United We Stand

This week features a gem from R' Shamshon Ostropolier, but this is a contentious point, and has also been attributed to the Vilna Gaon and various Sephardic Baalei Drasha.

The Pasuk says " וַיִּיקַץ יַעֲקֹב, מִשְּׁנָתוֹ, וַיֹּאמֶר, אָכֵן יֵשׁ יְהוָה בַּמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה; וְאָנֹכִי, לֹא יָדָעְתִּי - And Yakov awakened from his sleep, and he said, "I now know the Lord is in this place, and I did not know before." (28:16)

Clearly this means something else, and R' Shamshon Ostropolier obliges us. He explains that we know from Sefer Yechezkel there are 4 images on the Kisei HaKavod(G-d's Holy Throne), a lion, an eagle, a cherub and a man.

He then explains that אָכֵן is Roshei Teivos Aryeh (lion), Cruv (cherub, the angel that appeared on the Aron) and Nesher (eagle), and אָנֹכִי is Roshei Teivos Aryeh, Nesher, Cruv, and Yakov. This is what he was really saying; ""אָכֵן" I already knew were on the Kisei HaKavod, but after I saw the Kisei Hakavod in my dream, I saw "אָנֹכִי" with the additional yud, for Yakov ie that my face was the fourth, fitting enough to be on the Kisei HaKavod, לֹא יָדָעְתִּי".

I heard a very interesting explanation on how he saw himself as fitting from when he woke up and not before. There is machlokes how many stones Yakov took as the pasuk does not say how many. Pirkei D'Rebi Eliezer says that Yakov took 12 stones to put around his head. Before, all the stones were seperate and individual, and Yakov/Yisroel was not fit to be on the Kisei HaKavod. But once he woke up and saw they had combined to make 1 stone, then he was fitting to be on the Kisei Hakavod, and that's why he didn't know before. We can apply this to ourselves by saying that the 12 stones is a metaphor for the 12 Tribes, and clearly from this we can see that divided we are not fit to be on the Kisei HaKavod, but united, we are.

Why did G-d "relent" to Isaac and Rivka's prayers?

You'll find we've already written a Dvar Torah that explains a Pasuk in Toldos, located here

This Dvar Torah blew me away. When it was clear that they would be unable to have children, Isaac and Rivka prayed, and the Pasuk (21:25) says:

'וַיֶּעְתַּר יִצְחָק לַיהוָה לְנֹכַח אִשְׁתּוֹ, כִּי עֲקָרָה הִו וַיֵּעָתֶר לוֹ ה - "And Isaac entreated the Lord for his wife, because she was barren; and He relented to him"

A gentleman once told R' Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld a short Dvar Torah on this. Why does the Pasuk say "and He relented to him". Does this not seems an odd way of saying that G-d heard and heeded his prayer?

The gentleman explained that there is a tradition that all the Patriarchs were meant to live until the age of 180. Yet Avraham died aged 175 (25:2). We can work this out: Avraham was 99 when he circumcised himself, 100 at Isaac's birth, 137 at the Akeida, at which point Isaac was obviously 37. Isaac was 40 at his marriage, and 60 at the birth of Yaakov and Esau (25:26) making Avraham 160 at their birth. Esau first murdered aged 15, making Avraham 175. There is a Rashi that Avraham would live to see Yishmael repent (25:9), but die before Esau killed someone for the first time (25:30). If he died aged 175, where are the missing 5 years?

The gentleman said to R' Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld that 'וַיֵּעָתֶר לוֹ ה is the answer. There was never any doubt that Isaac would have children, his father had been promised "nations", certainly Isaac would have children then, and Rivka would certainly be their mother as she was the one deemed worthy, as evidenced by the miracles Eliezer witnessed. וַיֵּעָתֶר לוֹ ה can be interpreted to mean that G-d did not want to give them children just yet, He simply wanted them to wait a bit longer so Avraham would not live to see his grandson become a murderer.

When R' Yosef Chaim heard this, he jumped up and exclaimed that this vort was Emess, because 'וַיֵּעָתֶר לוֹ ה is Gematria (numerical value) 748 (686+36+26), which is the same Gematria as חמש שנים - five years - 748, which represents G-d relenting to their prayers to have children at the expense of חמש שנים from Avraham Avinu's life.

R'Yosef Chaim also said that we say " רְצוֹן-יְרֵאָיו יַעֲשֶׂה; וְאֶת-שַׁוְעָתָם יִשְׁמַע, וְיוֹשִׁיעֵם - He will fulfil the desire of them that fear Him; He also will hear their cry, and will save them ". Isn't this in the wrong order? Doesn't Hashem fulfil their desires to placate their cries? R' Yosef Chaim explains that the prayers of a devout person are able to change what is meant to happen to people, which explains fulfilling their desires. But people don't know what's best for them, and sometimes suffer as a consequence of getting what they desire. The pasuk teaches that Hashem will even repair this later cry of suffering that is of their own doing.


Geshmack !

Out of Context

וַיַּעַן אַבְרָהָם וַיֹּאמַר הִנֵּה נָא הוֹאַלְתִּי לְדַבֵּר אֶל אֲדֹנָי וְאָנֹכִי עָפָר וָאֵפֶר - And Abraham answered and said, "Behold now I have commenced to speak to the Lord, although I am dust and ashes."

Rava in Tractate Chulin 88b says that the reward for saying this was that his children would earn the Mitzvah of the ashes of the Para Adumah (Red Heifer) and dust of the Sotah (a woman brought to the Temple accused of adultery was forced to drink a concoction which had dust from the foot of the Altar in it).

Beyond the obvious yet superficial connection of dust/dust, ash/ash, how are Sotah and Para Adumah a relevant reward to Afar v'Efer?

The legendary Dubner Maggid gives a Mashul as only the Dubner Maggid can; there was an upstanding member of society who made a wedding for his son, and all the people and Gedolim were invited. There was the top table for the family, and next to it, another for the Gedolim. The greatest rabbi invited shows up, wishes Mazal Tov, but feels unworthy of sitting in the prescence of the other rabbis, and quietly sits in the corner somewhere. The host feels that the rabbi is not being accorded due respect, and he requested that the whole table of rabbis move to the table in the corner to join this great rabbi. He manipulated the context to make the supposedly unworthy corner into one worthy of having the great rabbi sit there.

This explains the Pshat of the Dubner Maggid, that Hashem took what Avraham said, and changed the context from dust and ash with all their negative connotations, to dust and ash as Mitzvos, the essence of the Torah, the absolute opposite of dust and ash.

A slightly different Pshat was suggested by the Beis HaLevi: Dust of the earth has no past, but tremendous future; it can grow plant life, which itself is alive, can then sustain other life etc, whereas ash has no future whatsoever, but in the past was part of a living thing. Avraham meant Afar V'Efer to be that he had no past, like earth, and and no future, like ash.

Says the Beis HaLevi, Hashem inverted this, by giving the Mitzvah of Sotah, which cleans the woman's past, and Para Adumah which purifies the persons future. Genius, no?

Geshmack !

How we have a Yetzer Hara

וַיִּהְיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם עֲרוּמִּים, הָאָדָם וְאִשְׁתּוֹ וְלֹא יִתְבֹּשָׁשׁוּ

" And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed."

ולא יתבוששו: שלא היו יודעים דרך צניעות להבחין בין טוב לרע, ואף על פי שנתנה בו דעה לקרות שמות, לא נתן בו יצר הרע עד אכלו מן העץ ונכנס בו יצר הרע וידע מה בין טוב לרע

and (they) were not ashamed: for they did not know the way of modesty, to distinguish between good and evil (Gen. Rabbah) (Targum Yerushalmi), and even though knowledge was granted him to call [all the creatures] names, he was not imbued with the evil inclination until he ate of the tree, and the evil inclination entered into him, and he knew the difference between good and evil. (Rashi)

It would appear from Rashi's words that prior to eating the forbidden fruit, he had no Evil Inclination. This being the case, how is it that Adam was capable of performing a sin, breaking God's commandment, seeing as he had no inclination to do so?

Furthermore, Chazal teach us that the purpose of creation was to partake in the service of God, by battling the Evil Inclination that tries to prevent one from fulfilling hsi duties and overcoming it. Again, this being the case, what function would the creation have served if there was no Evil Inclination, as we have understood Rashi to have said.

R' Chaim Volozhin explains that certainly Adam had all the faculties, notably free will, instilled within him before the sin, to enable to him to do as he saw fit. What he didn't have, was an internal urge to sin or do evil, rather, this Evil Inclination, Satan, was an external being to Adam, and it had to physically manifest itself as the snake to ensnare Adam and Eve, unlike today, where this battle is an internal battle, choice, decision.

If we review the original quote from Rashi, it would seem that he implies this:

"לא נתן בו יצר הרע עד אכלו מן העץ ונכנס בו יצר הרע"

that the Evil Inclination only became an innate thing in man once he consumed the fruit and it became part of him.

Geshmack !