Parshat Chayei Sara

Chaye Sara 5723
Alef.

1. It’s one thing for Rivka’s family to say that they cannot refuse (Davar Ra; [an evil thing]) to allow Rivka to go once HaShem has Given a sign (Eliezer’s test of the first girl who is from Avraham’s family and offers water both to him and his camels) that He Wishes Rivka to marry Eliezer. But why can they not agree (Davar Tov; [a good thing])? How can they be unable to say a Davar Tov in this matter?

2.  RaShI: “Davar Ra”—an answer in bad faith, making no sense and simply reflecting     disagreement.

            “Davar Tov”—an negative answer based upon logic and proper thinking rather than on   malice.

       RaShBaM: “Davar Ra”—an answer designed to undermine Rivka’s going.

              “Davar Tov”—an answer designed to support her going. In effect, it’s out of our    hands and we have nothing to add or subtract from the basic fact that she will    leave to marry Yitzchak.

Beit.

1.  The commentator assumes that idolaters would not speak in terms of the monotheistic God that Avraham and his servant Eliezer believed in. Consequently, saying that these events were orchestrated by HaShem does not seem to make sense coming from the mouths of the members of Avraham’s family that remained in Charan.

2.  R. Avraham ben HaRaMBaM posits that while Avraham made the leap to pure monotheism, the more sophisticated among the idolaters assumed a “middle position” whereby they were still polytheistic, but recognized a hierarchy among their various gods, with a supreme god at the top of the hierarchy, and to this god were they referring. A censored passage in RaMBaM’s Mishneh Tora, Hilchot Melachim refers to Christianity and Islam as means to the end of (Zecharia 14:9) “BaYom HaHu HaShem Echad U’Shemo Echad.” Perhaps R. Avraham was extrapolating a similar idea and attributing it to idolaters in Beraishit.

Gimel.

1.  Ostensibly, it appears that Rivka’s family members are asking her nothing more than whether she was interested in accompanying Eliezer, not whether she was going to do so no matter what they would want her to do. From where does RaShI derive that a “test of wills” was going on?

2.  Perhaps Divrei David bases his explanation for RaShI on the verb “VaYomru” (and they said) as opposed to “VaYishalu” (and they asked.) By turning their words into a statement, a rhetorical one at that, it implies that they were not prepared to give their consent, to which Rivka responds that it will not matter in the end, one way or the other. Such an interpretation would parallel what commentators have said about the verse associated with the Rasha (the evil one) of the “four sons” in the Haggada. In Shemot 12:26, the Tora states, “And when your children ‘say’ to you , ‘What is this service to you?’” in contrast to Shemot 13:14  and Devarim 6:20 where the verbs are “will ask you,” suggesting that the former instance is a challenge whereby the interrogator is not really interested in the answer, in contrast to the other two instances, where curiosity rather than antagonism is behind the question.

Daled.

1.  The Midrash is attempting to account for the piece of information in the verse that Yitzchak was returning from Be’er LeChai Ro’ih. Why is that at all important for the reader to know. The most important part of the story is the fact that he was out in the fields at the time when Eliezer and Rivka were approaching. Consequently the Midrash suggests that his return from this particular place had to do with a mission that he had undertaken, i.e., to bring Hagar to Avraham, now that Sara had died. The association with Hagar is made because this is the same place at which the miracle whereby Yishmael was saved from death by the angel after the boy and his mother had been summararily sent out into the desert by Avraham and Sara with virtually no supplies. The Midrash therefore assumes that Hagar had a particular fondness for this place and therefore took up residence near it. According to the Rabbis, who posit that Yitzchak was 37 at the time of the Akeida, and according to the Tora, if he was forty when he married Rivka, (this of course requires the assumption that Rivka was extremely precocious at the age of 3), then the miracle that was performed on behalf of Hagar and Yishmael had taken place @ 30 years before. It is possible that she had only recently relocated to Be’er LeChai Ro’ih, but how would Yitchak have known that? Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer 29 claims that Avraham made visits to Yishmael and immediately afterwards states that Avraham remarried Hagar:

אחר שלש שנים הלך אברהם לראות את ישמעאל בנו ונשבע לשרה כפעם ראשונה שאינו יורד מן הגמל במקום שישמעאל שרוי שם והגיע לשם בחצי היום ומצא שם אשתו של ישמעאל ואמ' לה היכן הוא ישמעאל אמרה לו הוא ואמו הלכו לרעות את הגמלים במדבר אמ' לה תני לי מעט לחם ומים כי עייפה נפשי מדרך המדבר והוציאה לחם ומים ונתנה לו עמד אברהם והיה מתפלל לפני הב"ה על בנו ונתמלא ביתו של ישמעאל מכל טוב ממין הברכות וכשבא ישמעאל הגידה לו את הדבר וידע ישמעאל שעד עכשו רחמי אביו עליו כרחם אב על בנים לאחר מיתתה של שרה חזר אברהם ולקח את גרושתו שנ' ויוסף אברהם ויקח אשה ומדקאמר ויוסף משמע שפעם ראשונה היתה אשתו ועוד לא הוסיף לבא עליה ושמה קטורה שהיתה מקוטרת מכל מיני בשמים ד"א קטורה שהיו נאים מעשיה כקטרת 

   It is certainly possible that Yitzchak knew of these excursions and this may have further convinced him that Avraham’s happiness following the death of Sara would be promoted were he to remarry his former wife, Hagar.

2.  In the Midrash Tanchuma, the first verse (Tehillim 102:1) establishes that “Sicha” could be Tefilla, but would allow for the interpretation that once a day would suffice. It is with the second verse (Ibid. 55:18) that it is established that prayer ought to take place three times per day, leading to the possibility that not only should there be prayer in the morning, as Avraham had already established in Beraishit 19:27 (if Avraham returns to the place where he has stood previously before HaShem, the implication is both that there is a Makom Kavua [an established place] in which he offers his regular prayers to HaShem), but during the afternoon and evening. This then further supports the interpretation that when Yitzchak is coming in from the field at “Eit Erev” it was after engaging in an afternoon prayer, which according to one view in the Talmud, is the basis for establishing Tefillat Mincha.

3.  Although Tehillim 55:18 is describing a prayer experience, the previous verses indicate that this prayer is for deliverance from enemies:

י  בַּלַּע ה', פַּלַּג לְשׁוֹנָם:    כִּי-רָאִיתִי חָמָס וְרִיב בָּעִיר.
יא  יוֹמָם וָלַיְלָה--יְסוֹבְבֻהָ עַל-חוֹמֹתֶיהָ; וְאָוֶן וְעָמָל בְּקִרְבָּהּ.
יב  הַוּוֹת בְּקִרְבָּהּ; וְלֹא-יָמִישׁ מֵרְחֹבָהּ, תֹּךְ וּמִרְמָה.
יג  כִּי לֹא-אוֹיֵב יְחָרְפֵנִי, וְאֶשָּׂא:
לֹא-מְשַׂנְאִי, עָלַי הִגְדִּיל; וְאֶסָּתֵר מִמֶּנּוּ.
יד  וְאַתָּה אֱנוֹשׁ כְּעֶרְכִּי; אַלּוּפִי, וּמְיֻדָּעִי.
טו  אֲשֶׁר יַחְדָּו, נַמְתִּיק סוֹד;  בְּבֵית אֱלֹקים, נְהַלֵּךְ בְּרָגֶשׁ.
טז  ישימות (יַשִּׁי מָוֶת), עָלֵימוֹ--יֵרְדוּ שְׁאוֹל חַיִּים: כִּי-רָעוֹת בִּמְגוּרָם בְּקִרְבָּם.
יז  אֲנִי, אֶל-אֱלֹקים אֶקְרָא; וַה', יוֹשִׁיעֵנִי.

   Tehillim 102:1 is describing a more generic prayer of someone in bad circumstances asking for assistance. While the immediate context is an Ani (a poor individual) every person could feel figuratively impoverished, even if he does not have any specific pressing material issues.

4.  Perhaps RaShI felt that Yitchak going out to the field indicates not that he wished to associate with acquaintances—couldn’t he have done that within the city where there was a greater population density?—but rather to be alone, to pray to God without disturbance.

Heh.

1.  The literal meaning of the verse seems to be the sight of Yitzchak so unnerved Rivka that she lost her balance and fell off her camel. What could have been so startling about Yitzchak’s appearance that would have engendered such a reaction?

2.  In all of these cases, RaShI understands the meaning that there was a bending towards the ground, without the object/person in question actually touching the ground. Therefore in this case, Rivka slid in the direction of the ground, but never actually reached it.

3.  In Tehillim 37:24, the simple meaning of the verse is that the individual actually falls all the way to the ground, and just that he will not be left there in that state. This would be in contrast to RaShI’s interpretation of Rivka just sliding in the direction of the ground, but never actually reaching it. On the other hand, the verses in Beraishit 24:14 as well as II Shmuel 22, the simple meaning is also an act of lowering, rather than allowing the entity in question to reach the ground.

4.  Both RaShI and Ibn Ezra agree that Rivka’s falling from the camel was not undignified. They disagree re whether she partially slipped off the animal, or she got down completely in accordance with her own will. 

5.  The claim that the rule “Ein Mukdam U’Meuchar BaTora” cannot be applied to verses within the same story seems to be contradicted by the conclusion that some commentators reach when a comparison is made of the real-time story of Eliezer’s discovery of Rivka and the version that he tells the family afterwards. Originally in Beraishit 24:22-23, the Tora states that even before he finds out who Rivka is, he already gives her jewelry, suggesting that he felt that she was the woman designated for Yitzchak. Yet in the later account, v. 47 states that Eliezer asked her about her family prior to his giving her the jewelry. RaShBaM on v. 22 states that even in the earlier account, despite it being written afterwards, Eliezer had in fact already ascertained that Rivka was from the proper family. Consequently, if in one place in the story, we can understand that the verses are to be understood in the past-perfect, it should not be remarkable that another aspect of the story be treated in a similar fashion.

6.  If her getting down from the camel was in accordance with her will, then why was the verb “VaTipol” (and she fell) used instead of “VaTered” (and she got down?)