Off to Israel

I'm going (a foot of snow and forty mile an hour wind permitting) to Israel for Chanuka iy'h to connect with  the past and to embrace the future. Have a lichtige Yomtov!

Earlier posts on the Parsha;

Jewish wives are not and never were chattel.
(How the Torah retained certain pre-Torah forms but entirely redefined their substance.)

A little boy- a Na'ar- at sixty years old.
(Being patronized is not an insult when your patron does it.)

The danger of a dream fulfilled.
(Thank G-d you don't always get what you want.)


All the love wearing the Kesones Pasim brought Yosef.
(A thought about the strange prayer said during Birchas Kohanim.)

No good deed goes unpunished.
(Why Yosef's kindness to the sons of Bilha and Zilpa didn't win him any friends.)

Is it appropriate to inscribe your name on the things you donate to a Shul?
(It seems self-serving, but it has ancient roots.)

Vayishlach, Breishis 33:9. What Yitzchak, Yishmael, and Eisav Have in Common: בְּאֵר לַחַי רֹאִי

Earlier posts on Vayishlach: click on the Vayishlach link in the list at the right.

I diligently avoid Toras haNistar, and I recommend the same to all my fellow Torah dilettantes. I find that some of what I understand is descriptive rather than prescriptive, and the rest is often disturbing.  However, I recently saw a Chasam Sofer in a new edition (Edited by Yosef Naftali Stern, Shapira print, Yerushalayim Tuf shin samach tes) that was intriguing.  So I wrote a letter to The Great Unknown, asking if he had any idea of what the Chasam Sofer was talking about.  Here is my letter and his response, slightly edited. 

My letter:

In Parshas Chayei Sara (24:62), where Yitschak first meets Rivkah, it says that he had returned from Be'er Lachai Ro'i, where he had been living-- בא מבוא מבאר לחי ראי   The Chasam Sofer there says that the words Ba mi'bo, which literally means "he came from coming", connotes an idea similar to the English phrase "coming and going," a degree of instability.  So long as Avraham was alive, Yitzchak's specific personality trait was still tentative.  He wasn't firmly established in his unique identity until after his father's passing, at which point he grew into his personification of the midda of gevura (strength? might?mastery?).  Then the Chasam Sofer says that  that just as Be'er Sheva was the focal point of Avraham's midda of Chesed, (for it was there that he had his Eshel, his hostel for travelers,) so too was  באר לחי ראי  the source of Yitzchak's specific trait of gevura   This is why the passuk in Chayei Sarah (25:11) says 

 וַיְהִי אַחֲרֵי מוֹת אַבְרָהָם וַיְבָרֶךְ אֱלֹהִים אֶת יִצְחָק בְּנוֹ וַיֵּשֶׁב יִצְחָק עִם-בְּאֵר לַחַי רֹאִי.

Then he says that Be'er Lachai Ro'i was not unique to Yitzchak; משם ירש ישמעאל כחו ומשם כחו של עשו  From there, too, Yishmael inherited his strength, and from there, too, came Eisav's strength.  The connection to Yishmael is explicit: it was there that the angel told Hagar that her son would be a powerful man.  See Lech Lecha, Breishis 16:13-14, where it says

 וַתִּקְרָא שֵׁם ה' הַדֹּבֵר אֵלֶיהָ אַתָּה אֵל רֳאִי כִּי אָמְרָה הֲגַם הֲלֹם רָאִיתִי אַחֲרֵי רֹאִי..

 עַל כֵּן קָרָא לַבְּאֵר בְּאֵר לַחַי רֹאִי הִנֵּה בֵין-קָדֵשׁ וּבֵין בָּרֶד.

The connection to Eisav is alluded to in this week's parsha.  In 33:9, Eisav told Yaakov  וַיֹּאמֶר עֵשָׂו יֶשׁ לִי רָב אָחִי and the words "li rav achi" contain the same letters as the words "Be'er Lachai Ro'i" (although not the same number of letters.)

He then says that although all drew their strength from the same be'er, there was a big difference: Eisavs li rav achi, begins with the letters l r and a, while be'er lachai ro'i begins with b l and r.  The Gematriya of the latter is 232, while that of the former is 231. He says that 231 she'arim are tamei and 231 are tahor, פנים ואחור, and that 232 is the gematria of yehi ohr and the roshei teivos of Ki rotzeh hashem be'amo.
 
It sounds interesting, that all drew their strength from the same place, and the quasi anagram is cool, but I don't know what he's talking about. If you can tell me a reasonable pshat, I would appreciate it, so I don't have to just leave that thing about Cheerios on the blog.
 
And this is what he answered me:
 
Superficial quick analysis:


Sarah was midas hadin (sitra d'nukvasah). [The Chidah, (I think in Yad David) brings a pshat that because

Yitzchak was connected to the midas hadin, he was too feminine to reproduce, and therefore had to be
shected and resurrected in order to ma'amid zera.]

The victim of Sarah's midas hadin was Hagar. The Ramban points out that because of the mistreatment of Hagar,  Yishmoel was given shlita to attack the Jews. Be'er Lachai Roi was where Hagar was mekabel upon herself the midas hadin by acceding to the malach's instructions of vehis'ani tachas yadah. Thus, the koach of Yishmael stems from that be'er.

Mincha, which is keneged gevurah/din, was created at that self-same be'er.

And of course, Esav took the pesoles of din with him as a son of Yitzchok.

Note that Esav took the pesoles of Yitzchok's middah, just as Yishmoel took the pesoles of Avraham's middas hachesed. The koach hagevurah of Yishmoel over klal yisroel is a  secondary aspect which he was yoresh from Hagar, as discussed.

On the other hand, Yitzchok crystallized his midas din precisely when Hashem sent him the tikkun of Rivka, to allow them to create the tif'eres of Yaakov.

There are two aspects of din - the negative and the positive. Din can be used destructively or positively - even by non-Jews. Thus the 231 shearim of tum'ah and taharah.

However, the underlying purpose of din, which is an offspring of chesed, is to allow the world/Jews to earn
schar and come to an ultimate tikkun. Thus, the world was originally created b'din - yehi ohr, which represents the 231 shearim of din plus the alef of the hidden kavana. This is why reshoim should not use the original ohr, because they would realize that din is beneficial. The yesod of the ohr shivas yemei bereshit can now be found only in the Torah - which is the ultimate chesed comprised of din.

The tachlis of this din to bring to chesed is of course klal yisroel, hence rotzeh hashem be'amo.

Unfortunately, my library is mostly packed away, so I could not provide you with more information/mar'ei mekomos. This is all I could come up with off of the (ed.- top of my head).

Post script by Barzilai:
For what it's worth, I would have understood the triple allusion to בְּאֵר לַחַי רֹאִי to mean that divine inspiration or grace is not our monopoly; Every human being has access to ruchnius: We share the Be'er even with our nemeses, even with Yishma'el and Eisav.  But to me, this doesn't have the ring of truth.  It's like something Casuto would say; it's too 'haskooolish."

Post script II:
Nemeses is the plural of Nemesis.

Hamotzi on Cheerios

A well known posek recently said that the proper bracha on Cheerios is Hamotzi.  He said that Cheerios cereal is Pas Haba BeKisnin, i.e., a baked grain product for which the proper bracha depends on whether it is being eaten "like bread" or "not like bread."  That is, the bracha would be Mezonos when it is eaten as a snack, but when it is eaten as a the central part of a full meal it requires Netilas Yadayim, Hamotzi, and the long Birchas Hamazon.  Assuming that baked grain cereals are pas haba bekisnin, the halacha certainly would be that if you sit down to a breakfast in which all you eat is the baked cereal, and you eat to satiation, then certainly Hamotzi would be required.  (The fact that nobody does it proves nothing.  The field of Brachos, such as precedence, shiur, eina tzricha, and so forth, is the neglected step-child of halacha.  And, of course, there are many people who think they're doing God a favor by making brachos at all, and so they view serious and careful analysis of the laws of Brachos as an obsessive preoccupation with superficialities that hinders true spiritual growth.  To those people, I say I love you, and have a  good day.)

However, there is one exception to this rule.  If the food does not have the appearance of bread (turisa de'nahama), you make mezonos, no matter how much you eat or if you are eating is as a full meal.  What is "the appearance of bread"?  There's the ambiguity, since this is a subjective assessment.  Cake definitely has halachic Turisa De'nahama, since it is baked in large loaf-like pieces, although it might be iced or frosted or sweetened.  Most people say that doughnuts have turisa de'nahama and are pas haba bekisnin as well.  What about breakfast cereals? 

Do all baked cereals have turisa de'nahama? Or perhaps there is a difference between flakes, Cheerio types, crumbs like Grape Nuts, and squares?  Some poskim say that Cheerios, for example, are pas, because they are little beigels. Others say that while that might be true from a mouse's perspective, we are not mice, and size matters when deciding on turisa de'nahama.  So, it becomes a little complicated. Theoretically, two people could sit down to eat breakfast, both eating cereals that are made from identical ingredients, both prepared by baking, both tasting the same, but one cereal might have turisa de'nahama and require Netilas Yadayim and Hamotzi, and one not have Turisa De'nahama and therefore be a plain old mezonos.

Rabbi Heinemann of Baltimore once (1986 or 1987) added to the fog by saying that he had been wrestling with the question for many years, and that one of his issues was that breakfast cereal is eaten with a spoon and never eaten with the hands, as bread is, and that this also might create a legal distinction between them.

Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt'l and Rav Eliashiv Shlitah have been quoted variously as having said that most cereals have turisa de'nahama and require hamotzi, (Vezos Habracha fourth edition page 192) but also have been quoted contrariwise, as having said that this is only true in the case of Grape Nuts, which is a cereal breakfast made of crumbled loaves of bread (Vezos Habracha fifth edition page 219).  Rav Sheinberg Shlitah has been unambiguously quoted there (fourth edition page 192) as having said that cereals do not have turisa de'nahama and do not ever require hamotzi.  I surmise he would say this is true even in the case of Grape Nuts, because they are made with the specific intention of continuing to process them into crumbs, and so the intermediate loaf stage is irrelevant.  This reasoning has been applied by some to Bagel Chips and Pita Chips, which are manufactured specifically to be sliced and chopped and sold as snacks, even though they are baked in large pieces, like normal bagels and pita.

Before being too quick to decide, remember that if it is pas, then the rule of pas palter applies.  That is, that there cannot be a problem of bishul akum, because there is a special leniency for pas baked by professional bakeries.  If, on the other hand, it is not pas, then there might be a problem of bishul akum.  So, if you are kovei'a seudah on the cereal but still make a mezonos, you'd better be ready to explain why you aren't worried about bishul akum.

However, many people choose the best of all possible worlds and say that it is not pas, but there is no bishul akum problem because breakfast cereal is not served at state banquets, it is not "oleh ahl shulchan melachim."  Only foods that would be "served at kingly tables" are covered by the prohibition of bishul akum and must be cooked by Jews.  The Aruch Hashulchan, for example, says that potatoes are not covered by the issur of bishul akum, because potatoes are a peasant food, and no king would allow them on his table.  Obviously, that is no longer the case.  Here, too, the application to breakfast cereal is debatable.  They may not be served at state banquets, but a head of state would certainly serve them to a guest at breakfast.  Many poskim hold, for example, that even potato chips need bishul yisrael, because heads of state would serve them with dips.  I find this difficult to accept, but how many dinners have I had with heads of state?

So what should you do?  Sometimes, the best answer is to ask your rav.  Here, where it involves the very subjective categorization of "turisa de'nahama", I suggest you just think for a few days about what you think of as bread, and then make your own decision.  Maybe you, too, will decide that Cheerios are lilliputian bagels. 

But what is most important is to make an informed decision, not to just coast along on the momentum of habit, indifference, and ignorance, or worse, scorn for the minutiae of the laws of brachos.  Better wrong than oblivious.

Vayeitzei, Breishis 30:15. How could Leah say הַמְעַט קַחְתֵּךְ אֶת אִישִׁי, “Isn't it enough that you took away my husband"?

Since this Parsha has a great deal to say about naming babies, here is a link to posts on other parshios that discuss Jewish and Secular names, and the general definition of a name and another that discusses who has the right to name a baby.

Earlier posts on Vayeitzei:
מעלין בקודש ולא מורידין , the Stone Pillow, and Raayos from Agadeta
Having a Mechutan like Lavan
What was the purpose of Yaakov's Matzeivah?
Guests who give mussar
Why owning a dog is rare among Orthodox Jews.

****************************************

30:15. How could Leah say הַמְעַט קַחְתֵּךְ אֶת אִישִׁי? It seems like a caricature of ingratitude for Leah to resentfully say that Rachel had taken away her husband, when in fact it was Leah that took away Rachel's husband, and even that was done with Rachel's help. Even assuming that the switch of Leah for Rachel was done unilaterally by Lavan, and Leah had no choice in the matter, but the fact remains that Rachel voluntarily gave Leah the simanim at the chasuna to prevent Leah’s embarrassment, and if not for that act of kindness, Yaakov would have realized he was being defrauded, he would have kicked Leah out of the tent in middle of the night, and she never would have married to him.


1. Someone answered that the Gemarah (Reb Chiya) in Kesuvos 59b says, women live for two things; their spousal relationship and their maternal relationship. (This is an excellent pshat in the Gemara, but it's not pashut pshat.) Leah said, our husband Yaakov’s personal relationship is already exclusively yours. I am left only with the relationship I have with my children. Now, you want to insinuate yourself into my relationship with my firstborn son Reuven? In other words, Leah was not saying that Rochel had already done anything treacherous by taking her husband. She knew that Rachel had gotten her married to Yaakov in the first place. She was just saying that since her husband didn’t love her (since he loved Rachel), she had only one source of emotional satisfaction in life, and that was her special relationship with her children. If Rachel were to interfere with that, Leah would have nothing left.

2. Rabbeinu Bachaya– Rachel was the Rambam's Baalas Chessed. The Rambam says a baal chesed should give tzdaka so that the recipient doesn’t realize that the other person gave him anything. So when she gave the simanim to Leah, she didn’t say “I am sacrificing my happiness to prevent your disgrace.” Instead, she made up a story that made Leah think that by taking Rochel’s place at the wedding, she was doing Rachel a favor. Maybe Rachel told her she was afraid of Yaakov, maybe she told her she didn’t like him. In any case, Leah was convinced that she was the baalas chessed who had done a favor for Rachel, and that Rachel later cheated her out of her husband by taking his love from her.

3. Reb Yerucham says that once Leah and Yaakov were married, nothing that brought them to that position mattered: it was bashert, and Leah was his intended wife. The factors that implemented that result were completely fungible, and if Rochel hadn’t given the simanim, something else would have happened to ensure Leah’s marriage to Yaakov. (This is a classic strategy, which I have seen in countless meshulachim, of avoiding hakoras tov, along with “you were just doing your mitzvah." I don’t know if Reb Yerucham meant it to illustrate bitachon in hashgacha pratis in marriage, or he really meant that you don’t have to appreciate a gomel chesed because the result was bashert anyway. I hope not. But it sounds like a good excuse not to come up with shadchonus money after the couple gets engaged.)

4. A commenter (The Great Unknown) sent in the following. I hesitated to post it, but, as he said, it's not up to me to censor the words of the Litvishe gedolim

The Maharil Bloch said: " appreciating a favor does not include repaying it in such a way as to nullify the original favor." (clumsy translation of the Yiddish) This was in the context of his firing Reb Leib Chasman immediately after Rav Bloch took over the yeshiva on Reb Leib's recommendation.

~~~~~

Congratulations to Brisker

Congratulations to Brisker on getting a score of 94 on his first major Arabic translation test, in which he had to translate complex sentences from Arabic to Hebrew. May he go mei'chayil el choyil.

Rabbi Kaphach (קאפח) z'l should be looking over his shoulder.

Update
To make this post less obscure:
Brisker is the son of a good friend, an American boy who is studying in Israel, both in a kollel and at a University.  I'm proud of him for many reasons.  First, his Kollel and University studies are mutually extra-curricular.  Second, for an English speaker to do well translating Arabic into Hebrew deserves recognition.  Third, he's just a nice young man.

Rav Kaphach translated the Rambam's Judeo-Arabic into Hebrew, and many people say that he did a far better job than earlier translators. Brisker is studying both classic and modern Arabic, but probably not Judeo-Arabic.  Rav Kaphach probably doesn't really have anything to worry about.

Toldos, Breishis 25:22. Vateilech Lidrosh es Hashem. Why did Rivka seek the advice of an outsider, when she had people at home with whom she could talk?

Earlier posts on Toldos:
The indelible result of exposure to Tumah
Yaakov's Akeida, Reb Akiva's Akeida, and the Tzeduki's Akeida


Rivka had a problem: her experience during pregnancy indicated to her that her child, or children, would be drawn both to Avodas Hashem and to Avoda Zara. Concerned and anxious about what kind of child she was carrying, she sought an explanation.  But, as Rashi points out, it doesn't say that she was mispallel, it says ‘vateileich lidrosh es Hashem', "she went to seek Hashem," which shows that she went somewhere to seek the answer.  Where did she go? 

Rashi says that she went to the Beis Medrash of Sheim, and in the next passuk Rashi brings that Hashem answered her through the nevuah of Sheim. This is in the Medrash Rabbah here 63:6, and 20:6, 45:10, and 48:20, and sort of in the Yerushalmi in Sotah right in the beginning of seventh perek, and the Zohar here on this passuk. Some say to Sheim, some say through a malach.

According to those that say she went to Sheim or Eiver, why did Rivka go to Sheim and Eiver with her problem? Why didn’t she just ask her own husband, Yitzchak? What about Avraham, who lived until Yakov and Eisav were 15 years old?  Was there something about the nature of her question that required that she not go to them, and instead go to Sheim?

(The Ibn Ezra, as usual, solves the problem by pretending it's not there: he says that she did go to Avraham. The Abravanel also says this as an alternative to the various Medrashim.  This is, of course, a valid interpretation of the passuk, but it does nothing to explain what Chazal were thinking.)

The Gur Aryeh (and, I'm told, the Baal Haturim in his pirush) says that she was afraid that the problem she perceived in her child arose from, and reflected, her own flaws, and she was ashamed to go to her husband. .

An acquaintance of mine suggested that the fact that Yitzchok learned in the Beis Medrash of Sheim and Eiver showed that they were the gedolei hador, so they were first people to consult. Another friend vehemently disagreed, saying that there is no question that Yitzchok, and of course Avraham, were far greater than Sheim and Eiver, and the fact that Yitzchak left home to learn there proves nothing.

The Ramban on Breishis 27:4 discusses this tangentially. He asks, when Rivka overheard Yitzchak tell Eisav that he would give him the brachos, she came up with a ruse to subvert Eisav's plan. Why didn’t she simply tell Yitzchak about what she heard from Sheim, that “ve’rav ya'avod tza’ir,” which meant that Eisav would serve Yaakov, and which would mean that the brachos should go to Yaakov? The Ramban answers  "Apparently Rivkah never told him [Yitzchok] about G-d's prophecy to her, "and the older shall serve the younger" (Breishis 25:23), for if she had, how could Isaac go against the word of Hashem? At first, she did not tell him because of her sense of morality and modesty, for "she went to inquire of Ha’elokim" (Breishis 25:22), and she had gone without Isaac's permission; or perhaps she thought, "I need not report a prophecy to a prophet, for he is greater than he who told me," [Sheim, according to the Medrash.] And now she did not want to say to him, "I was told such and such by the Lord before I gave birth," for she reasoned, out of  [Yitzchak's] love for [Eisav], [Yitzchak] would not bless Yakov, but would leave everything in Hashem's hands; and she knew that for this reason [giving Jacob cooked food that tasted like game] Yakov would receive the blessing from his mouth with a full heart and a willing soul.” (Then the Ramban says something vague about hidden intentions of Hashem.)  So: from the Ramban we see several possiblities: 1. that either she didn't want to tell Yitzchak what Shem told her because she went to consult Shem without Yitzchak's permission; or 2. that she figured that if the lesser navi (Shem) knew something, then certainly the greater navi (Yitzchak) knew it as well, (and 3. if he didn't, then there must be a reason Hashem did not want Yitzchak to know about it).

The Chizkuni says this as well-- that Rivka never told Yitzchak what she was told, and that she must have been told to not tell him, or at least was not told to tell him.  This, too, is a post facto validation of her decision to seek the answer outside her home.

I would say, expanding on the Ramban and the Chizkuni, that the three points we elicited from the Ramban are not either/or.  They all are true.  Rivka reasoned that if her husband or father in law knew what was going on, they would have told her.  From their silence she deduced two things: that they didn't know, and that Hashem didn't want them to know.  So she make an independent decision and went elsewhere, thinking that even if Hashem didn't want Yitzchak and Avraham to know, Hashem might tell her.  As it turned out, she was 100% correct.

The Netziv here also deals with the question. He says there are two types of nevuah, two types of nevi'im. One is a navi to whom Hashem speaks; the other is one who sees hidden things through ruach hakodesh, like Shmuel, the "Ro'eh," to whom people would go to find out where their missing donkeys had gone. As is evident from Shmuel, these two types of Nevu'ah are not mutually exclusive; but the Netziv says that Avraham was a type one navi only, while Shem was type 2, and that’s why Rivka went to him.  She needed a see-er, a Ro'eh, an “Adam Gadol she’yad'ah ki hu ro’eh veyodei’ah.”

Rabbi Kenny Nieman said that she went to Sheim because he was the zakein— Sheim lived 600 years, and he was probably around 550 at that time. Rivka's husband and father in law were, comparatively, youngsters.  The distinctive wisdom of a zakein, especially a zakein who was a navi for 400 years, is the greatest possible resource. This teretz reminded me of the dinner for MTJ where they were mechabeid Reb Moshe, and when Reb Yakov Kaminetski spoke, he said that it might seem to be gaivah for him to evaluate Reb Moshe, but there cannot be any doubt that he (Reb Yaakov) is the zakein, and so he had a right to state his opinion of Reb Moshe’s gadlus.

Thank you, Eli, for finding the Medrash Seichel Tov, (authored/compiled by R. Menahem Ben Shlomo, Italy (?), in 1139) that says exactly this:

ותלך.  לבית מדרשו של עבר: לדרוש את ה׳. לבקש רחמים על העובר, ואע׳פ שאברהם קיים, הלכה אצל
זקנים ללמדך שכל המקבל  פני זקן שבדור, כאילו מקבל פני שכינה

Translation: And She Went: To the Beis Medrash of Eiver.  To Seek Hashem:  To pray for mercy for the fetus.  Even though Avraham was alive, she went to the Elder.  This is (stated in the passuk in order) to teach you that anyone that attends the presence of an Elder it is as if he attends the presence of the Shechina.

Reb Berel Povarsky has a very nice discussion about this kashe. He asks this, and many other questions, such as, didn’t she know that her husband had a bad brother, Yishmo’eil, and that there was a process of ‘zikuch’ before the 12 shvatim could be born? Also, Chazal said that Shem showed her Rebbi and Antoninus. How does a good descendant console her for a son who is a rasha? Answer— she knew everything, but wondered, why did the zikuch by Avrohom take place through his pilegesh, Hagar, and now it is taking place through me— lamah zeh anochi— why am I the one that has to bear the bad one. This, of course, was not a question she could ask her husband’s family, because of the concern that the cause was some personal flaw she carried, similar to the Gur Aryeh. The answer that Shem gave her was that Yishma’eil, being the zikuch son, and having been born by the pilegesh, had no redeeming qualities, and is and will always be a pereh adam. (But see above end of Chayei Soroh that Yishmo’eil did tshuvoh before he died, and Eisav never did.) But Eisav needed to have a higher character, and not just be an outlaw, and so you were the one to bear him and to infuse into him these higher qualities. This is why she was shown Rebbi and Antoninus; to show her both the benefit Klal Yisrael will have from him, and also the more refined character a ben Eisav is capable of.

And here is what I think: that she didn’t go to Sheim, but rather to his Beis Medrash. She wanted to ask Hashem herself, or to be mispallel, and to do so required that she go to a makom kadosh, just as Chana went to the Bais Hamikdash when she wanted to ask Hashem for children. And just as Chana was then answered through Eli, the Kohen Gadol who was there at the time, Rivka’s question/tefilla was answered through Sheim, who was a kohen gadol (Nedarim 32b and Targum Yerushalmi Breishis 14:18), or his descendant, Ever, who was in the Beis Medrash at that time. She could have asked her husband or her father in law, but the more appropriate response to a challenge is to attempt to resolve the question yourself, and not to abdicate the opportunity for personal growth by passing off the issue to someone else. Even if Malkitzedek lost the Kehuna for giving a bracha to Avraham before thanking Hashem, it doesn't really matter.  He was the Gadol in a place that was meyuchad for Limud Hatorah and Hashra'as Hashechina.

The word "lidrosh" here means what it means in ישעיהו נה where it says   דרשו ה' בהמצאו  .  The Gemara in Rosh Hashanna 18a says that בהמצאו means either in the setting of a tzibbur, because the Shechina rests on a tzibbur, or during Aseres Yemei Teshuva, when the Shechina makes itself available.  The same בהמצאו  applies to a place of kedusha.  It may be negi'us, but I think my pshat is peshuto shel mikra.

Having said this, it becomes clear that this is what the Medrash Seichel Tov that I brought above means:

לבית מדרשו של עבר: לדרוש את ה׳. לבקש רחמים על העובר

She went to the Beis Medrash of Eiver, not to Eiver himself; and she went to be mevakesh rachamim on the fetus, not to ask Sheim or Eiver any questions.  Precisely like Channah.

What's the lesson here, then?  The lesson is this:  That a person, certainly one who has problems having or raising children, but also anyone that faces a life difficulty, should do as Channah and Rivka did.  Go to the presence of a zakein who is a tzadik and a great talmid chacham, and be mispallel to Hashem for help with your problem. Certainly, seeing a bracha is wise.  As the Gemara in Bava Basra 116a says,

דרש ר' פנחס בר חמא כל שיש לו חולה בתוך ביתו ילך אצל חכם ויבקש עליו רחמים שנא' (משלי טז) חמת מלך מלאכי מות ואיש חכם יכפרנה

But the lesson from this week's parsha is that it is good to find the right place and to be mispallel there yourself.

If someone else has already said this, I don't want to know about it, thank you.  I know that the Ramban says that 'lidrosh' means tefilla, and that the Abravanel argues.  But what I am saying, that Rivka went to a place where there was Hashra'as Hashechina, and connecting it to the story of Chana and how she was answered, and the Gemara in Rosh Hashanna, and the Passuk in Yeshaya, is far more comprehensive than what the Ramban says, especially since unlike the Ramban who is arguing with Rashi, what I'm saying explains Rashi.  So don't tell me that it's mefurash in the Ramban.  It's not mefurash in the Ramban and it's befeirush not like the Ramban.

Chayei Sarah: Avraham and Sara's Long and Happy Lives

Earlier posts on Chayei Sara:
Being mekareiv your Yetzer Hara

Learning about marriage from a funeral

Looking for leadership in the middle

I once read Anthony Hecht’s translation of the Chorus of Oedipus at Colonos:

What is unwisdom but the lusting after
Longevity: to be old and full of days!
For the vast and unremitting tide of years
Casts up to view more sorrowful things than joyful.

It has been pointed out that Avraham's life would seem to be an example of this sorrowful poem.  How hard Avraham’s life was, even though he was the Yedid Hashem, the Av Hamon Goyim!  Among the ten nisyonos mentioned in Avos 5:3 (according to Rabbeinu Yonah, while according the Rambam this is not separate from the Akeidah itself) is that he came back from the Akeidah joyously and found that Sara died alone while he and his children were away from home.  Then, despite having been promised the whole land, when Sara died, and while she waited in an Aron, Avraham had to start bargaining to get a place to bury her. So anyone who thinks that being beloved by Hashem means having an easy life had better think again. 

And even so, when it comes to our Tzadikim, Sophocles is wrong.  We find that Avraham died “zakein ve’savei’ah.”  Despite all his trials, he felt that he lived a full and satisfying life, because he knew that whatever happened he tried to do his best, and whatever he experienced was right and good for him.   The basic difference is whether you live as an eved Hashem, trying to emulate the 13 Middos by doing what you can for Hashem and for other people, or you live for what you can enjoy and accumulate for yourself.

The image that I have is of an airplane; Dinner has just been served, and the pilot's voice comes over the intercom, and he says, I'm sorry to inform you that we've lost both engines: we're going to try to glide to a soft landing on the water, but I have to tell you that we're in a pretty desperate situation.  Good luck and goodbye.  Some people will react by trying to finish their meal as fast as they can.  People whose existence is so self centered focus exclusively on what they can ingest and accumulate, and ultimately are not really living a true life at all.

Chayei Sara, Breishis 23:10. Efron Sat Among His People: The Median can be the Cardinal Point

23:10.  Efron sat “be’soch bnei Chais” Rashi says that this day he had been appointed as a ‘sar’ of his people.  Rabbi David Zupnick Z'l told me that Heidenheim, in his pirush on Rashi, asks what made Rashi say this, and he answers that in all of Tanach this expression of ‘besoch’ of a people means being a master, and that in Melachim II 3:14, this is what the Isha Hashunamis meant when she told Eliahu that there was nothing she needed because she was "besoch ami'.

יג וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ אֱמָרנָא אֵלֶיהָ הִנֵּה חָרַדְתְּ אֵלֵינוּ אֶת-כָּלהַחֲרָדָה הַזֹּאת מֶה לַעֲשׂוֹת לָךְ הֲיֵשׁ לְדַבֶּרלָךְ אֶלהַמֶּלֶךְ אוֹ אֶלשַׂר הַצָּבָא; וַתֹּאמֶר בְּתוֹךְ עַמִּי אָנֹכִי יֹשָׁבֶת.

she did not need his help in any material things.

I later realized that the same idea is evident in the Gemara in Bava Kamma 88a, where the Gemara darshens the passuk “mikerev achecha” to mean that only “muvchar she'bi’achecha” can be a king, and not an eved meshuchrar or even a geir.  Kerev and toch not only mean the same thing but also carry the same connotation.

Why?  Why does a word that means common also connote uncommon?  Wy does 'undistinguished' or median also connote greatness?  This Zohar about the Shunamite woman is interesting, and has some potential to explain the Gemara in Bava Kamma, but it does nothing to explain Efron:

ועל דא תנינן דלא איצטריך ליה לבר נש לאיתפרשא מכללא דסגיאין בגין דלא יתרשים איהו בלחודוי
ולא יקטרגון עליה לעילא דכתיב בשונמית ותאמר בתוך עמי אנוכי יושבת לא בעינא לאפקי גרמי
מכללא דסגיאין בתוך עמי יתיבנא עד יומא דאובתוך עמי בכללא חדא.

Breaking the Plate at the Tna'im. A Trivial Discussion of a Little Minhag

I'm writing this little bagatelle because it came up in conversation recently, and I thought that if my friend had to deal with certain mechutan issues involving this minhag, a little overview might be helpful to other people as well. This kind of post is not going to become a habit.

We Ashkenazim have a minhag that the mothers of the Chasan and Kallah break an earthenware plate after the Tna'im is read.  (I am not talking about the glass under the Chupah.  That minhag stems from Brachos 31b, as Tosfos says there.

רב בריה דרבינא עבד הלולא לבריה חזנהו לרבנן דהוו קבדחי טובא  אייתי כסא דמוקרא בת ארבע מאה זוזי ותבר קמייהו ואעציבו רב אשי עבד הלולא לבריה חזנהו לרבנן דהוו קא בדחי טובא אייתי כסא דזוגיתא חיורתא ותבר קמייהו ואעציבו אמרו ליה רבנן לרב המנונא זוטי בהלולא דמר בריה דרבינא לישרי לן מר אמר להו ווי לן דמיתנן ווי לן דמיתנן

 I'm not talking about that.  I'm talking about breaking the plate at the Te'na'im.) 

All our minhagim are holy and meaningful, but among those holy and meaningful minhagim, this one does not stand on the highest rung.  But it's worth bearing in mind that, as I've said before, the meaning of our minhagim is fluid and dynamic; they ebb and flow.  What a minhag means to one generation, to one group, might be very different than what it means to another.  See, e.g., our discussion of the Kittel here, where we showed that wearing the kittel could symbolize diametrically opposed ideas, and that with time, one idea has become dominant, and our discussion of masks on Purim here.  The symbol's meaning is what you understand it to be, and even minor minhagim can come to assume greater significance.  The same is true regarding the breaking of the plate.  Here's a list of the various interpretations that have attributed to it by our mefarshim.  I'm listing all the time honored classics; I'M NOT IMPLYING ANY PARITY HERE! Some are stranger than others, several are similar but have differences in tone.  Pick the one you like.  They're all kosher.

The first written mention of this minhag is in the Sefer Ma'adanei Yomtov, written around 1600 by Reb Yomtov Lippman Heller, the author of the Tosfos Yomtov. He was a talmid of the Maharal.  And he is the Ketzos' grandfather.

1.  To temper the celebration Zeicher Le'Mikdash.  Ma'adanei Yomtov (cited by Eliahu Rabba,  which is cited by Pri Megadim in OC 560 Mishbetzos SK 7, and cited by Mishna Berura there SK 9, but I found it here) says the purpose is to shock the onlookers, in order to temper excessive joy that is inconsistent with mourning for the Churban Beis Hamikdash.

2.  To show that the Te'na'im is irreversible, and whoever breaks it can never be made whole.   The Pri Megadim brings the Maharit, which he understands to mean that although we break glass under the Chupa, we should break earthenware at the Tna'im, because glass can be melted and remade, but earthenware, once broken, can never be repaired.

3.  As a re-enactment of Mattan Torah, the breaking of the Luchos, and our ultimate redemption.  The Pri Megadim himself says the following: Mattan Torah was Kidushin, and it ought to have been followed by Nesu'in.  The sin of the Egel, followed by the breaking of the luchos, and ultimately the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash, left us almost bereft of the Hashra'as Hashechina that should have been ours as the beloved of Hakadosh Baruch Hu.  But the day will come that Hashem will betroth us again, and that kidushin will be followed by a nisu'in and a permanent union.  So we break earthenware at the Tna'im, to symbolize the breaking of the luchos and the impermanence of Klal Yisrael's first kiddushin, but we break glass at the chupa, because glass can always be repaired; in a sense, it can never be permanently or irreparably broken.

4. To show that breaking a tna'im is worse than getting divorced.  The Gaon is quoted here as having said that it is worse to break a Tna'im than to get married and divorced.  Or, that it is better to get married even if you know you're going to get divorced than to break a tna'im.  So we use irreparable earthenware at the Tna'im, and glass at the Chuppah.


5.  To show that the only one way to break a tna'im: by dying.  The Baal Shem Tov is quoted in Taamei Haminhagim (page 411) as having explained this Maharit as meaning that a tna'im cannot be broken for any reason at all, but a marriage can be dissolved via a get.


6. To remind the chasan that even if his wife turns out to be a shrew, he should be grateful that suffering through a miserable marriage will earn him a ticket straight to Olam Haba.  (Hopefully, without her.)  The Ta'amei Haminhagim also brings from the Likutei Maharan the following reason:  you break an earthenware vessel at the Tna'im to remind the Chasan that there is a Gehinnom, and that he better not be mindlessly driven by his bodily desires.  Also, he says, even if (Chas veshalom!) the answer to the question is "motzei," and it turns out that his wife is no good, he should still not "traitorously" divorce her, because his lifetime of suffering will save him from Gehinnom.

7.  To prevent excessive frivolity so that we don't forget our Yiras Shamayim.  See above from Brachos 31, Rav Hamnuna Zuti, who, when asked to sing at a wedding, sang "Woe to us, we all will die....." and the rule of Rav Yochanan/Rav Shimon bar Yochai,

א"ר יוחנן משום רשב"י אסור לאדם שימלא שחוק פיו בעולם הזה

that one may not "fill his mouth with joy in this world."  Some learn that this 'reigning in of levity' is so that we should remember the Churban, that we should elevate Yerushalayim over our joys, as indicated in the Ramban in Toras Ha'adam.  This approach is seen in the Tosfos Yomtov's pshat, #1 on this list, and that's why this halacha is discussed in Hilchos Tisha Ba'av.  HOWEVER: Rabbeinu Yonah in Brachos there says that this rule applied even when the Beis Hamikdash stands, because immoderate levity is incompatible with Yir'as Shamayim.  The same reasoning would apply to our discussion-- that the breaking of the plate at the Tna'im is more in line with Rav Hamnuna Zuti's dirge than it is with Zeicher Le'Mikdash.

8.  Why do the mothers do this?  Well, it seems that in some places, this was not done by the mothers.  In this drawing from 1724, a man is doing it (the fellow bottom center with the jug raised above his head).

and here's another drawing of men breaking stuff at a Tna'im:

While I haven't found anyone who explains the change, I would guess that it indicates that the Kallah, by sending her female representatives, is aware of and agrees to what is happening. There was a time when we would just give them away, but that's not how it's done now, and it's not much of a 'commitment to get married' if the kallah has no idea of what's happening. Also, see the first comment for Rebbitzen Divrei Chaim's note.

And, here's the bonus video. It's from a Sardinian wedding, and they're not Jews.  There were Jews in Sardinia from before the destruction of the second Beis Hamikdash until the expulsion that accompanied the Inquisition in the late fifteenth century.  If you want to believe they got the minhag from us, go ahead and believe it.  I think people, Jews and Gentiles, do it because it's just fun to break stuff.


Now, you are all experts on this minhag.  I hope this has cheered you up.

Vayeira. Guest Post by Harav Eli: The Expulsion of Hagar and ....

Following the birth of Yitzhak, the Torah tells about Avraham expelling his son from Hagar. A simple reading of the Psukim gives the impression that expulsion was of a young child:

1. He is called הילד or הנער. While נער could be used for a wide range of ages (from the 3-months old Moshe to ומשרתו יהושע בן נון נער), the term ילד typically refers to a young child (even though 17-years-old Yosef is also referred to as הילד איננו)

2. At the end of the Parsha the Mal'ach tells Hagar to carry her son. Well, maybe he was dried out and sick. But, it seems Hagar carries the boy even at the beginning of the journey - ויתן אל הגר שם על שכמה ואת הילד וישלחה [although some Meforshim explain this to mean she carried only the bread and water].

3. It says Hagar throws him under the bush, meaning that he wasn't too heavy. [Again, some of the Meforshim say this is not to be taken literally].

4. The end of the parsha - ויהי א' את הנער ויגדל also sounds like he was young at the time

However, the consensus of Chazal and all Meforshim I remember, is that this boy is in fact Yishma'el, although he is not mentioned by his name. At the time of the events Yishmael was at least 16 years old.

Luley Divreihem (in the style of the Ibn Ezra), we might suggest that the boy mentioned here could be a younger (second ?) son of Avraham and Hagar. If it is not Yishmael, that's why the Torah presents this nameless boy, never mentioned before, in such a lengthy description of  בן הגר המצרית אשר ילדה לאברהם. This boy might be of similar age to Yitzchak, or a bit older.

This explains also why Hashem comforts Avraham by saying  וגם את בן האמה לגוי אשימנו. If we're talking about Yishmael, this would have been redundant as Yishmael was already promised a much bigger future: הנה ברכתי אותו והפריתי אותו והרביתי אותו במאוד מאוד שנים עשר נשיאים יוליד ונתתיו לגוי גדול

Furthermore, in next week's parsha we find that Avraham sends away בני הפילגשים plural. Who are they? One Pilegesh we know of is Ktura. The other is Hagar (assuming they are not the same person). But, Yishmael was not sent away - he buried his father together with Yitzchak. So, it seems Hagar had more sons that were sent away.

Yet, as far as I know this (seemingly obvious) Pshat  was not picked up by any Medrash or any of the Meforshim. Why?