This week's parsha is called the life of Sarah. This seems quite ironic as the whole parsha takes place after Sarah's death; it would seem more fitting to be named after the passing of Sarah or something of that ilk? There is a major difference between Avrohom and Sarah. Avrohom is called av hamon goyim, he has a connection to the entire world. Avrohom spread the word of God to the entire world. Sarah on the other hand, limited her haspah to kedusha, to Yitzchak, who would be the heir to develop Klal Yisroel. That's why it was Sarah who wanted to drive out Yishmoel as opposed to Avrohom who wanted to keep him. All the events of this week's parsha reflect the teaching of Sarah that everything must be for the sake of kedusha, for Klal Yisroel.
When it came to buying the maares hamachpaleh, Avrohom tells the people occupying the land that he would either buy it or take it because the land is rightfully his. This event was an example that the Eretz Yisroel was put in the hands of the gentiles only if they will give it over to Klal Yisroel. If they aren't fulfilling their mission then it will be taken away from them. The obvious connection is the marriage of Yitzchak to continue the building of Klal Yisroel. But even in the whole episode of the conversation with Eliezer this point is made in dramatic fashion as Besuel is struck dead for objecting to the marriage. This is also reflected in the end of the parsha, where Yishmoel comes around and acknowledges that Yitzchak is the main son of Avrohom. It is a person's goals and aspirations coming to fruition that define their lives (based upon Likutay Sichos volume 15.)
We should live in a manner which will make the 11 people killed in the Pittsburgh massacre this past Shabbos 'living' a chayeh Sarah, to live 'being Jewish' just as they were killed just for being Jewish .
Thursday, November 1, 2018
When Sod Is Peshat
The end of the parsha is quite cryptic. The whole episode of Avrohom marring Keturah and the children they had. Who is she, why did Avrohom marry her, why do we need to know about them, why did Avrohom give them an inheritance of a shem tumah? All of these questions are difficult and have been addresed from Chazal downward but it still is very difficult. The Gemorah says (Zevachim 62b) that the nephews of Rav Tarfon were sitting with him and no one was saying anything. So he said ויוסף אברהם ויקח אשה ושמה יוחני. They said the possuk doesn't say יוחני, it says קטורה, so Rav Tarfon called them bnei keturah (Rashi explains that they don't know how to learn.) Obviously, this Gemorah needs explanation, why did Rav Tarfon read the possuk wrong, why was that a way of expressing the ignorance of those around him? Rav Schwab quotes Morenu Rav Yaakov Rosenheim (see here) in the name of a gadol that we understand the nigleh of Torah via the three lower dimensions of the neshama which are nefesh, ruach and neshama. Similarly the depths of Torah, the nistar, can be understood (by those that know) via three dimensions and they are chayeh, yechidah and nefesh yeserah. He said that this parsha can only be understood in the light of pnemious hatorah. That is what Rav Tarfon was saying, יוחני stands for yechedah, v'chayeh, nefesh yeserah. Rav Tarfon thought maybe his nephew's weren't discussing halacha or briskor lomdus because they were kabbalists and were quietly pondering their kabbalistic thoughts. Therefore, Rav Tarfon was hinting to them the process of understanding the depths of Torah so they can discuss those thoughts instead of just thinking. However, they didn't get the hint and Rav Tarfon derived they were just ameh ha'aretz. Rav Shwab seems to be acknowledging there are aspects of Torah that could only be understood based upon pnemious hatorah, which is an opinion the Lubavatcher Rebbe advanced as well. I am just surprised that a yeki would say the same thing.
A simple lesson from the whole episode is reflective of what this blog says here that even as Avrohom grew older he was still active and sought to raise more children.
A simple lesson from the whole episode is reflective of what this blog says here that even as Avrohom grew older he was still active and sought to raise more children.
To Live Life
The possuk (24:1) says ואברהם זקן בא בימים. The midrash and commentators are bothered that it was already stated in last week's parsha that Avrohom was old, so why the repetition now? The Rebbe (Likutay Sichos volume 35) explains that the additional chiddush here is in the words bah bayamim. What does it mean bah bayamim? (See Ramban and Even Ezra and the Sicha inside for why Rashi must have learnt differently.) The Rebbe explains that literally it means to come into the days like bah el habayis, means to enter the house. It means that the person put all his/her capabilities and strength into every day of their life. Every day was a new experience that left a lasting imprint on the person. Generally, as a person grows older they become agnostic to their surroundings, they don't care about what happens around them. They life days of emptiness. As they retire, they in essence retire from living meaningful life. The possuk is stressing that Avrohom even as he grew older and older didn't just let time pass, he lived life to its fullest and every day left its mark. Just as this was true in the daily activities of life, so too in terms of spirituality Avrohom used every minute to its fullest as the Zohar says on this possuk. According to Rav Hirsch that is part of the meaning of chayeh sarah, all her years were full of life, each moment was meaningful and precious.
The following paragraph is from The Jewish Times vol.9 no.6 -April 24, 2015, a recording of Rav Menachem Genack's memories of Rav Aharon Lichtenstein. "I remember in
the summer of 1967, Rav Aharon, who was
already a Rosh Kollel, playing a game of
full-court basketball with other students of
the Rav in Onset, Massachusetts. At one
point in the game, Rav Aharon turned to me
and said, “It is not ethical to play just offense
and not defense.” Although his comment
was tongue-in-cheek, it reflected his
forethought and seriousness with which he
undertook his every action" (from http://www.mesora.org/jewishtimes477.pdf.) This is an example of someone who was bah bayamim. Everything he did, he put in 100%
Getting older shouldn't be an excuse for not doing things properly. Just because a person is not in yeshiva as he was in his youth doesn't mean that he's too old to daven or learn with the same intensity as he used too, truncated because of lack of time, yes, to not live with the same intensity, no. This isn't just a lesson for those that are growing older in years, it is a lesson for everyone. Too often as we run through our daily lives with all its "bustling activity" we are just walking through life, not 'living life'.
Getting older shouldn't be an excuse for not doing things properly. Just because a person is not in yeshiva as he was in his youth doesn't mean that he's too old to daven or learn with the same intensity as he used too, truncated because of lack of time, yes, to not live with the same intensity, no. This isn't just a lesson for those that are growing older in years, it is a lesson for everyone. Too often as we run through our daily lives with all its "bustling activity" we are just walking through life, not 'living life'.
Wednesday, October 31, 2018
The Power Of An Oath
Why did Avrohom need to make Eliezer take an oath to take a
proper wife for Yitzchak if he was a faithful servant? The answer is that an oath is not just away
to guarantee the faithfulness of the person but gives the person the power to
fulfill his mission. The shevua is what brings to the front the hidden power of the neshamah and its connection to Hashem. The language of shevua
-oath is related to the word savah-satiated because it fills the
person with the power to complete his mission.
That is why
Avrohom made Eliezer take a shevua; he was giving him the power to overcome all
obstacles that might stand before him. Avrohom sensed the internal struggle that
Eliezer had to go find a wife for Yitzchak and pass over his own daughter. Therefore, Avrohom gave him the strength to
overcome his personal interest in the mission being unsuccessful. See the Or
Hachaim that when Avrohom made him swear he wouldn’t take a wife from Canaan
the intent was at Eliezer. That is why the neshamah is given an oath before it comes into the world to be a tzaddik and not a rasha (Niddah 30b) so that it has the power to overcome all the challenges of this world.(Based upon Likutay
Sichos volume 1.)
The Midrash says that Eliezer for being a faithful servant
left the category of the cursed Canaan and became blessed. The Sfas Emes says that this is a lesson for
every person. We are servants of Hashem
and if we fulfill our mission we become in the category of the blessed. The Sfas Emes says that this happens specifically
on Shabbos. The midrash says that the
face of Eliezer mirrored that of Avrohom.
The bracha of Avrohom became recognizable on Eliezer’s face. So too on Shabbos our faces change as the
bracha shines through. (Sifsai Tzaddik.)
By overcoming the challenges hurled our way through the power of the shevua
administered to us we can awaken the hidden connection that we have to
Hashem and become barach.
Who Is The Proper One
If I would ask you who would seem a better candidate as a shidduch, one who serves avodah zarah, eats nevalos v'trefos etc. but has exemplary middos or one who follows every letter in the Code of Jewish Law but has terrible middos, whom would you choose? Avrohom made Eliezer swear that he would not under any circumstances take a wife for his son from the people of Cn'aan, only from his own family. What did Avrohom find that his family had over everyone else, they seemed just as bad? Did Avrohom just want to keep the wealth in the family😊? The Derashos Haran Derush 5 explains that good middos are hereditary. Since Avrohom had good middos it must be that such a gene ran in the family. On the other, hand averos aren't hereditary, they are a person's choice and will not have any impact on the children. So Avrohom wasn't worried about the averos, he was worried about the lack of middos. The Ran understands averos can be changed, middos cannot. I'm not sure scientifically what the Ran means, it is quite a chiddush. However, it does seem in the aforementioned question the Ran would choose the averyon over the one with the bad middos (though admittedly I might be exaggerating things.)
Anyway, we glean from this Ran the importance of good middos. Based upon this we can maybe understand a little bit the famous midrash that comments on how the story of Eliezer is repeated in great detail in the Torah and every word he said is recorded as opposed to many laws which are merely hinted to in the Bible, yafeh sichasan shel avdeh avos yoser m'torasen shel banim. What is the greatness of the sichasan shel avdeh avos? Rav Lessen explains that Eliezer was the chozer of the Torah of Avrohom and had aspirations for Yitzchak to marry his daughter. How disappointing must it have been for him for his wish not to be fulfilled. If I was in his situation I might do the mission Avrohom sent me on, but it would be with a heavy heart and done as fast as possible without much care for the results. The Torah understood that Eliezer did his mission wholeheartedly and therefore recants every detail in order to show us how a person has this ability to perfect his middos to do conquer his/her desires to do the will of God. It is the sicha of perfected character traits that is yafeh more than the Torah of the banim.
לבי אומר לי that the explanation of the midrash is the sicha shel avdeh avos is the later generations discussing the learning, middos and actions of the previous generations. This may be apikorses, but a person might know all four volumes of the Shulchan Aruch inside and out, he has torasen shel banim. However, if this person has no understanding of how the previous generations acted and paskined then he won't be able to come out with the proper hanhagah. That is why these days there are many seforim that write halachos but can't seem to come to a proper conclusion, the authors have torah, but are lacking the sicha of avseh avos. This is why Chassidim take time to gather together (whether they call it a zits, sheves achim, farbrengen) to tell over stories of the previous generations to learn from the avos how the avdeh avos should act. It is a sicha shel avdeh avos that compliments and sustains the torasen shel banim.
Anyway, we glean from this Ran the importance of good middos. Based upon this we can maybe understand a little bit the famous midrash that comments on how the story of Eliezer is repeated in great detail in the Torah and every word he said is recorded as opposed to many laws which are merely hinted to in the Bible, yafeh sichasan shel avdeh avos yoser m'torasen shel banim. What is the greatness of the sichasan shel avdeh avos? Rav Lessen explains that Eliezer was the chozer of the Torah of Avrohom and had aspirations for Yitzchak to marry his daughter. How disappointing must it have been for him for his wish not to be fulfilled. If I was in his situation I might do the mission Avrohom sent me on, but it would be with a heavy heart and done as fast as possible without much care for the results. The Torah understood that Eliezer did his mission wholeheartedly and therefore recants every detail in order to show us how a person has this ability to perfect his middos to do conquer his/her desires to do the will of God. It is the sicha of perfected character traits that is yafeh more than the Torah of the banim.
לבי אומר לי that the explanation of the midrash is the sicha shel avdeh avos is the later generations discussing the learning, middos and actions of the previous generations. This may be apikorses, but a person might know all four volumes of the Shulchan Aruch inside and out, he has torasen shel banim. However, if this person has no understanding of how the previous generations acted and paskined then he won't be able to come out with the proper hanhagah. That is why these days there are many seforim that write halachos but can't seem to come to a proper conclusion, the authors have torah, but are lacking the sicha of avseh avos. This is why Chassidim take time to gather together (whether they call it a zits, sheves achim, farbrengen) to tell over stories of the previous generations to learn from the avos how the avdeh avos should act. It is a sicha shel avdeh avos that compliments and sustains the torasen shel banim.
The Oath
The Gemorah Shevous (38b) derives from the fact that Avrohom made Eliezer take his oath while grabbing onto the milah that one must hold onto an object of a mitzvah when he takes an oath administered by beis din. Tosfos asks why don't we learn from the oath of Eliezer that every oath requires one to hold an object of a mitzvah? The Rosh suggests an answer that the limud from Eliezer is just an asmoctah, the din is only rabbinic to scare a person. The Ramban says this same idea even assuming the din is a Torah requirement. See Torah Temimah for a different approach. Interesting as well to note his challenge on the Rosh that what basis does he have to say the derash is merely an asmochtah. It would seem since Tosfos didn't give this answer that he holds the grasping of a mitzvah object isn't to scare the person, its a chomer in the oath. An oath that is taken while holding an object of a mitzvah is more chomor than an oath taken without holding a mitzvah object.
The Gemorah says that the oath should be administered with a sefer torah but for a talmud chacham its enough for him to swear holding tefillin. Why is a talmud chacham different? If the reason of holding a mitzvah object is to scare the one swearing, its understandable for the talmud chacham understands the severity even when just holding tefillin. It could be even Tosfos agrees that which object is held is measured by what will scare the person. The basic idea of holding a mitzvah object is to make the oath more stringent, but the exact object is decided by "scare points." See Tosfos as to how we derive a sefer torah if Eliezer was holding milah, ועדיין צ"ע.
The Gemorah says that is the oath is administered without the plaintiff holding a object of mitzvah that it is considered making a mistake about something that is in a mishna. According to Tosfos the din is understandable for the oath wasn't a good oath in this scenario. However, according to the Rosh why should the oath not be good, he took a proper oath? The Rishonim say that we also light candles and blow them out to scare the plaintiff, if those are lacking we don't have to redo the oath? The Meiri that answers this question that we are afraid the person feels without holding an object of mitzvah the oath is only rabbinic and that he is willing to violate, therefore we make him redo it where he knows its a Torah oath to see if he will retract.
The Gemorah says that the oath should be administered with a sefer torah but for a talmud chacham its enough for him to swear holding tefillin. Why is a talmud chacham different? If the reason of holding a mitzvah object is to scare the one swearing, its understandable for the talmud chacham understands the severity even when just holding tefillin. It could be even Tosfos agrees that which object is held is measured by what will scare the person. The basic idea of holding a mitzvah object is to make the oath more stringent, but the exact object is decided by "scare points." See Tosfos as to how we derive a sefer torah if Eliezer was holding milah, ועדיין צ"ע.
The Gemorah says that is the oath is administered without the plaintiff holding a object of mitzvah that it is considered making a mistake about something that is in a mishna. According to Tosfos the din is understandable for the oath wasn't a good oath in this scenario. However, according to the Rosh why should the oath not be good, he took a proper oath? The Rishonim say that we also light candles and blow them out to scare the plaintiff, if those are lacking we don't have to redo the oath? The Meiri that answers this question that we are afraid the person feels without holding an object of mitzvah the oath is only rabbinic and that he is willing to violate, therefore we make him redo it where he knows its a Torah oath to see if he will retract.
How To Mourn
An interesting phenomenon I noticed when my grandmother passed away. Many of my relatives (but not all) didn't want to weep in public. Only when no one was around did they let their emotions out.
Chazal point out the strange terminology around Sarah's death. The possuk (23:2) says vayavo Avrohom, Avrohom came, where was he when Sarah died? Did he leave Sarah to die alone? Chazal explain that Sarah died when she heard the news of the akedah and that's where Avrohom was coming from. Rav Hirsch has a different take. He says that the word bo means to "betake oneself out of the open into the house." Thus the possuk means that Avrohom shut himself apart from everyone slse to weep and mourn for Sarah. He suggests that's possibly why there is a small caf in libcoseh, to indicate that the emotions expressed outwardly were in a small measure. It seems that Rav Hirsch understands that it is best to not be to outwardly emotional over obe's loss of a relative, even as such a great life partner as Sarah was to Avrohom. It is unclear to me why Rav Hirsch held of this approach. Possibly its just a yeki thing, that one should not show any emotions. I was thinking of a different explanation. If one lets all their emotions out in public then s/he has no time to absorb the meaning of the loss into themselves.
Chazal point out the strange terminology around Sarah's death. The possuk (23:2) says vayavo Avrohom, Avrohom came, where was he when Sarah died? Did he leave Sarah to die alone? Chazal explain that Sarah died when she heard the news of the akedah and that's where Avrohom was coming from. Rav Hirsch has a different take. He says that the word bo means to "betake oneself out of the open into the house." Thus the possuk means that Avrohom shut himself apart from everyone slse to weep and mourn for Sarah. He suggests that's possibly why there is a small caf in libcoseh, to indicate that the emotions expressed outwardly were in a small measure. It seems that Rav Hirsch understands that it is best to not be to outwardly emotional over obe's loss of a relative, even as such a great life partner as Sarah was to Avrohom. It is unclear to me why Rav Hirsch held of this approach. Possibly its just a yeki thing, that one should not show any emotions. I was thinking of a different explanation. If one lets all their emotions out in public then s/he has no time to absorb the meaning of the loss into themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)