"lifnos erev" = birur tov and ra

 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.

emor me'at -- don't tempt the yetzer ha'ra

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.  

Kislev and the tribe of Gad

Shem m'Shmuel writes (Chayei Sarah 5672) that if you pair the order in which the  shevatim were born with the months of the year, the month of Kislev connects with the tribe of Gad who was blessed with courage and might:

הנה לפי סדר לידת השבטים מתיחס חודש כסלו לגד,..., והנה גד מתברך מיאע"ה וממרע"ה בגבורה ובניצוח האויבים, גד גדוד יגודנו והוא יגוד עקב, ברוך מרחיב גד כלביא שכן וטרף זרוע אף קדקוד, והרמב"ן במדבר הביא מדרש בענין דגל ראובן, ראובן בתשובה וגד בגבורה ושמעון באמצע לכפר עליו

This is why the Chashmonaim were victorious in this month, and IY"H we will emerge victorious in our current battle.

I would suggest that there is another connection as well.  We read in Zos haBracha (33:21) regarding Gad  וַיַּ֤רְא רֵאשִׁית֙ ל֔וֹ כִּי־שָׁ֛ם חֶלְקַ֥ת מְחֹקֵ֖ק סָפ֑וּן.  Rashi explains

 ראה ליטול לו חלק בארץ סיחון ועוג, שהיא ראשית כיבוש הארץ, כי ידע אשר שם בנחלתו חלקת שדה קבורת מחוקק הוא משה   

Gad wanted their portion of land to be in Eiver haYarden because they knew this would be the burial place of Moshe.  It's not that Gad knew that a burial plot near the Rebbe was worth a premium price.  When we read in Matos that וּמִקְנֶ֣ה׀ רַ֗ב הָיָ֞ה לִבְנֵ֧י רְאוּבֵ֛ן וְלִבְנֵי־גָ֖ד, what it means, says R' Bunim m'Peshischa, is that Reuvain and Gad had a kinyan, an attachment, to the רַ֗ב, to Moshe Rabeinu.  They did not want to leave his presence even after Moshe was no longer in this world. (I don't know how you read the whole rest of that parsha that seems to focus on the sheep and cattle, unless maybe it was all a smokescreen.)  It is this powerful connection to Moshe Rabeinu that Gad had which is the antidote to להשׁכּיחם תורתך, the aim of Yavan. 

no other land is like it

When Avraham administered an oath to Eliezer not to take a Canaanite girl for Yitzhak, he referred to Hashem as אֱלֹקי הַשָּׁמַיִם וֵאלֹקי הָאָרֶץ (24:3): 

 וְאַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ בַּה׳ אֱלֹקי הַשָּׁמַיִם וֵאלֹקי הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר לֹא תִקַּח אִשָּׁה לִבְנִי מִבְּנוֹת הַכְּנַעֲנִי אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי יוֹשֵׁב בְּקִרְבּוֹ

However, just a few pesukim later, Avraham told Eliezer that Hashem אֱלֹקי הַשָּׁמַיִם will send an angel to guide him (24:7).  

ה׳ אֱלֹקי הַשָּׁמַיִם אֲשֶׁר לְקָחַנִי מִבֵּית אָבִי וּמֵאֶרֶץ מוֹלַדְתִּי וַאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר לִי וַאֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע לִי לֵאמֹר לְזַרְעֲךָ אֶתֵּן אֶת הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת הוּא יִשְׁלַח מַלְאָכוֹ לְפָנֶיךָ וְלָקַחְתָּ אִשָּׁה לִבְנִי מִשָּׁם

Why here does Avraham omit any reference to Hashem as אלֹקי הָאָרֶץ and only refer to him as ה׳ אֱלֹקי הַשָּׁמַיִם? 

R' Moshe Avigdor Amiel answers that in the first pasuk Avraham is speaking about taking a wife for Yitzchak.  In this second pasuk Avraham is speaking about his having left his homeland to go to Eretz Yisrael.  Avraham is telling us that if you want to know why he left home, you won't find the answer if you look at the land, if you focus on אלֹקי הָאָרֶץ.  There are other countries that have more natural resources, that have the benefit of not being surrounded by hostile neighbors, where life might be easier or more economically rewarding.  You can only understand our love of the land through the lens of ה׳ אֱלֹקי הַשָּׁמַיִם.  What Eretz Yisrael has more than any other place is a direct pipeline to connect to Hashem.

The Kuzari makes a similar point (II:9-10):

אָמַר הֶחָבֵר: כֵּן הַכָּבוֹד: נִיצוֹץ אוֹר אֱלֹקי מוֹעִיל אֵצֶל עַמּוֹ וּבְאַרְצוֹ. 

  אָמַר הַכּוּזָרִי: מַאֲמָרְךָ "אֵצֶל עַמּוֹ" כְּבָר הִתְבָּאֵר לִי, אֲבָל מַאֲמָרְךָ, "וּבְאַרְצוֹ" קָשֶׁה לִי לְקַבְּלוֹ. 

 אָמַר הֶחָבֵר: אַל יִקְשֶׁה בְעֵינֶיךָ שֶׁתִּתְיַחֵד אֶרֶץ בְּדָבָר מִכָּל הָאֲרָצוֹת, וְאַתָּה רוֹאֶה מָקוֹם שֶׁמַּצְלִיחַ בּוֹ צֶמַח מִבִּלְתִּי צֶמַח, וּמוֹצָא מִבַּלְעֲדֵי מוֹצָא, וְחַיָּה מִבַּלְעֲדֵי חַיָּה, וּמִתְיַחֲדִים יוֹשְׁבָיו בְּצוּרוֹת וּמִדּוֹת מִבַּלְעֲדֵי זוּלָתָם – בְּמִצּוּעַ הַמֶּזֶג. וְהִנֵּה עַל פִּי הַמֶּזֶג תִּהְיֶה שְׁלֵמוּת הַנֶּפֶשׁ וְחֶסְרוֹנָהּ.

It's understood that plants, minerals, animals, thrive in the environment best suited for them.  If you want champagne, you need grapes from a specific region in France.  If you want to raise a giraffe, you should move to the African plains.  The same is true of ruchniyus, of the connection to ה׳ אֱלֹקי הַשָּׁמַיִם.  You need the proper environment for it to flourish, and that environment is Eretz Yisrael.   

The Kuzari there goes on to discuss nevuah and he writes that prophecy takes place only in and for Eretz Yisrael: אָמַר הֶחָבֵר: כָּל מִי שֶׁנִּתְנַבֵּא לֹא נִתְנַבֵּא כִּי אִם בָּהּ אוֹ בַעֲבוּרָהּ

This, I think, helps explain a seeming redundancy in the pasuk.  Avraham refers to Hashem  וַאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר לִי וַאֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע לִי.  If the point is that Hashem promised Eretz Yisrael to him, then just referring to the shevu'a should suffice.  What is this אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר לִי?  (See Meshech Chochma, Seforno)  What Avraham I think is saying is that only in Eretz Yisrael can Hashem speak to him.  Only Eretz Yisrael has the "climate" which is suited for conversing with G-d.  

invisible man

 וָאֹמַ֖ר אֶל־אֲדֹנִ֑י אֻלַ֛י לֹא־תֵלֵ֥ךְ הָאִשָּׁ֖ה אַחֲרָֽי׃

Rashi notes that the word אֻלַ֛י here is written chaseir, without the vuv, unlike how it is written earlier in the parsha, so if you didn't know better you might read it as אֵלַי.  The Sanz Klausenberger Rebbe explains that  to be the shliach to find a wife for Yitzchak is not a simple undertaking.  When Hashem came to Moshe and told him that he was to be the go'el of Klal Yisrael, Moshe responded by saying, "Mi anochi?"  Who am I to take on a job like this?  Choose someone more worthy.  Here too, Eliezer worried that his mission might fail because he was not the right one for the job -- who says the right girl will come with ME, אֵלַי?   Maybe someone else better suited would have more success.  A role, a mission, a shlichus has to be undertaken with modesty and humility and cognizance of the responsibility involved.  It is precisely that feeling of unworthiness which made Eliezer successful in completing his task.

We see throughout the parsha that Eliezer does his utmost to take himself out of the picture. Nowhere in the story is his name even mentioned -- he is just referred to as the "eved," Avraham's servent.  He views himself as just an instrument of Avraham's, not a gavra in his own right who deserves the credit.  He davens  הַקְרֵה־נָ֥א לְפָנַ֖י הַיּ֑וֹם, that what happens should be a mikreh, like a chance occurrence (see R' Shimshon Pincus's hesber), not something that happens due to his planning, his input, his effort.  He is willing to take a backseat and let Hashem take control and work things out.  

This same idea is brought out in a diyuk of the Meshech Chochma. Just as Eliezer finishes davening that the right girl should come and offer him water, the Torah tells us וַֽיְהִי־ה֗וּא טֶ֘רֶם֮ כִּלָּ֣ה לְדַבֵּר֒ וְהִנֵּ֧ה רִבְקָ֣ה יֹצֵ֗את.  Grammatically, the words of the pasuk seem out of order.  We would expect it to say וַֽיְהִי טֶ֘רֶם֮ כִּלָּ֣ה ה֗וּא לְדַבֵּר֒. Why does the word ה֗וּא appear before the words  טֶ֘רֶם֮ כִּלָּ֣ה?   Meshech Chochma explains:

דלפי הנראה הבקשה של אליעזר הוא הסיבה ומה שרבקה יצאת וכדה על שכמה הוא המסובב. אולם האמת לא כן כי השם רצה להראות שרבקה בת זוגו של יצחק שם הדברים בפי אליעזר שיעשה נסיון בהשקיית מים וידע מזה שרבקה בת זוגו וא״כ יציאת רבקה הוא הסיבה והמסובב הוא שידבר זה אליעזר בזה שאמר ויהי מה הוא שהיה שהוא טרם כלה לדבר היינו שדבורו היה מהשם ודו״ק בזה.

וַֽיְהִי־ה֗וּא tells us that the situation that was, i.e. the whole test of drawing the water and Rivka's response, was already in place טֶ֘רֶם֮ כִּלָּ֣ה לְדַבֵּר֒ , before Eliezer prayed for it to happen.  His tefilah was not the cause that set events in motion.  Aderaba, it was the events that Hashem had set in motion which caused Eliezer's tefilah.  Hashem put the words in Eliezer's mouth so that when Rivka would pass his test,  it would be clear that she was indeed the one destined for Yitzchak.

Eliezer was just a kli b'yad Hashem, not that his choices, his actions, or even his prayers were the cause of anything.

And that's exactly how he wanted it to be.

milah done by a katan

Shitas haRambam (Milah 2:1) is that a katan can do milah.  Where did the Rambam get this from?  R' Chaim Kanievski cites the gemara (A"Z 27) that tries to prove that a woman can do milah from the fact that Tziporah did milah.  The gemara rejects the proof and says maybe Tziprah asked someone else to do the milah, not that she did it herself.  Who else could she have asked who was Jewish, says R' Chaim, other than her other son Gershom, who was a katan?    

(Parenthetically, as for how a katan can have kavanah for the mitzvah [as the Minchas Chinuch asks], see the Chelkas Yoav 1:33 who writes that mitzvos tzerichos kavanah only applies when the mitzvah is a one time act, not when it is a 'peulah ha'nimsheches' like milah is.)

R' Ben Tzion Aba Shaul quotes a kashe that was asked to R' Chaim on this.  We learned 2 weeks ago that according to shitas haRambam all future descendants Keturah, not just her immediate children, are chayav in milah.  If so, maybe Tziporah asked one of the bnei Keturah to do the milah, not her own son?

R' Chaim answered by quoting a Mes Sofrim that says that when Avraham banished the bnei Keturah, they were imprisoned somewhere and could not escape, and so they could not have been present with Tziporah.  R' Ben Tzion Aba Shaul quotes gemaras that seem to not assume like that Midrash.

Based on the chakirah of R' Erlanger in his Birchas Avraham that we discussed, the kashe is not a kashe.  Yesh lachkor: is the pasuk that is mechayeiv the bnei Keturah in milah a new din, or an extension of the chiyuv milah given to Klal Yisrael?  If it is a new din, then the bnei Keturah cannot be mal someone from Klal Yisrael, as the chiyuv milah is not the same chiyuv, even if it is the same act.

how would you be maspid Sarah Imeinu?

1)  Baal haTurim comments on the little letter kaf in וַיָּבֹא֙ אַבְרָהָ֔ם לִסְפֹּ֥ד לְשָׂרָ֖ה וְלִבְכֹּתָֽהּ׃:

ולבכתה – כ״ף קטנה שלא סכה אלא מעט לפי שזקנה היתה א״נ שהיתה כמו גורמת מיתתה שמסרה דין ועל כן נענשה היא תחלה והמאבד עצמו לדעת אין מספידין אותו.

The first explanation is that Sarah was very old, so her death was not unexpected, and Avraham did not cry much.  The second explanation is based on a gemara in BK 93 that says that since Sarah complained "chamasi alecha," about Avraham having a child with Hagar and not davening for her, the midas ha'din rebounded against her and caused her to die first.  Being me'orer din against someone inevitably comes back to haunt you.  The Baal haTurim suggests that the danger is so great it's tantamount to suicide, and the halacha is that someone who commits suicide does not deserve a hesped.

B'shalama according to the first explanation, I understand why the kaf in livkosa is small, but the second explanation has nothing to do with crying -- it has to do with a halacha of hesped.  Shouldn't it be a letter in the word "lispod"  that is small?

The second explanation does help resolve a point that many meforshim struggle with, namely, we are given every nitty-gritty detail of the negotiations involved in the purchase of Me'aras Hamachpeila, but not one word of the hesped for Sarah.  The Midrash Tanchuma fills in the blank and writes that Avraham said eishes chayil for Sarah, and it darshens how all the descriptions apply to her life.  But ikar chaseir min ha'sefer, none of that is in the text.  "Va'vavo Avraham lispod" -- he came to say a hesped.  Did he actually say one?  According to the Bh"T, he may not have. 

2) וַתָּ֣מׇת שָׂרָ֗ה ...וַיָּבֹא֙ אַבְרָהָ֔ם לִסְפֹּ֥ד לְשָׂרָ֖ה וְלִבְכֹּתָֽהּ׃ It's obvious that Avraham was coming to cry for and be maspid Sarah -- why repeat her name a second time?  

Sarah's name was originally Sarai.  Rashi (17:15) explains that Sarai is a possessive, it connotes לי ולא לאחרים, a relationship that was exclusive to Avraham.  Gur Aryeh explains פירוש שהקורא קורא לה ׳שרי׳ מפני שלא נעשת שרה לכל העולם, לכך היתה נקראת שרי  The change to the name Sarah shows that she effected the entire world.  Just as Avraham was megayeir men, Sarah was megayeir women.  She, no less than he, was involved in outreach and teaching the dvar Hashem.  

When Sarah died, explains R' Simcha Bunim Sofer, Avraham must have felt great personal loss.  Yet he put that in the background.  His hesped was about Sarah, the public figure name, the loss to society that resulted from her death, not about the inner pain he must have felt.

It's a nice idea, but it doesn't feel right to me.  Klal Yisrael recently suffered the loss of R' Dovid Feinstein and R' Jonathan Sacks.  I have read many of R' Sacks books, I read his parsha sheets, I feel I know a little something at least of R' Sacks the public personality, the writer, the thinker (I do not know much about R' Dovid Feinstein).  It was Gila Sacks' hesped that I found most moving because she spoke of a dimension of R' Sacks that we, the public, could never fully know: R' Sacks as a father.  Not someone who gave lectures and wrote books, but someone who chatted with his kids while putting the kettle up.  When Dayan Binstock spoke, the most moving part of his hesped I thought was when he quoted what R' Sacks himself had told him once: "When I die I don't want to be remembered as the man who wrote lots of books.  I don't want to be remembered as the man who was Chief Rabbi of the British Commonwealth.  I want to be remembered as the man who gave out sweets to children in shul."  

We get so caught up in the big accomplishments of big people that we sometimes forget that what they valued most in their lives is often what seems to us to be little things, the intimate relationships that exist on a micro- level.  But it's the attention to the little things, not just the big, public performance, that makes great people truly great.

If the purpose of hesped is for us to learn to improve our lives by emulating great people, then it makes more sense to speak of the things these people had in common with us -- being a father, mother, son, sister, friend -- than the exceptional things they did that we cannot hope to duplicate.  Odds are most of us will not write a best selling book on Jewish thought, but it's within the grasp of most of us to to make a child's life, or even an adult's life, just a little bit sweeter.  

R' Simcha Bunim suggests a different explanation for the little kaf we spoke about above.  The Midrash writes that Hashem arranges things so that there is a new tzadik ready to step on the stage before He takes an existing tzadik from the world.  Last week's parsha ended with the birth of Rivka, who would become the next one of the Imahos, and the world was now prepared for Sarah to depart.  The knowledge that there would be continuity, that there would  be someone to fill Sarah's shoes, mitigated Avraham's grief.  

If I can use running a company as a mashal, what Chazal are telling us is that Avraham and Sarah Inc would continue business as usual even after the co-CEO's passing.  The loss of Sarah as the public face of the company would not crush business --  a little kaf in livkosa was there, but life would go on.

Knowing that the "company" would continue was of small comfort to Yitzchak when Shabbos came and he no longer saw his mother's candles on the table, when he no longer could taste the sweet taste of her challah.  That loss seemed irreplaceable.  And the truth is that without that dimension of greatness on the micro level -- of being the great mother, wife, etc, -- the company of Avraham and Sarah Inc may have the same logo, the same brand name, the same product, but it would not the same company.  It is the Rivka's ability to recreate the home of Sarah which is what made her a true heir to the legacy of the Imahos, not just her ability to step into Sarah's role as a public leader.  

3) The episode of Avraham's purchase of Me'aras Hamachpeila ends וַיָּ֣קׇם׀ שְׂדֵ֣ה עֶפְר֗וֹן אֲשֶׁר֙ בַּמַּכְפֵּלָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֖ר לִפְנֵ֣י מַמְרֵ֑א  Rashi explains that of course a field does not get up off the ground; what the pasuk means is that תקומה היתה לו, שיצא מיד הדיוט ליד מלך, the field went up in status, in ruchniyus, as it was transferred from a common person to a king, to Avraham.

R' Nissim Yagen reminds us that there is another instance of the word va'yakam in the parsha, all the way at the beginning:  וַיָּ֙קׇם֙ אַבְרָהָ֔ם מֵעַ֖ל פְּנֵ֣י מֵת֑וֹ  There are people who are crushed when a loved one passes away; there are people who lose faith, who question why it happened.  Avraham rose above it.  He became a stronger and better person from the inspiration and memories of Sarah that he took with him.

Avraham the CEO?

1) Many meforshim see the pasuk “v’Avraham zakein… v’Hashem beirach es Avhraham ba’kol,” (24:1) which prefaces the parsha of Eliezer’s quest to find a bride for Yitzchak, as a justification of Avraham’s actions.   Why did Avraham Avraham send Eliezer and not take charge of things himself?  Why the need to administer an oath to Eliezer?  And why send him far away to find a bride for Yitzchak –- was there no local girl who wanted to marry Yitzchak? 

Avraham was blessed “ba’kol” – he had it all.  Surely a rich and powerful man, a CEO, cannot ignore managing his enterprise in order to personally make a long journey that can be delegated to others (Netziv).  And surely someone rich and powerful needs to take precautions lest his delegate be pressured, bribed, coerced –- hence the oath administered to Eliezer to not succumb to any impediments (Seforno).  And surely anyone would gladly marry into such a powerful family. Sending Elizer to look elsewhere was not for want of shidduch offers, but was Avraham’s deliberate choice (Rashbam).

All this would be true of any rich and powerful man.  But truthfully, it's hard to think of Avraham in those terms.  Sefas Emes writes that what motivated Avraham was not really protecting his wealth and power.  The focus of the pasuk is not WHAT Avraham had -– fame, riches, etc. -- but rather HOW Avraham got all that: “HASHEM beirach es Avraham ba'kol"  Avraham is not merely a powerful CEO -– Avraham is G-d’s CEO.  It's not his personal business that Avraham is out to protect, but rather G-d's business -- the mission of bringing kvod shamayim into the world.  Therefore, it was critical for Eliezer to find the right girl.

No one can really argue with a straight face that since "Hashem beirach" therefore they will only date a girl who wears size 2 or less.  That's not an argument of an Avraham Avinu.  If you really think "Hashem beirach" and gave you whatever talent, whatever mission you have, and you need a mate to match those she'ifos, then dress size is not on the list of what you are looking for.  "Hashem beirach" means it's not about me -- I'm just a kli for some higher purpose.  That's the hakdamah to Eliezer's mission and the hakdamah to what to look for in a shidduch. 
2) Simple pshat in (25:5) “vayitein Avraham es KOL asher lo l’Yitzchak” is that Avraham gave everything in his possession to Yitzchak.  However, the very next pasuk  (25:6) tells us that he gave gifts to the bnei ha’pilagshim as well.  So what does it mean when it says “KOL asher lo?”




Instead of emphasizing the first word, Sefas Emes puts the emphasis on the last: “kol asher LO.”  What really belongs to a person?  What does a person really want to give over -- what can a person really give over -- to their kids?  It’s not the bank account, or the house, or the new car.  Hashem told Avraham at the start his journey: “Lech LECHA…  el ha’aretz asher ar’eka.”  This mission is “LECHA” –- it belongs to you Avraham; you own it.  When it comes time to leave the world, that's what Avraham passes on to Yitzchak, and that mission is what has been continuously passed on through the generations until it has reached us.   

Eliezer's tefilah / test

My son was complaining to me that if I don't write anything on the parsha it will be 2 straight weeks with nothing...

Had Eliezer followed Avraham's instructions he would have travelled to Aram Naharayim, asked around to find Avraham's family, knocked on the door, and hoped to find a suitable match for Yitzchak there.

But that's not what he did.  Aside from the whole test he setup to find a girl who excels at doing chessed (and if Avraham didn't tell him to do that, we should ask ourselves why Eliezer thought it necessary, but that's a different topic...), the Torah tells us that he davened.  "Vayomar Hashem Elokei adoni Avraham hakei na lifanay hayom v'aseh chessed im adoni Avraham..." (24:12).  According to Rashi, even the conclusion of Eliezer's description of the test he was setting up, "u'bah eidah ki asisa chessed im adoni," (24:14) is not a statement of fact. i.e. the test proves that Hashem did a chessed and he found the right girl, but rather is part and parcel of his tefilah, i.e. "u'bah eidah..." through this test I pray that I will know who the right girl is.  It's not a tefilah + a test, but it's one big tefilah that things work out (Ramban and others disagree). 

I think it's safe to assume that if we would say a little tehillim before embarking on an important project, the Avos and the people in their household would do no less.  Had the Torah not told us that Elizer davened, would we have assumed otherwise?  Of course not.  So while the details of the test might be necessary and relevant to the story, the question begs itself: why does the Torah feel the need to stress Eliezer's tefilah here?

The Sefas Emes asks the question, but I want to offer a different answer than the one he gives. 

There is an interesting machlokes in the meforshim how to interpret the tefilah of Eliezer.  Most (Targum Yonasan, Ibn Ezra, Ramban, Kli Yakar) interpret "hakrei na lifanei" to mean that Hashem should cause the right girl to appear before Eliezer.  However, Alshich and more clearly the Netziv read it differently.  Before Eliezer left Avraham's home, Avraham gave him a bracha: "Hu [Hashem] yishlach malacho lifanecha..." Hashem should send his angel along with him to help (24:4).  Now Eliezer gets to Aram Naharayim and he davens to Hashem, "hakrei na lifanei," you, Hashem, please appear before me.  It's not enough for me to have the help of a malach to pull this off -- I need you here with me.   

I think the Chazon Ish is quoted as saying that the last remnant of open hashgacha that we have left is in inyanei shidduchim.  It's not the shadchan, it's not even malachim, but it's Hashem himself who makes a match happen, even sometimes in the most unlikely situations.

That's perhaps why the Torah makes a point of including the tefilah of Eliezer.  Of course everything the Avos did was accompanied by tefilah.  But when it comes to the parsha of marriage, tefilah is not just a nice thing to do to accompany the mitzvah, but it is part and parcel of the mitzvah itself.  Since direct intervention of the yad Hashem is necessary, tefilah, dveikus with Hashem, asking Hashem for that direct involvement, is a must.

root cause

"Hinei yaldah Milkah gam hi banim l'Nachor achicha..."  We know that Nachor is Avraham's brother -- why does the Torah mention it again in recounting the geneology of Nachor's family at the end of last week's parsha?

We learn an important yesod from here.   Even though Avraham had no contact with Nachor for decades (Netziv explains that this was the intent of "Lech lecha... m'beis avicha"), a brother is still a brother, and all the shefa, bracha, and benefits that came into the world because of the tzidkus of Avraham Avinu overflowed and benefited Nachor as well.  They of course probably never suspected that as the cause, but, "Nachor achicha...," when you are related to the tzadik ha'dor and have even a small connection, good things rub off and come your way.  

It is nice to pat yourself on the back and think that if things are going well it is because Hashem is getting nachas ru'ach from your avodah.  But the truth may be that your second cousin twice removed, or even a stranger who you don't even know, is such a tremendous ba'al chessed, ba'al avodah, etc. that the whole world benefits from -- including you.  

On the other hand, who knows?  It could be your tefilos, that you don't think are having any effect, are benefiting a Jew somewhere in the world who really needs it.

We see the same idea in our parsha.  "Hinei Rivka yotzeis asher yuldah l'Besuel..."  Why the passive voice, "yuldah?"  Kedushas Levi explains that Rivka may have biologically born to Besuel, but what caused a girl like Rivka to come into the world was the chessed of Avraham miles and miles away.  Besuel reaped the results, but the cause of events was Avraham Avinu.

Eliezer says that if the test he devised to find the right girl works out it proves, "ki asisa chessed im adoni." (24:14).  G-d was not doing chessed "l'adoni"  = for Avraham, i.e. giving him a gift, but rather "im adoni" = with Avraham, i.e. the chessed Avraham himself did was what created and set in motion events leading to Rivka.

How does this work?  The way Hashem interacts with a person mirrors the way that person interacts with the world.  For example, Chazal say that a person who is ma'avir al midosav, who is forgiving, will have his/her own sins forgiven.  But it goes beyond personal benefit.  The way Hashem interacts with the whole world changes.  The chessed of Avraham opened a channel of chessed -- there was more chessed coming down to the entire world.  That abundance of chessed caused a Rivka, another ba'alas chessed, to develop.

This idea can also shed light on how Eliezer managed to have such tremendous success Eliezer had on his mission.  Ya'akov Avinu, the paragon of emes, had to spend 14 years in Yeshivas Shem v'Eiver preparing himself to deal with the cheat and liar Lavan.  Here, Eliezer walks into the lion's den and walks out with Rivka on the same day.  How did that happen?

Chazal tell us that Eliezer had a daughter of marriageable age who he would have loved to see married to Yitzchak.  Shem m'Shmuel writes that this was not a coincidence.  Hashem was using reverse psychology in placing him in this situation.  Davka because Eliezer faced the temptation of not being true to Avraham and to his mission made him that much more on guard and dedicated to carrying out his shlichus faithfully.  When a person makes such a great effort to be true to his master, his mission, in turn Hashem mirrors that and more truth and faithfulness come into the world.  That extra burst of truth energy, if you will, is what enabled him to overcome Lavan.

water from the well

1. Eliezer begins his prayer to Hashem to bring him the right girl for Yitzchak with the words, "Hinei anochi nitzav al ha'ayin," (24:13) I am standing next to the well.  Aside from the fact that the Torah already told us (24:11) that he had tied up his camels next to the well, the information seems entirely unnecessary in context. 

Abarbanel explains that these words are key.  If you are sitting in your home in the living room or some other room and ask one of your kids to bring you a drink, a good kid will (sooner or later) bring you the drink.  But if you are standing in the kitchen next to the refrigerator and ask your kid to pour you a drink, it would be very hard for any modern kid to not at least be thinking, if not to say openly, "Why can't you get it yourself since you are standing right there?"  That's just the reality of the way things are, and they probably were not that different back in Avraham's time.  "Hinei anochi nitzav al ha'ayin," says Eliezer -- I'm next to the refrigerator.  I'm not just looking for a good girl who will bring me water when I'm a bit far away from the well.  I'm looking for the girl who won't think twice about drawing the water for me even when I'm standing right there and could do it myself.  That's a real special girl.

2. Yitzchak brought Rivka "ha'ohela Sarah imo," into his mother Sarah's tent.  (24:67)  "Ha'ohela" is a strange construction. In Hebrew there is usually not a hey ha'yediah in front of a possessive, e.g. you would say "beis chaveircha" if you were talking about a friend's house, but not "ha'beis chaveircha."  See Ibn Ezra.  Also, the final hey in ha'ohela seems completely out of place.  HaKsav v'haKabbalah, as he always does, has an interesting linguistic insight that sheds new light (you will get the pun soon) on a pasuk we read in pesukei d'zimra every Shabbos. 

In Tehillim ch 19 we read that Hashem created the heavens and sky, "b'kol ha'aretz yaztah kavam u'bi'k'tzey teivel mileihem, la'shemesh sam ohel ba'hem."  The first half of the pasuk means the sky is spread over the earth, causing people to speak of its wonder (Rashi), or it's as if it declares G-d's wonders (Metzudah).  The way the Rishonim explain the second half is that G-d made the sky like a tent, an ohel, which contains the sun.  That's the translation you will find in your Artscroll siddur.  However, that's not how the Targum renders it.  Targum translates as follows: "l'shimsha shavei mishrivei ziharah be'hon" -- the sun casts its bright rays on them.  Ohel can mean light.

The word uses the word ha'ohela in our pasuk, explains HaKsav v'haKabbalah, to suggest the secondary meaning of asher ohela, which gave light. The tent of Sarah, the tent of Rivka, was a place of light whose rays emanated out to the world (see Tagrum Yonasan as well).

role models

When my son is home for Shabbos he almost always insists on our singing K-h Echsof, which is by far his favorite zemer.  It’s interesting that K-h Ecshof seems to have such a broad appeal, from the chassidic world of Karlin to the intellectual halls of Gush:

I mention it this week because of the remez in the parsha.  Avraham is called “NASI Elokim” by the Bnei Cheis.  The letters of NASI, says the Viznitzer – nun, aleph, s(h)in, yud -- are the same letters as K (with a yud)-h Echsof Noam Shabbos.  Avraham was a prince because he carried with him the niggun of K-h Echsof, the dveikus of Shabbos.

Coming back down to earth : ), in last week’s parsha, when Avraham davens on behalf of Sdom, he cries to G-d that he is “afar v’eifer,” dust and ashes, and therefore his prayers should be heard.  I think the simple pshat is that Avraham stressed his own nothingness because of the gemara (Sotah 5) that G-d does not reject the prayers of an anav.  Maharal (Nesiv ha’Anavah 1) explains that tefilah is like a korban.  The point of sacrificing an animal as a korban is to show that everything is bateil before G-d – the animal is destroyed and becomes nothing.  Being an anav is even greater because instead of just a symbolic act of bittul, the anav’s whole life is one of bittul before Hashem.  That creates a special relationship.

Chasam Sofer has a different approach.  People learn by example.  Liberals have rachmanus for those who grew up on the wrong side of the tracks and were deprived of solid role models and a good home environment and as a result become what they become.  No one has the same rachmanus if they hear that a criminal had a wonderful home, the best education, etc.  The people of Sdom lived in the same area as the greatest exemplar of chessed, Avraham Avinu.  They had the best role model in the world!  Still, they didn’t get the message.  Under those circumstances, how could Avraham ask for rachmanus on their behalf?   Avraham therefore prefaced his tefilos by saying he is afar v’eifer.  Avraham wanted to minimize his own reputation and influence.  What he was saying is “Don’t blame Sdom for not learning from me.  What am I?  I’m a nothing.”

The same idea comes up at the end of last week’s parsha as well.  When travelling toward the site of the akeidah, the Torah says that Avraham saw the place from a distance.  Rashi writes that he perceived a cloud that enveloped the mountain.  Yishmael and Eliezer failed to see the same cloud, and Avraham therefore told them, “Shvu... im ha’chamor,”which Rashi interprets based on Chazal to be an allusion to the fact that they are like the donkey they rode on.  Obviously this was some type of spiritual cloud, not a rain cloud that anyone could see.  But that begs the question – just because they couldn’t see this special spiritual cloud they deserve to be equated with the chamor?

In the sichot of R’ Ya’akov Shapira he explains that when you grow up and live in the house of an Avraham Avinu, then not being able to perceive that spiritual cloud is in fact indicative of a major defect.  Even Hagar, as we read in last week’s parsha, was so used to seeing angels that it made no impression on her; she had no fear of them.   When you have the right role models and/or the right environment, then there is no excuse for not growing.

When Avraham charges Eliezer with the shlichus to find a shidduch for Yitzchak, he tells him not to take from the “Bnos Canaan asher anochi yosheiv b’kirbo.”  We know Avraham lived in Canaan – why repeat that fact here?  To rehash a Ksav Sofer that we discussed once before, Avraham was telling Eliezer *why* he should avoid the Bnos Canaan.  Like Sdom, the Bnos Canaan lived in Avraham Avinu’s neighborhood.  If even with Avraham Avinu, the paragon of tzidkus, living among them, these Bnos Canaan were still lacking in midos, still ovdei avodah zarah, then that indicates that something was very wrong with them. 

The regular day job has been too mind numbing lately to do more with these posts than discuss parsha once a week.  Chaval. 

A question to work on: Eliezer asks Lavan and Besuel to do "chessed v'emes" for Avraham and let Rivka leave to marry Yitzchak (24:49).  In Parhas vaYechi, Ya'akov Avinu asks Yosef to do for him "chessed v'emes" and not bury him in Egypt.  Rashi there explains that "chessed v'emes" refers in particular to burial because it is a kindness that will never be repaid. If so, how does the term make sense in the context of Eliezer's conversation? 

did Rashbam think Rashi was written b'ruch hakodesh?

Earlier in the week I mentioned R’ Dessler’s letter (4:31(2)) in which he argues that Chazal’s pshat in pesukim is just as much part of the mesorah as anything else, just we have license where we cannot understand or accept that pshat to read and interpret the text differently.  Learning pshat against Chazal is in effect a b’dieved situation, a response to the needs of “nevochim.”  R’ Menashe Klein, in his Shu”T Mishneh Halachos 5:165-169 (link) discusses this same issue at length and takes a very different view.  In a nutshell (it's a kuntres that goes on for a few pages) R’ M. Klein does not think Chazal ever meant their pshat as THE interpretation of any pasuk – they simply offer ONE interpretation of many, all of which are latent in the pasuk.  When meforshim are critical of a pshat brought by Chazal, the point is not that the interpretation is false -- the point is that Chazal's reading should be taken as derash and not pshat.  The argument is often over what level of meaning an interpretation is operating on, not whether that interpretation is true or false, as multiple true interpretations of the text are possible on different levels.  Revealing other meanings in the text is a l’chatchila, as this serves l’hagdil Torah.  (Judging from the comments and e-mail in response to last post, most people intuitively side with R' Menashe Klein.)  Two things struck me in his kuntres: 1) his tolerance of contextualization - an interpretation in Chazal/Rishonim may have carried particular meaning in its time or place, but in other periods other readings may be preferred (Rashbam at the beginning of Vayeishev's refers to "pashtus hameshachdim b'chol yom"); 2) not only can one learn pesukim is ways that are different than Chazal, but he writes that so long as the halacha is not impacted, one can do the same for Mishnayos and gemara. 

Another question he raises is whether Chazal and/or the Rishonim wrote everything b'ruach hakodesh.  I recently heard a speaker claim that regardless of whether other people believe Rashi was written b’ruach hakodesh, the Rashbam certainly didn’t think so.  I respectfully beg to differ with that reasoning.  In the famous tanur shel achna’I story, R’ Eliezer calls down various miracles to occur to prove that he is correct.  Surely public miracles are even better proof of Heaven’s assent than a private voice of nevuah or spirit of ruach hakodesh.  Yet we don’t pasken like R’ Eliezer.  The reason why is not because we have doubts about whether R’ Eliezer’s words are inspired –  it’s because that has nothing to do with the matter.  Torah is given to us to puzzle over with our own brains.  There is no contradiction between thinking that Rashbam felt his grandfather’s interpretation of chumash was written b'ruach hakodesh and Rashbam thinking that given the chance to revise, his grandfather would have updated that interpretation to read more like Rashbam’s own.

M’inyan l’inyan on the topic of pshat and derash, the Sifsei Chachamim on last week’s parsha asks a question that is so fundamental that you have to wonder why it didn’t come up earlier.  Rashi (24:17) offers two interpretations of “Vayakam s’dei Ephron”:

תקומה הייתה לה שיצאה מיד הדיוט ליד מלך.
ופשוטו של מקרא: ויקם השדה והמערה אשר בו וכל העץ לאברהם למקנה וגו'

We think of Rashi’s interpretation as “pshat;” he cites Midrash only to the extent that it helps explicate the plain meaning of the text.  So m’mah nafshach: if the pasuk is understandable according to the “peshuto shel mikra” (Rashi’s second interpretation), why does Rashi bother to quote Midrash?  And if the pasuk is not understandable according to the “peshuto shel mikra,” then why does Rashi cite it at all? 

The Sifsei Chachamim’s answer addresses that particular Rashi, but as he notes in his question, whenever Rashi cites multiple interpretations (even where he doesn’t label one pshat and one derash), the same question can be asked, so we need a general rule.    The question sounds fancy, but the answer is I think simple: whether a pshat is good or bad is not something that can be evaluated in absolute terms.  It’s a relative judgment compared to some other possible reading.  Whenever Rashi cites multiple interpretations, it’s because each one is lacking when weighed against the other.  Yes, the pasuk can be read according to “peshuto shel mikra,” but that comes at some expense; yes, the pasuk’s meaning is clearer in some ways if interpreted using Midrash, but that comes at some other expense (see S.C. for the strenghts and weaknesses of each pshat brought by this Rashi).  Whenever Rashi offers multiple interpretations, Sifsei Chachamim always looks for a weakness in each that is counterbalanced by the other pshat.  (Contrast that with, for example, the Sefas Emes, who will often show that both interpretations in Rashi complement each other to bring out a single hashkafic point.)

two ways to say maybe

In his meeting with Lavan and Besuel, Eliezer recounts that he asked Avraham before leaving: “Maybe the girl won’t come with me?”  Rashi notes that the word, “ulai,” “maybe,” is written without the letter “vav,” so that if you didn’t know better you might read it as “eilai.”  The Midrash explains that Eliezer had a daughter that he thought might be a prospective match for Yitzchak.  Raising the question was Eliezer’s way of giving voice to his hidden hope that Yitzchak might marry “eilai,” into his own family.

The meforshei Rashi ask why this allusion appears only here, when Eliezer recounts the story, and not earlier, when he is speaking to Avraham directly.  The Kotzker famously explains that it’s only after the fact, after he found Rivka, that Eliezer realized his own hidden motives.  So long as he had a vested interest in the matter, he didn’t even realize how it tilted his perspective. 

Another clever answer: before he came to Lavan and Besuel’s home, Eliezer thought his hava amina that Yitzchak should marry his daughter was ridiculous.  But when he saw the mechutanim, Besuel, and he saw Lavan, he thought why not me?

The Ksav v’haKabbalah suggests that this Midrash is not based on the missing letter “vav” alone, but is based on the phrase used to pose the question.  There are two different words that can be used to talk about “maybe”: the word “ulai” and the word “pen.” The word “pen” is used when you don’t want the possibility being discussed to happen -- the equivalent of the English “lest.”  After Adam eats from the eitz hada’as, the Torah says, “pen yishlach yado v’achal gam m’eitz hachaim,” i.e. “lest he eat from the eitz hachaim.” The word “ulai,” on the other hand, is when you want the possibility being discussed to happen.  Ya’akov sends gifts to Eisav because “ulai yisah panai,” i.e. “maybe he will greet me in peace.”  Ya’akov wants Eisav to accept his gift, not to turn away.  When Eliezer raised the possibility of Rivka not wanting to come with him, he doesn’t use the word, “pen,” i.e. “lest she refuse to come,” but rather he uses “ulai” – it was something that secretly, he wanted to happen.

This pshat gives you a new perspective on a key pasuk in our parsha. Rivka tells Ya’akov to dress up as Eisav and go to get brachos from his father.  Ya’akov responds, “Ulai y’musheini avi,” i.e. “Perhaps my father will touch me [and feel my smooth skin].”  Ya’akov doesn’t use the word “pen,” i.e. “I can't do it lest my father feel that it is not me,” but rather he uses the word “ulai,” indicating it is something he wanted.  Despite his hesitancy to go into Yitzchak and deceive him, Ya’akov reveals in his question that he really desired for Yitzchak to place his hands on him, as that was the mechanism for the delivery of brachos.  

standing on the shoulders of giants

1) The Midrash writes that once when R’ Akiva was darshening his students started to doze off, and so he posed a question to wake them up: why did Esther merit to rule over 127 countries?   Answer: because Sarah lived 127 righteous years.

Why does the Midrash make a point of telling us the context – the students nodding off – in which R’ Akiva taught this derasha? I’m sure it must make teachers feel better to know that even R’ Akiva struggled to keep his student’s attention, and maybe it makes students feel better to know that dozing off in class is not a new phenomenon, but I doubt this is the message Chazal wanted to convey. And what exactly was it about R’ Akiva’s question that woke them up?

R’ Akiva lived in the period immediately following the churban of the bais hamikdrash – a time of great transition, from greatness to galus. It was not ordinary physical sleep that R’ Akiva’s students were overcome with, but rather it was a lack of spiritual and emotional energy to deal with what seemed to be the overwhelming challenges they faced. 

Esther’s name comes from the words, “hester panim.” Esther too lived in a time when G-d’s presence was hidden. Nonetheless, Esther rose to rule over the entire world. How? Because generations beforehand there was a Sarah Imeinu whose spiritual influence extended long into the future to protect her children even amidst that hester.

The Chiddushei haRI”M explains that R’ Akiva was telling his students that no matter how bleak things looked, they were standing on the shoulders of the giants who came before them, and could therefore still achieve great things.

 

2) Helping someone in need is not the gemilus chassadim that was Avraham Avinu's hallmark.  Providing help to someone in distress is basic human decency; to not do so would be callous.  You're not a tzadik for doing what should be the norm. 

 

So what made Avraham special?  Let's look at what Rivka did to prove that she shared that same midah.  Along comes a caravan of camels, led my a group of able bodied men, laden with "kol tuv" of Avraham, all kinds of goods and material.  Due to Eliezer having kefitzas haderech, these camels haven't even broken a sweat.  They could travel for miles more without a break.  Rivka is just three years old, barely old enough to be out alone.  What does she do?  She offers to draw water not just for Eliezer, but for all his camels.  Imagine the reaction of anyone seeing this scene - it's ludicrous!  They would laugh at her offer.  Surely Eliezer and his men were far more capable of caring for the camels than Rivka was, surely they had enough of their own provisions to tend to the camels if they needed food or drink, and surely there was no way Rivka's help (barring a miracla) could have made much of a difference.  But she offered anyway. 

 

R' Yitzchak Isaac Sher explains that what made Rivka (and Avraham) special is the desire to help even when there is no apparent need, even when it won't seem to make much difference, and even when others can get by without it.  So why help?  Because you want to do good. 

a shidduch for Yitzchak Avinu

1) It seems that Eliezer went out of his way to stress that his encounter with Rivka was guided by hashgacha pratis, and Lavan and family even remarked “mei’Hashem yatzah ha’davar.”  Why did they care?  Yitzchak had wealth, his family was famous and well respected -- in short, it looked like an ideal shidduch, with or without the miracles that affirmed this to be the case.

The Netziv writes that the area of zivugim is “kavshei Rachamana,” among G-d’s secrets.  We might look at Ploni and Plonis and wonder what such different people ever saw in each other, yet despite our preconceptions and misconceptions they remain happily married for years.  We might look at another Ploni and Plonis and think they would make the perfect couple, yet after one date they don’t even want to hear each other’s voice.  In short, G-d in his infinite wisdom works things out in ways that we sometimes cannot anticipate.  Where Ploni and Plonis come from different families and live in different places, the hand of hashgacha is more obvious.  A guy from Australia is assigned a roommate in yeshiva who happens to have a sister in Chicago whose friend from Detrot ends up being his bashert – only hashgacha pratis could pull strands from all over the globe together to make such a match.  But when Ploni and Plonis come from the same family, like Rivka and Yitzchak, the hand of hashgacha is not obvious.  The family already has a connection, the match already looks like one that is appropriate, it’s no surprise for the two to come together.  Yet, even Lavan and family knew that what looks like the perfect match is not always the right thing.  Even they understood that it’s the yad Hashem that is the true confirmation that the match will work.

2) The Derashos haRan famously explains that the reason Avraham look for a bride for Yitzchak from his family instead of from Canaan, even though both were idolators, is because the Cannanites had corrupt midos while his family just were misguided in their deyos, their beliefs.  A philosophy or belief system can be changed; midos, however, are genetic, and the corruption would inevitably pass to the next generation.  Taken at face value it’s a hard sevara to understand.  Midos, like beliefs, are not inherited characteristics.  That being said, I think most people would agree that there is a distinction between the two.  R' Yisrael Salanter's remark about it being easier to learn shas than to fix a midah points to the truth that ideas are far less fixed than behaviors are.

The Ksav Sofer offers a different reason based on a diyuk in Avraham's command to Eliezer not to take “m’bnos Canaan asher anochi yosheiv b’kirbo,” “a girl from the Canaanites among whom I am living.”  Why did Avraham need to mention that he lived among the Canaanites -- we know this is true?  Ksav Sofer writes that Avraham was justifying his rejection of a Canaanite girl.  For decades Avraham had lived among the people of Canaan and tried to teach them Hashem echad, not to worship idols, etc., yet, despite all his efforts, they remained who they were – idol worshippers.  If after all those years lving among them his teaching and his example had no effect, there was no reason to think a girl from a Canaanite background would make a good shidduch.  Avraham therefore had to look elsewhere.

marriage = yismach lev m'vakshei Hashem

1) Though the Ishbitzer on this week’s parsha uses this pasuk to define a different relationship, I want to borrow his thought and apply it to marriage.  The pasuk (it’s actually the end of a pasuk) is, “Yismach lev mivakshei Hashem” (Teh 105:3).  Notice that “lev” is in the singular, but “mevakshei” is in the plural.  There are two people, each being “mevakeish Hashem” in their own way, but the lev is one. 

2) “V’hinei Rivka yotzeis asher yuldah l’Besuel…” (24:15)

The word “hinei” signals a deviation from the norm.  In last week’s parsha when the malachim came to Avraham’s home and asked where Sarah was Avraham answered, “hinei ba’ohel,” because normally she was out serving the guests herself (Netziv) – her being inside out of view was out of the norm.  Here, R’ Shteinman in his Ayeles haShachar quotes the Malbi”m who suggests that there were servants who usually went out to draw water.  It was completely out of the norm for Rivka to go out herself.

 
3) I want to discuss a second question R’ Shteinman asks: why does the pasuk uses the circuitous verbiage of “asher yadlah l’Besuel” instead of just saying “bas Besuel?”  R’ Shteinman does not offer an answer, but the Kedushas Levi discusses this point a few times in this week’s parsha and gives it enormous significance.  I’ve been struggling with understanding the concept and finding a way to present it and don’t know if I will have any success, but I’ll try:
 

Just like in the material world we know a rising tide lifts all boats, the same is true in spiritual worlds as well.  When a person does a mitzvah, it doesn’t just effect his personal bank account of zechuyos, but it brings more spiritual energy into the world as a whole and makes it a better place (better = closer to Hashem). 

L’havdil, if a movie star is seen wearing a green dress, suddenly everyone wants to wear a green dress or a green shirt.  All the designers start making green clothes; all the stores feature green in their windows.  The world becomes a different world.

In a similar way, if someone is a great ba’al chessed, he releases chessed energy into the world.  We don’t see it like we see the green dress, but the energy is out there and our neshomos are tuned into it.  As a result of someone’s hachna’sa orchim in New York, someone helps a friend with grocery shopping in Yerushalayim, someone helps an old lady across the street in Australia, someone smiles at his neighbor is Hong Kong.  The world is a different place; it has more chessed energy in it.

The Midrash writes about Avraham that “b’shvilo misgalgel chessed ba’olam.”  The Sefas Emes writes that “b’shvilo” here does not mean “because of him,” but rather comes from the word “shvil,” path.  There has to be a path for the shefa, the energy, upstairs to get down here.  If we want chessed to flow down to us from upstairs, then we need to become ba’alei chessed, and midah k’neged midah we will get the same in return.  Avraham’s practice of chessed opened a path, or in his case, a superhighway, for chessed to come down into the world. 

Rivka may have been the biological daughter of Besuel, but her spiritual father was Avraham Avinu.  A neshoma like hers that is so instilled with the trait of chessed could only come into the world on that superhighway that Avraham Avinu opened.  Rivka was “yuldah l’Besuel,” she happened to be born biologically to him, but she was really a daughter of Avraham.

 

(And for those thinking ahead to next week, that phrases "Yizchak ben Avraham" and "Avraham holid es Yitzchak" based on this approach are clearly not synonomous.

4) Rashi (24:7) notes that when Avraham administers his oath to Eliezer not to take a Canaanite wife for Yitzchak, he refers to G-d as "Elokei hashamayim v'Elokei ha'aretz," but when he refers to G-d who took him out of his homeland, he uses the expression "Elokei hashamayim" alone.  Avraham was telling Eliezer, explains Rashi, that because of his teaching efforts everyone now knows that G-d is king over both heaven and earth, but originally, when Avraham first came on the scene, G-d was king in heaven but unknown by people on earth. 

Why does Avraham choose this moment to make this point to Eliezer?  Does he need to boast of his accomplishments, does he need to tell Eliezer, his faithful servant, that he is the one who taught the world about G-d?

The idea here (see Shem m'Shmuel) perhaps is that without an Avraham Avinu, the realms of heaven and earth, material and spritual, would be worlds apart.  Avraham was the first shadchan; he brought them together.  It was that koach that he had brought into the world that he was giving over to Eliezer to help him bring together Yitzchak and Rivka.

the hurricane, the snow, and the tent of the Imahos

There is still no power in much of Far Rockaway and Bayswater (and other neighborhoods -- I mention these in particular because they are closest to where I live), homes have been ruined, gas is in short supply all over NY, and people desperately need help.  To top it off, we got hit with a no'reaster yesterday that knocked out some of the power that had been restored.  There are a number of organizations working to provide relief that you can reach out to if you want to provide assistance or need assistance, among them Achiezer and Five Towns Chabad.   

When our power came on I reminded my kids of the story of R' Chaim not wanting to sleep in his bed after Brisk was hit with a fire because he could not bear to have any pleasure while others were suffering.  My son's Rosh Yeshiva quoted a Rav in another community who suggested that they skip putting sugar in their coffee so that they would be mishtatef b'tzar'as hatzibur, even if in some small way.  I would suggest that even if you can't provide physical support or contribute financially, you can still do something -- you can be mispallel for the well being of those in need.  My gut tells me that davening with a real feeling of empathy for others qualifies as being mishtatef b'tzarasam as well.

I heard one Rav remark on all the Torah learning lost because of lack of power, schools being forced to close, etc.  Last week my son's yeshiva transformed the lunchroom of a neighboring girls school which had a backup generator into a beis medrash.  (The girls stayed home, as there was not enough power for the whole building).  It was heartening to see the mesirus nefesh of the bachurim to show up to a cold building (lights were on but heat was in short supply) to keep normal sedorim amidst the chaos. The yeshiva has since gotten some backup generators for its own building, but let's hope they get real power soon.

Chazal tell us that Eliezer experienced a miracle and made it from Avraham's home to Rivka's town in one day.  Why did such miracle happen?  Eliezer was "doleh u'mashkeh torah rabbo," he cherished every word of torah, every lesson he could learn from Avraham.  The Radomsker explains that Eliezer could not bear to be away from his Rebbi for a single day.  Therefore, Hashem gave him the bracha of a speedy one day trip.  Hopefully our love of the warmth and light of Torah will make an impression in shamayim and bring us light and warmth in gashmiyus as well. 

I was thinking this past Shabbos of YaVeira that the parsha was appropriate in more ways than one.  The bright side, for you glass-is-half-full folks, was the outpouring of hachnasas orchim and chessed to those who had been displaced by the storm.  Avraham would be proud of his children.  And then there is the other side, for us glass-is-half-empty realists.  It was not as cataclysmic as the destruction of Sdom, but the storm was in some ways far more tragic, as we are not speaking of Sdom -- we are speaking of frum communities hit with tremendous loss.  The Rambam writes (Hil Ta'anis perek 1):

אבל אם לא יזעקו ולא יריעו אלא יאמרו דבר זה ממנהג העולם אירע לנו וצרה זו נקרה נקרית. הרי זו דרך אכזריות וגורמת להם להדבק במעשיהם הרעים. ותוסיף הצרה צרות אחרות. הוא שכתוב בתורה והלכתם עמי בקרי והלכתי גם אני עמכם חמת קרי. כלומר כשאביא עליכם צרה כדי שתשובו אם תאמרו שהיא קרי אוסיף לכם חמת אותו קרי:

We have to think about what we can do better and why such events happen.  I'm not a navi -- you can make your own cheshbon hanefesh.   I am just encouraging that it be done, maybe not now, when we are all suffering, but in the weeks and months ahead when we have time to reflect.  Right now, there is too much suffering that yet needs to be alleviated.

As if the storm wasn't enough, there was the election  this past week.  Let me keep it simple: We are on a road to economic and social doom.  The only question is how long or short the road is.  That's all I want to say.  I also fear (as I have said before) that our bretheren in the Holy Land cannot rely in any way on the support of the current administration.  Why frum Jews would ignore that obvious fact is beyond me. 

Havolim already beat me to discussing the miracles of the light that burned from Shabbos to Shabbos in the tent of the Imahos, the bracha in the dough, and the cloud which enveloped their tent.  These miracles find their parallel in the Ohel Moed: the ner ma'aravi of the menorah which burned continuously, the lechem ha'panim that was as hot as the moment it was taken from the oven even after sitting out on the shulchan for a week, and the clouds which enveloped the camp and protected Bnei Yisrael.  The Ohel Moed that we shared as a community was a model of the personal ohel of the Imahos.  

What are we supposed to take away from these miracles?  

Hopefully each Shabbos we celebrate gives us a burst of spiritual energy and uplift.  We all know, however, that that spiritual booster shot wears off.  For some people it's gone by the time they get to the movie theater motzei Shabbos, for other people, it lasts a little longer into the week.  In the tent of the Imahos, the Shabbos candles never burned out -- the spirit of Shabbos, the booster shot of ruchniyus, never wore off as the week progressed.  

After you've been sitting in a cold house living by candlelight for a few days, you really appreciate a hot meal in a warm, well lit environment.  You can bet the bracha before that meal and the birchas hamazon afterwards has more meaning.  The dough of the Imahos gave that feeling all the time.  The warmth of the lechem hapanim, the spiritual energy that radiated within, never wore off.  

And finally, there were the clouds.  To tell you the truth, most of us living in the Northeast of the US are pretty sick of seeing and hearing about clouds and probably don't see them as a bracha right now : )   I know it's not pshat at all, but you can allow me a little license for derush. Perhaps the idea of "anan kashur al ha'ohel," the cloud "tied" to the tent, means that the clouds of adversity and challenge faced by the Imahos were always were "tied" to and placed in the context of the ner and bracha of the bread that were also part of the ohel.  If adversity exists in a vacuum, without a spiritual anchor to help a person get through the storm, the consequences can be permanently damaging.  In such a case it is the hurricane storm clouds that uproot the ohel.   The spiritual ohel that the Imahos bequeathed to us  enables us to corral challenges and adversity and overcome them with bracha.