Parshat Toldos
In 27:3-4 Yitzhak tells Esau that he is soon going to die and he should go trap a deer and make food so he can bless him. He was very specific about what he wanted Esau to bring him.
Was Yitzhak really so concerned on his deathbed about what his last meal would consist of? Why didn't he just say bring me something to eat so I can bless you? Whyw as he so concerned with the specifics? And why is he so concerned about what's for dinner at such a critical time?
The Seforno suggests that he requested food from Esau because he wanted Esau to perform this mitzva of honoring his father so the blessing would have a mitzva to take effect upon, because Yitzhak knew that Esau was not really a worthy person (even if he did not know how bad he actually was, he at least knew this).
But it still seems out of place that Yitzhak gave such specific instructions. He could have just said to bring him dinner and the mitzva would have been accomplished the same.
Still thinking
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
different attitudes
Parshat Toldos
It happened again. In Chapter 26 we see Yitzhak going to the city of G'rar. He followed in his father's footsteps and told the people (and Avimelech the king) that Rivka is his sister so they would not kill him and take her. Avimelech played sleuth and figured out that they are husband/wife and not brother/sister.
Avimelech chastised him for the lie saying somebody could have possibly approached Rivka and we all would have been punished for it. "How could you do this to us?" He then told his people to leave Yitzhak and Rivka alone. They continued to live there and prospered.
This is consistent with how Avimelech reacted with Avraham. When Avraham pulled the same trick of saying Sarah is his wife, Avimelech nearly got killed for it and when he found out he gave Avraham great wealth and a choice of land to live on.
Yet when Avraham pulled the same trick on Pharoh, the Egyptians threw him out of Egypt. They gave him money and told him to get lost.
I find the different reactions interesting and telling regarding their attitudes. At the time Avraham went down to Egypt we are told that Egypt had a decadent society and therefore Avraham had great fear for his life. That might be consistent with the Egyptians throwing Avraham out after having duped them. Yet Avimelech had a positive attitude and understood Avraham and Yitzhak's concerns and allowed them to continue living in his country.
It happened again. In Chapter 26 we see Yitzhak going to the city of G'rar. He followed in his father's footsteps and told the people (and Avimelech the king) that Rivka is his sister so they would not kill him and take her. Avimelech played sleuth and figured out that they are husband/wife and not brother/sister.
Avimelech chastised him for the lie saying somebody could have possibly approached Rivka and we all would have been punished for it. "How could you do this to us?" He then told his people to leave Yitzhak and Rivka alone. They continued to live there and prospered.
This is consistent with how Avimelech reacted with Avraham. When Avraham pulled the same trick of saying Sarah is his wife, Avimelech nearly got killed for it and when he found out he gave Avraham great wealth and a choice of land to live on.
Yet when Avraham pulled the same trick on Pharoh, the Egyptians threw him out of Egypt. They gave him money and told him to get lost.
I find the different reactions interesting and telling regarding their attitudes. At the time Avraham went down to Egypt we are told that Egypt had a decadent society and therefore Avraham had great fear for his life. That might be consistent with the Egyptians throwing Avraham out after having duped them. Yet Avimelech had a positive attitude and understood Avraham and Yitzhak's concerns and allowed them to continue living in his country.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
chasing the wealthy
Parshat Hayyei Sarah
Eliezer, servant of Avraham, goes to Aram Naharayim to seek out a wife for Yitzhak from the family of Nahor. After the whole story of meeting up with Rivka and her offering water to him and his camels, Eliezer requests a place to sleep the night. Rivka offers lodging and then goes home to tell her family of the guest.
The passuk in 24:29 says, "וירץ לבן אל האיש" - Lavan ran to the man...
Rashi explains why Lavan ran. He explains, "Why did he [Lavan] run and for what did he run? "When he had seen the nose ring," he said, "This one is rich" and made plans to get at his money. "
The Seforno as well discusses this running of Lavan and explains that he wanted to see the wealthy man who came to town (the Seforno does not ascribe nefarious plans to Lavan as Rashi did, so it could have been for the purpose of finding a way to get his money or he possibly just wanted to see a wealthy person).
The Torah is clearly describing this act of Lavan, as it continues to portray Lavan, in a negative fashion, as an act of an evil person plotting and scheming.
Yet this is something we all do and commonly find in practice among the best of us. When someone wealthy comes to town we are all curious. We go out to see him and hope for the opportunity to shake his hand, let alone if one would have the opportunity to exchange a few words with him.
Warren Buffet just recently came to Israel and his every move was watched by all. Celebrities with their paparazzi and who knows how many more examples.
I think most of the time it is out of curiosity with a bit of hope that his luck/fortune will rub off a bit on me. But sometimes there is also a bit of nefariousness involved. We are jealous, possibly, as well.
Regardless of the intentions, we see from Lavan and how he is written up here in the Torah, that it is not a good thing to chase after the wealthy, whether simply to watch them or worse.
Eliezer, servant of Avraham, goes to Aram Naharayim to seek out a wife for Yitzhak from the family of Nahor. After the whole story of meeting up with Rivka and her offering water to him and his camels, Eliezer requests a place to sleep the night. Rivka offers lodging and then goes home to tell her family of the guest.
The passuk in 24:29 says, "וירץ לבן אל האיש" - Lavan ran to the man...
Rashi explains why Lavan ran. He explains, "Why did he [Lavan] run and for what did he run? "When he had seen the nose ring," he said, "This one is rich" and made plans to get at his money. "
The Seforno as well discusses this running of Lavan and explains that he wanted to see the wealthy man who came to town (the Seforno does not ascribe nefarious plans to Lavan as Rashi did, so it could have been for the purpose of finding a way to get his money or he possibly just wanted to see a wealthy person).
The Torah is clearly describing this act of Lavan, as it continues to portray Lavan, in a negative fashion, as an act of an evil person plotting and scheming.
Yet this is something we all do and commonly find in practice among the best of us. When someone wealthy comes to town we are all curious. We go out to see him and hope for the opportunity to shake his hand, let alone if one would have the opportunity to exchange a few words with him.
Warren Buffet just recently came to Israel and his every move was watched by all. Celebrities with their paparazzi and who knows how many more examples.
I think most of the time it is out of curiosity with a bit of hope that his luck/fortune will rub off a bit on me. But sometimes there is also a bit of nefariousness involved. We are jealous, possibly, as well.
Regardless of the intentions, we see from Lavan and how he is written up here in the Torah, that it is not a good thing to chase after the wealthy, whether simply to watch them or worse.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
ambiguous
Parshat Va'Yeishev
We read about the akeida. Hashem tells Avraham what he wants from him. In 22:2 Hashem says, bring your son, etc.. " והעלהו שם לעולה" - bring him up there as a sacrifice.
Rashi already tells us that Hashem never said to actually slaughter Yitzchak. He only told him to bring Yitzchak up.
Did Avraham misunderstand Hashem and what He wanted? Did Avraham make a (nearly fatal) mistake?
I guess that for it to be a good test, Hashem had to find a way to say it ambiguously, using a word that implies offering it up for a korban but could be interpreted differently, so He could retract later. Avraham seems to have misinterpreted the ambiguity of God, but that was the point.
We read about the akeida. Hashem tells Avraham what he wants from him. In 22:2 Hashem says, bring your son, etc.. " והעלהו שם לעולה" - bring him up there as a sacrifice.
Rashi already tells us that Hashem never said to actually slaughter Yitzchak. He only told him to bring Yitzchak up.
Did Avraham misunderstand Hashem and what He wanted? Did Avraham make a (nearly fatal) mistake?
I guess that for it to be a good test, Hashem had to find a way to say it ambiguously, using a word that implies offering it up for a korban but could be interpreted differently, so He could retract later. Avraham seems to have misinterpreted the ambiguity of God, but that was the point.
my responsibility
Parshat Va'Yeishev
We read about the incident in which the angels show up in Lot's house in S'dom.. Lot brings them in. The people of the town hear that Lot has guests and they come to "arrest" them. It is unclear what they really wanted to do with the guests, some opinions say sodomistic purposes, others say torture. Lot says in 19:8 not to take the guests rather I have two daughters, take them.
How could Lot offer his daughters to them? If you say he felt responsible for hsi guests and could not give them up at any cost (as Rashi says) and therefore he had to offer his daughters in their places, should he not feel responsible for his daughters well being as well? He should have offered himself in their place!
Maybe he knew they would not take him because he was one of them, so the only alternative was to offer his daughters. I just fail to understand how a father could offer his daughters to such an evil plan..
We read about the incident in which the angels show up in Lot's house in S'dom.. Lot brings them in. The people of the town hear that Lot has guests and they come to "arrest" them. It is unclear what they really wanted to do with the guests, some opinions say sodomistic purposes, others say torture. Lot says in 19:8 not to take the guests rather I have two daughters, take them.
How could Lot offer his daughters to them? If you say he felt responsible for hsi guests and could not give them up at any cost (as Rashi says) and therefore he had to offer his daughters in their places, should he not feel responsible for his daughters well being as well? He should have offered himself in their place!
Maybe he knew they would not take him because he was one of them, so the only alternative was to offer his daughters. I just fail to understand how a father could offer his daughters to such an evil plan..
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
where he is
Parshat Va'Yeira
Avraham, at Sarah's behest, throws Haggar and Yishmael out of his house and sends them packing. We read about how they go through the desert and Yishmael falls ill and is dieing. Haggar distances herself from him so as not to se him in his death throes. An angel appears to Haggar and says that Hashem has heard her prayers and the child will recover. In 21:17 the angel says that Hashem has heard the prayers of the boy where he is.
Rashi explains "where he is" to be a reference to the idea that Hashem listened to his prayers and judged him in his current status, and ignored the fact that he would later be evil and cause trouble and do bad. His current actions are ok and therefore his prayers have been accepted.
But Rashi already told us in 21:9 that the reason Sarah wanted him thrown out of the house was because she saw him involved in idol worship, murder and inappropriate relationships. These are the three worst sins a person can be involved in! How can Rashi say that he was currently ok and being judged for now rather than later?
I do not have a good answer to explain Rashi, btu was thinking that this might be the reason the Ramban (and others) suggest a different, more basic, explanation. They say that it simply means he will be healed right where he is.
Anybody out there who can explain Rashi?
Avraham, at Sarah's behest, throws Haggar and Yishmael out of his house and sends them packing. We read about how they go through the desert and Yishmael falls ill and is dieing. Haggar distances herself from him so as not to se him in his death throes. An angel appears to Haggar and says that Hashem has heard her prayers and the child will recover. In 21:17 the angel says that Hashem has heard the prayers of the boy where he is.
Rashi explains "where he is" to be a reference to the idea that Hashem listened to his prayers and judged him in his current status, and ignored the fact that he would later be evil and cause trouble and do bad. His current actions are ok and therefore his prayers have been accepted.
But Rashi already told us in 21:9 that the reason Sarah wanted him thrown out of the house was because she saw him involved in idol worship, murder and inappropriate relationships. These are the three worst sins a person can be involved in! How can Rashi say that he was currently ok and being judged for now rather than later?
I do not have a good answer to explain Rashi, btu was thinking that this might be the reason the Ramban (and others) suggest a different, more basic, explanation. They say that it simply means he will be healed right where he is.
Anybody out there who can explain Rashi?
did he know or not?
Parshat Va'Yeira
The parsha starts off with the story of the three angels who come to Avraham appearing as men. They eat, drink and make merry and give over the information they need to give over. In 18:9 the angels ask Avraham "Where is Sarah your wife?"
If Avraham did not know they were angels, how was he not curious how they knew he had a wife and her name was Sarah that they should ask about her? And if he did know they were angels, why did he bother with the trouble of making lunch for them, slaughtering a bull and baking bread, etc, knowing they would not eat it because they are angels?
Anybody?
The parsha starts off with the story of the three angels who come to Avraham appearing as men. They eat, drink and make merry and give over the information they need to give over. In 18:9 the angels ask Avraham "Where is Sarah your wife?"
If Avraham did not know they were angels, how was he not curious how they knew he had a wife and her name was Sarah that they should ask about her? And if he did know they were angels, why did he bother with the trouble of making lunch for them, slaughtering a bull and baking bread, etc, knowing they would not eat it because they are angels?
Anybody?
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
By association
Parshat Lech L'cha
In 15:18 at the conclusion of the Brit Bein Ha'B'sarim, Hashem promises to Avram his children would be given "From the river of Egypt until the great river the river of P'Rat".
Rashi says that the P'rat river was seemingly the smallest and most minor of the 4 rivers as it is the fourth and last river mentioned (and had no description ascribed to it). Yet it still calls it here "the great river, the river of P'Rat".
Rashi explains because it is connected to the Land of Israel it deserves the title "The great river". Just by association.
Associate with good people and ideas and you will be thought of and considered to be good. Associate with evil and you will be thought of that way as well...
In 15:18 at the conclusion of the Brit Bein Ha'B'sarim, Hashem promises to Avram his children would be given "From the river of Egypt until the great river the river of P'Rat".
Rashi says that the P'rat river was seemingly the smallest and most minor of the 4 rivers as it is the fourth and last river mentioned (and had no description ascribed to it). Yet it still calls it here "the great river, the river of P'Rat".
Rashi explains because it is connected to the Land of Israel it deserves the title "The great river". Just by association.
Associate with good people and ideas and you will be thought of and considered to be good. Associate with evil and you will be thought of that way as well...
important decisions
Parshat Lech L'cha
Look how important a decision can be. In 13:8-12 we read about Avram and Lot splitting ways. Avram let Lot choose first which direction he wanted to go and Avram would go the other way.
What does Lot choose? How does he come to that decision? The Torah tells us he lifted up his eyes, saw the beautiful grazing land with rivers and babbling brooks and lush grass and fertile land and chose that direction.
Nothing else mattered. He did not consider the community or the type of people that lived there. He did not consider where he would want to raise and educate his children and in what society he would live. It did not matter that he would become a resident of a place like S'dom.
None of it mattered as long as he had good grazing land for his sheep. He was impulsive.
And look where it got him. We all know how the story progresses and what happens in S'dom.
It is important not to be impulsive, but make your decisions with careful consideration.
Look how important a decision can be. In 13:8-12 we read about Avram and Lot splitting ways. Avram let Lot choose first which direction he wanted to go and Avram would go the other way.
What does Lot choose? How does he come to that decision? The Torah tells us he lifted up his eyes, saw the beautiful grazing land with rivers and babbling brooks and lush grass and fertile land and chose that direction.
Nothing else mattered. He did not consider the community or the type of people that lived there. He did not consider where he would want to raise and educate his children and in what society he would live. It did not matter that he would become a resident of a place like S'dom.
None of it mattered as long as he had good grazing land for his sheep. He was impulsive.
And look where it got him. We all know how the story progresses and what happens in S'dom.
It is important not to be impulsive, but make your decisions with careful consideration.
realistic solutions
Parshat Lech L'Cha
We experience Avram and Sarai going down to Egypt due to a famine in the Land of C'naan. As they approach Egypt, Avram devises a plan. He fears for his life, as Sarai is an exceptionally beautiful woman he expects that the Egyptians, desiring Sarai, would have him killed so she would be husbandless and then they would take her for marriage.
In 12:13 Avram comes up with a plan that, "Say you are my sister, thereby they will be good to me for you, and will let me live because of you."
Avram did not want to say they were married because that would put him in danger. They would desire Sarai and if she was married, they would kill her husband to release her from her marriage. By saying she is his sister, they would take Sarai but not kill Avram.
Was Avram so selfish and self-absorbed that he was only concerned about his own safety, and not of Sarai's? Was he so greedy that his concern was first "they will be good to me" which Rashi explains they will give me presents on your behalf even before he says "and they will let me live"?
I found the S'forno which seems to answer this question, at least in part. The S'forno explains that Avram said of we say we are married they will kill me and take you. By saying you are my sister, they will not kill me and they will also not take you. They will beseech me and ask for your hand in marriage and offer gifts as a bribe and goodwill so I will allow them to take you.
But I do not think that is enough to answer the question. Avram should have expected it to be dangerous for her even with the claim that she is a sister. Why? Because we see they claimed she was his sister and yet in 12:15 we see that they still took Sarai. Did Avram predict incorrectly?
I suspect that Sarai being taken by the Egyptians was a fait accompli, and Avram recognized that. He knew that no matter what he did, she would be taken. The only way to avoid it would be not to go down to Egypt, but that was not an option because of the famine spreading in the Land of C'naan. Instead of looking for an unrealistic solution to the problem, he looked for the best way to protect the two of them. By saying they were married, they would kill him and Sarai would be lost for good. By saying she is his sister, they would have no reason to kill him, even if they forcibly take her, and then he would still be around to fight for her release.
Take the lesson from Avram - don't waste your time searching for unrealistic solutions.
We experience Avram and Sarai going down to Egypt due to a famine in the Land of C'naan. As they approach Egypt, Avram devises a plan. He fears for his life, as Sarai is an exceptionally beautiful woman he expects that the Egyptians, desiring Sarai, would have him killed so she would be husbandless and then they would take her for marriage.
In 12:13 Avram comes up with a plan that, "Say you are my sister, thereby they will be good to me for you, and will let me live because of you."
Avram did not want to say they were married because that would put him in danger. They would desire Sarai and if she was married, they would kill her husband to release her from her marriage. By saying she is his sister, they would take Sarai but not kill Avram.
Was Avram so selfish and self-absorbed that he was only concerned about his own safety, and not of Sarai's? Was he so greedy that his concern was first "they will be good to me" which Rashi explains they will give me presents on your behalf even before he says "and they will let me live"?
I found the S'forno which seems to answer this question, at least in part. The S'forno explains that Avram said of we say we are married they will kill me and take you. By saying you are my sister, they will not kill me and they will also not take you. They will beseech me and ask for your hand in marriage and offer gifts as a bribe and goodwill so I will allow them to take you.
But I do not think that is enough to answer the question. Avram should have expected it to be dangerous for her even with the claim that she is a sister. Why? Because we see they claimed she was his sister and yet in 12:15 we see that they still took Sarai. Did Avram predict incorrectly?
I suspect that Sarai being taken by the Egyptians was a fait accompli, and Avram recognized that. He knew that no matter what he did, she would be taken. The only way to avoid it would be not to go down to Egypt, but that was not an option because of the famine spreading in the Land of C'naan. Instead of looking for an unrealistic solution to the problem, he looked for the best way to protect the two of them. By saying they were married, they would kill him and Sarai would be lost for good. By saying she is his sister, they would have no reason to kill him, even if they forcibly take her, and then he would still be around to fight for her release.
Take the lesson from Avram - don't waste your time searching for unrealistic solutions.
Thursday, October 26, 2006
The favorite son
Parshat Noah
In 9:18-27 we read about the incident in which Noah's middle son, Ham, defiled his father's honor. His father awoke from his drunken stupor, realized what had happened and proceeded to curse Ham.
When the incident takes place, the Torah says, "Ham the father of C'naan". Rashi tells us the reason why it brings C'naan into the picture despite his not having been involved in the incident was because Noah cursed C'naan in order to punish Ham so it relates Ham to C'naan to let us know in advance (until now we had not yet been told C'naan is Ham's son, so now it is letting us know). Why punish C'naan? Because by Ham defiling Noah he prevented him from having a fourth child, so he punished/cursed the fourth child of Ham.
But why not punish Ham directly? At least in addition to punishing C'naan - C'naan did not do anything, so Ham should at least get part of the punishment if not the bulk of it?
Also, throughout this section of the parsha it vever mentions Ham on his own - it is always Ham the father of C'naan. It would have been enough for Rashi's lesson just to say it once, but it says it a couple of times and then Noah curses only C'naan and even when it happens it does not say Ham's name but says Noah realized what his youngest son had done - why is Ham absolved of the responsibility of his actions?
I do not have a good answer for this. It seems that maybe the connection between Ham and C'naan was so strong that punishing C'naan was like punishing Ham. Maybe Cnaan was his favorite son and they had a strong bond so by punishing Cnaan it was destroying Ham as well. Not a very good answer.
If you have any thoughts on this, feel free to put them in the comments.
In 9:18-27 we read about the incident in which Noah's middle son, Ham, defiled his father's honor. His father awoke from his drunken stupor, realized what had happened and proceeded to curse Ham.
When the incident takes place, the Torah says, "Ham the father of C'naan". Rashi tells us the reason why it brings C'naan into the picture despite his not having been involved in the incident was because Noah cursed C'naan in order to punish Ham so it relates Ham to C'naan to let us know in advance (until now we had not yet been told C'naan is Ham's son, so now it is letting us know). Why punish C'naan? Because by Ham defiling Noah he prevented him from having a fourth child, so he punished/cursed the fourth child of Ham.
But why not punish Ham directly? At least in addition to punishing C'naan - C'naan did not do anything, so Ham should at least get part of the punishment if not the bulk of it?
Also, throughout this section of the parsha it vever mentions Ham on his own - it is always Ham the father of C'naan. It would have been enough for Rashi's lesson just to say it once, but it says it a couple of times and then Noah curses only C'naan and even when it happens it does not say Ham's name but says Noah realized what his youngest son had done - why is Ham absolved of the responsibility of his actions?
I do not have a good answer for this. It seems that maybe the connection between Ham and C'naan was so strong that punishing C'naan was like punishing Ham. Maybe Cnaan was his favorite son and they had a strong bond so by punishing Cnaan it was destroying Ham as well. Not a very good answer.
If you have any thoughts on this, feel free to put them in the comments.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
The smell of meat
Parshat Noah
Noah and his family left the Ark and offered sacrifices to Hashem. In 8:21 the Torah tells us that Hashem smelled the pleasant smell (of the korban) and said to Himself He would no longer curse the land because of man.." "וַיָּרַח יְהוָה, אֶת-רֵיחַ הַנִּיחֹחַ, וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל-לִבּוֹ לֹא-אֹסִף לְקַלֵּל עוֹד אֶת-הָאֲדָמָה בַּעֲבוּר הָאָדָם".
The smell of meat pacified Hashem and made Him change His position on the idea of wiping out mankind? It is not like the korbanot Noah brought were a surprise and He saw the goodness of Noah that caused Him to change His mind - Noah knew (in 8:20;Rashi) that Hashem told him to bring 7 of each kosher animal specifically for the purpose of having animals for korbanot - so Hashem knew and really in essence told Noah to bring the korbanot.
So why did He change His attitude?
When the smell reached Hashem he recognized that Noah really did have the best intentions and despite the fact that man is evil from his youth (the continuation of the passuk), there is potential for good and even for greatness. That being the case, there is hope for mankind. That is what pacified Hashem. The smell of the korban caused Hashem to realize (k'v'yachol) that there is great potential in man and therefore should not be destroyed.
Noah and his family left the Ark and offered sacrifices to Hashem. In 8:21 the Torah tells us that Hashem smelled the pleasant smell (of the korban) and said to Himself He would no longer curse the land because of man.." "וַיָּרַח יְהוָה, אֶת-רֵיחַ הַנִּיחֹחַ, וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל-לִבּוֹ לֹא-אֹסִף לְקַלֵּל עוֹד אֶת-הָאֲדָמָה בַּעֲבוּר הָאָדָם".
The smell of meat pacified Hashem and made Him change His position on the idea of wiping out mankind? It is not like the korbanot Noah brought were a surprise and He saw the goodness of Noah that caused Him to change His mind - Noah knew (in 8:20;Rashi) that Hashem told him to bring 7 of each kosher animal specifically for the purpose of having animals for korbanot - so Hashem knew and really in essence told Noah to bring the korbanot.
So why did He change His attitude?
When the smell reached Hashem he recognized that Noah really did have the best intentions and despite the fact that man is evil from his youth (the continuation of the passuk), there is potential for good and even for greatness. That being the case, there is hope for mankind. That is what pacified Hashem. The smell of the korban caused Hashem to realize (k'v'yachol) that there is great potential in man and therefore should not be destroyed.
Saturday, October 21, 2006
Questions I do not have answers to
Parshat B'Reishit
The following questions I had on the parsha that I have not yet thought of answers for nor have I found answers yet:
1. In 2:14 the Torah is describing the 4 rivers that branch out from Gan Eden. It describes 3 of them and says exactly where they go. When it gets to the fourth river, it simply says "And the fourth river is P'ras". No description. It does not tell us which land it surrounds. Why not? Why by the others does it describe their location but not by the P'ras river?
2. In 4:22 when delineating the descendants of Kayin, the passuk mentions the two wives of Lemech and their children. Then it says at the end of the passuk "and the sister of Tuval Kayin was Na'amah". Why does it relate her as the sister of Tuval Kayin instead of as the daughter of Lemech and Tzila?
The following questions I had on the parsha that I have not yet thought of answers for nor have I found answers yet:
1. In 2:14 the Torah is describing the 4 rivers that branch out from Gan Eden. It describes 3 of them and says exactly where they go. When it gets to the fourth river, it simply says "And the fourth river is P'ras". No description. It does not tell us which land it surrounds. Why not? Why by the others does it describe their location but not by the P'ras river?
2. In 4:22 when delineating the descendants of Kayin, the passuk mentions the two wives of Lemech and their children. Then it says at the end of the passuk "and the sister of Tuval Kayin was Na'amah". Why does it relate her as the sister of Tuval Kayin instead of as the daughter of Lemech and Tzila?
Sunday, October 15, 2006
influence
Parshat B'Reishit - 5767
In 1:16 the Torah describes how the sun, moon and constellations were created. The Torah calls the moon and sun, "את שני המאורות" and then again calls the moon, "את מאור הקטן".
Rashi goes into a nice explanation using the midrash to describe how the moon complained that they were created equal (moon and sun) but they cannot function like that, so Hashem shrank the moon and that is why the sun is call "מאור הגדול" and the moon is called "מאור הקטן".
But there is a fundamental question here. Why is the moon called a Maor at all? Maor is a source of light and the moon, as we all know is a big rock. It does not shine forth any light of its own, rather the light we see is simply a reflection of the light from the sun. So why is the moon referred to as a source of light?
I think it is related to the sphere of influence. For example, When a rebbe teaches a student, he is sometimes referenced as a father, as his sphere of influence is similar to that of a parent and if the student learns and follows the rebbe, the influence can change the character of the relationship to that of a parent and not just a rebbe.
The moo n shines forth no light of its own. Yet it reflects the light of the sun, to the point where it can light up the night sky. The moon is receiving the influence of the sun and has made itself subservient, in a way, to the leadership of the sun, which is also described in the midrash Rashi describes.
Because the moon accepted the leadership of the sun and dedicated itself to the influence of the sun, it is described as a מאור even though technically it is not.
In 1:16 the Torah describes how the sun, moon and constellations were created. The Torah calls the moon and sun, "את שני המאורות" and then again calls the moon, "את מאור הקטן".
Rashi goes into a nice explanation using the midrash to describe how the moon complained that they were created equal (moon and sun) but they cannot function like that, so Hashem shrank the moon and that is why the sun is call "מאור הגדול" and the moon is called "מאור הקטן".
But there is a fundamental question here. Why is the moon called a Maor at all? Maor is a source of light and the moon, as we all know is a big rock. It does not shine forth any light of its own, rather the light we see is simply a reflection of the light from the sun. So why is the moon referred to as a source of light?
I think it is related to the sphere of influence. For example, When a rebbe teaches a student, he is sometimes referenced as a father, as his sphere of influence is similar to that of a parent and if the student learns and follows the rebbe, the influence can change the character of the relationship to that of a parent and not just a rebbe.
The moo n shines forth no light of its own. Yet it reflects the light of the sun, to the point where it can light up the night sky. The moon is receiving the influence of the sun and has made itself subservient, in a way, to the leadership of the sun, which is also described in the midrash Rashi describes.
Because the moon accepted the leadership of the sun and dedicated itself to the influence of the sun, it is described as a מאור even though technically it is not.
Rule book and history book
Parshat B'Reishit - 5767
The first Rashi in the parsha is relatively famous, as far as Rashis go. The parsha begins in 1:1 by saying "In the beginning Hashem created the heavens and the earth."
Rashi comes along and tells us that the reason the Torah begins with all this history of the world and of the Jewish nation rather than simply beginning with the first mitzva (החודש הזה לכם...), is to let it be known that Hashem created the world and can give the land to whomever He desires. So if/when other nations come to claim the land of Israel from the Jews as having been unfairly captured, the Jews can say God created it and gave it to us, as has clearly been delineated in the Torah that He has the right to do so.
This is a wonderful explanation and should be read in Rashi by everyone. It was clearly written for Jews to internalize the lesson rather than non-Jews, as they likely will not accept such an argument. Rather, we Jews need to internalize the idea that we have the right to the Land of Israel.
However, I would like to offer another suggestion to explain why we begin the Torah reading how Hashem created the world and the history of the world, our forefathers, the Jewish nation, etc.
If the Torah was simply a book compiling all the mitzvos, it is unlikely it would be read by many. Nobody would feel obligated to adhere to the mitzvos and nobody would feel connected to them. Hashem had to begin the book by showing how He created the world, how the forefathers came to recognize Him and commit their lives to His way and how the Jewish nation began and was sustained by Him.
Only after reading all this history and explanation, only after all the raging debates about science and Torah, only after delving into the actual history and stories that made us into the nation we are, only after all that can Hashem delineate the Mitzvos for us. Once we are committed to Hashem and His way, then we can read and study the actual mitzvos and follow and perform them.
Without the history, it is just a bunch of rules nobody would be interested in keeping. The point of the Torah is not just tio give us these rules, but to allow us to dedicate our lives to Hashem. For that we need to mitzvos, but we also need the history.
The first Rashi in the parsha is relatively famous, as far as Rashis go. The parsha begins in 1:1 by saying "In the beginning Hashem created the heavens and the earth."
Rashi comes along and tells us that the reason the Torah begins with all this history of the world and of the Jewish nation rather than simply beginning with the first mitzva (החודש הזה לכם...), is to let it be known that Hashem created the world and can give the land to whomever He desires. So if/when other nations come to claim the land of Israel from the Jews as having been unfairly captured, the Jews can say God created it and gave it to us, as has clearly been delineated in the Torah that He has the right to do so.
This is a wonderful explanation and should be read in Rashi by everyone. It was clearly written for Jews to internalize the lesson rather than non-Jews, as they likely will not accept such an argument. Rather, we Jews need to internalize the idea that we have the right to the Land of Israel.
However, I would like to offer another suggestion to explain why we begin the Torah reading how Hashem created the world and the history of the world, our forefathers, the Jewish nation, etc.
If the Torah was simply a book compiling all the mitzvos, it is unlikely it would be read by many. Nobody would feel obligated to adhere to the mitzvos and nobody would feel connected to them. Hashem had to begin the book by showing how He created the world, how the forefathers came to recognize Him and commit their lives to His way and how the Jewish nation began and was sustained by Him.
Only after reading all this history and explanation, only after all the raging debates about science and Torah, only after delving into the actual history and stories that made us into the nation we are, only after all that can Hashem delineate the Mitzvos for us. Once we are committed to Hashem and His way, then we can read and study the actual mitzvos and follow and perform them.
Without the history, it is just a bunch of rules nobody would be interested in keeping. The point of the Torah is not just tio give us these rules, but to allow us to dedicate our lives to Hashem. For that we need to mitzvos, but we also need the history.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Knowledge
Parshat Vayeilech
In 31:13 Moshe is instructing the people regarding the mitzva of Hakhel. Every shemitta year when the people will come to the Temple during the Festival of Sukkot, the king is to read the whole Torah so they should hear and listen and learn to fear Hashem and keep His Torah. In passuk 13 Moshe then says "And the children who did no tknow will listen and learn to fear Hashem, etc.."
Why did the children not know? We educate our children all year round? We send them to school to learn Torah every day and describe the miracles of the exodus from Egypt and the desert? Why do they not know? Are we only to instruct them once every 7 years?
"The children who did not know" - sure we teach them. We send them to the best schools for them to learn Torah. We fulfill the mitzva of "And you should tell to your children" every Pesach seder. We teach them all the time. But they still do not know - it is not firsthand knowledge and cannot really be categorized as knowing it internally.
The next generation (and all subsequent generations) learns and hears and studies, but it is never going to be firsthand knowledge like that of those who experienced it, and therefore do not internalize it the same way.
By coming to a mass meeting once in 7 years with the whole nation to learn Torah together and review the events of the Torah that is the best and closest way to convert all that information they had learned into a sense of being together as one nation with a common goal of serving Hashem and developing this knowledge and sense of awareness.
In 31:13 Moshe is instructing the people regarding the mitzva of Hakhel. Every shemitta year when the people will come to the Temple during the Festival of Sukkot, the king is to read the whole Torah so they should hear and listen and learn to fear Hashem and keep His Torah. In passuk 13 Moshe then says "And the children who did no tknow will listen and learn to fear Hashem, etc.."
Why did the children not know? We educate our children all year round? We send them to school to learn Torah every day and describe the miracles of the exodus from Egypt and the desert? Why do they not know? Are we only to instruct them once every 7 years?
"The children who did not know" - sure we teach them. We send them to the best schools for them to learn Torah. We fulfill the mitzva of "And you should tell to your children" every Pesach seder. We teach them all the time. But they still do not know - it is not firsthand knowledge and cannot really be categorized as knowing it internally.
The next generation (and all subsequent generations) learns and hears and studies, but it is never going to be firsthand knowledge like that of those who experienced it, and therefore do not internalize it the same way.
By coming to a mass meeting once in 7 years with the whole nation to learn Torah together and review the events of the Torah that is the best and closest way to convert all that information they had learned into a sense of being together as one nation with a common goal of serving Hashem and developing this knowledge and sense of awareness.
Just a role
Parshat Vayeilech
in 31:7 Moshe tells Yehoshua that he will be taking over and bringing the nation into the land of Israel. Instead of using the word to bring, "תביא", he says to come, "תבוא". Moshe says Be strong and courageous for today you will come [with?] the nation into the land... Why does he not say you will bring them in, as he says later?
Moshe says Tavo, you will come, because he is telling Yehoshua that he will not really be the leader. He will not be leading them into Israel. Hashem will be the leader. Sure, Yehoshua will have a role to play in directing them and being the go-between between the people and Hashem, but Moshe wants to make sure Yehoshua never forgets that he is not the leader, rather just one of the people despite his important role.
in 31:7 Moshe tells Yehoshua that he will be taking over and bringing the nation into the land of Israel. Instead of using the word to bring, "תביא", he says to come, "תבוא". Moshe says Be strong and courageous for today you will come [with?] the nation into the land... Why does he not say you will bring them in, as he says later?
Moshe says Tavo, you will come, because he is telling Yehoshua that he will not really be the leader. He will not be leading them into Israel. Hashem will be the leader. Sure, Yehoshua will have a role to play in directing them and being the go-between between the people and Hashem, but Moshe wants to make sure Yehoshua never forgets that he is not the leader, rather just one of the people despite his important role.
Life in the Land
Parshat Nitzavim
In the last section of the parsha, Hashem is informing the nation that they have a choice between good and evil, between life and death. In the last passuk of the parsha, in 30:20 He suggests to the people that they choose life so you will live and to love Hashem to listen to His words and to adhere to Him, for that is [the source of] your life and longevity, so that you will live on the land that He has promised to your father, etc.."
Keeping the Torah is synonymous with loving Hashem, as that is what it means "to listen to His words and to adhere to Him".
Loving Hashem is the source of your life and doing so will bring about the ultimate goal of living in the land, for that is the only way we can fulfill out potential as a people.
In the last section of the parsha, Hashem is informing the nation that they have a choice between good and evil, between life and death. In the last passuk of the parsha, in 30:20 He suggests to the people that they choose life so you will live and to love Hashem to listen to His words and to adhere to Him, for that is [the source of] your life and longevity, so that you will live on the land that He has promised to your father, etc.."
Keeping the Torah is synonymous with loving Hashem, as that is what it means "to listen to His words and to adhere to Him".
Loving Hashem is the source of your life and doing so will bring about the ultimate goal of living in the land, for that is the only way we can fulfill out potential as a people.
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
curses and blessings
Parshat Ki Savo
In Chapter 27 Moshe is setting the nation up to receive a set of blessings and curses. The representatives of the tribes are setting up on the mountains of Gerizim and Eval and when the Levites called out a blessing towards those on Mt. Gerizim and they respond amen and then the corrsponding curse towards Mt. Eval and those standing there would call out amen.
The interesting thing I noticed is that the Torah, when listing the blessings and curses, only lists the curses. If it was going to choose one or the other, why did it choose the curses and not the blessings? Another reason for the assumption is that the blessings were mentioned first and the curses second, so the first item (blessings) is what should have been listed in the Torah, if only one was going to be listed? Furthermore, a few verses later the Torah lists a number of generic blessings for listening to the word of Hashem and then it lists the corresponding curses for not listening - if it listed both the blessings and the curses there, why not here as well?
I have not thought of a satisfactory answer yet at this point. Maybe one of my readers can suggest an answer... if you do please post it in the comments.
When searching through the commentaries, I noticed that the Seforno deals with the issue of why only the curses were mentioned.He suggests the reason to say it in the form of the curse was to separate the curses so only the people deserving of the curse will receive it, rather than all of Israel. I did not completely understand hsi reasoning and why it is true, and am still looking for an answer..
In Chapter 27 Moshe is setting the nation up to receive a set of blessings and curses. The representatives of the tribes are setting up on the mountains of Gerizim and Eval and when the Levites called out a blessing towards those on Mt. Gerizim and they respond amen and then the corrsponding curse towards Mt. Eval and those standing there would call out amen.
The interesting thing I noticed is that the Torah, when listing the blessings and curses, only lists the curses. If it was going to choose one or the other, why did it choose the curses and not the blessings? Another reason for the assumption is that the blessings were mentioned first and the curses second, so the first item (blessings) is what should have been listed in the Torah, if only one was going to be listed? Furthermore, a few verses later the Torah lists a number of generic blessings for listening to the word of Hashem and then it lists the corresponding curses for not listening - if it listed both the blessings and the curses there, why not here as well?
I have not thought of a satisfactory answer yet at this point. Maybe one of my readers can suggest an answer... if you do please post it in the comments.
When searching through the commentaries, I noticed that the Seforno deals with the issue of why only the curses were mentioned.He suggests the reason to say it in the form of the curse was to separate the curses so only the people deserving of the curse will receive it, rather than all of Israel. I did not completely understand hsi reasoning and why it is true, and am still looking for an answer..
Good for nothing
Parshat Ki Savo
In 28:68 the Torah is nearing the end of the "tochecha" section. This is a big warnign containing a long list of horrible calamities that will befall the nation if they stray from the path of Torah observance and dedication to Hashem. The pasuk says, "And you will be returned to Egypt in boats in the way I had said you would never see again and there you will be sold as slaves and maidservants, yet there will be no buyers."
What is the great calamity? After reading about horrific tragedies waiting to befall us such as going crazy, eating your own children, destroyed by the enemy, crops not growing, among many others. After all that, not being bought as a slave does not seem like such a horrible punishment! So what is the big deal that this is the final threat in the warning?
I would like to suggest that this really is a real threat. It is a threat to a persons psyche. everybody wants and needs to know that his life and being has some sort of value. If I cannot even be sold as a slave that means I am pretty much worthless. I am a good for nothing.
By warning us that nobody will even by you as a slave, Moshe is warning the nation that they will be made to feel worthless and good for nothing. That, as we all know, can lead to depression and a horrible state of mind.
That is the threat of the passuk and that is how it fits into the context of the tochecha.
In 28:68 the Torah is nearing the end of the "tochecha" section. This is a big warnign containing a long list of horrible calamities that will befall the nation if they stray from the path of Torah observance and dedication to Hashem. The pasuk says, "And you will be returned to Egypt in boats in the way I had said you would never see again and there you will be sold as slaves and maidservants, yet there will be no buyers."
What is the great calamity? After reading about horrific tragedies waiting to befall us such as going crazy, eating your own children, destroyed by the enemy, crops not growing, among many others. After all that, not being bought as a slave does not seem like such a horrible punishment! So what is the big deal that this is the final threat in the warning?
I would like to suggest that this really is a real threat. It is a threat to a persons psyche. everybody wants and needs to know that his life and being has some sort of value. If I cannot even be sold as a slave that means I am pretty much worthless. I am a good for nothing.
By warning us that nobody will even by you as a slave, Moshe is warning the nation that they will be made to feel worthless and good for nothing. That, as we all know, can lead to depression and a horrible state of mind.
That is the threat of the passuk and that is how it fits into the context of the tochecha.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
