Breaking the Cold Grip of the Dead

The gist of what follows is that it is a serious offense to the Torah if one's life is spent fulfilling mitzvos out of habit, or in imitation of one's ancestors or of respected predecessors. 

I know from experience that some people are offended by several aspects of what follows. 

1. Doing mitzvos only out of veneration of your ancestors and teachers.

A.

ספורנו דברים כ"ח י"ד

ולא תסור מכל הדברים אשר אנכי מצוה אתכם היום ימין ושמאל – שלא ישנו את מצות האל יתברך, בפרט ענין המשפט, ולא ימירו את שאר המצות במנהגי הדיוט ומצות אנשים מלומדה, כל שכן כשיעשו זה לכבוד קדמונים, שהנהיגו אותם המנהגים לא לכבוד קונם ולא לשמור מצותיו, כי בזה האופן אין לך ״ללכת אחרי אלהים אחרים לעבדם״ גדול מזה, בחדוש דת לכבוד קדמונים, אשר נחשבו אלהים שופטים בארץ (ע״פ תהלים נ״ח:י״ב).

הרב שמחה זיסל ברוידא: 

ולא תסור מכל־הדברים אשר אנכי מצוה אתכם היום ימין ושמאול ללכת אחרי אלהים אחרים לעבדם

 יש להבין דכי קאמר "לא תסור וכו' ימין ושמאל" הרי משמע שאפילו זיז כלשהו מצווה שלא יסור, ואח"כ גומר " ללכת אחרי אלהים אחרים", שזה כבר הסרה גמורה ומוחלטת.

ויעויין בספורנו מש"כ לבאר ד"אחרי אלוהים אחרים" קאי על העובדים "מצוות אנשים מלומדה" דזה עובד מחמת שכן עשו אבותיו, וכן נהגו כולם וכך התרגל.  ונמצא דאינו עובד את השם אלא את האנשים שהנהיגו כן ו"אלהים אחרים מיקרי".

ודבר זה נורא למעיין, ומשמע דכל הברית הזה בא שנעבוד את ה' מבלי הסרה כלשהו  ימין ושמאל,  דכל שסר ימין ושמאל והיינו קצת "מלומדה" מקרי כעובד אלהים אחרים.

I am not convinced that the Sforno means exactly what R' Broide says, especially since the end of the sentence beginning with כי בזה האופן is not in many prints of the Sforno. But it really doesn't matter whether the Sforno meant it - if Reb Simcha Zissel Broide says it, it is important enough.

B.

The dictum of חייב אדם לומר בלשון רבו has to be applied with seichel.

 עדויות פ"א מ"ג -

הלל אומר, מלא הין מים שאובין פוסלין את המקוה, [ אלא ] שאדם חייב לומר בלשון רבו

רע"ב

שחייב אדם לומר בלשון רבו - כלומר, הין אינו לשון משנה אלא לשון תורה, אלא כך שמע מרבותיו שמעיה ואבטליון. ורמב"ם קבל מאביו ז"ל שמפני שהיו שמעיה ואבטליון גרי צדק לא היו יכולין להוציא מפיהן מלת הין, והיו אומרים אין במקום הין, כדרך בני אדם עד היום שאינם יכולים לחתוך באותיות [אחה"ע], והיה הלל גם הוא אומר אין, כמו שהיו רבותיו שמעיה ואבטליון גרי צדק אומרים

However, the Gaon and his Talmid the Chidushei Maharich in Ediyos 1:3 rejects the idea that Hillel was echoing his Rebbi's speech impediment.

והקשה הרב הגאון זצ״ל, אם הם אמרו מחמת שלא היו יכולין לחתוך אותיות - יאמר גם הלל שיכול לחתוך אותיות, מאי לשון רבו שייך בזה.

בלשון רבו  makes sense when it is a style of speech, a choice of words, something the Rebbi chose. It does not make sense if it is an accent or just a personal habit. (Instead, the Gaon says the pshat is that his rebbi had to say מלא הין because he couldn't pronounce the hei and it would sound like ein, which seems to mean that 'EIN poslim," so he had to say malei hin, which can not be misunderstood. All Hillel did was use the additional word malei.)

The point is, even if it's your Rebbe, or your Rebbi Muvhak, don't imitate his chisronos, only his maalos, the aspects of his behavior that can enhance your avodas Hashem, and be astute enough to know the difference.

C.

The following is taken from the HTC Likutei Pshatim from 2022 Parshas Lech Lecha.

THE REAL THING

From Rabbi Yitzchak Sender, author of numerous sefarim, as well as "The Commentator" series.

אמרי נא אחתי את למען ייטב לי בעבורך וחיתה נפשי בגללך

"Please say that you are my sister, so that it may be well with me for your sake, and so that my soul may live because of you." Bereshis 12:13

Rav Aaron Kotler comments on the statement of Chazal that Lot was saved from death in the merit of keeping silent when Avraham told Elimelech that he was Sarah's brother and not revealing that Avraham was really her husband. Why, asks Rav Kotler, did Lot need to rely on this merit to be saved? Wasn't his practice of הכנסת אורחים welcoming guests, even at the risk of his own life in Sodom, enough to save him? After all, this was a great mitzvah. He answers that when Lot was hospitable to guests, he was not doing this from inner conviction, as a mitzvah of chesed, but only in imitation of his uncle Avraham, for he had grown so used to this practice that he did it as a matter of course. But when he refused to reveal Avraham's true relationship with Sarah, at this point he was acting out of conviction, from a wish to save his uncle. This was the "true Lot" and therefore he was rewarded for this action.

Another illustration of the distinction between imitation and real conviction concerns Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach. He used to attend an elite minyan at the Kosel. The Sh'liach Tzibbur of this special minyan was none other than the famous Rav Zerach Braverman. When this great sage passed away, the minyan continued, with someone else acting as Sh'liach Tzibbur. Soon afterwards, Rav Shlomo Zalman stopped attending this minyan. When asked why, he replied that when Rav Braverman, as Sh'liach Tzibbur, reached a particular point in the prayer of "אהבת עולם"ַ he would make a certain characteristic movement. He had noticed that the new Sh'liach Tzibbur also made this same movement, and this made him realize that the man was simply copying Rav Braverman. Since this minyan was only an imitation of truly heartfelt prayer, he preferred to look for another minyan.

(see note 1 at end.)

D. 

I've used this idea in many speeches, often to the annoyance of Bnei Torah who dislike the idea entirely, and even more dislike quoting a goy.  I quote either Basho or Jaurès:

Matsuo Basho, a very well known Japanese poet/philosopher.
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Seek what they sought."
or
"Seek not to follow in the footsteps of men of old; seek what they sought."

Then, similar, from Jean Jaurès, a French socialist politician and a defender of Dreyfus:
"Être fidèle à la tradition, c'est être fidèle à la flamme et non à la cendre"
To be faithful to tradition is to be faithful to the flame and not to the ashes.

Jaurès' words were paraphrased by Mahler as
"Tradition ist die Weitergabe des Feuers und nicht die Anbetung der Asche."
Tradition is the handing down of the flame and not the worshipping of ashes.

We are commanded to bury the dead, and it is assur to preserve their bodies. The past needs to return to dust and earth from which the future can grow. Unlike Christians, we would never dream of putting a cemetery next to a shul. (see note 2 at end.)

(Rav Lau talks about this combination of fidelity to the past and adapting to new circumstances in his biography, quoting his father in law about the dual meaning of Ya'azov. I posted it in a drasha for a Sheva Brachos.)

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

2. Pining for the past instead of marching toward the future.

(the following is taken from a post from 2017.)

Why did Lot's wife turn into a pillar of salt? Chazal talk about her unwillingness to share her valuable salt with guests, a stinginess unmitigated by seeing her husband's highly developed trait of hachnasas orchim.  Rav Alfie Cherrick told me something he said, something he thought of while learning Melicha (from Reb Ahron Soloveitchik זכר צדיק לברכה, his Rebbi Muvhak,) many years ago.

He said that salt is a preservative, and it preserves the past. Lot's wife turned around, she turned wistfully to her past in Sedom when she should have been focused on the gift she was given, the opportunity of spiritual growth. That was the worst thing she could have done at that moment. Don't try to rebuild the past, find a way to build a future.

I think his idea is excellent. It's obviously true in the case of Lot's wife, who was leaving the depraved lifestyle of Sedom. But to some extent, it is true for everyone, even those that have a glorious past and live a Torah life. Our past informs and gives direction to our lives, but like all living things, we have to adapt to new circumstances. We have to think about what we can do in the future. The Ribono shel Olam has put you in a new place, do not stagnate, move forward.  Even Avraham Avinu was told Lech Lecha, and Rav Ahron Kotler, in his sefer, talks about life being l'maala l'maskil.  Move forward and move upward, or fall - retain what is good of your past, and use it as a stepping stone to the future.

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

3. Doing mitzvos thoughtlessly knowingly.

Ritva in Rosh Hashanna 16b

וא"ר יצחק שלשה דברים מזכירין עונותיו של אדם, אלו הן .. ועיון תפלה .. :    

תימא דהכא משמע דעיון תפלה מגונה והתם אמרינן אלו דברים שאדם אוכל פירותיהן בעוה"ז והקרן קיימת לעוה"ב וחד מניהו עיון תפלה ובבבא בתרא אמרו (שני) [שלשה] דברים אין אדם נצול מהן בכל יום [הרהור עבירה] ועיון תפלה ואבק לשון הרע וא"כ אין לך אדם שאין מזכירין עונותיו בכל יום ומאי אתא ר' יצחק לאזהורינן ותירצו בתוס' דעיון תפלה לשון א' המתחלק לשלשה ענינים 

כי יש עיון תפלה שהיא מדה רעה והוא המעיין בתפלתו וסומך עליה שתהא מקובלת ומצפה עליה שתתקיים ועליה אמרו כאן שמזכירין עונותיו לפי שמחשבין עליו אם הוא ראוי לכך לקבל תפלתו כמו שהוא סבור וע"ז אמרו בהרואה כל המאריך בתפלתו ומעיין בה סוף בא לידי כאב לב 

ויש עיון תפלה טוב מאד והוא המעיין ומכוין בתפלתו לאומרה בכונת הלב אבל אינו מצפה שתתקיים וזה שאמר שאוכל פירותיו בעוה"ז והשי"ת משלם לו שאלת צרכיו ששואל באמצעיות והקרן קיימת לו לעוה"ב על מה ששבח בראשונות והודה באחרונות 

ויש אחר והוא שאינו מכוין ומעיין בתפלתו שמהרהר בדברי העולם ונקרא עיון תפלה ליפוי השם כדרך שקורין למי שאינו רואה סגי נהור וז"ש בב"ב שאין אדם נצול ממנו בכל יום שא"א לאדם שלא יהרהר בדברים בטלים בעת תפלה כמ"ש בירושלמי מיומי לא כוונית יומא חד בעינא לכווני ומנית אפרוחייא ואידך אמר יומא חד בעינא לאכווני ואמינא מאן עייל קומי מלכא אלקפתא או ריש גלותא אמר שמואל אנא מחזיקנא טיבותא לרישאי כד מטי למודים כרע מגרמוי:

Rambam in Krias Shma 4:7

ז כָּל מִי שֶׁהוּא פָּטוּר מִלִּקְרוֹת קְרִיאַת שְׁמַע אִם רָצָה לְהַחֲמִיר עַל עַצְמוֹ לִקְרוֹת קוֹרֵא. וְהוּא שֶׁתְּהֵא דַּעְתּוֹ פְּנוּיָה עָלָיו. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה זֶה הַפָּטוּר מִלִּקְרוֹת מְבֹהָל אֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי לִקְרוֹת עַד שֶׁתִּתְיַשֵּׁב דַּעְתּוֹ עָלָיו:

ראב"ד   עד שתתיישב דעתו עליו. ומה בכך יקרא ויהא כקורא בתורה ולא יהיה כפורק שם שמים מעליו ואין זה דומה לתפלה ואין חוששין עתה ליוהרא שהדבר ידוע לרוב הקוראים והמתפללים שאינה אלא מצות אנשים מלומדה גם בחכמי הגמרא היו אומרין כן מחזיקנא טיבותא לרישאי כי מטינא למודים כרע מנפשיה ואידך אמר דהוה מני דיומסין בגו צלותא ואידך אמר דחשיב מאן ממטי אסא לבי מלכא עכ''ל: 

I think the Rambam's אינו רשאי is because it is excusable if it happens - we are obviously not malochim, and אין אדם נצול ממנו בכל יום.  It is another thing to uncaringly invite it to happen. 

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

note 1:

R Anonymous sent this from the Maor VaShemesh - how interesting!

"והנה יקשה לדרשת הגמ' על מלת דמשק שדולה ומשקה מתורת רבו לאחרים א"כ לאיזה ענין הזכיר אברהם אבינו בהתנצלותו לפני הש"י ובן משק ביתי הוא דמשק אליעזר כי לפי דרשת הגמרא הוא דברי שבח לאליעזר והי' די באמרו מה תתן לי ובן משק ביתי הוא יורש אותי ע"כ נראה שדברי חכמז"ל בגמרא הנ"ל רמזו לנו על ענין אחר שצריך לידע ולהודיע לבני אדם המחברים את עצמם לצדיקים שלא ילמדו את עצמם לעשות כתנועותיהם והנהגותיהם כמצות אנשים מלומדה היינו מפני שהצדיק הוא עושה כך יעשה הוא ג"כ כמוהו כי זה הוא לא טוב מאוד רק שילמד לעשות כפי שכלו באמת לאמתו לעבוד את הש"י בלב נכון. וזה הוא שאמר א"א ובן משק ביתי הוא דמשק אליעזר שדולה ומשקה מתורת רבו לאחרים פי' שדולה ומשקה שלומד אותם לעשות מצות אנשים מלומדה לעשות מה שרבו עושה וזה לא טוב והשיב לו הש"י לא ירשך זה כי אם אשר יצא ממעיך כו'"

The next part there demonstrates how the stars were an sign that each of Avraham Avinu's descendants would be disparate, would be their own men, and not only reflections of their Avos.

note 2:

Harav Dr Nachum Stone sent me this perfect Torah Temima on Friday's Tov Me'od.

ובמ"ר כאן (ב"ר ט , ה) איתא והנה טוב מאד זה המות, ותמהו רבים איך שייך לכנות את המות בשם טוב, ולי קשה עוד מאי שייכות דבר זה בגמר מעשה בראשית.

ונראה בכונת הענין, דאין הכונה על מיתת האדם לבד אלא גם בכלל על הפסד ואבדן כל דבר מהנמצא בעולם, הן בעלי חיים והן דומם וצומח, יען דכל מין כליה כלול בשם מיתה וכמו שאמרו בבבא קמא נד ע"א בשבירת כלים "שבירתן זו היא מיתתן".

והביאור הוא, כי לולא היה כל דבר נפסד וכלה בעולם אזי לא הגיעו בני האדם לתכלית השלמות, יען כי מכיון שכל דבר היה מתקיים לנצח לא היו משתדלים להמציא הדבר מחדש ולמצוא בו את השלמות הנמצא, ובהיות כן הנה כל דבר חדוש שאנו רואים בעולם נובע מסבת אבדן והפסד הדבר הקודם לו, ולכן כל דור ודור משלים כחות הבריאה ויסודי הטבע שקבע והטביע הקדוש ברוך הוא בששת ימי הבריאה.

וזה הוא שאמר בסוף גמר הבריאה וירא אלהים כי טוב מאד זה המות, כלומר, האבדן וההפסד שבא לעולם הוא גורם עוד להתחדשות והשתלמות הבריאה היסודית, וזה באמת טוב מאד, וגם שייך הענין בגמר הבריאה בששת ימי בראשית, ודו"ק.

note 3:

I do not understand what Rebbi Eliezer means to say with his unique quality of ולא אמרתי דבר שלא שמעתי מפי רבי מעולם in Sukkah 28b. Why would that be praiseworthy? Does this contradict what we are saying here? Passing over the coincidence that Rebbi Eliezer had the same name as Eved Avraham, it deserves mention that, as the Chidah in his Simchas Haregeal points out, the Ramban by Tanur Achnai in BM 59b says that they did not pasken like Rebbi Eliezer because they said מפי השמועה and he always said כך נראה בעיני!!! The Achronim ask, how could it be that this very Rebbi Eliezer could say these diametrically opposite things? The Chavos Yair says that he never paskened something that he didn't hear, but this was shakla v'taria. Very difficult, because on shakla v'taria you don't become a zaken mamrei.  See Ben Yehoyada in Sukkah.

Here is the Ramban in BM 59b.

שכיון שלא רצה לחזור ואמר חרוב זה ואמת המים וכותלי בית המדרש ומן השמים יוכיחו מחזי להו כאפקרותא שהיה מחזיק במחלוקת יותר מדאי לפיכך ברכוהו שהם היו אומרים מפי השמועה והוא אומר כך היא בעיני לפיכך לא קבלו ממנו כל ראיות שבעולם ואלו הורה למעשה בזמן הבית היה נעשה זקן ממרא לפיכך החמירו עליו וברכוהו:

My guess is that he did not pasken against them. He just said that they are wrong, so it would be a safek, so they could not burn truma. I am not sure that would qualify for being put in cherem or being a zaken mamrei.

note stam:

I said in the beginning that some people strongly disagree with much that appears here. "Some people" includes my father in law, Harav Reuven Feinstein, and one of my sons in law, Harav Avram Lawrence.

Lech Lecha, Breishis 14:19, Konei Shamayim Va'aretz

 There are several words in davening that we assume are being used in their usual sense, but actually they mean something else in davening.   For example, in Birkos Krias shma, פינות צבאיו קדושים. What are these Pinos? Corners? In Musaf on Shabbos, ציויתה פירושיה עם סידורי נסכיה. What are these Nesachim that are specific to Shabbos? The nesachim that come with Korbanos are not associated with Shabbos in particular.  What is the "סוד" of סוד שיח/שיח סוד in kedusha in musaf? I was reminded of this when, in this week's parsha, Malkitzedek met Avraham Avinu.

וַֽיְבָרְכֵ֖הוּ וַיֹּאמַ֑ר בָּר֤וּךְ אַבְרָם֙ לְאֵ֣ל עֶלְי֔וֹן קֹנֵ֖ה שָׁמַ֥יִם וָאָֽרֶץ׃

Avraham repeated these words in passuk 22, and this is the nusach we use in Shmoneh Esrei, וקונה הכל. What is this kinyan?

Pashut pshat, Rashi says that קונה is a synonym for "creator," "Who created." So in Shmoneh Esrei, וקונה הכל means "Who created all."  Some Rishonim explain it means "Who possesses."  

(It is important to realize that discussion among the Rishonim certainly was a discussion among the Tanaim and Amoraim:  For example, remember the Gemara in Rosh Hashanna 31a:

תניא רבי יהודה אומר משום ר"ע בראשון מה היו אומרים לה' הארץ ומלואה על שם שקנה והקנה ושליט בעולמו)

This  association of creating and owning is reminiscent of what the achronim say on the sugya of אומן קונה בשבח כלי - that there is no greater kinyan than having created something. This is not like the Ketzos in 306, who holds that אומן קונה בשבח כלי is just a shibud, but other achronim learn that it is a kinyan gamur. So much so it leads to the Pnei Yehoshua's question that how can a קטן write a גט or make מצה, even if גדול עומד על גבו? If אומן קונה בשבח כלי  he will automatically become the baalim of the get or the matza, and he can't be makneh, so the גט or the מצה will be passul mideoraysa. Obviously, the Pnei Yehoshua holds that it is a kinyan gamur and not just a zeitigeh shibud.

And even if you say like the Ketzos, I think that might be true where you are improving existing objects. But when you create something entirely new, something with a totally new איכות,  maybe the Ketzos would agree that the biggest possible kinyan is יצירה. 

The Brisker Rov uses this to explain why, in Shemos 31:2, on the passuk ראה קראתי בשם בצלאל בן אורי בן חור למטה יהודה  the Gemara in San 69b tells us that he was 13. We would say that the point is that he couldn't possibly have acquired such skills on his own and that his skills were clearly a divine gift. But the Brisker Rov explains (see, for example, Shai LaTorah I 166)

 דכיון דבכלל הוא ש"אומן קונה בשבח כלי" ועל כן היה צריך בצלאל למוסרו אח"כ לציבור, ואם היה בצלאל קטן לא היה יכול למוסרו לציבור.

Having said all this, I think that the best evidence of the meaning of the word קונה in this context, is what Chava said when she gave birth to Kayin.  Breishis 4:4

וְהָ֣אָדָ֔ם יָדַ֖ע אֶת חַוָּ֣ה אִשְׁתּ֑וֹ וַתַּ֙הַר֙ וַתֵּ֣לֶד אֶת קַ֔יִן וַתֹּ֕אמֶר קָנִ֥יתִי אִ֖ישׁ אֶת ה'.

What does Kanisi mean? Does it mean she owned him? No. It can not mean anything other than "I have created a man, together with the Ribono shel Olam."  Why the meforshei haTorah by Avimelech brings rayos from all over Tanach and Mishnayos, but do not bring this raya from the first time the word Kinyan appears, back in the beginning of Parshas Breishis, I do not know, and I suspect that someone is going to explain to me why I am completely off the track, because the if it were a raya, it would be the first thing the Rishonim bring. Fool's paradise it may be, but for the moment I think it is an excellent and clear proof. 

If I were working on Sheva Brachos Torah, I would point out that someone, whoever wrote בורא עולם בקנין השלם זה הבנין, (first mentioned by Rabbeinu Nissim Gaon,) was thinking about the interplay of קנין and בריאה,  but I'll leave that to others.

Note regarding the words in the first paragraph:

פינות צבאיו  means "the great ones of His hosts." Based on שמואל א', י"ד ל"ח, according to the Rokeach.

סידורי נסכיה refers (אבודרהם) to the Lechem Hapanim, and פירושיה, most people say it means the numerous הלכות למשה מסיני -not a very good pshat- but here's the Aruch Hashulchan in 286:2 who says an interesting pshat, whether you accept it or not.

'צוית פירושיה עם סידורי נסכיה' - והוא על פרשה 'צו את בני ישראל', ששם מפורש קרבן שבת, 'צוית קרבנותיה' - המפורשים בה, 'עם סידורי נסכיה' - הם שש מערכות של לחם הפנים, ותרגומו שית סידרין, ונסכיה מלשון 'קשות הנסך' (ב"י). ויותר היה נראה לומר 'פירושיה' בשין שמאלית, לשון 'ויפרוש את האהל על המשכן', וכן כאן פרישת לחם הפנים על השלחן, עם סידורי נסכיה - הם הבזיכין, שהם קשות הנסך.

סוד in סוד שיח is not a secret, it just means "council." Please pay attention - council, not counsel.  See Tehillim 55:15 אשר יחדיו נמתיק סוד, Yirmiahu 15:17 לא ישבתי בסוד משחקים, and Breishis 49:6, בסודם על תבוא נפשי. I would guess that Nusach Ashkenaz made it סוד שיח instead of שיח סוד שרפי קודש in order to imply a secondary connotation of enigmatic or inscrutable, but the pashut pshat is council.

Lech Lecha. Eilu v.....

Rabbi Chaim Brown revealed to me the following. I have nothing to say other than to just record it here.  (Although I'm told that a  book was once printed on which it was the Noda Be'yehuda.)
This is from the Chidushei HaRim al haTorah in Lech Lecha.

בארות בארות חמר כו' פרש"י ז"ל שהי' אנשים שלא האמינו בהצלת אברהם מאור כשדים ועתה האמינו למפרע ע"ש והרמב"ן תמה כי אדרבה להיפוך כיון שראו שגם למלך סדום נעשה נס בזה א"כ נחלש אמונה של הצלת ד' באברהם ע"ש ובאמת פי' כי קודם הצלת מלך סדום לא הי' נקרא אמונה כלל אף מי שהאמין מאחר שהי' נס נגלה ומפורסים ומי יכחיש הנראה ואין זה אמונה רק אחר הצלת מלך סדום שהי' מקום לומר שלא הי' מהשי"ת עבור מס"נ כיון שגם למלך סדום הי' זה הנס וכיון שהי' הבחירה מי שהאמין נקרא אמונה כנ"ל וזה שכ' האמינו באברהם למפרע ואומרים העולם שכשירד הבעש"ט לעולם הי' רעש גדול שיהי' נגלה יותר מדאי עבודת השי"ת וירד למדן אחד כנגדו והבוחר יבחר:

Lech Lecha and Vayeira

We're all familiar with Chazal's dictum that Hachnassas Orchim is bigger than receiving the Shechina. Rashi brings it down, of course, in the beginning of Vayeira, where Avram asked Hashem's leave to run after the passing travelers.

Rav Shach points out that we find exactly this concept earlier, in Parchas Lech Lecha. Rashi says (13:14) that only after Lot left did Hashem once again speak to Avram. Avram must have realized why his level of Ruach Hakodesh diminished when he took Lot in, but this did not stop him from doing that chesed, from finding someone else, such as Nachor, to take him in. Why? Because taking care of a person that needs your help is bigger than hakbalas Pnei haShechina.

The lesson is that while nevuah and kabalas pnei Shechina is unimaginably great, it is even greater to behave as the Ribono shel Olam behaves, vehalachta bidrachav, mah Hu Rachum.... It is greater to incorporate into yourself Hashem's middos than to speak to the Ribono shel Olam.

I found this in the Tallelei Oros in Lech Lecha. I'm copying it verbatim because it's not his, it's from Rav Shach, so there is no intellectual property issue.

יג יד  וה' אמר אל אברם אחרי הפרד לוט מעמו 

רש"י - כל זמן שהרשע עמו היה הדיבור פורש ממנו

כמה נפלא הדבר למתבונן היטב שהנה אברהם הרי בודאי היה יודע דעת התורה שהמתחבר לרשע הקב"ה פורש ממנו ואפילו הכי היה הולך עם לוט ולא אמר כלום אף שבכך מנע מעצמו השראת השכינה עליו והרחיק מעצמו את המעלה הזו שכן בשעה שהקב"ה מדבר עם האדם מה גדולה ונעלית היא אז מדרגתו של האדם ואעפי"כ לא חש אברהם על זה ודבק עם לוט ועשה חסד אתו 

וזהו מה שאמרו חז"ל (שבת קכ ע"א) גדולה הכנסת אורחים יותר מקבלת פני שכינה ולמדו זאת ממש"כ בריש וירא שאמר הקב"ה לאברהם אל נא תעבור מעל עבדך שאף שעל ידי דיבורו עם הקב"ה הרי עולה למדרגה גבוהה גבוהה מכל משוס לא חש לזה כלל שגדולה הכנסת אורחים 

וזהו הטעם שלא חש על מה שפרש ממנו הקדוש ברוך הוא בדבר שדבק בלוט בן אחיו 

אמנם אח"כ כשנעשתה מריבה בין רועי לוט לרועי אברהם ויוכל להיות שיגרם היזק ופגיעה על ידי איזה אופן שיהיה אז אמר אברהם הפרד נא מעלי 

וזהו מה שאמרו חז"ל (סוטה י ע"א)  תורה תחילתה גמילות חסדים, כי הם דברים העומדים ברומו של עולם ויש להשתדל ולחוש לאהבת אחים ורעים ואנשים אורחים אף שהיה נדמה לו כערביים יעו"ש בפרש"י ריש וירא מה נפלא הדבר 

מרשימות מרן הגרא"מ שך שליט"א מכו"מ ד' ש"פ 

Lech Lecha, Bereishis 16:5, Vayeira 18:12. Praying for Miracles

The Gemara in Brachos (60a) seems to say that it is a waste of time to pray that a miracle happen; it is a Tefillas Shav.  The word Shav appears in the Aseres Hadibros, where it means taking Hashem's name in vain- i.e., for nothing.

On the basis of this Gemara, the Steipler is quoted as having said that once doctors have determined that by the laws of nature, בדרך הטבע, the patient cannot live, then it is wrong- assur- to daven that he recover.

בספר 'ארחות רבינו' (ח"א ע' של"ה) שהסטייפלר זצ"ל הורה על חולה שאין תרופה למחלתו על פי דרך הטבע, שאסור להתפלל על נס, שהוא כמי שמתפלל על תחית המתים, או כמי שמתפלל על קטוע אבר שיצמח לו אבר אחר

I also saw an article quoting a highly regarded Rosh Yeshiva in Otniel to the same effect- considering the similarity in expression, I assume he was thinking of what the Steipler said:

רב היישוב עתניאל, הרב רא"ם הכהן, פסק כי אסור להתפלל לרפואת חולה שנמצא במצב של מוות מוחי. הרב, שנחשב לבעל השפעה בציבור הדתי, נימק את הפסיקה בכך שמדובר ב"תפילת שווא" - כלומר כזו שאינה יכולה להתקיים בדרך הטבע.

בתשובה שפרסם בעלון "שבת בשבתו", המופץ בבתי הכנסת, הסביר: "האפשרות שהמוח ישוב לתפקד אינה קיימת,

ממש כשם שאיבר חדש לא יכול לצמוח".

There is a great deal to say about this.  Besides the body of one hundred twenty one comments on the ynet site, which comprises an extraordinary compendium of ignoramuses, psychotics, mechutzafim, the willfully blind, and a few reasonably well-informed readers, I had been planning to discuss this issue- whether one may daven for the miraculous recovery of a person that בדרך הטבע is sure to die.  For example, there is the Sforno in this week's parsha (18:12) that says 

ותצחק שרה שחשבה שהיה דבר המלאך ברכת נביא בלבד כענין אלישע לא נבואה ושליחות האל ית'. וחשבה שלא יושג זה בזקנים בברכת שום נביא כי אמנם להשיב הבחרו' אחר הזקנה הרי הוא כתחיית המתים שלא תהיה זולתי במצות האל פרטית או בתפלה משגת חן מאתו:

Note that the Sforno is saying that while it would be a joke to think that a bracha can change the teva, tefilla does have that power.

Other mekoros that I'll discuss if I have a chance:   רמ"א , בכור שור, ישועות יעקב, נפש חיה in OC 187:4 and 682:4 from the Kolbo, Mahrsh"a in Kiddushin 29b, נפש החיים ג' י"ב, רוח חיים ב' ד, רבנו בחיי, and others, all of whom say things that are worth hearing.

But several articles that I recently read motivated me to post this before I was ready to discuss the mekoros in the Gemara, Rishonim, and Achronim.  

First, there was an article that wrote that despite diagnoses of brain death, certain new tests can reveal unexpected brain activity.

But I assumed that the use of the term brain death was just sloppy reporting, because when brain death is diagnosed, there is nothing left- no hope, no improvement, no life, only inexorable and ghastly deterioration.

But then I saw this, where on a nationally televised reality show in Denmark, parents of a brain dead woman were encouraged to turn off the respirator so that the doctors could harvest the vital organs and give them to patients that had a chance to live.  And when the respirator was turned off, sholom aleichem, the patient not only didn't stop breathing and die, but she slowly improved to the point that there is a real possibility of a full recovery.

Later, this one joined the ranks.

So I don't know whether one should be mispallel for a person that cannot live על פי דרך הטבע.  There most certainly are cases where it is absolutely clear that the patient is not decaying only because of extreme intervention, and we'll bli neder discuss the issues about davening for a miracle.  But I do know that in other cases where a diagnosis of brain death has been made, tefilla might still be appropriate according to everyone, because one of the following three possibilities might pertain:

Possibility One:   Misdiagnosis due to human error.  This is not necessarily indicative of murderous indifference.  Remember this?  That's why in the beginning of Bava Kamma, Adam is called Mav'eh, and why a mumcheh l'beis din is pattur.  Even the greatest of us needs to be mispallel that we don't err.

Possibility Two:   Misdiagnosis due to incompetence or negligence.

Possibility Three: Intentional misstatement of fact because someone decided that the patient, even if he survived, would not have much quality of life, and the people who need the transplant would live and flourish, so in the balance, it's worth taking harvesting the organs even if it is a little premature.

Lech Lecha, Breishis 14:12-14. Og and Ulterior Motives.

Rav Meir Bergman, in his Shaarei Orah on Parshas Devarim, has an interesting discussion about Og's interaction with Avraham Avinu.  It's not mine, but it's sharp and new to me.

וַיִּקְחוּ אֶת לוֹט.... וַיָּבֹא הַפָּלִיט וַיַּגֵּד לְאַבְרָם הָעִבְרִי.... וַיִּשְׁמַע אַבְרָם, כִּי נִשְׁבָּה אָחִיו וַיָּרֶק אֶת חֲנִיכָיו יְלִידֵי בֵיתוֹ... וַיִּרְדֹּף עַד דָּן

Lot was captured, and the "Palit" came to tell Avraham what had happened, and when Avraham learned that his nephew had been taken captive, he unleashed his army and routed the captors and saved his nephew.

The Medrash in Parshas Devarim says

ויאמר ה' אל משה אל תירא אותו כי בידך אתננו אין כתיב כאן אלא כי בידך נתתי אותו. אמר הקב"ה כבר פסקתי דינו

מימות אברהם כיצד בשעה שנשבה לוט בן אחיו ובא עוג ובישר את אברהם שנאמר (בראשית יד) ויבא הפליט אמר ר"ל משום בר קפרא פליט היה שמו ולמה נקרא שמו עוג שבא ומצא את אברהם עסוק במצות בעוגות הפסח ולא בא לשם שמים אלא לשם נויה של שרה. אמר בלבו הריני מבשר אותו והגדוד הורגו ונוטל אני את שרה אשתו אמר לו הקב"ה אי רשע כך אמרת חייך שאני נותן לך שכר רגליך ומאריך לך שנים ומה שחשבת בלבך הריני הורג אברהם ונוטל את שרה ביד בני בניה עתיד אותו האיש ליפול.

Hashem told Moshe not to fear Og, the king of the Bashan, because he was long fated to fall to Moshe.  His fate was sealed from the time that he brought the news of Lot's capture to Avraham.  His name was not really Og, it was Palit.  Why was he called Og?  Because when he came to Avraham, he found him busy making Matzos- Ugos- for Pesach.  He did not come with pure motives, but because he was infatuated with Sarah's beauty; he thought, I will tell Avraham about his nephew, Avraham will rashly confront the captors, and he'll be killed, and I will take Sarah!  Hashem said, Ay, you piece of filth, that's what you think?  I will pay you for having told Avraham about Lot; you will live a long life; and you will long enough to be killed by the descendants of the woman you wanted to steal from her husband.

Why is it so important to know that Avraham was baking matza when Og came?  And even if we need to know that, perhaps so we should know that Avraham Avinu kept a form of Pesach, why did this pertain to Og to the extent that the Torah refers to him forever after as Og, in commemoration of the matzos/ugos?

Antibody or DNA testing can determine the presence or absence of yeast in baked products.  A laboratory can determine with absolute certainty that a given baked item was totally unleavened.  A perfect, beautiful Matza that was baked for general use and was later determined to be totally unleavened can not be used for the Mitzva of Matza.  The halacha of Shimur is that the harvest and the milling and the kneading and the baking must be supervised with the intention of avoiding leavening so it can be used for the Mitzva of Matza.  Without this specific intent, you certainly could use it on Pesach, but you would not be yotzei the mitzva.

When Og came to Avraham with his evil plan,he found Avraham baking Matza.  Matza is the archetype of proper intent; without the proper intent, matza is just a flat piece of bread.  If intent matters in a simple thing like a matza, how much more so in something so deeply powerful and beautiful, in a matter of life and death, good intent can make it even more meaningful, and bad intent can pervert and degrade the entire effect.  Og could have learned the lesson of the Ugos.  Unfortunately for him, he did not.  He is like B'tzeikos shel Nachrim (Pesachim 40a), an example of lost potential for greatness.  He was not a Matza, he was a Bulkeh.  Bulkeh, the King of the Bashan.

Lech Lecha. Journeys and Odysseys. Drasha for Sheva Brachos (#7)

My wife and I just got back from Memphis, where we attended the wedding of a young man with whom our family has been very close.  We drove there from Chicago, and that gave us the autonomy of deciding when to leave, and we chose to stay a second day.  We were graciously invited by the eponymous culinary genius of Ricki's Cookie Korner to attend a Sheva Brachos she and her husband hosted that evening.  Although I hadn't been asked to speak, my wife strongly suggested that I do so.  She felt that because of our long and close relationship with the Chasan, it was important that I say something good and true about him.  We stayed at the Peabody hotel, and while the history and ambiance were memorable, the sofa in the room wasn't particularly comfortable, and the options I faced were simple: speech, or sofa.

The morning after I delivered the speech, I was passing by an antiquities and collectibles store in the hotel lobby, the Samuel Nathan Gallery.  As it happens, the owner, Ezra, is from Flatbush, and, smart businessman that he is, he blew a shofar as I walked by.  It worked as he intended, like a moose call, and I went in to see who would be blowing a shofar in Memphis on a November morning.  Ezra, who penetrated what I thought was a good disguise, perceived that I was some sort of rabbi, and asked me the question that I had addressed at the Sheva Brachos the night before.  He sincerely thanked me for my explanation, and then, of course, sold me some tzatzkes.  I thought that the coincidence implied that the message might be meaningful to someone, so I'm posting it.

Sometimes, a young man and woman go out for the first time in their lives, and they decide to get married.  What a mazal bracha, what a gift from the Ribono shel Olam that can be!  That is exactly what did not happen to his couple.  Both the Chassan and the Kallah had their share of heartbreak and distress over the years.  When they finally did meet, a few years ago, each knew that there was something special and unique here, but hope was defeated by anxiety and fear, and nothing came of it.  Everyone around them told them that they needed to get together again, and finally, good sense and good mazal triumphed and they did get back together and are now married.

This reminded me of a stylistic distinction between the words 'journey' and 'odyssey'.  (This distinction is maintained in the New York Times, but is not found in general dictionaries.)  A journey is simply a trip from point A to point B.  An odyssey is a long and difficult journey that ultimately brings the traveler back home.  The Maharal says that Ray'ah means close friend, but is most used to mean spouse.  He explains that while the standard etymology of Ray'ah does mean friend, it also alludes to the idea of the Tru'ah by Tekias Shofar, the broken sound.  A spouse is more than a close friend.  A spouse is a Ray'ah, a piece of the other person.  They are two segments of one fundamental unit, the re-created Tzelem Elokim of the original form of Adam Harishon that exists only in a marriage.  A long, long time ago, two souls were made one.   שמח תשמח ריעים האהובים, rejoice, you two rejoined parts of a unitary soul, as you existed in Gan Eden.  You have finally found what was missing from your life, and your teru'ah has become a song of rejoicing.  Your long travail of seeking was not a journey, it was an odyssey.  You have traveled and traveled, and now you have come home.

This highlights a strange thing we find in our Parsha about journeys and destinations.  Hashem told Avraham Lech lecha, go to the land I will show you.  Why didn't Hashem tell Avraham where he was going?  Why did Hashem only tell him to go to the place He would name later?  The answer is that Avraham was being taught a lesson.  He was being taught that, as Ezra from the Samuel Nathan's gallery later phrased it, a Jew must know that he must never become part of the landscape.  People fool themselves into thinking that life is about destinations, and that everything else is just a way of getting there.  Hashem taught Avraham Avinu that this is not true.  The purpose of life is growth and change and experience.  All of life is a journey, and the journey is not merely a unavoidable precursor to a meaningful goal. Hashem put you in a circumstance so you can learn and grow and incorporate the lessons you learn into your identity.  In the Navi Zechariah (3:7), Hashem tells the navi that he is being granted opportunity to grow:  ונתתי לך מהלכים בין העומדים האלה  I will give you a path among these that are standing.  Man is called a  הולך, a walker, while malachim, angels, are called עומדים, the stationary ones.  A malach is what he is and he remains as he was created.  Man walks.  לֶךְ לְךָ.  He rises, he falls, but he is never stationary.  אורח חיים למעלה למשכיל  למען סור משאול מטה (Mishlei 15:24, and see Gaon there-  – שבכל דבר שקשור בנפש האדם, אם לא עולים – אז בהכרח יורדים, וכפי שמפרש רש"י על הפסוק: "וַיִּקָּחֻהוּ וַיַּשְׁלִכוּ אֹתוֹ הַבֹּרָה וְהַבּוֹר רֵק אֵין בּוֹ מָיִם" (בראשית לז, כד) – "והבור רק אין בו מים – ממשמע שנאמר והבור רק, איני יודע שאין בו מים, מה תלמוד לומר אין בו מים? מים אין בו, אבל נחשים ועקרבים יש בו".).  Life is all about that change, and a wise man will see every segment of life as a classroom and every step of his travels as a lesson. The Chassan and the Kallah intuitively knew this, and they are different for having experienced what they experienced- stronger, wiser, and better.  They have finally come home, and their journey of discovery and growth continues.  May they use this wisdom and strength to build their Bayis Ne'eman Be'Yisrael.

Lech Lecha, Bereishis 14:24. Military Logistical Support

(There was a previous version of this post that was much more interesting and one hundred percent wrong.  This boring correction will have to do for the moment.)

During the war of the Four Kings against the Five, Avram's nephew, Lot, was taken captive.  Avram gathered an army and went to war with his nephew's captors.  Ultimately, he vanquished the Four Kings and freed Lot, and, tangentially, saved Bera, the king of Sdom, who had fallen into a pit while fleeing the Four Kings.  After the battle was over, Bera offered Avram the spoils of war, which were obviously Avram's by right of conquest.  Avram declined his share, but noted that his refusal to be enriched by the spoils of war did not speak for the men who had joined his army:

הַנְּעָרִים, וְחֵלֶק הָאֲנָשִׁים, אֲשֶׁר הָלְכוּ אִתִּי:  עָנֵר אֶשְׁכֹּל וּמַמְרֵא, הֵם יִקְחוּ חֶלְקָם

the Ne'arim, the Anashim, and 'Aneir, Eshkol, and Mamrei' and that they were entitled to take their share. 

Rashi says that the Ne'arim and the Anashim fought in the battle, but Aneir, Eshkol, and Mamrei did not actually bear arms for Avram.  They only "guarded the possessions" of the combatants.  Even so, Rashi explains, the passuk indicates parity among all their chalakim; Aneir and his friends were entitled to a share equal to that of the actual combatants.  Rashi brings that this lesson was applied by David Hamelech in Shmuel I 30:23-4.

כג ויאמר דוד לא תעשו כן אחי:  את אשר נתן ה' לנו וישמר אתנו ויתן את הגדוד הבא עלינו בידנו.  כד ומי ישמע לכם לדבר הזה  כי כחלק הירד במלחמה וכחלק הישב על הכלים יחדו יחלקו.  

This also teaches us how we should appraise the relative status of those who enable others to learn by supporting and encouraging them, the yosheiv ahl hakeilim.  As John Milton said, "They also serve who only stand and wait."

While I understand this as applied to Reb Akiva's Rachel, I find it difficult to understand in the context of an army.  I would have thought that the persons who exposed themselves to immediate mortal danger and who exerted all possible human effort should be entitled to more.  War in those days was not fought with rifles and computers- it was done hand to hand, with extremely heavy swords and spears, wielded by antagonists who were fighting for their lives.  Yes, analysts and strategists have ten thousand times the effect of  individual soldiers.  But I think that the warriors deserve more recognition and reward than cooks and laundrymen and blacksmiths and the ישב על הכלים. 

The Rambam paskens like this, more or less, in 4 Melachim 9:

  כָּל הֲרוּגֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ, מָמוֹנָן לַמֶּלֶךְ; וְכָל הַמַּמְלָכוֹת שֶׁכּוֹבֵשׁ, הֲרֵי אוֹצְרוֹת הַמְּלָכִים לַמֶּלֶךְ.  וּשְׁאָר הַבִּזָּה שֶׁבּוֹזְזִין--בּוֹזְזִין וְנוֹתְנִין לְפָנָיו, וְהוּא נוֹטֵל מַחֲצִית בָּרֹאשׁ; וּמַחֲצִית הַבִּזָּה, חוֹלְקִין אוֹתָהּ.  כָּל אַנְשֵׁי הַצָּבָא בְּיַחַד עִם הָעָם הַיּוֹשְׁבִין עַל הַכֵּלִים בַּמַּחֲנֶה לְשָׁמְרָהּ, חוֹלְקִין בְּשׁוֹוֶה--שֶׁנֶּאֱמָר "כִּי כְּחֵלֶק הַיֹּרֵד בַּמִּלְחָמָה, וּכְחֵלֶק הַיֹּשֵׁב עַל-הַכֵּלִים--יַחְדָּו יַחֲלֹקוּ"

In Mattos, Bamidbar 31, the Torah describes the war with Midian.  Each Shevet sent out one thousand warriors, a total of 12,000, one fiftieth of the population.  Obviously, besides these twelve thousand there were many more who supported them.  No army in history could fight a war without support-- food, weapons, clothing, horses, people to guard the camp while the army is fighting, and more. I don't know what the ration is in modern armies, but as an uneducated guess, I would say that for every actual combatant, there would have to be at least two people behind the lines focused exclusively on vital support services.  It is not correct to answer that the war against Midian was a matter of an afternoon's work, that it required no infrastructure, because the Tanchuma says there were three thousand from each shevet--  (31:4) "Elef lamateh elef lamateh" means one thousand warriors, one thousand support and supply (like Reb Yishmael in the Sifri as brought in the Baal Haturim), and one thousand for tefilla.  According to Reb Akiva that elef means one thousand, the repetition elef/elef means that shevet Levi also sent one thousand.  But even though Reb Akiva holds that they were not mentioned, he will have to agree that the thousand had support of a yosheiv ahl hakeilim group.

After the war was won, Moshe Rabbeinu told the people that the spoils were to be divided, with half going to the "tofsei hamilchama", those that "held the battle", and half to the rest of the people.  Who are the tofsei milchama?  We will have to say that this includes the support as well as the soldiers.  According to the shittah that elef lamateh was only one thousand, then the phrase tofsei milchama is not the same as chalutzei tzava, because tofsei has to include many more who were yosheiv ahl hakeilim.  Or, possibly, the phrase elef lamateh of chalutzei tzava included the yosheiv ahl hakeilim group and there were only a couple hundred armed warriors from each shevet.  According to Reb Yishmael, Chalutzei Tzava itself includes all the support group, a total of three thousand per shevet.

Lech Lecha, Breishis 17:21, Zechus Avos

The concept of Zechus Avos, the inherited merit of pious ancestors, permeates our mesorah. In this parsha, Hashem tells Avraham (17:21) Ve'es brisi akim es Yitzchak," I will establish my covenant with Yitzchak. In the previous passuk, Hashem says "gam le'Yishma'el shmaticha," and I have heard your entreaties for Yishmael, and I will make him into a great nation. In Pirkei Avos 2:2, it says "Kol ha'ameilim im hatzibur...," all those that lead the community should do their work for the name of heaven, "shezechus avosam mesa'ayasan," for the merit of their fathers will assist them. When Avshalom's rebellion against his father ended in his death, David Hamelech cried for him, saying "My son!" eight times. In Sotah 10b, Chazal tell us that each repetition elevated Avshalom's neshama from one of the seven levels of Gehinom, and the eighth repetition brought him into Olam Haba. In Tefillah, we begin davening by saying Le'olam, in which we say that although we are unworthy, but we are the children of Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov, and it is in their merit that we are able to approach God. The first thing we do in Shmoneh Esrei is invoke Zechus Avos-- "Elokei Avoseinu" and "vezocheir chasdei avos." And see Yoma 87a-- "how lucky are the righteous...not only do they earn reward for themselves, but they also earn reward (zochim) for their children and their children's children, unto the end of all time." Shemos Rabba 44:1-- Klal Yisrael is like a Gefen, a grape vine, that only stands because it is supported by the strength of the wood of the previous years, the Avos. Brachos 27b-- when Raban Gamliel was involuntarily deposed, there was concern that whoever was chosen to replace him would be harmed by Raban Gamliel's anger. Reb Akiva was not chosen, because he lacked zechus avos and was therefore vulnerable. Reb Elazar ben Azariah was chosen, because as a descendant of Ezra and other great tzadikim, his Zechus Avos would protect and assist him. Shabbas 129b (regarding risky medical procedures), and Kiddushin 76b (only men with Zechus Avos were allowed to fight in the Jewish Army), one who has Zechus Avos is protected from dangers that would be fatal to others. And, most fundamentally, in the 13 Middos-- Notzeir Chesed Le'alafim, as the Gemara in Sotah 11a explains. Chesed that is generated by being a faithful servant of Hashem creates zechusim that benefit thousands of generations. How strange and disheartening it is, then to read the Gemara in Shabbas 55a: where Shmuel says "Tama Zechus Avos." The merit of the Forefathers is ended, depleted, the account is empty, there's nothing left there for us. The Gemara then discusses when it was that we emptied the account of the last penny. Maybe it was the time of the destruction of the first temple, maybe earlier. But everyone seems to agree that after the time of Chizkiahu, the account was closed. And then, you turn to Sanhedrin 104b, and you encounter an even more fundamental problem-- "Bra Mezakeh Abba, Abba Lo Mezakeh Bra": a son's merit benefits his father; a father's merits do not benefit his son. The Gemara continues: lo Avraham matzil es Yishma'el, velo Yitzchak matzil es Eisav. Avraham's great righteousness cannot save Yishmael, and Yitzchak's great righteousness cannot save Eisav. Although the merits of a righteous son do benefit his father, a son never benefits from his father's tzidkus. Well, if so, who cares about the Gemara in Shabbas that Tama Zechus Avos? Zechus Avos never would have helped anyway-- Abba lo mezakeh bra! And what do we do with all the examples above that emphasize the power and importance of Zechus Avos, the grace shown to a son because of the tzidkus of his father, and especially, vegam le'Yishmael shematicha? And how do we understand "le'alafim" in the 13 middos? That it's only le'alafim if it sits, unused, in the account, but if one generation uses a lot of it, there's nothing left for their descendants? This makes sense in yarshening financial assets. Does it sound right for the special grace of the Ribono shel Olam that a parent earns for his descendants? In any case, without Zechus Avos, we would feel naked and helpless. Who can say they deserve God's grace, who can say that they deserve even a hearing-- we, ephemeral, mendacious, selfish, and weak? We can only rely on the bountiful spring of Zechus Avos, the zechus of those that Hashem described with love and called His trustworthy servants. Without that, what hope do we have? (To be continued.)

Parshas Lech Lecha: Benefitting from a Neis

Breishis 15:1. After the war with the Arba Melachim, Hashem told Avrohom “al tiroh, anochi magen lecha, s’charcha harbei me’od.” Rashi— have no fear, because the miracle that happened in beating the four melachim did not diminish your zechusim.

See the Netziv’s kashe here and in the footnote: why did Ya’akov later have the same concern when he was miraculously saved, if he knew that Hashem had told Avrahom not to worry about diminished s’char after a hatzalah. More fundamentally, he asks why was Yakov’s schar indeed diminished, while Avraham’s schar was not diminished? (On the topic of M'nakim, see Taynis 20b about menakim lo mi’zechuyosav, and the Gemara on 26b about the boatload of grain that came through a neis that they were told to avoid eating if at all possible. Also, see Mitzpeh Eison Menachos 69, about the wheat that came from the clouds, brings the kashe about how is it muttar to use for menachos, if it’s assur to be neheneh, and there’s a din of mashkeh yisrael? Answers, it’s only assur mimidas chasidus. However, the Sdei Chemed brings from R’ Shlomo Kluger that it’s assur miderabanan gamur.)

The Netziv answers that by Avraham, he never was faced with imminent danger, and the nes was that Hashem kept him from ever coming to that point. But by Yaakov, he did face Lavan, and he was in danger, and a nes in that situation is minakeh from the zechusim.

In Fall of 1999 I asked the family the Netziv’s question, and my Ishah Chashuvah shetichyeh and my son, Moshe sheyichyeh, said excellent terutzim:
The Rebbetzin:
Yaakov was trying to save himself, and his protection derech neis was m’nakeh from his zechusim. Avraham, on the other hand, put himself into danger to save his nephew. This was an act of chessed, and mimeila there was no nikui. Avi Mori (shlita) Zatzal added that this is why it says ‘secharcha harbei me’od’. Not only was there no nikui, but he also received schar for being willing to endanger himself to save another person.
I later saw that the Pardes Yosef 2 page 19 says regarding the rule that M’nakim mizechuyosav in the Gemara in Taynis, that if the neis and its aftermath occur in pursuit of mitzvah there’s no din of menakin, because lav leihonos nitnu, and menakin is only when you are neheneh from the neis. This coincides with the above teretz: Avraham was saved b’derech neis while he was involved in a mitzvoh of piku’ach nefesh of his nephew. Therefore, the benefit he derived is covered under “lahv leihonos nitnah,” and there would be no m’nakim. But in the case of Yaakov, the neis occurred to protect Yaakov from a personal danger, and there was no mitzvoh element involved, so there would be m’nakim.
Moshe:
Avrohom’s life was all nissim, starting with Ur Kasdim, and continuing with the constant presence of malachim at his home, as we see from Hagar’s talk with the malach. Maybe his madreiga of bitochon was greater, and mimeileh his madreiga of hashgocho protis was greater (see above 1:1 from the Malbim), and there was no difference to him between r’tzon Hashem of teva and r’tzon Hashem of nes, as we see in the case of Chanina ben Dosa, who was melumad be’nissim.
I later saw that R Moshe in Kol Rom III later in Vayishlach on Yaakov sending Malochim, Breishis 32:4, says exactly like Moshe.

Yeish lazahav mohtza.

Horav MR told me that he saw a Mahrsha that asks why Chanina ben Dosa did nissim all the time, like the story of shemen veyadlik, or the story of Nachum Ish Gamzu with the house that was about the cave in, all in the twenties in Masecehes Taynis, and answers, like Moshe, that his madreiga of understanding that teva is a neis meant that for him, nissim were no different than what, for the rest of us, is teva. I would like to see the Mahrsha inside. All I saw in the Mahrsha was that when Nachum told them to leave him in the house, he asks, but what about R’ Yanai’s din that it’s assur to put yourself into a makom sakana, shema lo ya’asu lo neis? And he answers that that’s only because “shema yigrom hachet,” and Nachum knew that he was a tzadik gamur and that he didn’t deserve to die the missah chamura of skila. The Mahrsha there does not asks from the second half of R’ Yanai’s din, that a neis is m’ma’eit from a person’s zechusim. Anyway, there is a problem applying this here, because how can we say that Avraham was on a higher madreiga than Yaakov, especially since Yaakov was called the “b’chir ha’avos.” You certainly cannot say it just because it will answer the question— you need additional evidence.