וַיֵּצֵ֥א יִצְחָ֛ק לָשׂ֥וּחַ בַּשָּׂדֶ֖ה לִפְנ֣וֹת עָ֑רֶב
Rivka's neshoma was trapped in the home of Lavan and Besuel -- the tov was mixed in with the ra, as is the nature of things in this world after the cheit of Adam. Yitzchak went out to daven לִפְנ֣וֹת עָ֑רֶב, to ask Hashem to remove a little bit of the תערובת of this world so that the good could come out.
According to some Rishonim it was not the akeidah which was the final, greatest test of Avraham Avinu; it was the challenge of buying Me'aras haMachpeila. Had you asked me, I would have said that after the akeidah, buying Me'aras haMachpeila almost seems like an afterthought. That gufa may be the hesber of why it was the most challenging test. Imagine a person who is rushed to the hospital with life threatening pain in his chest. After a few hours in the emergency room, the doctor comes in and says, "I have some good new and some bad news. The good news is that your heart is OK, no problem found. The bad news is there is a hangnail that we need to take care of before you are discharged to go home." The person would probably be thinking, "What are you bothering me with nonsense for?" Here too, after the akeidah, Avraham might have just wanted to push aside the bother of the whole back and forth with Efron and not deal with it. Had Avraham been a lesser person, he would have no doubt lost patience. He could have argued to Hashem, "I've already proven myself -- what do you want with me already? Why bother me with these little things now?" But Avraham didn't do that. He accepted the small challenges in stride, as trivial and as nonsensical as they might have seemed in light of what he had just been through.
The gemara (BM 87) contrasts the behavior of Avraham in welcoming guests with the behavior of Efron:
כתיב ואקחה פת לחם וכתיב ואל הבקר רץ אברהם אמר רבי אלעזר מכאן שצדיקים אומרים מעט ועושים הרבה רשעים אומרים הרבה ואפילו מעט אינם עושים מנלן מעפרון מעיקרא כתיב ארץ ארבע מאות שקל כסף ולבסוף כתיב וישמע אברהם אל עפרון וישקל אברהם לעפרון את הכסף אשר דבר באזני בני חת ארבע מאות שקל כסף עובר לסוחר דלא שקל מיניה אלא קנטרי דאיכא דוכתא דקרי ליה לתיקלא קנטירא
Avraham offered only a simple meal of bread, but overdelivered and brought out a whole fleishig seudah. Efron originally offered to give Avraham the Me'aras haMachpeilah for free, but in the end he charged full price paid only in top currency.
Chazal in Pirkei Avos (1:16) teach us this same lesson: אמור מעט ועשׂה הרבּה.
What is this idea of speaking less and doing more? If the idea is that a person should not promise too much lest he break his word, then we already have halachos that tell us that a person should keep his word. There is the idea of הין צדק; there is the idea of מי שׁפּרע that once you give your word to an agreement you should keep it even if the transaction is technically not yet binding.
Furthermore, it would seem that Avraham's behavior is a poor proof to this idea. Perhaps Avraham offered only a small meal because he was afraid that if he offered too much, the guests would shy away so as to not bother him. Maharasha comments on that gemara that this is exactly what was going through Avraham's mind: והטעם מפני שלפעמים ימנע האורח מלהכנס והמקבל מלקבל כדי שלא ירבה לטרוח את המקבל והנותן. It's not a general סיג to prevent a person from failing to keep his word, but a limited din by hachnasas orchim. So how do we get from here to a general principle?
In the Shiurei Daas R' Bloch (this shiur was written over by by wife's grandfather R" Dov Yehuda Schochet) sees the idea here as not just about keeping or failing to keep one's word, but the relationship between speech and action is a siman as to a person's attitude. The tzadik is all too aware of both the difficulties and obstacles that the yetzer and life can throw in his way and of the limits of his own abilities. Therefore, he is wont to promise too much. Once the tzadik gets going, however, he manages to find within the strength to overachieve. The rasha, in contrast, consistently underestimates the difficulties that stand in his way and he overestimates his own ability. He therefore feels free to promise the world, thinking it will be easy to deliver, only to have his efforts end in failure and frustration.
The gemara in Sukkah (52a) describes the reaction of the tzadikim and reshaim to the future destruction of the yetzer ha'ra:
כִּדְדָרֵשׁ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה לֶעָתִיד לָבֹא מְבִיאוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְיֵצֶר הָרָע וְשׁוֹחֲטוֹ בִּפְנֵי הַצַּדִּיקִים וּבִפְנֵי הָרְשָׁעִים צַדִּיקִים נִדְמֶה לָהֶם כְּהַר גָּבוֹהַּ וּרְשָׁעִים נִדְמֶה לָהֶם כְּחוּט הַשַּׂעֲרָה הַלָּלוּ בּוֹכִין וְהַלָּלוּ בּוֹכִין צַדִּיקִים בּוֹכִין וְאוֹמְרִים הֵיאַךְ יָכוֹלְנוּ לִכְבּוֹשׁ הַר גָּבוֹהַּ כָּזֶה וּרְשָׁעִים בּוֹכִין וְאוֹמְרִים הֵיאַךְ לֹא יָכוֹלְנוּ לִכְבּוֹשׁ אֶת חוּט הַשַּׂעֲרָה הַזֶּה
R' Bloch writes that this gemara parallels our sugya of אמור מעט ועשׂה הרבּה. The tzadikim see the yetzer as Mt Everest. Who can say if anyone will make it to the top? Their caution serves them well. Reshaim, however, see the yetzer as just a thread, a minor obstacle. They are therefore unprepared for the challenges that befall them and fail to deliver the goods.
While R' Bloch sees אמור מעט ועשׂה הרבּה as a siman of a person's character, R' Yehuda Deri explains that it is a sibah, that talk itself can be the cause of failure.
R' Deri points out that Efron's intentions from the get-go may indeed have been to give Me'aras haMachpeilah as a free gift to Avraham. Notice the repetition 3x of variations of נָתַתִּי in Efron's declaration:
לֹא אֲדֹנִי שְׁמָעֵנִי הַשָּׂדֶה נָתַתִּי לָךְ וְהַמְּעָרָה אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ לְךָ נְתַתִּיהָ לְעֵינֵי בְנֵי עַמִּי נְתַתִּיהָ לָּךְ קְבֹר מֵתֶךָ.
And Efron deliberately says this in public, to ensure that if he retracts, he will suffer embarrassment. He put himself in a situation where the pressure was on to keep to his word.
How then does a person go from promising so much to delivering so little?
R' Deri explains that היא הנותנת! Precisely because Efron talked a big talk, his words led to his downfall.
There is another gemara in Sukkah on that same daf (52a) quoted by R' Bloch:
כל הגדול מחברו יצרו גדול הימנו
The greater the person, the greater the yetzer ha'ra that fights against them.
We are introduced to Efron with the words וְעֶפְרוֹן יֹשֵׁב בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי חֵת (23:10). Rashi comments: אותו היום מינוהו שוטר עליהם. מפני חשיבותו של אברהם Efron became a big man in town overnight. He made big promises. He became through his position and his talk a גדול מחברו.
A big man who makes big promises makes a big target for the yetzer ha'ra.
Chazal advise אמור מעט ועשׂה הרבּה not just as a סיג lest you fail to deliver. Chazal are teaching is that אמור מעט because otherwise you WILL fail to deliver. Too much talk invites the yetzer/tempts fate, which leads inevitably to failure.
The advice of אמור מעט ועשׂה הרבּה is preceded in Avos with the command of עשׂה תורתך קבע. What is the connection between these two ideas? The Sefer Chareidim writes that a person needs to set a fixed portion to learn each day, e.g. daf yomi, mishna yomi, etc. There has to be a seder kavu'a. However, says the Sefer Chareidim, best to keep that commitment in the back of your mind, or in your heart, and not verbalize it. אמור מעט ועשׂה הרבּה Once you verbalize the commitment, you are making yourself into a target for the yetzer ha'ra and you won't then be able to succeed. You don't need to pit a "Do the Daf" bumper sticker on your car or baseball hat. You don't need to advertise that you are גדול מחברו because you have a seder kavu'a. Don't become a target for the yetzer. Don't talk about it -- just do it (see R' Chaim Elazari's Nesiv Chaim who says a slightly different pshat in this Sefer Chareidim, but I think it fits R' Deri's approach.)
Our mission is to be like Avraham Avinu, to under promise and overdeliver. R' Shmuel Birnbaum notes that every morning we say in Baruch she'Amar נְגַדֶּלְךָ וּנְשַׁבֵּחֲךָ וּנְפָאֶרְךָ וְנַזְכִּיר שִׁמְךָ נַמְלִיכְךָ. That's the minimum bar that we set for ourselves -- that the "emor me'at" part! We are supposed to do even more. Ha'levay that we should at least strive to do so.
A hypothetical question: If I think that there is a mitzvah to walk barefoot to shul every day, and I fulfill that mitzvah with great mesirus nefesh, with blisters on my feet in the summer, and even at the cost of getting frostbite in the winter, do I get schar for a kiyum mitzvah?
This should not require much thought to answer. How can I get schar for a mitzvah that's not a mitzvah? Yes, there is schar for good intentions: אפילו חשב אדם לעשות מצוה, ונאנס ולא עשאה, מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו עשאה (Kid 40a), but that's where the good intentions were to do a mitzvah. In this case, there is no mitzvah!
Seems like an obvious point, but it also seems to fly in the face of our tefilos and our understanding of this week's parsha. We call upon Hashem to remember the zechus of akeidas Yitzchak. We view akeidas Yitzchak as the greatest act of mesirus nefesh and ahavas Hashem; it was the greatest test Avraham was called upon to pass, and which he did with flying colors. Yet Rashi comments on G-d's command וְהַעֲלֵהוּ שָׁם לְעֹלָה עַל אַחַד הֶהָרִים אֲשֶׁר אֹמַר אֵלֶיך that:
לא אמר לו: שחטהו, לפי שלא היה חפץ הקב״ה לשחטו, אלא יעלהו להר לעשותו עולה, ומשהעלהו, אמר לו: הורידהו
G-d told Avraham to bring Yitzchak up to the mountain, but not to actually sacrifice him. There was never such a mitzvah!
Does this mean that Avraham chopping wood, taking a knife, preparing to sacrifice his son, was all a big mistake and misunderstanding? Did Avraham misinterpret the dvar Hashem?
If there was never such a mitzvah, why do invoke the schar Avraham's deed forever after? It's not schar for just carrying Yitzchak up and down the mountain, but schar for the willingness to sacrifice Yitzchak that we are asking Hashem to remember. If that was never a mitzvah, why should it be worth any more reward any more than my walking to shul barefoot?
R' Shmuel Birnbaum (in Tiferes Shmuel on the parsha) answers this question with a yesod developed by the Ketzos in his introduction. The gemara (BM 86a) writes that there was a machlokes in heaven about a din in hil negaim:
קָא מִיפַּלְגִי בִּמְתִיבְתָּא דִרְקִיעָא: אִם בַּהֶרֶת קוֹדֶמֶת לְשֵׂעָר לָבָן – טָמֵא, וְאִם שֵׂעָר לָבָן קוֹדֵם לַבַּהֶרֶת – טָהוֹר.
סָפֵק – הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אוֹמֵר: טָהוֹר, וְכוּלְּהוּ מְתִיבְתָּא דִרְקִיעָא אָמְרִי: טָמֵא. וְאָמְרִי: מַאן נוֹכַח? נוֹכַח רַבָּה בַּר נַחְמָנִי. דְּאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר נַחְמָנִי: אֲנִי יָחִיד בִּנְגָעִים, אֲנִי יָחִיד בְּאֹהָלוֹת
כִּי הֲוָה קָא נָיְחָא נַפְשֵׁיהּ, אֲמַר: טָהוֹר, טָהוֹר. יָצָאת בַּת קוֹל וְאָמְרָה: אַשְׁרֶיךָ רַבָּה בַּר נַחְמָנִי שֶׁגּוּפְךָ טָהוֹר, וְיָצָאתָה נִשְׁמָתְךָ בְּטָהוֹר
How could Rabbah bar Nachmaini resolve a machlokes between G-d himself and the mesivra d'rekiya!? Isn't it obvious that G-d knows the right answer?
The Ketzos quotes the Derashos haRan as explaining that built into the Torah is the allowance for different possible interpretations. "Eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim chaim." In an absolute sense there is no one "right" answer. So how do we figure our what to do? The Torah resolves the problem with the principle of "lo ba'shamayim hi" - the final arbiter of what is "correct" is whatever the chachmei ha'dor think is correct. It's in our hands to determine the "right" answer. Therefore, the heavens had to turn to Rabbah bar Nachmeini, the posek ha'dor in hil negaim, to determine exactly what the psak should be. It's not what's "right" in heaven that matters, but rather what we think is "right" on earth.
The Midrash (B"R 8:5) writes that there was a debate among the angels as to whether or not it was worth it to create man:
אָמַר רַבִּי סִימוֹן, בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁבָּא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לִבְרֹאת אֶת אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן, נַעֲשׂוּ מַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת כִּתִּים כִּתִּים, וַחֲבוּרוֹת חֲבוּרוֹת, מֵהֶם אוֹמְרִים אַל יִבָּרֵא, וּמֵהֶם אוֹמְרִים יִבָּרֵא, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (תהלים פה, יא): חֶסֶד וֶאֱמֶת נִפְגָּשׁוּ צֶדֶק וְשָׁלוֹם נָשָׁקוּ. חֶסֶד אוֹמֵר יִבָּרֵא, שֶׁהוּא גּוֹמֵל חֲסָדִים. וֶאֱמֶת אוֹמֵר אַל יִבָּרֵא, שֶׁכֻּלּוֹ שְׁקָרִים. צֶדֶק אוֹמֵר יִבָּרֵא, שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה צְדָקוֹת. שָׁלוֹם אוֹמֵר אַל יִבָּרֵא, דְּכוּלֵיהּ קְטָטָה. מֶה עָשָׂה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא נָטַל אֱמֶת וְהִשְׁלִיכוֹ לָאָרֶץ, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (דניאל ח, יב): וְתַשְׁלֵךְ אֱמֶת אַרְצָה,
What does it mean that G-d threw emes down to earth? How does silencing truth's voice, removing his platform, address the issue raised?
R' Yaakov Kaminetzki (in Emes l'Yaakov) explains that there are two different levels or standards of truth: there is absolute truth, and then there is the relative truth that we humans are used to dealing with. When you sing "kallah na'ah v'chasudah" at a wedding (Kesubos 17), it doesn't matter whether or not the kallah is really beautiful as measured on some absolute scale of beauty. All that matters is that in her chosson's eyes she is beautiful. As far as he is concerned, relative to his frame of reference, it's the truth. When the Midrash says that Hashem kicked the midah of emes down to earth, it doesn't mean that Hashem chose to disregard truth. What it means is that the standard of truth for mankind is not absolute truth as it exists in heaven, but is relative truth as it exists for us on earth.
"Lo ba'shamayim hi" means the same is true of halacha. The "right" answer is the one that appears correct to us, not what is "right" in some absolute sense.
R' Shmuel Birnbaum is mechadesh that the same principle applies to nevuah. What the prophet sees or hears is subject to his interpretation, and that is what determines the meaning of the nevuah. When Avraham was commanded הַעֲלֵהוּ שָׁם לְעֹלָה, since Avraham interpreted that to mean that Hashem was asking him to sacrifice Yitzchak, the act of literal sacrifice became a mitzvah. It doesn't matter in an absolute sense what Hashem meant or didn't mean, because that is not the standard by which we determine what halacha or nevuah means. The standard of truth is our perception (by "our" I mean the chachmei ha'mesorah or the navi) of what is meant.
We say in the bracha before the haftarah אֲשֶׁר בָּחַר בִּנְבִיאִים טוֹבִים, וְרָצָה בְדִבְרֵיהֶם הַנֶאֱמָרִים בֶּאֱמֶת. R'SB explains that when we say the words הַנֶאֱמָרִים בֶּאֱמֶת, we are not thanking Hashem for giving us prophets that don't c"v lie -- that should go without saying. What we are affirming in our bracha is this principle that the navi's interpretation of the dvar Hashem -- his perception of what Hashem meant -- is true, נֶאֱמָרִים בֶּאֱמֶת, because that is the only truth that is relevant and that counts.
Avaraham made his way to Eretz Yisrael and wandered around until he reached Shchem (12:6):
וַיַּעֲבֹ֤ר אַבְרָם֙ בָּאָ֔רֶץ עַ֚ד מְק֣וֹם שְׁכֶ֔ם עַ֖ד אֵל֣וֹן מוֹרֶ֑ה וְהַֽכְּנַעֲנִ֖י אָ֥ז בָּאָֽרֶץ
Why did he stop there? Rashi explains עד מקום שכם – להתפלל על בני יעקב כשיבאו בשכם He stopped to daven for the children of Yaakov.
Later in the parsha, Avraham tells Hashem that gifts don't mean anything so long as he does not have any children (15:2-3):
וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אַבְרָ֗ם ה׳ אלקים מַה־תִּתֶּן־לִ֔י וְאָנֹכִ֖י הוֹלֵ֣ךְ עֲרִירִ֑י וּבֶן־מֶ֣שֶׁק בֵּיתִ֔י ה֖וּא דַּמֶּ֥שֶׂק אֱלִיעֶֽזֶר
וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אַבְרָ֔ם הֵ֣ן לִ֔י לֹ֥א נָתַ֖תָּה זָ֑רַע וְהִנֵּ֥ה בֶן־בֵּיתִ֖י יוֹרֵ֥שׁ אֹתִֽי
Sifsei Chachamim asks: If Avraham stopped to daven for the Bnei Yaakov at Shechem, then he must have known that he would have children and grandchildren and great grandchildren! How are we to understand Avraham's complaint?
Netziv says a beautiful pshat in those pesukim later in the parsha which answers the Sifsei Chachamim's question. The words of Avraham's complaint are out of order, as the Ohr haChaim points out: אומרו הן לי - היה לו לומר הן לא נתת לי. Netziv explains that Avraham deliberately put the word לִ֔י first. What Avraham was saying is that even if I have children, what good is it at this point in my life? How can I in my old age, when my best years are long past, raise them and transmit to them my values, my ideology, my torah? In what sense will those children be MY children, given to ME - לִ֔י - if I cannot fully experience raising them?
Netziv's pshat begs the question of why was this was of such concern to Avraham Avinu. In those very pesukim Avraham refers to Elizer as דַּמֶּ֥שֶׂק אֱלִיעֶֽזֶר. Chazal tell us that Eliezer earned this title because he was דולה ומשקה מתורתו לאחרים, Eliezer was capable of teaching to others all the torah of Avraham. Eliezer was such a tzadik that he went alive straight into Gan Eden at the end of his life. Couldn't Avraham have charged Eliezer with the task of teaching his child torah, just like Eliezer taught it to others? Couldn't he have sent the child to cheider, to yeshiva, to learn there?
We see from here, writes R' Chaim Elazari in his Nesivei Chaim, is that no matter how good the yeshiva or cheider or Beis Yaakov, it's no substitute for a parent. You don't become Avraham AVINU through shlichus. Chinuch is a mitzvah she'bigufo, it requires direct interaction between parent and child. When Avraham davened for a child, it is this experience that he pined for.
2) Another great point from R' Chaim Elazari: Avraham did not want to accept any gifts from the King of Sdom lest people say that Sdom, not Hashem, made him rich אִם־מִחוּט֙ וְעַ֣ד שְׂרֽוֹךְ־נַ֔עַל וְאִם־אֶקַּ֖ח מִכׇּל־אֲשֶׁר־לָ֑ךְ וְלֹ֣א תֹאמַ֔ר אֲנִ֖י הֶעֱשַׁ֥רְתִּי אֶת־אַבְרָֽם (14:23). Why did Avraham not have the same compunctions about taking gifts from Pharoah earlier in the parsha?
R' Elazari answers that Hashem's promise that He would make Avraham rich applied only in Eretz Yisrael. Therefore, he did not want Sdom to get any credit. In chu"l, however, Avraham had no guarantee, and could therefore could accept the gifts of others.
In galus, accepting hand outs is acceptable. In chu"l we live in a state of dependency on others for protection and sustenance. Not so in Eretz Yisrael, where we are meant to stand on our own two feet, reliant only on Hashem for our needs. We may not be there yet, but it's important to keep the goal and ideal in mind.
The gemara (Sanhedrim 108) tells us that Noach found a certian bird sitting quietly in a room in the ark not bothering anyone or anything. He asked the bird, "Don't you want food?" to which the bird replied, "I saw you were busy and didn't want to bother you." In response to this act of kindness Noach blessed the bird that it should live forever.
Maharasha asks: this gemara seems to contradict a different Chazal. The Midrash teaches that this bird lived forever because it was the only animal that did not listen to Chavah and eat from the Eitz ha'Daas:
מהכא משמע דמברכתו של נח זכה לכך אבל בב״ר אמרו ותקח מפריו ותאכל הכל שמעו לה ואכלו חוץ מעוף א׳ ושמו חול הה״ד וכחול ארבה ימים אלף שנה הוא חי ובסוף אלף שנים גופו כלה וכו׳ וחוזר ומגדל אבריו וחי ע״כ וק״ל
One possible simple answer is that not eating from the Eitz ha'Daas prevented natural death, but there was always the chance that the bird might be hunted and killed. Noach's blessing prevented even that from occurring.
Rav Pincus in Tiferes Torah suggests a different answer. We've in the past discussed the gemara (R"H 32) that teaches that on Rosh haShana that angels are perplexed as to why Bn"Y are not saying hallel -- R"H is still a yom tov after all? Hashem answers that it is impossible to sing hallel and be joyous when the Book of Life and Book of Death stand open before us:
אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמְרוּ מַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם מִפְּנֵי מָה אֵין יִשְׂרָאֵל אוֹמְרִים שִׁירָה לְפָנֶיךָ בְּרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה וּבְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים אָמַר לָהֶם אֶפְשָׁר מֶלֶךְ יוֹשֵׁב עַל כִּסֵּא דִין וְסִפְרֵי חַיִּים וְסִפְרֵי מֵתִים פְּתוּחִין לְפָנָיו וְיִשְׂרָאֵל אוֹמְרִים שִׁירָה.
B'shalama the Book of Death being open, asks Rav Pincus, neicha that we should be trembling in our boots. But why does the gemara also mention the fact that the Book of Life is open? Why is our trepidation on Yom haDin related to that book as well?
We see from this Chazal a tremendous yesod: Life means more than the absence of death. It's not enough to hope you are not inscribed in the Book of Death on Rosh HaShana and m'meila, if nothing bad happens, life will continue as-is ad infinitum with no need to do anything more. A person needs to have a reason to live; a person needs to strive for fulfillment, for growth. This is especially true on the Yom haDin, especially on Rosh haShana when the entire world has a chance to renew itself and be reborn. If a person is not part of that, what is life for? We are beyond the days of Rosh haShana, but this shabbos is also Rosh Chodesh, a time of hischadshus. It's not enough to slide into the new month maintaining status quo. We have to renew ourselves, renew our reason for being here, or what are we living for?
That's why we are shaking in our boots when the Book of Life is open. If you just skate by by avoiding the Book of Death without a Book of Life, you don't really have a life after all.
Unless we also make it into that Book of Life, our existence will be a futile exercise and will inevitably draw to a close.
Think for a moment about the two special trees in Gan Eden, the Eitz haDaas and the Eitz haChaim. If being alive means no more than avoiding death, then why was there an Eitz haChaim? Avoiding the Eitz haDaas alone would do the trick of guaranteeing eternal life? Al korchacha life must be about more than cheating death. We need an Eitz haChaim, we need a Sefer haChaim, meaning and reason for being here, or all the years in eternity don't really matter.
This the lesson Chazal are teaching us in this story about Noach's magical bird. True, the bird did not eat from the Eitz ha'Daas and therefore had the potential to live forever, but what a sad, meaningless existence that would be. Such a life would come to nothing and ultimately fizzle out on its own. It was by doing an act of chessed that this bird demonstrated that its existence had positive meaning, and that is the secret to the bracha which Noach gave it of true eternal life.
