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?”

Interesting Issurim for Shabbos

Halacha is like a Guitar.  I do not mean this as David Hamelech said (Tehillim 119:54) that זמירות היו לי חוקיך:  I mean it in this sense; Andres Segovia, although a virulent anti-semite, once said a clever thing: "The guitar is the easiest instrument to play, and the hardest to play well."  Halacha can be observed on many levels, from well-intentioned bare adequacy to high competence.

In the realm of Halacha, Hilchos Shabbos have a special place.  As the Mishna Berura says in his introduction to his volume three, if a person does not invest very serious effort into learning Hilchos Shabbos, transgressing issurim d'oraysa is inevitable.  For some of us, even those that think they are keeping hilchos Shabbos properly, it's news that you can't comb your hair on Shabbos, or stir a pot that's on the stove, or put deodorant or perfume on clothing.  But except for the highest tier of Talmidei Chachamim, there's always something new.  There are poskim that asser everything on the following list, and there are poskim that are mattir some or all of these, but every case highlights an issue that deserves some thought.  If you think the halacha is obvious, it is only because you don't know enough.  I have to admit, though, that some are really on the far edge of likelihood, and I am not noheg issur on many of them.

1.  Sunbathing for the purpose of getting a tan, because of צובע. See Minchas Yitzchak vol. 5 #32, 2 s.v. aval and Az Nidberu vol. 2 #30, and going outside in photogrey glasses, according to Rav Eliashiv, who is a da'as yachid on this topic.
2.  Catching and locking up an unruly child, because of צד.  See תשובות אבני נזר קפ'ט סעיף כ'ב.
3.  Wearing a hat with a straight brim larger than a tefach.  See Mishna Berura 301 SK 152.
4.  Putting up a mechitza so women can daven with a minyan.  See MB 315 SK 10.
5.  Opening the window shade when the light will fall on a houseplant, because of - זורע- it's not less זורע than זומר
6.  Punishing a child on Yomtov, because of the bittul of your asei that obligates you to make the members of your household joyous, and, obviously, because you're being mevatel the child's own mitzva of simcha on Yomtov and Oneg on Shabbos.
7.  Using Reddi-Whip whipped cream cans, because of either נולד or בונה
8.  Throwing crumbs or water into the wind, and similarly, using any aerosol spray.  See Magen Avraham 446:2.
9.  Separating freeze-pops, because of מחתך.  See Shevet Halevi 1:115.
10.  Cooking Cholent in a crock-pot, even if the top is not enclosed, because of הטמנה בדבר המוסיף הבל.  See Chazon Ish 37:19 and רש'ז אוערבאך במכתב הנדפס בספר אורחות שבת.
11.  While any newspaper that was printed on Shabbos might be muktza and assur to move, the New York Times is doubly muktza, and despite that, it would be muttar to move it anyway.  See Comments.


Feel free to suggest more.

Some people have told me that it would be best to not talk about unusual chumros, because it might discourage those who are considering shmiras Shabbos, and mutav she'yihyu shogegin and so forth.   I'm not too concerned about that.  That's not my demographic.

Vayeira, Breishis 18:17-18. The Novelty and the Power of Tefilla

1המכסה אני מאברהם אשר אני עושה ואברהם היה יהיה לגוי גדול ועצום ונברכו בו כול גויי הארץ

17.  Am I hiding from Avraham what I intend to do (to S'dom)?  18.  And Avraham will become a great and mighty nation.....


Rashi explains that Passuk 17 presents an implicit reason for Hashem's decision to tell Avraham about the future of S'dom.  As Rashi says, the land was promised to Avraham, and he is Av Hamon Goyim, the father of multitudes of nations; if the residents of his land are going to be destroyed, he should be told.  But passuk 18, le'goy gadol, that Avraham is the progenitor of a great nation, doesn't seem to have any relevance to Hashem’s decision to let Avraham know about the fate of S'dom. 

Rashi offers two possible explanations of passuk 18.  1. That it was simply a bracha to Avraham; having mentioned Avraham, Hashem gave him a bracha, and it has no particular relevance to the matter at hand; or 2. Avraham is dear to Me, so I will not hide anything from him.

The Maharil Diskin  explains passuk 18 differently.  Until that moment, Avraham didn't realize that tefilla made sense to change a gzeira.  If Hashem has made a decree, especially when it is a judgment for sinful behavior, what's the point of tefilla?  Many people feel that way about prayer.  Are you explaining something to G-d?  I recently saw an article in the New Yorker magazine by Professor James Wood, perhaps today's preeminent literary critic, that expresses this perplexity with the usual type of chutzpah that bespeaks a desperate desire to rationalize kefirah.  (Is That All There Is?, New Yorker Magazine of August 2011.)

The Bible contains several examples of God… appearing to sanction what seems arbitrary or cruel conduct: the command that Abraham kill his son, the tormenting of Job….  The Old Testament seems to have an apprehension of Plato’s dilemma, when it has Abraham plead with a vengeful [god] to spare the innocent inhabitants of Sodom. Abraham bargains with God: would He spare the city for the sake of fifty innocents? How about forty-five, or forty, or thirty? He gets God down to ten, and almost seems to shame Him, or perhaps teach Him, and hold Him to an ethics independent of His own impulses: “Far be it from You!” he chides [God]. “Will not the judge of all the earth do justice?”

Looking past Professor Wood's hauteur, the question about Tefilla is a legitimate one.  But let us assume that Avraham Avinu was intelligent enough to have asked himself the same question; granting the validity of the question,when Hashem told Avraham about S’dom, Avraham Avinu asked himself, “What is the purpose of this information?  Why is Hashem telling me what He plans to do?”  Avraham, an anav, didn't think it was for the reasons listed in Rashi in 17.  Faced with this puzzle, Avraham realized that despite the very good question, the only possible explanation for the Nevuah was that Hashem wanted him to pray on their behalf, and that tefilla might change the gzeira.  Having learned this lesson, Avraham immediately prayed for S’dom.  The tefilla did not change the g'zeira entirely, but at least it saved his nephew, Lot.

Afterwards, Avraham applied this lesson and prayed for Avimelech, whose sins had resulted in a curse that prevented the women in his household from giving birth.  The tefillos were successful and Avimlelech was cured, but more importantly, כל המבקש רחמים על חבירו והוא צריך לאותו דבר הוא נענה תחילה (see Bava Kamma 92a), -one who prays for someone else when he himself suffers from the same problem, he is answered first- it resulted in VaHashem pakad es Sarah, Sara became pregnant and had a child. 

This explains 18.  In order for Avraham to have children, in order for him to be the father of a great nation, a three step process had to be initiated.  1. He has to learn that a G’zeira is mutable and subject to change through tefilla.  2. Once he learns this lesson, he will pray for Avimelech.  3. His prayer for Avimelech will enable him to have children.  

This is why 19 says 

כי ידעתיו למען אשר יצווה את בניו ואת ביתו אחריו ושמרו דרך ה' לעשות צדקה ומשפט למען הביא ה' על אברהם את אשר דיבר עליו

Because I know that he will perpetuate in his children his teachings of the way of Hashem- so that what was promised to Avraham would come about.

How do we understand the last phrase, le'maan havi?  According to the Maharil Diskin, it is an explanation.  I will teach Avraham about the power of Tefilla, so that he will pray for the women in the house of Avimelech, so that his own wife will be able to have the promised children who will carry on his mesorah.

(Does this pshat assumes that Avraham was not aware of the story of kol siach hasadeh (Breishish 2:5), where Rashi says the Hashem held the vegetation back so that Adam would be mispallel for it to grow?  No.  There, it was not  a Gzeira against grass, it was an opportunity to let Adam participate in the creation of the world.  Here, where the gzeira was a judgment for sins, it was a big chiddush that tefilla could avert the Gzeira.)

No, the passuk does not explain the mechanism of tefilla, and the question remains a good question.  But the point is that the Ribono shel Olam taught Avraham that despite the excellent question, tefilla can change everything.  So, Professor Wood, the point of this episode is not that one should try to shame the Ribono shel Olam into changing His mind, or that we need to teach Humanism to G-d.  To interpret the pesukim in that manner expresses a desire to see the Chumash as backward and primitive, an assumption that flies in the face of the reality of a sophisticated and peerless ethical and sociological code.  If one assumes, instead, that the Author of the Torah is infinitely wise, then one easily finds a deep lesson here.  The lesson is the procedural fact that even after the sword has been unsheathed, G-d grants a last resort avenue of appeal.  Avraham Avinu, the great Anav, knew although he still did not understand how it could possibly make any difference, the need for and benefit from Tefilla is limitless.  He immediately applied the lesson as best he could under the circumstances.  After all, there is not a lot one could say to gain clemency for the abominable Sodomites.

I find it interesting that willful obliviousness will obscure even the most obvious intent of the Torah's lessons.  Not only does the lesson fall on deaf ears, but ironically, the lesson is so badly misinterpreted as to yield the opposite message.  

In our case, the episode makes it clear that the logic of tefilla is beyond human comprehension, and we are left on our own to devise what tefilla we think might be most effective.  Our choice of words might be inelegant or even primitive, but whatever approach we use, whether it is a request for consideration of the secondary consequences of enforcing judgment, or a prayer for a second chance, or we simply ask for a gift of clemency, the essence of tefilla as taught to Avraham Avinu is the appeal to Hashem's mercy.  Avraham Avinu had a hava amina that tefilla would be of no avail where a gzeira was a well-deserved judgment for terrible sins.  Hashem told him that even where you can’t come up with a good argument, Tefilla is a powerful tool that can change reality- Middas Hadin to Middas Harachamim, and, ultimately, barren old age to fresh and fruitful youth.  Unfortunately, some people read the story and remain with the Hava Amina.


Here is another interesting example. Julian the Apostate, the last non-Christian Roman emperor, planned to allow the Jews to rebuild the Beis Hamikdash, but delayed putting his plan into effect until he finished a military campaign against Iran.  He was mortally wounded during that war and died before he could carry out his plan.  Julian was named The Apostate by the Christians for his rejection of Christian belief.  He wouldn't count for a minyan, but he seems to have been, for a Roman Emperor, a pretty decent person.  Julian recorded some thoughts about the Bible, and his comment about the Bris Bein Habesarim is fascinating; he writes that the reason Avraham Avinu cut the animals in half was so he could divine the future by examining their entrails, and that he was told to go outside and look at the stars so that he could foretell the future by his Astrology.  How ironic!  Although we know that Avraham Avinu was at one time respected for his prognostications (Bava Basra 16b), this episode is, for us, the source for the idea of Ein Mazal L’yisrael (Nedarim 32a and Shabbos 156a), that astrology is utterly insignificant for the servants of Hashem, and poor Julian saw the opposite.