how to prepare to survive in Lavan's house; "ain m'arvin simcha b'simcha"

1) Yaakov was told by his parents to go to Lavan's house to find a wife.  Why did he diregard his parents instructions and stop off for 14 years to learn by Shem and Eiver?  What happened to the mitzvah of kibud av?

R' Yosef Sorotzkin answers  that in order to survive in the environment of Lavan's house Yaakov had to fortify himself with non-stop Torah study for those 14 years.  This was an an abrogation of his mitzvah of kibud av, but rather a necessary step in order to be able to fulfill his parent's instruction.  

2) The Midrash writes on the opening of our parsha:

רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן פָּתַח (תהלים קכא, א): שִׁיר לַמַּעֲלוֹת אֶשָּׂא עֵינַי אֶל הֶהָרִים, אֶשָּׂא עֵינַי אֶל הַהוֹרִים לְמַלְפָנַי וְלִמְעַבְּדָנַי. (תהלים קכא, א): מֵאַיִן יָבוֹא עֶזְרִי, אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהָלַךְ לְהָבִיא אֶת רִבְקָה מַה כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ (בראשית כד, י): וַיִּקַּח הָעֶבֶד עֲשָׂרָה גְמַלִים וגו', וַאֲנִי לֹא נֶזֶם אֶחָד וְלֹא צָמִיד אֶחָד. רַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמַר גָּדוּד שִׁלְּחוֹ. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אָמַר שִׁלַּח עִמּוֹ, אֶלָּא שֶׁעָמַד עֵשָׂו וּנְטָלָהּ מִמֶּנּוּ. חָזַר וְאָמַר מָה אֲנָא מוֹבֵד סִבְרִי מִן בָּרְיִי, חַס וְשָׁלוֹם, לֵית אֲנָא מוֹבֵד סִבְרִי מִן בָּרְיִי, אֶלָּא (תהלים קכא, ב): עֶזְרִי מֵעִם ה'. (תהלים קכא, ג): אַל יִתֵּן לַמּוֹט רַגְלֶךָ אַל יָנוּם שֹׁמְרֶךָ, (תהלים קכא, ה): הִנֵּה לֹא יָנוּם וְלֹא יִישָׁן וגו', (תהלים קכא, ז): ה' יִשְׁמָרְךָ מִכָּל רָע, מֵעֵשָׂו וּמִלָּבָן. (תהלים קכא, ז): יִשְׁמֹר אֶת נַפְשֶׁךָ, מִמַּלְאַךְ הַמָּוֶת. (תהלים קכא, ח): ה' יִשְׁמָר צֵאתְךָ וּבוֹאֶךָ, וַיֵּצֵא יַעֲקֹב.

What was Yaakov's safeik of מֵאַיִן יָבוֹא עֶזְרִי ?  

The Ben Ish Chai explains that a person can be saved by Hashem b'derech ha'teva or b'derech nes.  He compares these two approaches to a father who gives his son an allowance and the son must decide how to spend the $ to manage his needs vs a father who pays all the bills and the son does not even need to carry a wallet.  Yaakov Avinu had bitachon that Hashem would save him, but he did not know how it would happen.  Would Hashem give him the wealth and resources needed and he would have to manage his affairs, or would his salvation be miraculous, without his having to take care of anything?  When Yaakov realized that he was penniless and had no ability to do anything for himself, he accepted that his plight was b'yad Hashem alone, and he would have a miraculous deliverance without having to worry about his own needs.

We once discussed the story of (Kesubos 62) Rebbi's son who went off to learn for any years and came home to find his wife was incapable of having children.  The gemara goes through Rebbis' thought process: could his son divorce his wife?  Could he take another wife?  Finally Rebbi came to the conclusion that there was no fair solution other than for him to daven for his daughter in law to be cured and be able to have children.

Why does the gemara go through the whole shakla v'terya of Rebbi's thinking?  If Rebbi knew he could daven and cure his DIL, why didn't he just do that?

This is the same yesod of the Ben Ish Chai.  It was only when Yaakov realized that he was penniless, that he could not do it himself, that he threw all his eggs into the basket of reliance on Hashem and his salvation came derech nes.  So long as there was even a hava amina that Rebbi's DIL would have a yeshu'a b'derech ha'teva, his tefilah would not have worked.  It is the realization that things are 100% b'yad Hashem that beings about a salvation.

3) It's interesting that the Rambam in Ishus 10:14 quotes the source of אין מערבין שמחה בשמחה  from our parsha:

. ואפילו בחולו של מועד אין נושאין נשים כמו שביארנו לפי שאין מערבין שמחה בשמחה שנאמר מלא שבוע זאת ונתנה לך גם את זאת

Tos (Moed Katan 8b) points out that this source is quoted in the Yerushalmi, but not in the Bavli.

The Rambam in hil Yom Tov 7:16, however, writes as follows:

אין רואין את הנגעים במועד שמא ימצא טמא ונמצא חגו נהפך לאבל. ואין נושאין נשים ולא מייבמין במועד כדי שלא תשתכח שמחת החג בשמחת הנשואין. 

If I just stop the quote there it seems like the Rambam does not hold of אין מערבין שמחה בשמחה at all.  Instead, the reason for not getting married on Y"T is  שלא תשתכח שמחת החג , or as the gemara in MK puts it, מפני שמניח שמחת הרגל ועוסק בשמחת אשתו.  

The Rambam then continues in that same halacha:

אבל מחזיר את גרושתו. ומארסין נשים במועד. ובלבד שלא יעשה סעודת אירוסין. ולא סעודת נישואין. שלא יערב שמחה אחרת בשמחת החג:

Here he does quote the din of שאין מערבין, albeit without quoting a source like he does in hil ishus.

See Lechem Mishne for starters to unravel what is going on here.

Torah as our shield

וַיִּשְׂטֹם עֵשָׂו אֶת יַעֲקֹב עַל הַבְּרָכָה אֲשֶׁר בֵּרְכוֹ אָבִיו (27:41) The simple pshat in the pasuk is that Eisav hated Yaakov and wanted to kill him because of the bracha that Yaakov stole from him.  Abarbanel (see Chizkuni as well) has a different twist:

אחשוב שחוזר לעשו וירצה על הברכ׳ אשר ברך אביו לעשו כי מפני שיצחק ברכו ועל חרבך תחיה והיה כאשר תריד ופרקת עלו מעל צוארך חשב עשו כי בחרבו ינקום ממנו ויפרוק עלו מעל צוארו ולכן בעבור הברכ׳ אמר ברכו אביו ממנה נתיעץ וחשב מחשבו׳ להרוג את יעקב 

Eisav hated Yaakov and wanted to kill him, says Abarbanel, because of the bracha על חרבך תחיה that Eisav received from his father. Eisav felt emboldened, and thought that at the right moment he would have his revenge.  

For now, Eisav held himself in check: 

 וַיֹּאמֶר עֵשָׂו בְּלִבּוֹ יִקְרְבוּ יְמֵי אֵבֶל אָבִי וְאַהַרְגָה אֶת יַעֲקֹב אָחִי

I do not understand R' Ben Tzion Aba Shaul's question of why Yaakov had to flee if Eisav was not going to harm him at this moment.  How did Yaakov know what Eisav was thinking and know that there was no immediate danger?  (Though see Ibn Ezra יאמר עשו בלבו – יתכן שגלה סודו לאחד מאוהביו)

Why did Eisav hold back?  Did he delay to avoid causing pain to Yitzchak, or was it a calculated strategy?  The meforshim are divided.  Ramban writes that Eisav wanted to avoid doing anything to cause suffering for his father, and therefore he figured he would wait for Yitzchak's death before killing Yaakov.  It's an amazing thing -- even as he was plotting the crime of murder, Eisav was meticulous about kibuv av!  We also see that Eisav did not understand kibuv av in the sense of accepting his father as a role model of proper behavior.  Whatever Eisav could get away with outside his father's knowledge was fair game.

Targum Yonasan sees Eisav's delay as a calculated move:

ונטר עשו שנא בליביה על יעקב אחוי על סדר בירכתא דיברכיה אבוי ואמר עשו בליביה לית אנא עביד היכמא דעבד קין דקטל ית הבל בחיי אבוי והדר אבוי ואוליד ית שת ברם מתעכב אנא עד זמן דימטון יומי אבלא דמיתת אבא ובכן אנא קטיל ית יעקב אחי ואנא משתכח קטול וירית.

I don't understand why the theoretical possibility of Yitzchak having more children bothered Eisav given that his beef was specifically with Yaakov for having stolen the brachos.  

Netziv and Kli Yakar also see Eisav here as calculating, but instead of reading יְמֵי אֵבֶל אָבִי as referring to the death of Yaakov, they understand it as referring specifically to the time of aveilus.  Netziv writes Eisav figured that Yaakov would avoid him, but when Yitzchak would die, they would come together, as all families do to bury their father and mourn.  That would provide an opportunity for him to pounce.  

Kli Yakar suggests that Eisav knew that Yaakov's Torah protected him from harm.  (Interesting that although Eisav was a rasha, he recognized this reality.)  Therefore, he figured since an aveil is prohibited from learning Torah, the period of aveilus would be his moment to strike.

R' Shteinman in Ayeles haShacher questions the assumption of this Kli Yakar.  An aveil is in fact allowed to learn Torah.  He may learn hil aveilus, he can learn other sad things, similar to what we do on 9 Av.  Yaakov wouldn't have been just sitting and doing nothing during shiva.

Many answer by distinguishing between the mitzvah of limud haTorah, which even an aveil can engage in, and the segulah of Torah affording protection, which is a din not in learning per se, but rather is a product of ameilus and deep immersion in Torah.  An aveil can learn, but cannot learn with the same amkus and the same intensity as a regular person.  

Earlier in Lech Lech the Torah describes Avraham going out to war (14:13)

 וַיִּשְׁמַע אַבְרָם כִּי נִשְׁבָּה אָחִיו וַיָּרֶק אֶת חֲנִיכָיו יְלִידֵי בֵיתוֹ שְׁמֹנָה עָשָׂר וּשְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת וַיִּרְדֹּף עַד דָּן

Netziv there comments:

 בנדרים (לב,א) איכא מ״ד שהוריקן בתורה. והוא פלא, מה זו שעה לדברי תורה? אבל הענין הוא כמו שכתבתי לעיל (יב,יז) דזכות התורה היא חרב של ישראל, ובזו הזכות הגין ה׳ ולחם בשביל אברם, על כן כל שהמלחמה כבדה יש להעמיק יותר בהלכה ולשנן את החרב.

וכך עשה אברם הוריק את חניכיו בהלכה עמוקה עד שהיה קשה להם להבין והוריקו פניהם.

He goes on in the Harchev Davar to cite the gemara (Meg 3):

״וילן יהושע בלילה ההוא בתוך העמק״ (יהושע ח,יג), וא״ר יוחנן, מלמד שלן בעומקה של הלכה

Not just any learning, but specifically learning in depth, learning with intensity and effort, is what bring us victory against those who would seek to harm us.

2) R' Yisrael Najara was the chief Rabbi of Gaza in the 1500's and was the composer of K-h Ribon.  If you don't already say it, maybe at this time it would be a good idea to make sure not to skip his zemer at your table.  

hakaras ha'tov for the chayalim

Last week on one of the hareidi Israeli news sites there was a beautiful picture of a chayal dressed in uniform who was at a sheva brachos for a member of a Rebbe's family and approached the head table to get a bracha.  This is not the only picture of its kind I have seen, and so I think there is a lot of truth to this article in the WSJ about the shift in attitude in the hareidi world toward support for the Israeli army and even enlistment to serve.  

Kikar haShabbat quotes a sicha recently given by R' Yizchak Pinchas Goldwasser that apparently made a splash in the yeshivishe world:

הוא הוסיף ואמר לתלמידים כי הוא מודע למורכבות הדברים: "המשפטים האלו אמנם יישמעו צורמים, ואספר לכם עוד מעט עד כמה הם כאלו, אבל אני שוב חוזר ואומר בקול רם - 'אנחנו חייבים הכרת הטוב לחיילים שמסכנים את החיים שלהם'!".

"כל הדיבורים האלו שהם הולכים מרצון למלחמה, וחייבים ללכת למלחמה והם לא חושבים עלינו, זה דיבורי סרק והבל!", זעק המשגיח. "חיילים בשעה כזו חושבים על כולנו, לא רק על עצמם, יש הרבה שמתנדבים, שלא לדבר על הדתיים לאומיים שזה לא יאומן האכפתיות שיש להם".

הוא זעק מנהמת ליבו: "איך אפשר להיות כפויי טובה? אנחנו לא מרגישים את זה, כי פיטמו אותנו ואמרו שאנחנו ואנחנו ואנחנו, וזה נכון!".

הוא סיפר, שכשאמר דברים דומים בבית הכנסת בו התקיים שיעור והגיע אדם לשבח את הלומדים שהם הלוחמים האמיתיים, ניגש אליו אברך וגער בו: "איך אתה מדבר? אתה הורס את כל החינוך שלנו, כל החינוך שלנו הוא נגד הצבא, אין לנו שום קשר איתם, מה פתאום לדבר על חיילים, חס וחלילה".

"אם ככה" סיפר המשגיח, "אמרתי לעצמי, אני באמת צודק שצריך לדבר על זה, אם תלמיד חכם יכול לדבר בכזה ניתוק חייבים לזעוק

He continued:

אם זה יישמע לכם ציוני, אז קודם כל תדעו שיש שיחה עם ר' דוד פוברסקי מזמן שגם היתה מלחמה, והוא אומר לבחורים, אתם סומכים על הקב''ה? אם הייתם סומכים על הקב''ה הייתם רועדים מפחד! אתם סומכים על החיילים! ואם אתם סומכים על החיילים אתם לא מתפללים עליהם? לא אכפת לכם מהשלום שלהם? הרי זה מיניה וביה?!". 

Very wise words.

Yitzchak's favorite food

Yitzchak asked Eisav to prepare his favorite food for him (27:6),  וַעֲשֵׂה לִי מַטְעַמִּים כַּאֲשֶׁר אָהַבְתִּי וְהָבִיאָה לִּי וְאֹכֵלָה.  R' Shteinman in Ayeles haShachar asks a question only someone like R' Shteinman could ask: Why would a tzadik have such a thing as a favorite food?  You have to be a tzadik yourself to be bothered by questions like this.

Later in the perek we are told that Rivka prepared the food Yitzchak liked in order for Yaakov to bring it to his father (27:14),  וַתַּעַשׂ אִמּוֹ מַטְעַמִּים כַּאֲשֶׁר אָהֵב אָבִיו  I don't understand why Yitzchak was fooled by this.  If I were blindfolded and served something my wife cooked alongside the same dish prepared by someone else, I am pretty sure I could tell the difference between the two.  After so many years of marriage, how could Yitzchak not be able to tell the difference between some wild game prepared by Eisav and the cooking done by Rivka his wife!?  Was his completely oblivious to the sense of taste?

I usually don't like practical questions like this, but I'll make an exception for myself in this case because I found a Sefas Emes (5631, and see last year's post as well :

ובחי' המטעמים הוא ג"כ לקרב עניני עוה"ז להש"י ומה שהוא יותר מרוחק יותר נייחא לעלות להש"י. [כי במקום הנסתר לא יש רק הטעם שבחי' טעמים הוא למעלה מהכל וממילא נמצא ג"כ במה שלמטה יותר והבן מאוד]. ולכך ביעקב שלמעלה מהטבע לא הי' לו זה רק ע"י שרימה את יצחק בהברכות ע"פ רוה"ק של רבקה הי' עלי' כמטעמים שצוה לעשו כנ"ל. [ וז"ש הקול כו' והידים כו' וזה עליות הגשמיות לבחי' הקול כנ"ל]:

What made Eisav's food into מַטְעַמִּים כַּאֲשֶׁר אָהַבְתִּי for his father is not the way he seasoned it or the way he cooked it.  Like R' Shteinman says, things like that could not have mattered to Yitzchak.  What made the food Yitzchak's favorite is the fact that Eisav went out into the field, went out into olam ha'zeh, and took something out for the sake of ruchniyus.  To be a "yosheiv ohalim," plugged into spirituality 24x7, and remain a frum Jew, is not such a big kuntz.  But to go out into the world, where you don't see the yad Hashem, and not just to remain pure, but to even elevate that world and bring something positive out of it, that's a big deal.  That's the avodah that Yitzchak thought Eisav was engaged in.  

That's why, says the Sefas Emes, in this case, Yaakov's food as prepared by Rivka had that same flavor.  However you explain the details of why and how, Yaakov here seems to deceive his father and use the tools of our world of sheker to advance his cause.  It was this flavor of elevating our world of sheker and hester, the same flavor that Eisav was supposed to deliver,  that Yitzchak detected and savored.  

 הַקֹּל קוֹל יַעֲקֹב וְהַיָּדַיִם יְדֵי עֵשָׂו.  Sometimes we need to use the tools of Eisav and not just be a "yosheiv ohalim."  We sometimes need to get our hands dirty and take care of things in olam ha'zeh and it maybe doesn't look so nice.  So long as those hands are an extension of קוֹל יַעֲקֹב and are guided by the voice of morality and justice, they are elevated to something holy.  

no words

"The Biden administration on Tuesday reapproved a sanctions waiver that will allow Iran to access upward of $10 billion in frozen assets, the State Department confirmed to the Washington Free Beacon."

There are just no words...  

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. 

women reciting birchas haTorah

I thought this was an interesting sevara.  Someone suggested that when women say birchas haTorah they should have to learn a halacha, not just recite the pesukim of birkas kohanim.  I assume the logic here is that even the Beis Yosef, who holds that women cannot recite  birchas hamitzva on mitzvos they are exempt from, agrees that women can recite bh"t since they are obligated to study the halachos that apply to them (there are other explanations as well).  Since learning halacha is the mechayeiv of the bracha, it follows that they should do so right after saying the bracha.

R' Ovadya rejects this out of hand.

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.  

lessons from Avraham's treaty with Avimelech

The Torah introduces the parsha of the treaty between Avraham and Avimelech by telling us (21:22) that it happened "בָּעֵת הַהִוא," at that specific moment in time, implying that there was some prior string of events that led to this moment being ripe for what unfolded:

 וַיְהִי בָּעֵת הַהִוא וַיֹּאמֶר אֲבִימֶלֶךְ וּפִיכֹל שַׂר צְבָאוֹ אֶל אַבְרָהָם לֵאמֹר אֱלֹקים עִמְּךָ בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה עֹשֶׂה.

What the Torah does not tell us is what specifically made this THE moment.  I'm actually surprised Rashi does not tackle this question.  Two of the many answers meforshim give I think are relevant to inyana d'yoma.

Meshech Chochma writes:

הוא כי אברהם היה נעלה בהצלחתו ברצות ה׳ דרכיו וחסדו היה גדול לרחוק ולקרוב לבלי קץ, ואמנם כעת אשר ראו אכזריות גדולה מאברהם לשלוח שוכבת חיקו עם בנו הבכור אל המדבר עם חמת מים ולחם, אז פחדו ממנו שכיניו אולי בחרות אפו בם ינקום נקמתו, ועשו עצות בנפשם להקדים רפואה ולכרות עמו ברית וזה שאמר ויהי בעת ההיא ויאמר.

It was not Avraham the man of chessed that caused Avimelech to beg for a treaty, but rather it was Avraham the man who showed toughness in expelling his own son, Yishmael, out of the house, that caused Avimelech to ask for peace.  "If that's what Avraham did to Yishmael, imagine what he would do if he had a run in with us?" they thought.

Peace comes not from conciliatory gestures, but comes when we show strength.

The Midrash offers a somewhat different answer.  

 וְאִלּוּ הָיָה צַדִּיק לֹא הָיָה דוֹחֶה אֶת בְּנוֹ בְּכוֹרוֹ, כֵּיוָן שֶׁרָאוּ אֶת מַעֲשָׂיו, אָמְרוּ לוֹ אֱלֹהִים עִמְּךָ בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה עֹשֶׂה.

Seeing Yishmael banished, Avimelech and the UN, the world press, and other such clowns immediately accused Avraham of wanton cruelty.  Is this the behavior of someone who is a tzadik?

In this case, Avimelech at least came to his senses.  כֵּיוָן שֶׁרָאוּ אֶת מַעֲשָׂיו when he saw how Yishmael behaved, he realized that Avraham was in the right.  Yishmael was just a force of destruction.  

For some people, maybe, and it is a longshot, the behavior of Hamas, the behavior of people pulling down posters of kidnapped children, the behavior of campus radicals, etc. will finally open their eyes.  

2) Back in 2011 I called Obama, y'mach shemo, a disaster, and since then I am only more convinced that he is perhaps the worst president in US history.  He recently gave one of his usual say-nothing speeches where he tried to spread the blame for Hamas' massacre across the board.  We all make mistakes... blah, blah, blah. Leil Lebovitz, editor of Tablet, had a wonderful response, worth reading in full, but here are the highlights:

Nah, man. Not all of us are complicit. It's just you.

It's you, because you're the one who gave that stentorian speech about red lines in Syria and then sat by and did nothing as those red lines were crossed and Assad continued to slaughter his own people, allowing the Iranians and the Russians to creep in and fill the vacuum left by your devastating lack of leadership.

It's you, because you're the one who came up with the idea of empowering Iran, the world's premiere exporter of terrorism, Holocaust denial, and chaos, all the while telling the American people you were merely trying to stop Teheran from getting a nuclear bomb. Billions of dollars and thousands of dead later, we can all see how well this idea—which you, with the eloquence only a professor could muster, called "regional integration"—is working.

It's you, because you're the one who delivered a parting gift to the region, ending your final term as president by reversing four decades of American bipartisan support of Israel and abstaining from a U.N. vote condemning Israeli settlements, while funneling $400 million in annual payments to the despotic Palestinian Authority, which then promptly used this money to fund its pay-for-slay program, doling out large cash payments to any Palestinian who murdered Jews.

So, please, Mr. President: Spare us your opinions.   

Avraham the "buddy" of Aneir, Eshkol, and Mamrei vs Avraham the spiritual tamim: a contradiction?

 At the beginning of the last perek (17) in last week's parsha Avraham is given the command of milah:

וַיְהִי אַבְרָם בֶּן תִּשְׁעִים שָׁנָה וְתֵשַׁע שָׁנִים וַיֵּרָא ה׳ אֶל אַבְרָם וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו אֲנִי קל שַׁדַּי הִתְהַלֵּךְ לְפָנַי וֶהְיֵה תָמִים.

וְאֶתְּנָה בְרִיתִי בֵּינִי וּבֵינֶךָ וְאַרְבֶּה אוֹתְךָ בִּמְאֹד מְאֹד

Rashi quotes from Midrash that וֶהְיֵה תָמִים  is the outcome of milah: תהיה תמים – שכל זמן שהערלה בך אתה בעל מום.  It's descriptive, not prescriptive.  Ibn Ezra, however, understands הְיֵה תָמִים as a command, part of the instruction given to Avraham of how to do milah: שלא תשאל: למה המילה  Fulfill the command without any questions.  

(Other meforshim also read it as a command, but not specifically related to milah -- see Ramban, Seforno.)

Fast forward to our parsha where we read that Hashem appeared to Avraham in Elonei Mamrei.  Rashi comments that the Torah mentions the place because הוא שנתן לו עצה על המילה.  Avraham consulted with his friends for advice, and Mamrei encouraged him to go ahead with the mitzvah of milah.  Therefore, he is named as a way of giving credit.  

The meforshei Rashi all struggle to understand why Avraham would consult with friends after he has been given a command by G-d to fulfill.  Was there any question in his mind that he was going to do the mitzvah?  I would just add that the Midrash is even more striking in light of Ibn Ezra's pshat that in this case an explicit part and parcel of the mitzvah is not to ask any questions!   

The Chidushei haRI"M explains the purpose of Avraham's consultation with others:

 ואחר המילה שנשתנה מכל עולם ודחתה בריתו לברית של נח הי' ירא שיהי' נבדל מאנשי עולם. ולא יהי' מעורב עם הבריות שיוכל ללמדם ולגמול חסד מאחר שע"י המילה הוא למעלה מהטבע. ושאל לענר כו' איך שנראה להם ענין המילה דכ' מחשבה בעצה תכון שע"י שנתברר חלקי הסותר ונדחו. נעשה הענין מקוים לנצח. ומה"ע שאלם שיאמרו דעתם ויטה את לבבם וישארו דבוקים בו גם אחר המילה. וב' סתרו שע"פ הטבע א"י למול וממרא אמר הש"י הצילך כ"כ במדרש. והיינו שע"פ שכל אדם מחויב לעשו' דבר שלמעלה מהטבע מאחר שהקב"ה מתנהג עמו למעלה מהטבע. וכך סדרו של עולם. שצריך שיהי' אומה אחת דביקה בה'. והנהגה למעלה מהטבע. ועי"ז תתפשט חיים וקדושה אל הטבע וכל העולם. וזכה עי"ז שנגלה בחלקו והי' בו הרגשת קדושה ממראה שהי' לאברהם וכתוב גם לדורות שמי שטוב בעיניו הנהגת הצדיק וישראל מתברך מכלל ואברכה מברכיך. וכן באדם עצמו אם עכ"פ טוב בעינו הקדושה. לממ"נ לשי"ת גם שרחוק ממנו יש תקנה וג"כ בכלל ואברכה מברכיך

Avraham's life's work was kiruv and outreach.  Even though the world of chessed and tzidkus that he inhabited was alien to the world of idolatrous behavior around him, he somehow was able to bridge that gap and draw others into his world.  The mitzvah of milah posed, in Avraham's mind, a risk to all that.  He could not be sure that the world could relate to someone who would do a mitzvah of milah, and so he reached out to see how his friends would react.  One could say the Ch haRIM is raising the question of balance between our particularism and the universal message of being an ohr ha'goyim.  Does the former impede on the latter?  But the Ch haRI"M is also raising another issue as well, a more personal one, namely, whether an increase in one's personal religious committment, in this case the mitzvah of milah, need create a distance between oneself and others.  How, for example, does a baal teshuvah, who takes on a host of practices not in sync with family or friends, still relate to those who do not share those newfound beliefs and practices?  What the Ch haRI"M is suggesting is that by consulting with the Mamrei's of the world, one can invite the respect of others, who thereby can join in one's spiritual ascent, even if in practice they remain in a world apart.

R' Ben Tzion Aba Shaul writes (here you have a Sefardi spin on a Gerrer vort) that the Ch haRI"M gives us a better appreciation for the context of Avraham's search for visitors as he sat by his tent entrance after the milah.  Avraham was wondering whether he would now find himself isolated, or whether he would still be able to continue his outreach efforts.

In a few brief lines R' Ben Tzion Aba Shaul makes another point that, to be honest, completely slipped by me when I saw this Ch haRI"M.  I gave the example above of the baal teshuvah whose adoption of mitzvos may impinge on his relationships with others.  One can flip the same issue around and look at things the other way as well: Imagine the kiruv program organizer who wants to hang out and be one of the guys in order to build a relationship.  Does that interaction and intermingling pose a threat to his own religious commitment and development?  Can Avraham the "buddy" of Aneir, Eshkol, and Mamrei, one of the guys, also be Avraham the tamim who is spiritually perfect, or is there a conflict between the two roles?

Ramban writes in our parsha:

והנה פירוש הפרשה הזאת: אחרי שאמר כי בעצם היום הזה נמול אברהם (בראשית י״ז:כ״ו), אמר שנראה אליו השם בהיותו חולה במילתו יושב ומתקרר בפתח אהלו מפני חום היום אשר יחלישנו, והזכיר זה להודיע שלא היה מתכוין לנבואה, לא נופל על פניו ולא מתפלל, ואף על פי כן באה אליו המראה הזאת.

What G-d is showing Avraham is that even when he is not 100% spiritually ready, able, and prepared, he can still experience nevuah.  R' Ben Tzion Aba Shaul links this message to the Ch haRI"M.  Being one of the guys means that sometimes one is not in a spiritually 100% ready to go mode.  However, that is not an obstacle to greatness, to temimus, to coming close to Hashem.

lessons from Avraham's war

I think it's inevitable that people will look to the story of war in our parsha and try to draw lessons and parallels to our current situation, so here are a few ideas that I jotted down (I deliberately avoided themes that are further removed from the plain meaning of the text):

1)  וַיְהִי בִּימֵי אַמְרָפֶל מֶלֶךְ שִׁנְעָר אַרְיוֹךְ מֶלֶךְ אֶלָּסָר כְּדׇרְלָעֹמֶר מֶלֶךְ עֵילָם וְתִדְעָל מֶלֶךְ גּוֹיִם

 עָשׂוּ מִלְחָמָה אֶת בֶּרַע מֶלֶךְ סְדֹם וְאֶת בִּרְשַׁע מֶלֶךְ עֲמֹרָה שִׁנְאָב מֶלֶךְ אַדְמָה וְשֶׁמְאֵבֶר מֶלֶךְ צְבֹיִים וּמֶלֶךְ בֶּלַע הִיא צֹעַר.

The Tanchuma comments:

 דָּבָר אַחֵר, חֶרֶב פָּתְחוּ רְשָׁעִים, אֵלּוּ אַרְבָּעָה מְלָכִים אַמְרָפֶל וַחֲבֵרָיו, שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא הָיְתָה מִלְחָמָה בָעוֹלָם בָּאוּ אֵלּוּ וּפָתְחוּ בַּחֶרֶב וְעָשׂוּ מִלְחָמָה. אָמַר לָהֶם הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, אַתֶּם פְּתַחְתֶּם בַּחֶרֶב לְהַפִּיל עָנִי וְאֶבְיוֹן, חַרְבָּם תָּבֹא בְלִבָּם. עָמַד אַבְרָהָם וַהֲרָגָם.

War requires a casus belli, whether it is a dispute over territory, trade, or ideology.  Not so the war described in our parsha.  R' Amiel in his Higyonot el Ami writes that בָּאוּ אֵלּוּ וּפָתְחוּ בַּחֶרֶב means that the war was the petach, was the reason for itself. It was war l'shem war and no other reason.  

There are people who need to reason or justification for waging war other than the desire to shed blood and fight.

2) עָשׂוּ מִלְחָמָה  Agra d'Kallah is medayek: הוה ליה למימר נלחמו עם מלך וכו.  In light of R' Amiel's explanation the pshat here is that they created a pretext for war where none existed.  

Agra d'Kallah writes that these nations created the whole concept of war:

אך הוא להורות שהם הם אשר עשו המלחמה בכל יושבי תבל, ומהם למדו להתיר המון שפיכת דמים על ידי המלחמה, כי מימות עולם היו גדורים בזה. והנה תמצא שהפרשה הקודמת מסיימת "ויבן "שם "מזבח "לד' (בראשית יג יח), ר"ת שלו"ם. להורות כי עד הזמן ההוא היה שלום בעולם, והם התחילו מלחמה

I see this expression עָשׂוּ מִלְחָמָה as a contrast to the expression used earlier in the parsha in connection with Avraham, אֶת הַנֶּפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ בְחָרָן .  

 Avraham made נפשׁות; these nations made war.  

3)    וַיִּקְחוּ אֶת כׇּל רְכֻשׁ סְדֹם וַעֲמֹרָה וְאֶת כׇּל אׇכְלָם וַיֵּלֵכוּ

וַיִּקְחוּ אֶת לוֹט וְאֶת רְכֻשׁוֹ בֶּן אֲחִי אַבְרָם וַיֵּלֵכוּ וְהוּא יֹשֵׁב בִּסְדֹם

The fact that the Torah puts Lot in the spotlight, giving the story of his being captured its own pasuk, shows that seizing him was the aim of the attack.  וְהוּא יֹשֵׁב בִּסְדֹם - Lot was not part of the war and was an innocent bystander.  There was no reason to target him. So why did they do so?

We already know that Lot is בֶּן אֲחִי אַבְרָם.  The Torah mentions the fact to bring out, writes Tzror haMor, that it was the relationship to Avraham that was the cause of Lot being a target.  Attacking him was a way to attack Avraham. 

Why not go after Avraham directly?  Contrast what we are told about where Lot lives, וְהוּא יֹשֵׁב בִּסְדֹם, with the description in the next pasuk of where Avraham was: וְהוּא שֹׁכֵן בְּאֵלֹנֵי מַמְרֵא הָאֱמֹרִי אֲחִי אֶשְׁכֹּל וַאֲחִי עָנֵר וְהֵם בַּעֲלֵי בְרִית אַבְרָם.  Avraham is not just a יֹשֵׁב, he is שֹׁכֵן, like the word for neighbors, שׁכנים.  And indeed, Avraham has friends who are בַּעֲלֵי בְרִית אַבְרָם.  This of course is on top אֶת הַנֶּפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ בְחָרָן and the slaves who Avraham was given by Pharoah.  By going after Lot the enemy thought they were going after the weak link -- someone who was not part of a community, someone with no friends and neighbors for support, someone who had no one to call upon for help.

4) וַיָּבֹא הַפָּלִיט וַיַּגֵּד לְאַבְרָם הָעִבְרִי וְהוּא שֹׁכֵן בְּאֵלֹנֵי מַמְרֵא הָאֱמֹרִי אֲחִי אֶשְׁכֹּל וַאֲחִי עָנֵר וְהֵם בַּעֲלֵי בְרִית אַבְרָם

Avraham has friends who he can call on to back him up, but as we see in the next pasuk, וַיָּרֶק אֶת⁠ חֲנִיכָיו יְלִידֵי בֵיתוֹ שְׁמֹנָה עָשָׂר וּשְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת, Avraham only calls on his household to participate.  This is our fight.  The support is welcome, but it is not something we will demand of others.

Tzror haMor adds:

ולזה נתכוונו רז״ל באומרם שלא הוליך עמו אלא אליעזר שעולה שי״ח. להורות שהוא לא בטח ברוב חיל אלא בחסד ה׳ ולכן לא הוליך עמו אלא אליעזר לרמוז שבטח בחסד האל ולא בחיל ולא בכח

Avraham knows that it is not the number of soldiers or the might of the army that can guarantee victory.  Victory is b'yad Hashem.  He therefore takes a minimum of dedicated soldiers to make his hishtadlus while having the bitachon that Hashem will do the rest. 

5) Why does the פָּלִיט run davka to Avraham and why is he called הָעִבְרִי here?  Ksav v'Kabbalah writes:

בשאר מקומות לא הוזכר רק שם אברם לבדו וכאן צירף גם שם יחוסו שהוא עברי, כי רק מבחינה זו התעורר הפליט להגיד הדבר אליו, להיותו עברי, שהתעורר להחזיק באמונת אחדות אלהות הפך דעת אמרפל שהוא נמרוד, מן המנצחים במלחמה זו, ואשר מסבתו הוכרח אברם לעזוב ארץ מולדתו, וזה יהי׳ סבה גדולה לעורר את אברם שונאו לעמוד נגדו וליקח את נקמתו ממנו.

Avraham's ideology was the antithesis of those waging war, and Avraham had put his neck on the line before to stand in opposition to Nimrod.  Therefore, the פָּלִיט knew that Avraham would stick his neck out again here.

It's interesting that the Torah does not say וַיָּבֹא הַפָּלִיט וַיַּגֵּד לְאַבְרָם אחי לוט or something similar.  Apparently, as Seforno explains, Avraham was motivated to fight not just because Lot was his relative.  Avraham understood that there was more at stake than that.  There was a clash of ideologies here.

Netziv adds:

 לא שהלך להודיע צער ולבשר רעה בלי תועלת, אלא משום שהיה ״העברי״, וידוע היה שיש תקוה ממנו לשנות את הדבר גם בדרך נס.

Avraham was someone who could do something about what happened, even if a miracle was required. 

6) וַיִּשְׁמַע אַבְרָם כִּי נִשְׁבָּה אָחִיו וַיָּרֶק אֶת חֲנִיכָיו יְלִידֵי בֵיתוֹ שְׁמֹנָה עָשָׂר וּשְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת וַיִּרְדֹּף עַד דָּן

Even though just a few pesukim earlier Lot is described as  בֶּן אֲחִי אַבְרָם, here is is called  אָחִיו.  For all of us who have been saying אחינו כל בית ישׂראל this needs no explanation.

7)  וַיֵּחָלֵק עֲלֵיהֶם לַיְלָה הוּא וַעֲבָדָיו וַיַּכֵּם וַיִּרְדְּפֵם עַד חוֹבָה אֲשֶׁר מִשְּׂמֹאל לְדַמָּשֶׂק.

Avraham pursued the enemy and battled them even in the dark of night.  Netziv comments:

בדן נחו מעט ארבעה מלכים אלו כשהיה בערב, כסבורים שישבות גם אברם מלהלחם בלילה, אבל אברם נתחלק הוא בפני עצמו ועבדיו בפני עצמם ויכם, אחר שהיו נחים וישנים בלילה.

The enemy stopped to rest at night, thinking that Avraham too would pause and would need a cease fire to regroup and rest.  Avraham, however, was relentless in his pursuit and did not let up.

I wish this came from a parody account

I ask you: Is today, or this week, really the time and place to write something like this?  It's beyond tone deaf.  

UPDATE (in case you thought it couldn't get worse) --  transcript from today's press briefing:

REPORTER: What is Biden's level of concern right now about a potential rise of antisemitism in light of everything that's going on in Israel?

JEAN-PIERRE: So a couple of things. Um, look, we have no seen any credible threats. I know there's been always questions about credible threats and so, I just want to make sure that's out there. 

But look, Muslims and those perceived to be Muslim have endured a disproportionate number of hate-fueled attacks, and certainly, President Biden understands that many of our Muslim, Arab, Arab-American, and Palestinian-American loved ones are worried about the hate being directed at their communities, and that is something you heard the president speak to in his address just last Thursday. 

And so, one of the things that the president has done is directed his team, Homeland Security team to prioritize prevention and disruption of any emerging threats that could hurt the Jewish, the Muslim, Arab Americans, or any other communities, and that is something the president has sought to do since day one. As you know, the president ran on, on, you know, bringing, protecting communities but also bringing communities together, protecting the soul of the nation. And so, that is something the president takes very, very seriously, and we're going to continue to denounce any sort of hate toward any American here, and that's what we're going to continue to be steadfast on.

in a different world

Rashi comments: קץ כל בשר בא לפני – כל מקום שאתה מוצא זנות, אנדרולמוסיא בא לעולם והורגת טובים ורעים.  Taz (in Divrei David) points out that Rashi seems to be a stira minei u'bei, self-contradictory. If the evils of the pre-flood world dictated a response of  אנדרולמוסיא that kills טובים ורעים, good and evil folks alike, then how is it that Noach himself was spared?  Doesn't the fact that he survived and was spared prove that in fact it was not an indiscriminate punishment, that  טובים were not killed alongside רעים?

Rashi writes in Braishis that the world was created with the letter 'hey' because  כה״י זה שסתום מכל צדדין ופתוח מלמטה לרדת דרך שם.  Last week I mentioned the question of Shem m'Shmuel: Why did Hashem not create the world with a letter that has a big opening on top so that the tzadikim could go up to shamayim?  The elevator goes in both directions, doesn't it?  

Shem m'Shmuel answers that olam ha'zeh can only bring a person down.  There is no upside.  The very word טבע, the laws of nature, is based on the same root as as used in the expression ספינה טובעת בּים, a boat sinking in the sea.  Olam ha'zeh is the quicksand that will sink you into places that are hard to get out of.  The way out is by rising above it, by choosing to live למעלה מין הטבע.

Taz uses a similar yesod to explain our Rashi.  He writes that if you read the pesukim carefully, you see that the command to build the ark, pesukim 14-16, precedes Hashem telling Noach that he is going to bring a flood, pasuk 17.  Why would Hashem tell Noach to make an ark before telling him that there is going to be a flood?  Taz answers that  אנדרולמוסיא בא לעולם effects everyone, טובים ורעים, in that עולם.  What the ark did is isolate Noach from the world.  Hashem showed Noach that even when the world of טבע warrants destruction, he has a place of refuge outside it.

Sefas Emes and others see "teivah" as an allusion to words of Torah and tefillah.  These are our places of refuge למעלה מין הטבע that can take us outside whatever is going on in the world.

This is not just a nice derasha, but it's lomdus that unlocks a Tosfos.  The gemara (San 59) has a principle that  ליכא מידעם דלישראל שרי ולעובד כוכבים אסור.  You cannot have a case where dinei Yisrael is more lenient than dinei bnei Noach.  Tosfos comments that even though a ben Noach who keeps shabbos is chayav misa but we obviously are not, that does not count because the Torah specifically gives us a mitzvah to observe shabbos.  בדבר שהוא מצוה לישראל לא אמרינן הכי העובד כוכבים ששבת חייב ולישראל מצוה  The more difficult question is with respect to other days of the week.  There is no mitzvah for us to keep shabbos on Monday, for example, but the halacha is that an aku"m that keeps a day of shabbos on Monday is chayav while we are not.  Why is that not an exception?  Tosfos cryptically writes מ"מ יש עליו מצות שביתת שבת.  

R' Yosef Engel (Ben Porat 4) explains as follows: you only say ליכא מידעם דלישראל שרי ולעובד כוכבים אסור when talking about the same cheftza, in this case the same day of the week.  You have to compare apples to apples.  The reason why an aku"m that keeps shabbos is chayav but we are not is because these are in effect apples and oranges.  For us, there is a day of shabbos.  For an aku"m, it's Saturday.  Those are totally different worlds, totally different units of time.  We live in a world where the seventh day of the week has kedusha, where we come in contact with olam ha'ba.  They have no access to such a thing.

R' Yosef Engel then goes on to say an even bigger chiddush: the same thing applies to Monday.  For us, it's "yom sheni b'shabbos."  Every day of the week connects either to the previous shabbos or the upcoming shabbos and draws from its kedusha.  For an aku"m, it's just another day of the week.  Again, apples and oranges.

We look like we are in same world, going through the same days of the week, leading the same life, as our neighbors, as everyone else.  In reality, it's not the same at all.  We are למעלה מין הטבע , למעלה מין הזמן as it exists for them.     

thanks, but... a review of how we got here

Of course we should be thankful for the arms that Biden has given Israel.  However, we should not lose sight of how we got to the point that these arms are needed.  While it's pointless to play hypothetical games and ask what could have been had Trump or someone else been in the White House, it's certainly fair game to take a look at the policy changes that the Biden administration has implemented viz a viz Iran and the Palestinians and ask ourselves whether they have contributed to or hindered Israel's security.  Here's just a sample and judge for yourselves:

1) "Just six days after taking office, the Biden administration took a sharp turn in U.S. policy in the Middle East, announcing it will resume contact with Palestinian leaders and restore U.S. contributions to the U.N. agency which provides aid to Palestinians...The remarks signaled a rejection of then-President Donald Trump's policy of the past four years, which overwhelmingly favored the interests of Israel's right-wing government. The Trump administration closed the Washington, D.C., office of the Palestine Liberation Organization; halted contributions to the U.N. Relief and Works Agency, which provides aid to Palestinian refugees and their descendants; moved the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, recognizing the city as Israel's capital; recognized Israeli sovereignty over the occupied Golan Heights; and presented a peace proposal which left all Israeli West Bank settlements in place."  (link)

2) "President Biden will also announce new contributions totaling $316 million to support the Palestinian people. This is on top of the more than half a billion dollars the United States has provided to the Palestinian people since the Biden Administration restored much needed funding to the Palestinians."  (taken from the White House's own statement)

3) "The Biden administration has funneled more than $730 million to a United Nations organization for refugee assistance in the West Bank and Gaza Strip that harbored personnel who have incited violence against the Jewish people, The Post has learned." 

4) "The Biden administration has sent more than $1 billion in taxpayer dollars to a Palestinian relief organization that has previously been accused of providing safe harbor to terrorists in Gaza, drawing increased scrutiny amid Hamas' attacks on Israel." (link)

5) "A federal judge in Texas on Tuesday evening ordered the discovery phase of a lawsuit accusing the Biden administration of knowingly providing funds that benefited Palestinian terrorists get underway.  America First Legal (AFL) first filed the lawsuit in 2022, alleging that President Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken resumed payments to the Palestinian Authority (PA) that former President Trump ended in order to be in compliance with the Taylor Force Act — a federal law that prohibits the government from sending American taxpayer dollars to the PA until it stops supporting terrorism." (link)

6) "The US government will stop funding and participating in research, development, and scientific cooperation projects in Judea and Samaria, three years after Trump approved the cooperation." (link) 

7) "President Biden would not commit to inviting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House, a split from previous president’s who have long welcomed the country’s longest serving prime minister." (link)

8) “Because the Biden administration has been eagerly pursuing a nuclear agreement with Tehran, White House officials admitted to Bloomberg News that they have relaxed sanctions on Iran. The impact of that idiocy has been that Iran’s oil exports, which languished at less than 800,000 barrels per day under President Trump, soared to around 1.7 million b/d in August. (Some put the figure even higher, at 2 mb/d.) According to one estimate, that means Iran raked in $30-$40 billion in extra revenues this past year. Forget the $6 billion held by Qatar that Biden’s team recently unfroze; the jump in oil revenues was more than enough to fund the malevolent activities of Hamas, Hezbollah and other terror proxies." (link)

9) “President Biden stressed in a speech after his meeting with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in Bethlehem on Friday that a two-state solution based on the 1967 lines with agreed upon land swaps is the best way to achieve peace between Israel and the Palestinians.... Biden's address — the first time as president he laid out parameters for ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — was seen as a win for the Palestinians, who were hoping to get a diplomatic achievement from the president's visit in the form of a more detailed U.S. public position on the conflict.  His comments brought the U.S. position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict back to the pre-Trump era and close to the position of the Obama administration." (link)

In summation, Biden presidency policy has 1) allowed Iran access to $, which are then used to fund terror; 2) directed the transfer of funds to the Palestinians; 3) funded UN agencies that are hostile to Israeli interests; 4) cut off cooperation with those in Yehuda and Shomron; 5) rebuffed Netanyahu; 6) advocated for a return to pre-1967 borders.  

But the other guy did... The other party believes...  

Well, ask yourself one question: is whatever he/they did that you disagree with worth your casting your lot in with a person/party that supports these policies?

issur of chatzi shiur on eating eitz ha'daas

I saw a diyun regarding whether there was an issur of chatzi shiur on the eitz ha'daas.  Rashi comments on  וַתִּתֵּן גַּם לְאִישָׁהּ עִמָּהּ וַיֹּאכַל (3:6) that גם – לרבות בהמה וחיה. Chavah fed the fruit to all the animals as well as Adam.  How big was this fruit?  If she broke off pieces to distribute, odds are there was less than the shiur left for Adam to eat.  Does the concept of shiur for issurim even apply when speaking about issurei ben Noach, or are they chayav for any amount?   

I don't think you need any fancy lomdus to answer this question.  When Hashem told Adam not to eat from eitz ha'daas the pasuk says  וּמֵעֵץ הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע לֹא תֹאכַל מִמֶּנּוּ (2:17)  The word  מִמֶּנּוּ in the pasuk seems extraneous.  Ibn Ezra comments: או טעמו: אפילו מעט ממנו  Black on white that the shiur here is any amount.

"Do you have family in Israel?"; Kayin and Hevel and inyana d'yoma; Joe Biden's worst lie yet

1)"Do you have family in Israel?"   

This is the first question I am always asked by my well meaning non-Jewish coworkers who see the war news and want to know if my family is safe.  This one question highlights the fundamental difference between the way the non-Jewish world looks at the news and events in the world and the way we look at them.  In their mind if a close relative is in danger that's one thing, but if not, then the concern is muted, you have less to be worried about, you are not losing sleep every night.

A family member in Israel recently (before the war) was talking about needing help for something, and they were not overly concerned because, in their words, "We are all family here."  If that was the feeling two weeks ago, kal v'chomer that is the feeling now, and it extends not just to those in Israel, but even to those of us living in chu"l.  

Even if you don't have a brother or sister in Israel, a parent or aunt or uncle, or even a first, second, or even third cousin, each and every one of us feels like we have family there; we are personally invested in everything that is happening in a way that only family is invested.

2) I was made aware of this Yalkut Shimoni thanks to a talk I saw by R' Oury Cherki.  

 וַיָּקׇם קַיִן אֶל הֶבֶל אָחִיו וַיַּהַרְגֵהוּ

The word וַיָּקׇם implies that Kayin was lying down or sitting down and then got up.  What was going on in this encounter?  The Yalkut writes:

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, הֶבֶל הָיָה גִבּוֹר מִקַּיִן, שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וַיָּקָם אֶלָא מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהָיָה נָתוּן תַּחְתָּיו אָמַר לֵיהּ שְׁנֵינוּ בָּעוֹלָם, מָה אַתָּה הוֹלֵךְ וְאוֹמֵר לְאַבָּא, נִתְמַלֵּא עָלָיו רַחֲמִים, מִיַּד עָמַד עָלָיו וַהֲרָגוֹ. מִן תַּמָן אִנּוּן אָמְרִין טָב לְבִישׁ לֹא תַּעֲבִיד וְכוּ׳.

I don't need to elaborate on the application to iyana d'yoma.  Hevel assumed Kayin had the same moral rule book that he did, which was a mistake.  

3) The biggest lie of all the big lies Joe Biden has told is his statement on Sunday that, "...A significant portion of Palestinian people do not share the views of Hamas and Hezbollah."

Is there a shred of evidence that would support such an assertion?  Did the Palestinian media last Saturday and Sunday condemn the atrocities that occurred?  Was social media filled with Arab voices declaring that Hamas did not act in their name?  Have the people of Gaza when polled declared themselves sick of Hamas' ruling their territory?  Do they teach their children in school to love peace?   

No.  These barbarians celebrated what happened.  These barbarians have held multiple demonstrations in support of Hamas.  

Ask yourself this: Has there been a SINGLE demonstration in the Arab world protesting against Hamas?

Just another one of Joe's lies.  One that we will pay the price for.

thoughts on the situation at hand - Gan Eden, the letter hey and human nature, Hashem's mourning, and what our job is

A friend asked me why I have not written anything about what is going on.  The answer in short is כּשׁם שׁמקבּלים שׂכר על הדרישׁה כך מקבּלים שׂכר על הפּרישׁה.  It is sometimes too challenging to not go negative, so better to spend the time doing other things.  Still, it's before shabbos, a new parsha, so here comes a disaster of a post.

Someone at work who asked about my family in Israel asked whether we could get a flight to bring my daughter, who lives in Yerushalayim, home.  The answer to that question, which I think I managed to explain in a way that even this gentile understood, is that my daughter IS home -- it is we who are displaced.  

That is the message that we in the diaspora need to absorb and internalize and teach to out young people.

Are we really doing that?

When you sign up for a cruise, you get a choice of a first class cabin with all the luxuries, or a second class berth, etc. down the line.  When you are in a lifeboat in an emergency, there is no first class.  You do the bare minimum for survival and try your best to get someplace better.  Galus is a lifeboat.  Sometimes the lifeboat is a leaky wreck, sometimes the lifeboat is comfortable, almost as good as a real ship.  But only a fool makes himself at home on the lifeboat.  

Things are difficult now, but that doesn't mean we should make ourselves at home in the lifeboat.  It means we need to work harder at repairing what needs to be fixed in our real home.  

I have a kashe on myself that I can't answer, but I'll share it with you just in case you want to think about the same kashe.

Rashi comments on  וַיִּקַּח ה׳ אֱלֹקים אֶת הָאָדָם וַיַּנִּחֵהוּ בְגַן עֵדֶן לְעׇבְדָהּ וּלְשׇׁמְרָהּ (2:18) that ויקח – לקחו בדברים נאים ופתהו ליכנס.  Hashem had to entice and seduce Adam to get him to enter Gan Eden.

How does that make sense?  Gan Eden is the best place imaginable.  Why should Hashem have to seduce Adam to get him to go there?  

Good question, isn't it?  

 כִּי נִחַם ה׳ צִיּוֹן נִחַם כׇּל חׇרְבֹתֶיהָ וַיָּשֶׂם מִדְבָּרָהּ כְּעֵדֶן וְעַרְבָתָהּ כְּגַן ה׳ שָׂשׂוֹן וְשִׂמְחָה יִמָּצֵא בָהּ תּוֹדָה וְקוֹל זִמְרָה.

And yet we expect Hashem to twist our arm to get us to even think about moving. 

This is not kashya.  It's teiuvta.  Game, set, match.  I don't have an answer.  

What saddens me is that so many people are not even bothered by the question.

At the end of the parsha we read וַיִּנָּחֶם ה׳ כִּי עָשָׂה אֶת הָאָדָם בָּאָרֶץ וַיִּתְעַצֵּב אֶל לִבּוֹ.  The Midrash comments that אֵין עֲצִיבָה אֶלָא אֲבֵלוּת.  Netziv asks why Hashem was in aveilus here.  The mabul had not yet started, so what was He mourning over?  

Netziv answers:

אלא הענין, דבכל משך מאה ועשרים שנה מתו כמה צדיקים שהיו בעולם והמה מכונים בשם ׳לב הבריאה׳, כי הוא תכליתו,... והנה בכל דור ודור הצדיק נאסף אל עמיו וזרח צדיק אחר, אבל במשך מאה ועשרים שנה אלו מי שמת לא הניח תמורתו וממלא מקומו, משום הכי שייך לומר ויתעצב אל לבו שהתאבל על מות הצדיקים, שאין עוד אדם שיהא ראוי לקיים העולם לצוות לו.

People die all the time, even under tragic circumstances, and people are born every day too.  But sometimes a death is so tragic that it's like your heart has been ripped out.  Something irreplaceable has been taken.  That was this past week.

I think many people lost their naivete and had their illusions shattered as they discovered this past week just how horrible college campus hatred against Jews is, as they hear the deafening silence of corporate America so willing to stake a stand on so many issues except the slaughter of Jews, etc.

  אֵלֶּה תוֹלְדוֹת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ בְּהִבָּרְאָם.  Rashi comments לימדך כאן שהעולם הזה נברא בה״י. רמז שירדו למטה לראות שחת, כה״י זה שסתום מכל צדדין ופתוח מלמטה לרדת דרך שם  The world was created with the letter 'hey' because it has a big opening on the bottom for the evildoers to fall out of down to where they belong.  

Shem m'Shmuel asks: Why did Hashem not create the world with a letter that has a big opening on top so that the tzadikim could go up to shamayim?  The elevator goes in both directions, doesn't it?

What the pasuk is telling us is that olam ha'zeh by its very nature is cruel and barbaric, Tennyson's "nature red in tooth and claw."  Left unchecked, what comes out is the worst in man, not the best.  Don't be fooled and think that because we live in the year 2023/5754 things are any different.  Rashi in his ruach ha'kodesh had in mind most of what you read about Jews on Twitter when he wrote that comment.  

Of course there is a way up, but that way is למעלה מן הטבע.  Chazal darshen that בְּהִבָּרְאָם is the same letters as Avraham, for whom the world was created.  The 10 tests that Avraham faced proved that a human being can rise above his nature, the nature of olam ha'zeh, to reach amazing heights.

We have seen a lot of that this past week too.  Unbelievable heroism, unbelievable chessed.  Our nation lives למעלה מן הטבע, the very fact that we continue to exist is למעלה מן הטבע.

Even small things can restore your belief in the power of mankind in general to rise above its nature.  It is something you will rarely see if you spend too much time in the cesspool of online social media.  I was sitting outside at lunchtime one day this week in a small park near my office when a total stranger came over and said to me, "I hope if you have family in Israel that they are doing alright.  I just want to let you know that."

Don't completely lose hope.  There are still sane people left in the world out there.  

The Midrash writes (42:4, in Lech Lecha) אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּר אֲבִינָא אִם רָאִיתָ מַלְכֻיּוֹת מִתְגָּרוֹת אֵלּוּ בְּאֵלּוּ צַפֵּה לְרַגְלוֹ שֶׁל מָשִׁיחַ  The Imrei Emes explained (not exactly in these words : ) that when there is war, your job is not to check every arutz station for updates all day, or monitor social media, or to discuss who is to blame, or to map out strategy of what the gvt should do next just in case you get the call to be Defense Minister tomorrow.  Instead of looking at all those things, רָאִיתָ..., instead of looking at every crumb of news and commentary about the fighting and what is going on, what you should look at is צַפֵּה לְרַגְלוֹ שֶׁל מָשִׁיחַ.  What can I learn, what can I daven for, what chessed can I do, to help bring mashiach closer.

Today happens to be my mother-in-law's yahrzeit.  Years ago she did a video interview, along with one of my wife's uncles, for the Chabad group that collects stories that have to do with the Rebbe, in which she recounts how the Rebbe's bracha brought a yeshu'a for one of her siblings as a baby.  Here is a link if you want the whole story, but I just want to focus on one detail.  When my wife's grandfather called the Rebbe to say his baby was basically at death's door, the Rebbe said to him, "You're a Rav.  The job of a Rav is to make sure the standards of kashrus are upheld, the standard of chinuch where you live is good.  You do you job, and Hashem will do His job.  The baby will be OK."  Today this aunt baruch Hashem has many, many children and grandchildren of her own.  

צַפֵּה לְרַגְלוֹ שֶׁל מָשִׁיחַ.  We each have a job to do.  Some folks are doing it on the front lines of Gaza.  Some have a job to do in the beis medrash.  Some do it in chessed programs.

Let's do our job, and Hashem will do His. 

R' Aharon Lichtenstein: mitzvos that we happen to do on a chag vs mitzvos that establish the character of the chag

 Y"T fast approaches, but wanted to get this in quickly.  The gemara (Suk 48a) says the Shmini Atzeret is רגל בפני עצמו לענין פז״ר קש״ב  Rashi on the spot comments רגל בפני עצמו  שאין יושבין בסוכה.  

Ramban raises a number of questions on Rashi, among them:

עוד שאינו נקרא רגל בפני עצמו בשביל שאינו בכל מצות הרגל שלו שהרי לולב נוהג בראשון ואינו בשאר הימים בגבולין ורגל פסח נמי חלוק במצה ומרור כדאיתמר לעיל.

How is the absence of mitzvas sukkah proof that Shmini Atzeret is its own regel?  You don't take lulav on the second day of Sukkot onward (mi'doraysa), but it is still the same holiday of Sukkos.  What's the difference between the two?

Rav Zolti in his Mishnas Yaavetz (here) has a defense of Rashi, but I would like to propose answering at least this question with a yesod R' Aharon Lichtenstein has here (parenthetically, the Asif site is really one worth putting on your radar.)  R' Aharon suggests (not enough time to go through his proofs here, so ayen sham!) that there are two types of mitzvos that we do on Yom Tov: 1) there are mitzvos that have a set time in which they have to be performed, and that time just happens to be on a specific chag; 2) there are mitzvos that define the character and nature of the chag.  

For example, R' Aharon writes that blowing shofar is not something that you do on 1 Tishrei that you could just as well do on 3 Tishrei or 5 Tishrei or any other day.  Blowing shofar is what makes 1 Tishrei into "Yom Teru'a."  It defines the day.  Without shofar, you don't have a holiday that is missing a mitzvah -- take away shofar and in effect you no longer have a holiday.  

I would suggest that the same is true of sukkah.  It's not called "Chag ha'Lulav."  It's called "Chag ha'Sukkos."  The reason is not simply because the former is done only for one day and the latter for seven.  The difference is because the former mitzvah defines the nature of the day, the character of the chag.  The latter does not -- it's just a mitzvah that happens to fall out on that particular date.  

This is why according to Rashi שאין יושבין בסוכה is proof that we are dealing with a day that has a completely different character, but the fact that mi'doraysa we don't take lulav during chol ha'moed is not indicative of anything. 

chassan torah

וַיֹּאמַר ה׳ מִסִּינַי בָּא וְזָרַח מִשֵּׂעִיר לָמוֹ הוֹפִיעַ מֵהַר פָּארָן וְאָתָה מֵרִבְבֹת קֹדֶשׁ מִימִינוֹ אֵשׁ דָּת לָמוֹ  

The pshat in the pasuk is that it is describing Hashem's revelation on Sinai to give the Torah.  Rashbam: מסיני בא – ונראה לישראל ונתן להם תורתו   Shouldn't it therefore say that Hashem came לסיני, not מִסִּינַי?  

The simple answer is that מלאה הארץ כּבודו and so you cannot say that Hashem comes anywhere.  He is there already.  Like the Uncle Moishy song says, "Hashem is here, Hashem is there, Hashem is truly everywhere..."  

Rashi already anticipated this quesrtion on the pasuk as well and quotes from Chazal מסיני בא – ויצא לקראתם כשבאו להתייצב תחת ההר כחתן היוצא להקביל פני כלה.  Sefas Emes (in the Likutim) explains this analogy:

"יצא ממה שׁהי׳ נסתר מקודם ונתגלה כּבודו"

I think in this case the nimshal teaches us something with respect to the mashal and not just the other way around. Just like at mattan Torah Hashem drew Himself out kavyachol and revealed what had previously been hidden, so too, the lesson for us is that when a person who comes to teach Torah, to learn Torah, they need to draw out their latent kochos and bring them to the table. You cannot sit back and expect to passively absorb Torah; you have to push yourself to be engaged and stretch your mind to meet the text halfway.   

Every one of us on Simchas Torah and year round can be a chassan -- a chassan Torah.  But you have to reach out beyond yourself and take the first step.

אידך פּירושׁא זיל גמור

צא ולמד

כחתן היוצא להקביל פני כלה

sukkah in the rain

I covered this back in 2009, but figured a little review (with some new addition) doesn't hurt.  We have torrential rains in NY (to quote my wife: the last time it rained this much Noah was putting his zoo together) that are not expected to stop before nightfall.  How does that impact the mitzvah of sukkah?

The Rishonim ask: the gemara (Brachos 49) writes that there is a chiyuv to eat a seudas Y"T with bread, and therefore if one forgets yaaleh v'yavo one has to repeat bentching.  The gemara (Sukkah 27) has another din learned from a gezeira shava of Sukkos to Pesach that one is obligated to eat a kzayis in the sukkah tonight.  Why do we need this latter din when we already know that we have to eat a seudah of bread tonight because it is Y"T?  

A few answers are offered: 1) Tos (Sukkah 27) answers that really on Y"T there is no obligation to eat bread.  The sugya that says you have to is speaking only about the night of Sukkos or Pesach, when we have that gezeira shavah that obligates us.  According to this view, if you leave our yaaleh v'yavo in Y"TNoa bentching you would not repeat. 2) Other Rishonim says the nafka mina is the shiur.  Normally, a person has to eat a k'beitza to be yotzei seudas Y"T.  The gezeira shava elevates the importance of the eating of a k'zayis so that one is yotzei with that. 3) Rosh answers that had we only had the chiyuv to eat because of seudas Y"T, when it rains, you could eat inside.  The gezeira shava teaches us that on the night of Y"T one must eat a k'zayis in sukkah regardless of the weather.

Since the other Rishonim did not give the Rosh's answer (which is quoted l'halacha by the Rama), one can assume that they did not accept his chiddush, and that even on the first night of sukkos one is not obligated to sit in the sukkah in the rain.  

The nekudas ha'machlokes (see the older post for a different hesber): yesh lachkor whether the chiyuv of sukkah on the first night is a mitzvah of achila, like achilas matzah, or a mitzvah of dirah, to live in the sukkah, which you do by eating there.  

If it is a mitzvah of dirah, then when it rains, one should be patur.  You don't live in your house when there is rain pouring through the ceiling -- that's not called dirah.  If it is a mitzvah of achila, then rain makes no difference.  If it rains on leil ha'seder, you still eat a k'zayis of matzah.

There are other issues that may hinge on this same chakira.  If one stole a k'zayis and ate it in the sukkah tonight, is it a mitzah ha'baah b'aveira (R' Baruch Ber's question)?  Is the mitzvah achilas k'zayis, or is the mitzvah sitting in sukkah, and you never stole the sukkah?  The Yerushalmi has a safeik (discussed by Rama as well) whether one must avoid eating a meal after chatzos on erev Sukkos in order to be able to enjoy eating that k'zayis in the sukkah just like you cannot have a meal on erev Pesach in order to relish that first bite of matzah.  Again, the issue seems to be whether the focus is on eating, or on dirah.

Bottom line: even if it rains, to be yotzei the shitas haRosh quoted by Rama you should eat a k'zayis in the sukkah and then continue the rest of the meal inside.

GR"A throws one more wrinkle into the equation.  He holds (Maaseh Rav, also quoted by Chayei Adam) that when it rains on the first night, even if you've eaten your k'zayis to be yotzei the Rosh, if it then stops raining, even at 3:00AM, you have to go out and eat another k'zayis of bread in the dry sukkah.  The M.B. asks why this should be so.  M'mah nafshach: according to the Rosh, you were yotzei with the k'zayis you ate in the rain.  According to the other Rishonim, just like you were exempt because of 'mitzta'ar pature min ha'sukkah' when it rained, you are exempt because of 'mitzta'ar pature min ha'sukkah' from having to wake up at 3:00AM?  

What we see from the GR"A (he has other Rishonim to back it up) is a new chiddush: the gezeira shava does obligate a person irrespective of the weather, irrespective of tzaar, like the Rosh holds; however, a sukkah with rain falling through the roof is not a sukkah.  There is a chovas ha'gavra, but you have no cheftza shel mitzvah to fulfill it with.  Therefore, once it stops raining and you have a livable sukkah, you have to go out and take advantage.