Vayetze

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/70.html

Toldot answers

Toldot 5729

Alef.

1. Yitchak asked Eisav to hunt and catch game implying a wild animal (27:3) . Rikva asks Yaakov to prepare a kid, a domesticated animal (Ibid. 9). If the taste of the two animals was significantly different, Yitzchak would have immediately wondered about the identity of the person standing before him.

2.  Sefer HaZikaron, cited in the Alon HaDeracha attached to this Gilayon, suggests that the problem for RaShI is that adjectives are not formed from nouns that are natural, e.g., בשר, שער, מטר, גשם, or from manufactured objects, e.g., מטה, שלחן, ,כסא, מנרה. Therefore the although the phrase in the Tora seems to use שער as an adjective, it has to be understood as if it states איש בעל שער, thereby allowing for the understanding that Eisav was a hairy individual.

3.  The problem would appear to be why should Eisav tell Yitzchak to stand and then immediately to sit? The Targum suggests that the sitting is not in a vacuum, but at the table in order that Yitzchak be able to eat.

4.  א. RaShI, based upon the Midrash, interprets Yaakov’s words as “white lies” in the sense that he ambiguously states things in such a way that Yitchak would be misled by them.

R. Aharon states that what is of the essence is what Yitzchak heard, not what or how Yaakov said these things. Consequently it must be concluded that Yaakov lied to Yitzchak since Yitzchak had drawn a false impression. 

The principle that words depend upon what people hear rather than what a person says is exemplified in the following passage from Nedarim 25a

But it was taught: When an oath is administered, he [the man swearing] is admonished: 'Know that we do not adjure you according to your own mind, but according to our mind  and the mind of the Court.' Now, what does this exclude? Surely the case of one who gave [his creditor] checkers [tokens in game] and [mentally] dubbed them coins; and since he is admonished, 'according to our intention,' it follows that [otherwise] one may swear in his own sense? — No. It excludes such an incident as Raba's cane. A man with a monetary claim upon his neighbor once came before Raba, demanding of the debtor, 'Come and pay me.' 'I have repaid you,' pleaded he. 'If so,' said Raba to him, 'go and swear to him that you have repaid.' Thereupon he went and brought a [hollow] cane, placed the money therein, and came before the Court, walking and leaning on it. [Before swearing] he said to the plaintiff: 'Hold the cane in your hand'. He then took a scroll of the Law and swore that he had repaid him all that he [the creditor] held in his hand. The creditor thereupon broke the cane in his rage and the money poured out on the ground; it was thus seen that he had [literally] sworn to the truth:

ב.  The second half of the verse in Hoshea has nothing to do with trickery or deception, but rather a physical struggle. That would not be relevant in terms of Yaakov’s tricking Eisav. On the other hand, the first portion of the verse is a form of trickery, in the sense that Yaakov was holding onto to Eisav’s heel as they emerged from the womb, taking advantage of his brother’s struggles, rather than making his own way out of the womb.

  הושע פרק יב

 ד) בַּבֶּטֶן עָקַב אֶת אָחִיו וּבְאוֹנוֹ שָׂרָה אֶת אֱלֹקים  :ל' רש"י: "ובאונו רמה את אביו".

In the womb he took his brother by the heel, and by his strength he strove with a godlike being (a reference to Yaakov’s struggle with the angel prior to his encounter with Eisav in Beraishit 32:25-33.)

5. If Yitzchak was interested in Yaakov’s voice, then why did he not reflect upon it immediately after Yaakov’s first speaking in v. 18? The fact that Yitzchak waits, and also touches Yaakov suggests that he was not drawn to the timber in Yaakov’s voice, but rather in his style and idiom. Because in v. 19 he uses the word נא, which could mean “please” and in v. 20 Yaakov attributes his rapid “return” to God Smoothing the way so that he was successful quickly, Yitzchak realizes that this is neither Eisav’s idiom or style, and consequently asks for Yaakov to come closer for a tactile inspection.

בראשית פרק כז

(יח) וַיָּבֹא אֶל אָבִיו וַיֹּאמֶר אָבִי וַיֹּאמֶר הִנֶּנִּי מִי אַתָּה בְּנִי:

(יט) וַיֹּאמֶר יַעֲקֹב אֶל אָבִיו אָנֹכִי עֵשָׂו בְּכֹרֶךָ עָשִׂיתִי כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבַּרְתָּ אֵלָי קוּם נָא שְׁבָה וְאָכְלָה מִצֵּידִי בַּעֲבוּר תְּבָרֲכַנִּי נַפְשֶׁךָ:

(כ) וַיֹּאמֶר יִצְחָק אֶל בְּנוֹ מַה זֶּה מִהַרְתָּ לִמְצֹא בְּנִי וַיֹּאמֶר כִּי הִקְרָה יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקֶיךָ לְפָנָי:

(כא) וַיֹּאמֶר יִצְחָק אֶל יַעֲקֹב גְּשָׁה נָּא וַאֲמֻשְׁךָ בְּנִי הַאַתָּה זֶה בְּנִי עֵשָׂו אִם לֹא:

(כב) וַיִּגַּשׁ יַעֲקֹב אֶל יִצְחָק אָבִיו וַיְמֻשֵּׁהוּ וַיֹּאמֶר הַקֹּל קוֹל יַעֲקֹב וְהַיָּדַיִם יְדֵי עֵשָׂו:...

(לא) וַיַּעַשׂ גַּם הוּא מַטְעַמִּים וַיָּבֵא לְאָבִיו וַיֹּאמֶר לְאָבִיו יָקֻם אָבִי וְיֹאכַל מִצֵּיד בְּנוֹ בַּעֲבֻר תְּבָרֲכַנִּי נַפְשֶׁךָ:

6. (The RaShI that is being referenced is on v. 39, not v. 28).

א. In addition to Eisav serving as the progenitor of the land of Edom in the short term, he is viewed by the Rabbis as the spiritual father of Rome in the long term. (See for e.g., RaDaK on Daniel 8:23.) Consequently to associate him with the geographical area of Rome in terms of Yitzchak’s blessing solidifies that association.

ב.  In verse 28, when Yitzchak was speaking to Yaakov, who was taking Eisav’s place, there was not the sense of the competition of cultures between Yaakov and Eisav and therefore “fertile places of the land” could carry a generic connotation. When, however, Yitzchak realizes that Yaakov was prepared to use extreme measures to obtain the blessing, he realized that this was a matter of a clash of civilizations, and therefore referencing the tension between Hellenism and Judaism in general, and Rome and Jerusalem in particular is apt.

7. א.  In verse 36,

לו) וַיֹּאמֶר הֲכִי קָרָא שְׁמוֹ יַעֲקֹב וַיַּעְקְבֵנִי זֶה פַעֲמַיִם אֶת בְּכֹרָתִי לָקָח וְהִנֵּה עַתָּה לָקַח בִּרְכָתִי וַיֹּאמַר הֲלֹא אָצַלְתָּ לִּי בְּרָכָה:

Eisav is musing, wondering whether Yaakov’s name not only described his hanging onto Eisav’s foot during the birth process, but also predicted the usurpment of the blessing that he has now experienced.

In verse 38,

לח) וַיֹּאמֶר עֵשָׂו אֶל אָבִיו הַבְרָכָה אַחַת הִוא לְךָ אָבִי בָּרֲכֵנִי גַם אָנִי אָבִי וַיִּשָּׂא עֵשָׂו קֹלוֹ וַיֵּבְךְּ:

Eisav is not asking a question of his father, but rather is expressing a feeling of shock and hurt that ostensibly the blessing that he was counting on receiving, has been obtained by his brother. He is not simply asking a question that has a yes or no answer, but rather demanding his own blessing, expressing his incredulity that no blessings remain for him, despite Yaakov’s act of dishonesty.

ב. In the two cases in Beraishit there is a rhetorical positive quality to the usage of הכי—“Isn’t he rightly named Jacob?”—yes.  “Aren’t you my brother (relative)?”—yes.

However in the case of Iyov, it is a rhetorical negative statement—“Did I ask you to give?”—no.

בראשית כז

לו) וַיֹּאמֶר הֲכִי קָרָא שְׁמוֹ יַעֲקֹב וַיַּעְקְבֵנִי זֶה פַעֲמַיִם אֶת בְּכֹרָתִי לָקָח וְהִנֵּה עַתָּה לָקַח בִּרְכָתִי וַיֹּאמַר הֲלֹא אָצַלְתָּ לִּי בְּרָכָה:

And he said: 'Is not he rightly named Jacob? for he hath supplanted me these two times: he took away my birthright; and, behold, now he hath taken away my blessing.' And he said: 'Hast thou not reserved a blessing for me?'

בראשית פרק כט

(טו) וַיֹּאמֶר לָבָן לְיַעֲקֹב הֲכִי אָחִי אַתָּה וַעֲבַדְתַּנִי חִנָּם הַגִּידָה לִּי מַה מַּשְׂכֻּרְתֶּךָ:

And Laban said unto Jacob: 'Because thou art my brother, shouldest thou therefore serve me for nought? tell me, what shall thy wages be?'

איוב פרק ו

כב) הֲכִי אָמַרְתִּי הָבוּ לִי וּמִכֹּחֲכֶם שִׁחֲדוּ בַעֲדִי:

Did I say: 'Give unto me'? or: 'Offer a present for me of your substance'?

ג.  While there may be many instances of the ה indicating a question, there are not that many instances of either multiple possibilities presented from which one needs to choose, or rhetorical questions being asked. These examples are not pure questions but rather unique types and that is why RaShI had to scrounge them up from distant locations.

במדבר פרק יג

יט) וּמָה הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר הוּא יֹשֵׁב בָּהּ הֲטוֹבָה הִוא אִם רָעָה וּמָה הֶעָרִים אֲשֶׁר הוּא יוֹשֵׁב בָּהֵנָּה הַבְּמַחֲנִים אִם בְּמִבְצָרִים:

כ( וּמָה הָאָרֶץ הַשְּׁמֵנָה הִוא אִם רָזָה הֲיֵשׁ בָּהּ עֵץ אִם אַיִן וְהִתְחַזַּקְתֶּם וּלְקַחְתֶּם מִפְּרִי הָאָרֶץ וְהַיָּמִים יְמֵי בִּכּוּרֵי עֲנָבִים:

and what the land is that they dwell in, whether it is good or bad; and what cities they are that they dwell in, whether in camps, or in strongholds; and what the land is, whether it is fat or lean, whether there is wood therein, or not. And be ye of good courage, and bring of the fruit of the land.'--Now the time was the time of the first-ripe grapes.-- 

שמואל ב פרק ג

(לג) וַיְקֹנֵן הַמֶּלֶךְ אֶל אַבְנֵר וַיֹּאמַר הַכְּמוֹת נָבָל יָמוּת אַבְנֵר:

And the king lamented for Abner, and said: Should Abner die as a churl dieth?--no .

Beit.

1. א. Sephorno’s problem is that despite the fact that the end of the verse states ויברכהו, Yitzchak continues to attempt to establish the identity of the individual before him.

בראשית פרק כז

(כג) וְלֹא הִכִּירוֹ כִּי הָיוּ יָדָיו כִּידֵי עֵשָׂו אָחִיו שְׂעִרֹת וַיְבָרְכֵהוּ:

(כד) וַיֹּאמֶר אַתָּה זֶה בְּנִי עֵשָׂו וַיֹּאמֶר אָנִי:

(כה) וַיֹּאמֶר הַגִּשָׁה לִּי וְאֹכְלָה מִצֵּיד בְּנִי לְמַעַן תְּבָרֶכְךָ נַפְשִׁי וַיַּגֶּשׁ לוֹ וַיֹּאכַל וַיָּבֵא לוֹ יַיִן וַיֵּשְׁתְּ:

(כו) וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו יִצְחָק אָבִיו גְּשָׁה נָּא וּשְׁקָה לִּי בְּנִי:

(כז) וַיִּגַּשׁ וַיִּשַּׁק לוֹ וַיָּרַח אֶת רֵיחַ בְּגָדָיו וַיְבָרֲכֵהוּ וַיֹּאמֶר רְאֵה רֵיחַ בְּנִי כְּרֵיחַ שָׂדֶה אֲשֶׁר בֵּרֲכוֹ יְקֹוָק:

(כח) וְיִתֶּן לְךָ הָאֱלֹקים מִטַּל הַשָּׁמַיִם וּמִשְׁמַנֵּי הָאָרֶץ וְרֹב דָּגָן וְתִירֹשׁ:

The implication is that Yitzchak was struggling with his suspicions, leading him to regret that he doubted the person and therefore should bless him, but then being plunged into doubt yet again.

ב. See א. above.

2. א. Since in v. 23 the text already showed Yitzchak’s readiness to bless the individual standing before him, why does it state ויברכהו yet again in v. 27. It seems that Yitzchak was looking for some sort of sensual stimulus to overcome his reservations. In that sense, his entire desire to eat venison before blessing Eisav (27:4) could be viewed in a similar light, i.e., that without the sensual stimulus, that time taste, as opposed to this time smell, he would be unable to summon up the passion to be able to impart the desired blessing.

ב. 1. Although the word ויברכהו now appears for a second time in v. 27 after being mentioned in v. 23, nevertheless the actual blessing begins in v. 28, only after another statement is made concerning the sensual smell that Yitzchak is experiencing.

    2. The juxtaposition between the experience of smell and the imparting of the blessing

         reflects the connection between sensual experience and spiritual sensibility. Similarly, in II Melachim 3:15 the prophet Elisha triggers his Divine Inspiration by listening to music.

ג. 1. To whom is Yitzchak addressing this comment? Is he rhetorically reflecting on his experience essentially to himself, or is there someone else to whom his comments are directed?

2. Most commentators would link ריח בני together, i.e., the smell of my son. Sephorno is interpreting ראה ריח as separate from בני, suggesting that he is teaching a lesson to his son about the combination of nutritive value and smell. Sephorno reverses the order of the words, placing בני before ראה ריח.

ד. 1. Sephorno is attempting to account for the “ו” at the beginning of v. 28 which is the beginning of the blessing that Yitzchak is imparting. If this is the beginning of the actual blessing, why does the “ו” suggest that it is the continuation of what has come before?

2. The Tetragrammaton is usually associated with the Attribute of Compassion. Out of Compassion, HaShem associated smell with food. However, when it comes to doling out land to someone, since nature is associated with the Name אלקים, it is this Name that will be associated with such an action.

Gimel.

Rivka instructed Yaakov to wear Eisav’s clothing.

(טו) וַתִּקַּח רִבְקָה אֶת בִּגְדֵי עֵשָׂו בְּנָהּ הַגָּדֹל הַחֲמֻדֹת אֲשֶׁר אִתָּהּ בַּבָּיִת וַתַּלְבֵּשׁ אֶת יַעֲקֹב בְּנָהּ הַקָּטָן:

Since Eisav was a hunter and outdoorsman,

בראשית פרק כה

(כז) וַיִּגְדְּלוּ הַנְּעָרִים וַיְהִי עֵשָׂו אִישׁ יֹדֵעַ צַיִד אִישׁ שָׂדֶה וְיַעֲקֹב אִישׁ תָּם יֹשֵׁב אֹהָלִים:

it is logical to assume that his clothing did not smell all that good. Furthermore, Yaakov’s obtaining the goats from which Rikva was going to prepare the food,

בראשית פרק כז

(ט) לֶךְ נָא אֶל הַצֹּאן וְקַח לִי מִשָּׁם שְׁנֵי גְּדָיֵי עִזִּים טֹבִים וְאֶעֱשֶׂה אֹתָם מַטְעַמִּים לְאָבִיךָ כַּאֲשֶׁר אָהֵב:

would also have contributed to a less-than-pleasant smell. Consequently the problem is what was Yitzchak smelling that made such a positive impression upon him?

RaShI: A metaphysical component was added, i.e., the smell of a special field—the Garden of Eden.

RaShBaM: These weren’t outdoor clothes, but rather perfumed indoor clothes which overwhelmed any negative smells.

Ibn Kaspi: The actual smell was irrelevant because Yitzchak in his mind’s eye was assuming a positive attitude towards the individual standing before him.

Daled.

The rule that Onkelos follows for the root ישב is that a distinction is to be made between sitting at a table to eat, as opposed to dwelling in a location.

בראשית פרק כז

(יט) וַיֹּאמֶר יַעֲקֹב אֶל אָבִיו אָנֹכִי עֵשָׂו בְּכֹרֶךָ עָשִׂיתִי כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבַּרְתָּ אֵלָי קוּם נָא שְׁבָה וְאָכְלָה מִצֵּידִי בַּעֲבוּר תְּבָרֲכַנִּי נַפְשֶׁךָ:

בראשית פרק כט

(יד) וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ לָבָן אַךְ עַצְמִי וּבְשָׂרִי אָתָּה וַיֵּשֶׁב עִמּוֹ חֹדֶשׁ יָמִים:

בראשית פרק כט

(יט) וַיֹּאמֶר לָבָן טוֹב תִּתִּי אֹתָהּ לָךְ מִתִּתִּי אֹתָהּ לְאִישׁ אַחֵר שְׁבָה עִמָּדִי:

בראשית פרק לז

(א) וַיֵּשֶׁב יַעֲקֹב בְּאֶרֶץ מְגוּרֵי אָבִיו בְּאֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן:

בראשית פרק לז

(כה) וַיֵּשְׁבוּ לֶאֱכָל לֶחֶם וַיִּשְׂאוּ עֵינֵיהֶם וַיִּרְאוּ וְהִנֵּה אֹרְחַת יִשְׁמְעֵאלִים בָּאָה מִגִּלְעָד וּגְמַלֵּיהֶם נֹשְׂאִים נְכֹאת וּצְרִי וָלֹט הוֹלְכִים לְהוֹרִיד מִצְרָיְמָה:

בראשית פרק מג

(לב) וַיָּשִׂימוּ לוֹ לְבַדּוֹ וְלָהֶם לְבַדָּם וְלַמִּצְרִים הָאֹכְלִים אִתּוֹ לְבַדָּם כִּי לֹא יוּכְלוּן הַמִּצְרִים לֶאֱכֹל אֶת הָעִבְרִים לֶחֶם כִּי תוֹעֵבָה הִוא לְמִצְרָיִם:

(לג) וַיֵּשְׁבוּ לְפָנָיו הַבְּכֹר כִּבְכֹרָתוֹ וְהַצָּעִיר כִּצְעִרָתוֹ וַיִּתְמְהוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ: 

Toldot

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/83.html

Chayei Sara Answers

Chaye Sara 5724

Alef.

1. RaMBaN: a) Avraham was insistent that Yitzchak’s wife belong to his family.

b) The fact that Eliezer later says that Avraham requested that the girl belong to his family was not a change that the servant made, but had been the intent all along.

    Ibn Kaspi:  a) This was LeChatchila, but not a “deal breaker”.

                        b) Eliezer’s not stating this at the outset is to be taken literally, because it would not have made a difference if it had turned out that she was not from Avraham’s family.

                            Or even if it had made a difference, Eliezer had plenty of additional gifts and therefore would not have cared if he had given her presents and in the end she would not have qualified since she did not come from Avraham’s family.

2.  In addition to the possibility that Eliezer’s account to the family informs us of the order of his actions earlier on, v. 27, in which he thanks HaShem for Guiding him to Avraham’s family,  suggests that he was always looking for Avraham’s family, as opposed to thinking that this was an ideal but not necessary.

3.  Ibn Ezra’s proof is from Eliezer’s account to the family. Eliezer may have wanted to embellish the story in order to give the impression that this was fated to happen and therefore the family should not stand in the way of the inevitable. However, the true account is to be found in the original, objective account before Eliezer reprised the events.

4.  The giving of the gifts to Rivka don’t seem to be a ploy in order to spread the word of Eliezer’s arrival as a bearer of gifts, the wealth of Avraham, or payment to Rivka for if nothing else, her kindness of watering his animals, because v. 22-3 mention  that upon finishing watering the animals, Eliezer not only gives her the jewelry, but also asks her who her family is and whether there was place for him to stay. If he would have ended up looking for someone else, why would he have been interested in accepting lodging with Rivka’s family?

Beit.

Mincha Belula’s assumption is that the Amida is constructed as a series of Berachot HaSemuchot LeChavertot (blessings where one coming on the heels of the previous one, depends upon it, i.e., the final portion of the previous one,  for its own introduction. However the very first blessing, which is standing alone, should contain the full standard blessing. Consequently, it is appropriate to ask about why “Malchut”, i.e., the portion that reads “Elokeinu Melech HaOlam”, was omitted. Consequently, because the first three Berachot of the Amida are each associated with a different one of the Avot, with the first being Birchat Avraham, therefore it is appropriate for this first verse to omit mention of Malchut in the world, in light of the context in which Avraham began described by RaShI.

Gimel.

1. The problem is how can Avraham say that Eliezer should not cause Yitzchak to “return” to Aram Naharaim when Yitzchak was born in Canaan and had never been to Aram Naharaim?

2.  Ibn Ezra: Since the focus of the story is upon Avraham and his point of view, and he had lived in Aram Naharaim, Avraham’s employs the language of returning.

      Ibn Kaspi: The word does not have to be taken so literally, but rather is an indication of movement from one place to another. (This discussion has interesting implications regarding the concept of Teshuva. If you are dealing with someone who never was observant and never learned about observance, then when he comes to religion, he is not returning to something which he previously left, but rather coming to a new lifestyle for the first time.)

3.  Evil doers were never in “She’ol” (the grave—unless you invoke the principle of Gilgul Neshamot [reincarnation]) that would engender taking the term “return” literally when speaking of their deaths.

Daled.

1. א. In verse 3, when he is applying an oath to Eliezer, Avraham identifies HaShem as the God of Heaven and Earth, whereas when he reflects upon his early history, he says that HaShem is God of Heaven alone.

ב. Just as there seems to be a reversal in terms of how Avraham refers to HaShem, so too there is a reversal with respect to the sequence of Eliezer’s giving Rivka gifts and asking her  (24:22-3 vs. 47).

ג. In chapter 12, Avraham has not settled in to begin his campaign to spread monotheism as yet. Consequently when he constructs an alter, it is in order to acknowledge and thank HaShem for Promising to Give the land of Israel to Avraham’s offspring. Once that Promise has been made, and the Tora repeats the phrase that Avraham called on the Name of HaShem (13:4; 21:33) , we can interpret those verses as part of Avraham’s attempt to influence others to accept monotheism.

בראשית פרק יב

(ז) וַיֵּרָא יְקֹוָק אֶל אַבְרָם וַיֹּאמֶר לְזַרְעֲךָ אֶתֵּן אֶת הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת וַיִּבֶן שָׁם מִזְבֵּחַ לַיקֹוָק הַנִּרְאֶה אֵלָיו: 

(ח) וַיַּעְתֵּק מִשָּׁם הָהָרָה מִקֶּדֶם לְבֵית אֵל וַיֵּט אָהֳלֹה בֵּית אֵל מִיָּם וְהָעַי מִקֶּדֶם וַיִּבֶן שָׁם מִזְבֵּחַ לַיקֹוָק וַיִּקְרָא בְּשֵׁם יְקֹוָק:

ד. Beraishit 13:18 After being told by HaShem to travel the length and breadth of the land, he builds an alter to HaShem, suggesting that Avraham is publicizing HaShem’s Existence in association with his travels.

    Ibid. 14:14 There are students of Avraham that he takes into war with him in order to rescue Lot.

    Ibid. 17:1 The Divine Order to walk before HaShem could connote Avraham’s attempt to win hearts and minds for believe in God.

ה. The fact that the Chitim refer to Avraham (Beraishit 23:6) as a “Prince of God” suggests that they have heard Avraham spreading the message of monotheism.

2. א. “Diber Li=Alai” = for my needs, benefit. Speech that describes my condition, situation.

          “Amar Li” = directed his speech towards me. Speech that is a communication between the speaker and me.

ב. Since Avraham wants to demonstrate HaShem’s Power and Beneficence to Eliezer in order to encourage him on his mission to find a wife for Yitzchak, the fact that HaShem Spoke to Avraham is less important than the content of that communication, in this case that Avraham’s offspring have been Promised that they will inherit the land of Israel. Just as HaShem is Interested in this inheritance,  so too He is likely to take an interest in the identity of the wife of Yitzchak.

בראשית פרק כד

(ז) יְקֹוָק 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:

ג. 1. Since the verse in Chapt. 24 is talking about a benefit that would be forthcoming to Avraham’s offspring, as opposed to Avraham himself, to say that HaShem Spoke with Avraham re something that would be to his benefit is inaccurate. In the verse in Chapt. 28, we are already speaking about two  generations in the future  (Yaakov) and therefore the idea of Avraham’s offspring benefiting from the blessing  is coming closer to fruition.

בראשית פרק כח

(טו) וְהִנֵּה אָנֹכִי עִמָּךְ וּשְׁמַרְתִּיךָ בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר תֵּלֵךְ וַהֲשִׁבֹתִיךָ אֶל הָאֲדָמָה הַזֹּאת כִּי לֹא אֶעֱזָבְךָ עַד אֲשֶׁר אִם עָשִׂיתִי אֵת אֲשֶׁר דִּבַּרְתִּי לָךְ:

2. The problem in 24:7 is one of delayed gratification with respect to when, in terms of future generations, the benefit that was Promised would come true. The problem in 28:15 is that HaShem is Referring to a benefit and suggesting that He had Revealed Himself to Yaakov with regard to this Promise, which when we check the biblical text, do not find this to be true.

3. א. If the reason why Avraham was objecting to Canaanite women was their immoral practices, it is quite probable that Avraham’s allies, i.e., Aner, Eshkol and Mamre, were exemplary in the manner in which they conducted themselves and their affairs, and therefore Avraham did not have to be concerned about the quality of their children in general, and in this case—the wife for Yitzchak—the propriety of their daughters.

         Avraham distinguishes between the Canaanim in general and these three allies when he tells the King of Sodom that his men are entitled to a share of the spoils, even if other Canaanites would not be—Beraishit 14:24.

ב. If we assume that Avraham’s intention was for Yitzchak to marry not only someone from his country of origin, but also from his family, it is logical to assume that if this does not work out, then there are potential mates from others who are part of Avraham’s extended family, i.e., Yishmael and Lot, to the exclusion of daughters of the three allies, who albeit “having Avraham’s back”, nevertheless are closer to the Jewish people than the children of Avraham’s allies.

4. Perhaps Rivka’s family would take offense if they are told that Yitzchak did not have permission to leave Israel in order to visit them. Therefore Avraham via Eliezer, is trying to reassure the family that a future offspring i.e., Yaakov,  will return to Aram Naharayim. And even continue to live there for s significant amount of time.

Heh.

ז וַיָּ֧קָם אַבְרָהָ֛ם וַיִּשְׁתַּ֥חוּ לְעַם־הָאָ֖רֶץ לִבְנֵי־חֵֽת׃

1. There is a disconnect between the verb at the beginning of the verse, “VaYakam” and the subsequent verse, “VaYishtachu”. If “VaYakam Avraham” is a phrase unto itself, as the Baalei HaTa’amim, implied when they imposed notes that would group the two words at the beginning of the verse together. A Zakef associated with “Avraham” would then assume one continuum between the two verbs, probably suggesting that Avraham rose, walked over to the leadership of Benia Chet and bowed at that point.

2.  Since in v. 3 the essential meaning is for Avraham getting up, there will be emphasis upon the “VaYakam”. In v. 7, the emphasis is upon the “VeYishtachu”, a downwards movement and therefore the note is applied in accordance with the sense of the verse.  

Chayei Sara

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/306.html

Parshat Vayera Answers

VaYera 5728

Alef.

בראשית פרק יט

(יז) וַיְהִי כְהוֹצִיאָם אֹתָם הַחוּצָה וַיֹּאמֶר הִמָּלֵט עַל נַפְשֶׁךָ אַל תַּבִּיט אַחֲרֶיךָ וְאַל תַּעֲמֹד בְּכָל הַכִּכָּר הָהָרָה הִמָּלֵט פֶּן תִּסָּפֶה:

(יח) וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹט אֲלֵהֶם אַל נָא אֲדֹנָי:

(יט) הִנֵּה נָא מָצָא עַבְדְּךָ חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ וַתַּגְדֵּל חַסְדְּךָ אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתָ עִמָּדִי לְהַחֲיוֹת אֶת נַפְשִׁי וְאָנֹכִי לֹא אוּכַל לְהִמָּלֵט הָהָרָה פֶּן תִּדְבָּקַנִי הָרָעָה וָמַתִּי:

(כ) הִנֵּה נָא הָעִיר הַזֹּאת קְרֹבָה לָנוּס שָׁמָּה וְהִוא מִצְעָר אִמָּלְטָה נָּא שָׁמָּה הֲלֹא מִצְעָר הִוא וּתְחִי נַפְשִׁי:

Behold now, this city is near to flee unto, and it is a little one; oh, let me escape thither--is it not a little one?--and my soul shall live.'

(כא) וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו הִנֵּה נָשָׂאתִי פָנֶיךָ גַּם לַדָּבָר הַזֶּה לְבִלְתִּי הָפְכִּי אֶת הָעִיר אֲשֶׁר דִּבַּרְתָּ:

(כב) מַהֵר הִמָּלֵט שָׁמָּה כִּי לֹא אוּכַל לַעֲשׂוֹת דָּבָר עַד בֹּאֲךָ שָׁמָּה עַל כֵּן קָרָא שֵׁם הָעִיר צוֹעַר:

(כג) הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ יָצָא עַל הָאָרֶץ וְלוֹט בָּא צֹעֲרָה:

(כד) וַיקֹוָק הִמְטִיר עַל סְדֹם וְעַל עֲמֹרָה גָּפְרִית וָאֵשׁ מֵאֵת יְקֹוָק מִן הַשָּׁמָיִם:

(כה) וַיַּהֲפֹךְ אֶת הֶעָרִים הָאֵל וְאֵת כָּל הַכִּכָּר וְאֵת כָּל יֹשְׁבֵי הֶעָרִים וְצֶמַח הָאֲדָמָה:

(כו) וַתַּבֵּט אִשְׁתּוֹ מֵאַחֲרָיו וַתְּהִי נְצִיב מֶלַח:

1.   Mizrachi’s question on RaShI is: in light of ChaZaL thinking that the phrase “והוא מצער” is so obvious that a Derash is required to account for it, why does RaShI then proceed to treat it in accordance with the simple meaning? If the simple meaning was deemed by the Rabbis so problematic that the Rabbis had to reinterpret the phrase, why doesn’t  RaShI simply cite the Midrash and then move on to the next verse?

   Whereas Levush HaOra claims that the Peshat is nevertheless an implied Derash: if there are few people, then even if there is corruption among them, the relatively small quantity of corruption that could be carried out by such few people should justify the place being spared.

   An alternate interpretation of the Peshat to make it appear to be adding something to the discussion that is not readily apparent, would be to understand Lot as claiming that since there are so few people in this town, the likelihood of them negatively influencing him is far less than it was in Sodom and Amora. Consequently  it should be viewed as a proper sanctuary for Lot and his two daughters.

2. The last verse in Yona:

יונה פרק ד

(יא) וַאֲנִי לֹא אָחוּס עַל נִינְוֵה הָעִיר הַגְּדוֹלָה אֲשֶׁר יֶשׁ בָּהּ הַרְבֵּה מִשְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה רִבּוֹ אָדָם אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָדַע בֵּין יְמִינוֹ לִשְׂמֹאלוֹ וּבְהֵמָה רַבָּה:

The implication of this verse is that HaShem specifically has compassion over a large city and would Wish to spare it at all costs. Implied is that a small city would not come up for special consideration and perhaps would be included in the destructive Gezeira.

Beit.

According to R. S.R. Hirsch, when Lot says, “והוא מצער”, he is anticipating the objection that since the intention is that he should come away with only his life and no property, allowing him to take up residence in a near-by city might enable him to once again build his life up commercially and materially. Consequently, he says that this place is such an insignificant place, that personal advancement for him will prove impossible.

Whereas RaShI according to the Midrash has Lot focusing upon the minimal criminality of the place, and according to the Peshat, to the lack of damage that the few corrupt residents of the place might perpetrate, i.e., a reflection of the population of the place, R. Hirsch understands Lot’s concern to center upon his personal prospects in the city.

The problem with R. Hirsch’s interpretation might be the last two words of the verse, “ותחי נפשי” implying that his argument concerned only surviving in the place and therefore justifying that the place be spared from the destruction intended for the surrounding area, rather than whether he would possibly re-accumulate the riches that he had to abandon in Sodom and Amora.

Gimel.

1.  The verse in question:

כד) וַיקֹוָק הִמְטִיר עַל סְדֹם וְעַל עֲמֹרָה גָּפְרִית וָאֵשׁ מֵאֵת יְקֹוָק מִן הַשָּׁמָיִם:

Then the LORD caused to rain upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

RaLBaG appears to believe, that despite the fact that there is no explicit mention in the biblical verses of “Nevi’im” (this is apparently how the commentator understands the identity of the “Malachim”) bringing about the fire and brimstone inundating and destroying the cities and the surrounding area, much in the manner that Moshe and Aharon bring about the plagues in Egypt, but rather HaShem Caused it to rain down these substances on Sodom and Amora, nevertheless God did not independently initiate these phenomenon.

2.  Both RaLBaG and Chizkuni suggest that Mrs. Lot became a pillar of salt, matching the salt that covered the area as a result of its being subjected to fire and sulfur. Therefore the salt connected to her was not unique compared to the state of the rest of the area, but rather a way of saying that she was absorbed into the locale’s ruined condition. The typical interpretation of v. 26 is that while the rest of the area was destroyed in one way, Mrs. Lot’s transformation was into a different substance.

3.   In verse 17 where the angel gives Lot instructions, he specifically states that anyone who looks upon what is taking place in Sodom and Amora will be absorbed into the destruction:

יז) וַיְהִי כְהוֹצִיאָם אֹתָם הַחוּצָה וַיֹּאמֶר הִמָּלֵט עַל נַפְשֶׁךָ אַל תַּבִּיט אַחֲרֶיךָ וְאַל תַּעֲמֹד בְּכָל הַכִּכָּר הָהָרָה הִמָּלֵט פֶּן תִּסָּפֶה:

Daled.

Abrabanel understands Mrs. Lot’s  “looking back” as figurative, i.e., that she never left the cities because she couldn’t bear to leave her possessions and two daughters.

Wiesel, on the other hand, interprets “looking back” literally, i.e., she really did turn around to see what was taking place in the cities that she had left. He  conjectures that Mrs. Lot’s hesitations about the having to leave originated from her lack of belief that the prediction that the cities were about to be destroyed was actually going to come true. She would have been left in the cities to meet the same fate as their inhabitants had HaShem not had Compassion on Lot, knowing that this would have deeply disturbed him. However, on the way out, Mrs. Lot by “looking back”, again demonstrates that she really didn’t believe what was happening and for this reason was caught up in the cities’ general punishment.

Heh.

A Rabbinic expression incorporated in RaShI’s commentary:

רש"י בראשית פרק יט

(לא) אבינו זקן - ואם לא עכשיו אימתי (אבות א:יד), שמא ימות או יפסוק מלהולי

Parshat Vayera

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/6.html