A few months ago, a good friend and neighbor, and a member of my Daf Yomi for many years, passed away. He was a Lithuanian Jew, and his name was Yosef Aronovitz. As a child, he studied in the Cheder in Kelm, where he saw the great tzadikim of the Kelmer Talmud Torah, including Reb Doniel, an experience that he likened to being in the presence of angels. Later, he spent time in Warsaw, where he met Menachem Begin, with whom he spent many hours discussing the future of the Jewish people and their hopes for a Jewish State. He was a kind and precious man whose life experience reflected the horrors of the end of of the Jewish sojourn in Europe. He survived a Nazi death march, watching nine of ten of the others die along the way, but he eventually succumbed to the murderous evil of Auschwitz and was placed on a conveyor belt to be cremated. A technician happened to see his body move, felt a pulse, and removed him from the conveyor belt and sent him to the hospital so that the doctors could determine what had enabled him to survive that which had killed so many others.
He once told me that he survived for two reasons. First, he said, the heavier people, the well fed, died right away, and he had always been thin. Second, and more importantly, he survived the mind-destroying experience because of his absolute faith, his emunah and bitachon. He told me a story that deserves to be heard.
One December 25th, it was bitterly cold and snowing, and he heard the camp guards singing in their barracks. He heard them melodiously singing a favorite carol, "Stille Nacht, heilige Nacht", which we know as Silent Night. Then the door of the barracks opened, a drunken guard came out, walked to the building where the starved and freezing Jews lay, and opened the door and grabbed one man and pulled him out into the courtyard, where he began to beat him with his fists and boots. As the guard broke and bled the Jew to death, Mr. Aronovitz heard the guard say "I know that you Jews will always be in the world- Der ewige Jude - the Eternal Jew- but now, here, we are going to kill as many of you as we can."
I don't know how others would react to this experience, but I can tell you what Mr. Aronovitz said. He said, "I heard it from the mouth of a shikereh poyer, a drunken peasant. Even ah shikereh poyer knows that the Jews are eternal. How can anyone not believe it?"
We Jews, always surrounded by others who disparage our stubborn faith, need to remember Mr. Aronovitz's lesson.. The Christians say, yes, the Jewish People received revelation from God, the Jews were chosen by God, but....., and the Muslims say, yes, the Jews were the first to receive revelation from God, but........ But what? But nothing. Every tall steeple and every ring of a church bell, every minaret and every song of a muezzin, testifies unwittingly and unwillingly that the Torah is true and that the Jews have a unique relationship with Hashem and a unique responsibility to Hashem. Even ah shikereh poyer knows it. How can anyone not believe it?
Just a footnote: It's interesting to see how cultural referents can be so different. Around twenty years ago, my children went down the block to my father zt'l's house, and one of them had a little backpack with a picture of Sylvester the Cat on it, with the name Sylvester underneath. My father was upset; he said, how can I allow my son to carry around such a name? I had no idea what he was talking about. It was just a cartoon character. I later learned that in the area he grew up, in Lithuania/Germany, New Year's Eve was Silvesterabend, the day of veneration of Saint Sylvester, one of the leaders of the early Church. He was not a friend of the Jews. Apparently, the commemoration of Saint Sylvester involved sermons demonizing the Jews, and on that night, any Jew found on the street would be viciously beaten or killed. To my father, Sylvester was not a puddytat. He was a reminder of one of the several days, like Easter, when the life of a Jew was even cheaper than usual.
I just mentioned Silversterabend to my mother shetichyeh, who comes from Kelm and Shavlan, and she recoiled. She, too, remembers this to be a day when a Jew being out on the street meant he was taking his life in his hands. She remembers that on that day, the priests would always fulminate about how the Jews killed their God, and the congregants would rush out of church looking for Jews from whom they could take revenge.
It's a classic irony, though, how we taught the world about monotheism and ethics, and they turn that religious teaching itself into an excuse to murder people. Also, see the comments, below, for a discussion of Sylvesterabend and the absurd reality that in Israel, New Years is called Sylvester. As Kurt Vonnegut would say, so it goes.
~~~
Monday, December 21, 2009
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Off to Israel
I'm going (a foot of snow and forty mile an hour wind permitting) to Israel for Chanuka iy'h to connect with the past and to embrace the future. Have a lichtige Yomtov!
Earlier posts on the Parsha;
Jewish wives are not and never were chattel.
How the Torah retained certain pre-Torah forms but entirely redefined their substance.
A little boy- a Na'ar- at sixty years old.
Being patronized is not an insult when it is done by your patron.
The danger of a dream fulfilled.
Thank G-d you don't always get what you want.
All the love wearing the Kesones Pasim brought Yosef.
A thought about the strange prayer said during Birchas Kohanim.
No good deed goes unpunished.
Why Yosef's kindness to the sons of Bilha and Zilpa didn't win him any friends.
Is it appropriate to inscribe your name on the things you donate to a Shul?
It seems self-serving, but it has ancient roots.
Earlier posts on the Parsha;
Jewish wives are not and never were chattel.
How the Torah retained certain pre-Torah forms but entirely redefined their substance.
A little boy- a Na'ar- at sixty years old.
Being patronized is not an insult when it is done by your patron.
The danger of a dream fulfilled.
Thank G-d you don't always get what you want.
All the love wearing the Kesones Pasim brought Yosef.
A thought about the strange prayer said during Birchas Kohanim.
No good deed goes unpunished.
Why Yosef's kindness to the sons of Bilha and Zilpa didn't win him any friends.
Is it appropriate to inscribe your name on the things you donate to a Shul?
It seems self-serving, but it has ancient roots.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Vayishlach, Breishis 33:9. What Yitzchak, Yishmael, and Eisav Have in Common: בְּאֵר לַחַי רֹאִי
Earlier posts on Vayishlach: click on the Vayishlach link in the list at the right.
I diligently avoid Toras haNistar, and I recommend the same to all my fellow Torah dilettantes. I find that some of what I understand is two dimensional and descriptive rather than analytical or prescriptive, and the rest is often disturbing. However, I recently saw a Chasam Sofer in a new edition (Edited by Yosef Naftali Stern, Shapira print, Yerushalayim Tuf shin samach tes) that was intriguing. So I wrote a letter to great unknown, asking if he had any idea of what the Chasam Sofer was talking about. Here is my letter and his response, slightly edited.
My letter:
In Parshas Chayei Sara (24:62), where Yitschak first meets Rivkah, it says that he had returned from Be'er Lachai Ro'i, where he had been living-- בא מבוא מבאר לחי ראי The Chasam Sofer there says that the words Ba mi'bo, which literally means "he came from coming", connotes an idea similar to the English phrase "coming and going," a degree of instability. So long as Avraham was alive, Yitzchak's specific personality trait was still tentative. He wasn't firmly established in his unique identity until after his father's passing, at which point he grew into his personification of the midda of gevura (strength? might?mastery?). Then the Chasam Sofer says that that just as Be'er Sheva was the focal point of Avraham's midda of Chesed, (for it was there that he had his Eshel, his hostel for travelers,) so too was באר לחי ראי the source of Yitzchak's specific trait of gevura This is why the passuk in Chayei Sarah (25:11) says
Then he says that Be'er Lachai Ro'i was not unique to Yitzchak; משם ירש ישמעאל כחו ומשם כחו של עשו From there, too, Yishmael inherited his strength, and from there, too, came Eisav's strength. The connection to Yishmael is explicit: it was there that the angel told Hagar that her son would be a powerful man. See Lech Lecha, Breishis 16:13-14, where it says
The connection to Eisav is alluded to in this week's parsha. In 33:9, Eisav told Yaakov וַיֹּאמֶר עֵשָׂו יֶשׁ לִי רָב אָחִי and the words "li rav achi" contain the same letters as the words "Be'er Lachai Ro'i" (although not the same number of letters.)
He then says that although all drew their strength from the same be'er, there was a big difference: Eisav's "li rav achi" begins with the letters l r and a, while "be'er lachai ro'i" begins with b l and r. The Gematriya of the latter is 232, while that of the former is 231. He says that 231 she'arim are tamei and 231 are tahor, פנים ואחור, and that 232 is the gematria of yehi ohr and the roshei teivos of Ki rotzeh hashem be'amo.
It sounds interesting, that all drew their strength from the same place, and the quasi anagram is cool, but I don't know what he's talking about. If you can tell me a reasonable pshat, I would appreciate it, so I don't have to just leave that thing about Cheerios on the blog.
And this is what he answered me:
Superficial quick analysis:
Sarah was midas hadin (sitra d'nukvasah). [The Chidah, (I think in Yad David) brings a pshat that because
Yitzchak was connected to the midas hadin, he was too feminine to reproduce, and therefore had to be
shected and resurrected in order to ma'amid zera.]
The victim of Sarah's midas hadin was Hagar. The Ramban points out that because of the mistreatment of Hagar, Yishmoel was given shlita to attack the Jews. Be'er Lachai Roi was where Hagar was mekabel upon herself the midas hadin by acceding to the malach's instructions of vehis'ani tachas yadah. Thus, the koach of Yishmael stems from that be'er.
Mincha, which is keneged gevurah/din, was created at that self-same be'er.
And of course, Esav took the pesoles of din with him as a son of Yitzchok.
Note that Esav took the pesoles of Yitzchok's middah, just as Yishmoel took the pesoles of Avraham's middas hachesed. The koach hagevurah of Yishmoel over klal yisroel is a secondary aspect which he was yoresh from Hagar, as discussed.
On the other hand, Yitzchok crystallized his midas din precisely when Hashem sent him the tikkun of Rivka, to allow them to create the tif'eres of Yaakov.
There are two aspects of din - the negative and the positive. Din can be used destructively or positively - even by non-Jews. Thus the 231 shearim of tum'ah and taharah.
However, the underlying purpose of din, which is an offspring of chesed, is to allow the world/Jews to earn
schar and come to an ultimate tikkun. Thus, the world was originally created b'din - yehi ohr, which represents the 231 shearim of din plus the alef of the hidden kavana. This is why reshoim should not use the original ohr, because they would realize that din is beneficial. The yesod of the ohr shivas yemei bereshit can now be found only in the Torah - which is the ultimate chesed comprised of din.
The tachlis of this din to bring to chesed is of course klal yisroel, hence rotzeh hashem be'amo.
Unfortunately, my library is mostly packed away, so I could not provide you with more information/mar'ei mekomos. This is all I could come up with off of the (ed.- top of my head).
Post script by Barzilai:
For what it's worth, I would have understood the triple allusion to בְּאֵר לַחַי רֹאִי to mean that divine inspiration or grace is not our monopoly; Every human being has access to ruchnius: We share the Be'er even with our nemeses, even with Yishma'el and Eisav. But to me, this doesn't have the ring of truth. It's like something Casuto would say; it's too 'haskooolish."
Post script II:
Nemeses is the plural of Nemesis.
Post Script III
Another question that bothers me, and that I have not seen anyone address, is this: What is the relationship between the name Hagar gave to the place of spirituality, and the name Avraham gave to the mekom ha'akeida--
I diligently avoid Toras haNistar, and I recommend the same to all my fellow Torah dilettantes. I find that some of what I understand is two dimensional and descriptive rather than analytical or prescriptive, and the rest is often disturbing. However, I recently saw a Chasam Sofer in a new edition (Edited by Yosef Naftali Stern, Shapira print, Yerushalayim Tuf shin samach tes) that was intriguing. So I wrote a letter to great unknown, asking if he had any idea of what the Chasam Sofer was talking about. Here is my letter and his response, slightly edited.
My letter:
In Parshas Chayei Sara (24:62), where Yitschak first meets Rivkah, it says that he had returned from Be'er Lachai Ro'i, where he had been living-- בא מבוא מבאר לחי ראי The Chasam Sofer there says that the words Ba mi'bo, which literally means "he came from coming", connotes an idea similar to the English phrase "coming and going," a degree of instability. So long as Avraham was alive, Yitzchak's specific personality trait was still tentative. He wasn't firmly established in his unique identity until after his father's passing, at which point he grew into his personification of the midda of gevura (strength? might?mastery?). Then the Chasam Sofer says that that just as Be'er Sheva was the focal point of Avraham's midda of Chesed, (for it was there that he had his Eshel, his hostel for travelers,) so too was באר לחי ראי the source of Yitzchak's specific trait of gevura This is why the passuk in Chayei Sarah (25:11) says
וַיְהִי אַחֲרֵי מוֹת אַבְרָהָם וַיְבָרֶךְ אֱלֹהִים אֶת יִצְחָק בְּנוֹ וַיֵּשֶׁב יִצְחָק עִם-בְּאֵר לַחַי רֹאִי.
Then he says that Be'er Lachai Ro'i was not unique to Yitzchak; משם ירש ישמעאל כחו ומשם כחו של עשו From there, too, Yishmael inherited his strength, and from there, too, came Eisav's strength. The connection to Yishmael is explicit: it was there that the angel told Hagar that her son would be a powerful man. See Lech Lecha, Breishis 16:13-14, where it says
וַתִּקְרָא שֵׁם ה' הַדֹּבֵר אֵלֶיהָ אַתָּה אֵל רֳאִי כִּי אָמְרָה הֲגַם הֲלֹם רָאִיתִי אַחֲרֵי רֹאִי..
עַל כֵּן קָרָא לַבְּאֵר בְּאֵר לַחַי רֹאִי הִנֵּה בֵין-קָדֵשׁ וּבֵין בָּרֶד.
The connection to Eisav is alluded to in this week's parsha. In 33:9, Eisav told Yaakov וַיֹּאמֶר עֵשָׂו יֶשׁ לִי רָב אָחִי and the words "li rav achi" contain the same letters as the words "Be'er Lachai Ro'i" (although not the same number of letters.)
He then says that although all drew their strength from the same be'er, there was a big difference: Eisav's "li rav achi" begins with the letters l r and a, while "be'er lachai ro'i" begins with b l and r. The Gematriya of the latter is 232, while that of the former is 231. He says that 231 she'arim are tamei and 231 are tahor, פנים ואחור, and that 232 is the gematria of yehi ohr and the roshei teivos of Ki rotzeh hashem be'amo.
It sounds interesting, that all drew their strength from the same place, and the quasi anagram is cool, but I don't know what he's talking about. If you can tell me a reasonable pshat, I would appreciate it, so I don't have to just leave that thing about Cheerios on the blog.
And this is what he answered me:
Superficial quick analysis:
Sarah was midas hadin (sitra d'nukvasah). [The Chidah, (I think in Yad David) brings a pshat that because
Yitzchak was connected to the midas hadin, he was too feminine to reproduce, and therefore had to be
shected and resurrected in order to ma'amid zera.]
The victim of Sarah's midas hadin was Hagar. The Ramban points out that because of the mistreatment of Hagar, Yishmoel was given shlita to attack the Jews. Be'er Lachai Roi was where Hagar was mekabel upon herself the midas hadin by acceding to the malach's instructions of vehis'ani tachas yadah. Thus, the koach of Yishmael stems from that be'er.
Mincha, which is keneged gevurah/din, was created at that self-same be'er.
And of course, Esav took the pesoles of din with him as a son of Yitzchok.
Note that Esav took the pesoles of Yitzchok's middah, just as Yishmoel took the pesoles of Avraham's middas hachesed. The koach hagevurah of Yishmoel over klal yisroel is a secondary aspect which he was yoresh from Hagar, as discussed.
On the other hand, Yitzchok crystallized his midas din precisely when Hashem sent him the tikkun of Rivka, to allow them to create the tif'eres of Yaakov.
There are two aspects of din - the negative and the positive. Din can be used destructively or positively - even by non-Jews. Thus the 231 shearim of tum'ah and taharah.
However, the underlying purpose of din, which is an offspring of chesed, is to allow the world/Jews to earn
schar and come to an ultimate tikkun. Thus, the world was originally created b'din - yehi ohr, which represents the 231 shearim of din plus the alef of the hidden kavana. This is why reshoim should not use the original ohr, because they would realize that din is beneficial. The yesod of the ohr shivas yemei bereshit can now be found only in the Torah - which is the ultimate chesed comprised of din.
The tachlis of this din to bring to chesed is of course klal yisroel, hence rotzeh hashem be'amo.
Unfortunately, my library is mostly packed away, so I could not provide you with more information/mar'ei mekomos. This is all I could come up with off of the (ed.- top of my head).
Post script by Barzilai:
For what it's worth, I would have understood the triple allusion to בְּאֵר לַחַי רֹאִי to mean that divine inspiration or grace is not our monopoly; Every human being has access to ruchnius: We share the Be'er even with our nemeses, even with Yishma'el and Eisav. But to me, this doesn't have the ring of truth. It's like something Casuto would say; it's too 'haskooolish."
Post script II:
Nemeses is the plural of Nemesis.
Post Script III
Another question that bothers me, and that I have not seen anyone address, is this: What is the relationship between the name Hagar gave to the place of spirituality, and the name Avraham gave to the mekom ha'akeida--
וַיִּקְרָא אַבְרָהָם שֵׁם הַמָּקוֹם הַהוּא ה' יִרְאֶה אֲשֶׁר יֵאָמֵר הַיּוֹם בְּהַר ה' יֵרָאֶה
Obviously, they both focus on re'iyah, but Avraham's was a har, while Hagar's was a be'er.
Hamotzi on Cheerios
A well known posek recently said that the proper bracha on Cheerios is Hamotzi. He said that Cheerios cereal is Pas Haba BeKisnin, i.e., a baked grain product for which the proper bracha depends on whether it is being eaten "like bread" or "not like bread." That is, the bracha would be Mezonos when it is eaten as a snack, but when it is eaten as a the central part of a full meal it requires Netilas Yadayim, Hamotzi, and the long Birchas Hamazon. Assuming that baked grain cereals are pas haba bekisnin, the halacha certainly would be that if you sit down to a breakfast in which all you eat is the baked cereal, and certainly if you eat to satiation, Hamotzi would be required. (The fact that nobody does it proves nothing. The field of Brachos, such as precedence, shiur, eina tzricha, and so forth, is the neglected stepchild of halacha. And, of course, there are many people who think they're doing God a favor by making brachos at all, and so they view serious and careful analysis of the laws of Brachos as an obsessive preoccupation with superficialities that hinders true spiritual growth. To those people I say "I love you, and have a nice life.")
However, there is one exception to this rule. If the food does not have the appearance of bread (turisa de'nahama), you make mezonos, no matter how much you eat or if you are eating is as a full meal. What is "the appearance of bread"? There's the ambiguity, since this is a subjective assessment. Cake definitely has halachic Turisa De'nahama, since it is baked in large loaf-like pieces, although it might be iced or frosted or sweetened. Most people say that doughnuts have turisa de'nahama and are pas haba bekisnin as well. What about breakfast cereals?
Do all baked cereals have turisa de'nahama? Or perhaps there is a difference between flakes, Cheerio types, crumbs like Grape Nuts, and squares? Some poskim say that Cheerios, for example, are pas, because they are little bagels. Others say that while that might be true from a mouse's perspective, we are not mice, and size matters when deciding on turisa de'nahama. So, it becomes a little complicated. Theoretically, two people could sit down to eat breakfast, both eating cereals that are made from identical ingredients, both prepared by baking, both tasting the same, but one cereal might have turisa de'nahama and require Netilas Yadayim and Hamotzi, and one not have Turisa De'nahama and therefore be a plain old mezonos.
Rabbi Heinemann of Baltimore once (1986 or 1987) added to the fog by saying that he had been wrestling with the question for many years, and that one of his issues was that breakfast cereal is eaten with a spoon and never eaten with the hands, as bread is, and that this also might create a legal distinction between them.
Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt'l and Rav Eliashiv Shlitah have been quoted variously as having said that most cereals have turisa de'nahama and require hamotzi, (Vezos Habracha fourth edition page 192) but also have been quoted contrariwise, as having said that this is only true in the case of Grape Nuts, which is a cereal breakfast made of crumbled loaves of bread (Vezos Habracha fifth edition page 219). Rav Sheinberg Shlitah has been unambiguously quoted there (fourth edition page 192) as having said that cereals do not have turisa de'nahama and do not ever require hamotzi. I surmise he would say this is true even in the case of Grape Nuts, because they are made with the specific intention of continuing to process them into crumbs, and so the intermediate loaf stage is irrelevant. This reasoning has been applied by some to Bagel Chips and Pita Chips, which are manufactured specifically to be sliced and chopped and sold as snacks, even though they are baked in large pieces, like normal bagels and pita.
Before being too quick to decide, remember that if it is pas, then the rule of pas palter applies. That is, that there cannot be a problem of bishul akum, because there is a special leniency for pas baked by professional bakeries. If, on the other hand, it is not pas, then there might be a problem of bishul akum. So, if you are kovei'a seudah on the cereal but still make a mezonos, you'd better be ready to explain why you aren't worried about bishul akum.
However, many people choose the best of all possible worlds and say that it is not pas, but there is no bishul akum problem because breakfast cereal is not served at state banquets, it is not "oleh ahl shulchan melachim." Only foods that would be "served at kingly tables" are covered by the prohibition of bishul akum and must be cooked by Jews. The Aruch Hashulchan, for example, says that potatoes are not covered by the issur of bishul akum, because potatoes are a peasant food, and no king would allow them on his table. Obviously, that is no longer the case. Here, too, the application to breakfast cereal is debatable. They may not be served at state banquets, but a head of state would certainly serve them to a guest at breakfast. Many poskim hold, for example, that even potato chips need bishul yisrael, because heads of state would serve them with dips. I find this difficult to accept, but how many dinners have I had with heads of state?
So what should you do? Sometimes, the best answer is to ask your rav. Here, where it involves the very subjective categorization of "turisa de'nahama", I suggest you just think for a few days about what you think of as bread, and then make your own decision. Maybe you, too, will decide that Cheerios are lilliputian bagels.
But what is most important is to make an informed decision, not to just coast along on the momentum of habit, indifference, and ignorance, or worse, scorn for the minutiae of the laws of brachos. Better wrong than oblivious.
However, there is one exception to this rule. If the food does not have the appearance of bread (turisa de'nahama), you make mezonos, no matter how much you eat or if you are eating is as a full meal. What is "the appearance of bread"? There's the ambiguity, since this is a subjective assessment. Cake definitely has halachic Turisa De'nahama, since it is baked in large loaf-like pieces, although it might be iced or frosted or sweetened. Most people say that doughnuts have turisa de'nahama and are pas haba bekisnin as well. What about breakfast cereals?
Do all baked cereals have turisa de'nahama? Or perhaps there is a difference between flakes, Cheerio types, crumbs like Grape Nuts, and squares? Some poskim say that Cheerios, for example, are pas, because they are little bagels. Others say that while that might be true from a mouse's perspective, we are not mice, and size matters when deciding on turisa de'nahama. So, it becomes a little complicated. Theoretically, two people could sit down to eat breakfast, both eating cereals that are made from identical ingredients, both prepared by baking, both tasting the same, but one cereal might have turisa de'nahama and require Netilas Yadayim and Hamotzi, and one not have Turisa De'nahama and therefore be a plain old mezonos.
Rabbi Heinemann of Baltimore once (1986 or 1987) added to the fog by saying that he had been wrestling with the question for many years, and that one of his issues was that breakfast cereal is eaten with a spoon and never eaten with the hands, as bread is, and that this also might create a legal distinction between them.
Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt'l and Rav Eliashiv Shlitah have been quoted variously as having said that most cereals have turisa de'nahama and require hamotzi, (Vezos Habracha fourth edition page 192) but also have been quoted contrariwise, as having said that this is only true in the case of Grape Nuts, which is a cereal breakfast made of crumbled loaves of bread (Vezos Habracha fifth edition page 219). Rav Sheinberg Shlitah has been unambiguously quoted there (fourth edition page 192) as having said that cereals do not have turisa de'nahama and do not ever require hamotzi. I surmise he would say this is true even in the case of Grape Nuts, because they are made with the specific intention of continuing to process them into crumbs, and so the intermediate loaf stage is irrelevant. This reasoning has been applied by some to Bagel Chips and Pita Chips, which are manufactured specifically to be sliced and chopped and sold as snacks, even though they are baked in large pieces, like normal bagels and pita.
Before being too quick to decide, remember that if it is pas, then the rule of pas palter applies. That is, that there cannot be a problem of bishul akum, because there is a special leniency for pas baked by professional bakeries. If, on the other hand, it is not pas, then there might be a problem of bishul akum. So, if you are kovei'a seudah on the cereal but still make a mezonos, you'd better be ready to explain why you aren't worried about bishul akum.
However, many people choose the best of all possible worlds and say that it is not pas, but there is no bishul akum problem because breakfast cereal is not served at state banquets, it is not "oleh ahl shulchan melachim." Only foods that would be "served at kingly tables" are covered by the prohibition of bishul akum and must be cooked by Jews. The Aruch Hashulchan, for example, says that potatoes are not covered by the issur of bishul akum, because potatoes are a peasant food, and no king would allow them on his table. Obviously, that is no longer the case. Here, too, the application to breakfast cereal is debatable. They may not be served at state banquets, but a head of state would certainly serve them to a guest at breakfast. Many poskim hold, for example, that even potato chips need bishul yisrael, because heads of state would serve them with dips. I find this difficult to accept, but how many dinners have I had with heads of state?
So what should you do? Sometimes, the best answer is to ask your rav. Here, where it involves the very subjective categorization of "turisa de'nahama", I suggest you just think for a few days about what you think of as bread, and then make your own decision. Maybe you, too, will decide that Cheerios are lilliputian bagels.
But what is most important is to make an informed decision, not to just coast along on the momentum of habit, indifference, and ignorance, or worse, scorn for the minutiae of the laws of brachos. Better wrong than oblivious.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Vayeitzei, Breishis 30:15. How could Leah say הַמְעַט קַחְתֵּךְ אֶת אִישִׁי, “Isn't it enough that you took away my husband"?
Since this Parsha has a great deal to say about naming babies, here is a link to posts on other parshios that discuss Jewish and Secular names, and the general definition of a name and another that discusses who has the right to name a baby.
30:15. How could Leah say הַמְעַט קַחְתֵּךְ אֶת אִישִׁי? It seems like a caricature of ingratitude for Leah to resentfully say that Rachel had taken away her husband, when in fact it was Leah that took away Rachel's husband, and even that was done with Rachel's help. Even assuming that the switch of Leah for Rachel was done unilaterally by Lavan, and Leah had no choice in the matter, but the fact remains that Rachel voluntarily gave Leah the simanim at the chasuna to prevent Leah’s embarrassment, and if not for that act of kindness, Yaakov would have realized he was being defrauded, he would have kicked Leah out of the tent in middle of the night, and she never would have married to him.
1. Someone answered that the Gemarah (Reb Chiya) in Kesuvos 59b says, women live for two things; their spousal relationship and their maternal relationship. (This is an excellent pshat in the Gemara, but it's not pashut pshat.) Leah said, our husband Yaakov’s personal relationship is already exclusively yours. I am left only with the relationship I have with my children. Now, you want to insinuate yourself into my relationship with my firstborn son Reuven? In other words, Leah was not saying that Rochel had already done anything treacherous by taking her husband. She knew that Rachel had gotten her married to Yaakov in the first place. She was just saying that since her husband didn’t love her (since he loved Rachel), she had only one source of emotional satisfaction in life, and that was her special relationship with her children. If Rachel were to interfere with that, Leah would have nothing left.
2. Rabbeinu Bachaya– Rachel was the Rambam's Baalas Chessed. The Rambam says a baal chesed should give tzdaka so that the recipient doesn’t realize that the other person gave him anything. So when she gave the simanim to Leah, she didn’t say “I am sacrificing my happiness to prevent your disgrace.” Instead, she made up a story that made Leah think that by taking Rochel’s place at the wedding, she was doing Rachel a favor. Maybe Rachel told her she was afraid of Yaakov, maybe she told her she didn’t like him. In any case, Leah was convinced that she was the baalas chessed who had done a favor for Rachel, and that Rachel later cheated her out of her husband by taking his love from her.
3. Reb Yerucham says that once Leah and Yaakov were married, nothing that brought them to that position mattered: it was bashert, and Leah was his intended wife. The factors that implemented that result were completely fungible, and if Rochel hadn’t given the simanim, something else would have happened to ensure Leah’s marriage to Yaakov. (This is a classic strategy, which I have seen in countless meshulachim, of avoiding hakoras tov, along with “you were just doing your mitzvah." I don’t know if Reb Yerucham meant it to illustrate bitachon in hashgacha pratis in marriage, or he really meant that you don’t have to appreciate a gomel chesed because the result was bashert anyway. I hope not. But it sounds like a good excuse not to come up with shadchonus money after the couple gets engaged.)
4. A commenter (The Great Unknown) sent in the following. I hesitated to post it, but, as he said, it's not up to me to censor the words of the Litvishe gedolim
The Maharil Bloch said: " appreciating a favor does not include repaying it in such a way as to nullify the original favor." (clumsy translation of the Yiddish) This was in the context of his firing Reb Leib Chasman immediately after Rav Bloch took over the yeshiva on Reb Leib's recommendation.
~~~~~
****************************************
30:15. How could Leah say הַמְעַט קַחְתֵּךְ אֶת אִישִׁי? It seems like a caricature of ingratitude for Leah to resentfully say that Rachel had taken away her husband, when in fact it was Leah that took away Rachel's husband, and even that was done with Rachel's help. Even assuming that the switch of Leah for Rachel was done unilaterally by Lavan, and Leah had no choice in the matter, but the fact remains that Rachel voluntarily gave Leah the simanim at the chasuna to prevent Leah’s embarrassment, and if not for that act of kindness, Yaakov would have realized he was being defrauded, he would have kicked Leah out of the tent in middle of the night, and she never would have married to him.
1. Someone answered that the Gemarah (Reb Chiya) in Kesuvos 59b says, women live for two things; their spousal relationship and their maternal relationship. (This is an excellent pshat in the Gemara, but it's not pashut pshat.) Leah said, our husband Yaakov’s personal relationship is already exclusively yours. I am left only with the relationship I have with my children. Now, you want to insinuate yourself into my relationship with my firstborn son Reuven? In other words, Leah was not saying that Rochel had already done anything treacherous by taking her husband. She knew that Rachel had gotten her married to Yaakov in the first place. She was just saying that since her husband didn’t love her (since he loved Rachel), she had only one source of emotional satisfaction in life, and that was her special relationship with her children. If Rachel were to interfere with that, Leah would have nothing left.
2. Rabbeinu Bachaya– Rachel was the Rambam's Baalas Chessed. The Rambam says a baal chesed should give tzdaka so that the recipient doesn’t realize that the other person gave him anything. So when she gave the simanim to Leah, she didn’t say “I am sacrificing my happiness to prevent your disgrace.” Instead, she made up a story that made Leah think that by taking Rochel’s place at the wedding, she was doing Rachel a favor. Maybe Rachel told her she was afraid of Yaakov, maybe she told her she didn’t like him. In any case, Leah was convinced that she was the baalas chessed who had done a favor for Rachel, and that Rachel later cheated her out of her husband by taking his love from her.
3. Reb Yerucham says that once Leah and Yaakov were married, nothing that brought them to that position mattered: it was bashert, and Leah was his intended wife. The factors that implemented that result were completely fungible, and if Rochel hadn’t given the simanim, something else would have happened to ensure Leah’s marriage to Yaakov. (This is a classic strategy, which I have seen in countless meshulachim, of avoiding hakoras tov, along with “you were just doing your mitzvah." I don’t know if Reb Yerucham meant it to illustrate bitachon in hashgacha pratis in marriage, or he really meant that you don’t have to appreciate a gomel chesed because the result was bashert anyway. I hope not. But it sounds like a good excuse not to come up with shadchonus money after the couple gets engaged.)
4. A commenter (The Great Unknown) sent in the following. I hesitated to post it, but, as he said, it's not up to me to censor the words of the Litvishe gedolim
The Maharil Bloch said: " appreciating a favor does not include repaying it in such a way as to nullify the original favor." (clumsy translation of the Yiddish) This was in the context of his firing Reb Leib Chasman immediately after Rav Bloch took over the yeshiva on Reb Leib's recommendation.
~~~~~
Friday, November 20, 2009
Congratulations to Brisker
Congratulations to Brisker on getting a score of 94 on his first major Arabic translation test, in which he had to translate complex sentences from Arabic to Hebrew. May he go mei'chayil el choyil.
Rabbi Kaphach (קאפח) z'l should be looking over his shoulder.
Update
To make this post less obscure:
Brisker is the son of a good friend, an American boy who is studying in Israel, both in a kollel and at a University. I'm proud of him for many reasons. First, his Kollel and University studies are mutually extra-curricular. Second, for an English speaker to do well translating Arabic into Hebrew deserves recognition. Third, he's just a nice young man.
Rav Kaphach translated the Rambam's Judeo-Arabic into Hebrew, and many people say that he did a far better job than earlier translators. Brisker is studying both classic and modern Arabic, but probably not Judeo-Arabic. Rav Kaphach probably doesn't really have anything to worry about.
Rabbi Kaphach (קאפח) z'l should be looking over his shoulder.
Update
To make this post less obscure:
Brisker is the son of a good friend, an American boy who is studying in Israel, both in a kollel and at a University. I'm proud of him for many reasons. First, his Kollel and University studies are mutually extra-curricular. Second, for an English speaker to do well translating Arabic into Hebrew deserves recognition. Third, he's just a nice young man.
Rav Kaphach translated the Rambam's Judeo-Arabic into Hebrew, and many people say that he did a far better job than earlier translators. Brisker is studying both classic and modern Arabic, but probably not Judeo-Arabic. Rav Kaphach probably doesn't really have anything to worry about.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Toldos, Breishis 25:22. Rivka Didn't Have Any Rabbis at Home To Talk To?
UPDATED NOVEMBER 2020
Rashi says that she went to the Beis Medrash of Sheim, and in the next passuk Rashi brings that Hashem answered her through the nevuah of Sheim. This is in the Medrash Rabbah here 63:6, and 20:6, 45:10, and 48:20, and sort of in the Yerushalmi in Sotah right in the beginning of seventh perek, and the Zohar here on this passuk. Some say to Sheim, some say through a malach.
According to those that say she went to Sheim or Eiver, why did Rivka go to Sheim and Eiver with her problem? Why didn’t she just ask her own husband, Yitzchak? What about Avraham, who lived until Yakov and Eisav were 15 years old? Was there something about the nature of her question that required that she not go to them, and instead go to Sheim?
(The Ibn Ezra, as usual, solves the problem by disregarding what Chazal say: he says that she did go to Avraham. The Abravanel also says this as an alternative to the various Medrashim. This is, of course, a valid interpretation of the passuk, but it does nothing to explain what Chazal were thinking.)
The Gur Aryeh (and, I'm told, the Baal Haturim in his pirush) says that she was afraid that the problem she perceived in her child arose from, and reflected, her own flaws, and she was ashamed to go to her husband. .
An acquaintance of mine suggested that the fact that Yitzchok learned in the Beis Medrash of Sheim and Eiver showed that they were the gedolei hador, so they were first people to consult. Another friend vehemently disagreed, saying that there is no question that Yitzchok, and of course Avraham, were far greater than Sheim and Eiver, and the fact that Yitzchak left home to learn there proves nothing.
The Ramban on Breishis 27:4 discusses this tangentially. He asks, when Rivka overheard Yitzchak tell Eisav that he would give him the brachos, she came up with a ruse to subvert Eisav's plan. Why didn’t she simply tell Yitzchak about what she heard from Sheim, that “ve’rav ya'avod tza’ir,” which meant that Eisav would serve Yaakov, and which would mean that the brachos should go to Yaakov? The Ramban answers "Apparently Rivkah never told him [Yitzchok] about G-d's prophecy to her, "and the older shall serve the younger" (Breishis 25:23), for if she had, how could Isaac go against the word of Hashem? At first, she did not tell him because of her sense of morality and modesty, for "she went to inquire of Ha’elokim" (Breishis 25:22), and she had gone without Isaac's permission; or perhaps she thought, "I need not report a prophecy to a prophet, for he is greater than he who told me," [Sheim, according to the Medrash.] And now she did not want to say to him, "I was told such and such by the Lord before I gave birth," for she reasoned, out of [Yitzchak's] love for [Eisav], [Yitzchak] would not bless Yakov, but would leave everything in Hashem's hands; and she knew that for this reason [giving Jacob cooked food that tasted like game] Yakov would receive the blessing from his mouth with a full heart and a willing soul.” (Then the Ramban says something vague about hidden intentions of Hashem.) So: from the Ramban we see several possiblities: 1. that either she didn't want to tell Yitzchak what Shem told her because she went to consult Shem without Yitzchak's permission; or 2. that she figured that if the lesser navi (Shem) knew something, then certainly the greater navi (Yitzchak) knew it as well, (and 3. if he didn't, then there must be a reason Hashem did not want Yitzchak to know about it).
The Chizkuni says this as well-- that Rivka never told Yitzchak what she was told, and that she must have been told to not tell him, or at least was not told to tell him. This, too, is a post facto validation of her decision to seek the answer outside her home.
I would say, expanding on the Ramban and the Chizkuni, that the three points we elicited from the Ramban are not either/or. They all are true. Rivka reasoned that if her husband or father in law knew what was going on, they would have told her. From their silence she deduced two things: that they didn't know, and that Hashem didn't want them to know. So she make an independent decision and went elsewhere, thinking that even if Hashem didn't want Yitzchak and Avraham to know, Hashem might tell her. As it turned out, she was 100% correct.
The Netziv here also deals with the question. He says there are two types of nevuah, two types of nevi'im. One is a navi to whom Hashem speaks; the other is one who sees hidden things through ruach hakodesh, like Shmuel, the "Ro'eh," to whom people would go to find out where their missing donkeys had gone. As is evident from Shmuel, these two types of Nevu'ah are not mutually exclusive; but the Netziv says that Avraham was a type one navi only, while Shem was type 2, and that’s why Rivka went to him. She needed a see-er, a Ro'eh, an “Adam Gadol she’yad'ah ki hu ro’eh veyodei’ah.”
Rabbi Kenny Nieman said that she went to Sheim because he was the zakein— Sheim lived 600 years, and he was probably around 550 at that time. Rivka's husband and father in law were, comparatively, youngsters. The distinctive wisdom of a zakein, especially a zakein who was a navi for 400 years, is the greatest possible resource. This teretz reminded me of the dinner for MTJ where they were mechabeid Reb Moshe, and when Reb Yakov Kaminetski spoke, he said that it might seem to be gaivah for him to evaluate Reb Moshe, but there cannot be any doubt that he (Reb Yaakov) is the zakein, and so he had a right to state his opinion of Reb Moshe’s gadlus.
Thank you, Eli, for finding the Medrash Seichel Tov, (authored/compiled by R. Menahem Ben Shlomo, Italy (?), in 1139) that says exactly this:
ותלך. לבית מדרשו של עבר: לדרוש את ה׳. לבקש רחמים על העובר, ואע׳פ שאברהם קיים, הלכה אצל
זקנים ללמדך שכל המקבל פני זקן שבדור, כאילו מקבל פני שכינה
זקנים ללמדך שכל המקבל פני זקן שבדור, כאילו מקבל פני שכינה
Translation: And She Went: To the Beis Medrash of Eiver. To Seek Hashem: To pray for mercy for the fetus. Even though Avraham was alive, she went to the Elder. This is (stated in the passuk in order) to teach you that anyone that attends the presence of an Elder it is as if he attends the presence of the Shechina.
Reb Berel Povarsky has a very nice discussion about this kashe. He asks this, and many other questions, such as, didn’t she know that her husband had a bad brother, Yishmo’eil, and that there was a process of ‘zikuch’ before the 12 shvatim could be born? Also, Chazal said that Shem showed her Rebbi and Antoninus. How does a good descendant console her for a son who is a rasha? Answer— she knew everything, but wondered, why did the zikuch by Avrohom take place through his pilegesh, Hagar, and now it is taking place through me— lamah zeh anochi— why am I the one that has to bear the bad one. This, of course, was not a question she could ask her husband’s family, because of the concern that the cause was some personal flaw she carried, similar to the Gur Aryeh. The answer that Shem gave her was that Yishma’eil, being the zikuch son, and having been born by the pilegesh, had no redeeming qualities, and is and will always be a pereh adam. (But see above end of Chayei Soroh that Yishmo’eil did tshuvoh before he died, and Eisav never did.) But Eisav needed to have a higher character, and not just be an outlaw, and so you were the one to bear him and to infuse into him these higher qualities. This is why she was shown Rebbi and Antoninus; to show her both the benefit Klal Yisrael will have from him, and also the more refined character a ben Eisav is capable of.
And here is what I think: that she didn’t go to Sheim, but rather to his Beis Medrash. She wanted to ask Hashem herself, or to be mispallel, and to do so required that she go to a makom kadosh, just as Chana went to the Bais Hamikdash when she wanted to ask Hashem for children. And just as Chana was then answered through Eli, the Kohen Gadol who was there at the time, Rivka’s question/tefilla was answered through Sheim, who was a kohen gadol (Nedarim 32b and Targum Yerushalmi Breishis 14:18), or his descendant, Ever, who was in the Beis Medrash at that time. She could have asked her husband or her father in law, but the more appropriate response to a challenge is to attempt to resolve the question yourself, and not to abdicate the opportunity for personal growth by passing off the issue to someone else. Even if Malkitzedek lost the Kehuna for giving a bracha to Avraham before thanking Hashem, it doesn't really matter. He was the Gadol in a place that was meyuchad for Limud Hatorah and Hashra'as Hashechina.
The word "lidrosh" here means what it means in ישעיהו נה where it says דרשו ה' בהמצאו . The Gemara in Rosh Hashanna 18a says that בהמצאו means either in the setting of a tzibbur, because the Shechina rests on a tzibbur, or during Aseres Yemei Teshuva, when the Shechina makes itself available. The same בהמצאו applies to a place of kedusha. It may be negi'us, but I think my pshat is peshuto shel mikra.
Having said this, it becomes clear that this is what the Medrash Seichel Tov that I brought above means:
לבית מדרשו של עבר: לדרוש את ה׳. לבקש רחמים על העובר
She went to the Beis Medrash of Eiver, not to Eiver himself; and she went to be mevakesh rachamim on the fetus, not to ask Sheim or Eiver any questions. Precisely like Channah.What's the lesson here, then? The lesson is this: That a person, certainly one who has problems having or raising children, but also anyone that faces a life difficulty, should do as Channah and Rivka did. Go to the presence of a zakein who is a tzadik and a great talmid chacham, and be mispallel to Hashem for help with your problem. Certainly, seeing a bracha is wise. As the Gemara in Bava Basra 116a says,
דרש ר' פנחס בר חמא כל שיש לו חולה בתוך ביתו ילך אצל חכם ויבקש עליו רחמים שנא' (משלי טז) חמת מלך מלאכי מות ואיש חכם יכפרנה
But the lesson from this week's parsha is that it is good to find the right place and to be mispallel there yourself.If someone else has already said this, I don't want to know about it, thank you. I know that the Ramban says that 'lidrosh' means tefilla, and that the Abravanel argues. But what I am saying, that Rivka went to a place where there was Hashra'as Hashechina, and connecting it to the story of Chana and how she was answered, and the Gemara in Rosh Hashanna, and the Passuk in Yeshaya, is far more comprehensive than what the Ramban says, especially since unlike the Ramban who is arguing with Rashi, what I'm saying explains Rashi. So don't tell me that it's mefurash in the Ramban. It's not mefurash in the Ramban and it's befeirush not like the Ramban.
UPDATE NOVEMBER 2020
This came in a comment. It is a clever and excellent pshat.
YybturnerNovember 26, 2020 at 3:22 PMI always thought she went to Yeshivas Sheim v'Eiber because when the Medrash says she went past a Beis Medrash it was obviously Shem v'Ever, at that moment. So she went straight in to ask.
UPDATE NOVEMBER 2023
There's so much online... I came across this publication that lists seven answers to this question. I don't vouch for it, but it can't hurt to put it up here. If you have to say a drasha, it's always helpful to have more angles of attack.
הנה רבקה אמנו, יושבת בצילם של אבות וגדולי האומה, אבותינו הק דושים, אברהם ויצחק, ועתה
שרבקה נבוכה בעקבות שהבנים מתרוצצים בקרבה, הולכת לקבול לפני שם ועבר, וצ"ע למה לא שאלה
פי קודשם של יצחק או אברהם, שהיא נמצאת בצילם, ומדוע הניחה את אברהם אבינו שהיתה עמו, והיה נביא גדול, והלכה לירושלים אל שם, והלא אברהם אבינו חי עד שהיו יעקב ועשו בני ט"ו שנה, ויעקב הכין אותו נזיד עדשים להברות אבלותו של אביו על אברהם?
ביאור א'
במדרש שכל טוב מתרץ שאע"פ שאברהם אבינו קיים היה, הלכה אצל זקנים, ללמדך שכל המקבל פני זקן שבדור, כאילו מקבל פני שכינה.
ביאור ב'
בעלי התוס' עה"ת מתרצים שרצתה לדרוש בהן אם מותר לה להפיל העובר מחמת צער הלידה, וידעה כי אברהם ויצחק לא יתירו לה להפיל עוברים מזרעם. ונראה כי הדברים עולים בקנה אחד עם מ"ש במדרש הגדול, דורשי רשומות אומרין אמרה רבקה לפני הקב"ה רבש"ע א"כ עתיד עשו להרוג ולכלות אדירי חכמה שהן עתידין להיות מבניו של יעקב, מי יאמר לפניך על הים זה אלי ואנוהו (שמות ט"ו, ב'), ולמי תאמר על הר סיני אנכי ה' אלהיך (שמות כ', ב'), מיד חגרה מתניה ועמדה בתפילתה. ומבואר שצערה של רבקה לא היה על צער לידה של צער הגוף גרידא, אלא אותו הצער היה על צערם של ישראל בכל הדורות.
ביאור ג'
עוד מתרצים בעלי התוס' עה"ת, כשהיתה רבקה מצטערת מהריונה, בלי ספק אברהם חמיה ויצחק בעלה היו מצטערים בשבילה, ואין הנבואה שורה מתוך עצבות אלא מתוך שמחה. ועוד כי רבקה היתה צנועה והסתירה הדבר מבעלה ומחמיה והלכה אצל שם.
ביאור ד'
עי"ל ע"פ מ"ש בגמ' (ב"ב קטז.), דרש ר' פנחס בר חמא, כל שיש לו חולה בתוך ביתו, ילך אצל חכם ויבקש עליו רחמים, שנא' "חמת מלך מלאכי מות ואיש חכם יכפרנה", וכתב הנמוק"י שם שילך לפני תופס ישיבה, וידוע כי שם ועבר קבעו אז ישיבתם לכל. ועל כן בדוקא הלכה לפני שם ועבר, כי יש מעלה לתופס ישיבה דוקא, וגם מפני שיש לתופס ישיבה את הסגולה לרפא את החולים, מפני שהוא מעמיד תלמידים, וממילא בנוסף למה שישיבו לה דבר, גם יש להם כח מיוחד לרפא את החולה, ואפשר שאחרי שיצאה רבקה מבית שם ועבר ובירכוה, כבר פסק לה צער העיבור ממה שהיו מתרוצצים בקרבה, כי לא מצינו בכתובים שמאז עוד סבלה.
ביאור ה'
עי"ל בס"ד דאדרבה רבקה לא רצתה לצער את יצחק או אברהם ולהפריעם בלימודם, לכן הלכה לפני שם ועבר , שהם קבעו ישיבתם ללמד ולהורות לרבים, והיו מזומנים למי שהיה צריך לדרוש בחכמים. וראיה לדבר, שהרי כשיצחק רצה לתת את הברכות לעשיו, ו גם נאמר לרבקה בנבואה שיעקב יטול הברכות, לא דיברה עם יצחק בדבר להניאו מכוונתו וליתן את הברכות ליעקב בדין, אלא שלא רצתה להפריעו מלימודו ועבודת השי"ת, וכן כל אותו הזמן שעשיו יצא לתרבות רעה, לא סיפרה לו על אודות עשיו שמרמהו כי ציד בפיו, והכל כדי שלא להפריעו בלימודו ולא לצערו. שו"ר שכן תירץ במושב זקנים, שלא רצתה לצער את אברהם.
ומספרים שכאשר היתה אימו של רבינו הגר"ח מוולאז'ין מתייסרת בצער לידה, עמד על ידה בעלה והיה משוחח בלימוד עם הגאון בעל השאגת אריה, וכאשר החלו לתקוף אותה חבלי לידה, נשכה שפתותיה שלא להשמיע קול זעקה וצווחה, קול צער ויללה, פן עי"כ יסור אליה בעלה, והגאון שאגת אריה יפנה לדרכו, ואז יפסיקו לדבר בלימוד, וכך בעודה מתייסרת וצוותת שפתותיה בתעצומות נפש לרוב יקרתה לתורה, שלא להניא בעלה מעסק התורה, אותה שעה העיר ה' את רוחו של מרן הגר"ח מוואלז'ין זצ"ל שנולד בהריון זה, ועלה ונתעלה ונעשה מרכבה לשכינה בתורתו וביראתו ובהעמדת תלמידים.
ויש עוד מעשה מופלא על מסירות נפשה של אשתו של מרן הגרי"ש אלישיב זצ"ל, שכאשר בנה חלה מאד ונפל למשכב עם יותר מ' 40 מעלות חום, התייראה פן כשישוב בעלה מבהמ"ד, יראה את בנו בחוליו ויגרם לו היסח הדעת בלימוד התורה, על כן הניחה את השולחן בחוץ פתח הבית, כאשר השלחן חוסם את הכניסה לבית, וכסא מונח מבחוץ, ו ערכה עליו את ארוחת הצהרים, וכך לא נודע למרן הרב אלישיב על חוליו של בנו, שבבואו לביתו, התיישב מבחוץ ואכל וחזר לתלמודו.
ביאור ו'
הנה באחת הפעמים שזכיתי לדבר קדם קמיה מרן עט"ר גאון ישראל רבינו עובדיה יוסף זצ"ל (ראה בס' כרם רבנן עמ' ק"פ), סיפרתי שהיה אחד כתב בצוואתו שכל הירושה שלו תחולק ע"פ מה שיפסוק גדול הדור, והיה ספק גדול מיהו גדול הדור, האם הגר"ח מוולוז'ין, או איזה גאון עצום אחר שהיה בזמנו, שהיו שניהם גדולים בתורה, ובהעמדת תלמידים. ופסקו הב"ד שמי שנקרא גדול הדור זה הגר"ח מוולוז'ין, בהיות והוא יצק מים וקיבל את תורתו מרבינו הגר"א, ולכן כיון שהגר"ח היה לו רב, ואילו לגאון השני לא היה רב, אלא הוא מעצמו ישב ולמד, לכן הוא נחשב לגדול הדור. עפ"ז נראה לומר שאע"פ שהיה אברהם קיים,
והגם שהוא היה קברניט הדור (ב"ב צא:) , והיה נביא ה', ואור העולם שניצול מאור כשדים, וכן יצחק היה קיים, וכיון שהיו שם ועבר קיימים, שהם רבותיהם של אברהם ויצחק , לכן הלכה רבקה לפניהם.
ביאור ז'
בספר תורת העובר (עמ' שע"ו), מביא מספר אמרי שפר למהר"י חלאוה זצ"ל שתירץ שרבקה לא הלכה לאברהם, פן יאמר בשלו הצער הגדול הזה עליה, לפי שהתפלל עליה שתהר וע"י תפילתו נתעברה, והעלימה ממנו העניין כדי שלא ישנאנה בראותו שהיא משונה בהריונה משאר הנשים, עכת"ד. והביא עוד בזה מהמהר"ל בגור אריה, שכתב וז"ל: והא דלא שאלה את יצחק או את אברהם י"ל דהיתה רבקה סבורה דשמא בשביל חטא יש לה צער העיבור כ "כ שאמרו רז"ל כי הנשים הצדקניות לא היו בפתקא של חוה כדאיתא בפ"ק דסוטה י"ב, והיתה מתייראת שתתגנה בעיני בעלה או שיאמר אברהם ליצחק שאינה הגונה לו וישא אחרת או יגרשנה, עכ"ל.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)