Vayeira. The Emotions and Motivations of the Avos

Someone asked me this week about the relationship between Avraham Avinu and Sara Imeinu.  Educators tell us that there is no such thing as a foolish question.  I think that might be true, but educators will agree that there is such a thing as a fool. A fool is entitled to ask questions, but a fool he remains.

We find the term אהבה used in regard to the Avos several times,  For example,
Avraham/Yitzchak- ויאמר קח נא את בנך את יחידך אשר אהבת את יצחק,
Yitzchak/Rivka- ויקח את רבקה ותהי לו לאשה ויאהבה וינחם יצחק אחרי אמו,
Yaakov/Rachel- ויאהב יעקב את רחל,
and
Yaakov/Yosef- וישראל אהב את יוסף מכל בניו כי בן זקנים הוא לו.
Despite the use of the word, it is absurd to read it as if the word meant to them what it means to us.  Attributing emotions and motivations as we experience them to the Avos is simply wrong.  Just because the same word is used, it does not necessarily mean the same thing, just as we cannot confuse שכל and שכלות (more commonly, סכלות)

Shabbos 112b,

אמר ר' זירא אמר רבא בר זימונא אם ראשונים בני מלאכים אנו בני אנשים ואם ראשונים בני אנשים אנו כחמורים ולא כחמורו של ר' חנינא בן דוסא ושל רבי פנחס בן יאיר אלא כשאר חמורים

Sanhedrin 102b, regarding Menashe, that calling him an equal was a chutzpah. Rav Ashi referred to him as "Chavrin," and he was shown that this was totally inappropriate, that he should have realized that Menasheh was far greater than him in Torah.  Rashi-

אמר למחר נפתח בחברין. נדרוש בחברינו שהיו תלמידי חכמים כמותנו ואין להם חלק לעתיד: א"ל. מנשה בחלום חברך וחברא דאביך אנן. כלומר וכי סבור אתה שנהיה חבירך וחבירי דאבוך:

Another example from Rabbeinu Bachay (Bereishis 29:21.):

ואבואה אליה - ...וידוע שאין הפרש אצל השכל בין אברי המשגל לשאר האברים, כגון הפנים והידים... וכיון שכן היו האבות שכליים כמלאכי השרת, אין לתמוה עליהם בדבר הזה, כי כל כוונתם בהשתמשם בכלי הגוף כדי להמשך אחר השכל, גם האמהות רחל ולאה שהיו מריבות זו עם זו על הפעולה הזאת הטבעית כל דבריהם היו מן המין הזה... לא היתה כונתן רדיפת התאוה חס ושלום, כי אם כוונת המצוה בלבד, כאשר ידעו בנבואה

Same thing with Shammai and Hillel, Reb Zeira and Rav Yirmiah, Abayei and Rava.  Only a naar would say that Shammai was short tempered by nature, and Hillel long suffering.  Shammai and Hillel carefully and objectively chose their ways to serve the Ribono shel Olam, they chose their individual paths to perfection.  One chose the path of Middas HaDin, and the other chose the path of Middas HaRachamim.

Reb Moshe Feinstein rebuked me when I asked him is he was hungry.  He responded that he is never "hungry."  When it is time to eat he eats, and when it is not time to eat, he does not eat.  What I should have asked was "Can I give the Zeideh something to eat?"

So it would be foolish to even discuss a question like "Did Avraham Avinu love his wife Sarah Imeinu."  Can a malach love someone?  Doesn't perfect love for, and fear of, the Ribono shel Olam, mean that any human emotions lose any recognizable meaning?  A malach's experience is so vastly removed from ours that to use the term "love" for that relationship would be like describing a sefer Torah by its weight.  But, you say, perhaps the love of the Avos is for the Tzelem Elokim that every person has within himself!  That is certainly true, but your wife and son don't have more tzelem elokim than the Hottentot in Africa, so the special love is not for the tzelem elokim.

I know that modern writers, in the tradition of the Haskala, talk about emotions, motivation, and analysis, as if we could lie the Avos HaOlam down on a couch and help them with their issues and family dynamics.  To put it mildly, Chazal do not agree.

Vayeira, Bereishis 18:13. Shalom Bayis and Folding the Tallis

Section I

Shalom Bayis is a Good Thing

Sarah laughed when she heard the guest predict that she would have a son.  Hashem rebuked Avraham for Sarah's scoffing, perhaps because Avraham should have inculcated a greater awareness of the possibility of miracles in the members of his household.   Sarah laughed "Could this desiccated body bear a child?  Could my ancient husband possibly father a child?"  According to other medrashim, Sarah actually had miraculously become youthful again on that morning, and this is what she meant- although I have become young again in my old age, my husband is still an old man who cannot father a child.  According to either pshat, when Hashem quoted her as if she had only said "Could my old body bear a child," this was not quite what she had said, and there was some degree of omission or misdirection.

Rashi 18:13 explains that this was intended to preserve the Shalom Bayis, domestic harmony.  Avraham didn't need to hear that Sarah considered him to be an old man who was incapable of fathering a child.

In 18:9, we are told that the Malachim asked Avraham where his wife was, an odd question in that cloistered society. ויאמרו אליו איה שרה אשתך ויאמר הנה באהל.  Rashi says, הנה באהל: צנועה היא.  Reb Chaim Shmuelevitz explains that their reason for asking was because they wanted to reinforce Avraham Avinu's awareness of Sarah's refinement and modesty.  They were the greatest tzadikim in history, he knew her- his niece- from the day she was born, and they had long since passed their golden anniversary, and אעפ"כ the Ribono shel Olam knew it was important that Avraham Avinu be reminded of what a treasure he had.  No matter what stage the relationship is in, Shalom Bayis needs to be nurtured and reinforced.

Similarly, the Radak in 21:11 says

 כי אף על פי שהיה בן האמה, בנו היה, והיה אוהב אותו, כי היה בכורו והיה מרחם עליו כְּרַחֵם אָב עַל-בָּנִים (תהלים ק"ג יג), ובדרך טובה היה הולך כי הוא גדל עמו ולמדהו דרך ה', כי אפילו לאחרים היה מלמד ומדריך בדרך טובה כל שכן לבנו, והיה רע בעיניו לגרשו מביתו, ולא גער באשתו מפני שלום בית כמו שכתבנו בדבר הגר והיה מצטער על הדבר והיה סובל מריבת 

אשתו עד שבא אליו הדבור".

the point being that when Sarah angrily told Avraham to expel Hagar and Yishmael, Avraham was terribly aggrieved, because he loved Yishmael.  Despite his unhappiness at Sarah's harsh behavior, he did not chastise her, but instead tolerated her behavior silently, so as to preserve the peace in the home.

So we can agree that Shalom Bayis is a good thing.  I am pleased that it makes an appearance in this week's parsha, because it allows me to talk about the minhag of folding the Tallis right after Shabbos.

Section II

Some Men Do Not Fold Their Talleisim on Shabbos

Many men do not fold their Tallis on Shabbos, or if they do, they don't fold it on the lines it is properly folded on.  This is based on the Mishna in Shabbos 113a, as brought in OC 302:3.  Even though most poskim don't consider it Tikun Kli any more (KolBo), many are still machmir either because it is hachanah, preparing for something that won't occur until after Shabbos, or melaben, that you might see a spot and rub it off.  (For a strongly expressed opinion that we must be machmir,here and here are Harav Greenblatt's teshuvos.)  The Mishna Berura (302:19) says that although one may fold a Tallis not on its original creases, (and by the way, this is not specific to Talleisim; if you're machmir by your tallis, you shouldn't fold your pants at night either.  In fact many aren't machmir at all and do fold their talleisim and their pants at night in the normal manner.) it is praiseworthy to not fold it at all until Shabbos is over.

If you are not folding it on its regular creases, it stands to reason that you will have to refold it later on the original creases, or the new way of folding will become the real creases.  So the Maharsham (Daas Torah 302:3) says that he should re-fold it correctly after Shabbos.  Others say that is not necessary, because you can switch from one fold each week, or just not fold it on the original creases.  In any case, many of us wait until after Shabbos to fold our Talleisim.  

Section III

There is a Well Known Segula For Shalom Bayis to Fold the Tallis Right After Shabbos.

I think that it is almost universally known that a man should fold his tallis right away after Shabbos because it is a Segula for שלום בית.  I have been told that some women make it absolutely clear to their husbands that they better not do a thing until they have folded their Talleisim.  Because it is a segula for Shalom Bayis.

Where does this come from?  It is so well known and observed, it must be a Medrash somewhere, or a Zohar, or from the Ari Za'l, right?

Section IV  

The Reason for This Minhag is Not the Reason Everyone Thinks It Is.

Nope.  It's in the Taamei Haminhagim, and nowhere else.  It just had a mazal of becoming popular.  But that does not mean that the minhag only comes from there.  It is only the explanation of the minhag that comes from there.  The minhag itself does have a serious provenance and is brought by the poskim, but based on a totally different reason.  It's like Gresham's law applied to the reasons for minhagim.

The Magen Avraham (OC 300) says the following:
   מהרי"ל היה לו טלית של שבת והיה קופלו בכל מוצאי שבת כדי להתעסק במצוה מיד עכ"ל וכן היו עושין אנשי ציפורי
The Maharil had a Tallis for Shabbos and he folded it every Motzei Shabbos in order to immediately be involved in a Mitzva.  So, too, says the Magen Avraham, the men of Tzipori did.

I found three points of interest here.
1.  That the Maharil had a special Tallis for Shabbos.
2.  That he folded it immediately after Shabbos because he wanted to do a Mitzva right away.
3.  That this is how the Magen Avraham learned pshat in the minhag of the people of Tzipori as brought in Brachos 53.

Point 1 is a general mussar haskeil, that it is meritorious to have a special garment that you wear only on Shabbos.  I guess it's based on Shabbos 113 וכבדתו", שלא יהא מלבושך של שבת כמלבושך של חול".

Section V

In Fact, Several Commentators Have Been Less Than Complimentary Regarding the Alleged Reason

Point 2 shows us the true source of the minhag- like our minhag to fix something in the Sukkah right after Yom Kippur.  How Shalom Bayis got involved is anyone's guess, but that reason has no makor other than the Taamei Haminhagim.  I particularly liked this reaction to that explanation- והבל יפצה פיהם, which is a way of saying that he respectfully disagrees with the reason proposed by the the Taamei Haminhagim.  The one he is quoting as objurgating the T'H is here.  So it turns out that the minhag actually has nothing to do with Shalom Bayis, and therefore has nothing to do with the parsha, but I had to put this somewhere.  Also, I like the Otzar's choice of words.  Maybe he was being complimentary when he called it Havolim.
This also illustrates the danger of berating something that sounds foolish, because you never know what can turn up in a dark corner that might make you regret saying it, such as this, which places the minhag in a whole different schema.
Also, please realize that the person who used that expression is someone I know nothing about: only that he was born in Kovneh, ended up in Pittsburgh, and printed his sefer in 1918.  And here's his picture.  You'll have to scroll up a little to see it.  He does, however, have a haskama from Reb Yitzchok Elchonon, and a more hearty haskama from Reb Leibele Chosid of Kelm, רב לייבעלע חסיד, who was close to my mother's mother's family and used to eat the cheese made at my mother's mother's family's house, but had nothing to do with the Kelmer Talmud Torah, but I know nothing more about him..  So while I'm sure he was a nice man, this Rabbi Hirschowitz Ish Kovneh of Pittsburgh 1918, he's not necessarily ואליו תשמעון.

Point 3 is particularly interesting.  I heard that Rav Eliashiv, in the new sefer on Brachos, says an excellent pshat based on this Magen Avraham.  The Gemara in Brachos 53a says 

אמר רבי יוחנן המהלך בערבי שבתות בטבריא ובמוצאי שבתות בצפורי והריח ריח אינו מברך מפני שחזקתו אינו עשוי אלא לגמר בו את הכלים

and Rashi explains that 

בטבריא. היו רגילים לגמר ערבי שבתות ובצפורי במו"ש

that in Tveria they used to perfume their clothes before Shabbos began, and in Tzipori, after Shabbos.  One would assume that the minhag of Tveria is kavod Shabbos, and the minhag of Tzipori is like what we do with Besamim by Havdala, and indeed this is how Rabbeinu Yona learned the Gemara there (in the pages of the Rif 39b).  But Rav Eliashiv explains that we see that the Magen Avraham understood the minhag of Tzipori as being a way of being mechabeid Shabbos- not like the mitzva of besamim by havdala, which is for the neshama yeseira, but rather because you're putting away your Shabbos Tallis, and you want to ensure that next week when you wear it for Shabbos, it will be fragrant.  So they had the minhag to prepare the clothing immediately after Shabbos ended- precisely the idea of the Maharil.  The difference between the Anshei Tveria and the Anshei Tzippori is whether it is more Kavod Shabbos to do it right before Shabbos begins, or as soon as the previous Shabbos ended.
The Yaavetz in his Siddur in the Seder Motz'Sh 11 also says like the Magen Avraham, that it was preparation/kavod for the coming Shabbos.

Section VI

Something That Works Better Than a Segula

Eli sent me a link to the introduction of a sefer called טיב החסד (published two years ago by R' Gamliel Rabinowitz/Rappaport, associated with ישיבת שער השמים),  in which he tells us a story about the Satmerer Rov's reaction to the Shalom Bayis explanation of the minhag:

הרה"ק מסאטמר זצוק"ל שמע פעם מאחד הרבנים שמדקדק לקפל הטלית מיד במוצאי שבת קודש, שמקובל לסגולה לשלום בית. ענה לו רבי יואלש בחן פקחותו, כמה שהסגולה עוזרת איני יודע. אבל אם מיד במוצאי שבת תקפל גם השרוולים ותיגש לעזור בעבודת הבית זה בוודאי יעזור

that he's not sure how much the segula (of folding the tallis right after Shabbos is to bring Shalom Bayis) helps.  But if right after Shabbos someone would fold up his sleeves and get to work helping to put the house in order, that for sure would help.

Section VII

The Big Mussar Haskeil

Minhagei Yisrael are Kodesh Kodoshim.  The Reasons Advanced for Some Minhagim, not so much.  but I liked this anonymous comment:

November 2, 2012 at 3:30 PMYou made it clear that the origin for folding one's tallis Motzei Shabbos is not connected to a segula for Shalom Bayis. That does not mean it is not connected now. A man with a wife who believes that folding the tallis is a segulah for Shalom Bayis better fold his tallis or there won't be Shalom Bayis. You wrote not that long ago, there is no reason why the Shabbos Licht must be lit before the husband comes back from Shul Friday evening (related to davening at plag) but that your own Eishes Chayil insists on it. What's the advantage in arguing?

Section VIII

Post Script

I mentioned R' Leib Chosid above, and said I didn't know much about him, other than my mother's mother's family being close with him.  I did a search and found this article:

A very rare and original Kelme type was Rebbe Leib Tsigler, famous as “Rebbe Leib Hasid.” He was in fact only a small, slim little Jew, but he possessed a very great mind with a very warm Jewish heart. His spiritual, illuminated face always had a smile. And his good eyes looked with love on everyone. Together with his extraordinary goodness, his boundless piousness was literally limitless. He spent entire days and nights in Torah and worship.
His father was a simple Jew, who had a mill in Virpyan [Verpena], a village near Kelme, and Rebbe Leib, in his early youth, had to bear the yoke of earning money and helping his father in his difficult work. Understand that under such circumstances, the child Leib did not have the opportunity to devote himself to Torah study. Once married, however, he gave up his work in the mill and began to study Torah and ethics with great diligence and in a very short time he reached a high level of learning. He studied Torah for the love of it. Even then, when he was already famous as a great scholar and well-versed in the Talmud and post-Talmudic commentaries, he remained a simple Kelmer resident.
He was a rare modest person. When someone called him “rebbe,” he protested and thoughtfully said: “My name is Leib Tsigler and I am not a rabbi.” When Kelme Jews actually did call him “rebbe” and honored him in shul with tributes appropriate to a rabbi, he completely stopped going to shul, with the exceptions of rosh hashanah and yom kippur, public reading of the Torah, yizkor [prayers for the dead] and Purim.
As already said, he was a great scholar, but much greater than his erudition was his goodness, his reverence to God, ethics and habits. Non-Jews literally idolized him and blessed him, and during his lifetime he became a legendary figure in the entire area. Even the great men of the generation of that time recognized him as a just and perfect man.
Even the maskilim had great respect for him. In the obituaries in talpiot in 1895 and in luah ahi'asaf in 1896, he is described as a symbol of truth and goodness, piety and wisdom. He died at the age of seventy on the 21^st of tammuz 5654 [25^th of July 1894] in a dacha [country house] in the shtetl Tzitavian [Tytuvenai]. Four thousand people, among them twelve rabbis, from all of the surrounding cities andshtetlekh, accompanied him to his eternal rest.
Among the thousands of mourners could be seen his regular doctor, a Christian. After all the eulogies by the rabbis, the Christian doctor went over to the grave and made a vow that in memory of the Hasid's soul he would heal all the poor sick Jews and non-Jews without cost for an entire year.

And I found this:

Tsitevyan Jews were proud of the Gaon and Tsadik rabbi Leib Tsigler (Leib Hosid) from Vertyan who lived in their town.... 

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

The Gemara in Brachos (60a) says that praying for a miracle is called Tefillas Shav.  Shav, literally, means worthless.  When the word Shav appears in the Aseres HaDibros, it means taking Hashem's name in vain- i.e., for nothing, and is a prohibition.

As to whether "Shav" in the context of prayer means "worthless" or "prohibited," see Taanis 24a, on the basis of which Reb Akiva Eiger (OC 230) says that it is prohibited.  I have seen the Gaon quoted as saying Shav only means a waste of time, but I have not seen any reliable evidence that he said that. that it is a waste of time to pray that a miracle happen; it is a Tefillas Shav.  

Based on the Gemara in Brachos, 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. Another link to the story, with photos- here.

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.

Here is another brief discussion.  The issue is that in Brachos 60, gender of fetus is tefillas shov.  Bava Matzia 42a, until you measure the grain, you can daven for a larger volume.

שולחן ערוך אורח חיים הלכות ברכת הפירות סימן רל

סעיף א

המתפלל על מה שעבר, כגון שנכנס לעיר ושמע קול צוחה בעיר, ואמר: יה"ר שלא יהא קול זה בתוך ביתי; או שהיתה אשתו מעוברת אחר מ' יום לעיבורה, ואמר: יה"ר שתלד אשתי זכר, ה"ז תפלת שוא, אלא יתפלל אדם על העתיד לבא, ויתן הודאה על שעבר, כגון הנכנס לכרך, אומר: יר"מ ה' אלהינו שתכניסני לכרך הזה לשלום; נכנס בשלום, אומר: מודה אני לפניך ה' אלהינו שהכנסתני לכרך הזה לשלום;...

סעיף ב

הנכנס למוד את גרנו, אומר: יהי רצון מלפניך ה' אלהי שתשלח ברכה בכרי הזה; התחיל למוד, אומר: ברוך השולח ברכה בכרי הזה; מדד ואח"כ בירך הרי זה תפלת שוא, שאין הברכה מצויה אלא בדבר הסמוי (פי' דנעלם ואינו נראה) מן העין. 

משנה ברורה על שולחן ערוך אורח חיים הלכות ברכת הפירות סימן רל סעיף א

אחר מ"ם יום לעיבורה - שכבר נצטייר צורת הולד אבל תוך מ"ם יום מועיל תפלה. ואפילו אחר מ"ם יום יוכל להתפלל שיהיה הולד זרע קיימא ויהיה עוסק במצות ומע"ט:

ערוך השולחן אורח חיים הלכות ברכת הפירות סימן רל

סעיף א

דבר מובן בשכל שעניין התפלה הוא רק על העתיד ולא על העבר דמה יועיל על העבר ועל העבר לא שייך רק לשון הודאה לתת תודה לו יתברך על הטוב שעשה לו ועל העתיד הוי להיפך דהודאה לא שייך רק על מה שהיה ותפלה שייך על העתיד שמבקש מהשי"ת שיעשה לו כך וכך:

סעיף ב

ולכן הנכנס לעיר ושמע קול צווחה בעיר מאיזה צרה שנתהוה בה ואומר יהי רצון שלא תהיה זה בתוך ביתי הרי זו תפלת שוא דזהו תפלה על העבר ומאי דהוה הוה אבל יכול לומר מובטחני שאין זה בתוך ביתי אם הוא צדיק גמור כמעשה דהלל הזקן שאמר כן ועליו נאמר משמועה רעה לא יירא נכון לבו בטוח בד' [ברכות ס'.] והעניין מתפרש בשני פנים אחד כפשוטו שהוא בטוח שאין זה בביתו והשנית מפני שהרגיל את בני ביתו שיקבלו הכל בשמחה הן הטוב הן ההיפך וא"כ ממילא אפילו אם ח"ו קרם איזה צרה לא יצעקו בקולות אלא יקבלו באהבה ובשתיקה:

סעיף ג

וכן מי שהיתה אשתו מעוברת ורצונו בזכר עד מ' יום יכול להתפלל ולומר יהי רצון שתלד אשתי זכר כי עד מ' יום הוה מיא בעלמא אבל לאחר מ' יום שנתרקם צורת הולד ואם מתפלל אז יהי רצון שתלד אשתי זכר ה"ז תפלת שוא דמה שהיה היה ולא ישתנה עוד ואף שמצינו שדינה נתהפכה מזכר לנקבה זה היה בתוך מ' ואפילו אם שם היה לאחר מ' אין מזכירין מעשה נסים [שם] וענייני אבותינו הקדושים היו כולם בנס:

From Rav Pinchas Zilberstein

הגורן שיתרבה אינו נס גלוי כל כך, כי לפעמים הפירות משמינים, וכדו', כיוצא בזה טי סקס, אינו נס גלוי כל כך, כי הריאות לא יפתחו, והקב"ה עושה שהריאות יתפתחו מאידך, לעשות מנקיבה לזכר, ולשנות את כל הבריה, זה נס גלוי יוצא מדרך הטבע, ועל זה אסור להתפלל כמו כן כאשר חסר לילד גפיים, ולהתפלל שיהיה לו גפיים, זה גם נס יוצא מגדר הרגיל ועל זה אין להתפלל

 חבצלת השורון  Rav Steinman

ובנוגע לעיקר שאלתך הכואב, לכאורה הישוב כך, ברכה היא ענין קיים בהבריאה, הריבוי שיארע מן המיעוט זו לא הנהגה ניסית מוחלטת, ולכן אין זה שייך גם כלפי הדין שאסור ליהנות ממעשה ניסים, הקב"ה אומר שאם יקיימו את המצוות יהיה ברכה בתבואה, עד שכל אחד המודד אומר ברוך השולח ברכה בכרי הזה, דמשמע שכך הוא כמעט טבע משא"כ שינוי אינו ברכה, וכההיא דהיתה אשתו מעוברת, זוהי הנהגה ניסית מוחלטת

Vayeira, Breishis 18:5. A Guest Post from the Shvilei Pinches, Translated by Rabbi Dr. Baruch Fox

A Tremendous Insight from the Chatam Sofer

The Dispute between Avraham and Sarah Regarding Meal versus Fine Flour
Concerns Two Methodologies of Teaching Yisroel Torah

In this week’s parsha, parshat Vayeira, we read about Avraham Avinu’s encounter with the three malachim sent by HKB”H to visit him (18, 5):  "ואקחה פת לחם וסעדו לבכם אחר תעבורו כי על כן עברתם על עבדכם, ויאמרו כן תעשה כאשר דברת, וימהר אברהם האהלה אל שרה ויאמר מהרי שלש סאים קמח סלת לושי ועשי עוגות"—he says to them, “I will fetch a morsel of bread that you may sustain yourselves, then go on—inasmuch as you have passed your servant’s way.”  They said, “Do so, just as you have said.”  So Avraham hastened to the tent to Sarah and said, “Hurry! Three se’ahs of meal, fine flour!  Knead and make cakes!”  

Concerning this passage, we have learned in the Gemarah (Bava Metzia 87a):  "כתיב קמח וכתיב סולת, אמר רבי יצחק, מכאן שהאשה צרה עיניה באורחים יותר מן האיש"—it is written meal (kemach) and it is written fine flour (solet); Rabbi Yitzchak said:  From here we see that a woman is stingier than a man toward guests.  Rashi explains:  "היא אמרה קמח והוא סולת"—in other words,  Sarah instructed to give the guests “kemach,” which is coarse flour referred to as meal, whereas Avraham instructed to give them “solet,” which is fine flour that has been sifted thoroughly.  Seemingly, this suggests that Sarah was stingier concerning the guests, since she did not wish to prepare them cakes from fine flour, solet, but rather from meal, kemach.  

This is surely surprising in light of the fact that we find that HKB”H instructs Avraham (Bereishit 21, 12):  "כל אשר תאמר אליך שרה שמע בקולה"—Whatever Sarah tells you, heed her voice.  Rashi enlightens us:  "בקול רוח הקודש שבה, למדנו שהיה אברהם טפל לשרה בנביאות"—we learn from here that Sarah’s gift of prophecy surpassed that of Avraham.  If so, how can we even imagine that Sarah was being stingy and did not wish to entertain the guests as graciously as Avraham did? 

Furthermore, the Midrash Tanchuma (Chayei Sarah 4) teaches us that Avraham eulogized Sarah in the following terms (Mishlei 31, 1):  "אשת חיל מי ימצא"—Who can find a woman of valor?  The Midrash elucidates the subsequent pesukim as follows (ibid. 19):  "ידיה שלחה בכישור, שהיתה נותנת מאכל לעוברים ושבים, כפה פרשה לעני, שהיתה נותנת צדקות ומלבשת ערומים"—she provided food for those who passed by, was charitable and clothed those in need.  We see, in fact, that Avraham praised Sarah for the gracious manner in which she welcomed guests.  So, how is it possible to describe her as being stingy toward guests?  

It is also worth noting, Chazal’s revelation in the Midrash (S.R. 28, 1):  "ומשה עלה אל האלקים... באותה שעה בקשו מלאכי השרת לפגוע במשה, עשה בו הקב"ה קלסטירין של פניו של משה דומה לאברהם, אמר להם הקב"ה, אי אתם מתביישין הימנו, לא זהו שירדתם אצלו ואכלתם בתוך ביתו".  In the merit of the gracious manner in which Avraham welcomed the three malachim, his three heavenly visitors, HKB”H silenced the malachim’s accusations against Yisroel at the time of Matan-Torah. 

Therefore, we must clarify the following:  (a) what is the impact of HKB”H’s rebuke to the malachim:  "אי אתם מתביישין הימנו, לא זהו שירדתם אצלו ואכלתם בתוך ביתו"—aren’t you embarrassed to treat him in this manner, after he welcomed you and fed you so graciously, when you went down to his home?  Why does the fact that they dined by Avraham, compel them to forego their intense desire to receive the Torah?  (b) Why did the malachim wish to harm Moshe when he ascended to the heavens to receive the Torah?  They must have known that he only did so at HKB”H’s command.  So, why would they dare harm the King of Kings loyal agent? 

“Kemach” Represents Torah Dialectics
“Solet” Represents a Clear-cut Teaching

Let us begin with the illuminating insight of our incomparable teacher, the Chatam Sofer.  He interprets this dispute between Avraham and Sarah—as to whether to serve the guests bread baked from refined flour or from meal—as a practical and philosophical debate concerning the ideal method of relaying Torah knowledge.  In Derashot Chatam Sofer (Part 2, p. 403, column 1) he writes: 

"ידוע כי הכנסת אורחים של אברהם אבינו ע"ה היתה בשני דברים, אחד באכילה גופנית ועליה יתפרש קמח סולת כפשוטו, והשניה דבר ה' זו הלכה, שלימד דעת את אורחיו. והנה מצינו (נדרים לח.) שהקב"ה לא מסר פלפול התורה אלא למשה רבינו ע"ה, והוא נהג בה טובת עין ומסרה לישראל".

The matter of Avraham Avinu welcoming guests can be viewed on two levels.  First of all, he provided them with physical nutrition; in this context, “kemach solet” simply refers to meal and fine flour.  Secondly, he nourished them spiritually by enlightening his guests in the ways of Hashem.  Now, the Gemarah (Nedarim 38a) teaches us that HKB”H only gave the gift of “pilpul haTorah,” Torah dialectics, to Moshe Rabeinu; Moshe graciously shared this gift with all of Yisroel.  

Let us try and understand the debate, as it were, between HKB”H and Moshe as to whether to give the valuable tool of “pilpul” to Yisroel or not.  Concerning this issue, the Chatam Sofer explains that HKB”H wished to give Yisroel the Torah in a precise, refined and unambiguous form:

"והנה רצה הקב"ה שימסור לישראל הלכה ברורה, מנופה בשלוש עשרה נפה כמות שהיא, מבלי שיצטרך לפלפל עד שיבוא אל האמת, מילפותא פלונית או מהיקש פלוני, אמנם משה רבינו ע"ה רצה לזכות את ישראל גם במצוה ההיא כי רבה היא, ועל ידיה הולכים ממדרגה למדרגה ולא יעמוד במקום אחד.

אמנם מצד אחד נראה יותר טובה במה שרצה ה', שלא ימסר להם הפלפול רק הלכה ברורה כמות שהיא, כדי שלא יתערב בה שקר ח"ו על ידי סברת אנושית. וזה בעצמה היה פלפולו של אברהם אבינו ע''ה עם שרה הגדולה בנביאה יותר ממנו, הוא אמר לתת לפניהם סולת מנופה, הסברא המחודשת ממנו [כלומר מסקנת הלכה] מבלי שילמדם אופן העיון, ואיך ידעו לחדש לבנות ולסתור על מנת לבנות.

אמנם היא אמרה קמח ינתן לפניהם, וילמדם להוציא ממנו סולת נקיה. וזה נראה ח''ו כצרת עין מאמנו שרה, שלא להודיעם מיד הסברה נכונה, אמנם הפסוק מפארה על זה ואמר (משלי לא כז) צופיה הליכות ביתה, שהיתה צופה ומביט טוב יותר ללמוד להם הליכות, להלך ממדרגה למדרגה, ולחם עצלות לא תאכל, כי זהו לחם עצלות לומר ההלכה כמות שהיא בלי בירור כלל, הגם שהיא ברורה מכל מקום עצלות היא".

HKB”H wished to give Yisroel “halachah berurah”—thoroughly refined laws and lessons—not requiring involved debates and discussions, “pilpul,” in order to arrive at the truth of the matter.  On the other hand, Moshe Rabeinu, a”h, wanted Yisroel to have the merit of the mitzvah of laboring and toiling to refine the laws and lessons; in this manner, they would not remain stagnant, but, rather, would steadily rise spiritually.  

In truth, the benefit of HKB”H’s intent not to give Yisroel the power of “pilpul” but only “halachah berurah” is apparent; the risk of introducing human error and incorrect interpretations of Torah law is avoided.  This, in fact, is the dispute that Avraham Avinu, a”h, was having with Sarah—whose prophetic powers were greater than his.  He wanted to present the guests with “solet”—the thoroughly refined halachic conclusion—without teaching them the methodology necessary to arrive at said conclusion.  

Sarah, on the other hand, wished to present them with “kemach,” meal, and to teach them how to refine the flour to achieve the desired final product.  At first glance, her actions could be misinterpreted as representing stinginess.  The passuk in Mishlei (31, 27) praises her and teaches us otherwise.  She foresaw that it was best to teach them how to rise from one spiritual level to the next.  

We see from the Chatam Sofer that the debate, as it were, between HKB”H and Moshe Rabeinu at the time of Matan Torah is the very same debate that we find here going on between Avraham Avinu and Sarah Imeinu.  HKB”H wanted to give Yisroel “halachah berurah,” without the element of “pilpul,” in order to avoid the introduction of human error and incorrect interpretations into the realm of Torah study; whereas, Moshe Rabeinu felt that “pilpul,” delving into Torah issues analytically, was essential for a Jew. 

Avraham Avinu was a proponent of HKB”H’s methodology—to present Yisroel with “halachah berurah,” resembling “solet,” finely-sifted flour.  Sarah, on the other hand, shared Moshe Rabeinu’s view that it was preferable to present Yisroel with “kemach,” the unrefined halachah—necessitating Torah dialectics in order to achieve the true meaning of the Torah.  

Sarah’s Methodology Prevails:  “She Does Not Eat the Bread of Laziness”

In the end, Sarah Imeinu prevails; the guests are given Torah in the form of “kemach,” meal, unrefined flour.  For, it is apparent from the Chatam Sofer’s commentary, that Moshe Rabeinu also determined that this methodology was preferable, as illustrated by his decision to share the power of “pilpul haTorah” with Yisroel—a decision to which HKB”H acquiesced.  Furthermore, even Avraham Avinu, in his eulogy of Sarah, praises her for her choice of this methodology, as he proclaims:  "צופיה הליכות ביתה ולחם עצלות לא תאכל"—She anticipates the ways of her household, and does not eat the bread of laziness. 

Additionally, the Torah testifies to the fact that Avraham Avinu was himself a prophet.  For, HKB”H says to Avimelech (Bereishit 20, 7):  "ועתה השב אשת האיש כי נביא הוא"—But now, return the man’s wife for he is a prophet.  Thus, Avraham surely foresaw that HKB”H would instruct him:  כל אשר תאמר אליך שרה שמע בקולה"—follow whatever Sarah tells you to do.  As we have learned, he was inferior to Sarah as a prophet.  So, he accepted her opinion, even at this juncture, to present the guests with Torah in the form of “kemach,” forcing them to utilize the power of “pilpul” to refine the lessons that they would learn. 

Before proceeding, it is worth addressing one obvious question.  How is it possible that HKB”H chose not to give Yisroel the gift of “pilpul,” but only “halachah berurah,” yet Moshe Rabeinu defied HKB”H’s will and gave Yisroel the power of “pilpul” anyway?  In reality, the answer to this question is quite clear.  From the very onset, HKB”H wanted Moshe Rabeinu, Yisroel’s trustworthy shepherd, to be the one to make this decision—whether or not to bestow this essential gift upon Yisroel; it was up to Moshe Rabeinu to determine that this was indeed HKB”H’s will.  

“Without ‘Kemach’ There Is No Torah”

In the final analysis, we see that the decision was made in accordance with the opinions of Sarah Imeinu and Moshe Rabeinu.  They held that it is preferable to deliver the Torah to Yisroel in the form of “kemach”--an unrefined, somewhat ambiguous halachah—to insure that Yisroel would toil in their Torah study, employing dialectics and in-depth analysis to refine the halachah into “solet.”  The reason that this method of Torah study is essential is suggested by the following Gemarah (Berachot 63b):  "מנין שאין דברי תורה מתקיימין אלא במי שממית עצמו עליה, שנאמר (במדבר יט יד) זאת התורה אדם כי ימות באהל"—from where do we know that words of Torah are not retained except by one who kills himself over the Torah?  For it is stated (Bamidbar 19, 14):  This is the Torah of a man who dies in a tent.

The Turei Zahav (O.C. 47, 1) explains the matter as follows:  "שהתורה אינה מתקיימת אלא במי שממית עצמו עליה, דהיינו שעוסק בפלפול ומשא ומתן של תורה, כמו שכתב [רש"י] על (ויקרא כו ג) בחקותי תלכו, על מנת שתהיו עמלים בתורה, מה שאין כן באותם שלומדים דברי תורה מתוך עונג ואינם יגעים בה אין התורה מתקיימת אצלם".  In order for a Jew to retain the Torah that he has learned, and for it to become a part of him, he must figuratively kill himself on its behalf; he must adopt an intense methodology of learning characterized by dialectics.  Rashi (Vayikra 26, 3) comments that those who do not labor in their Torah study, but rather learn in a leisurely fashion, will not retain their Torah.  

How beautifully this coincides with the maxim of the Tanna Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah (Avot 3, 17):  "אם אין קמח אין תורה, אם אין תורה אין קמח"—if there is no “kemach” there is no Torah; if there is no Torah, there is no “kemach.”  He is teaching us a very important lesson.  If one does not toil and extend oneself in one’s Torah study, one will not acquire Torah knowledge.  It is necessary to engage in Torah study in the form of “kemach,” delving into each halachah in depth and clarifying even the minutest details, in order to achieve a true understanding of the subject.  If one receives the material already refined and prepared, in the form of “solet,” without laboring and exerting oneself, then "אין תורה"—one will fail to acquire what the Torah has to offer.  For, we have learned:  "אין דברי תורה מתקיימין אלא במי שממית עצמו עליה"—the words of Torah are not retained except by one who kills himself over it.  Conversely, we can deduce that "אם אין תורה"—if one realizes that he has failed to retain the Torah that he has learned, this is an indication that "אין קמח"—he did not expend sufficient effort in his studies; he did not work to refine the “kemach.”

Based on this concept, I would like to propose an interpretation of the dialogue that took place between Avraham and the malachim (Bereishit 18, 9):  "ויאמרו אליו איה שרה אשתך, ויאמר הנה באהל"—they asked him, “Where is Sarah, your wife?”  He replied, “She is here in the tent.”  What prompted the malachim to inquire as to Sarah’s whereabouts?  Our blessed sages address this issue as follows (Bava Metzia 87a):  "יודעים היו מלאכי השרת ששרה אמנו באהל היתה, אלא מאי באהל כדי לחבבה על בעלה"—the malachim knew that Sarah Imeinu was in the tent; they contrived to elicit this response, “in the tent,” in order to endear her to her husband.  

Based on what we have established thus far, we can suggest that the malachim were aware of the dispute going on between Avraham and Sarah—whether to present the guests with Torah in the form of “solet” or Torah in the form of “kemach.”  Upon seeing that Avraham had conceded and had prepared for them bread made of “kemach,” they asked him:  "איה שרה אשתך"--“Where is Sarah, your wife?”  They were not inquiring as to her physical whereabouts, but rather wanted to understand her reasoning.  "איה שרה"—why does she believe that it is preferable to serve her guests Torah in the form of “kemach” rather than serving them “solet”—halachah berurah, unambiguous, precise lessons?

Avraham’s response--"הנה באהל"—alludes to the concept of "אדם כי ימות באהל".  Sarah chose to serve “kemach,” to insure that Yisroel would figuratively kill themselves in order to acquire Torah.  They would struggle and labor tirelessly “in the tent of Torah,” to refine and purify the “kemach,” in order to produce clean, pure “solet.”  [We can embellish this idea with a small addendum:  the numerical value of the two Hebrew words קמ"ח סל"ת as they appear in the Torah, i.e. סלת is spelled without a “vav,” 148+490=638, equals  אברה"ם יצח"ק יעק"ב.  This gimatriah alludes to the fact that all three of the Patriarchs agreed to this methodology and adopted it for all of their future generations.]

It Is Impossible to Achieve Clarity in a Torah Issue Without Stumbling Along the Way

Continuing along this path, let us rise to the occasion and reconcile the commentary of the Chatam Sofer cited above: 

"והנה רצה הקב"ה שימסור לישראל הלכה ברורה, מנופה בשלוש עשרי נפה כמות שהיא, מבלי שיצטרך לפלפל עד שיבוא אל האמת... אמנם מצד אחד נראה יותר טובה במה שרצה ה', שלא ימסר להם הפלפול רק הלכה ברורה כמות שהיא, כדי שלא יתערב בה שקר ח"ו על ידי סברת אנושית".

HKB”H wished to give Yisroel “halachah berurah”—thoroughly refined laws and lessons—not requiring involved debates and discussions, “pilpul,” in order to arrive at the truth of the matter. . . In truth, the benefit of HKB”H’s intent not to give Yisroel the power of “pilpul” but only “halachah berurah” is apparent; the risk of introducing human error and incorrect interpretations of Torah law is avoided. 

This raises an obvious question.  In the final analysis, Moshe Rabeinu determined, along with HKB”H’s blessings, to impart the power of “pilpul haTorah” to Yisroel—so that they would labor over the Torah in the form of “kemach,” in order to clarify the halachah and arrive at the truth of the matter in the form of “solet.”  How, then, do we avoid the possibility:  "שלא יתערב בה שקר ח"ו על ידי סברת אנושית"—that false interpretations, chas v’shalom, will not be introduced into halachah due to errors of human logic?

To resolve this issue, let us introduce a phrase from Yisroel’s sweet psalmist (Tehillim 85, 12):  "אמת מארץ תצמח"—truth will sprout from the earth.  What does it mean that truth will sprout from the earth?  Let us suggest an interpretation.  When a person plants a seed in the ground in order to grow grain or fruit, he must first plow the soil and water it; then he must clear the land of the thorns and debris; only then will the earth give forth healthy produce worthy of consumption.  

Similarly, it is impossible for a mere physical being of flesh and blood to ascertain the truth of a matter without first laboring and evaluating all aspects of the subject.  Along the way, he is sure to make several logical mistakes until HKB”H ultimately enlightens him to arrive at the truth.   This process is reflected by the Gemarah’s (Gittin 43a) elucidation of the passuk (Yeshayah 3, 6):  "והמכשלה הזאת תחת ידיך - אין אדם עומד על דברי תורה אלא אם כן נכשל בהן"—“and this stumbling-block is under your hand”; here the Torah is referred to as a stumbling-block, because a person does not achieve a true understanding of a Torah-related issue without first stumbling several times in its interpretation. 

This, then, is the meaning of the phrase:  "אמת מארץ תצמח"—the truth of a matter will only be revealed by following a process similar to growing produce from the earth; all of the thorns, which are the errors in reasoning and logic, must first be eliminated.  We find, therefore, that all of the ideas and theories entertained along the way, before arriving at the truth of the matter, although many of them were invalid, are, nevertheless, an inseparable part of the final conclusion.  Without them, the truth of the matter would never have been ascertained.  

It is now much clearer why Moshe Rabeinu elected to give over the gift of “pilpul” to Yisroel.  He intended for them to clarify the truth of halachic matters by laboring in their Torah studies.  Despite the false interpretations and logical errors that were likely to arise, he understood that the correct interpretations were unachievable without these snags along the way.  As such, they were all an integral part of the ultimate truth.  

The Incorrect Elements of Torah Related Disputes Form the Neshamah’s Surrounding Light

Now, come and see, a fascinating insight regarding this subject that I found in the Derashot Chatam Sofer (Part 2, p. 403, column 2), and must be publicized among all Torah scholars.  A light is formed from Torah study that is sincere and focused on arriving at the truth of the matter; this light becomes an integral part of the neshamah.  Elements of the dialectics that do not touch upon the truth of the matter do not become one with the neshamah.  Rather, they form a surrounding light, akin to a Rabbinical cloak for the neshamah, "חלוקא דרבנן".  Just as the garment surrounds a man’s body externally, so, too, the erroneous elements of Torah debates form an external, surrounding light for the neshamah.  

The Chatam Sofer adds another tremendous insight concerning these erroneous elements of “pilpul haTorah”:  "כי היגיעה רבה בפלפולא דאורייתא מכפר עוונות ומסלק הפסולת יותר מן הקרבנות"—the tremendous effort expended in “pilpul haTorah” atones for sins even more so than do korbanot.  He applies this idea to interpret the passuk (Shir HaShirim 4, 11):  "וריח שלמותיך כריח לבנון"—the scent of your garments resembles the scent of Levanon.  In other words, the scent arising from the “pilpul haTorah,” which forms a surrounding light like a garment for the neshamah-- כריח לבנון"—resembles the scent of the Beit HaMikdash, which is referred to as Levanon, because it cleanses Yisroel of their sins.  (The word “levanon” comes from the word “lavan,” meaning white; hence the allusion to the whitening and cleansing of sins.)

Thus, it is not difficult to comprehend Moshe Rabeinu’s motivation in transferring the gift of “pilpul” that HKB”H gave him to Yisroel, despite the possibility of introducing erroneous reasoning and conclusions into their learning.  Since the purpose of these erroneous elements was to arrive at the true meaning of the Torah-issue under debate, they ultimately formed a protective, surrounding light for the neshamah.  Furthermore, the effort exerted related to these elements atones for Yisroel’s sins.  

“Is He Not the One You Went Down to Visit and Whose House You Dined at?”

We have now achieved a better understanding of the Midrash concerning Moshe’s ascent to the heavens to receive the Torah:  "באותה שעה בקשו מלאכי השרת לפגוע במשה, עשה בו הקב"ה קלסטירין של פניו של משה דומה לאברהם, אמר להם הקב"ה, אי אתם מתביישין הימנו, לא זהו שירדתם אצלו ואכלתם בתוך ביתו"—at that moment, the ministering angels wished to harm Moshe; HKB”H transformed his facial appearance to resemble that of Avraham; then HKB”H said to them, “Are you not embarrassed to treat him this way?  Is he not the one you went down to visit and whose house you dined at?”  We raised the question as to why the malachim would want to harm Moshe, who was merely acting as HKB”H’s loyal agent, sent to receive the Torah on Yisroel’s behalf.  Additionally, why were the malachim compelled to relinquish their claim and yen to receive the Torah on account of having eaten by Avraham?  

Based on what we have learned, we can propose that the malachim longed to receive the Torah only because they intended to receive it in the form of “solet”—where everything is clear, precise and illuminated from above, without any ambiguities or disputes.  Therefore, they claimed that they were worthier recipients for the Torah, since they were more capable of comprehending the Torah, on a deeper more precise level, than human beings.  

Yet, had they realized that HKB”H intended to give Yisroel the Torah in the form of “kemach”--unrefined meal, requiring Yisroel’s laborious efforts to clarify all the ambiguities and search for the true meaning of the halachot—they would have also understood that they were not suitable to receive the Torah.  After all, malachim have the status of "עומדים"—literally, those who always stand in the same place.  They are static--incapable of rising above the level on which they were created; thus, they are incapable of comprehending issues to any greater degree than they did when they were created.  

Proof of this fact is found in the prophet’s statement (Zechariah 3, 7):  "ונתתי לך מהלכים בין העומדים האלה"—he refers to “mehalchim” and “omdim.”  The Shela hakadosh explains (Chullin):  "מהלכים הן בני אדם שאינם נולדים בשלימות, רק צריך להיות מהלך משלימות לשלימות, והמלאכים נקראים עומדים, שמתחילת יצירתן הם בשלימות האחרון עומדים במעמדם".  “Mehalchim”—literally, those who can move--refers to human beings, who are born imperfect and incomplete; they must move spiritually to achieve a greater level of perfection.  “Omdim” refers to malachim; they cannot alter their spiritual level; they always remain as they were created.  Therefore, since the Torah was given in the form of “kemach”—requiring exertion in order to clarify the details of a halachah and transform it into “solet”—malachim were unsuitable to receive the Torah.  Their level of comprehension is static; they are incapable of changing and elevating to a higher level; they understand things as they were given—no more, no less.  

The malachim saw that HKB”H endowed Moshe and not Yisroel with the gift of “pilpul.”  This led them to believe that HKB”H wanted Yisroel to receive the Torah in a refined, unambiguous form, with precise, clearly-defined halachot, so as to avoid the necessity of human reasoning which might be fraught with error.  When they witnessed that Moshe generously bequeathed his gift of “pilpul” to Yisroel—forcing them to toil and exert themselves in their Torah studies—they attempted to harm him.  For, they mistakenly believed that he had deviated from Hashem’s will and intent, and, as a result, cost them the precious gift of Torah. 

At that point, HKB”H devised to transform the appearance of Moshe’s face to resemble that of Avraham.  This ploy was designed to convey the fact that Moshe Rabeinu had not, chas v’shalom, deviated in any which way from Hashem’s will.  In fact, he had done just the opposite; he had accurately perceived the true will of Heaven.  This is the message inherent in Hashem’s statement to the malachim:  "אי אתם מתביישין הימנו, לא זהו שירדתם אצלו ואכלתם בתוך ביתו"--“Are you not embarrassed to treat him this way?  Is he not the one you went down to visit and whose house you dined at?”  In other words, I sent you to visit Avraham, on the third day after his “brit milah,” intending that you would eat bread there in the form of “kemach,” in accordance with Sarah’s point of view.  This was meant to indicate that I concurred with her point of view to deliver the Torah in the form of “kemach.”  Knowing this, aren’t you embarrassed to request the Torah?  After all, you do not possess the capacity to clarify ambiguous halachot as necessary.  

Sarah Was Stingy with the Guests—the Angels Requesting to Receive the Torah

Now, let us accept the noble task of deciphering the sages’ enigmatic statement:  "כתיב קמח וכתיב סולת, אמר רבי יצחק, מכאן שהאשה צרה עיניה באורחים יותר מן האיש"—both the word “kemach and the word “solet” appear in the passuk; Rabbi Yitzchak said:  From here we see that a woman is stingier than a man toward guests.  Rashi clarifies for us:  "היא אמרה קמח והוא סולת"—in other words,  Sarah instructed to give the guests “kemach,” which is coarse flour referred to as meal, whereas Avraham instructed to give them “solet,” which is fine flour that has been sifted thoroughly.  It is astonishing to even consider that Sarah Imeinu treated guests stingily.  

Based on what we have learned from the Chatam Sofer, however, we can propose a novel idea.  Sarah’s intention by giving the guests bread made out of “kemach” rather than “solet,” was to convey the following essential message:  the guests must be taught Torah in the form of “kemach,” so that they will be forced to labor strenuously in their Torah study in order to refine each and every halachah until it is in the form of pure “solet.”

We can develop this point one step further.  Since Sarah Imeinu’s gift of prophecy surpassed that of Avraham Avinu, she knew that HKB”H had sent the malachim to them as a preparation for Matan Torah.  Thus, she concluded that the only way to thwart their claim to the Torah was if the Torah were to be given in the form of “kemach.”  In this form, they are unable to process it fully, and clarify its ambiguities due to their static, limited natures.  On the other hand, were the Torah to be given in the form of clear, refined “solet,” the malachim could present a valid claim that they were far better suited to understand this precise form of halachah, and, thus, they should be awarded the Torah.  

This, then, is the message concealed in the sages’ surprising statement:  "כתיב קמח וכתיב סולת, אמר רבי יצחק, מכאן שהאשה צרה עיניה באורחים יותר מן האיש"-- it is written meal (kemach) and it is written fine flour (solet); Rabbi Yitzchak said:  From here we see that a woman is stingier than a man toward guests.  Their intention was not to suggest, chas v’shalom, that Sarah Imeinu was stingy with regard to the mitzvah of hachnassat orchim.  Rather, they were hinting at the fact that she was stingy regarding these particular guests, the malachim.  For, she foresaw that they were destined to criticize and condemn the giving of the Torah to Yisroel.  

Consequently, she cleverly cautioned Avraham not to present them with “solet”—a form of precise, unambiguous halachah.  For, that would allow them the opportunity to claim that they were indeed better suited to receive the Torah. Instead, she instructed him that it was preferable to teach them Torah in the form of “kemach”--ambiguous and requiring clarification in order to ascertain its true meaning.  This would successfully invalidate their future claim to the Torah, as reflected by HKB”H’s reproach:  "אי אתם מתביישין הימנו, לא זהו שירדתם אצלו ואכלתם בתוך ביתו" --“Are you not embarrassed to treat him this way?  Is he not the one you went down to visit and whose house you dined at?”