו אפילו רשע גדול ח״ו מתראה אליו השם יתברך דהיינו הרהורי תשובה שבאים לו כנ״ל והוא יושב פתח האוהל פירוש שזה פותחים לו פתח כחום היום כשבא לו התלהבות הרהורי תשובה.  Continues the parsha, וַיִּשָּׂ֤א עֵינָיו֙ וַיַּ֔רְא וְהִנֵּה֙ שְׁלֹשָׁ֣ה אֲנָשִׁ֔ים נִצָּבִ֖ים עָלָ֑יו וַיַּ֗רְא וַיָּ֤רׇץ לִקְרָאתָם֙ מִפֶּ֣תַח הָאֹ֔הֶל וַיִּשְׁתַּ֖חוּ אָֽרְצָה.  The Meor Einayim explains in his vein that a person takes to heart the feelings of teshuva inspired within him and feelings a great desire to be able to reach the maasim of the Avos (Tanna D’ve Eliyahu Ch. 23,) and completely nullifies himself before Hashem.  In his words - וישא עיניו פירוש כשמגביה השכל שלו וירא והנה שלשה אנשים אברהם יצחק ויעקב רצה לומר שהוא מדריגת האבות שהיו מרכבה לשמו הגדול. וירא וירץ לקראתם שאומר מתי יגיע מעשי למעשי אבותי ורוצה להגיע גם כן למדריגה זו להיות מרכבה אליו יתברך שילך רק למקום שהוא יתברך רוצה. מפתח האוהל מאותו פתח שפתחו לו כנ״ל ואז וישתחו לאפיו השתחואה הוא המשכה שממשיך המשכה לבחינת ארציות והבן. 

The lesson is that it is where a person feels that they are most distant from Hashem that can be the mode to bring a person the closest to Him. This is the lesson of Chazal (Midrash 41:4) אמר רבי יצחק (תהלים פט): מצאתי דוד עבדי. היכן מצאתיו? בסדום:  How can it be that Dodiv arises from a place that was so bad it had to be eradicated?  In the Sedom of every individual, in the lowliest aspects of the soul, there is the opportunity for Dovid to rise up.  Only where there can be an opening for such rebellion against Hashem can there be opportunity for the tremendous bittul.  The reason for all the lack of normal civilized conduct in Sedom was because of its great spiritual potential.  Because it had such great energy without anything to contain it, things went haywire.  Ultimately that power is harnessed in Dovid Hamelech.  That is why the possuk in Yechezkal (16:53) says וְשַׁבְתִּי֙ אֶת־שְׁבִ֣יתְהֶ֔ן אֶת־שְׁב֚וּת (כתיב שְׁב֚יּת) סְדֹם֙ וּבְנוֹתֶ֔יהָ.  Once Moshiach is here, the great spiritual power of Sedom can be harnessed in the proper vessels and it can be inhabited again (Likutay Sichos volume 35.)

The Sefer Gilgulay Nishomos from the Rammah M’pano says עידית אשתו של לוט אין לה גלגול, דכתיב עד היום הזה, ובמשנה ג"כ הרואה אשתו של לוט (מאי) מברך כו', כי נשמתה היא דוממת, וכל מה שמלחכים ממנו הבהמות חוזרה לקדמותה הראשון, ותיקונה הוא על כל קרבנך תקריב מלח, וכן על השלחן שהוא מזבח צריך מל"ח מח"ל לח"ם.  What does this mean, how it putting salt on bread or a korban a תיקון for Lot’s wife and why can’t she get our of her salted state?  Why was the wife of Lot transformed into a pillar of salt of all things?  Salt in it of itself is not a food.  One can't eat large amounts of salt strait for it is too bitter.  It is merely meant to enhance, enrich and bring out the qualities of another food.  When one faces salty patches in life, s/he can't get stuck in them for it will just bring a person down.  Those bitter moments and struggles are productive only if used to bring a person to open the door to climb to greater heights, as we learnt from the Meor Einayim.  The mistake of Lot's wife was that she couldn't pull herself away from the salt of Sedom.  She couldn't go forward with the knowledge of her actions as a Sedomite for so many years.  Hence, she became a salt stick of shame and pain and her whole essence became transformed into salt and she couldn’t go further.  That is why the תיקון for this is to add salt to our bread and korbanot for then we are using the salt to elevate us to come closer to Hashem, we don’t become submerged in salt, but elevate it.  We are taking our אלוני ממרא and using it for the positive, not being consumed in it.  (Based upon Avodas Halevi and lecture by Rabbi Y.Y. Jacobson.)   

Avrohom As Kohan Gadol And Sacrifices Of An Onan

The Yalkut Shimoni (remez 101) says אמר יצחק לאביו אבא קשור שתי ידי ושתי רגלי שלא אבעט אותך ונמצאתי מחלל מצות כבד ועשה כן וככהן גדול הגיש את מנחתו ואת נסכו והקב"ה רואה את האב מעקיד בכל לב והבן נעקד בכל לב ומלאכי השרת צועקים ובוכים שנאמר הן אראלם וגו.  The Zais Ra'anan says the Yalkut had to say that Avrohom had the status of a Kohan Gadol for otherwise how would he be able to sacrifice Yitzchak, as he is slaughtering him he would become an אונן and that would defile the avodah as it says in Zevachim (16a.)  Therefore, the Yalkut says Avrohom has the status of a Kohan Gadol that can offer sacrifices even as an אונן.  It is noteworthy that the Gemorah there is unsure if an  אונן can sacrifice on a במה so it would be possible to say that even if he isn't a Kohan Gadol, Avrohom may still be able to do the avodoh for he was sacrificing on a במה as there was no Mikdash.  However, the source of this Yalkut is the Pirkey D'Rebbe Eliezer Ch. 31.  Two weeks ago this blog discussed if the sacrifices of Noach were considered that of a במה or that of the Mikdash. It is clear from the Gemorah Zevachim (115b) that has a derash of ויבן נח מזבח לה' ויקח מכל הבהמה הטהורה ומכל עוף הטהור בהמה כמשמעו חיה בכלל בהמה that Noach was allowed to offer even חיות even though they can't be offered  in the Mikdash.  That is because the Gemotah understands the sacrifice of Noach was considered to be a במה offering as mentioned in the previous post.  However, the Pirkey D'Rebbe Eliezer Ch. 23 assumes that Noach only sacrificed animals that are allowed to be brought in the Mikdash (see Radal.)  Presumably that is because he holds that the sacrifices of Noach were offered in the place of the Mikdash and hence had the status of Mikdash offerings.  Therefore, לשיטתו we can't say the offering of Avrohom (in the same spot,) had the status of a במה offering.

The Mikor Baruch siman 5 takes issue with the Zais Ra'anan that his point should be dependent upon the machlokes Rashi and Tosfos in Yoma (13b) if Rebbe Yosi allows one who became an אונן in the middle of the avodah to complete the avodah.  According to Rashi that learns the Geomrah is refering to a regular Kohan, once you started at a valid time, you finish the job.  If that's the case, Avrohom would become an אונן only after doing the shechitah, and hence would be allowed to finish the job, so we don't have to say he is a Kohan Gadol?

The din of Rashi itself needs to be explained for the Gevuros Ari asks why is becoming an אונן midway different from becoming a בעל מום where he can't finish the job (Zevachim 15a?)  Furthermore, according to Rebbe Yishmoel the whole source that an אונן invalidates the avodah is learnt out from a בעל מום, so how can the din be different?

What we see is that Rashi understood the disqualification of an אונן is distinct from that of a בעל מום.  The Gemorah (16b) says אונן: מנלן דכתיב (ויקרא כא, יב) ומן המקדש לא יצא ולא יחלל הא אחר שלא יצא חילל רבי אלעזר אמר מהכא (ויקרא י, יט) הן הקריבו אני הקרבתי מכלל דאי אינהו אקריב שפיר אישתרוף.  From here we learn out that an אונן disqualifies the avodah.  We see from here the גדר of why a kohan gadol serves is because he is tied to the mikdash.  He is not allowed to leave the mikdash even in his state of אנינות.  The Rambam writes in Beas Mikdash (2:5) כֹּהֵן שֶׁיָּצָא מִן הַמִּקְדָּשׁ בִּשְׁעַת הָעֲבוֹדָה בִּלְבַד חַיָּב מִיתָה בֵּין כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בֵּין כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא י ז) "וּמִפֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לֹא תֵצְאוּ פֶּן תָּמֻתוּ."  This din not to leave the mikdash has an application regarding a regular kohan when he is doing the avodah.  Hence, it's quite understandable that in the middle of avodah a kohan doesn't have to stop for vis-a-vis this avodah he has the same status as a kohan gadol.  A בעל מום must interrupt his avodah for he will always create a pesul.  However, the kohan mid avodah is so to speak promoted to kohan gadol status where he continues to finish what he is doing.

The Gemorah in Moad Katan (14b) says והא כה"ג דכל השנה כרגל לכולי עלמא דמי דתנן כהן גדול מקריב אונן.    Rashi explains the Gemorah (ibid) דתנן כ"ג מקריב אונן מדאמר לו אהרן למשה ואכלתי חטאת היום (ויקרא י׳:י״ט) ולא אמר למשה והקרבתי מכלל דהקרבה באנינות ולמדנו דכ"ג מקריב אונן אבל כולי עלמא בשאר ימות השנה אונן אינו משלח קרבנותיו כדאמרינן לקמן (מועד קטן דף טו:) שלמים בזמן שהוא שלם ולא בזמן שהוא אונן וברגל משלח וכהן גדול אונן מקריב כל השנה אלמא כל השנה לדידיה כרגל דמי.  Why does Rashi contrast that other kohanim can't send their korbanot when their in אנינות and not the fact that they can't offer their korbanot?  The Minchas Chinuch (264:29) proves because that even on a regel a kohan can't offer a korban for אנינות applies on the regel as well.  The heter for the kohan gadol to serve in אנינות isn't because he is considered in the midst of the regel, rather because the Torah allows him to serve.  The manner in which see he is considered to be in the regel is since he is allowed to send a korban to the mikdash in אנינות.  Hence, Rashi explains the distinction regarding sending korbanot.  What is the difference between sending in or offering the korban? According to the above explanation the kohan gadol can serve because of his connection to the mikdash, its only regarding sending in a korban that his heter is because he is considered to be in the regel. [However, even according to the Minchas Chinuch the Rashi is difficult because its פתח בכד וסיים בחבית, he starts with talking about offering the sacrifice and then switches to sending the sacrifices.] (See Radal, Rogatchover, Avi Ezri, Chabatzoles Hasaron, Masseh Yad.)
A nice addition from the Mishmar Halevi:

Don't Ask

The Midrash Tanchuma at the beginning of Vayerah says וּלְפִיכָךְ אֵין מִתְפַּלְּלִין בַּשַּׁבָּת שְׁמוֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה, שֶׁאִם יִהְיֶה לוֹ חוֹלֶה בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ, נִזְכָּר בְּרוֹפֵא חוֹלֵי עַמּוֹ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהוּא מֵצֵר, וְהַשַּׁבָּת נִתְּנָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל לִקְדֻשָּׁה לְעֹנֶג וְלִמְנוּחָה וְלֹא לְצַעַר, לְכָךְ מִתְפַּלֵּל שָׁלֹש בְּרָכוֹת רִאשׁוֹנוֹת וְשָׁלֹש אַחֲרוֹנוֹת וְהַמְּנוּחָה בָּאֶמְצַע.  From here it would seem the reason one may not request things on Shabbos is to avoid causing pain on Shabbos. This reason is cited in Sefer Hapardes L'Rashi (pg. 316) and the Manhig tefillah siman 11. However, the Vayikrah Rabbah (34:16) seems to say a different approach as to the prohibition of making requests on Shabbos: מִמְּצוֹא חֶפְצֶךָ, מִכָּאן אָסוּר לְאָדָם לִתְבֹּעַ צְרָכָיו בְּשַׁבָּת. רַבִּי זְעִירָא בָּעֵי קוֹמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּא בַּר אַבָּא אֲמַר לֵיהּ אִלֵּין דְּאָמְרִין רועֵנוּ זוּנֵנוּ פַּרְנְסֵנוּ בְּשַׁבָּת, מַהוּ, אָמַר לוֹ טוֹפֶס בְּרָכוֹת כָּךְ הִיא. (ישעיה נח, יג): וְדַבֵּר דָּבָר, אִמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחָאי, כַּד הֲוַת מִשְׁתָּעֲיָא מוֹתָר מִלִּין בְּשַׁבַּתָּא הֲוָה אָמַר לָהּ שַׁבַּתָּא הִיא וַהֲוַת שָׁתְקָא.  The second half of the discussion regarding the text on benching on Shabbos is found in the Yerushalmi Shabbos (78b) as well.  The Gemorah in Berachos (21a) says גברא בר חיובא הוא ורבנן הוא דלא אטרחוהו משום כבוד שבת.  Simple reading of the Gemorah sounds like the midrash in Vayikra that there is no issue with asking requests on Shabbos, it is merely for כבוד שבת that it wasn't required.  Unless we reinterpret that טירחא means that a person shouldn't come to have צער  on Shabbos.     

The Rambam Tefillah (1:10) says וְיֵשׁ מִן הַגְּאוֹנִים מִי שֶׁהוֹרָה שֶׁאָסוּר לְהִתְפַּלֵּל תְּפִלַּת נְדָבָה בְּשַׁבָּתוֹת וְיָמִים טוֹבִים לְפִי שֶׁאֵין מַקְרִיבִין בָּהֶן נְדָבָה אֶלָּא חוֹבַת הַיּוֹם בִּלְבַד:  The Raavad says אני דעת אחרת יש עמי בכל אלה דרבי יוחנן לא אמר הלואי שיתפלל אדם כל היום אלא י''ח שהיא תפלת רחמים ובקשה ושוהה ביניהן כדי שתתחולל דעתו עליו ויתכוין דעתו לבקש רחמים אבל תפלת שבת וי''ט שאינו אלא הודאות לא אמר ר' יוחנן ואם יודה ויחזור ויודה ברכה לבטלה היא.  Rav Yitzchak Sorotzkin suggests that this debate may depend on the above reasons.  It one should not request matters on Shabbos just so not to be טורח the individual then technically the person can be considered obligated in a תפלה of requests and can pray a נדבה.  However, if Chazal forbade asking requests so one doesn't feel bad feelings on Shabbos then a נדבה is just as much prohibited.

The Alter Rebbe in the Siddur says to say רוענו זוננו [roanu instead of rianu,] (presumibly to make it a praise, not a request,) but how can he rule not like the Yerushalmi and Midrash? 

Two Types Of Milah

Rashi at the end of Lech Lecha (in some editions,) quotes a midrash in Vayerah (49:2,) מִיָּד נָטַל אַבְרָהָם סַכִּין וְהָיָה אוֹחֵז בְּעָרְלָתוֹ וּבָא לַחְתֹּךְ וְהָיָה מִתְיָרֵא שֶׁהָיָה זָקֵן, מֶה עָשָׂה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שָׁלַח יָדוֹ וְאָחַז עִמּוֹ, וְהָיָה אַבְרָהָם חוֹתֵךְ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (נחמיה ט, ז ח): אַתָּה ה' הָאֱלֹהִים אֲשֶׁר בָּחַרְתָּ בְּאַבְרָם וגו', וְכָרוֹת לוֹ הַבְּרִית אֵין כְּתִיב כָּאן אֶלָּא וְכָרוֹת עִמּוֹ, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהָיָה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אוֹחֵז בּוֹ.  There is another Midrash at the end of Lech Lecha (47:9) that says נִמּוֹל אַבְרָהָם, אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר כַּהֲנָא הִרְגִּישׁ וְנִצְטָעֵר כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּכְפֹּל לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שְׂכָרוֹ. אָמַר רַבִּי לֵוִי מָל אַבְרָהָם אֵין כְּתִיב כָּאן אֶלָּא נִמּוֹל, בָּדַק אֶת עַצְמוֹ וּמָצָא עַצְמוֹ מָהוּל. אָמַר רַבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה בְּהַהִיא עִתָּא אֲקֵיל רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר כַּהֲנָא לְרַבִּי לֵוִי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ שַׁקְּרָנָא כַּזְבָּנָא אַתְּ, אֶלָּא הִרְגִּישׁ וְנִצְטָעֵר כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּכְפֹּל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שְׂכָרוֹ.  According to Rebbe Levi, Avrohom didn't have to do the milah at all, Hashem did it.  How could Hashem do the milah for Avrohom, if he had a commandment to do milah, how did he fulfill the mitzvah?

By way of intro. I will share a peshat in a midrash from Rav Schwab.  The Tanchumah at the beginning of Titzaveh says יְלַמְּדֵנוּ רַבֵּנוּ, קָטָן לְכַמָּה נִמּוֹל? כָּךְ שָׁנוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ: קָטֹן נִמּוֹל לִשְׁמוֹנָה. מַה טַּעַם? כְּשֵׁם שֶׁנִּמּוֹל יִצְחָק אָבִינוּ.  The midrash is very difficult for what is the question, its an open possuk in Lech Lecha (17:12) וּבֶן־שְׁמֹנַ֣ת יָמִ֗ים יִמּ֥וֹל לָכֶ֛ם כׇּל־זָכָ֖ר לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶ֑ם or Tazria (12:3) בַיּ֖וֹם הַשְּׁמִינִ֑י יִמּ֖וֹל בְּשַׂ֥ר עָרְלָתֽוֹ.  And why does the midrash answer with the possuk of Avrohom doing the bris for Yitzchak, which is just a story, not with the possuk of the command?  And what is this doing in the beginning of Titzaveh?  Rav Shwab explains that the midrash knows when the action of circumcision is done.  However, the milah of the skin is merely an indicator of the milah of the heart.  The midrash wants to know when does the milah of the heart happen.  Is it possible for an eight day old kid to be have the תיקון הנפש done, or does that only come about when he obtains brains?  The midrash answers the possuk says (21:4) וַיָּ֤מׇל אַבְרָהָם֙ אֶת־יִצְחָ֣ק בְּנ֔וֹ בֶּן־שְׁמֹנַ֖ת יָמִ֑ים, obviously its Yitzchak, his son, just say וַיָּ֤מׇל אַבְרָהָם֙ אותו?  We see that already at eight days he is called Yitzchak, he has the nefesh and powers of a Yitzchak.  From here the midrash derives that the milah of the heart comes simultaneously with the milah of the skin.  How does this happen if he doesn't have any brains?  It's the zertizut of the father and mesiras nefesh that causes this תיקון הנפש to happen.  That's the דיוק of the possuk (ibid) כַּאֲשֶׁ֛ר צִוָּ֥ה אֹת֖וֹ אלקים, the word צִוָּ֥ connotes zerizut (Kiddushin 29a.)  That's why it appears in the beginning of Titzaveh, to pick up on this theme of zerizut.  

Now that we have established that milah is also a תיקון הנפש, we can revisit the above midrashim.  The possuk in Ekev (10:16) says וּמַלְתֶּ֕ם אֵ֖ת עָרְלַ֣ת לְבַבְכֶ֑ם וְעָ֨רְפְּכֶ֔ם לֹ֥א תַקְשׁ֖וּ עֽוֹד:  You shall circumcise the foreskin of your heart.  However, in Nitzavim (30:6) it says ומל ה' אלקיך אֶת־לְבָֽבְךָ֖ וְאֶת־לְבַ֣ב זַרְעֶ֑ךָ.  And the Lord, your God, will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring. It seems to be a contradiction, do you do the milah of the heart or does Hashem do it?  The alter Rebbe explains (Torah Or end of Lech Lecha,) that there are two levels of alah to be removed.  This is the arlah that can be removed through teshuvah; that is your obligation.  Then is is a more fine tuned and more delicate arlah that is beyond one's grasp to remove himself; that Hashem will do.  Based upon this we can say of course Avrohom did the actual milah as he was commanded, the midrash means that Avrohom also merited that Hashe removed the second layer of the arlah as well.  That is the intent that Avrohom was too old, he didn't have the strength to remove this addiotional layer of arlah, so Hashem helped him complete the job.    

Yischok or Yitzchok

A friend of mine pointed out to me last Friday that in the krias shem at a bris, we say in the middle אֲשֶׁ֣ר כָּ֭רַת אֶת־אַבְרָהָ֑ם וּשְׁב֖וּעָת֣וֹ לְיִשְׂחָֽק׃.  He wanted to know why יצחק was spelled with a 'ש.  I pointed out to him that that's  what it says in Tehillim (105:9,) which is the source of that line.  According to the קונקורדציה, it is spelled that way 4 times in Tanach, in the also verse of Yermiyahu Ch. 33, this verse in Tehillim and twice in Amos Ch. 7, verse 9 and  16.  The Metzudos Tzion in Yermiyahu says ישחק. יצחק כי זסשר״ץ מתחלף:  However, what is the significance of this change?
The Yalkut Maom Loaz in Yirmiyahu brings from Chazal:

                                        A different interpretation is given by the Mincha Gedolah in Amos (7:9.) The possuk there is talking about the bammot made for avodah zarah in the land of the ten tribes.  He quotes from the Alshich that the 'ש in place of the 'צ comes from the name of עשו.  He explains that Yaakov is already connected to Esav via the 'ע that exists in his name and the 'ו that sometimes appears in his name. Therefore, when referring to the tribes that did the actions of עשו it adds the connection of the  'ש in the name of Yitzchak.  The problem with this explanation is that it doesn't seem to explain why the possuk would switch in Tehillim and Yermiyahu.

Why Have The Segan Kohan Gadol?

There is a memra of the Rabbe Chanina Segan Hakohanim that appears in a few places in Shas, one of them being Yoma (39a.)  רבי חנינא סגן הכהנים אומר למה סגן מימינו שאם אירע בו פסול בכהן גדול נכנס סגן ומשמש תחתיו.  According to this גירסא the Gemorah is saying Why did the Deputy remain at the High Priest’s right side throughout the day’s service? Because if some disqualification befalls the High Priest, the Deputy can step in and serve in his stead.  However, Rashi brings another גירסא that the Gemorah is asking what is the point of the appointment of a Segan: ואני שמעתי מרבינו יצחק בר יהודה למה סגן ממונה שאם יארע פסול אבל כל זמן שלא יארע בו פסול אין הסגן עובד שום עבודה בעולם.  According to this approach the Gemorah seems to be saying the whole purpose of the Segan is to be a backup. [It is a little difficult that Rashi says אין הסגן עובד שום עבודה בעולם for the Segan has jobs as Tosfos (15b) cites from the Yerushalmi.]

The Rambam Kli Mikdash (4:16) says מְמַנִּין כֹּהֵן אֶחָד יִהְיֶה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל כְּמוֹ הַמִּשְׁנֶה לַמֶּלֶךְ וְהוּא הַנִּקְרָא סְגָן. וְהוּא הַנִּקְרָא מְמֻנֶּה וְיִהְיֶה עוֹמֵד לִימִין כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל תָּמִיד וְזֶה כָּבוֹד הוּא לוֹ. וְכָל הַכֹּהֲנִים מִתַּחַת יַד הַסְּגָן.  It is clear that the Rambam understands the point of the Segan isn't to be a mere backup, its to be the Kohan Gadol's valet.  So, he must have learnt like the first גירסא.  The Rambam goes לשיטתו in the Laws of Avodat Yom Kippurim (1:3) that says וּמַתְקִינִין לוֹ כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל אַחֵר שֶׁאִם יֶאֱרַע בְּזֶה פִּסּוּל יַעֲבֹד הָאַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו.  No mention of the Segan, any Kohan can be appointed to be the backup.  [This raises difficulties in the Gemorah Nazir 47b as the Briskor Rav there points out, ואכ"מ.]

The Briskor Rav tries to read even into the second גירסא that it also agrees the main job of the Segan is to serve the Kohan Gadol, the Gemorah is only asking why do they designate the Segan in place of the Kohan Gadol on Yom Kippur.  However, it doesn't seem that way from the Rishonim.  Tosfos Yeshanim asks why would they need a Segan in Bais Rishon, they had the משוח מלחמה?  He answers that there will be איבה for the משוח מלחמה already has some of the dinim of the Kohan Gadol.  But we see from the question that he assumes the whole point of the Segan is merely to be a backup, not to serve the Kohan Gadol.   

Pack Your Bags

The first test of Avrohom is לֶךְ־לְךָ֛ מֵאַרְצְךָ֥ וּמִמּֽוֹלַדְתְּךָ֖ וּמִבֵּ֣ית אָבִ֑יךָ אֶל־הָאָ֖רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֥ר אַרְאֶֽךָּ, pack up the moving truck and leave.  Why is it considered such a test if Avrohom was promised בנים, ועל הממון, ועל השם? I will share three approaches as to what the test of Avrohom was. 

1. The possuk (12:4) says וַיֵּ֣לֶךְ אַבְרָ֗ם כַּאֲשֶׁ֨ר דִּבֶּ֤ר אֵלָיו֙ י״י֔.  The very next possuk says וַיִּקַּ֣ח אַבְרָם֩ אֶת־שָׂרַ֨י אִשְׁתּ֜וֹ וְאֶת־ל֣וֹט בֶּן־אָחִ֗יו וְאֶת־כׇּל־רְכוּשָׁם֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר רָכָ֔שׁוּ וְאֶת־הַנֶּ֖פֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר־עָשׂ֣וּ בְחָרָ֑ן וַיֵּצְא֗וּ לָלֶ֙כֶת֙ אַ֣רְצָה כְּנַ֔עַן וַיָּבֹ֖אוּ אַ֥רְצָה כְּנָֽעַן.  These two verses seem repetitive, what is the need to tell two times that Avrohom left his hometown?  The Or Hachayim (in his second interpretation,) says עוד ירצה להיות שאמר לו ה׳ הבטחות תועליות הרבה כשילך לו מארצו וכו׳ אם כן הגם שילך יסבור הרואה כי אין להחזיק לו טובה על זה שאפילו קל שבקלים כשיראה כל התועליות ימהר ליסע לזה הודיע הכתוב צדקותו של אברהם כי מה שהלך לא לצד הבטחות האמורות אלא לעשות דבר ה׳. ודקדק לומר כאשר דבר ולא כאשר אמר כמו שהתחיל בתחילת הפרשה ויאמר ה׳ לאמת כדברינו. והוא, יש לך לדעת כי כל מקום שיאמר הכתוב דיבור יגיד על דבר קשה והאמירה היא רכה וכאן הזכיר בתחילת הפרשה ויאמר ה׳ לצד שכל הדבר הוא להנאת אברהם ובמעשה אברהם אמר כאשר דבר פירוש שעשה הדבר לצד גזירת מלך עליו ולא לתועלת הנמשך לו.  According to this approach, the test was what would be the motives of Avrohom to leave; is he leaving because of the promise of reward, or is he merely thinking of fulfilling the commandment of Hashem.

2. I will give an intro. of a comment of the Briskor Rav from עובדות והנהגות לבית בריסק.

Based upon this we understand that even with the promises of fame, fortune and power, it still is very hard for a person to leave their comfort zone.

3. Many Chassidic masters interpret the command not for Avrohom to merely leave his physical place of upbringing, but to remove from himself any impact and influence that he may have received from his upbringing.  It maybe easy to move one's lodging for the sake of a better life, but to completely remove all ideas, dreams and goals of a society that one was raised in is indeed a tall order.  As many a wise man have said, "its easier to take the Jew out of Egypt than it is to take Egypt out of the Jew."

Divorce Of A Ben Noach

The first Mishna in Kiddushin says וקונה את עצמה בגט ובמיתת הבעל.  Is the heter of gerushin and death limited to the kiddushin of a Jew, or does it apply to the marriage of a gentile as well?

The Gemorah Kiddushin (13b) learns from a verse that if the husband dies, the woman is permitted to marry.  The Pnei Yehoshua says that applies to a Yisroel but not to a gentile to whom the verse doesn’t apply and hence there will be an issur asseh of ודבק באשתו (בראשית ב׳:כ״ד) ולא באשת חבירו even after the husband passes away.  This Pnei Yehousha is rejected by everyone after him for reasons both from sevara and Gemarah.  One of the proofs against his theory comes from the words of Tosfos in our own parsha (12:12) משמע שהיה מתירא שיהרגוהו אם יאמר שהיא אשתו מפני שירצו לשכב עמה והם מצווים על העריות. ותימה שהרי כמו כן מצווים על שפיכות דמים ואם יודע הוא שהיו נזהרין על מה שהן מצווין א״כ לא היה לו לירא שיהרגוהו. וי״ל כי טוב יהיה להם שיהרגוהו ויעשו עבירה דשפיכות דמים פעם אחת משיבואו עליה בלא הריגה כי יהיו יראים המצרים פן יצעוק עליהם למלך.  It is clear from Tosfos after Avrohom’s death, it would be permitted for Sarah to remarry.  But why is the Pnei Yehoshua wrong, how is the wife permitted without a possuk?

What is the status of a gentile regarding divorce?  The Yerushalmi at the beginning of Kiddushin (2a) discusses this topic and it’s a subject of debate between the commentators as to how to understand the Yerushalmi.  מהו שיהא להם גירושין ר' יודה בן פזי ור' חנין בשם ר' חונה רובה דציפורין או שאין להן גירושין או ששניהן מגרשין זה את זה ר' יוחנן דצפרין ר' אחא ר' חיננא בשם ר' שמואל בר נחמן (מלאכי ב) כי שנא שלח וגו' עד את ה' אלהי ישראל בישראל נתתי גירושין לא נתתי גירושין באומות העולם ר' חנניה בשם ר' פינחס כל הפרשה כתיב יי צבאות וכאן כתיב אלקי ישראל ללמדך שלא ייחד הקב"ה שמו בגירושין אלא בישראל.

The Ran Sanhedrin (58b) cites Rabbenu David that holds a gentile can’t divorce at all; that right is only given to a Yisroel.  He must have learn along the lines of the Pnei Moshe that the question is if they don’t have the rights to divorce at all or either one of the spouses may walk out on the other and he understands the conclusion that they don’t have any means of divorce.  The logic of this opinion would seem to be that the idea that a marriage can be annulled is a chiddush of the Torah, hence, it isn’t applicable to a gentile.  

However, the Rambam Melachim (9:8) that rules either party can initiate divorced and can be done without any documentation.  He seems to have understood the Yerushalmi is also concluding there is no need for any bill of divorce.  Why would the rules of divorce for a gentile be different from that of a Yisroel?

The Rambam at the beginning of the Laws of Eishus says קֹדֶם מַתַּן תּוֹרָה הָיָה אָדָם פּוֹגֵעַ אִשָּׁה בַּשּׁוּק אִם רָצָה הוּא וְהִיא לִשָּׂא אוֹתָהּ מַכְנִיסָהּ לְתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ וּבוֹעֲלָהּ בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין עַצְמוֹ וְתִהְיֶה לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה. כֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּתְּנָה תּוֹרָה נִצְטַוּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאִם יִרְצֶה הָאִישׁ לִשָּׂא אִשָּׁה יִקְנֶה אוֹתָהּ תְּחִלָּה בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים וְאַחַר כָּךְ תִּהְיֶה לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כב יג) כִּי יִקַּח אִישׁ אִשָּׁה וּבָא אֵלֶיהָ")  Why is the Rambam informing us of this history lesson?  Rav Gustman says that the Rambam here is explaining the concept of kiddushin and the difference between marriage of a Yisroel and marriage of a gentile.  It is when the Torah is given that there is invented a concept of kiddushin. This idea of a kiddushin, a kinyan eishus, only exists for a Yisroel.  For a gentile their status of relationship is the same as pre-Mattan Torah.  There is no kinyan eishus, it is merely the bond that exists because of the coexistence of husband and wife that creates the bond of marriage.  Hence, there is no need for a divorce bill to break any kinyan eishus, if one of the spouses simply wants to walkway, and they are no longer living together, the bond of marriage no longer is in existence.  Based upon this, it is obvious why we don’t need a possuk to tell us the heter of the woman to remarry after her husband dies, for obviously then they are no longer residing together as a couple and there is no more marriage (see Steipler Kiddushin last siman.)

This blog mentioned here the idea of the Briskor Rav that even though the Avos kept the Torah, if a din was dependent upon a chalos that didn’t exist pre-Mattan Torah, it didn’t apply to them.  The Rav says a similar idea to answer why Avrohom didn’t fulfill the mitzvah even before it was commanded.  For the mitzvah of milah is to remove the arlah.  As long as there was no commandment of milah, there was no status of arlah and Avrohom had no capability to fulfill milah. According to the aforementioned idea, the status of the marriage of Avrohom had the status of a marriage of a gentile and he would have no reason to write a bill of divorce.  However, the Pirkai D’Rebbe Eliezer (Ch. 30) and Targum Yonason (21:14) both say that Avrohom sent away Hagar with a get.  Why would Avrohom write a get if it had no halachik bearing at all? (See Beis Haotzar volume 1 klal 1 letter 5, ועדיין צ"ע.)

Noach And Avrohom: Two Approaches

The Shem M'Shmuel asks why is it that Adam and Noach were born circumcised, but Avrohom was not born that way, rather had a command to circumcise himself?

The midrash (56:10) explains how the name Yerushalayim developed: אַבְרָהָם קָרָא אוֹתוֹ יִרְאֶה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וַיִּקְרָא אַבְרָהָם שֵׁם הַמָּקוֹם הַהוּא ה' יִרְאֶה. שֵׁם קָרָא אוֹתוֹ שָׁלֵם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בראשית (יד:יח) וּמַלְכִּי צֶדֶק מֶלֶךְ שָׁלֵם, אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אִם קוֹרֵא אֲנִי אוֹתוֹ יִרְאֶה כְּשֵׁם שֶׁקָּרָא אוֹתוֹ אַבְרָהָם, שֵׁם אָדָם צַדִּיק מִתְרָעֵם, וְאִם קוֹרֵא אֲנִי אוֹתוֹ שָׁלֵם, אַבְרָהָם אָדָם צַדִּיק מִתְרָעֵם, אֶלָּא הֲרֵינִי קוֹרֵא אוֹתוֹ יְרוּשָׁלַיִם כְּמוֹ שֶׁקָּרְאוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם, יִרְאֶה שָׁלֵם, יְרוּשָׁלַיִם.  Why did Shem call it שָׁלֵם and Avrohom call it יִרְאֶה,why did they give it different names?

These differences show us a complete different outlook between Noach and Avrohom.  Noach believed that since his entire generation was doing the wrong thing, in order to remain a צדיק, he had to separate himself from the rest of the world. Avrohom on the other hand believed in preaching to the world and trying to teach the proper outlook to the idol worshipers around him.

The Mishna in Avos (5:2) says עשרה דורות מאדם ועד נח, להודיע כמה ארך אפים לפניו, שכל הדורות היו מכעיסין ובאין עד שהביא עליהם את מי המבול. עשרה דורות מנח ועד אברהם, להודיע כמה ארך אפים לפניו, שכל הדורות היו מכעיסין ובאין, עד שבא אברהם וקבל [עליו] שכר כולם.  Why does Avrohom receive the reward of the generations before him, but not Noach?  Because Avrohom attempted to teach those around him, he is able to receive their reward for it is to his credit all of the good that they did.  Noach isn't deserving of receiving reward of those around him for he didn't play any role in any good that they might have done.

The milah represents the ability to bring kedusha into the tumah of the world.  One is able to transform the world in a physical form through a mitzvah.  That ability was devoid of Noach.  He had to remain separate from the tumah of the world, he had to be born mahul.  It is only Avrohom that has the ability to have an affect on the world.  This Weltanschauung is expressed in the different names given to Yerushalayim.  Shem, the son of Noach follows the view that the zenith of spirituality is self perfection, שלימות, hence he gives that name to the holiest city.  Avrohom feels that its about the world feeling יראת שמים, and hence he dubs that as the name of  Yerushalayim.  

Rashi at the beginning of Vayerah says באלני ממרא – כדמפרש בבראשית רבה (בראשית רבה מ״ב:ח׳): הוא שנתן לו עצה על המילה לפיכך נגלה עליו בחלקו.  Rav Hirsch says the Torah points out that Avrohom was still attached to Mamrei dispite the fact that he know had a bris milah.  This additional kedusha didn't separate Avrohom from his mission of teaching others.  In his words: היכן הוא יושב? "באלוני ממרא"! הוא נמצא עדיין עם ענר, אשכול, וממרא, שהיו לא "אנשי בריתו" אלא "בעלי ברית אברהם" (עיין פירוש לעיל יד, יג); כ"בעלי ברית" הם צירפו אותו לקבוצתם. למרות שעתה אברהם הוא נימול, נותרו יחסיו עם בני המין האנושי מחוץ לתחום המצומצם שלו ללא שינוי.

Directions

After Lot separates from Avrohom, Hashem speaks to Avrohom and says (13:14) וַֽי״י֞ אָמַ֣ר אֶל־אַבְרָ֗ם אַחֲרֵי֙ הִפָּֽרֶד־ל֣וֹט מֵֽעִמּ֔וֹ שָׂ֣א נָ֤א עֵינֶ֙יךָ֙ וּרְאֵ֔ה מִן־הַמָּק֖וֹם אֲשֶׁר־אַתָּ֣ה שָׁ֑ם צָפֹ֥נָה וָנֶ֖גְבָּה וָקֵ֥דְמָה וָיָֽמָּה.   In  Yaakov's dream (28:14) , Hashem tells him וְהָיָ֤ה זַרְעֲךָ֙ כַּעֲפַ֣ר הָאָ֔רֶץ וּפָרַצְתָּ֛ יָ֥מָּה וָקֵ֖דְמָה וְצָפֹ֣נָה וָנֶ֑גְבָּה וְנִבְרְכ֥וּ בְךָ֛ כׇּל־מִשְׁפְּחֹ֥ת הָאֲדָמָ֖ה וּבְזַרְעֶֽךָ.  Why is the order of the directions changed from the prophecy of Avrohom to that of Yaakov?

Fixing Problems

                                                Mishlay (24:16) כִּי שֶׁבַע יִפּוֹל צַדִּיק וָקָם.

(from xkcd.com)