A Thought on Parshas Vayeira

"...va'ekcha pas lechem..." "...I will now take bread..." (18:5) Some years ago, I had the merit to host HaGaon Rav Reuven Feinstein shlit'a in my home for Shabbos. He became the Rosh Yeshiva in the Staten Island branch of Mesivta Tiferes Yerushalayim, founded by his great father, the gadol ha'dor Rav Moshe Feinstein z'l. I had studied there for a number of years in Beis Medrash, and earned one of my smichos there. It was our honor decades later to have him stay with us in Los Angeles. My wife prepared Shalosh Seudos and I sat him at the head of the table and asked if he would be motzei us all in the bracha of Ha'motzae. He deferred to me and said I was the host and head of the house. "Plus," he added, "don't say B'reshus before the bracha. Who do you need to ask permission from in your own house?" Now imagine this scene. Avraham Avinu, the gadol ha'dor and the ranking "high priest" (Kohen Gadol) of the entire world, is sitting at his table in his tent as three guests appear. Regardless of which commentary you prefer as to who they actually were, what they looked like, and whether it was a dream, a vision or an actual encounter, we are told by the Torah that our patriarch Avraham invited these men to his table and had a meal prepared and served for them. Our verse says that Avraham readied the guests for the meal with the statement "now I will take the bread." What are we to understand from that verse? Rabbeinu Avigdor writes that even though the meal was prepared by others - earlier verses are clear that Avraham instructed his household and family to bring the food and drink - when it came to beginning the meal through breaking bread, Avraham speaks in the first person. "I will now take the bread" he declares. He infers a halacha from here (which although found in the Talmud (Brochos 46a) is not codified by all authorities) that the host or head of the house, not the guests, should say the blessing over the bread. It is not an honor to give away to guests, unlike leading the bentching which halacha regards as an honor to bestow on a guest. Rabbeinu Avigdor then addresses verse 8 which tells us that Avraham stood over the guests as they ate, which the Talmud (Kiddushin 32b) views as his having waited on those guests, actually bestowing honor onto them by serving them. How does this fit in with the message of our verse, which teaches us that the host should be taking the mealtime honor for himself? Rabbeinu Avigdor explains that this teaches us that there are two elements to the halacha. The reciting of the blessing is the domain of the host in his own home. He does not ask permission from his guests, for it is his role and his rightful honor to lead them all in praising HaShem for giving him sustenance which he can share with others. However, when one has guests or company, he has to see to it that they are well provided for during the meal. This is when he shows honor and respect to them, whether he is the head of the house, the host, or even the gadol ha'dor. The host leads the meal, first by exemplifying to all the spiritual aspect of the mitzvah (bein adam l'Makom) by praising HaShem, then by exemplifying the interpersonal aspect of the mitzvah (bein adam l'chaveiro) by taking care of others. Good Shabbos. D Fox

A Thought on Parshas Lech Lecha

"...va'yotzae oso ha'chutza..." "...and He brought him to the outside..." (15:5) HaShem spoke to Avram and foretold great promises, promises of progeny, of homeland and of a spiritual legacy. In describing that rich and blessed future, we are told that HaShem took him outside. This seem a bit puzzling, since when it comes to the Divine, there is no dimensionality or location. There is no need to go inside, to go outside, to submerge or to ascend when HaShem addresses the faithful with prophecy. What, then, is the meaning of our verse? Rashi has offered three levels of interpretation, the literal p'shat (Avram was brought outside to look at the innumerable stars), the homiletic midrash (Avram was urged to step outside of his former belief system and to relinquish astrological assumptions about himself, instead relying on HaShem), and the mystical (Avram was teleported outside of this world, beyond the Earth, above the stars into outer space). Interestingly, it is this third interpretation which Rabbeinu Avigdor embraces. In view of the introduction which I offered in my Thought on Parshas Bereishis two weeks ago, this is not so surprising, given that Rabbeinu Avigdor aims to address the pshat, the psak and the mystical aspects of the Torah in his commentary. He integrates the pshat - the literal meaning of the verse ("being brought out") - with that mystical nuance. Brought to the outer reaches of space, looking down at the planets and stars, Avram was shown his "mazal" - his higher source in the realm of the spirit, which was a blueprint for a life of childlessness. As long as he was named Avram, this was his mazal code with a set, immutable trajectory for his mortal existence. Then HaShem told him that with a change in his name to Avraham, his spiritual and mortal mission would change. He would have a different mazal, or spiritual origin. With that name and its accompanying higher source (his mazal code) his future would be different. He would have children. A Jew can be brought above and beyond the forces and factors which might influence and affect people. Avram was shown that a Jew can enter the dimension of his spirit's origins, and understand his spirit's code and its interface with his name and life plan. He can also turn to HaShem so that he might alter or move beyond that mazal. This lesser-known interpretation of Rashi, while more esoteric and mystical, nonetheless fits better with the literal wording of the verse. HaShem brought him out as if into outer space, or to a mystical dimension. That interpretation utilizes the meaning of the words "HaShem brought him out" in a more direct way than the midrashic approach which uses the words figuratively as "HaShem brought him beyond his former belief system". Rabbeinu Avigdor goes further, introducing a psak facet to the verse as well. He writes that from this verse in context, Avram's limitation or impairment in being unable to produce children, was a function of his name and the mazal source of that name. A change in his name seemed to bring him to a different mazal. He notes that this same process seems to occur when Sarai is given the new name Sarah, and is healed immediately and able to conceive. From this, Rabbeinu Avigdor rules that it is appropriate to give a name change to an ill person. This is done with the hope that the new name, intertwined with its own mazal, can reset or reformat the life plan of that invalid. This practice is still in use today when r'l there is a seriously ill person. Some of the Rishonim present the parameters and text of the name-change process. Rabbeinu Avigdor endorses it, finding its halachic source in our verse with this triangle or "triple header" blend of pshat, mysticism and psak. Wishing you a healthy, spirited Shabbos. Refuah she'leima to Ha'Admor mi'Savraan HaGaon Rav Yissachar Dov ben Fraida Gittel. Refuah she'leima to Fruma Pessi bas Tcharna. Refuah she'leima to Rav Shmuel Eliezer ben Sora Rivka Rachel. D Fox

A thought on פרשת נח

"...kol asher b'charava mesu..." "...every creature on land died..." (7:22) Those of us from out West, and for that matter, most people who even heard about the Old West, think of the buffalo as a native American beast. Even the word has that "Indian" sound to it. We've probably all heard that Western song about "Give me a home where the buffalo roam, and the deer and the antelope play." Some years ago, I read that antelope are not even found in North America, which casts doubt about the poetic accuracy of that cowboy song. Which led me to wonder about the word buffalo as well. That word shows up in Shulchan Aruch of all places, in discussing aspects of animal kashrus. We know that its author, Rav Yosef Karo, never came to the New World and may not have even heard of America. How did he know about buffalo? We move towards an answer with this week's comments of Rabbeinu Avigdor. Notice that our verse above states that all the creatures on land died in the flood. He notes that this verse would support our sages' view in the Talmud that the decree against living things did not extend to fish and sea creatures. He then asks how another passage queries how the "orzila d'yama" - a type of ocean animal (yama meaning ocean or yam in Aramaic) - was able to survive the flood. If the decree never affected sea creatures, why is that a question? On the basis of this, Rabbeinu Avigdor writes that an editorial error fell into some editions of the Talmud, and the correct version would read "orzila d'raema." A raem is a wild ox, and the Talmud was asking how a very large wild ox which did not fit into the ark would have survived the flood (you had to be there, or at least study Talmud, to appreciate that passage and its questions). The Talmudic concern had nothing to do with fish, since they survived the flood as our verse implies. The concern had to have been about that big wild ox, the raem. On the basis of this scholarly reasoning, Rabbeinu Avigdor sides with a view of Rabbeinu Tam, an earlier and foremost Tosafist, that because that raem is classified in halacha as a beast (chaya) and not as an animal (behaema), we must conclude that the animal which European Jews refer to as a buffalo cannot be the same as a raem. This means that a buffalo has the halachic status of an animal and not as a beast. This means that its chelev -certain internal fat - is forbidden. The prohibition on chelev only applies to the behaema, not the chaya. Whereas the buffalo is a form of non-domesticated ox or bovine, it is not the "wild ox" once known as the raem, he concludes. He then asks why the Talmud wonders about the survival of this raem during the flood. It could have survived by running to Israel, which the flood waters did not reach (another Talmudic opinion, based on a verse in Yechezkel 22:24). Rabbeinu Avigdor suggests that even though Israel was not flooded, water flowing down from nearby mountain peaks surely entered the Holy Land, so the terrain was submerged even there. Hence, the Talmud wonders how that original giant raem survived if it was not admitted entry onto the teiva. And from our verse about how all land creatures died during the flood, Rabbeinu Avigdor rules that buffalo are not classified as chayas, but as beheimas. Therefore, there are kashrus restrictions on some portions of buffalo meat fats. By the way, the American buffalo is actually a bison and looks very different than the European buffalo. This would mean that the song is totally inaccurate: neither buffalo or antelope ever roamed the plains of America (and William F. Cody should have been nicknamed Bison Bill!) Good Shabbos. D Fox

A Thought on Parshas B'reishis

"...va'Yikadesh oso ki vo Shovas mi'kol Melach'to..." "...and He sanctified it, for He rested on that day from all His work..." (2:3) The Torah introduces the Shabbos within its account of the Creation. Later on, we are given the formal instruction, or mitzva, to observe and keep the Sabbath. This shows up in the Ten Commandments which were given to us on Har Sinai (Shmos 19:8), where HaShem says that the Shabbos commemorates those Days of Creation. Rabbeinu Avigdor writes that the halachic practice of beginning the Shabbos with kiddush, sanctification of the day by means of a blessing over wine, can be traced to the contiguity of verse 1 which announces that "creation was finished" (Va'yachulu) with our verse which says that HaShem sanctified (kadesh) the close of the sixth day, which was the eve (eruv) of Shabbos. He then peers further into the word "va'Yikadesh" and ponders the "vav" at the onset of the word. As a letter, that vav is the suffix for "and" but as a number, that vav is six. He then suggests that this is why we find six expressions of the word "kadesh" within the evening Kiddush prayer. We find the words kidishanu, Shabbos kadsho, l'mikra'ae kodesh, v'osanu kidashta, Shabbos kadshecha and Mikadesh haShabbos. He suggests that this is the reason that our sages inserted six expressions of sanctification into the Kiddush, and why they are recited Shabbos eve. He then queries the term Shovas in our verse. Apparently, this conjugation of the word Shabbos must mean, in context, that HaShem rested. Yet, going ahead again to the verse in the Ten Commandments, the Torah writes "va'yanach", which definitely means "He rested", since that word is derived from menucha. Rabbeinu Avigdor then wonders why our verse does not say "ki vo Noch" rather than "ki vo Shovas." Here too he finds a basis for another halachic practice: the word Shovas, while related to the word Shabbos, has a more common link to the more familiar word yoshev which means to sit or to set in place. Rabbeinu Avigdor then suggests that our verse uses the word Shovas because HaShem set the Shabbos into a different role than the other six days of the week. Our sages refer to Shabbos as "the Sabbath Bride", which we also use in chanting Lecha Dodi when we say "bo'ee Kallah". Rabbeinu Avigdor envisions this as if Shabbos has been enthroned amidst the other days of the week. Those week days sing the praise of Shabbos, Mizmor Shir l'yom haShabbos (Tehillim 92:1), the only day of the week to have a psalm of its own. It is through this midrashic imagery that Rabbeinu Avigdor traces the origin of our custom to sit a bride down in a special throne at the wedding, facing her groom, and for the guests to dance and sing her praises. From precise analysis of words, their position and their context, Rabbeinu Avigdor shows how the Torah signals to us the sanctified origins and unity of our Torah practices. Good Shabbos, yom Menucha, Shabbos Kallah. D Fox

5773

In my quest for Rishonim on Chumash, I roamed the bookshops of Jerusalem, and of course I spoke with my good friend Rabbi Eli Mayer Cohen of Lakewood. He introduced me in the past to Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel and to the Bechor Shor, whose works we studied the last two years. Rabbi Cohen lamented how seldom earlier manuscripts are brought to print, but that he had come across a volume which was out of print, something from a fairly unknown Ba'al Tosafos. He offered to lend me his tattered copy, but I told him how hesitant I was. I like to write notes in the margins of the sefarim I study, and would have trouble focusing if unable to resort to my method of learning and note taking. Some weeks after, he contacted me, excited. A friend of his was foraging through a used book sale and came upon that very volume in good condition! He had called Rabbi Cohen and said it was going for four dollars, so he told his friend to grab it for me. We talked about ways he might ship it or send it to me. In August, I attended the great Sium HaShas in New Jersey. Out of the crowd came a young man brandishing that sefer. Rabbi Cohen had told his son where I would be sitting, and he delivered this year's Rishon. Let me introduce him. We will be studying the works of Rabbeinu Avigdor ben Rabbeinu Yitzchak. He was known variously as Rabbeinu Avigdor Ba'al HaPsakim - the Master Jurist, and as Rabbeinu AvigdorTzarfati - of France. Needless to say, he was from France, and lived in the 13th century near the close of the era of Tosafists. His father was one of the rabbis chosen to accompany Rabbeinu Yechiel in Paris for the great and tragic debate against Catholic clergy. Young Rabbeinu Avigdor was also present. As far as I can ascertain, he was a rabbi in the town of Feillens which is in eastern France (I base this on the Hebrew spelling he uses in identifying his town, and on a map of France). Rabbeinu Avigdor was the author of many works (most still in manuscript) and seems to have had a range of scholarship which included practical halacha, the esoteric origins of some halachic practices, and was also part of a secret circle of kabbalists, or mystics. His work on the Torah, which has now come my way, appears to encompass each of these areas. He appears to trace many practices and customs to Biblical allusions. He teases out midrashic and mystical lessons from the context in which verses are written. I have begun a selective reading of his words and am still deciphering his style and method. As we begin our Torah cycle in the new year of 5773, I will introduce a sample of his sefer Pirushim u'Pesakim l'Rabbeinu Avigdor HaTzarfati, Ba'al HaPesakim - The Interpretations and the Rulings of Rabbeinu Avigdor the French, Master Jurist. May our travels together bring much illumination, adventure and growth in HaShem's ways.