Vayishlach, Breishis 32:8. Vayiroh Yaakov me’ohd vayeitzer lo. What did Yaakov Fear?

This was originally posted in 07, and I haven't gotten any smarter. I am adding something Larry (BlackLeibel) Schwartz ע'ה showed me from the Satmarer and several good updates.

The passuk says that when Yaakov prepared for his confrontation with Eisav, he was stricken with fear and with terrible trepidation. Why the double expression?

Rashi explains that his yirah was because he might be killed, and his tzarah/distress was because he might have to kill others. 

ויירא ויצר. וַיִּירָא שֶׁמָּא יֵהָרֵג, וַיֵּצֶר לוֹ אִם יַהֲרֹג הוּא אֶת אֲחֵרִים (בראשית רבה ותנחומא):

You would think that the second half is testament to Jewish rachamim, the recognition that killing a human- no matter how much he deserves it or how immediate his threat is- brutalizes the killer and leaves indelible spiritual trauma. 

Or you might think that it is along the lines of the Gemara (Ber 32b) כהן שהרג את הנפש לא ישא את כפיו, שנאמר (ישעיהו א, טו): “וּבְפָרִשְׂכֶם כַּפֵּיכֶם אַעְלִים עֵינַי מִכֶּם וכו’ יְדֵיכֶם דָּמִים מָלֵאוּ”, or Dovid Hamelech’s preclusion from building his Beis Hamikdash because “דם לרב שפכת ומלחמות גדלות עשית לא תבנה בית לשמי כי דמים רבים שפכת ארצה לפני” 

But you would be wrong. I have not found one mefareish of Rashi– or the Medrash Rashi is based on– that learns pshat like that. The only one that says that derech was Golda Meir. Golda Meir may deserve our love and gratitude for her loving and courageous heart and for what she did for Klal Yisrael, but a mefareish of Chumash she was not. 

The pshatim I saw range from his fear of Yitzchok’s reaction to his fear of killing non-combatants, to a fear that the death of one brother would precipitate the death of the other, as per the concern/nevu'ah Rivkah had expressed. Nobody that I saw says that Yaakov was having nightmares about possibly killing someone who needed killing. I may have missed something, and I would appreciate a mareh makom if you have one.

Leibel Schwartz ע'ה showed me what the Satmarer brings in his Divrei Yoel from the Ateres Tzvi:

He asks, as we did, what would Yaakov be afraid of? הבא להרגך! and באבוד רשעים רנה!  Pshat is that in Eisav were many neshamos of tzadikim, such as Rav Akiva, none of whom would be born if Yaakov killed him, and Yaakov was distressed about preventing these holy neshamos from coming to this world. Or more precisely, ח'ו אם יעקב יהרגם שלא יתענש על ידם. 

I guess it's similar to Moshe Rabbeinu's ויפן כה וכה, that when you are using nissim and ruchniyus to eliminate a threat, you have to be sure that you are not interfereing with a potential tzadik in the future. By Moshe, he saw there were none. Here, Yaakov saw there were, so he was in a predicament.

In any case, you see that he assumes, as we did, that protecting yourself and your family from a violent savage by killing him is nothing to be afraid of.

UPDATE:

Rav Moish Pollack called in a he'ara on the Ateres Tzvi. At this point, Eisav's children were already born, so what does it mean that he was afraid to destroy Eisav's descendants? 

Rabbi Pollack is a talmid chacham, and I am assuming that the basis of his question is correct - that no children were born to Eisav later. If so, I would answer that Yaakov really did not have the option of killing only Eisav. A battle would have involved all of Eisav's children, and Yaakov would have had to kill them all to save himself.

Rav Avraham Bukspan directed our attention to a similar drasha on the passuk in Tehillim 142:2, 

קולי אל ה' אזעק קולי אל ה' אתחנן

The Medrash there says

קולי אל ה' אזעק קולי אל ה' אתחנן. למה ב' פעמים קולי. וכן אמר הכתוב (שם נז ב) חנני ה' חנני. ב' פעמים. אלא כך אמר דוד חנני שלא אפול בידו וחנני שלא יפול בידי. וכן קולי אל ה' אזעק שלא אפול בידו קולי אל ה' אתחנן שלא יפול בידי:

The two drashos are certainly mirror images. But if Rav Bukspan meant it as evidence of how Chazal read Yaakov's words here, I disagree. I do not think it is reasonable to compare David HaMelech's fear of harming the Meshiach Hashem, about whom the Ribono shel Olam said 

וידבר דוד לה' את דברי השירה הזאת ביום הציל ה' אותו מכף כל אויביו ומכף שאול אמר לו הקב"ה לדוד דוד שירה אתה אומר על מפלתו של שאול אלמלי אתה שאול והוא דוד איבדתי כמה דוד מפניו היינו דכתיב (תהלים ז, א) שגיון לדוד אשר שר לה' על דברי כוש בן ימיני וכי כוש שמו והלא שאול שמו אלא מה כושי משונה בעורו אף שאול משונה במעשיו 

with Yaakov's confrontation with Eisav. 

REB CHAIM BROWN to the rescue. 

Reb Chaim showed me something I would never have found, in that the author is not part of the ASU, the Artscroll Universe. I never heard of him, but he seems to have been a man that was not afraid of controversy.  See here and here. 

From Harav Chaim Hirschensohn, his sefer נמוקי רש"י - חידושי הרח"ה, page 53b, in the HebrewBooks site page 124:

... השתדלות המפרשים לבאר מדוע צר לו אם יהרג אחרים, הלא המה רודפים, והבא להרגך השכם והורגו, לא נחוץ כלל, כי גם ההורג בהתר את חבירו צר לו לאדם נכבד שבא לידי מדה זו.

So I guess it boils down to the old machlokes about whether certain mitzvos, even though required and important, can leave a stain on a person's middos. We've discussed this many times, and in this post I have a link to other places plus something from Reb Chaim on the subject.  (There's a whole world out there - the Or HaChaim, the Shiurei Da'as, Reb Aharon, lhbchlch Rav Sternbuch, and others.) Rav Hirschensohn's use of the idea to explain the words of Chazal here is novel, but it is no longer only Golda Meir.

Reb Chaim also showed me the Ksav Sofer that says pshat in the passuk is that Yaakov was bichlal not afraid of getting killed. He had a havtacha. He was afraid that he would have to kill Eisav, and as a result, it would distance him from the Ribono shel Olam and he would end up dying as a result of that richuk. This is all based on the Gemara in Shabbos 149b, 

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב בְּרֵיהּ דְּבַת יַעֲקֹב: כָּל שֶׁחֲבֵירוֹ נֶעֱנָשׁ עַל יָדוֹ — אֵין מַכְנִיסִין אוֹתוֹ בִּמְחִיצָתוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא. מְנָלַן? ...

מֵהָכָא: ״גַּם עֲנוֹשׁ לַצַּדִּיק לֹא טוֹב״, אֵין ״לֹא טוֹב״ אֶלָּא רָע, וּכְתִיב: ״כִּי לֹא אֵל חָפֵץ רֶשַׁע אָתָּה לֹא יְגוּרְךָ רָע״ — צַדִּיק אַתָּה ה׳ וְלֹא יָגוּר בִּמְגוּרְךָ רָע. 

So the idea is that it didn't bother him a ki hu zeh that he might have to kill Eisav. What bothered him was being the instrument of middas hadin that brings death to others. (This did not bother Moshe Rabbeinu when he brought the makkos, and it did not bother Moshe or Dovid or Avraham Avinu when they engaged in several wars. Perhaps the difference is whether you're in the War Room or on the battlefield.)  (That Ksav Sofer is also fascinating because in the second half of the paragraph he quotes Reb Yonasan Eibschutz's Luchos Ha'Eidus, where he bitterly complains about the horrible injustice of being a nirdaf from the Chacham Tzvi for the vile and unfounded accusation of following Shabtai Tzvi. It begins on page 148 of the לוחות העדות. I have it in the Otzar, but otherwise it's not available online.)

UPDATE:

Rav Bukspan sent me this geshmakkeh insight into what Chazal meant when they said וַיֵּצֶר לוֹ אִם יַהֲרֹג הוּא אֶת אֲחֵרִים . and relating to the Ateres Tzvi.

AGADAH: CONCERN FOR "ACHERIM" 

QUESTION: The Gemara explains that the Mishnah often refers to Rebbi Meir as "Acherim," because Rebbi, the redactor of the Mishnah, did not want to refer to Rebbi Meir by his name. Rebbi Meir had attempted to unseat Rebbi's father, Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, from his position as Nasi, and therefore Rebbi, in deference to his family's honor, referred to Rebbi Meir as "Acherim."

Rav Naftali Maryles (1828-1890), the Rov of Litovisk and the son of the Yoruslaver Rebbe, Rav Shimon Maryles zt'l, points out that this Gemara reveals a deeper meaning behind the words of Rashi in Parshas Vayishlach. The Torah (Bereishis 32:8) says that when Yakov heard of Esav's impending approach, "he became very afraid, and he was distressed." Rashi explains that he became "afraid" lest he be killed, and he was "distressed" lest he kill others ("Im Yaharog Hu Es Acherim"). Why, though, was Yakov worried that he would have to kill someone else? Yakov was being pursued by Esav, who wanted to kill him, and the Torah teaches that if one person is being mortally pursued by another, then he is bidden to kill the pursuer in order to protect his own life! Why, then, was Yakov concerned?

Also, why does Rashi say that Yakov was afraid that "he would have to kill others (Acherim)"? He should have said that Yakov was afraid that "he would have to kill Esav"! Maharal)

ANSWER: The Gemara in Gitin (56a) relates that one of the Roman leaders, Niron (the Caesar Nero), converted and became Jewish, and one of his descendants was Rebbi Meir. The Romans descended from Esav, as Rashi points out at the end of Vayishlach. Rashi, therefore, is saying that Yakov was distressed that he might be forced to kill Esav and thereby prevent the birth of Rebbi Meir, who was called "Acherim"!

Rav Naftali of Litovisk points out that a similar theme is found in Rashi in Parshas Shemos (2:12). The Torah there teaches that before Moshe Rabeinu killed the Egyptian slave-master, he looked to all sides to make sure "that there was no one." Rashi explains that this means that he looked into the future to make sure that none of the future descendants of this Egyptian would ever convert and become Jewish, and only then did he kill him. (Sefer Ayalah Sheluchah, Parshas Shemos, republished in 2001 by his descendant, Rabbi Ari Maryles. See also Peninim Yekarim, Parshas Vayishlach, and Kanah Avraham.)

Vayeira, Worshipping the Dust on Their Feet

Rashi 18:4

ורחצו רגליכם. כַּסָּבוּר שֶׁהֵם עַרְבִיִּים שֶׁמִּשְׁתַּחֲוִים לַאֲבַק רַגְלֵיהֶם וִהִקְפִּיד שֶׁלֹא לְהַכְנִיס עֲ"זָ לְבֵיתוֹ;

This morning, someone asked me what that means. Simple enough; why would anyone worship the dust on their feet? Not stam the Earth, davka the dust on their feet.

I'm told that some say they didn't worship just dust, but it was dust from their Beis Avodah Zarah. That's fine, but that is not what Rashi says, and it is not what the Gemara in BM says, or Rashi in Kiddushin that brings it as well. Instead of saying it's not shver according to X or Y, let's focus on explaining what it means according to the Gemara and Rashi.

I suggested that it was a form of ancestor worship. 

The concept is not uncommon. The Brittanica says that "Ancestor worship, prevalent in preliterate societies, is obeisance to the spirits of the dead."  I believe that it persists even today in spiritually primitive countries, such as China, and certainly in obdurately uncivilized countries such as Haiti and Togo.  

As applies to dust, of course we have Breishis 3:19,  עפר אתה ואל עפר תשוב. 

See also Shabbos 113b, that eating the dirt of Bavel is like eating one's ancestors. 

אמר ר' אמי כל האוכל מעפרה של בבל כאילו אוכל מבשר אבותיו 

Rashi

מבשר אבותיו. שמתו שם בגולה

And Hamlet act five:

“Imperious Caesar, dead and turned to clay,

Might stop a hole to keep the wind away.

Oh, that that earth, which kept the world in awe,

Should patch a wall t'expel the winter’s flaw!”

Perhaps the people of Avraham Avinu's time time worshipped their ancestors, and saw the dust that clung to their feet as the dust of their ancestors magically adhering to them.

If I were to attempt relevance, I would suggest that when we go to kivrei tzadikim, we should not ask the niftarim to give us what we need.  This is both Avoda Zara and doreish el hameisim, and, as such, is best avoided.  At most, (see Minchas Elazar 1:68, but see Igros OC 5:143:6) we might ask them to intercede with tefilla to the Ribono shel Olam on our behalf. So pay your respects, and remember that all the tefillos at that makom kadosh are to the Ribono shel Olam, instead of being משתחוה לאבק רגליך.

Vayeira, Breishis 19:19. Are We Graded on a Curve?

 Lot sought refuge as he fled from the destruction of S'dom.  The angels suggested that he find refuge in the mountain, but he did not accept their advice.   Something about "the mountain" frightened him.  The Medrash (50:11)explains that it was no mountain he was afraid of; "mountain" means Avraham.  The angels were suggesting that he go back to his uncle, that he rejoin Avraham.  But Lot was afraid to do so, and the rationale for his fear was echoed by the Tzarfis woman in the time of Eliahu.  When her son died, the Tzarfis woman came to Eliahu, and she said "Eliahu, until you began visiting me, God saw my actions and those of my neighbors and by comparison I was a holy woman.  Now that you visit me, God sees my failings, and this caused my son to die."  Here, Lot said, "While I was in Sdom, I was, compared to them, a holy man.  If I were to rejoin Avraham, I would not survive."

Rashi here brings the Medrash.

פן תדבקני הרעה. כְּשֶׁהָיִיתִי אֵצֶל אַנְשֵׁי סְדוֹם הָיָה הַקָּבָּ"ה רוֹאֶה מַעֲשַׂי וּמַעֲשֵׂה בְנֵי הָעִיר, וְהָיִיתִי נִרְאֶה צַדִּיק וּכְדַאי לְהִנָּצֵל, וּכְשֶׁאָבֹא אֵצֶל צַדִּיק אֲנִי כְרָשָׁע, וְכֵן אָמְרָה הַצָּרְפִית לְאֵלִיָּהוּ בָּאתָ אֵלַי לְהַזְכִּיר אֶת עֲוֹנִי (מלכים א י"ז), עַד שֶׁלֹא בָאתָ אֶצְלִי הָיָה הַקָּבָּ"ה רוֹאֶה מַעֲשַׂי וּמַעֲשֵׂה עַמִּי, וַאֲנִי צַדֶּקֶת בֵּינֵיהֶם, וּמִשֶּׁבָּאתָ אֶצְלִי, לְפִי מַעֲשֶׂיךָ אֲנִי רְשָׁעָה:

The Shem MiShmuel uses this to explain a parsha in Eikev, Devarim 9:4:

אל תאמר בלבבך בהדף ה' אלקיך אתם מלפניך לאמר בצדקתי הביאני ה' לרשת את הארץ הזאת וברשעת הגוים האלה ה' מורישם מפניך. 

לא בצדקתך ובישר לבבך אתה בא לרשת את ארצם כי ברשעת הגוים האלה ה' אלקיך מורישם מפניך 

ולמען הקים את הדבר אשר נשבע ה' לאבתיך לאברהם ליצחק וליעקב

Do not think, when Hashem drives away the Canaanites from before you, "Because I am righteous Hashem brought me here to inherit this land and because the original residents were wicked Hashem disinherits them."  No, it is not that you are righteous, it is because they are wicked, and because Hashem promised the land to your forefathers.

He brings this Medrash to explain what error they were being warned about, what the אל תאמר בלבבך was. Hashem told us "Don't think that the Canaanites are going to die because when you arrive the contrast between your spiritual greatness and their relative failings will tip the scale against them.  You're not so special.  They were just fundamentally wicked people who deserved to be eliminated irrespective of your presence."

The idea that the צרפית was afraid of being judged negatively because of the contrast between her and Eliahu is also stated in Tosfos in Kiddushin 71a in the name of Avrahan Ger (discussing קשים גרים לישראל כספחת on the previous daf. Interestingly, Tosfos hedges the concept by saying 

שמתוך שהוא צדיק גמור היה נראה לה שמזכיר השם עונה

Reb Chaim Brown showed me this idea in the Ohr HaChaim by Kayin and Hevel:

אכן הכוונה היא להיות כי קין נתקנא בהבל בחושבו כי הוא סיבה להשפלתו כי באמצעותו הוכר אופלו, וחשב כי כשלא יהיה הבל במציאות יתרצה ה׳ בקין כי אין עוד אחר לבחור בו, וחשב להורגו,

Let's think about this, a concept that the Tzarfis woman and Lot assumed to be true, and that Hashem had to tell us was not the reason for the elimination of the Canaanites.  It appears to mean that people are judged by comparison to the others in their community.  That means that the standard of justice is relative to the other people that are being judged.  That means that Hashem grades us on a curve.

I choose that expression intentionally.  One might read the Medrash and nod his head and agree.  But when you realize that this is exactly what grading on a curve is all about, it becomes untenable.  

As I understand it, the rationale of grading on a curve is as follows: Prospective employers have an idea of the general quality of the students and the education at any given institution.  But they want, and are entitled, to know where an individual student stands within that segment.  The only way to rank students is through a curve- these are the best, these are average, and these are on the lower side.  This makes perfect sense in a market.  It makes absolutely no sense when it comes to Schar ve'Onesh.  Another reason to grade on a curve is when the instructor is inexperienced, or emotionally unfit, and might not be educating the students effectively, or the teacher is excessively strict or lenient.  If very few students do well on the examination, the problem lies with the teacher, and the students should not be penalized.  This is even less applicable to heavenly judgment.

Let me make this more clear with an analogy to the Special Olympics. If you put the winner of the Special Olympics on the medal stand with the winner of the regular Olympics, would anyone denigrate or deride the former? I hope not. You judge the athlete's achievement by his effort and skill in overcoming, in using what he has, not in comparison to the uniquely gifted and physically perfect athlete. It is an entirely different metric. When we say "מתי יגיעו מעשי למעשי אבותי"  you don't mean that you should speak to the Ribono shel Olam באספקלריא המאירה or do an akeida on your son. You mean that are the best possible Zeesheh.

Reb Moshe, in the Fishelis'es wonderful new Kol Rom, says (Shemos 6:26)

דאע"ג שמשה רבנו היה יותר גדול מאהרן, מ"מ היו שקולים במה שכל אחד עבד את ה' בכל כשרונותיו וכוחותיו שהיו לו.

והנה כל אדם נולד עם כשרונות וכוחות ואין בזה כל מעלה, כי זו מתנת שמים, אבל כל אחד צריך לעבוד ולשפר את עצמו, ולראות שיקיים את מצורה והמצות בכל כוחותיו, וזה כל תפקידו בעולם.

And Reb Chaim Brown said "pshat in the Yalkut on Shir haShirim 7:6 הדלים שברשים הם חביבים לפני כדניאל is because there is relative judgment -- in context of his challenges, the 'dal' may deserve as much credit for whatever he does as Daniel, even though on an absolute scale there is no comparison."

It might be that Chazal are telling us that the idea is totally false, that what the Isha Hatzarfis and Lot thought, and what Bnei Yisrael might have thought, was simply wrong.  But I do not believe this is true.  We can make mistakes on our own, and if Chazal tell us what some biblical figures were thinking, unless they tell us clearly that they are talking about something which is false, it should be taken seriously.

The initial response I get from people is that Chazal are talking about people who consciously refuse to be influenced by the righteous people to whom they are exposed.   They could and should be inspired by them, and emulate them, and their refusal to allow righteousness and spirituality to affect them is a terrible sin, it is an affront to Hashem.  You have before you an example of what you ought to be, you have a teacher, and you affect deliberate blindness?  That is a terrible sin.

This is certainly true.  We are told טוב לצדיק טוב לשכנו, and אוי לרשע ואוי לשכנו (see Rashi Bamidbar 23:29 and 38,) and that means that it is good and wise to associate with a Tzadik because he will influence you to be better, and it is dangerous to associate with a Rasha, because he will influence you to become a rasha like him.  It stands to reason that if, despite  אוי לרשע ואוי לשכנו, one overcomes the influence of his neighbor the Rasha, and remains a tzadik, as Noach did (see Rashi Breishis 6:9 and Sanhedrin 108a,) it is a tremendous merit; if, despite טוב לצדיק טוב לשכנו, a person rejects the influence of a Tzadik and remains a rasha, it is a terrible sin.

But I don't believe that this explains our Medrash.  Lot is one thing: the Isha Hatzarfis is something else entirely. Everything we know about her tells us that she was a holy and righteous person.  Hashem sent Eliahu to find shelter in her home, and she merited an awe-inspiring miracle. We have absolutely no right to say that she did not allow Eliahu's presence to inspire her or elevate her spirituality.  On the contrary.  The operative principal ought to be טוב לצדיק טוב לשכנו.

So what is the pshat in the Medrash?

Here are some interpretations that we found reasonable.

1.  In the censuses in the Midbar, Shevet Levi was the smallest of the tribes.  One of the reasons is that their work in the Midbar involved a constant presence in the Mishkan and the carrying of the holy utensils (see, e.g., Rashi in Vayeitzei, Breishis 29:35.)  If a Levi was carrying the Aron Kodesh, and his mind wandered, and for a moment he thought about something trivial or foolish, he would die on the spot.  Similarly, a Kohen Gadol, while in the Kodesh Kadashim, had absolutely no leeway.  Any infinitesimal failure or distraction would be immediately fatal.  Being in the area of such holiness creates a condition of Middas Hadin.  The same may be true of the environment of a Tzadik, who embodies the kedusha of the Beis Hamikdash.

2.  Similarly, we have a passuk in our parsha that says that the degree of Hashgacha on Eretz Yisrael is qualitatively different than that of the Hashgacha on the rest of the world.  Devarim 11:11-12  והארץ אשר אתם עברים שמה לרשתה ארץ הרים ובקעת למטר השמים תשתה מים.  ארץ אשר ה' אלהיך דרש אתה תמיד עיני ה' אלקיך בה מרשית השנה ועד אחרית שנה.  If so, we might say that the degree of Hashgach in the proximity of a tzadik is far greater.  Greater Hashgacha means close scrutiny, the kind of examination that every person eventually undergoes, but usually only at the judgment of Beis Din shel Maalah in the Olam Ha'emes after death.  Behavior that would otherwise pass might not survive this kind of close scrutiny.

I personally don't like this pshat.  To say that being near a tzadik is like walking under a קיר נטוי to the extent that it operates to turn upside down the whole concept of טוב לצדיק טוב לשכנו, and that there is some chiluk between them, doesn't appeal to me.  If you like it, זאלסטו זיין געזונט

3.  The Chazon Ish says that in our time, people can be defended on the basis of תינוק שנשבה. Life is so confusing, there was an absolute hester panim during the Holocaust, tefilla is totally ignored during the pandemic, and whenever an adam gadol offers guidance others say the opposite. But when you have Eliahu Hanavi in your house, you no longer have a din of תינוק שנשבה. 

4.  When a tzadik lives near you, you realize that you could be greater, that you should grow.  Unfortunately, inertia makes growth difficult.  Even if we know we ought to change, it is difficult to act upon what we know.  Sometimes, people only change in reaction to a traumatic event that forces them to reexamine their lives.  In cases like that, Hashem might help that person take that difficult step by shaking them up, by bringing difficult challenges to them.

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

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

וַֽיְבָרְכֵ֖הוּ וַיֹּאמַ֑ר בָּר֤וּךְ אַבְרָם֙ לְאֵ֣ל עֶלְי֔וֹן קֹנֵ֖ה שָׁמַ֥יִם וָאָֽרֶץ׃

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note regarding the words in the first paragraph:

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

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

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

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

...but if I were, I'd be frummer than you.

  This is an oft-repeated classic. An irreligious person says, "You frummies are hypocrites. You avoid biur by selling your Chametz, you sell your businesses to goyim before Shabbos, you circumvent the issur sirus by giving your animals to goyim, by מודר הנאה in Nedarim 43, so many places. You are just playing games. I am not Frum. But if I were frum, I would be frummer than you."

What surprised me was that Mohammed said it and it is apparently recorded in the Quran. 

Here's the story and the resulting brouhaha.

https://www.memri.org/reports/saudi-childrens-cartoon-depicts-quranic-story-which-allah-transforms-jews-apes

The gist of the story being that Allah commanded a village of Jews to refrain from fishing on Shabbos, and tested them by sending fish only on Saturday. Some withstood the test, but others, those tricksy Jews... put nets in the water on Friday and retrieved them on Sunday! Some Jews condemned this behavior. Others said it was nobody's business - live and let live. So Allah came down, and turned the sinners into apes, and then they died. 

This story was presented in cartoon form on a Saudi website, and people complained about it. My own dear wife was offended.

I was not offended at all. It doesn't bother me for others to say that the Ribono shel Olam gave the Jews Taryag mitzvos, and when they don't keep them, they are punished. What are they saying that we don't say?  He did not say that Jews are Apes, he said that Allah punished mechallelei Shabbos by turning them into Apes. That's ok for me. But several things did surprise me.

1. Apparently, Mohammed recognized that the Ribono shel Olam is makpid that Jews should keep Shabbos on Saturday and not do melacha, although he did not make it part of Islam. He probably was concerned about עכו"ם ששבת. 

I believe that this attitude persists in Islam today. First you have this article in Al Jazeera making light of the hetter of mechiras chametz. Then there is the story involving Marwan Barghouti. As I heard it, a guard was eating a sandwich on Pesach. He asked, but it's Pesach, I thought Jews do not eat bread on Pesach. The guard answered that that's only the Chareidim in Bnei Brak, but he doesn't believe any of that.  Barghouti said that until then, he was always worried that the Jews had a God given right to Israel, it was their covenant with God. But now that he saw that the Jews weren't keeping any covenants,  they were not following such basic things as not eating bread on Pesach, and he decided that eventually, if the Arabs make it hard enough, the Jews will just go away.

2. I see an implication here that although he imitated Yahadus in many ways, or had a mesora from Avrohom Avinu, perhaps one of the reasons he did not simply embrace Yiddishkeit was his perception that the practice of Judaism in his day was not sincere or pure.  He found the practice of haaramos offensive, similar to the early Christian criticism of the Pharisees.

3.  He held that this practice was a trick. This implies, to me, that it's not the pshat that he interpreted the Torah like lehavdil Beis Shammai's (17a) shvisas keilim. Beis Shammai's shvisas keilim is not a chiyuv missah, it is a separate din that besides issur melacha, your keilim have to shoveis as well. And even Beis Shammai agrees that if you're mafkir, you're ok. That's not what bothered Mohammed. He did not think about the din of shvisas keilim, he assumed that the issur is only on the gavra. What seems to have bothered him was the "spirit" of the law. If Allah said not to fish on Shabbos, then you should not arrange that your fishing is getting done on Shabbos.

As I said, it was the classic "...I would be frummer than you fakers, my Shabbos would be special."

I'm looking forward to seeing what the Muslims do about Imitation Pork, which the OU just decined giving a hechsher. (I once thought about creating a hechsher or a restaurant that specialized in just such products. I was going to call it FLAG Kosher. Flag stands for "Fress Like a Goy.")

I did see this in Tablet Magazine:

Recently, Slate staff writer Aymann Ismail wrote an article about how Impossible Pork and similar products are “testing his faith” as a Muslim by offering a tempting loophole against Islam’s prohibition against pork, but not exactly fulfilling the spirit of the law. “Our community is bound by rules meant to keep us from what hurts us,” he wrote. “But doesn’t Impossible Pork ragu sound damn delicious? Besides, God is merciful.”

Let Us Make Man

 I enjoy reading divrei Torah from רבי מרדכי מלכא, Rav of Elad, and I want to share and expand upon something he said on Parshas Breishis. 

He discusses the use of the plural in the creation of Adam. 1:26,  נעשה אדם בצלמנו כדמותנו. Rashi brings that it is a lesson about honoring the powerless - Hashem spoke as if He consulted and included the Malachim in the creation of Man. 

Why, then, does this plural appear only by the creation of Adam? Bishlema according to Rebbi Chanina that the Malachim were created on Thursday, of course Hashem consulted with them only on Friday when He created Man. But according to Rav Yochanan that they were created on Monday, why is it only on Friday that the Torah teaches this lesson of humility by saying Hashem consulted with them? 

(A large part of my restatement of Rav Malka's answer is based on Pico Della Mirandola's  words in Oration on the Dignity of Man. This is a personal quirk and in no way reflects upon Rav Malka.)

Rav Malka answers that the nature of all other creatures is defined and restricted within laws which Hashem laid down;  but Adam was given no specific and authentic visage, nor endowment properly his own, in order that whatever place, whatever form, whatever gifts he may, with premeditation, select, these same he may have and possess through his own judgement and decision. Adam is impeded by no such definitive restrictions as the "beast machine," and may, by his own free will, trace for himself the lineaments of his own nature. Adam was placed at the very center of the world, so that from that vantage point he may with greater ease glance round about on all that the world contains. Adam, Man, is a creature neither of heaven nor of earth, neither mortal nor immortal, in order that he may, as the free shaper of his own being, fashion himself in the form he may choose. It is in his power to descend to the lower, brutish forms of life; he will be able, through his own decision, to rise again to the superior orders whose life is divine.

Hashem made men partners in their own creation. As Hashem began to form Adam, He said, We - I, God, and you, Baal Bechira I am about to form - together we shall create a man.

Rav Malka's words: (excerpt)

בראשית פרשת בראשית פרק א פסוק כו

ויאמר אלהים נעשה אדם בצלמנו כדמותנו וירדו בדגת הים ובעוף השמים ובבהמה ובכל הארץ ובכל הרמש הרמש על הארץ

שואלים חז"ל מה השתנה בריאת האדם מכל הבריאה שבכל הבריאה נאמר ויאמר אלוקים יהיה וכו' בלשון יחיד וכאן בבריאת האדם נאמר בלשון רבים נעשה אדם?

ופרש"י על בראשית פרק א פסוק כו וז"ל נעשה אדם אע"פ שלא סייעוהו ביצירתו ויש מקום למינים לרדות לא נמנע הכתוב מללמד דרך ארץ ומדת ענוה שיהא הגדול נמלך ונוטל רשות מן הקטן, ואם כתב אעשה אדם לא למדנו שהיה מדבר עם בית דינו אלא עם עצמו. ותשובתו כתובה בצדו ויברא את האדם ולא כתיב ויבראו: בצלמנו בדפוס שלנו: כדמותינו להבין ולהשכיל: וירדו בדגת הים יש בלשון הזה לשון רידוי ולשון ירידה זכה רודה בחיות ובהמות לא זכה נעשה ירוד לפניהם והחיה

מושלת בו עכ"ל: וכ"כ בבראשית רבה פרשה ח.

תכלית האדם לעשות את עצמו:

והנלע"ד כונת התורה ללמדנו יסוד גדול מהו התכלית בבריאת האדם, והוא שמצד אחד האדם נברא בשיא השלימות כעדות הקב"ה שגופו מלא חכמה, אך מאידך נאמר אדם עיר פרא יולד, והיינו שהחלק הרוחני שבאדם קרי מידות ודרך ארץ תורה ומצות אין בו כלום והכל תלוי במעשיו של האדם, ולכן אפילו שמבחינת הגשמיות של הגוף אין יותר מושלם ממעשיו של הקב"ה, אך אם ח"ו לא יעבוד האדם על מידותיו ויאמץ לעצמו קיום התורה והמצות הרי שאותו גוף יכול להיות חורבן לעולם כמו היטלר ימש"ו, ומאידך כאשר יאמץ לעצמו תורה ומצות ומעש"ט ומידות ודרך ארץ יכול להיות שותף לבנין העולם ולהיות נזר הבריאה.  

ובזה יובן היטב שהתורה מתיחסת לשלימות הבריאה ובאמת והנה טוב מאוד, אך ב"ה וב"ש התיחסו לחלק הרוחני שזה תפקידו ותכליתו אשר מוטל על האדם לרכוש במשך חיו, וכיון שהנסיונות קשים הרי שיש יותר סיכוי לכישלון יותר מהצלחה מפני התאות הגופניות, לכן הגיעו למסקנה לאחר שנתיים ומחצה שיותר טוב אילו לא נברא אך עכשיו שנברא יפשפש או ימשמש במעשיו. 

ובזה יובן היטב שכל זה נרמז בבריאת האדם שנאמר בלשון נעשה שהוא לשון רבים, הכונה שהקב"ה פונה לכל אדם ואדם או מצוה לכל אדם בו ביחד נעשה את האדם אני יוצר את הגוף אך אתה תייצר את התוכן הרוחני ורק אז מגיע האדם לתכליתו, ועי"ז זוכה וירדו בדגת הים ועוף השמים וכו' כיון שהופך להיות נזר הבריאה, וכמ"ש רש"י וירדו יש למילה משמעות כפולה זכה האדם יהיה מלשון רדיה שלטון על הבריאה, ואם לא זכה הוא מלשון ירידה והבריאה והבהמה שולטת עליו כפרש"י.

Using Pico's words to explain R Malka's thought and his pshat in the passuk is not, chas veshalom, intended to imply any parity. R Malka is a talmid chacham and yrei shamayim, and Pico, lehavdil, was a Catholic, albeit very independent. He was a brilliant and serious scholar who was variously famous and notorious for his independent thinking - "Pico was also remarkably original—indeed, idiosyncratic. ... deliberately esoteric and aggressively recondite..." . His writings are full of apikorsus and minus, but after all that is subtracted, there are some things worth reading.

Avrohom wrote a comment informing me that I am not the first frum Jew in this century to quote this very paragraph from Mirandola.  Rabbi Sachs does exactly this, with exactly this paragraph, and also quotes Rav Yosef Ber as saying essentially the same thing (in Halakhic Man: “The most fundamental principle of all is that man must create himself. It is this idea that Judaism introduced into the world.”)  The only thing none of them does, and I can not imagine why they did not make that last step, is to use it to explain that passuk נעשה אדם as Rav Malka does!

Haazinu. The Rock! His Deeds are Perfect.

הצור תמים פעלו   כי כל דרכיו משפט 

אל אמונה ואין עול   צדיק וישר הוא 

The Rock!—His deeds are perfect, Yea, all His ways are just;

A faithful God, never false, True and upright is He.

Just out of the goodness of his heart, Michael Kirshner, the owner of Star Catering, provides a kiddush in the shul kitchen after the early minyan.  I prefer to make kiddush at home, so I can eat something with my wife, but sometimes I go in to catch up on local news. Last week, I jokingly said to Michael, "Since you're sponsoring the kiddush, you really should say a dvar Torah." He shrugged and said "I'm not sponsoring! 'Ploni' is sponsoring this week!" 

I'm not friendly enough with Ploni to needle him for not saying a dvar Torah. But he said "I have something I want to say."  And this is what he said.

"I just spent Rosh Hashannah in West Palm Beach, and after Maariv, we wished each other "לשנה טובה תכתב ותחתם לאלתר לחיים טובים ולשלום"   and we went home. A while later, one person's wife came knocking on the Rabbi's door, because her husband had not come home.  They went to look for him, and they found out that he had been hit by a car crossing the street and was killed on the spot.  This young man, his name is Baruch, he was an unbelievable baal chesed. Many people come to the local hospital for medical procedures, and they stay at Gershon Bassman's (also at the kiddush,) Hachnasas Orchim, and Baruch would drop everything he was doing to take care of them - he picked them up, he found them food that was up to their kashrus standards - just Chalav Yisrael was not enough, one guy needed Super Chalav Yisrael - and he gladly did whatever he could to make them comfortable. And just after I wished him le'alter lechaim, he got killed crossing the street." 

And now, Rabbi Eisenberg is going to tell us how the Ribono shel Olam could do such a thing to this tzadik and to his family on Rosh Hashannah."

To make terrible even worse, this shul in West Palm Beach is across the street from Century Village, and there's an island in middle of the street. There is traffic on the street directly in front of Century Village, and there's a stoplight, but there's very little traffic on the street in front of the shul. So the light changes to go right and left out of Century Village, but you don't get a green to cross in front of the shul unless you press a button. So they have a security guard, who waits for the people and presses the button so they can safely cross. Baruch always stayed after davening to put sefarim back and straighten the place out, just for kavod beis haknesses. Rosh Hashannah night, the shul was full and people are in a hurry to get home, so he had extra straightening out to do, and by the time he finished, the security guard had left. That is why he was hit by the car - because on Rosh Hashannah night, he stayed late so that the mispallelim the next day would come in to a clean and beautiful shul.

This man, Ploni, had suffered a personal tragedy several months ago. His son, who lived in Detroit, was a rebbi, he learned Daf Yomi five times a day, and, as Rav Bakst said in his hesped, he was not just a Baal Chesed, he was beyond any definition of Baal Chesed, he was a gadol in chesed.  A young man, he died while learning the daf yomi.  After he said what happened to Baruch on Rosh Hashannah, he said that since his son died, his heart has been a block of ice.  So you realize that when he threw this question at me, it was not just because of Baruch. 

I was not in a good place. I had lightheartedly pushed someone to say a vort, as a result this man said what was on his heart, and then he throws the question at me, the question that bothered Moshe Rabbeinu and Iyov and all the tzadikim since Briyas Haolam.

In Melachim I 18:37, Eliahu prayed for a neis to show Hashem's power over the Neviei haBaal on Har HaCarmel and said

ענני ה' ענני וידעו העם הזה כי אתה ה' האלהים ואתה הסבת את לבם אחרנית

Rashi explains, 

וְאַתָּה הֲסִבֹּתָ אֶת לִבָּם. נָתַתָּ לָהֶם מָקוֹם לָסוּר מֵאַחֲרֶיךָ, וּבְיָדְךָ הָיָה לְהָכִין לְבָבָם אֵלֶיךָ. וּמִדְרַשׁ אַגָּדָה: אִם לֹא תַּעֲנֵנִי, אַף אֲנִי אֶהְיֶה כּוֹפֵר וְאוֹמֵר, אַתָּה הֲסִבּוֹתָ אֶת לִבָּם, וְכֵן אָמַר משֶׁה: אִם כְּמוֹת כָּל הָאָדָם יְמוּתוּן אֵלֶּה, אַף אֲנִי כּוֹפֵר וְאוֹמֵר, לֹא ה' שְׁלָחַנִי לְדַבֵּר אֶת הַתּוֹרָה וְהַמִּצְוֹת, וְכָךְ אָמַר מִיכַיְהוּ: אִם שׁוֹב תָּשׁוּב בְּשָׁלוֹם, לֹא דִּבֵּר ה' בִּי.

The Ribono shel Olam will not put a man in a position where he can not be expected to withstand the Sattan, the Yetzer Hara.  I think that in Beis Din shel Maalah, they decided that this Ploni had experienced things that would make it unfair to expect him to remain a maamin, and I had been maneuvered into the position to tell him what he needed to hear, to deliver a message that might help him deal with the terrible and tragic things he had seen. 

My mother in law, Rebbitzen Shelia Feinstein, עליה השלום, was a passenger in a car that had an accident.   When the first responders came and took her out of the car, she sat down waiting for the ambulance, and she asked my father in law Shlitah, "We're on our way home from a Bris and Nichum Aveilim. It says that שלוחי מצוה אינן ניזקין. How could something like this have happened?"  Soon after being taken by the ambulance, she lost consciousness and passed away ten days later, never having fully awoken. 

My son Harav Shlomo said in Reb Chaim Kanievsky's name that when a person's allotted years come to an end, (or if for whatever reason his time has come,) if that person was a tzadik the Ribono shel Olam will arrange that he will die in the midst of doing a Mitzva. It's not the pshat that the mitzva was not meigin. The pshat is that a mitzvah is meigin on a live person, but it is not meigin on a gavra ketilla. If the person has to die no matter what. Hashem gives him the great zechus of dying mitoch dvar mitzvah.

ויבוא אברהם לספוד לשרה (בראשית כ"ג ב') פירש רש"י שעל ידי בשורת העקידה מתה שרה. ויש לעיין הא קי"ל שלוחי מצוה אין נזוקין ולמה סבבו מן השמים שתמות עי"ז, 

וכעין זה יש להקשות בריש מדרש אסתר גבי אנשי אלכסנדריא שאמרו נדליק או לא נדליק ואמרו נדליק וכל דבעי ימטי עלן ועי"ז נתגלגל שנהרגו כולן, וקשה נהי שהיו חייבים עונש כדאמר בגמ' דעברו על לא תוסיפון לשוב וגו' אבל למה גלגלו שימותו דוקא ע"י מצוה שמסרו נפשם על זה. וכן קשה בשבת קי"ח ב' יהי חלקי ממתי בדרך מצוה וקשה הא שלוחי מצוה אינן ניזוקין. וקשה לומר דכל הני מקרי שכיח הזיקא. 

ונראה דהא דשלוחי מצוה אינן נזוקין היינו דהמצוה לא תגרום להם שום היזק, אבל אם הגיע זמנו למות בלא"ה, א"כ אדרבה זכות הוא לו שמסבבין מן השמים מיתתו ע"י מצוה, דהוי כמוסר נפשו על קידוש ה'. ולכן אנשי אלכסנדריא שהגיע זמנם ליענש ולפי שהיו צדיקים סבבו מן השמים שימותו ע"י מצוה, דהוי כמסרו נפשם עבור המצוה, דשכרו מרובה מאד, וכן הענין בשרה וכן בהא דכל כתבי, ובזה יתיישב בכמה דוכתי. 

(See addendum for text of the Medrash about the Jews of Alexandria.)

R' Shlomo added that it seems to him that it would not be stam a mitzva, it would be a mitzva that specifically reflects that person's gadlus in Avodah. (He said that in his grandmother's case, her gadlus was helping people make an honest assessment of who they are and what they are capable of doing, of making an honest cheshbon hanefesh. This is the greatest chesed anyone can do for another, holding up a mirror so they can see who they truly are and what they can become, like the Brachos of Yaakov and of Moshe Rabbeinu.  If her time had come, how appropriate it was that it came while she was oseik in a mitzvah that is a chesed with the living and with the dead, nichum aveilim.)

Sara did not die before her time. Sarah's years were over and her time had come. The Satan just used the Akeida as the instrument of bringing about that death (borrowing Reb Yaakov Kamenetzky's words as brought in the Tallelei Oros page 248. Reb Yaakov adds that this is why the words Chayei Sara are repeated - this was the number of years she was allotted and her time had come. When she was born, she was given 127 years. Those years had run out. This is also brought in the Kol Rom as something Reb Yaakov said to Reb Moshe when he came to be menachem aveil at his Shiva on his sister, Rebbitzen Small. I also just saw it in the Emes L'Yaakov, where he proves this is true, because later it says that when Yitzchak turned 123, he realized that he had to get moving on a shidduch for Yaakov, because a man needs to worry when he reaches a parent's age of death, and it was a couple of years before his mother's life span. All this proves that her death was not the result of a malicious act of the Satan, it was her predestined lifespan.)

Please note: According to Reb Chaim, this applies not only when a man reaches the end of his alloted years. In the case of the men of Alexandria, Hashem had made a gzeira that because the community was founded in contradiction to the passuk prohibiting choosing to settle in Egypt, it was to be destroyed; despite that sin, and in balance, they were tzadikim.  Although the destruction and death was inevitable, Hashem chose such circumstances that allowed them to die al kiddush Hashem.

When a man's time comes, there are many ways to die. He might die in middle of something absurd or embarrasing. One beautiful soul I know died of a heart attack in the shower, and remained there for twelve hours under a spray of hot water. Another person was shot and killed in middle of the night on Yomtov while playing Pokemon in the park off of Lake Shore Drive. But there are a lucky few, yedidei Hashem, whose end draws close, and the Ribono shel Olam gives them the opportunity to do a perfect mitzvah with ahava and dveikus just as their time runs out.  As Rav Avraham Bukspan said,  

רגלוהי דבר איניש אינון ערבין ביה - לאתר דמיתבעי תמן מובילין יתיה..

Addendum: 

This is the Medrash (Eicha 4:22) Reb Chaim Kanievsky brought.

קַלִּים הָיוּ רֹדְפֵינוּ מִנִּשְׁרֵי שָׁמָיִם, טְרַכִינוּס שְׁחִיק עֲצָמוֹת יָלְדָה אִשְׁתּוֹ בְּלֵיל תִּשְׁעָה בְּאָב, וְהָיוּ כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲבֵלִים. נִשְׁתַּתֵּק הַוְּלַד בַּחֲנֻכָּה, אָמְרוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל נַדְלִיק, אוֹ לֹא נַדְלִיק, אָמְרוּ, נַדְלִיק, וְכָל מַה דְּבָעֵי לִימְטֵי עֲלָן יִמְטֵא. אַדְלִיקוּ, אֲזַלוּן וַאֲמָרוּן לִישָׁן בִּישׁ לְאִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁל טְרַכִינוּס, אִילֵין יְהוּדָאִין כַּד יְלִידַת הֲווֹן מִתְאַבְּלִין, וְכַד מַיְית וְלָדָא אַדְלִיקוּ בּוֹצִינַיָיא. שָׁלְחָה וְכָתְבָה לְבַעְלָהּ, עַד דְּאַתְּ מַכְבֵּשׁ בַּרְבָּרְיִין בֹּא וּכְבשׁ אִילֵין יְהוּדָאין דְּמָרְדוּ בָךְ, סְלִיק לְאִילְפָא וַחֲשִׁיב לְמֵיתֵי בַּעֲשָׂרָה יוֹמִין וְאַיְיתִיתֵיהּ רוּחָא בְּחַמְשָׁא יוֹמִין, אֲתָא וְאַשְׁכְּחִינוּן דַּהֲווֹ עָסְקִין בַּהֲדֵין פְּסוּקָא (דברים כח, מט): יִשָֹּׂא ה' עָלֶיךָ גּוֹי מֵרָחֹק מִקְצֵה הָאָרֶץ כַּאֲשֶׁר יִדְאֶה הַנָּשֶׁר, אֲמַר לְהוּ אֲנָא הוּא נִשְׁרָא דַּחֲשֵׁיבִית לְמֵיתֵי בְּעַשְׂרָה יוֹמִין וְאַיְיתֵתַנִי רוּחָא בְּחַמְשָׁא יוֹמִין, הִקִּיפָן לִגְיוֹנוֹתָיו וַהֲרָגָן. אָמַר לַנָּשִׁים הִשָּׁמְעוּ לְלִגְיוֹנוֹתַי וְאִם לָאו אֲנִי עוֹשֶׂה לָכֶם כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁעָשִׂיתִי לָאֲנָשִׁים, אָמְרוּ עֲבֵיד בְּאַרְעָאֵי מַה דְּעַבַדְתְּ בְּעִילָאֵי, מִיָּד הִקִּיפָן לִגְיוֹנוֹתָיו וַהֲרָגָן, וְנִתְעָרְבוּ דָּמִים שֶׁל אֵלּוּ בְּדָמִים שֶׁל אֵלּוּ, וְהָיָה הַדָּם בּוֹקֵעַ וְהוֹלֵךְ עַד שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לְקִיפְרוֹס נָהָר.