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

Lech Lecha answers

Lech Lecha 5728

Alef.

   1. The issue that both commentators are addressing is the interruption of the story focusing upon the King of Sodom with the incident involving Malki Tzedek.

בראשית פרק יד

  (יז) וַיֵּצֵא מֶלֶךְ סְדֹם לִקְרָאתוֹ אַחֲרֵי שׁוּבוֹ מֵהַכּוֹת אֶת כְּדָרְלָעֹמֶר וְאֶת הַמְּלָכִים אֲשֶׁר אִתּוֹ אֶל עֵמֶק שָׁוֵה הוּא עֵמֶק הַמֶּלֶךְ:

(יח) וּמַלְכִּי צֶדֶק מֶלֶךְ שָׁלֵם הוֹצִיא לֶחֶם וָיָיִן וְהוּא כֹהֵן לְקל עֶלְיוֹן:

(יט) וַיְבָרְכֵהוּ וַיֹּאמַר בָּרוּךְ אַבְרָם לְקל עֶלְיוֹן קֹנֵה שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ:

(כ) וּבָרוּךְ קל עֶלְיוֹן אֲשֶׁר מִגֵּן צָרֶיךָ בְּיָדֶךָ וַיִּתֶּן לוֹ מַעֲשֵׂר מִכֹּל:

 (כא) וַיֹּאמֶר מֶלֶךְ סְדֹם אֶל אַבְרָם תֶּן לִי הַנֶּפֶשׁ וְהָרְכֻשׁ קַח לָךְ:

(כב) וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָם אֶל מֶלֶךְ סְדֹם הֲרִמֹתִי יָדִי אֶל יְקֹוָק קל עֶלְיוֹן קֹנֵה שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ:

(כג) אִם מִחוּט וְעַד שְׂרוֹךְ נַעַל וְאִם אֶקַּח מִכָּל אֲשֶׁר לָךְ וְלֹא תֹאמַר אֲנִי הֶעֱשַׁרְתִּי אֶת אַבְרָם:

(כד) בִּלְעָדַי רַק אֲשֶׁר אָכְלוּ הַנְּעָרִים וְחֵלֶק הָאֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר הָלְכוּ אִתִּי עָנֵר אֶשְׁכֹּל וּמַמְרֵא הֵם יִקְחוּ חֶלְקָם:

2. An alternative explanation for the apparent “interruption” in the narrative, other than those of Chizkuni and Ohr HaChayim, might suggest that the incident with Malki Tzedek had happened previously, and was called to mind by Avraham when he saw the King of Sodom approaching. “Let’s see how this King measures up to the standard set by that other King when he came to greet me.”

Beit.

1. The disagreement among the commentators arises by the ambiguity posed by the third person pronouns in verse 20:

יח) וּמַלְכִּי צֶדֶק מֶלֶךְ שָׁלֵם הוֹצִיא לֶחֶם וָיָיִן וְהוּא כֹהֵן לְקל עֶלְיוֹן:

(יט) וַיְבָרְכֵהוּ וַיֹּאמַר בָּרוּךְ אַבְרָם לְקל עֶלְיוֹן קֹנֵה שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ:

(כ) וּבָרוּךְ קל עֶלְיוֹן אֲשֶׁר מִגֵּן צָרֶיךָ בְּיָדֶךָ וַיִּתֶּן לוֹ מַעֲשֵׂר מִכֹּל:

From the perspective of the subject of the three verses, mentioned explicitly in v. 18, it makes sense to assume that the same individual who brought out the food and offered the blessing also gave the Ma’aser, i.e., Malki Tzedek. However, the standard procedure for giving tithes is for the layperson to give the tithe to the priest, in this case, Avraham giving something to Malki Tzedek.

2.  The examples from which Nechama wishes us to generalize with regard to clarifying ambiguous third person pronouns:

בראשית פרק מו פסוק כט

וַיֶּאְסֹר יוֹסֵף מֶרְכַּבְתּוֹ וַיַּעַל לִקְרַאת יִשְׂרָאֵל אָבִיו גֹּשְׁנָה וַיֵּרָא אֵלָיו וַיִּפֹּל עַל צַוָּארָיו וַיֵּבְךְּ עַל צַוָּארָיו עוֹד:

And Joseph made ready his chariot, and went up to meet Israel his father, to Goshen; and he presented himself unto him, and (he) fell on his neck, and (he) wept on his neck a good while. Who fell on whose neck and cried?

שמואל א פרק טו

(כז) וַיִּסֹּב שְׁמוּאֵל לָלֶכֶת וַיַּחֲזֵק בִּכְנַף מְעִילוֹ וַיִּקָּרַע:

And as Samuel turned about to go away, he laid hold upon the skirt of his robe, and it rent.

רש"י שמואל א פרק טו פסוק כז

(כז) ויחזק בכנף מעילו - לפי פשוטו משמעו שכשפנה שמואל ללכת מאחרי שאול אחז שאול בכנף של שמואל לפי שהיה שאול מבקש ממנו שישוב עד שישתחוה בגלגל שהיה שם אהל מועד, ומדרש אגדה חולקים אמוראים יש אומרים מעילו של שמואל קרע שאול ויש אומרים מעילו של שאול קרע שמואל ומסר לו סימן זה מי שיכרות כנף מעילו הוא ימלוך תחתיו, והוא שאמר לו שאול לדוד ביום שכרת את המעיל ידעתי כי מלוך תמלוך (לקמן /שמואל א'/ כ"ד כ'):

רד"ק שמואל א פרק טו פסוק כז

(כז) ...ויחזק בכנף מעילו - שאול החזיק בכנף מעיל שמואל כדי שישוב עמו, ובמדרש חולקין בו יש אומרים כי שמואל קרע במעיל שאול ורמז לו בזה כי מי שיכרות כנף מעילו הוא ימלוך אחריו וי"א כי שמואל קרע מעילו של עצמו שכן דרכן של צדיקים להיות קורעין בשעה שאין נטיעתן משובחת: 

מלכים ב פרק ח

(יד) וַיֵּלֶךְ מֵאֵת אֱלִישָׁע וַיָּבֹא אֶל אֲדֹנָיו וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ מָה אָמַר לְךָ אֱלִישָׁע וַיֹּאמֶר אָמַר לִי חָיֹה תִחְיֶה:

(טו) וַיְהִי מִמָּחֳרָת וַיִּקַּח הַמַּכְבֵּר וַיִּטְבֹּל בַּמַּיִם וַיִּפְרֹשׂ עַל פָּנָיו וַיָּמֹת וַיִּמְלֹךְ חֲזָהאֵל תַּחְתָּיו:

(And Elisha came to Damascus; and Ben-hadad the king of Aram was sick; and it was told him, saying. 'The man of God is come hither.' And the king said unto Hazael: 'Take a present in thy hand, and go meet the man of God, and inquire of the LORD by him, saying: Shall I recover of this sickness?' So Hazael went to meet him, and took a present with him, even of every good thing of Damascus, forty camels' burden, and came and stood before him, and said: 'Thy son Ben-hadad king of Aram hath sent me to thee, saying: Shall I recover of this sickness?' And Elisha said unto him: 'Go, say unto him: Thou shalt surely recover; howbeit the LORD hath shown me that he shall surely die.' And he settled his countenance stedfastly upon him, until he was ashamed; and the man of God wept. And Hazael said: 'Why weepeth my lord?' And he answered: 'Because I know the evil that thou wilt do unto the children of Israel: their strongholds wilt thou set on fire, and their young men wilt thou slay with the sword, and wilt dash in pieces their little ones, and rip up their women with child.' And Hazael said: 'But what is thy servant, who is but a dog, that he should do this great thing?' And Elisha answered: 'The LORD hath shown me that thou shalt be king over Aram.') 

Then he departed from Elisha, and came to his master, who said to him: 'What said Elisha to thee?' And he answered: 'He told me that thou wouldest surely recover.' And it came to pass on the morrow, that he took the coverlet, and dipped it in water, and spread it on his face, so that he died; and Hazael reigned in his stead.   

שמות פרק לד

(ה) וַיֵּרֶד יְקֹוָק בֶּעָנָן וַיִּתְיַצֵּב עִמּוֹ שָׁם וַיִּקְרָא בְשֵׁם יְקֹוָק:

And the LORD descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and (He/he) P(p)roclaimed the Name of the LORD.

3.  Another instance of this type of ambiguity in Parashat Lech Lecha is the following:

בראשית פרק טו

(ו) וְהֶאֱמִן בַּיקֹוָק וַיַּחְשְׁבֶהָ לּוֹ צְדָקָה:

And he believed in the LORD; and He(/he) counted it to him (Him) for righteousness.

4. RaShI’s defense from the attack of RaDaK can be found in:

רש"י בראשית פרק יד פסוק כג

(כג) אם מחוט ועד שרוך נעל - אעכב לעצמי מן השבי:

ואם אקח מכל אשר לך - ואם תאמר לתת לי שכר מבית גנזיך, לא אקח:

(כד) הנערים - עבדי אשר הלכו אתי, ועוד ענר אשכול וממרא וגו'. ואף על פי שעבדי נכנסו למלחמה, שנאמר לעיל (פסוק טו) הוא ועבדיו ויכם, וענר וחבריו ישבו על הכלים לשמור, אפילו הכי הם יקחו חלקם. וממנו למד דוד שאמר (ש"א ל כד) כחלק היורד למלחמה וכחלק היושב על הכלים יחדיו יחלוקו. ולכך נאמר (שם פסוק כה) ויהי מהיום ההוא ומעלה וישימה לחוק ולמשפט, ולא נאמר והלאה לפי שכבר ניתן החוק בימי אברהם:

Avraham understood the concept of “to the victor go the spoils”. Consequently, as long as the King of Sodom does not take anything that is presently in his treasure stores to give to Avraham, whatever Avraham keeps or distributes to his servants and allies is by right his to do with however he please. And while he is concerned about Marit Ayin and does not want to personally benefit from anything that he has recovered that previously belonged to the King of Sodom, it is his decision to do with these things as he pleases.

5.  Here is RaDVaZ’ commentary:

רדב"ז הלכות מלכים פרק ט הלכה א

וכן היה הדבר בכל העולם וכו'. כוונת הראב"ד ז"ל בהשגתו שבאברהם הוא דכתיב שקיים מעשר דכתיב ויתן לו מעשר מכל. וצ"ל כי אברהם זכה בכל הדברים הרכוש ומשם נתן למלכי צדק המעשר, ורבינו לא רצה לפרש כן שהרי אין המעשרות נוהגות אלא בגידולי קרקע שלו לפיכך תפס בדברי האגדה שאמרו שיצחק הוא שהפריש המעשר שנאמר וימצא בשנה ההיא מאה שערים וכן דעת המתרגם ורש"י ז"ל והרמב"ן ז"ל בפירוש התורה שלו, ואף על פי שלא מצינו שנצטוה על המעשר בהדיא כיון שהיו נוהגין בו משמע דמצוה היא שכן מצינו ביעקב כתיב על כן לא יאכלו בני ישראל את גיד הנשה ומקרא בסיני נאמר אלא שנכתב במקומו:

A support to his approach could be cited from Devarim 14 (the Gilayon mistakenly lists Devarim 16):

דברים פרק יד

(כב) עַשֵּׂר תְּעַשֵּׂר אֵת כָּל תְּבוּאַת זַרְעֶךָ הַיֹּצֵא הַשָּׂדֶה שָׁנָה שָׁנָה:

The verse associates Ma’aser with produce grown from the ground, as opposed to monetary possession per se.

Gimel.

1.  Nedarim 32b sees Malki Tzedek as having made a fundamental theological error to the extent that the priesthood will be removed from his line and given to Avraham. Ibn Ezra sees Malki Tzedek’s words as entirely appropriate and not at all flawed to the point of meriting punishment.

2.  The verse in Tehillim cited by Nedarim 32b:

תהלים פרק קי

(ד) נִשְׁבַּע יְקֹוָק וְלֹא יִנָּחֵם אַתָּה כֹהֵן לְעוֹלָם עַל דִּבְרָתִי מַלְכִּי צֶדֶק:

The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent: 'Thou art a priest for ever after the manner of Melchizedek.'

RaShI cites an analogous biblical textual construction:

רש"י תהלים פרק קי פסוק ד  

דברתי מלכי צדק - יו"ד יתירה כמו “רבתי עם” (איכה א:א), על דברת מלכי צדק, על פקודת מלכי צדק.

Metzudat David cites an example that parallels the root word, rather than the additional “י”:

מצודת ציון תהלים פרק קי פסוק ד

/(ד)/ על דברתי - על ענין כמו על “דברת בני אדם” (קהלת ג:יח) והיו"ד יתירה:

3.  Ibn Ezra sees the verse in Tehillim as holding up Malki Tzedek as the standard by which priests will be measured, rather than the basis for why Malik Tzedek was disinherited from the priesthood. With respect to the verse from I Kings:

מלכים א פרק ה

(כג) עֲבָדַי יֹרִדוּ מִן הַלְּבָנוֹן יָמָה וַאֲנִי אֲשִׂימֵם דֹּבְרוֹת בַּיָּם עַד הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר תִּשְׁלַח אֵלַי וְנִפַּצְתִּים שָׁם וְאַתָּה תִשָּׂא וְאַתָּה תַּעֲשֶׂהאֶת חֶפְצִי לָתֵת לֶחֶם בֵּיתִי:

My servants shall bring them down from Lebanon unto the sea; and I will make them into rafts to go by sea unto the place that thou shalt appoint me, and will cause them to be broken up there, and thou shalt receive them; and thou shalt accomplish my desire, in giving food for my household.'

perhaps Ibn Ezra has the same understanding as Metzudat Tzion:

מצודת ציון מלכים א פרק ה פסוק כג

(כג) דברות - ענינו קורות קשורות יחד להנהיג אותם דרך המים כי וינהג את הצאן (שמות ג) תרגומו ודבר וכןורעו כבשים כדברים (ישעיה ה):

i.e., just as the rafts are used to traverse the sea, so also Malki Tzedek’s example will be used to construct the paradigm for how a priest should act.

4.  If “כהן” means “משרת” (servant), then how is being a Kohen a badge of honor? Shemot 28:41 defines the Kohen as not just any servant, but a servant of God. The rule “עבד מלך כמלך דמי” (the servant of the king obtains status similar to that of the King) would then make a Kohen LeKeil Elyon superior to those who are not servants at all.

Daled.

1.  Siftei Chachamim cites two problems with Malki Tzedek being described as bringing bread and wine:

     a. If he wished to offer hospitality to Avraham, shouldn’t he have produced more things, as does Avraham when visited by the three angels? (Someone who has just fought, you give him refreshments, as opposed to a full-course meal.)

b.Usually, it only mentions that the host produces bread, with the things that go along with the bread being understood. Why is wine being particularly emphasized in this case? (The reference to sacrifices would include a hint of wine-libations.)

2.  The referent of giving food to those who have just returned from warfare, albeit much more than just bread and wine:

שמואל ב פרק יז

(כז) וַיְהִי כְּבוֹא דָוִד מַחֲנָיְמָה וְשֹׁבִי בֶן נָחָשׁ מֵרַבַּת בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן וּמָכִיר בֶּן עַמִּיאֵל מִלֹּא דְבָר וּבַרְזִלַּי הַגִּלְעָדִי מֵרֹגְלִים:

(כח) מִשְׁכָּב וְסַפּוֹת וּכְלִי יוֹצֵר וְחִטִּים וּשְׂעֹרִים וְקֶמַח וְקָלִי וּפוֹל וַעֲדָשִׁים וְקָלִי:

(כט) וּדְבַשׁ וְחֶמְאָה וְצֹאן וּשְׁפוֹת בָּקָר הִגִּישׁוּ לְדָוִד וְלָעָם אֲשֶׁר אִתּוֹ לֶאֱכוֹל כִּי אָמְרוּ הָעָם רָעֵב וְעָיֵף וְצָמֵא בַּמִּדְבָּר:

And it came to pass, when David was come to Mahanaim, that Shobi the son of Nahash of Rabbah of the children of Ammon, and Machir the son of Ammiel of Lo-debar, and Barzillai the Gileadite of Rogelim, brought beds, and basins, and earthen vessels, and wheat, and barley, and meal, and parched corn, and beans, and lentils, and parched pulse, and honey, and curd, and sheep, and cheese of kine, for David, and for the people that were with him, to eat; for they said: 'The people is hungry, and faint, and thirsty, in the wilderness.' 

3.  Siftei Chachamim states that a) since Kedrelaomer was the king of Eilam, 

בראשית פרק יד

(ט) אֵת כְּדָרְלָעֹמֶר מֶלֶךְ עֵילָם וְתִדְעָל מֶלֶךְ גּוֹיִם וְאַמְרָפֶל מֶלֶךְ שִׁנְעָר וְאַרְיוֹךְ מֶלֶךְ אֶלָּסָר אַרְבָּעָה מְלָכִים אֶת הַחֲמִשָּׁה:

  b) Eilam was one of the sons of Shem,

בראשית פרק י

(כב) בְּנֵי שֵׁם עֵילָם וְאַשּׁוּר וְאַרְפַּכְשַׁד וְלוּד וַאֲרָם:

מדרש אגדה (בובר) בראשית פרק יד

ולמה הלך מלכי צדק אצל אברהם כשחזר מן המלחמה, כדי שידע אברהם שאין בלב מלכי צדק על אברהם שום איבה על שהרג את עילם, שעילם היה בן שם, שנאמר (ובני) [בני] שם עילם וגו' (בראשית י כב):

and c) Malki Tzedek is identified with Shem,

תלמוד בבלי מסכת נדרים דף לב עמוד ב

אמר רבי זכריה משום רבי ישמעאל: ביקש הקדוש ברוך הוא להוציא כהונה משם,¹ שנאמר: )בראשית יד( “והוא כהן לקל עליון"

Therefore it stands to reason that some of Shem’s offspring died in the battle with Avraham.

4.  See Daled 1 b). 

Parshat LEch Lecha

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/4.html

Parshat Noach Answers

Noach 5722

בראשית פרק ז

(ד) כִּי לְיָמִים עוֹד שִׁבְעָה אָנֹכִי מַמְטִיר עַל הָאָרֶץ אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם וְאַרְבָּעִים לָיְלָה וּמָחִיתִי אֶת כָּל הַיְקוּם אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתִי מֵעַל פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה:

(יא) בִּשְׁנַת שֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה לְחַיֵּי נֹחַ בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשֵּׁנִי בְּשִׁבְעָה עָשָׂר יוֹם לַחֹדֶשׁ בַּיּוֹם הַזֶּה נִבְקְעוּ כָּל מַעְיְנֹת תְּהוֹם רַבָּה וַאֲרֻבֹּת הַשָּׁמַיִם נִפְתָּחוּ:

(יב) וַיְהִי הַגֶּשֶׁם עַל הָאָרֶץ אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם וְאַרְבָּעִים לָיְלָה:

(יז) וַיְהִי הַמַּבּוּל אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם עַל הָאָרֶץ וַיִּרְבּוּ הַמַּיִם וַיִּשְׂאוּ אֶת הַתֵּבָה וַתָּרָם מֵעַל הָאָרֶץ:

(יח) וַיִּגְבְּרוּ הַמַּיִם וַיִּרְבּוּ מְאֹד עַל הָאָרֶץ וַתֵּלֶךְ הַתֵּבָה עַל פְּנֵי הַמָּיִם:

(יט) וְהַמַּיִם גָּבְרוּ מְאֹד מְאֹד עַל הָאָרֶץ וַיְכֻסּוּ כָּל הֶהָרִים הַגְּבֹהִים אֲשֶׁר תַּחַת כָּל הַשָּׁמָיִם:

(כ) חֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה אַמָּה מִלְמַעְלָה גָּבְרוּ הַמָּיִם וַיְכֻסּוּ הֶהָרִים:

(כד) וַיִּגְבְּרוּ הַמַּיִם עַל הָאָרֶץ חֲמִשִּׁים וּמְאַת יוֹם:

בראשית פרק ח

(א) וַיִּזְכֹּר אֱלֹקים אֶת נֹחַ וְאֵת כָּל הַחַיָּה וְאֶת כָּל הַבְּהֵמָה אֲשֶׁר אִתּוֹ בַּתֵּבָה וַיַּעֲבֵר אֱלֹקים רוּחַ עַל הָאָרֶץ וַיָּשֹׁכּוּ הַמָּיִם:

(ב) וַיִּסָּכְרוּ מַעְיְנֹת תְּהוֹם וַאֲרֻבֹּת הַשָּׁמָיִם וַיִּכָּלֵא הַגֶּשֶׁם מִן הַשָּׁמָיִם:

(ג) וַיָּשֻׁבוּ הַמַּיִם מֵעַל הָאָרֶץ הָלוֹךְ וָשׁוֹב וַיַּחְסְרוּ הַמַּיִם מִקְצֵה חֲמִשִּׁים וּמְאַת יוֹם:

Alef.

1. On the one hand, the Tora states (7:12) that the Flood was constituted of forty days and nights of release of water from above and below. On the other hand, the Tora states (7:24) that the Flood was on the earth 150 days. The question is was any additional water released during the balance (110 days) of the Flood, or was all of the destruction due to only forty days of water being introduced from the depths and the heavens?

2.  It seems to me that there are only two solutions: Ibn Ezra posits that additional water was added past the original forty days, while Wiesel and Cassuto do not think so, with the assuaging of the waters already beginning immediately after those first forty days.

3.   Ibn Ezra: The waters increased…

      Wiesel, Cassuto: The waters had risen…

4.   Ibn Ezra believes that this is the first time that no additional water was added to the world following the beginning of the Flood.

5.   Although Beraishit 1 and the beginning of Beraishit 2 lists events that take place following man’s Creation:

בראשית פרק א

(כו) וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹקים נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם בְּצַלְמֵנוּ כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ וְיִרְדּוּ בִדְגַת הַיָּם וּבְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וּבַבְּהֵמָה וּבְכָל הָאָרֶץ וּבְכָל הָרֶמֶשׂ הָרֹמֵשׂ עַל הָאָרֶץ:

(כז) וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹקים אֶת הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמוֹ בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹקים בָּרָא אֹתוֹ זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בָּרָא אֹתָם:

(כח) וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתָם אֱלֹקים וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם אֱלֹקים פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ וּמִלְאוּ אֶת הָאָרֶץ וְכִבְשֻׁהָ וּרְדוּ בִּדְגַת הַיָּם וּבְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וּבְכָל חַיָּה הָרֹמֶשֶׂת עַל הָאָרֶץ:

(כט) וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹקים הִנֵּה נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת כָּל עֵשֶׂב זֹרֵעַ זֶרַע אֲשֶׁר עַל פְּנֵי כָל הָאָרֶץ וְאֶת כָּל הָעֵץ אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ פְרִי עֵץ זֹרֵעַ זָרַע לָכֶם יִהְיֶה לְאָכְלָה:

בראשית פרק ב  

(א) וַיְכֻלּוּ הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ וְכָל צְבָאָם:

(ב) וַיְכַל אֱלֹקים בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי מְלַאכְתּוֹ אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה וַיִּשְׁבֹּת בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי מִכָּל מְלַאכְתּוֹ אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה:

(ג) וַיְבָרֶךְ אֱלֹקים אֶת יוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי וַיְקַדֵּשׁ אֹתוֹ כִּי בוֹ שָׁבַת מִכָּל מְלַאכְתּוֹ אֲשֶׁר בָּרָא אֱלֹקים לַעֲשׂוֹת: פ

(ל) וּלְכָל חַיַּת הָאָרֶץ וּלְכָל עוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וּלְכֹל רוֹמֵשׂ עַל הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה אֶת כָּל יֶרֶק עֵשֶׂב לְאָכְלָה וַיְהִי כֵן:

(לא) וַיַּרְא אֱלֹקים אֶת כָּל אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה וְהִנֵּה טוֹב מְאֹד וַיְהִי עֶרֶב וַיְהִי בֹקֶר יוֹם הַשִּׁשִּׁי: פ

the subsequent material in Chapter 2 expands upon the account of the Creation of man and what happens to him already mentioned in Chapter 1.

בראשית פרק ב

(ד) אֵלֶּה תוֹלְדוֹת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ בְּהִבָּרְאָם בְּיוֹם עֲשׂוֹת יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקים אֶרֶץ וְשָׁמָיִם:

(ה) וְכֹל שִׂיחַ הַשָּׂדֶה טֶרֶם יִהְיֶה בָאָרֶץ וְכָל עֵשֶׂב הַשָּׂדֶה טֶרֶם יִצְמָח כִּי לֹא הִמְטִיר יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקים עַל הָאָרֶץ וְאָדָם אַיִן         before 1:26

לַעֲבֹד אֶת הָאֲדָמָה:                                                

(ו) וְאֵד יַעֲלֶה מִן הָאָרֶץ וְהִשְׁקָה אֶת כָּל פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה:

(ז) וַיִּיצֶר יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקים אֶת הָאָדָם עָפָר מִן הָאֲדָמָה וַיִּפַּח בְּאַפָּיו נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים וַיְהִי הָאָדָם לְנֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה:   detail of v. 27                                

(ח) וַיִּטַּע יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקים גַּן בְּעֵדֶן מִקֶּדֶם וַיָּשֶׂם שָׁם אֶת הָאָדָם אֲשֶׁר יָצָר:

(ט) וַיַּצְמַח יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקים מִן הָאֲדָמָה כָּל עֵץ נֶחְמָד לְמַרְאֶה וְטוֹב לְמַאֲכָל וְעֵץ הַחַיִּים בְּתוֹךְ הַגָּן וְעֵץ הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע:

(י) וְנָהָר יֹצֵא מֵעֵדֶן לְהַשְׁקוֹת אֶת הַגָּן וּמִשָּׁם יִפָּרֵד וְהָיָה לְאַרְבָּעָה רָאשִׁים:

(יא) שֵׁם הָאֶחָד פִּישׁוֹן הוּא הַסֹּבֵב אֵת כָּל אֶרֶץ הַחֲוִילָה אֲשֶׁר שָׁם הַזָּהָב:

(יב) וּזֲהַב הָאָרֶץ הַהִוא טוֹב שָׁם הַבְּדֹלַח וְאֶבֶן הַשֹּׁהַם:

(יג) וְשֵׁם הַנָּהָר הַשֵּׁנִי גִּיחוֹן הוּא הַסּוֹבֵב אֵת כָּל אֶרֶץ כּוּשׁ:detail of v. 29                                                                                                 

(יד) וְשֵׁם הַנָּהָר הַשְּׁלִישִׁי חִדֶּקֶל הוּא הַהֹלֵךְ קִדְמַת אַשּׁוּר וְהַנָּהָר הָרְבִיעִי הוּא פְרָת:

(טו) וַיִּקַּח יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקים אֶת הָאָדָם וַיַּנִּחֵהוּ בְגַן עֵדֶן לְעָבְדָהּ וּלְשָׁמְרָהּ:

(טז) וַיְצַו יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקים עַל הָאָדָם לֵאמֹר מִכֹּל עֵץ הַגָּן אָכֹל תֹּאכֵל:

(יז) וּמֵעֵץ הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע לֹא תֹאכַל מִמֶּנּוּ כִּי בְּיוֹם אֲכָלְךָ מִמֶּנּוּ מוֹת תָּמוּת: 

(יח) וַיֹּאמֶר יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקים לֹא טוֹב הֱיוֹת הָאָדָם לְבַדּוֹ אֶעֱשֶׂה לּוֹ עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ:

(יט) וַיִּצֶר יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקים מִן הָאֲדָמָה כָּל חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה וְאֵת כָּל עוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וַיָּבֵא אֶל הָאָדָם לִרְאוֹת מַה יִּקְרָא לוֹ וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר יִקְרָא לוֹ הָאָדָם נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה הוּא שְׁמוֹ:

(כ) וַיִּקְרָא הָאָדָם שֵׁמוֹת לְכָל הַבְּהֵמָה וּלְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וּלְכֹל חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה וּלְאָדָם לֹא מָצָא עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ:

(כא) וַיַּפֵּל יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקים תַּרְדֵּמָה עַל הָאָדָם וַיִּישָׁן וַיִּקַּח אַחַת מִצַּלְעֹתָיו וַיִּסְגֹּר בָּשָׂר תַּחְתֶּנָּה:detail of v. 27-8                                            

(כב) וַיִּבֶן יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקים אֶת הַצֵּלָע אֲשֶׁר לָקַח מִן הָאָדָם לְאִשָּׁה וַיְבִאֶהָ אֶל הָאָדָם:

(כג) וַיֹּאמֶר הָאָדָם זֹאת הַפַּעַם עֶצֶם מֵעֲצָמַי וּבָשָׂר מִבְּשָׂרִי לְזֹאת יִקָּרֵא אִשָּׁה כִּי מֵאִישׁ לֻקֳחָה זֹּאת:

(כד) עַל כֵּן יַעֲזָב אִישׁ אֶת אָבִיו וְאֶת אִמּוֹ וְדָבַק בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ וְהָיוּ לְבָשָׂר אֶחָד:

(כה) וַיִּהְיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם עֲרוּמִּים הָאָדָם וְאִשְׁתּוֹ וְלֹא יִתְבֹּשָׁשׁוּ:

6.   It would have been expected that the birth of Adam and Chava’s third child

בראשית פרק ד

(כה) וַיֵּדַע אָדָם עוֹד אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וַתֵּלֶד בֵּן וַתִּקְרָא אֶת שְׁמוֹ שֵׁת כִּי שָׁת לִי אֱלֹקים זֶרַע אַחֵר תַּחַת הֶבֶל כִּי הֲרָגוֹ קָיִן:

(כו) וּלְשֵׁת גַּם הוּא יֻלַּד בֵּן וַיִּקְרָא אֶת שְׁמוֹ אֱנוֹשׁ אָז הוּחַל לִקְרֹא בְּשֵׁם יְקֹוָק: פ

should have been mentioned in close proximity to the births of Kayin and Hevel (immediately following 4:2), or at the very least, right after Hevel’s murder at the hands of Kayin (4:15) before discussing Kayin’s own descendants (4:17-24).

7.  RaShI and Ibn Ezra are advocates of the rule “Ein Mukdam U’Meuchar BaTora” (the events in the Tora do not follow a chronological sequence.) This would allow for an interpretation of the “plus perfect”, i.e., the past perfect, “this had already happened in the past”. The “Vav HaHipuch” form of verbs frequently used in the Bible which take future tenses and turn them into past tenses would seem to reflect the Hebrew language’s aversion to such an interpretation in the sense that past and future are blended together in single word forms, then it would be greatly confusing if we could not assume that at least the contents of the stories are being presented in chronological order.

Beit.

Ibn Ezra:

   How can there be “forgetfulness” with respect to HaShem that He has to “Remember” Noach?

The remembrance of Noach’s good deeds comes before HaShem at that particular moment.

RaMBaN:

   a.  (Essentially the same question that Ibn Ezra poses.)

The “Remembrance” of Noach was due to the covenant that HaShem Entered into with this Tzaddik.

b. Since Noach’s family is also save, why doesn’t the text state that HaShem Remembered them?

   They are included in the Memory of Noach.

c.  Why should HaShem “Remember” the animals in the Ark if they don’t have the ability to make moral choices and therefore can’t be judged as to whether or not they are worthy of being remembered?

   HaShem “Remembered” the purpose for Creating the world, which depended upon animals being part of that Creation.

d.  Why does He Decide at this particular point to remove the water and allow the inhabitants of the Ark to emerge?

   Because had they stayed any longer in the Ark, they would have died.

e.  Why aren’t birds and fish included in the “Remembrance”?

   They are included in the “Remembrance” of the animals.

Rabbeinu Bechaye:

Why does the verse mention that HaShem “Remembered” both Noach and the animals?

To demonstrate that HaShem’s Divine Supervision Applies to all equally.

Ibn Kaspi:

How is it possible that the same Divine Supervision Applies equally to Noach and the animals?

Logically, it does not and therefore the verse should not be interpreted in that manner.

Cassuto:

(The same question asked by Ibn Ezra and RaMBaN.)

God’s “Remembrance” is to be understood as His Acting upon a Promise that He originally Made. In this case, He Promised to Save Noach from the Flood that He was Bringing to Destroy the inhabitants of the world, and He is now Acting upon that Promise to Make it come true.

Gimel.

Ibn Kaspi is bothered by the ostensible implication that the word “Ad” somehow reflects the existence of some type of physical barrier that does not allow the subject of the sentence to proceed any further.  But that is not the case in this particular verse, where the word “Ad” is an adverb defining the length of time or the phenomenon that would occur marking the end of the raven’s sojourn outside of the Ark.

Daled.

1. א) Perhaps the Rabbis thought that once the text stated that Noach was aware of the fact that the floodwaters had disappeared, then why didn’t he take the initiative and leave the Ark without God’s Commanding him to do so. Consequently they assume that there was some sort of assurance demanded by Noach before  he and those with him would set foot on dry land.

בראשית פרק ח

(יג) וַיְהִי בְּאַחַת וְשֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה בָּרִאשׁוֹן בְּאֶחָד לַחֹדֶשׁ חָרְבוּ הַמַּיִם מֵעַל הָאָרֶץ וַיָּסַר נֹחַ אֶת מִכְסֵה הַתֵּבָה וַיַּרְא וְהִנֵּה חָרְבוּ פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה:

(יד) וּבַחֹדֶשׁ הַשֵּׁנִי בְּשִׁבְעָה וְעֶשְׂרִים יוֹם לַחֹדֶשׁ יָבְשָׁה הָאָרֶץ: ס

(טו) וַיְדַבֵּר אֱלֹקם אֶל נֹחַ לֵאמֹר:

(טז) צֵא מִן הַתֵּבָה אַתָּה וְאִשְׁתְּךָ וּבָנֶיךָ וּנְשֵׁי בָנֶיךָ אִתָּךְ:

(יז) כָּל הַחַיָּה אֲשֶׁר אִתְּךָ מִכָּל בָּשָׂר בָּעוֹף וּבַבְּהֵמָה וּבְכָל הָרֶמֶשׂ הָרֹמֵשׂ עַל הָאָרֶץ הוצא הַיְצֵא אִתָּךְ וְשָׁרְצוּ בָאָרֶץ וּפָרוּ וְרָבוּ עַל הָאָרֶץ:

ב) The Midrash inferred from the verse in Yeshayahu:

ישעיהו פרק נד

(ט) כִּי מֵי נֹחַ זֹאת לִי אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי מֵעֲבֹר מֵי נֹחַ עוֹד עַל הָאָרֶץ כֵּן נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי מִקְּצֹף עָלַיִךְ וּמִגְּעָר בָּךְ:

"For this is as the waters of Noah unto Me; for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth, so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee"

that as long as there was the possibility that another Flood would be sent by God, Noach had no interest in disembarking from the Ark. The prospect of having children and flourishing, only to be wiped out by another devastating catastrophe, according to the Midrash, had no appeal for Noach.

Similarly, the people have to be assured by HaShem that there will not be another far-reaching destruction before they agree to return from Bavel:

Yeshayahu 48:

ישעיהו פרק מח

(יז) כֹּה אָמַר יְקֹוָק גֹּאַלְךָ קְדוֹשׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲנִי יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ מְלַמֶּדְךָ לְהוֹעִיל מַדְרִיכֲךָ בְּדֶרֶךְ תֵּלֵךְ:

(יח) לוּא הִקְשַׁבְתָּ לְמִצְוֹתָי וַיְהִי כַנָּהָר שְׁלוֹמֶךָ וְצִדְקָתְךָ כְּגַלֵּי הַיָּם:

(יט) וַיְהִי כַחוֹל זַרְעֶךָ וְצֶאֱצָאֵי מֵעֶיךָ כִּמְעֹתָיו לֹא יִכָּרֵת וְלֹא יִשָּׁמֵד שְׁמוֹ מִלְּפָנָי:

(כ) צְאוּ מִבָּבֶל בִּרְחוּ מִכַּשְׂדִּים בְּקוֹל רִנָּה הַגִּידוּ הַשְׁמִיעוּ זֹאת הוֹצִיאוּהָ עַד קְצֵה הָאָרֶץ אִמְרוּ גָּאַל יְקֹוָק עַבְדּוֹ יַעֲקֹב:

(כא) וְלֹא צָמְאוּ בָּחֳרָבוֹת הוֹלִיכָם מַיִם מִצּוּר הִזִּיל לָמוֹ וַיִּבְקַע צוּר וַיָּזֻבוּ מָיִם:

(כב) אֵין שָׁלוֹם אָמַר יְקֹוָק לָרְשָׁעִים: ס

"Oh that thou wouldest hearken to My Commandments! then would thy peace be as a river, and thy righteousness as the waves of the sea; Thy seed also would be as the sand, and the offspring of thy body like the grains thereof; his name would not be cut off nor destroyed from before Me. Go ye forth from Babylon, flee ye from the Chaldeans; with a voice of singing declare ye, tell this, utter it even to the end of the earth; say ye: 'The LORD hath Redeemed His servant Jacob. And they thirsted not when He Led them through the deserts; He Caused the waters to flow out of the rock for them; He Cleaved the rock also, and the waters gushed out.' There is no peace, Saith the LORD concerning the wicked". 

(Yitz Greenberg: Having children in a post-Holocaust age is an act of courage, optimism.

Bava Batra 60b

And from the day that a Government has come into power which issues cruel decrees against us and forbids to us the observance of the Torah and the precepts  and does not allow us to enter into the 'week of the son'  (according to another version, 'the salvation of the son'),  we ought by rights to bind ourselves not to marry and beget children, and the seed of Abraham our father would come to an end of itself. However, let Israel go their way: it is better that they should err in ignorance than presumptuously.)

ג) Although Noach was in effect the “caretaker” of the world, in the sense of the human and animal species, he was only a surrogate for HaShem, Who, once the Flood was over and the water had receded, Wished to Resume His previous Position as the true Caretaker of the World.

2.  The difference between the two Midrashim re Noach’s offering sacrifices has to do with what gave him the idea.

Beraishit Rabba posits that the catalyst was the extra Kosher animals that Noach had been Commanded to take onto the Ark. He deduced that there was some immediate special purpose for having specifically these animals available to him.

Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer asserts that the idea came to Noach because of feelings of gratitude towards God for having saved him from the Flood. Only after he was overcome with such feelings did he hit upon the idea of offering the extra Kosher animals as sacrifices.

3. א) According to this Midrash, the sacrifice represents the attribute of Mesirat Nefesh, i.e.,   readiness for self-sacrifice on the part of the individual who brings the sacrifice.

ב) Avraham, on the one hand,  and Chanania, Mishael and Azarya on the other, apparently shared similar attitudes with regard to the readiness for self-sacrifice, since they were ready to be cast into a fiery furnace—Avraham in the Midrashic descriptions of his encounter with Nimrod, and C., M. and A. who according to the book of Daniel are cast into the furnace upon Nevuchadnezzar’s orders. Since so many generations separate these men, the Midrash refers to them as grandfather and grandsons. But by attaching this idea to Noach’s sacrifices, the Midrash suggests that the potential for people like these descending from Noach justifies the preservation of mankind despite their serious transgressions.

ג)  To say that Hashem “Smells” a goodly smell from the Korbanot is extremely anthropomorphic. Consequently the verse is interpreted by the Midrash that this is a reference to a Divine Recognition that within the human species there are exceptional spiritual individuals who justify the preservation of the entire species.