Gemilas Chassadim

 ואעשך לגוי גדול ואברכך ואגדלה שמך והיה ברכה

Rashi says ד"א ואעשך לגוי גדול זהו שאומרים אלהי אברהם ואברכך זהו שאומרים אלהי יצחק ואגדלה שמך זהו שאומרים אלהי יעקב יכול יהיו חותמין בכולן ת"ל והיה ברכה בך חותמין ולא בהם.  Why do we end the first beracha of Shemone Esrai specifically with the name of Avraham, מגן אברהם?  Does Avraham want to be singled out, אין אדם מתקנא בבנו?  The Meglah Amukot (this is how I see it cited in his name ,even though I don't see him quite saying these words,)  says that the three Avos correspond to the three pillars of Torah (Yaakov,) Avodah (Yitzchak,) Gemilas chassadim (Avraham.)  The חתימה, what will ultimately seal the fate of Klal Yisrael for the better, is the merit of gemilas chassadim.  Even as the pillars of Torah and avodah get weakened through the long golus the merit of chesed is what will carry the day. 

The Divrey Yisrael (Modzitz) reads this into the possuk of the prayer of Yitzchak, וַיֵּצֵא יִצְחָק לָשׂוּחַ בַּשָּׂדֶה לִפְנוֹת עָרֶב וַיִּשָּׂא עֵינָיו וַיַּרְא וְהִנֵּה גְמַלִּים בָּאִים, Yitzchak saw at the end of the day, at the end of the golus, there will no lnger be the merit of avodah, his middah and he was worried what will be the merit of Klal Yisrael to be saved?  Then he saw the גְמַלִּים, the גמילות חסדים will be the merit for the geulah. 

He also reads this into the pessukim of Eliezer coming with the camels, ויקח העבד עשרה גמלים מגמלי אדניו, he took the middah of his master, of chesed, the next possuk continues, ויברך הגמלים מחוץ לעיר, this middah of chesed he took and it is used in the time of the golus outside the city, לעת ערב, in the time right before Mashiach, it will be our merit, לעת צאת השאבת, until it is time to leave the golus. 

This is what the Yalkut (Hosha 6:6) says כי חסד חפצתי ולא זבח. אמר הקב"ה חביב עלי חסד שאתם גומלים זה לזה יותר מכל הזבח שזבח שלמה לפני אלף עולות יעלה שלמה וכה"א זאת התורה לעולה למנחה, זאת התורה לא עולה ולא מנחה. פעם אחת היה רבן יוחנן בן זכאי מהלך בירושלים והיה רבי ייהושע מהלך אחריו ראה בית המקדש שהוא חרב אמר אוי לנו על הבית שחרב מקום שמתכפרין בו עונותינו, א"ל בני אל ירע לך שיש לנו כפרה אחרת שהיא כמותה ואי זה זה גמילות חסדים, לכך נאמר כי חסד חפצתי ולא זבח, ואומר אמרתי עולם חסד יבנה.  

As the possuk says ציון במשפט תפדה ושביה בצדקה, the redemption comes in the merit of tzedakah. In the words of the Alter Rebbe Egeres Hakodesh #9 אֵיךְ הֱיוֹת כָּל עִיקַּר עֲבוֹדַת ה' בָּעִתִּים הַלָּלוּ בְּעִקְּבוֹת מְשִׁיחָא הִיא עֲבוֹדַת הַצְּדָקָה,כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמְרוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ־זִכְרוֹנָם־לִבְרָכָה: "אֵין יִשְׂרָאֵל נִגְאָלִין אֶלָּא בִּצְדָקָה".  

The Mishna in Avos says עַל שְׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים הָעוֹלָם עוֹמֵד:עַל הַתּוֹרָה, וְעַל הָעֲבוֹדָה, וְעַל גְּמִילוּת חֲסָדִים   If chesed aligns with Avraham why is it mentioned last in the Mishna?  The Satmer Rebbe (R' Aharon) says based upon this idea, since chesed is the last zechut to stand up before the geulah it is mentioned last in the Mishna. 

The three pillars of Torah, avodah and gemilas chassadim may also align with mochin (Torah,) middot (avodah- avodah שבלב,) and maaseh (gemillas chassadim.)  A thought I once heard is that it is the lowest parts, that of maaseh that needs to be perfected before Mashiach.  That is why it is gemilas chassadim that is the final ticket to geulah. 

In the sichos of Rav Pinkus on Chanukah he says:

Even gentiles, in the merit of chesed get saved from wars!

The New Avraham

The maftir of Noach says וַיִּקַּ֨ח אַבְרָ֧ם וְנָח֛וֹר לָהֶ֖ם נָשִׁ֑ים שֵׁ֤ם אֵֽשֶׁת⁠־אַבְרָם֙ שָׂרָ֔י וְשֵׁ֤ם אֵֽשֶׁת⁠־נָחוֹר֙ מִלְכָּ֔ה בַּת⁠־הָרָ֥ן אֲבִֽי⁠־מִלְכָּ֖ה וַֽאֲבִ֥י יִסְכָּֽה.  Rashi says יסכה – [זו שרה, על שם]⁠א שסוכה ברוח הקודש, ושהכל סוכין ביופיה, ולשוןב נסיכות, כמו: שרה לשון סררות.  Sarah is identified in the possuk with two names, יסכה and שרי in the same possuk.  Why is she called by two names in the same possuk?  And why is the name יסכה alluding to her ruach hakodesh spelled out here and never again and why not mention it in the context of Hashem acknowledging the greatness of her prophesy?  

The second to last possuk in Noach says וַיִּקַּ֨ח תֶּ֜רַח אֶת⁠־אַבְרָ֣ם בְּנ֗וֹ וְאֶת⁠־ל֤וֹט בֶּן⁠־הָרָן֙ בֶּן⁠־בְּנ֔וֹ וְאֵת֙ שָׂרַ֣י כַּלָּת֔וֹ אֵ֖שֶׁת אַבְרָ֣ם בְּנ֑וֹ וַיֵּצְא֨וּ אִתָּ֜ם מֵא֣וּר כַּשְׂדִּ֗ים לָלֶ֙כֶת֙ אַ֣רְצָה כְּנַ֔עַן וַיָּבֹ֥אוּ עַד⁠־חָרָ֖ן וַיֵּ֥שְׁבוּ שָֽׁם.  The parsha of Lech Lecha opens  וַיֹּ֤אמֶר י״י֙ אֶל⁠־אַבְרָ֔ם לֶךְ⁠־לְךָ֛ מֵאַרְצְךָ֥ וּמִמּֽוֹלַדְתְּךָ֖ וּמִבֵּ֣ית אָבִ֑יךָ אֶל⁠־הָאָ֖רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֥ר אַרְאֶֽךָּ.  What is the nature of these two travels?

The Ramban asks why are we not introduced to Avraham as a tzaddik but instead are merely introduced to him as a man told to leave his home?  The Maharal (Netzach Chapter 11) explains that we are being taught that Avraham is not chosen merely because he is a tzaddik and hence if future generations are not so righteous they will no longer be chosen, rather we are chosen by Hashem because he desires to choose Avraham and his children no matter what state they are in.  

Parshas Lech Lecha is when Avraham is chosen to be a sperate nation apart from everyone else.  The last possuk in Noach says Terach died.  Rashi notes that Terach didn't actually die at that point but Terach is dead to Avraham when he starts his journey to Lech Lecha.  In other words, at this point Avraham is no longer connected to Terach, he is starting his own legacy (see Gur Aryeh.)  Originally, Terach also was going to travel to Eretz Yisrael, he also was on the path to being able to transform his life and be the patriarch for the Abraham clan . However, he never is quite able to complete his journey, he gets stuck in Charan.  The Terach life is the life of the idol worshipers, who, as the Rambam explains, started with noble intensions to serve the messengers of G-d but they got lost along the path and never ended up completing the journey of reaching to Hashem.  They got stuck on the road with the emissaries.  Avraham sees beyond the forces in the world, he sees the True Master, Hashem and seeks Him out.  He is able to get to the end of the path that was embarked on the by idol worshipers.    

Rashi (end of Noch) says that Avraham was thrown into a fire by Nimrod for rejecting idols and after he survived and Haran was given the choice between Hashem and the idols he also chose Hashem and he was thrown into the fire and perished.  Rav Moshe Shapira explains it wasn't merely that Haran was  hedging his bets and that he would choose what seemed better after seeing the results for Avraham.  The act of Haran was a reflection of his nature.  His was not a trailblazer, a man able to forge his own way, like Avraham.  This is why Avraham is the first of the Avos.  Haran wanted to know the truth an then he would stick to it faithfully, no matter the circumstances.  Haran is the father of the אמהות.  He is the father of Sarah, the grandfather of Rachel and Leah, and the father-in-law of Lot, who leads to Rus and the Messianic line.  The trait of Haran is the trait of the imahot, to see the truth and stick to it no matter how hard it is. 

The ability of Sarah to be Yisca, to be a great prophetess, stems form the misaras nefesh of Haran.  His acknowledgement of the truth to the ability that he gave his life for it yielded the ability for his offspring to cling to Hashem even in the darkest places.  It is due to her being the daughter of Haran, that Sarah is Yisca, that she has such spiritual clarity of vision.  Hence, when she is mentioned  as a daughter of Haran her name is Yisca, for it is the relationship with Haran that makes her Yisca.  It is her role as the daughter of Haran that makes her Yisca.  But in her role as the wife of Avraham, the starter of a new nation, no longer connected to the past, her relationship to her father is not mentioned, her essence is being Sarah, the wife of Avraham, the matriarch of Klal Yisrael (see Gur Aryeh end of Noach, based upon article by R' Yehoshua Shapira, יסכה זו שרה – פרשת נח.)  

The Sarah and Avraham of Parshas Noach were part of the greater Terach family.  They where members of a family which started seeking the truth but didn't follow through.  In Lech Lech, Avraham and Sarah are a new dynasty, no longer connected to the past.  All relationships to past self identities, children and grandchildren of Terach, Yisca etc. are removed and they embark upon a journey of Lech Lecha, of self exploration to find their own way, their own destiny. 

Milah Points

The Bartenura on the Torah (17:24) says וקשה לפי זה למה המתין כל כך למול את עצמו. י"ל משום דהא דאמרינן שקיים כל המצות היינו לאחר שנמול אבל קודם לכן לא היה לו דעת לקיים מצות ולא נפתחו עיני שכלו וכדפרש"י לעיל שלא היה בו כח לסבול גלוי השכינה ולעמוד.  According to the Bartenura, Avraham fulfilled all the mitzvot only after his Milah.  The Maharsha in Yevamot (100b) suggests the same idea to explain how Avraham could marry Hagar, who was a first generation Egyptian, whom one is prohibited from marrying?  He says, it must be Avraham only kept the Torah after his Milah.  (According to the Maharsha it still is difficult how did Avraha marry  קטורה who Chazal identify as Hagar, at that point it was after Avraham's bris?)  See here where he cites Rishonim deal with the question about Hagar.   

According to the Bartenura, the bris milah of Avraham was not a mere mitzvah like any other but it was a transformation of his entire being.  This is supported from the Midrash beginning of Vaerah which comments on the greater level of Avraham after the milah.  

The Gemarah Avodah Zarah (27a) has a machlokes tanaim if Milah has to be done lishma.  The opinion of R' Yose is that it does not.  The Yaavetz asks a contradiction because in Yevamot (46b) R' Yose says if one comes before Beit Din with a milah having been done we can't just do the tevilah part because it is possible the milah was not done lishma.  But R' Yose doesn't hold a milah has to be done lishma?  The Chasam Sofer (Yoreh Deah teshuva #1,300) answers by differentiating between the milah of a yisrael and that of one who wants to be converted.  The regular mitzvah of milah for a Yisrael does not have to be one lishma but to enter into the Jewish nation one requires their milah being done lishma.  The Meshech Chachma (end of Lech Lecha and Bo) also suggests this idea as does Rav Yosef Engel. 

The possuk (17:23) says that Avraham gave all the people in his household a milah and then the last possuk in the parsha (17:27) repeats that Avraham gave them a milah.  Why does it repeat this?  The Ramban says that Avraham first gave everyone else a milah and then he gave himself a milah.  How could he give them a milah if he himself didn't have a milah (according to the opinion in Avodah Zarah that only one who has a milah can give a milah?)  The Chasam Sofer says that since Avraham was intending to get a milah he is considered to have a milah.  But that is only if he ended up getting a milah.  That's what the last possuk means, only after Avraham gave himself a milah was their milah complete (that is how it is נמלו אתו, with his bris their bris was complete as well.) 

The Tosfat Yeshanim in Yevamot asks the question of the Yaavetz and answers that R' Yose said in Avodah Zarah a milah doesn't have to be done lsihma only when a Jew is standing over the gentile telling him to do the milah lishma.  In other words, R' Yose also holds a milah has to be done lishma but it suffices it a gentile does it when a Jew tells him what to do.  This is very difficult to read into the Gemarah Avodah Zarah.  See also Achiezer volume 3 siman 27. 

The Avnei Nazer Yoreh Deah (345 end of the teshuva) takes issue with the Chasam Sofer for (if I understand his question correctly,) for if a milah not done lishma is considered a milah then the ger should be no different from someone who doesn't have an ערלה that wants to become a ger where he just does tevilah?  His question is propitiated on the assumption that there is no הטפת דם ברית in those situations which is a machlokes Rishonim.  But even if those cases don't require הטפת דם ברית here it is worse for in those scenarios the ger doesn't have an ערלה, so he just does tevilah but here the ger was an ערל and a milah no done lishma doesn't remove the ערלה status vis-a-vis gerus.  

R' Yose learns his law of milah lishma from the parsha here (17:13) הִמּ֧וֹל ׀ יִמּ֛וֹל יְלִ֥יד בֵּֽיתְךָ֖ וּמִקְנַ֣ת כַּסְפֶּ֑ךָ וְהָיְתָ֧ה בְרִיתִ֛י בִּבְשַׂרְכֶ֖ם לִבְרִ֥ית עוֹלָֽם, he learns the double verb teaches that circumcision may be performed by anyone.  However, if we put the idea of the Bartenura and the Chasam Sofer together it is difficult for this is the milah of gerus and there everyone requires it to be lishma?

A Journey, 7 And An Oath

I said this at a sheva berachot of my cousin this week.  

The Midrash (Bamidbar Rabbah 11:2) says אָמַר רַבִּי פִּינְחָס בֶּן יָאִיר שֶׁבַע בְּרָכוֹת בֵּרַךְ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֶת אַבְרָהָם, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: וְאֶעֶשְׂךָ לְגוֹי גָּדוֹל (בראשית יב, ב): וַאֲבָרֶכְךָ (בראשית יב, ב): וַאֲגַדְלָה שְׁמֶךָ (בראשית יב, ב): וֶהְיֵה בְּרָכָה (בראשית יב, ג): וַאֲבָרְכָה מְבָרְכֶיךָ (בראשית יב, ג): וּמְקַלֶּלְךָ אָאֹר (בראשית יב, ג): וְנִבְרְכוּ בְךָ. כְּנֶגֶד שִׁבְעָה פְּסוּקִים שֶׁבְּמַעֲשֵׂה בְרֵאשִׁית שֶׁכָּתוּב בָּהֶן כִּי טוֹב.  What does the כי טוב of Berashit have to do with Avraham?  

 וַיֹּ֤אמֶר י״י֙ אֶל־אַבְרָ֔ם לֶךְ־לְךָ֛ מֵאַרְצְךָ֥ וּמִמּֽוֹלַדְתְּךָ֖ וּמִבֵּ֣ית אָבִ֑יךָ אֶל־הָאָ֖רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֥ר אַרְאֶֽךָּ.  The question is, the possuk is out of order, it should have first said בית אביך and end with ארצך because one first leave's their father's house and ends up with leaving the entire country?  The Chassideshe seforim explain that Avraham wasn't just instructed to physically leave his father's country, Avraham is being instructed to leave the ideology of where he came from behind.  The ideology, the spiritual trappings and mindset of a idolator has to be left behind and Avram was to become Avraham, the founder of the Jewish nation.  This transformation doesn't happen merely by taking steps but is a mental process that one goes through.  That process started by Avraham leaving behind the ideology of the general country and continued until he diverged himself of the  false believes of his father.  

Avraham's leaving of Charan going to Eretz Yisrael was his berashit.  It was not just a journey of space but a mental odyssey to transform himself.  There was a לֶךְ to לְךָ֛, for Avraham to discover his inner being.  This was Avraham's berashit, his beginning of creating Klal Yisrael.  That is why the 7 berachot parallel the seven times of כי טוב in Berashit. 

But why 7 berachot, why does he need 7 berachot specifically?  

The Gemarah Niddah (30b) says before the soul comes into the world משביעין אותו תהי צדיק ואל תהי רשע.  What is the point of this oath if no one remembers it and one is given free reign to ignore it?  The Tzemach Tzedek explains that the word שבועה has the root of שבע, satiated, for taking an oath fills one up with power to overcome difficulties.  It helps bring to the forefront dormant abilities within a person as one is deeply committed to the cause so much so they have made an oath to fulfill it.  The challenges of the world are so great that the soul needs the push of the שבועה to help one overcome the challenges thrown at a person.  Similarly, the word for the number 7, שבע is the same root.  As is well known form the Maharal, 7 is the completion of טבע.  It is the full power, the complete satiation of טבע.  The 7 berachot given to Avraham were to give him the push, to give him the ability to bring to the forefront all in his capabilities to stand up to the challenge of being העברי, on the other side of the pressing issues of the day.  It was a slight aid to push Avraham over the edge to be successful in his mission.

Worker And Partner

It was posted in the past that there is a major difference between Avraham and Noach. Avraham made it his practice to teach the ways of Hashem to the world while Noach was not engrossed in teaching people the path to teshuva.  Noach thought it was best to avoid having the actions of those around him rub off on himself while Avraham thought it better to teach others to be like himself.  Why did they have these different attitudes?  And why did Avraham's concern for others extend to praying for them, even wicked people like Sedomites while Noach is criticized in Chazal for not praying for his generation, why did he not Noach not pray for them? 

Rav Pinkus gives a mashal to explain the difference from two different types of people in a business, a partner and a worker.  The partners' bottom line is governed by how successful the business is.  He cares if the business is going in the right direction or not.  The worker doesn't care about the success of the business, he just wants to walk home with a paycheck at the end of the week.  This difference comes to the forefront when there is an emergency such as the building is on fire.  The partner will rush to save the building for that is his investment.  The worker doesn't care about the fire as long as he has a job to return to. 

This was the difference between Noach and Avraham.  Noach was G-d's worker.  He punched in and punched out.  If the world collapses it doesn't matter as long as he gets his check, as long as he is safe.  Avraham was a partner with Hashem.  It mattered to him if Sedom is overturned, if people are worshipping avodah zarah.  He cared about the success of the world, not just his personal success.  He was interested in G-d's business, if the world recognizes Hashem.  Avraham left a yerusha to become a שותף with Hashem, not a mere פועל.  

Two Types Of Beauty

This is on Lech Lecha but I didn't see this until now and there is a similar story in our parsha as well.  וַיְהִ֕י כַּאֲשֶׁ֥ר הִקְרִ֖יב לָב֣וֹא מִצְרָ֑יְמָה וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙ אֶל־שָׂרַ֣י אִשְׁתּ֔וֹ הִנֵּה־נָ֣א יָדַ֔עְתִּי כִּ֛י אִשָּׁ֥ה יְפַת־מַרְאֶ֖ה אָֽתְּ.  How did Avraham not know what Sarah looked like before?  The first Biur HaGra in Even Haezer says that חן  refers to an external beauty and שקר החן is referring to the תכשיטין of a woman.  That is what is means Ester was נושאות חן even though she had a yellowish complexion because she had an external חוט של חסד. The word יופי refers to a natural beauty and that is what הבל היופי refers to.  

The commentary Birchat Eliyahu on the Gra brings in the name of the Gra that is the peshat in this possuk.  Avraham thought maybe Sara's beauty was only because of the חן that she had, her adornments and charm.  However, not that they were going to Mitzraim she would specifically look disheveled and would not appear attractive.  Still Avraham saw אִשָּׁ֥ה יְפַת־מַרְאֶ֖ה אָֽתְּ, your יפה מראה is innate, in you, not because of external factors, and that the Egyptians will jump upon.

Avraham Connection

In the hafotrah it says ואתה ישראל עבדי יעקב אשר בחרתיך זרע אברהם אהבי (Yesheyahu 41:8.)  Why are we refered to as the אברהם if we are called already יעקב?  The last Rav Tzaddok on the parsha says we see that even though we are called generally by the name Yaakov or Yisroel, the relationship to Avraham still stands and can be evoked at times.  The Chidushay Harim says that when Hashem promises Avraham אנכי מגן לך it is not just a promise to Avraham but to every single Jew.  There is a נקודה of Avraham, the מגן אברהם that remains within everyone.  The Sifsay Tzaddik says that is what allows even a Jew who may have strayed far to come back for he is connected to Avraham.  What is the nature of this connection and why do we need to come back to the connection specifically to Avraham?  And why do we need to evoke his name sometimes?

The Chassideshe seforim explain that the journey of Avraham was not just a physical journey but a spiritual journey into his soul.  לך לך, go toward yourself, discover the potential within one's self.  Avraham was instructed to find a new path in life.  He had to start from scratch and build a new nation. Avraham is the one to establish the mission statement for the Jews, to be trailblazers and bring spirituality to the world.  It is a process started by Avraham and becomes ironed out and solidified by Yitzchak and finally by Yaakov.  Yaakov is the culmination of the building process; he perfects the mission and therefore merits that all of his children should be included.  That is why we generally refer to ourselves as the children of Yaakov.  However, sometimes one loses track of the mission.  He loses his connection to the message passed down from Yaakov.  How does such a person come back?  He isn't accessing his connection to Yaakov for he is full of imperfections?  He taps into his connection to Avraham.  Avraham is called אוהבי, his love for Hashem was so great.  When one has such love for someone else, the problems can be glossed over.  Even though one is not deserving of being welcomed back, he is accepted because he is connected to Avraham, the great lover of Hashem and hence loved by Hashem as well.  Hashem does not look at the person's blemishes because of the great love He has for the person.  It is in such situations that one must evoke the merit of Avraham.  The haftorah tells us that at least because we are connected to Avraham we will merit salvation. 

Sunk In The Well

ועמק השדים בארת בארת חמר וינסו מלך סדם ועמרה ויפלו שמה.  Rashi brings the Midrash ומדרש אגדה שהיה הטיט מוגבל בהם ונעשה נס למלך סדום שיצא משם לפי שהיו באומות מקצתן שלא היו מאמינין שניצל אברהם מאור כשדים מכבשן האש וכיון שיצא זה מן החמר האמינו באברהם למפרע.  The Ramban asks ואני תמה במדרש ההגדה הזה כי האומות שלא היו מאמינים שעשה הקב"ה נס לאברהם בראותם נסו של מלך סדום לא יוסיפו אמונה בהקב"ה?  

The Midrash in Noach (30:10) contrasts between Noach that had to be rescued from drowning in the depths of the people around him and Avraham that lights up the world with G-dliness.  The Sfas Emes explains that they are not two distinct paths but rather Avraham showed that even where G-d seems to be not present could become illuminated. lit up with holiness.  The novelty of Avraham was that G-d is present and can be felt in this world itself.  The Rambam describes the beginnings of avodah zarah in the days of Enosh was because they felt G-d was too distant, great and removed from the world.  That led them to set up a barrier between Hashem and the world.  Avraham came to tear that wall down.   

The people denied the miracle of Avraham not because they were scoffers but they had a philosophical problem with the story.  They did not believe in the message of Avraham that one can light up the world with  G-dliness and therefore they denied his story.  The בארות חמר represent the חומריות, the gashmi, the secularity of the world in which Sedom was the epitome of drowning in.  When the King of Sedom was saved from there it showed that even one so sunken in to the חומרי still can be rescued and illuminated.  This refuted the argument of those that challenged Avraham's argument and proved the miracle of Avraham's salvation. 

Destination Unknown

 Destination Unknown

Parashas Lech Lecha

Harav Hagaon Yosef Elefant Shlita

This past week was the yahrtzeit of our unforgettable rosh yeshiva, Rav Nosson Tzvi Finkel z”tl, whose gadlus was multifaceted: in his bein adam lachaveiro, in his bein adam laMakom, in his hasmadah, in his learning, in his caring for everybody, in the scope of his vision for growth in Torah. I’m reminded of an incident with the rosh yeshiva I witnessed, related to this week’s parashah, that captures one aspect of his incredible personality.

I was once sitting in his dining room at some sort of meeting, when a little boy came in with his father for a brachah. The rosh yeshiva zt”l asked this little boy, “What are you learning?” and the boy said, “Lech lecha.”

“If someone would tell you to go somewhere,” the rosh yeshiva asked, “but not tell you where to go, would you start to move?”

The little boy didn’t know what to answer. So the rosh yeshiva pointed to himself, tapped on his chest, and looked at me and said, “That’s me — I’m going. I don’t know where the finish line is, I don’t know where I’m heading, but I’m forging ahead.”

The Sfas Emes points out that Hakadosh Baruch Hu told Avraham Avinu to go, without saying where to go, because there actually is no finish line. If anything, the opposite is true: When a person grows and takes a step forward, and gets to a certain place, the world unfolds in front of him. It’s as if he’s climbing a mountain and with every step that he takes he sees that there is so much more ahead of him, so many more opportunities for growth.

In Hakadosh Baruch Hu’s first revelation to Avraham Avinu, he told him simply to “go”: he didn’t tell him where to go, he didn’t tell him where the end is, because in ruchniyus there is no finish line or end goal. The goal is the growth itself. It’s not a means to an end — the means is the end itself. In Hakadosh Baruch Hu’s first dialogue with Avraham Avinu in the Torah, He was teaching him that a person’s relationship with Him is defined by movement, by growth. There doesn’t have to be a specific destination or finish line, because the growth is meant to be constant, and the road of that growth is eternal. The minute a person reaches one place, he sees that the “finish line” has moved.

The Yetzer Hara Attacks on the Path

On the passuk in Parashas Zachor: זָכוֹר אֵת אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה לְךָ עֲמָלֵק בַּדֶּרֶךְ בְּצֵאתְכֶם מִמִּצְרָיִם, the Sfas Emes wonders why the Torah would specify the geographical location of where Klal Yisrael were when Amalek came: בַּדֶּרֶךְ. Why is that significant?

The Sfas Emes answers that the reason the Torah highlights the fact that Klal Yisrael were “on the way” is that the yetzer hara comes and ambushes a person precisely because he is בַּדֶּרֶךְ — when he hasn’t reached the finish line yet. Amalek, or the yetzer hara, challenges a person by saying, “What have you accomplished? How far have you gone? You’re only on the way, and that has no meaning.” In the world of gashmiyus, it’s the results that count, but in the world of ruchniyus it’s only the efforts, the growth, the forging further that count. So the meeting place of the yetzer hara with the human being is on the derech, when he’s forging ahead but hasn’t reached any tangible goal. The truth is that there is no end goal — all we are aiming for is to be on the derech, but the yetzer hara challenges that derech of growth by demanding, “Well, what do you have to show for yourself? You haven’t reached the finish line!” The answer to that is that there is no finish line, it’s just lech lecha: the journey is all about growth and getting closer to Hakadosh Baruch Hu.

A prime tactic of the yetzer hara, then, is to whispers in our ear, “What have you accomplished?”

Accordingly, Hakadosh Baruch Hu revealed himself to Avraham Avinu specifically with the message of lech lecha, of moving ahead without an end goal, and without a specific yardstick of accomplishment. Rather, it’s the progress itself, the actual growth, that has value.

We find that the name Eisav, who was the progenitor of Amalek, comes from the word עשוי. Eisav was born fully formed and complete, which symbolizes that he had no room left for growth, for effort, for the derech — there’s only a finished product. In the world of Eisav and Amalek, there’s only the finished product; only the results count.

The battleground of the yetzer hara is over the question of whether growth has intrinsic value, even if I haven’t gotten to where I want to get to. That’s alluded to in the phrase בַּדֶּרֶךְ בְּצֵאתְכֶם מִמִּצְרָיִם, and in the command of lech lecha to Avraham Avinu.

Constant Growth

The message and essence of Avraham Avinu was constant growth. At the beginning of Sefer Iyov (1:3), Rashi quotes the passuk in Sefer Yehoshua (14:15) where Avraham Avinu, who is buried in Chevron, is described as הָאָדָם הַגָּדוֹל בָּעֲנָקִים. Why, asks Rashi, does the passuk use two hei’s to describe him? He answers that the two hei’s represent the number ten, corresponding to the ten nisyonos Avraham withstood.

What Rashi is really teaching us is that the reason Avraham Avinu was called הָאָדָם הַגָּדוֹל בָּעֲנָקִים — the ultimate human being — is that he overcame his ten nisyonos. The Maharal teaches in many places that a human being is called adam because adamah, earth, represents potential for growth, as all life forms — vegetation, animal life, and human life — emanate from it. All that lies in the potential of the adam. The essence of humanity, then, is bringing out potential, through constant growth. A human being is called adam not because of the results per se, but rather because of his inherent potential for growth.

The purpose of the nisyonos of Avraham Avinu, the Ramban says in Parashas Vayera, is to uplift a person. The word nisayon comes from the word nes, meaning a banner, as in ושא נס לקבץ גליותינו. Just as a nes, in the sense of a miracle, is above nature, a nisayon lifts a person above his comfort zone.

A nisayon, says the Ramban, brings the person’s potential מהכח אל הפועל, allowing the person to move forward and step out of his comfort zone. During a nisayon, the person’s regular comfort zone is taken away, challenging him: Can you shteig? Can you go further? Or are you limited only to your comfort zone? A nisayon uplifts a person by allowing him to operate in a place where he normally doesn’t operate, so he’s taking a step forward in life.

A nisayon, then, is a step of growth, taking the person one step up the ladder. That’s all it is — the nisayon per se doesn’t have any intrinsic value.

Avraham Avinu is called הָאָדָם הַגָּדוֹל בָּעֲנָקִים, with two hei’s, because he became the ultimate adam through his nisyonos. That’s because the ultimate goal of a person is to grow and move further, not to stay in one place, in his comfort zone. Lech lecha means to move, and Avraham’s ten nisyonos took him from place to place, from one comfort zone to another. As the nisyonos got harder and harder, Hakadosh Baruch Hu kept raising the bar and saying okay, go a drop farther. Through that Avraham became the הָאָדָם הַגָּדוֹל בָּעֲנָקִים, making the ultimate use of his potential to grow. That’s what defines an adam, and that’s why Avraham Avinu was called הָאָדָם הַגָּדוֹל בָּעֲנָקִים, a person who was able to grow and thrive and maximize his potential. 

Rav Chaim Volozhiner notes that one Mishnah says (according to the girsa of his commentary, Ruach Chaim): עשרה דורות מנח עד אברהם, while the next Mishnah says: עשרה נסיונות נתנסה אברהם אבינו. He explains that only when Avraham withstood his nisyonos is he referred to as “Avinu.”

The definition of an av is something that has toldos, meaning the ability to take the next generation further, so that they should grow and thrive. The ability to be an av involves injecting and bringing out the potential and growth of Klal Yisrael. I always say that a person who can’t invest in himself and take himself out of mediocrity can’t do that for his kids. The primary job of parenting is to develop the potential of children, but a person who doesn’t develop his own potential can’t develop the potential of his children. So Avraham Avinu, in order to be an av — “Avinu” — had to overcome the ten nisyonos and become הָאָדָם הַגָּדוֹל בָּעֲנָקִים. Once he brought out his own potential, he was able to bring out the potential of Klal Yisrael.

So Avraham Avinu is all about growth, about bringing out one’s potential, about going further. Lech lecha —constantly moving from place to place and shteiging, without a destination in mind, without a goal, without a measuring rod. And that was Rav Nosson Tzvi: he was always moving, as he said, “That’s me.” We don’t know where we’re going, we don’t know where the end game is, but we’re forging ahead, constantly moving in the direction of Hakadosh Baruch Hu.

Milah And Eretz Yisroel

וכרות עמו הברית.  A brit is referred to as a כרת, a cutting apart.  It seems to be an oxymoron, a brit joins people together?  Chazal connect the milah with inheriting Eretz Yisroel, what's the connection? 

A brit means to join together two parties.  How do two different parties join together? By each party giving something to the other one.  When each one cuts off a piece of themselves and gives it to the other, then they are united.  That is what it means a כריתת ברית, by "cutting" away a piece of one's self and giving it to another party, it creates an inseparable bond .  (This idea it says in the Gra in his perush on Sefer Yetzirah and in the Alter Rebbe in this week's parsha, so coming from both the Litvoks and Chassidim.)

 Avrohom is promised Eretz Yisroel many times in this weeks parsha.  However, the Rogatchover says that all the promises are not alike.  The Rogatchover says that in the beginning of the parsha Avrohom was promised the land as a מתנה.  At the brit bein habisarim, Avrohom was promised the land as a ירושה.  That is why in the beginning of  the parsha it uses a language of אתן\ אתננה but in the brit bein habisarim it says לָ֧תֶת לְךָ֛ אֶת־הָאָ֥רֶץ הַזֹּ֖את לְרִשְׁתָּֽהּ. Now the land is given as a yerusha.  That is why it is only now that Avrohom asks בַּמָּ֥ה אֵדַ֖ע כִּ֥י אִֽירָשֶֽׁנָּה.  He understood that he may receive Eretz Yisroel as a מתנה but he didn't fathom how he could receive it as a ירושה.  

What is the difference between a present and a inheritance?  There is no such thing as a free lunch.  If one receives a present, that means one to some degree did something to deserve it.  An inheritance comes without any effort from the recipient, one receives without doing anything. Avrohom understood that Hashem would promise him Eretz Yisroel as "reward" for his actions but how could it be his as an inheritance?  That was his question.  With this we can understand why the 10 nations are mentioned in this context.  The 7 nations represent the 7 middot that a person can perfect.  The additional 3 are the 3 faculties of חב"ד that are not with a person's grasp.  They have to be given as a yerusha. 

A milah also involves both an aspect of giving from our perspective and a giving from Hashem.  The Rambam rules Laws of Milah (3:8) that one who is מושך ערלתו has nullified the covenant of Avrohom.   Yet at the same time he rules in the Laws of Terumot (7:6) that such a person may eat teruma, meaning he is not considered an ערל.  (See Rogatchover Parshas Bo Ch. 12 and other places pointed to in the Frankel edition.)  We see that a person can nullify there side of the brit, but their is the bris coming from Hashem that can't be nullified by an individual.  This reflects the two aspects of Avrohom's receiving of Eretz Yisroel.  There is the aspect that he "earned" it, his giving to Hashem and then there is also the yerusha aspect where it completely comes from Hashem.  (Largely based off of Likutay Sichos volume 35.)

4 Against 5

The Ramban writes that the battle Avrohom fought with the 4 kings represents that we will survive the 4 stages of exile, עיי"ש.  In this derech remez mode I would like to add בדרך אפשר the following.  As discussed in the past the letter 4 represents division.  5 is the inside of the box, represents the inside of the box, it is the central dot that units all.  The battle of the 4 kings against the 5 kings is the battle of this world seeming separate from Hashem against the the yichud of Hashem that illuminates the world.  The battle represents that ultimately that yichud will become revealed and vanquish the separation that the world seems to be.  The 12 years represent the 12 גבולי אלכסון of the world and the 13 years of rebellion represent the אחד fighting to gain control over the 12 גבולי אלכסון.

Becoming A Person

This post is based upon a shmuz from R' Elephant (of the Mir,) which he said this past Thursday night.  The midrash (Vayikra Rabbah 28:3) says תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא (ויקרא כג, טו): שֶׁבַע שַׁבָּתוֹת תְּמִימֹת תִּהְיֶינָה, אֵימָתַי הֵן תְּמִימוֹת בִּזְמַן שֶׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל עוֹשִׂין רְצוֹנוֹ שֶׁל מָקוֹם.  (As an aside in Likutay Sichos voume 38 sicha Shavout footnote 15 brings other texts in the midrash - בויק"ר הוצאת מרגליות שם, שברוב כת"י במקום "בזמן שישראל עושין רצונו של מקום" איתא "בזמן שאין ישוע ושכני' באות בהן". — אבל מחז"ל ד"בזמן שישראל עושין רצונו של מקום" הובא גם בילקוט המכירי לתהלים מזמור סח (ומסיים "וכן במדרש קהלת"). וראה ביאור מדרש זה ע"ד החסידות באוה"ת להצ"צ אמור (ע' קסז­ח). ועוד.)  We see Chazal already understand the obligation of sefirah to be תמימות isn't just a definition of the count, but is a din in the person counting as well; s/he must be striving to תמימות.  The Midrash in Chayeh Sarah (58:1) says a derush on the possuk in Tehillim (37:18) יוֹדֵ֣עַ י֭״י יְמֵ֣י תְמִימִ֑ם וְ֝נַחֲלָתָ֗ם לְעוֹלָ֥ם תִּהְיֶֽה.  The midrash is bothered the person is a תמים, not the days, what does it mean ימי תמימם?  The midrash  says יודע ד' ימי תמימים ונחלתם לעולם תהיה' כשם שהן תמימים כך שנותם תמימים.  Again Chazal compare תמימים of days to the middah in a person.  What is this middah of תמימים, being תמיד in the avodah of a person?

Hashem tells Avrohom before the bris milah, התהלך לפני והיה תמים, through bris milah he will become תמים.  The word תמים means שְׁלִים (Onklus.)  How is milah a way to achieve שלימות, it doesn't add anything to a person, it removes the ערלה?  The Sfas Emes explains (many maamarim in Lech Lecha in different words,) that inside an individual there lies tremendous potential but there are things that hold a person back from bringing it to fruition.  The act of milah is to remove those shackles (represented by the ערלה,) holding a person back from realizing their potential.  By removing the ערלה one brings out the powers contained within themselves and is therefore called a תמיד.  A similar idea is expressed in the Sfas Emes in likkutim on milah.  The Gemorah Shabbos (130a) connects milah with the possuk שָׂ֣שׂ אָ֭נֹכִי עַל־אִמְרָתֶ֑ךָ כְּ֝מוֹצֵ֗א שָׁלָ֥ל רָֽב.  What's the connection to that possuk (we cited a peshat in the past here.)?  Says the Sfas Emes, milah is how a person brings out the שלל inside himself.  That the middah of תמים, to bring out a person's capability to its fullest.

Sefiras Haomer is the time of advancing from a animal to being human; בהמה לאדם, we go from the korban omer, animal food, to shtei halechem, human food.  What does this mean and why is this the avodah of sefirah and Shavuot?

The Maharal in Tiferes Ch. 3 asks why is a person called אדם because he was made from the ground, everything was made from the ground?  He explains that the essence of a human is to grow.  The entity most similar to that is the ground which brings forth grass, trees, plants etc,; everything grows from earth.  That is the job of a person; to bring forth their potential from under the soil of his/her innards.  An animal on the other hand has no potential; it is born complete; it has no potential for growth.  That is why they are called בהמה, a compound of בה מה, what it is, is right in front of you.  There is nothing under the surface.  [עשו was born עשוי, he wasn't a mentch; he didn't grow.]  The definition of a person is to be a תמים, to constantly grow.

We learn from the Gra that its not a one-time-event that a person is an אדם for they are grow but it is a constant avodah.  In Shir Hashirim 2:1 the Gra says:         

Being human, a אדם, is a פעולה נמשכת, its a constant avodah, a definition that must remain true.  That is why a תלמוד חכם is a talmud chacham, he is always a talmud, always growing, always trying to reach his potential.  אתם קרויים אדם, at mattan torah we are defined as האדם, we reached our defining point.   We went from a nation that was stunted, a bunch of slaves that were not using their capabilities to mattan torah; we received a mission and the capability to become a תלמוד חכם, to constantly shteig.  That is why the avodah of sefirah is תמימות, to work on harvesting the powers which lay within ourselves.

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.

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.    

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?

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.