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: