Chasidut su Genesi 23:26
Kedushat Levi
Genesis 23,1. “The years of Sarah’s life were one hundred years, etc.;” I believe, G’d willing, that I have understood the reason why Sarah is the only woman in the Bible of whose age at the time of her death we have been told. The Talmud Nedarim 64, in referring to Rachel’s outburst (Genesis 30,1) that unless her husband Yaakov would give her children she considered herself as “dead,” is quoted by Rashi on that verse saying that seeing that a woman’s primary task in life is to mother children, any woman who has not given birth to a live child is considered as dead. We also know from Shabbat 156, that when G’d took Avraham outside (Genesis 15,5) that He showed him that according to the constellation of the stars, Sarai was not slated to give birth to children. This מזל, astrological prognosis of her life, could be changed only due to merits she would acquire during the years to come. She did indeed acquire such merits, as our sages conclude from a comment they made in Shir Hashirim Rabbah, 2,32 where the phenomenon of all the matriarchs originally being barren is discussed. Among a variety of answers offered there, one is that G’d was desirous of listening to their praying to Him to be granted children, just as He is desirous of listening to the prayers of the righteous, generally. In other words, Sarah, (after a name change) both due to her merits and her supplications, was “lifted” out of the limitations predicted for her by a zodiac sign she had been born under, so that she could conceive. When the Torah refers to her “life” as being 127 years long, this means nothing less than that she had spent all these years accumulating merits for the good deeds she performed. Expressed somewhat differently, the Torah states that it was Sarah, who with her good deeds gave “life” to her years.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
Another way of looking at our verse is that of the Ari’zal, who sees in the words כי ביצחק in Genesis 21,12 a reference to the “feminine” side of Yitzchok in the diagram of the 10 emanations, i.e. the earthly element, seeing that the angel had said to Avraham (Genesis 18,10) והנה בן לשרה אשתך, “and here your wife Sarah will have a son.” [The angel emphasized Sarah as predominant in Yitzchok’s birth, not his father Avraham. Ed.] However, subsequently he would receive a soul contributed by Avraham, Avraham representing the masculine element of the chart of the emanations. This point is made by the Torah here repeating what otherwise would be assumed, that Avraham begot Yitzchok. The Ari’zal’s comment also coincides with the meaning of Bereshit Rabbah 58,5 in which the Midrash, referring to Genesis 23,3 where Avraham is reported as “arriving” in order to bury Sarah, asks: “where did Avraham arrive from? Where had he been previously?” One of the answers given by the Midrash is that Avraham came from Mount Moriah. The Midrash adds that Sarah died as a result of the anguish she experienced when told that Yitzchok had been slaughtered. She had found this incompatible with G’d’s promise to Avraham that ברך אברכך והרבה ארבה את זרעך, “I will continuously bless you and greatly multiply your descendants” which G’d had said to Avraham in Genesis 22,17.
At this point the author attributes to this Midrash a third answer to the question whence Avraham came to arrange Sarah’s funeral. I have not found this in any of my editions, although this is the answer that would tie in with our verse above. The Midrash supposedly views as Avraham “coming” i.e. contributing the soul to Yitzchok as alluded to in the words (Genesis 21,12) כי ביצחק יקרא לך זרע.
At this point the author attributes to this Midrash a third answer to the question whence Avraham came to arrange Sarah’s funeral. I have not found this in any of my editions, although this is the answer that would tie in with our verse above. The Midrash supposedly views as Avraham “coming” i.e. contributing the soul to Yitzchok as alluded to in the words (Genesis 21,12) כי ביצחק יקרא לך זרע.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
Genesis 24,14. “and through her I shall know that You have done a kindness with my master.” These words of Eliezer have been explained in the Zohar where the author states that in the time of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai even small children possessed some special wisdom that enabled them to know what other adults do not know. [The children being innocent. Ed.] They were endowed with this superior wisdom as part of the spiritual rays radiating from the saintly personality of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai. Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai is quoted as an example of the influence exerted on his environment by every righteous person, each one in varying degrees according to his spiritual stature. They are to be perceived as a microcosm of Hashem, Who as the macrocosm, disseminates spiritual influence throughout His universe through His very existence.
There is no question but that Avraham’s major attribute was חסד and that he had a profound influence on his immediate environment, not only recognized but paid tribute to, by the people of Kiryat Arba, when they described him as a “prince of G’d” in their midst. (Genesis 23,6) Avraham personified on earth, what the Creator personifies in the entire universe, i.e. the dispensing of largesse.
The expression ילדה is not appropriate for males, as they only הוליד, beget, plant seed, but do not bring it to gestation. The proper meaning of the word “yuldah” as it appears here suggests an immaculate birth, a birth that had not been preceded by insemination. Seeing that this is a difficult process for us to grasp, the idea that Avraham’s good deeds “spilled over” even to people such as Betuel, is meant to set our mind at rest over the fact that Rivkah, with a father such as Betuel, and a brother such as Lavan, could have been such a righteous matriarch as she clearly was.
During the meal, Eliezer recounts what had occurred at the well, and anyone who has read the Torah’s report of what transpired is aware that Eliezer rewrote some of this “history,” i.e. the sequence of events. Rashi points this out (in his commentary on Genesis 24,47) implying that during the meal, in the presence of Betuel, Eliezer could not bring himself to imply that this man had been endowed with part of Avraham’s soul. [Perhaps the fact that if even a Betuel could exclaim that this match had been made in heaven (Genesis 24,50) is the best support for our author’s theory that some of Avraham’s spirit had spilled over even into the soul of a Betuel. Ed.]
There is no question but that Avraham’s major attribute was חסד and that he had a profound influence on his immediate environment, not only recognized but paid tribute to, by the people of Kiryat Arba, when they described him as a “prince of G’d” in their midst. (Genesis 23,6) Avraham personified on earth, what the Creator personifies in the entire universe, i.e. the dispensing of largesse.
The expression ילדה is not appropriate for males, as they only הוליד, beget, plant seed, but do not bring it to gestation. The proper meaning of the word “yuldah” as it appears here suggests an immaculate birth, a birth that had not been preceded by insemination. Seeing that this is a difficult process for us to grasp, the idea that Avraham’s good deeds “spilled over” even to people such as Betuel, is meant to set our mind at rest over the fact that Rivkah, with a father such as Betuel, and a brother such as Lavan, could have been such a righteous matriarch as she clearly was.
During the meal, Eliezer recounts what had occurred at the well, and anyone who has read the Torah’s report of what transpired is aware that Eliezer rewrote some of this “history,” i.e. the sequence of events. Rashi points this out (in his commentary on Genesis 24,47) implying that during the meal, in the presence of Betuel, Eliezer could not bring himself to imply that this man had been endowed with part of Avraham’s soul. [Perhaps the fact that if even a Betuel could exclaim that this match had been made in heaven (Genesis 24,50) is the best support for our author’s theory that some of Avraham’s spirit had spilled over even into the soul of a Betuel. Ed.]
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
Genesis 6,21. “and you are to take for yourself some of everything that serves as food, etc;” here the Torah alludes to the reason why until the deluge man was forbidden to eat animals, (according to Nachmanides). Noach saved the animals from extinction during the deluge; he therefore- as representative of the human race- became the “owner” of the animal kingdom, and as such entitled to use some of the animals, after due preparation without causing pain to the animals, as food for himself. When Avraham, in Genesis 23,13 urged Efron to accept the money he had readied for the purchase of the cave of Machpelah wherein he planned to bury Sarah, the word קח is used as denoting the acquisition of something. Avraham had learned this expression and its meaning from our verse where it is used in this sense for the first time. Noach made an additional acquisition when taking the animal into the ark with him. [He had previously been permitted to use the animals as beasts of burden, etc. Ed.]
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
Careful analysis of Yitro’s words will show that he spoke of two separate acts of “saving” the Jewish people. Yitro had heard not only about the physical salvation the Israelites had experienced but also about the manner in which the spirit of the Jewish people, a people downtrodden by many years of slavery, had been transformed in a short space of time to being the most steadfast people, afraid of no human force on earth.
This brings us to another nuance in the exegesis in Shabbat 105 according to which the word אנכי is an acronym for the words אנא נפשי כתבית יהבית, “I Myself have written it and handed it over.” We know that another meaning of the word נפש is רצון, will, desire, as in Genesis 23,8: אם יש את נפשכם, “if it is your desire, etc.” The word אנכי accordingly sums up G’d’s message that by committing the Torah to writing, He had expressed His will, and desire. By handing over this document to the Jewish people, He had authorized them to interpret it and to guide their lives by means of these interpretations.
Upon hearing this daring exegesis some people might consider that G’d had taken a great chance that His people would exploit this authority to pervert the Torah by “being victorious” over Him. The reverse is true, however. G’d is pleased when as a result of our delving more deeply into the hidden parts of the Torah we discover heretofore unknown aspects of it. We have it on the authority of Baba Metzia 59 where in a halachic discussion among the various sages one of them called upon G’d to demonstrate that his opinion was the correct one, and he wanted the wall to collapse to prove this and the wall really began to bend, that the opposing scholar quoted Deuteronomy 30,12 where the Torah is described as not being a possession of heaven, i.e. לא בשמים היא, to stop the wall from falling. A heavenly voice was heard by the people present exclaiming that נצחוני בני מצחוני, “My children have triumphed over Me, My children.” [Students of that episode in the Talmud will find that that there are also other interpretations of that episode. Ed.] Another quotation from the Talmud Pessachim 119 reads as follows: the opening words in psalms 4 למנצח בנגינות מזמור לדוד, translated literally, as “a psalm to the victor by David,” that the point David is making is that whereas in interpersonal relations the loser in a competition is downcast, not so when the contestants are man and G’d respectively. It is G’d’s nature to rejoice in His children having prevailed over Him.” As proof of this interpretation the Talmud there quotes: psalms 106,23 ויאמר להשמידם לולי משה בחירו עמד בפרץ לפניו להשיב חמתו מהשחית, “He had already said that he would destroy them, had not Moses His chosen, confronted Him in the breach to avert His destructive wrath.” This reflects another interpretation on Shabbat 105 where the introductory words of the Ten Commandments are described as אמירה נעימה כתיבה יהבה, (compare page 431) When a son wins a game of chess against his father for the first time, the father derives great satisfaction of having taught his son so well. Similarly, if during a discussion on the meaning of a certain verse in the Torah, the “son,” i.e. one of the Torah scholars, has shown outstanding skill and understanding of the Torah’s deeper meaning, the author, G’d, derives great satisfaction from this.
Coming back to why G’d did not introduce the Ten Commandments with reminding the listeners that He was the Creator and therefore had preceded every other phenomenon in the universe, but stressing that He had taken the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt, G’d did so because he wanted to be on record concerning His love for His people. He was certain that by doing this He would reinforce the people’s enthusiasm to serve Him rather than any other so-called deities. By using a play on words [in the Hebrew language, Ed.] our author considers the whole episode between slavery-physical redemption, and now spiritual redemption of the Jewish people, as turning צרה into רצה, “suffering and distress into joy and happiness.” Henceforth the Jewish people are always referred to as G’d’s children [even when errant children, Ed.] This factor is an overriding consideration in our relationship to G’d. This also explains that G’d chooses to “live,” i.e. be at home among the Jewish people after they build a Sanctuary for Him here on earth. If, in spite of this, the Israelites were ever to turn to idolatry, this sin would be ever so much harder to atone for.
This brings us to another nuance in the exegesis in Shabbat 105 according to which the word אנכי is an acronym for the words אנא נפשי כתבית יהבית, “I Myself have written it and handed it over.” We know that another meaning of the word נפש is רצון, will, desire, as in Genesis 23,8: אם יש את נפשכם, “if it is your desire, etc.” The word אנכי accordingly sums up G’d’s message that by committing the Torah to writing, He had expressed His will, and desire. By handing over this document to the Jewish people, He had authorized them to interpret it and to guide their lives by means of these interpretations.
Upon hearing this daring exegesis some people might consider that G’d had taken a great chance that His people would exploit this authority to pervert the Torah by “being victorious” over Him. The reverse is true, however. G’d is pleased when as a result of our delving more deeply into the hidden parts of the Torah we discover heretofore unknown aspects of it. We have it on the authority of Baba Metzia 59 where in a halachic discussion among the various sages one of them called upon G’d to demonstrate that his opinion was the correct one, and he wanted the wall to collapse to prove this and the wall really began to bend, that the opposing scholar quoted Deuteronomy 30,12 where the Torah is described as not being a possession of heaven, i.e. לא בשמים היא, to stop the wall from falling. A heavenly voice was heard by the people present exclaiming that נצחוני בני מצחוני, “My children have triumphed over Me, My children.” [Students of that episode in the Talmud will find that that there are also other interpretations of that episode. Ed.] Another quotation from the Talmud Pessachim 119 reads as follows: the opening words in psalms 4 למנצח בנגינות מזמור לדוד, translated literally, as “a psalm to the victor by David,” that the point David is making is that whereas in interpersonal relations the loser in a competition is downcast, not so when the contestants are man and G’d respectively. It is G’d’s nature to rejoice in His children having prevailed over Him.” As proof of this interpretation the Talmud there quotes: psalms 106,23 ויאמר להשמידם לולי משה בחירו עמד בפרץ לפניו להשיב חמתו מהשחית, “He had already said that he would destroy them, had not Moses His chosen, confronted Him in the breach to avert His destructive wrath.” This reflects another interpretation on Shabbat 105 where the introductory words of the Ten Commandments are described as אמירה נעימה כתיבה יהבה, (compare page 431) When a son wins a game of chess against his father for the first time, the father derives great satisfaction of having taught his son so well. Similarly, if during a discussion on the meaning of a certain verse in the Torah, the “son,” i.e. one of the Torah scholars, has shown outstanding skill and understanding of the Torah’s deeper meaning, the author, G’d, derives great satisfaction from this.
Coming back to why G’d did not introduce the Ten Commandments with reminding the listeners that He was the Creator and therefore had preceded every other phenomenon in the universe, but stressing that He had taken the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt, G’d did so because he wanted to be on record concerning His love for His people. He was certain that by doing this He would reinforce the people’s enthusiasm to serve Him rather than any other so-called deities. By using a play on words [in the Hebrew language, Ed.] our author considers the whole episode between slavery-physical redemption, and now spiritual redemption of the Jewish people, as turning צרה into רצה, “suffering and distress into joy and happiness.” Henceforth the Jewish people are always referred to as G’d’s children [even when errant children, Ed.] This factor is an overriding consideration in our relationship to G’d. This also explains that G’d chooses to “live,” i.e. be at home among the Jewish people after they build a Sanctuary for Him here on earth. If, in spite of this, the Israelites were ever to turn to idolatry, this sin would be ever so much harder to atone for.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy