HaMaayan/The Torah Spring Edited by Shlomo Katz Parashat Chayei Sarah Volume VI/Number 5 (239) 25 Marcheshvan 5752/November 2, 1991 Parasha Overview This is a Parasha of transitions. Sarah dies, and Yitzchak brings his bride Rivka "into the tent of Sarah, his mother" (B'reishit 24:67). (Rashi comments that the blessings which had been evident in the home when Sarah was alive, but disappeared with her death, returned with Rivka's arrival.) Later, Avraham dies, and Hashem blesses his heir, Yitzchak, with the same blessings that had been given to Avraham. Yishmael's' death is also mentioned in this Parasha so that later Parashot may concentrate on Avraham's main line of descendants. The Gemara notes (based on B'reishit 25:9) that before Avraham's death, Yishmael repented from his evil ways and acknowledged Yitzchak's supremacy over him and his descendants (Baba Batra 16b). The Haftara (Melachim I 1:1-31) records a similarly significant transition: the death of David Hamelech and his appointment of Shlomo as his heir. Shlomo, like his ancestor, Yitzchak, was not the oldest child, but was the most deserving of inheriting his father's greatness. The Parasha and the Haftara introduce the stories of these transitions with nearly identical verses: "Avraham was old, coming along in days..." (B'reishit 24:1), and "The King, David, was old, coming along in days..." (Melachim I 1:1). However, notes R' Tzadok Hakohen, this superficial similarity is paired with this Parasha. If it were, we could just as well read, "Yehoshua was old, coming along in days" (Yehoshua 23:1). However, the chapter which tells of David's death was chosen because Avraham was the ancestor of all of the Jewish people, and David was the ancestor of Mashiach, the person who will lead Avraham's descendants to perfect service of Hashem. Yehoshua, while he played the important role of fighting Amalek (the epitome of evil on earth), did not complete the job, and neither will his descendants (Pri Tzaddik). R' Menachem Mendel Schneerson, Shlita (the Lubavitcher Rebbe) asks: Since the Parasha and Haftara are supposed to parallel each other, whcy doesn't the Haftara stretch a few verses longer and tell of Shlomo's actual coronation, just as the Parasha tells of Hashem's blessing to Yitzchak? Why does the Parasha speak of the nation's founder and his first heir, while the Haftara speaks of the Davidic dynasty's founder, but stops there? He explains that while David alone was the founder of his dynasty, Avraham alone did not establish the Jewish people. Rather, Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov, as a unit, are the foundation of our nation. Thus, when the Parasha speaks of Yitzchak, it is speaking not only of Avraham's heir, but also of the one who continued laying the groundwork for those who would come in the future. The verse "Avraham was old"" introduces the search for a wife for Yitzchak. (Commentators explain that because Avraham was old, he was concerned about the fact that his son was not married.) The Midrash comments on this Pasuk, "Our years are seventy years" (based on Tehilim 90:10). What is the connection between this Pasuk in Tehilim and the verse in our Parasha? After all, Avraham was now 140 years old, not 70! R' David Hager of Zablotov explains that after the "Berit Ben Habetarim" - the covenant with Hashem recorded in Parashat Lech-Lecha - Avraham was considered a newborn. Since that covenant was made the "first time" Avraham was 70 years old, he could now be considered 70 again. Since Avraham realized that man's natural life is seventy years, he was afraid that he might die while Yitzchak was yet a bachelor (Tzemach David). David Hamelech, too, was seventy years old at the time of the events described in our Haftara. ************************************ Why does the Torah relate each and every detail of Avraham's negotiations with Efron over the purchase of a burial place for Sarah? "Ma'aseh Avot Siman Labainim" - the events which befall the patriarchs are a sign of what will befall their descendants. The Torah is teaching us how hard Avraham had to fight for a small piece of the land of Israel and the great sacrifice that he made, so that we too should do the same. (R' Shmuel Mohilever) ************************************ Eliezer's plan was intended to test both Rivka's kindness and her personal hygiene. Eliezer thought, "First I will ask her for a drink, and see if she obliges me. Then I will leave some of the water in the bottom of the pitcher. If she takes it home, I will know that she is not careful about strangers' germs. On the other hand, if she pours it on the ground, I will know that she is insensitive to my feelings. Her only alternative will be to offer it to my camels." This is what she did, but she went even farther. Lest Eliezer "realize" that she was watering the camels only in order to empty the bucket (thus insulting him), she returned to the well and brought the camels a second pitcher as well. (Bet Halevi) ************************************ "And Avraham gave everything he owned to Yitzchak. And to the sons of the concubines Avraham gave gifts." (25:6-7) There is a Halacha that if a father leaves all of his estate of one child, that bequest is void. Avraham therefore gave token gifts to each of his children so that they could not challenge the fact that he had given everything [else] to Yitzchak. (Yalkut Ha'urim) ************************************ From the Midrash.... In Parashat Lech-Lecha we read of Yishmael, "Over all of his brothers he shall dwell." In this Parasha we read of him, "Over all of his brothers he fell." As long as Avraham was alive, Yishmael dwelt [in peace]; After Avraham died, Yishmael fell. Before Yishmael's descendants raised their hands against the Bet Hamikdash, they dwelt [in peace]; afterwards, they fell. In this world, Yishmael's descendants dwell [in peace]; in the next world, they will fall. (B'reishit Rabbah) Did the descendants of Yishmael destroy the Bet Hamikdash?! The first Bet Hamikdash was destroyed by Babylonians, the second by Rome (descendants of Esav)! R' Ze'ev Wolf Einhorn explains that the Midrash is referring to the events prophesied by David Hamelech in Tehilim 84:7-13: "The [inhabitants of the] tents of Edom and the Yishmaelim...have said, 'Let us inherit for ourselves the beautiful house of G-d'." A time will come, says King David, when the descendants of Edom/Rome and of Yishmael will join together against Israel, and they will say, "The place of the house of G-d (i.e. Yerushalayim) is not yours. It is ours." The Midrash promises, "Before Yishmael's descendants raised their hands against the [place of the] Bet Hamikdash, they dwelt [in peace]; afterwards, they fell. In this world, Yishmael's descendants dwell [in peace]; in the next world, they will fall." (Peirush Maharzav) ************************************ The Program in Volozhin For centuries, the dominant style of Torah study in Europe was "Pilpul". Today, we still find Pilpul in the Yeshivot, but it shares little more than a name with its earlier counterpart. This is largely due to the influence of R' Chaim of Volozhin and his Yeshiva. Any Talmudic discussion will consist of questions and answers, and this is the simplest meaning of Pilpul. For hundreds of years, many scholars saw this give-and-take as an end in itself. Intellectual honesty became a casualty of the desire to weave intricate webs of questions and answers, contradictions and resolutions, often artificially connecting topics that were in no way related to each other. This was the type of Pilpul which generations of Torah scholars criticized. In Volozhin there was also Pilpul, and most students still studied purely for the sake of study. However - and this was R' Chaim's "innovation" - students were taught that every statement they made had to be judged by the yardstick of truth. Although students did not study Talmud for the sake of learning practical Halacha, they were taught to study in a way that would allow them to do so if they so chose. Unlike the practice common in Yeshivot today (see future issues), but consistent with his striving to know the "whole" Torah, R' Chaim of Volozhin taught his students every page of every Talmudic tractate. Every semester began with an introductory lecture in which the Rosh Yeshiva outlined the fundamental concepts of the tractate to be studied. The students' task (with their teachers' help) was to trace the development and application of these fundamentals through the tractate. More particularly, the students sought to understand which concepts were operative in each subsection ("Sugya") of the tractate, and how different sages' conflicting interpretation and application of fundamental principles resulted in different Halachic conclusions. (An example of this will appear in next week's issue.) In practice, this meant studying the commentaries of the "Rishonim" - medieval authorities - for the keys to these questions lie in those works. Often, however, the Rishonim themselves disagree on how to interpret a certain Sugya, and the student's task then became to discover each Rishon's understanding of the relevant concepts and their application to the passage under study. (However, R' Chaim frowned on the practice of some who devoted all of their energy to interpreting Rashi's words, forgetting that Rashi is but a commentator on the primary text, the Talmud.) ************************************ The learning schedule for this Shabbat is: Daily Mishnah Tamid 5:4-5 (Learn two Mishnayot every day) Daily Halacha Orach Chaim (Mishnah Berura) 318:3-5 (Learn three paragraphs each day) Daf Yomi Sukkah 4 (Learn two sides of a page each day) Shmirat Halashon: 6:5-6 or Guard Your Tongue: "Rechilus" 1:1-3 ************************************ The hard copy distribution of this week's HaMaayan is sponsored by: The Parness family in memory of Max Parness A"H