פ’ תולדות תשע”ט

Volume 26, Issue 6

INSIGHTS from the SEDRA

Insights from the Sedra is a project of the Scholar’s Kollel of Great Neck. It aims to provide several questions and answers about the Sedra, culled from various commentaries, including the following: Baal Haturim, Darash Moshe, Vedebarta Bam by Rabbi Moshe Bogomilsky, Torah Treasures by Dov Furer, Wellsprings of Torah by Alexander Friedman, and Kol Dodi by Rabbi Dovid Feinstein, Great Torah Lights by Rabbi Yitzchak Meir Goodman, Something To Say by Dov Wasserman, The Vilna Gaon, Growth Through Torah by Zelig Pliskin and The Call of the Torah.

ויעקב איש תם ישב אהלים

“Yaakov was a straight person who sat in tents.” (25:27)

Rashi defines the word tam as a person who is not skilled in deceiving others. As is his heart so are his words. Yaakov was not called a tam, but an ish tam. That is, he was a master over the trait of being a tam. He was totally honest, a man of great integrity. But in those situations when it was appropriate to use cunning strategy to accomplish something, he was able to do so.

This, said the Rebbe from Lublin, is the way we should be with all traits. A person needs to be the master over all of his traits. Even the most negative traits have situations when they are appropriate. As the Sages say, “Whoever is compassionate when he should be cruel will eventually be cruel when he should be compassionate.” If a person fails to apply so-called negative traits in their proper times, he will end up applying them when it is wrong to do so.   (Maayanah Shel Torah)

האדם האדם הזה

“That very red stuff…” (25:30)

These were red lentils that his father was supposed to have for the first mourner’s meal after Avraham’s death (see Rashi). Rashi also explains the connection between a plate of lentils and mourning. Adam and Chava ate lentils after Havel’s was murdered, as did Haran’s parents after Haran died in the fiery furnace (Midrash).

The mourner’s meal which Yaakov prepared occasioned a lively ideological discussion between the brothers, during which Eisav categorically denied belief in the immorality of the soul, in the resurrection of the dead, and ultimately, in the existence of G-d. Yaakov then asked him, “Since you claim that there is neither a future world nor reward in the hearafter, why do you value the birthright which calls for serving G-d?” So began the bargaining over the birthright. Yaakov had long suspected his brother of not caring about it and he was waiting for an opportunity to put him to the test. This opportunity came spontaneously on the day that their grandfather died.                                                                                                                                                                              (The Call of the Torah)

וירא אליו ה’ ויאמר אל תרד מצרימה שכן בארץ אשר אמר אליך

“And G-d appeared to him, and He said, ‘Do not go down to Egypt. Reside in the land of which I shall tell you…” (26:2)

Rashi explains that Yitzchak had intended to go down to Egypt just as his father had done during the famine that took place in his time. G-d told him, “Do not go down to Egypt. You are an unblemished offering, and it would be inappropriate for you to leave the Holy Land.” The Chiddushei HaRim asks why is it so. An offering is only restricted from leaving the sanctified domains after it has been slaughtered and its blood has been sprinkled on the altar. Only then does it receive the special consecration that restricts it to the sanctified domains. Therefore, since Yitzchak was not actually slaughtered, why was he restricted in his movements?

The Chiddushei HaRim explains according to the words of Rashi (22:12) that G-d had never intended for Avraham to slaughter Yitzchak. His command had been “to bring Yitzchak up” on the altar. If so, once Yitzchak was brought up on the altar – as indeed he was – his sacrificial service was completed and he was thenceforth restricted to the sanctified domains of the Holy Land.                                                                                                                                                                                                     (Parsha Anthology)

ויהי כי זקן יצחק

“And it came to pass when Yitzchak had become old…” (27:1)

The term zaken is an acronym for zeh kanah – this one has acquired (wisdom). Our verse, which states, “And it came to pass, when Yitzchak zaken (had become old),” therefore teaches us that he was a wise elder who studies in Yeshiva (Yoma 28b).                                      (The Call of the Torah)

Rav Yisrael Meir HaKohen Kagan tz”l (Chafetz Chaim) would say: “Avimelech forcefully sent Yitzchak away with an admonishment: ‘Go away from us for you have become much too strong for us!’ (26:16). Here, the Torah reveals the true underlying motive for anti-Semitism throughout the ages. It is not sparked by envy of Jewish wealth and possessions, but by jealousy of Jewish spiritual values. The gentiles realize that we are ‘too strong for them’ – our spiritual power is what makes us greater than any other nation!”

The Dubno Maggid, Rav Yaakov Krantz zt”l (Ohel Yaakov) would say: “There are those Jews who excel in the category of ‘voice of Yaakov.’ They daven and learn Torah exceedingly well. But when it comes to matters of the ‘hands’ – giving tzedakah, helping others in the community – they have sadly, ‘the hands of Eisav.’

Rav Yeshayah HaLevi Horowitz zt”l (Shelah HaKodesh) would say: “Of all the superior character traits possessed by our ancestor Yaakov, the Torah chooses ‘an honest man’ as the highest praise, to teach us that nothing is more worthy of our respect and admiration than a life lived with honesty and righteousness.                                                                                                      (Torah Tavlin)

The Divrei Torah sheet this week is sponsored by Debbi and Marc Geller and Nusie and Gitty Rosenberg in honor of their granddaughter, Jordyn Rosenberg’s Bat Mitzvah.  For future sponsorship opportunities or to receive this publication, please call Steve Zuckerman at 516 652 5266 or email zkster@aol.com or Rabbi Lichter at ilichter@gns.org. Sponsorships in memory of or in honor of someone are $50.00 per issue.

פ’ חיי שרה תשע”ט

Volume 26, Issue 5

INSIGHTS from the SEDRA

Insights from the Sedra is a project of the Scholar’s Kollel of Great Neck. It aims to provide several questions and answers about the Sedra, culled from various commentaries, including the following: Baal Haturim, Darash Moshe, Vedebarta Bam by Rabbi Moshe Bogomilsky, Torah Treasures by Dov Furer, Wellsprings of Torah by Alexander Friedman, and Kol Dodi by Rabbi Dovid Feinstein, Great Torah Lights by Rabbi Yitzchak Meir Goodman, Something To Say by Dov Wasserman, The Vilna Gaon, and  Growth Through Torah by Zelig Pliskin.

ויבא אברהם לספד לשרה ולבכתה

“Avraham came to eulogize and weep for her…” (23:2)

QUESTION: Why is the word “ולבכתה” – “and weep for her” written with a small “כ”?

ANSWER: Avraham in addition to having a son, Yitzchak, also had a daughter named “Bakol” (Bava Batra 16b). When Avraham went with Yitzchak to Mount Moriah, she remained home with her mother. When Sarah died upon hearing about Yitzchak and the Akeidah, her daughter, Bakol also died.

The word “ולבכתה” hints to the above. Without the “כ” it is “ולבתה” (and for her daughter) and with the “כ” it is “ולבכתבה” which means to “cry over her.” Avraham did both: He wept for Sarah and also for her daughter who died at the same time.                                                     (Zichron Yisrael)

ויקם שדה עפרון…לאברהם למקנה

“And Ehpron’s field…was confirmed as Avraham’s as a purchase…” (23:17-18)

The last verses of the chapter contain nothing other than an exact description of the location of the cave of Machpelah and a reminder that Avraham and his offspring would have perpetual title to it. The same insistence and the same wealth of detail recur at the end of Bereishit when Yaakov gives his children final instructions for his burial in the Holy Land (49:29-32).

There are three places, say our Sages, where the peoples of the world cannot contest our title to property. These are the cave of Machpelah, the Temple site, and Yosef’s tomb – the first in view of the precise particulars given and repeated here, the second by virtue of the purchase contract made by Dovid mentioned explicitly in Divrei Hayamim I (21:24-25), and the third because of the legal acquisition reported by the Torah: “He bought the parcel of land upon which he pitched his tent from the children of Hamor, Shechem’s father, for one hundred kesitahs (Bereishit 33:19). This place was called Shechem, and here Yosef was buried, as Rashi points out (48:22).

However, no matter what precautions the most eminent Biblical figures took in anticipation of the future vicissitudes of history, no other holy places gave rise to as many conflicts, disputes, and court cases as these three places. Jewry’s destiny would have it that for long centuries these sites would be in foreign and enemy hands. Even today, these three sites remain under Arab authority, though nominally in Jewish hands.                                                                         (The Call of the Torah)

 

ויאמר לא אכל עד אם דברתי דברי ויאמר אנכי

“But he said I will not eat until I have spoken my piece. And he said, ‘Speak.’” (24:33)

An obvious question is: Why did Eliezer refuse to eat the food Rivkah’s parents offered before explaining the purpose of his trip?

There is a custom among Jews for a man to send gifts to his betrothed. If subsequently they do not marry, the presents are returned. However, she does not have to return the gifts if the man ate in her house (Rama, Even HaEzer 50:3).

Upon meeting Rivkah, Eliezer was so confident that she was the one destined to be Yitzchak’s wife that in his role as Yitzchak’s agent he gave her the betrothal gifts immediately (24:22). However, he now had second thoughts, and was concerned that Rivkah’s parents might not agree to the match. Should that happen, and he had eaten in their home, then he would not be able to retrieve the gifts. Therefore, he declined to eat until he first informed them of the purpose of his journey and was assured by Rivkah and her parents that she would marry Yitzchak.     (Pardes Yosef)

ויתן אברהם את כל אשר לו ליצחק

“Avraham gave all that he had to Yitzchak.” (25:5)

One time, the descendants of Yishmael and the descendants of Keturah came to make a claim against the Jews before Alexander the Great of Macedon. They argued that the Land of Canaan should belong to all the descendants of Avraham, not only to the Jews. They pointed out that just as the Jews are described by the Torah as being the children of Avraham, it also refers to Yishmael as the son of Avraham. Geviha ben Pesisa, an ordinary Jew, disproved their claim. “The very Torah that you are quoting says: Avraham gave all that he had to Yitzchak. But to the concubine-children who were Avraham’s, Avraham gave gifts; then he sent them away from Yitzchak his son, while he was still alive. Avraham gave Yishmael and the sons of Keturah only ‘presents,’ and everything else to Yitzchak. It is obvious, then, that Yishmael and Keturah have no share in Eretz Yisrael.”                                                                                                                              (Sanhedrin 91a)

מערת המכפלה

“A double cave…” (25:9)

Rav and Shmuel disagreed about how this cave was arranged. One said that it was made up of two rooms: an inner room and an outer room. The other said that it was made up of two levels, one on top of the other. According to the one who said it had two levels, then it is clear as to why it was called the Cave of Machpelah, because machpelah means double, and it had a double ceiling, one for each level. But if it was simply an inner and outer room, in what way was it “doubled”? It was called “doubled” because of the many couples that were buried there: Adam and Chava, Avraham and Sarah, Yitzchak and Rivkah, and Yaakov and Leah.                                                 (Eruvin 53a)

The Divrei Torah sheet this week is sponsored by Nadine & Josh Shatzkes in honor of their daughter Simone’s Bat Mitzvah.  For future sponsorship opportunities or to receive this publication, please call Steve Zuckerman at 516 652 5266 or email zkster@aol.com or Rabbi Lichter at ilichter@gns.org. Sponsorships in memory of or in honor of someone are $50.00 per issue.

פ’ וירא תשע”ט

Volume 26, Issue 4

INSIGHTS from the SEDRA

Insights from the Sedra is a project of the Scholar’s Kollel of Great Neck. It aims to provide several questions and answers about the Sedra, culled from various commentaries, including the following: Baal Haturim, Darash Moshe, Vedebarta Bam by Rabbi Moshe Bogomilsky, Torah Treasures by Dov Furer, Wellsprings of Torah by Alexander Friedman, and Kol Dodi by Rabbi Dovid Feinstein, Great Torah Lights by Rabbi Yitzchak Meir Goodman, Something To Say by Dov Wasserman, The Vilna Gaon, and  Growth Through Torah by Zelig Pliskin.

Introduction

With the successful conclusion of Avraham’s final test of faith, we note the following wonderful thought of R’ Meir Shapiro of Lublin: In “Bameh Madlikin”, the chapters of mishnayot recited on Friday night, the seventh mishnah states: “Three things must one say in his house on erev Shabbos before dark: ‘Have you tithed? Have you constructed an eruv? Light the candle.’” These three things encapsulate Jewish life: A Jew must separate the holy – such as tithes – from the profane in order to remain distinct, as part of G-d’s chosen people. Yet, he must also make an “eruv” (literally, a combination), concerning himself with the world around him, for he cannot influence and improve that world by locking it out. But how is he to know when, where, and how to synthesize these two contradictory ideas? By “lighting the candle:” The light of Torah will illuminate the proper balance between separation and synthesis.

Avraham embodied all three of these ideals: His recognition of distinctions was the very basis of his separation from Lot (13:9); his prayer for Sodom: “Will you destroy the righteous with the wicked?” (18:23); and his expulsion of Yishmael (21:14), lest he subvert Yitzchak. In fact, Ra’avad claims that Avraham invented tithing (Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Melachim 9:1)!

Yet, He also befriended everyone, fed all passersby, and spread G-d’s word throughout the land. He even made treaties with his neighbors, who called him “prince of G-d” (23:5). How did Avraham juggle these opposite modalities? His life was suffused with the light of morality and the spirit of G-d. With every test he passed, that light shone more brightly. And with his greatest trial, Akeidat Yitzchak, came the promise that his descendants would shine like the stars in the heavens. May the brief mishnaic formula of “Isartem, eravtem, hadliku es a haner” always remind us all of what we must strive for as Jews.                                                                                                            (Aharon Surski)

ואנכי עפר ואפר

“But I am but dust and ashes…” (18:27)

Why does Avraham compare himself to dust and ashes? Dust has no past of note, but it can produce fine crops in the future. In contrast, ashes have no future but they are frequently remnants of a great and mighty past. Thus, Avraham humbly states, “I am nothing – no past, like dust, and no future, like ashes.” G-d rewards this humility with two great mitzvot: the ashes of the para adumah (red heifer) and the dust use din the trial of the sotah (suspected adulteress) (Sotah 17a). For while ordinary ashes have no future, those of the para adumah offer a pure future to anyone who has become impure. And while dust usually has no past, the dust of the sotah restores the peace and serenity that filled the home of the accused in the past, before she became suspect.      (Beis HaLevi)

ויתמהמה

“But he tarried…” (19:16)

The musical note over this verb is a shalshelet, a long, drawn-out sound that rises and falls three times lingering or stalling. Obviously, it fits perfectly in our text. Its only other appearances in Bereishit are when Avraham’s servant is about to begin the search for Yitzchak’s bride (24:12), and when Yosef rebuffs the advances of Potiphar’s wife (39:8). I believe all three of these incidents are worthy of a shalshelet (lit. chain) because in each instance, the very chain of Jewish survival is at stake. Lot may wish to linger because of his doubts, but G-d’s will demands that he be saved, not because of his righteousness but because he is destined to father Moav, the ancient ancestor of Dovid HaMelech, an indispensable link in the Jewish chain! So too, Eliezer forges another vital link by joining Rivkah and Yitzchak. And had Potiphar’s wife corrupted Yosef, she would have changed the course of Jewish history.

Another shalshelet accompanies the slaughter of the ram that consecrates Aharon and his sons as kohanim (Vayikra 8:23), for there, too, the chain of the priesthood is forged forever.                                                                                                                                                                                               (Likutei Yehoshu)

ויאמר אברהם אנכי אשבע

“And Avraham said, ‘I will swear…’” (21:24)

QUESTION: The word “ishavei’ah” means “I will swear.” Why the superfluous word “anochi” – “I”?

ANSWER: Avraham’s mission in life was to make the world aware of the existence of Hashem. The first of the Ten Commandments, the one in which Hashem declares His Supremacy, starts with the word “Anochi” – “I”. During his negotiations with Avimelech, Avraham said, “I am ready to swear and will swear in the name of Anochi – the one and only G-d.       Avimelech responded to Avraham’s rebuke, “V’gam Anochi Lo Shama’ati Bilti HaYom” – “I did not hear about it until this day either.” Here, too, the word “anochi” is extra? It can be explained that Avimelech was saying that the concept of “anochi” intrigued him. With amazement he said to Avraham, “I must confess that until this day I never heard of the philosophy of “anochi”. Thank you for enhancing my knowledge.”                                                                                                                                                     (Vedebarta Bam)

ויטע אשל בבאר שבע

“And he planted a tamarisk tree in Be’er Sheva…” (21:33)

אשל, tamarisk tree, is the acronym formed of the first letters of אכילה, eating, שתיה, drinking, and לינה, lodging. By planting an אשל, Avraham may have wished to hint at his intention to repair the damage brought about by Adam through eating, by Noach through drinking, and by Lot, amongst the people of Sodom, through lodging.                                                                                   (Vilna Gaon)

 

 For future sponsorship opportunities or to receive this publication, please call Steve Zuckerman at 516 652 5266 or email zkster@aol.com or Rabbi Lichter at ilichter@gns.org. Sponsorships in memory of or in honor of someone are $50.00 per issue.