A THOUGHT ON PARSHAS CHAYEI SARA

A Thought on Parshas Chayei Sara

"...ger v'toshav ani..."
"...I am a stranger and dweller..." (23:4)
"...v'ashbi'echa ba'HaShem..."
"...and swear by HaShem..." (24:2)

This parsha includes the death and burial of Sarah, and the search for a wife to marry Yitzchak.

Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel addresses the intriguing couplet used by Avraham in describing himself as a "ger v'toshav." He was bargaining with local pagans for a plot of land which was to become the burial cave of our first ancestors. He also addresses the idea of the oath which Avraham extracted from his servant to assure that he find a suitable wife for his pious son Yitzchak. Since when, queries Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel, is a non-Jew bound by an oath to HaShem? It is not one of his "Seven Commandments for Benei Noach" so the servant could promise and vow whatever he wanted yet have no sacred obligation to fulfill a oath "to HaShem."

The third puzzle he presents is on the rationale for the oath itself. The servant had to pledge that he would select a bride from Avraham's homeland and family stock. Those relatives were also pagans, and this was a way of life that Avraham had left behind. Why would he assume that the suitable wife would be found among idolaters?

Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel offers a stunning trio of interdependent answers. Commentaries struggle with the double term "a stranger and a dweller" and offer a number of ideas. The interpretation of Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel is that in referring to himself as a stranger, a ger, Avraham was explaining to the local heathens why he needed a special burial plot.

"I am a ger! I am a righteous convert to the Ways of HaShem", Avraham declared, "and it is not fit for one who submits to One G-d to be counted among those who worship many deities." The emphasis was on Avraham's personal faith system. The heathen locals could interpret this as a sign of his inferiority to them, or as an assertion of his being different than them, but regardless, Avraham cited his personal belief to justify how he and his followers would need a different and separate hallowed ground for the burial of their fellow Hebrews.

Now on to the oath. Why would the servant feel bound by swearing in the name of HaShem if HaShem was the G-d of the Hebrews, who did not command other people to observe anything more than the basic Seven mitzvos of the Children of Noach? He explains that when someone takes an oath in the name of HaShem and does not honor it, this is more than just a lie. This is a denial of the reality of HaShem's Presence. Being a "kofer b'ikar" or functioning as if there is no Divine Presence monitoring our conduct is a greater abomination than worshipping idols. Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel is of the opinion that denial of HaShem is included in the mitzvah of not serving idols ("kofer b'ikar bi'chlal oved avoda zara").

Avraham knew that his servant had no commandment to keep an oath nor any prohibition against lying under oath. However, taking an oath in the name of HaShem was forbidden to Benei Noach. He knew that his servant would be bound by such an oath.

The third issue, understanding Avraham's rationale for accepting a daughter-in-law from a pagan family, is equally fascinating. Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel suggests that Avraham Avinu knew that if those people worshipped something (as compared with those who refuse to worship anything), then they would have some "religious fervor" or spiritual potential. He anticipated that once such a devout young woman would move into the holy sphere of learning to serve the One G-d, she would draw on her devotion to develop yiras Shomayim to fuel her new understanding of religion. One who already accepts the concept of serving a deity, and who is familiar with the practice of inner devotion and worship, can more readily accept and adopt the tenets and practice of serving the One Above.

We are still Strangers Among the Nations. We bind ourselves with and by our beliefs and we can elevate ourselves and our world by directing our spiritual energy, and our reverence for the Sacred, in the service of HaShem. Good Shabbos. D Fox

A thought on Parshas Va'Yera

A Thought on Parshas Va'Yera

"...va'yikach es ha'ayil va'ya'a'lehu..."
"...and he took to ram and offered it up..." (22:13)

The trial of Akeidas Yitzchak culminated in Avraham being ordered to end the sacrificial process. The Torah then relates how he saw a ram in the thicket, and proceeded to offer this animal as an offering "tachas bno" - in lieu of his son Yitzchak.

Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel poses a probing question. Avraham Avinu has been an obedient and unwavering servant of HaShem. He has done all that has been instructed him and has refrained from doing anything contrary to those subjective commandments. What made him decide on his own to offer a sacrifice now? Why did he suddenly act independently and on his own accord, rather than continue to adhere to the bidding of HaShem? Was his decision an innovation or an impulse? What drove him to take this step?

At first, he proposes that Avraham simply reasoned on his own that bringing a sacrifice at that time was "the right thing to do." But, he ponders, Avraham did what HaShem told him to do. He had not been told to do this! We find that he did not implement circumcision, for example, until instructed to do so. Saying that he brought the ram forth on his own logic does not really fit our understanding of this patriarch.

Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel adds that another reason that we would have predicted that Avraham would not act on his own is that he himself realized that the Akeida ordeal had been a test. His faith and obedience had been on trial, and he had passed that test! Why would he then take a step that demonstrated his autonomy, rather than reverting to his more attentive-receptive mode of serving HaShem?

The answer posed by Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel is illuminating. Avraham Avinu was a solitary figure who had cultivated a very personal and submissive relationship with HaShem. He followed the Sacred Word and did not deviate from it. However, he had also adopted a second role: Chazal tell us that he was the successor to Shem, son of Noach, as the Kohen Gadol figure for his generation. He had accepted the mantle of priesthood in displaying the rites of worship and modeling service of the Divine. He was the central figure for all of humanity in knowing how a person is expected to serve HaShem.

Thus, the concept of bringing forth an offering was known to Avraham. Demonstrating to others when and how one is meant to engage in such worship was his responsibility. As a private person, his connection to HaShem was one of submission and fealty. As a model for all of mankind, his connection with HaShem had to be illustrative to others.

To succeed in passing a challenge, a test, is an ascendant step up the ladder of piety and sanctity. This was a moment where a Jew is expected to display his or her growth and spiritual achievement by increasing their sense of connection with the Above. Emerging from a life challenge of such majesty and magnitude is, for the Jewish person, a time to bring forth an offering, a korban olah.

As High Priest for the lower world, Avraham Avinu embraced his role of being the model for how and when to serve HaShem. Whereas his personal experience was one which he embraced as a covert existential attainment, the public aspect of his encounter required an overt transitive act to perpetuate the meaning of that moment.

A Jew maintains a personal bond with HaShem which is often one of privacy and tznius. A Jew is also mindful that he has a role within and among his community. At times our inner avoda is manifest externally in a concurrent and opposite manner. Good Shabbos. D Fox

A THOUGHT ON PARSHAS LECH LECHA

A Thought on Parshas Lech Lecha

"...ba'meh aida ki arishena..."
"...how will I know that I shall inherit it?..." (15:8)

HaShem makes a covenant with his servant Avraham. He promises him many descendants and an ultimate homeland. Avraham replies with the above words.

Ba'meh aida has been understood in different ways. Some sources view it as "how will I know" and some view it as "with what will I know." Either Avraham is asking for assurance of the promise or he is wondering about what merit will assure him the promise's fulfillment.
The former interpretation views the question as an almost inappropriate one, and opines that the consequence of his asking HaShem for a "guarantee" was that his people would have to experience an exile and oppression. The second view also notes that indeed, the Jewish people did end up undergoing bondage in Egypt.

Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel ponders the second approach but asks "the world's question", which is, "if Avraham innocently wondered what special merit had earned him this promise, why would there be a negative consequence?" Surely he accepted and believed that HaShem would actualize His covenant, and his question was what he had done to deserve such a future. Why the punishment? What did he say or do which might have been wrong?

He answers by analyzing the scope of Avraham's question. As our verse states, he asked "with what merit shall I inherit it?" His emphasis was on the land, rather than on the promise of having children and descendants. Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel suggests that even though the question did not imply that he had any doubt that HaShem would fulfill His covenant, the question appeared to prioritize the promise of land over the promise of heirs and family. Had Avraham asked, "with what merit have I earned the gift of having children?", the fate of our nation might have been different.

A lesson to be derived from this interpretation is that we must take stock of what we value and what we hold important in life. When faced with choices, our priorities need to shape our decisions. Do we value our family or do we focus on our finances? Do we make time for our spouses and our children, or do we pursue our hobbies and pastimes? Do we wonder about our merits and how our deeds will bring us bracha, or do we somehow believe that we are the authors of our own bracha and create our futures at the expense of our present?

Wishing you a good Shabbos. D Fox

A Thought on Parshas Noach

A Thought on Parshas Noach

"...Noach, Noach..." (6:9)
"...va'yoled Noach shlosha banim..."
"...and Noach bore three descendants..." (6:10)

Much has been said about the righteousness of Noach. Our sages have explained how he was a pure and good man, and how the Torah's emphasis on his "toldos" - his "descendants" - is really a reference to his good deeds. As Chazal tell us, the real legacy one leaves behind is not his family nor his wealth but the reputation which he makes for himself. Noach left behind his three sons but his real "descendants" were the values which he lived by and modeled for generations to come. The good deeds which he generated lived on and on.

Our first verse employs Noach's name twice. Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel notes that the gematria - the numerical value - of Noach Noach is 116. This is identical with the number-letter value of Imo (ayin-mem-vov) which means "with him."

Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel associates this with the well known verse inTehillim 91:15 which has HaShem saying "Imo Anochi ba'tzara" - I am with him in times of distress. Now normally we use that phrase as an adage for how HaShem accompanies His people even during their hard times. He does not forsake the Jews. He is "with us" in our distress.

Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel applies the adage creatively. It was Noach who was in distress, all right, but it was also Noach who took HaShem along with him during his ordeal. Noach needed his faith in the Ark and needed to feel that he could depend on HaShem. Our verse uses his name twice, saying that he had "company" on the voyage. The Torah is illustrating for us his righteousness by hinting that "he took HaShem along with him in his distress."

When our second verse says that Noach had three sons, we must ask why it is necessary to write this, given that the verse has mentioned the three sons by name anyway. What is to be learned from the apparent redundancy of citing the number of his sons?

Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel refers back to the sages' insight that one's real descendants are his deeds. The Torah records the names of his three sons. The second reference to his having had "three sons" refers to the "our deeds are our descendants" type of "son." He had three biological children, and he had three "descendant" levels of righteous deeds. One was that he was a tzadik, a model of piety. One was that he was a tamim, an honest man. One was that he was a his'halach, a "godly" person. The exemplary "descendants" left by good Noach were his piety, his honesty and his godliness. His three mortal sons were Shem, Cham and Yefes, the "ben Noach Brothers." At a spiritual level, however, Noach truly could have said, "For eternity, My Three 'Sons' are the Righteous 'Brothers'."

My great rebbi HaGaon HaRav Simcha Wasserman ztvk'l often cited Noach as a man who saw the world destroyed and then had a role in rebuilding it. We build our world through our deeds, as we learned in last week's Parsha Thought. The yartzeit of the Rosh Yeshiva is Motzaei Shabbos. Good Shabbos and Chodesh Tov. D. Fox