The Backstabbing Satan

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

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

The Tumah Perspective

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

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

Large Vessels

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

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

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

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

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

Peshat

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

רצה והחליצנו

                                                          The Abudraham on רצה והחליצנו.

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

Salty Solutions

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

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

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

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

Avrohom As Kohan Gadol And Sacrifices Of An Onan

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

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

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

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

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