Yayishlach, Breishis 32:8. Yaakov's Fear of Eisav; Vayira Yaakov m’ohd vayeitzer loh vayachatz es ha’am asher ito.

The Arvei Nachal here brings a Medrash;
There were two "Bnei Adam" to whom Hashem promised safety, but who, when faced with danger, were nonetheless afraid. These were the Bechir Ha’avos, Yaakov, and the Adon Hanevi’im, Moshe. He asks a bunch of questions on the Medrash, among which is that the words “Bnei Adam” are unnecessary. He says pshat that the Avos grew and changed throughout their lives. The havtachos they had received came when they were on a certain madreiga, but when they rose to a higher madriega, compared to which their earlier status was that of "Bnei Adam", they feared that the earlier havtacha would not apply. A havtacha to a "Ben Adam" does not apply to a Trans or Meta Ben Adam. Although he does not explain why this would be so, I assume it is because they moved from the common man's standard of being judged on the basis of Middas Harachamim into Middas Hadin, or ke'chut hasa'arah.

With this I added ta’am to a vort by Rabbi Shain in his sefer Birkas Ish. He asks: The Gaon by Korach says that "ito" is not the same as "imo". Ito means simple coincidence, two events or experiences that coincide. Imo means with commonality of purpose. If so, he asks, why by Yaakov’s camps does it say "es ha’am asher ito"? It should say imo! He answers that the shvatim did not agree with Yaakov that there was reason to be frightened; He points out that Shimon and Levi attacked Shechem’s city ‘betach,’ confident that they would be victorious, and Rashi says that their confidence was that the zchus of oso zakein would be meigin. The Sifsei Chachomim learns that “oso zakein” was Yaakov. Yaakov himself was fearful, though. So here, too; Yaakov’s splitting of the camps was against the advice of the shvatim, so it says ito, not imo.

With the Arvei Nochal we can understand what the diyun was. The shvatim were someich on the havtacha, but Yaakov, on the madreigah of Bechir Ha’avos, could no longer rely on the havtacha given to him when he was a Ben Adam.

The Arvei Nachal's idea may address the shockingly incongruous fate of those two great Ba'alei Bitachon, Nachum Ish Gamzu and Reb Akiva. They were famous for their bitachon-- for Nachum, it was his eponymous trait. Early in their lives, their bitachon was that everything would work out for the best, a faith justified by the happy endings of the stories in which they were in mortal danger, but came out better than before-- Nachum who delivered a chest of sand to the Emperor;, saying Gam zu letova (Taanis 21a), and Reb Akiva with the donkey and the lamp (Brachos 60), who said Kol de'avid Rachmana le'tahv avid. But how did their lives end? In Nochum’s case, as a quadruple amputee lying in a bed with the legs in buckets of water to stop bugs from crawling on him, in a dilapidated house that was ready to collapse at any moment and kill him or suffocate him as he lay helpless. Reb Akiva, of course, was tortured to death in his old age by having his skin and muscle slowly scraped off. Where was the happy result of Gahm zu letovah? Where was the tav of Kol de'avid Rachmana letav avid? So we see, as the Arvei Nachal explained, that the faith they displayed earlier was appropriate and justified; but that faith, that confidence in happy endings, was no longer relevant to them when they grew older and greater. The greatest among us might reach a level where the most merciless standard of justice applies, where even past promises of tranquility become irrelevant.

He’oros: the havtacha to Yaakov was given right before his confrontation with Eisov, so it’s interesting to think about how and why this great change occured so quickly-- apparently, in the space of a few hours. One almost wonders if it was the receipt of the havtacha that catalyzed the metamorphosis-- and rendered the havtacha moot.

Another point: it's interesting, in light of last week's discussion of Zechus Avos, that the Shvatim were confident that their Zechus Avos from Yaakov would protect them, while Yaakov himself, the relevant Ahv, was not confident at all! It appears that this Zechus Avos was more effective for the children that it was for the Ahv himself! The answer is, that while the havtacha no longer pertained to Yaakov, his children, the shvatim, who had the same havtacha through zechus avos, were still on the madreiga of being able to rely on it. So while the primary source of the zechus and the primary recipient of the havtacha was no longer protected by that zechus, the secondary beneficiaries, the Shvatim, were still protected by that zechus. It's not pshat that the zechus was bateil: pshat is that Yaakov had moved beyond the protection offered by that zechus and havtacha. So, in a manner of speaking, Tama Zechus Avos for the Ahv, but Tachon Zechus Avos for the banim.

A Synopsis of the Foregoing Divrei Torah on Zechus Avos

Having used the last three posts for the long version, here's a very short but thorough synopsis.

By the way, in last week's parsha it says that Yakov took stones and put them Me'rashosav. One of the letter investigtors on chumash (Leket Mi'Tanach, Brooklyn tof shin mem gimmel, by Mordechai Rimland, Parshas Vayeitzei 28:11, quoting Heichal Habracha) points out that this also can be read as "mei'rosh Tav," a reference to the Gemara in Shabbas 55a about the letter Tav that was written on people's foreheads at the time of the churban habayis. But it's probably just a coincidence.

Sanhedrin 104a: Abba Lo Mezakeh Bra; Bra Mezakeh Aba.

Shabbas 55a. Tama Zechus Avos

Yoma 87a. Ashreihem letzadikim, she'mezakim le'bneihen...ahd sof kol hadoros.

A whole bunch of kashes.

Rashi -- Tefillah Trumps Tama.

Rabeinu Tam -- Philogenic Favoritism is Finished, but the Covenental Connection Continues.

The Ri -- Preservation for Progeny of the Merit of Piety is limited by Propinquity of either Proximity or Propensity.

The Rashba -- Fillial Favoritism is Found only in the Physical; Spiritual Salvation is Specific to the Scrupulous -- except in the case of Special Supplication.

Maharal -- The Legacy of Largesse has been deLimited to Little things; Alternatively, as Rashi said, Tefilla Triumphs over Termination.

Shvus Yaakov

Tosfos in Sotah

Zechus, Bris, Olam Hazeh, Olam Haba, Tefilla, a little, a lot, and we don't pasken like that anyway.......

.......


!

...

!

....

.

The end.

Zechus Avos, PART III

Bra Me'zakeh Abba

Sefer Chasidim

I See Siman T'T Shin Ayin Aleph, or 1,171; The Sefer Chasidim says that Bra Mezakeh Abba only if the son does mitzvos because his father made him a shaliach to do the mitzvos, or the father in some way caused the son to do these mitzvos. (Garam)

Please note that this is obviously not the shitta of the Rashba or the Shevus Yaakov or Tosfos in Sotah. And it also doesn't explain the story of Reb Akiva and the orphan in the Braisa in Maseches Kallah Perek 2, since that father never taught his child a thing; that guy died before the kid was born, and he didn't even have a bris millah until Reb Akiva took him in.

II See Siman 611, where he says that even where Bra Mezakeh Abba, it is only "Be'miktzas." Well, at least this is better than Rav Sherira Gaon and the others brought by Reb Reuven Margolios in his end piece to his MHK Edition of the Sefer Chasidim, who say that once a person dies, nobody can do a thing for him, period. Ein KLOOOM mo'il le'meis. (Technically, you could be me'yasheiv the two shittos, and say that a person is rewarded for the potential he inculcated into his children or his talmidim. What the children or talmidim do depends on their bechira, but the father/rebbi is rewarded for what he taught/encouraged/enabled them to do. So doing mitzvos for a niftar is a siman, it's evidence, that he taught you well, and he is rewarded for having left a well-taught student/child, your good acts are not a sibbah for his reward. Does that mean you shouldn't bother to do things in memory of the niftar? No! Because that would be evidence that he didn't teach you well, which would be a zilzul for the niftar.)

The Shelah

I See Sha'ar Ha'Osiyos, Derech Eretz, 33. He says that one who teaches his son Torah, the son "machniso le'Olam Haba," will bring him into Gan Eden (as opposed to the zechus of a father, which, as we quoted from him above, only helps the son in Olam Hazeh). He also brings this from a Zohar in the end of Bechukosai, Cheilek 3 115b.

Parpe'ra'os

I Sifri Ha'azinu 27, according to the Girsa brought in Rav Hutner's end-notes: When a person is zocheh and is rewarded, he also recieves schar for his ancestor's mitzvos. And contrariwise, a rasha who is punished for his aveiros also gets it for his ancestors' sins.

II The Michtav Mei'Eliahu, also quoted in Rav Solomon's Sifsei Chaim, has an entirely different view of "Zechus Avos." I'm sure he didn't mean it as the only pshat in zechus avos, but only as an additional dimension. In Volume one, towards the beginning, I think on page eight, he says that Zechus Avos means that the middos tovos that were so laboriously achieved by our forefathers are much more easily available to us. It is their mesiras nefesh, their temimus, their bitachon, that enables us to attain these middos or to overcome those nisyonos far more easily. Our Forefathers' behavior has become part of our spiritual genes, (in a Lysenko/Lamarckian kind of way, which, agav urcha, turns out to not necessarily be so wrong: there has been a recent trend of thought that argues that although the genes themselves are not irevocably altered by the environment, genetic expression might be affected, and that expression is chemically encoded and passed on to ensuing generations. There's a fascinating article on this, titled "Mechanisms for the environmental regulation of gene expression", at http://www.iisc.ernet.in/academy/jbiosci/feb2005/65.pdf)

This basic concept is also found in Reb Chaim Volozhiner's Ru'ach Chaim on Avos 5:3. He asks, why does one Mishnah says there were ten generations from No'ach to Avraham, and another Mishnah says "Ten nisyonos was Avraham Avinu tested." Why all of a sudden is he called Avinu? He answers that it was through the unimaginably hard work Avraham did to pass those tests that certain character traits have become, to his descendants, like second nature. When a Jew so easily decides to be moser nefesh, this reflects Avraham Avinu's willing martyrdom at Ur Kasdim; When a Jew is suddenly seized by an urge to make aliya to Eretz Yisrael, this emotion comes from Avraham Avinu's reaction to Hashem's command "Lech Lecha mei'artzecha...."
But Reb Chaim does not use this to say pshat in Zechus Avos. Only Rav Dessler says that.

III It seems to me that only a person that was mekayeim Kibbud Av ve'Eim (or at least wasn't mevatel the mitzvas assei,) has any chance of benefitting from Zechus Avos. See http://havolim.blogspot.com/2007/07/devorim-25-stay-away-from-eisav-because.html

IV The only thing I haven't spoken about is, what exactly does Rabbeinu Tam mean by distinguishing between Zechus and Bris? What is the practical difference? And why don't the Yerushalmi/Rashi/Ri hold that the distinction is valid or relevant? The paths I've started out upon-- for example, that Rabbeinu Tam, holds that it is only the Bris that holds the Ribono Shel Olam to us, but the love is long gone, as implied by a Rashi in Ha'azinu-- have turned out to be too depressing to seriously follow, so I'll leave it to others to think about it.

Zechus Avos, and the Heck with the !!**#%*!! Market, PART II

Abba Lo Mezakeh Bra.

As noted above, this is from the Gemara in Sanhedrin 104a, which says that a Father's merits do not help his son. It also appears in the Sifri in Haazinu, Devarim 32:39. The passuk says "Ve'ein miyadi matzil," nothing will save you from My hands, and the Sifri brings the statement of Bra mezakeh abba, abba lo mezakeh bra. I don't care if your father is a tzadik gamur yesod olam with twenty letters after his name; you sin, you pay. Zechiso Yugain Oolaini? Sorry, Charlie. Your father won't save you, your brother won't save you, even the Rebbe won't save you from Me. Similarly, in Koheles Rabba 6, it says "Kol amal Adam lefihu, velo lefi be'no."

Rashba

The Rashba in Teshuvos 5:49 was asked: Why is it that we ask for favor because of Zechus Avos, when Abba lo mezakeh Bra? The whole concept of Zechus Avos, he was asked, contradicts the rule of the Gemara Sanhedrin 104a. Second, he was asked, how can we benefit from Zechus Avos, or, how can a righteous son benefit his father, when Chazal say "mi shetarach erev Shabbas yochal beShabbas," metaphorically meaning that one only has, in the world to come, what he prepared when he was alive, and nothing can be done to benefit a person that has already died. How, then, can anyone benefit from the righteousness of his ancestors, and how can a person who has died already benefit from the righteous acts of the son that survives him?
In his answer, the Rashba teaches us three very interesting things.

I The Rashba, in passing, mentions that we do not hold like Shmuel, but rather like the Medrash/Yerushalmi, that Zechus Avos remains intact.

II The Rashba says that the first question is based on a false assumption; the assumption was that the word "Zechus" in Zechus Avos and the word "Mezakeh" in Abba lo mezakeh bra mean the same thing. This, the Rashba says, is incorrect. Zechus Avos only helps for matters that take place in this world, for Olam Hazeh. Abba lo mezakeh Bra refers to one's position in Olam Haba. For Olam Hazeh, certainly Abba mezakeh Bra. A son is, in a sense, thirty three percent his father, because "shlosha shutfim be'adam." Therefore, in matters of this world, whatever a father achieves accrues to his son as well, just as his property is inherited by his son. But regarding the Olam Haba, a son is not a part of his father in the world of Neshamos. A father does not create, from his own body, his son's neshama, and a son's neshama is not part of his father's neshama.
So: according to the Rashba, Abba lo mezakeh bra only in Olam Haba, and it doesn't require tefilla to work. But when you get to Olam Haba, the greatest yichus isn't worth a dime, and that's was Abba lo mezakeh bra is referring to. But Abba is certainly mezakeh bra in matters of Olam Hazeh, and this is what we are talking about when we ask for Zechus Avos.

This fundamental idea is also stated in the Shelah, Sha'ar Ha'osiyos, Derech Eretz 16, and Rabbi Krasner cites the Avos D'rav Nassan as saying this, but I haven't found it there.

So, theoretically, you can keep saying Zechiso Yugain Oolaini about your Rebbe. The truth is, there are plenty of Gemaros that say that so long as a particular tzadik was alive, like Rav Tzadok, and Rav, whose piety and suffering protected the community and prevented many catastrophes.

That's in Theory.
Theoretically, there's no difference between theory and reality. But in reality, there is. And unfortunately, the Arvei Nachal in Yisro Drush 4 says you can forget about relying on the Rebbe's zechus. He says that to protect others, you have to be in the category of "Hevel she'ein bah cheit." He says that in our time (actually, his time), there are no tzadikim that can protect others, and they are lucky to protect themselves.

III The Rashba then says that with Tefilla, everything changes. With Tefilla, Abba mezakeh bra, a father can benefit his son, (and kal vachomer, a son can benefit his father,) even in Olam Haba, and he brings a proof from the story (Sotah 10b) of David and Avshalom.

This idea is also found in Ibn Chaviv's Tosfos Yom Hakipurim in Yoma 87a, where the zechus of Aharon saved Elazar and Isamar;

Please note that according to the Rashba in II, in the neshama world, a son and a father are unrelated. If so, why would tefilla of one help the other more than for any stranger? Apparently, for the Rashba in III to be consistent with the Rashba in II, we will have to say that he holds that with tefilla, one can help any stranger in Olam Haba, and not only a father to a son. So you can hire that guy to say kaddish, and perhaps the sayer of kaddish would be categorized as a chiyuv. This would not only contradict the Rama brought below in the discussion on Tosfos in Sotah part II, but it's also not like the the Shvus Yaakov, who, as noted below in Tosfos in Sotah III, only applies this to family members.

Tosfos in Sotah

The Gemara in Sotah 10b says, as noted above, that through tefilla, David Hamelech saved the damned soul of his rebellious son, Avshalom, from the lowest pits of Hell and elevated it to Gan Eden.

Tosfos there asks, but what of the rule that Abba lo mezakeh Bra?
As we have seen, the Rashba's approach answers this question. However, Tosfos does not use the Rashba's teretz, and offers three of his own.

I Avshalom died an awful and unnatural death; he got what was coming to him; in cases like that, it doesn't take much to bring him to Gan Eden, and WITH TEFILLA, Abba mezakeh bra.

II The rule that Abba lo mezakeh bra only applies to individuals that worship idols, (though Tosfos doesn't say why that would be the case.) Since Avshalom didn't do Avoda Zarah, there is no rule of Abba lo mezakeh bra, and his father's zechusim saved him. In this teretz, he doesn't mention the need for Tefilla; he simply says that Abba lo mezakeh bra does not apply here, and therefore, Abba is mezakeh bra.

This approach is also found in the Teshuvos Shevus Yaakov, YD II 93. The story behind the teshuva is this.
The Rama in Darkei Moshe YD 376 brings Teshuvos Binyamin Ze'ev as saying that a father who is saying Kaddish for his son has no priority or standing vis a vis someone who is saying kaddish for his parent, because Bra mezakeh abba, so a son's kaddish is meaningful, while Abba lo mezakeh bra, so a father's kaddish for a son is really not effective, and so he doesn't have the status of a "Chiyuv".
The Shevus Yaakov argues. He says, as we see in Tosfos II, that Abba lo mezakeh bra is only in cases of the worst aveiros, such as Avoda Zara, which result in Ein lahem chelek le'olam haba. But for the run of the mill resha'im, certainly Abba mezakeh bra!
He proves this from the Gemara in Shevu'os 39; the Gemara there says that when a person r'l deserves 'pur'anus,' payment is exacted from him and from his family. So, he says, since midda tova is meruba, it must be that when a man merits reward from Hashem, that his family also shares that reward.
Please note that the Shvus Yaakov only applies to family, like a father for a son. Hiring a stranger would not really mean anything according to the Shevus Yaakov. According to the Rashba, as we will have seen, hiring a stranger to say kaddish might have validity, although I doubt he has any dinei ke'dima, even according to the Rashba, and certainly not le'halacha, since the Rama holds like the Binyamin Ze'ev, deligitimizing even a father saying for a son.

III The rule that Abba lo mezakeh bra only means that the mere zechus of the father does not prevent the son from being listed among the most abominable resha'im. But certainly a father's tefilla could save his son. This sounds like the Rashba's III, but I'm not convinced it is the same teretz, because if it were, then the introductory business about "le'mon'o bein resha'im gemurim" is just irrelevant to this teretz and misleading. If he held like the Rashba, Tosfos would simply have said that ALMB is stam, but where the father is mispallel, he is mezakeh his son. Certainly Teretz I is not like the Rashba, because it combines missa meshuna with tefilla. So it's not likely that teretz III is like the Rashba.

IV Not really in Tosfos, but in the Mahrsha there on Tosfos:
Normally, Abba lo mezakeh bra. But here, David Hamelech's own behavior 'contributed' to Avshalom's rebellion and downfall; after the sin of Bas Sheva, Hashem told David "Hineni meikim alecha ra'a mi'bei'secha" (Shmuel II 12:11) Since the downfall of Avshalom was, to some extent, David's fault, David's tefillos and teshuva were able to save Avshalom.

This approach is also found In R' Ibn Chaviv, which I partially cited above. He says that the reason that in Yoma 87a, the Gemara says that Aharon's zechus saved Elazar and Isamar from a fate similar to that of Nadav and Avihu, despite the rule of ALMB, is that the deaths of Aharon's children was, to some extent, Aharon's fault, for his actions at the time of the Egel Hazahav. Therefore his teshuva and tefilla was able to save his sons.


Part III coming soon, I hope.

Zechus Avos, and the Heck with the Market. PART I

If Reb Dovid Kronglass could write a sefer in Shanghai, I can try to write now.

This is a very long piece. I've been thinking about it for four weeks, and it cannot be compressed without violence. So I'm writing the long version, and maybe later I'll squash it into a glib little piece of cocktail party Torah for the convenience of the impatient, the short-attention-spanned, and the simple.

The Gemara (San 104a) names certain individuals, each of described in Tanach as being thoroughly wicked, that have no share in Olam Haba. The Gemara asks, but what of certain other famous Resha'im who are not listed in the Mishnah? The Gemara answers that they are not listed because they had pious children, apparently because of the redemptive effect of having meritorious progeny. The Gemara asks, but there are some listed who had righteous fathers? The Gemara answers that a righteous child saves a wicked father, but a righteous father does not save a wicked child. Bra mezakeh abba; abba lo mezakeh bra. One benefits from Pious Posterity, but not from Pious Ancestry. The Gemara continues; Avraham does not save Yishma’el, and Yitzchak does not save Eisav. I venture to say that Terach was very happy to hear about this.


The Gemara (Shab 54a) quotes a pasuk in Yechezkel which describes the advent of the destruction of Yerushalayim, the Churban Bayis Rishon. The Malach was told to mark each person’s forehead with the letter “taf.” The taf on the Tzadikim was written in ink, and on the resha’im in blood. The Gemara says that initially, the tzadikim were marked to be saved; but the Satan argued that the Tzadikim share the sin of the wicked, because they did not do enough to rebuke the sinners, and Hashem agreed, to the extent that the Tzadikim were not only killed, they were the first to be killed. The Gemara asks, what, exactly, does the letter “taf” mean?
Rav says it stands, respectively, for Tichyeh and Tamus.
Shmuel says it means “tamah zechus Avos,” the merit of righteous forefathers has ended, and each individual will be judged on his own merits.
Rav Yochanan says it means “tachon zechus Avos,” may the merit of the forefathers bring grace.


The Gemara then discusses, when, exactly, was it that the merit of our forefathers ended. Interestingly, Rav Yochanan, who earlier had said that the Merit of the Avos still existed at the time of the Churban Bayis Rishon-- Tachon Zechus Avos--now says that the zechus ended at the time of Chizkiyahu, long before the churban. Perhaps he, too, agrees with Shmuel to the extent that by the time of the churban, zechus avos was seriously diminished.


Numerous questions present themselves upon reading these two Gemaros.


Re: Abba lo mezakeh Bra


1. If the merit of the father does not benefit his own son, as the Gemara said regarding Yishmael and Eisav, why do we predicate our supplications on Zechus Avos? We begin Shacharis with invocation of Zechus Avos-- Le’olam Ye’hei Adam—aval anachnu amcha, bnei berisecha, benei …...; We begin Shemoneh Esrei with Zechus Avos—the first bracha is even called Avos--vezocher chasdei avos; and the entire section of Shemoneh Esrei on Rosh Hashanna called Zichronos, in which we unequivocally ask that Zechus Avos protect us.


2. It's not only in Tefilla that we find Zechus Avos. The whole Torah is full of promises of Zechus Avos. Throughout Sefer Bereishis, the Forefathers are told that their zechus will benefit their children, just as their 'failures' brought suffering to their descendants, as in Avraham Avinu's "Bamah eida ki irashena." In the November post, I noted some examples: "Hashem told Avraham (Breishis 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."

3. If zechus avos is never effective, what does Tama zechus avos mean? Tama what?


4. Why would a father say kaddish for, r’l, a son, if his zechusim can’t help his son?


5. In Sotah 11b, the Gemara tells us that when Avshalom was killed during his rebellion against David Hamelech, his father's tefilla elevated his soul from the deepest pits of Gehenom up to Olam Haba. How could David’s prayers help his son?


6. How does the Gemara understand the passuk in Mishlei 11:21 says “Yad le’yad lo yinakeh ra, ve’zera tzadikim nimlat” The Gaon, Rabbeinu Yonah, and the Meiri in their pirushim in Mishlei all say that this passuk means that Zechus Avos can save the descendant of a tzadik:


A. Gaon: as it says in Brachos 7a, Tzadik vetov lo, Tzadik ben Tzadik; Tzadik vera lo, Tzadik ben Rasha. (Although the Gemara there immediately asks, but it says “lo yumsu…uvanim ahl avosam,” and the Gemara therefore says a different pshat, apparently the Gaon holds that the Tzadik ben Tzadik part remains accepted as true.)


B. Rabbeinu Yonah: “His children will be saved due to his merit, and Hashem will judge them “lifnim mishuras hadin,” with special kindness and not with strict justice.


C. Meiri: “His children, too, will be saved, as it says in Tehillim 37:25, “lo ra’isi Tzadik ne’ezav ve’zaro mevakesh lachem.”


7. 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.
Yoma 87a-- "how blissful (Ashrei'hem) 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 sturdy wood that lived and grew in previous years, the Avos.
Brachos 27-- when Raban Gamliel was deposed, Reb Elazar ben Azariah was given preference as his replacement, because as a descendant of Ezra, his Zechus Avos would protect and assist him.
Shabbas 129b, 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.

Re: Tama zechus Avos


1. If Tama Zechus Avos, why do we continue to invoke Zechus Avos, as noted above, in so many parts of our davenning?


2. Why does the Torah so often promise our forefathers that in the merit of their loyalty Hashem will never forsake their descendants?


3. Why did Rav Yochanan, in Shabbas 55a, change his mind about Tama Zechus Avos?


4. How could Zechus Avos, (so long as it lasted,) have been of any use, if there is a rule of Abba lo mezakeh bra?


5. Rashi in Shabbas says “shekvar achaluhu.” It was eaten, it was used up, by unworthy and sinful generations. Is Zechus Avos a bank account that can be used up, or is it a relationship, which ought to survive rough times in anticipation of regaining its prior meaning. After all, no matter what people do, they are still descendants of the Avos, and they should have Zechus Avos.



To answer these questions, we have to carefully think analyze the various opinions of the Rishonim and Achronim on these Gemaros.


Tama Zechus Avos


Rashi


1. Rashi says that the Zechus of the Avos has been depleted because it was simply used up by sinful generations. In fact, this approach is clearly stated in the Yerushalmi San 10:1. The Yerushalmi says that one should not ask to be rewarded for his deeds in this world, because if the Avos had asked to be rewarded in this world, “from where would the merit have existed for their descendants?”


2. A careful reading of Rashi, Shabbas 55a, DH Hayom Yivada, clearly shows that he holds that even after Tama, prayer can refresh, can bring back, Zechus Avos. Obviously, then, Zechus Avos is not like a savings account. When one of those is empty, tefilla doesn’t do anything. By the way, as will be shown, this idea has been stated by many later mefarshim, but none, to the best of my knowledge, point out that it’s an open Rashi. For example, the Maharal in Agados Hashas, which I quote separately below, also says that although Tama, Tefilla re-enables Zechus Avos. Also, the Ohr Zarua in I:101 quotes Rabbeinu Yehonasan as saying this, although he himself, as noted below, holds that we pasken like the Medrash that disagrees with Shmuel entirely. Interestingly, the Anaf Yosef here in the Ein Yakov quotes the Pri Toar in the Medrash of Vayikra at the end of 36 as saying this, and he says this is what Rav Yochanan means in saying that the Taf stands for Tachon-- because invoking Zechus Avos requires Chanina, i.e., Tefilla.


3. According to Rashi, again, in Shabbas 55, DH Vayifen and DH Hayom Yivada, there is no difference between Zechus Avos and Bris Avos. If Zechus Avos is tama, Bris Avos is also Tama. As we will see, this is contrary to the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam. Rashi’s opinion is also clearly stated in the previously cited Yerushalmi.


4. Please note that numbers three and four are tied together. The whole point of a Bris is its immutability. A bris is permanent and not dependant on later behavior. It is only because Rashi holds that even after tama, Zechus Avos can be brought back through Tefilla, can Rashi say there both Zechus Avos and Bris Avos are Tama: the Bris certainly does remain in effect, but it needs to be invoked. If, on the other hand, Rashi would have held that tama means that it is lost and gone forever and beyond the power of tefilla to restore, he could not have said that Bris Avos was tama. Or, if you want, you can say that it is only because Rashi saw in the Gemara that Bris Avos was tama that he was forced to say that tefilla will restore it.

Rabbeinu Tam


1. Rabbeinu Tam asks, as we asked above, why do we invoke Zechus Avos if it was Tama. He answers that although Zechus tama, Bris Avos is not tama, and when we recall the Avos, it is not Zechus Avos we recall, it is Bris Avos. As it says in Devarim 4:31—Lo yishkach es BRIS avosecha.


2. To understand what a Bris is, please note the Ramban in Breishis 6:17, who says two things about Bris. The first pshat in Bris is a covenant “be’lo tnai ve’shi’ur,” without condition or exclusion. The second pshat in Bris is that the word is related to Beri’ah, creation; that a bris creates a new reality, a new Teva.


Also, see Breishis 15:18 regarding the Bris with Avraham, where it says “Ubein zaracha acharecha ledorosam beris olam.”


Also, see Ramban Breishis 26:3, regarding the bris with Yitzchak: “Even though the covenant with Avraham was sufficient, (the redundant Bris with Yitzchak) was an additional merit and honor to him.” This applies, as well, to the later Bris with Yaakov and the Bris of Matan Torah.

(By the way, Rabbeinu Tam did not have the Yerushalmi that supports Rashi's pshat, as the R'i points out there.)

The R’I


1. The R'i says that Shmuel, who said the Taf stood for Tama and Rav Yochanan, who said it stood for Tachon, do not argue. Shmuel’s “Tama” is for wicked people, and Rav Yochanan’s Tachon, which means that Zechus Avos remains, is for righteous people who need additional zechusim.

Please note, then, that the R'i, in his first pshat, is arguing with Rashi in the fundamental interpretation of Tama Zechus Avos. Both agree that Tama means sthat Zechus Avos has changed. Rashi, and the Yerushalmi, hold that it was spent and exhausted by sinful generations, and is no longer available, unless one is mispallel. Perhaps pshat in tefilla is that you are not invoking current zechus avos: Tefilla enables you to gain access to the Zechus Avos that existed in the previous times, before it was Tama. The R'i, on the other hand, holds that it is totally unavailable to Resha'im, and automatically available to Tzadikim, and Tefilla is not a factor. According to the R'i, apparently, Zechus Avos requires Proximity, either spiritual or chronological. Zechus Avos is now available only to people whose life reflects the beliefs of the Avos, for those that have spiritual proximity to the Avos. If your life shows that you reject the heritage of the Avos, then you are not entitled to their Zechus. Prior to Tama, however, Zechus Avos was available to everyone, based on chronological proximity. According to the R'i, Tama is not due to intervening generations of sinners who used up Zechus Avos; It just means that Distant Relatives don't have Zechus Avos. It's simply a function of the combination of chronological and spiritual separation. Just distant in time is fine. Just distant in behavior, also fine. Tarti Le'reiusa, Tama Zechus Avos, and not fine. Or, to simplify this explanation--
Preservation for Progeny of the Merit of Piety is limited by Propinquity, either in Proximity or Propensity.

2. In the second teretz, the second interpretation offered by the R'i, we, who invoke Zechus Avos, rely on the Medrash (Vayikra Rabba 86) that simply argues on our Gemara and says that Zechus Avos is eternal and immutable. This can also be found in the above-cited Yerushalmi in the name of Rav Acha. This opinion is also that of the Ohr Zarua II Hilchos Erev Shabbas, also citing the Medrash.

Maharal

The Maharal in his Chidushei Agados offers two explanations of how our tefillos which are based on Zechus Avos can be understood in light of Shmuel's shittah that Tama Zechus Avos.

I. Zechus Avos no longer provides extraordinary protection for the consequences of great sins. But Shmuel would agree that the Zechus Avos that we have still provides "Rachmanus ve'hatzala purta," mercy and smaller salvations.

II. Alternatively, or perhaps additionally: Shmuel agrees that we still have access to Zechus Avos, but only when we are mispallel that it be granted, as noted above in Shittas Rashi. It is no longer the entitlement that it once was. But it still can be earned.

Part II coming soon. I hope.