Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat Har Etzion

Parashat Chayei-Sara tells of Avraham's servant's successful mission to find a wife for Yitzchak. Upon hearing Avraham's charge that he go to Charan for this purpose, the servant, identified by Chazal as Eliezer, expresses his concern that "perhaps the woman will not agree to follow me to this land." Rashi, citing Chazal, notes that in the servant's recounting of this conversation to Rivka's family, the Torah drops the letter "vav" from the word, "ulai" (perhaps), such that it may be read, "eilai," or "to me." Chazal understood this as an indication that Eliezer wished for his own daughter to marry Yitzchak. This is why he raised the concern that the woman may not agree to relocate in Canaan; he figured that Avraham Avinu might then prefer to allow Yitzchak to marry Eliezer's daughter, a girl from the neighborhood. But Avraham responds in the negative: "My son is blessed, and you are cursed; the cursed does not attach to the blessed."

What does it mean that Eliezer is "cursed"? Is this not somewhat of an overly harsh insult to Avraham's faithful servant, whom Chazal describe as "drawing [Torah] from his master and giving to others to drink" (Rashi, 15:2)?

A beautiful answer is offered by Rav Shimon Schwab, in his "Mayan Beit Ha-sho'eiva." Rav Schwab claims that Eliezer's attempt to promote his personal interests in this context itself rendered him "cursed." The truly "blessed" person works on behalf of others and executes his responsibilities without concern for his own, private agenda. He acts with sincere devotion and commitment, rather with selfish motives disguised in a mask of sincerity. By slyly asking, "Perhaps the woman will not agree to follow me," Eliezer immediately disqualified himself from joining Avraham's family through marriage. However spiritually capable he was, and, as mentioned, Chazal do laud Eliezer's piety, he possessed an element of self-centeredness that brought upon himself the derogatory title of "cursed."

We may add that while Eliezer here acts with his selfish interests in mind, he perhaps failed to exercise this quality in the area where it actually does belong: Torah study. The Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Yehuda Amital shlit"a, has often remarked that man is created stubborn; he is to utilize his arrogance in the intellectual pursuit of truth, in Torah learning. Rav Amital recalls his Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Yechezkel Abramsky of the Chevron Yeshiva, commenting that "we don't allow tzadikim into the yeshiva." One who feels too humble to argue his point and engage in stubborn - though obviously honest and genuine - discourse cannot succeed in Torah scholarship. Now earlier we cited Chazal's description of Eliezer as one who "draws from his master and gives to others to drink." Some later commentators understood this praise of Eliezer as containing a subtle point of criticism, as well. All Eliezer could do was receive Torah knowledge and then transmit it in its original form to others. He failed to assimilate the information in his mind and develop it to gain his own, unique insights. The element of self-absorption that prompted his suggestion that his daughter marry Yitzchak was conspicuously lacking from his engagement in Torah learning.

What emerges, then, is a flaw pertaining to Eliezer's priorities. He could act selfishly when it came to honor and prestige, but not when it came to the ultimate pursuit of honest wisdom. Avraham therefore deemed him unworthy of joining his family, and he instead sought a wife for Yitzchak from his own familial roots in Charan.

*****

The Midrash in Bereishit Rabba (58) writes something very peculiar related to the opening verse of Parashat Chayei-Sara. Once as Rabbi Akiva delivered a lecture, he noticed the audience dozing. In an attempt to grab their attention, Rabbi Akiva said, "Why did Ester rule over 127 provinces? Let Ester, a descendant of Sara who lived for 127 years, come and rule over 127 provinces." This Midrash raises numerous questions. First and foremost, why must the Midrash inform us of the audience's fatigue? How is it at all relevant to Rabbi Akiva's lesson? Secondly, Rabbi Akiva's comment itself requires explanation. Wherein lies the relationship between Ester and Sara?

Rav Yehuda Leib Ginzburg, in his "Yalkut Yehuda" on Sefer Bereishit, claims that we must interpret the "sleep" of Rabbi Akiva's audience allegorically. As we know, Rabbi Akiva lived in the period during and after the Temple's destruction, including the disastrous revolt led by Bar Kochba. Jews in that generation experienced intense sorrow and a genuine feeling of grief, hopelessness and dejection, and Rabbi Akiva was the one who brought the message of hope and optimism. (See, for example, the famous story at the end of Masekhet Makkot.) He found his audiences "sleeping," sunken in gloom and lifeless anguish. Specifically, Rav Ginzburg speculates, the people were disheartened by the fact that their many good deeds seemed worthless, as their merits appeared to have had no effect in sparing them from God's harsh decrees. Rabbi Akiva thus consoled them with the knowledge that one's meritorious acts often yield their most profound effects only years or even centuries later. The merit of Sara's piety saved Am Yisrael, as Ester had been in the royal palace as queen when the annihilation edict was issued. Though the people may not recognize the Hand of God at that point in time, their efforts will eventually be rewarded, if only many years later.

We may, however, build a somewhat different approach upon Rav Ginzburg's general direction. The prevailing mood in Rabbi Akiva's generation was one of despair and hopelessness regarding the future. Many centuries earlier, our matriarch Sara had similarly given up hope - at least it seemed - on her progeny. She gives her maidservant to Avraham to bear him children, and she chuckles in response to the news that she would bear a child after reaching menopause. In the end, of course, at the age of ninety she delivers a healthy son. Many years later, her descendants are exiled in Persia and suddenly face the threat of destruction. On the surface, it seemed hopeless. But just when it seems as though all hope is lost, the Almighty comes to our assistance. Herein lies the significance of the 127 association between Sara and Ester: the message of hope when it seems to have vanished.

This, perhaps, was how Rabbi Akiva, the legendary optimist, offered encouragement and solace to his weary and sleepy generation. Hopefully, his words will reach our crisis-ridden generation and serve likewise as a source of inspiration and hope.

*****

The Torah opens Parashat Chayei-Sara by informing us that Sara lived for 127 years. After recording this number, the opening verse concludes, "these are the years of the life of Sara." Apparently bothered by the superfluity of this clause, Rashi comments, "They were all equivalent in goodness." At first glance, this seems to mean that she enjoyed prosperity and good fortune equally throughout all the years of her life. Needless to say, however, such a notion is untenable. Sara spent thirty-five years in a childless marriage before giving birth to Yitzchak, during which time she has her maidservant marry Avraham, and she conceives immediately. Recall that this caused Sara great anguish and heartache. At one point she and Avraham suffered from famine, and twice she was abducted by local dictators. Clearly, we cannot consider those periods in her life as "good" as her final thirty-seven years after Yitzchak's birth. What, then, do Chazal mean?

Rav Moshe Feinstein writes that we have no choice but to understand the "goodness" of which Rashi speaks as the goodness Sara bestowed on others. No matter how much personal frustration she experienced, she always greeted other people kindly and pleasantly. Her own difficulties had no adverse effon how she treated others.

This quality of Sara may explanother Midrash cited by Rashi later in our parasha. The verse tells of Yitzchak's marriage to Rivka and says, "He took her into the tent of his mother, Sara" (24:67). Rashi there cites the Midrash's comment that after his marriage, Yitzchak noticed the return of three phenomenon that had occurred during his mother's lifetime: a candle would burn in the tent from one Erev Shabbat to the next, a special blessing had the dough supply last for long periods, and a cloud hovered over the tent. The first two of these miracles are clear - supernatural phenomena bringing or signaling prosperity in the home. But what purpose did the cloud serve? What does it represent? The Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Yehuda Amital shlit"a, explained many times that this cloud symbolizes the general aura of serenity and spirituality that permeated Sara's and Rivka's homes. It meant that beyond compliance with the laws, these households possessed a unique, abstract quality of holiness. This ambiguously defined atmosphere likely relates to the characteristic noted above by Rav Moshe Feinstein: the pleasant, positive demeanor when speaking with others. This warmth and joy characterized the tents of our matriarchs, and Chazal refer to it as a "cloud hovering over the tent." It was with this refinement that Sara and Rivka built their homes, and with which they built Am Yisrael.

*****

Among the surprising features for which Parashat Chayei-Sara is known is its seeming verbosity. The Torah describes in detail Eliezer's experiences as he sets out to find a wife for Yitzchak, and then quotes word for word his retelling of the entire story to Rivka's family. Rather than simply stating, "Eliezer told them everything that he experienced," or something along those lines, the Torah chooses instead to cite the entire conversation. Rashi cites Chazal's reaction to this peculiarity: "The conversations of the patriarchs' servants is greater before the Almighty than the Torah of their offspring." Whereas the Torah presents several important halakhot in the most subtle of ways, Eliezer's monologue is recorded verbatim.

It is interesting to note, however, the context in which Rashi inserts this citation from Chazal. He writes this in his commentary to 24:42, when Eliezer says, "And so I arrived today at the well… " Rashi notes that Eliezer experienced "kefitzat ha-derekh," or "contraction of the road," enabling him to reach Charan from Canaan in a single day. Rashi then adds the comment that "the conversations of the patriarchs' servants is greater… " How do the two halves of Rashi's commentary to this verse relate to one another? Perhaps more troubling, why did Rashi wait until this point to insert Chazal's observation concerning "the conversations of the patrarchs' servants"? Eliezer began his review of the events already several verses earlier!

Rav Shimon Schwab answers that the "greatness" of Eliezer's "conversation" is manifest specifically in this verse, when he recounts, "I arrived today at the well." He decided to omit the part of God's having granted him the supernatural contraction of his journey. Deeming this detail unimportant to the issue at hand, Eliezer simply and plainly reported his arrival in Charan. Although he could have gloated over the miracle, he preferred to speak humbly and to the point. This is the greatness of Avraham's servant.

Interestingly enough, according to some commentators Eliezer does make a reference to this miracle later in this discussion. After Rivka's family agree to the match, they request that she remain with them for a short while before they see her off to Canaan. Eliezer, however, insists that they return to Avraham immediately: "Do not delay me, now that God has made my trip successful. Give me leave that I may go to my master" (24:56). At first glance, Eliezer's response is hardly comprehensible. Why should the success of his trip preclude any delay in his return? One explanation understands this "success" as a reference to the "kefitzat ha-derekh" experienced by Eliezer upon his arrival. The supernatural speed of his journey from Canaan indicated to him God's will that the process occur as quickly as possible. He therefore requested permission to immediately return to Avraham.

Thus, Eliezer ultimately was compelled to disclose the heretofore classified information of his speedy arrival. Even then, however, he spoke modestly, concealing the miracle in subtlety - "God has made my trip successful." Avraham's servant thus demonstrates genuine humility, keeping silent about one's accomplishments until the information becomes necessary, and even then not flaunting them.

*****

Towards the end of Parashat Chayei-Sara we read of Avraham's marriage to Ketura, a union that produced six sons. Somewhat surprisingly, the Gemara in Masekhet Sanhedrin 59 cites Rav Yossi Bar Avin as stating that the sons of Ketura are included in the obligation of berit mila (circumcision). Since God had issued this commandment upon Avraham and his offspring, it applies to the sons of Ketura, as well. (Yishmael's descendants are not required to perform a berit mila because of God's explicit pronouncement excluding them from Avraham's progeny.)

An interesting dispute, however, exists among the Rishonim as to whom the Gemara has in mind when it speaks of "the sons of Ketura." Rashi explains that the six sons themselves were included in the mitzva of berit mila; Chazal never extended this requirement to their offspring. Avraham was personally obligated to circumcise all his children, including those - like Yitzchak - born to him after the command was issued. Only Yitzchak, however, the divinely proclaimed heir of Avraham Avinu, carried this obligation with him for future generations. The Rambam (Hilkhot Melakhim 10:7-8), by contrast, maintains that all descendants of the six sons born to Avraham and Ketura must perform circumcision. Somewhat more strikingly, the Rambam extends the practical application of this requirement to the descendants of Yishmael, as well. Since, he writes, the children of Yishmael and Ketura have assimilated together to the point where they are ethnically indistinguishable, should any such nation come under Jewish rule, the religious authorities can enforce this obligation upon them. Although the commandment of mila never applied to Yishmael's offspring, any supposed descendant of Yishmael may actually descend from Ketura's sons, and must therefore perform circumcision out of doubt.

Several Acharonim have questioned this final ruling of the Rambam in light of a well-known principle involving a parallel phenomenon. The Gemara notes that the Assyrian King Sancheriv, who conquered virtually the entire Middle East during the end of the First Temple era, ordered the forced resettlement of entire populations. As a result, peoples of a given nationality cannot subsequently be assumed to have ethnic origins in that nation. Therefore, peoples from the nations of Amon and Moav, for example, whom the Torah forbids from marrying into Benei Yisrael even after conversion, may do so after the Sancheriv era. Since national populations were rearranged, an Amonite is not assumed to have actually descended from the Biblical nation of Amon, and we may therefore welcome him into the Jewish nation. (See Berakhot 28a; Rambam Hilkhot Issurei Bi'a 12:25.)

In light of this, asks the Sha'agat Aryeh, why does the Rambam require all descendants of Yishmael and Ketura to perform berit mila if, after Sancheriv's conquest, they cannot be assumed to have actually descended from Avraham?

One answer to this question is offered by Rav Shemuel Landau, son of Rav Yechezkel Landau, more popularly known as the Noda Bi-Yehuda (as brought down in Noda Bi-Yehuda, Mahadura Tanina E.H. 42). The Gemara indicates that the en masse displacement of populations itself would not allow an Amoni, let's say, to marry into Benei Yisrael. In fact, this event should have seemingly yielded a severe stringency: perhaps we should forbid the marriage of any convert with a Jew out of concethat he/she descends from a nation such as Amon! However, the operative principle in effect here is called "kol de-mei-ruba parish" - something that has been separated from its origins is assumed to be of the majority. The classic application of the principle involves a case of someone who went to a shopping area to purchase meat, but when he returned home he could not remember from which store he made the purchase. Now this area has several butcheries, most of which are kosher. He may assume that the meat in his freezer was purchased from one of the kosher shops, as they constitute the majority. Similarly, a convert who comes before us can be assumed to descend from a nation whose members may marry into Benei Yisrael upon their conversion, as these nations comprise the majority of gentile peoples.

Rav Shemuel Landau, however, draws a startling restriction on this principle. The Gemara in Masekhet Chullin (11) derives this principle of following the majority from a verse in the Torah, implying that without a Biblical indication otherwise, this concept is not self-understood. If so, Rav Landau reasons, it can apply only to Benei Yisrael, for whom the Torah's rules apply. Since these guidelines derived from the Torah are not applicable to other nations, the concept of "majority rules" as discussed cannot apply to them, either. Therefore, anyone descending from Yishmael or Ketura must perform a berit mila in case they descended from Ketura. Only with regard to prohibitions applying to Benei Yisrael - such as marrying an Amoni - may the "majority" principle take effect.

Of course, this raises a different question, one raised by the Minchat Chinukh: after Sancheriv's conquest, all gentiles should be required to perform circumcision, out of concern that they may actually descend from Ketura, something we never find in halakha. Even the Rambam introduced an obligation upon only the descendants of Yishmael, not other nations. This would perhaps call Rav Shemuel Landau's analysis into question, hence leaving the difficulty with the Rambam unresolved.

*****

After Rivka successfully passes the "water test" conducted by Avraham's servant, the servant inquires as to her identity and asks for lodging. Rivka, of course, identifies herself as the daughter of Betuel and graciously invites the servant and his entourage into her father's home. However, as many commentators - starting with Chazal - note, Rivka appears to make an offer slightly different from the servant's request. He had requested a "makom lanu lalin" (place for us to sleep - 24:23) and Rivka said that her family has a "makom lalun" (24:25). While both "lalin" and "lalun" seem to mean "to sleep," the sudden shift in wording seems to require some explanation. What difference is there between these two terms, and what do they tell us about Rivka's offer to the servant?

Three approaches appear in our classic sources.

The Midrash suggests that the second term, "lalun," denotes long-term lodging ("linot harbei"). Whereas the servant asked for but a one-night stay with her family, Rivka graciously extended an even more generous offer, allowing the visitor and his men to stay in the home for an extended period of time.

The Rashbam explains the difference by redefining the term "lalin." We have assumed a grammatical equivalence between "lalin" and "lalun." In both instances, the prefix "la" means "to," and "lin" or "lun" is a verb modifying the servant and his men. Thus, both words amount to the direct translation of the English term, "to sleep." The entire phrase, "makom lanu lalin/lalun" thus reads, "a place [for us] to sleep." According to the Rashbam, this reading is correct only with regard to Rivka's response, "makom lalun." The servant had in fact requested something different - a "place for sleeping." He explains the word "lin" as a shortened version of the familiar term, "lina," a noun meaning "sleep" or the gerund form, "sleeping." (Rashi, the Rashbam's grandfather, also draws this distinction between the two terms, but he accepts the Midrash's explanation.) Thus, the servant requested a "place for sleeping" and Rivka offered "a place for you to sleep." The Rashbam explains that the servant asked merely for a place where he and his men can sleep. It could have been anywhere suitable for sleeping, not necessarily a formal bedroom or guest room. Rivka however, offered the guests a "place to sleep," proper and comfortable lodging conditions.

A third, somewhat surprising approach is taken by the Ibn Ezra, though with utmost brevity. He explains that "lalun" and "lalin" represent two grammatical forms of the same verb. "Lalun," representing the more common form, "binyan kal," means simply, "to sleep." "Lalin," however, is written in the "hifil" form which generally describes an action performed to, for, or on behalf of someone else. Here, "lalin" (a contraction of "lehalin") would mean to have the animals sleep. According to the Ibn Ezra, then, the servant requested not only a place where he and his men could sleep, but somewhere to keep the animals overnight, and Rivka offered only "makom lalun," a place for the men themselves to sleep. In the end, of course, the servant had the camels sleep, as well (24:54). The question, though, arises as to why Rivka offered less than the servant had requested, an issue not directly addressed by the Ibn Ezra.

*****

Towards the end of Parashat Chayei Sara we read of the death of Avraham Avinu. The Gemara in Masekhet Bava Batra 91 records that "on that day on which Avraham Avinu died, all the prestigious men among the nations of the world stood in a line and said, woe unto the world that lost its leader, woe unto the ship that lost its captain." Many explanations have been given for this apparent redundancy - the loss of a world leader and that of a ship's captain. We will bring here three of the suggestions offered, cited in the compendium, "Likutei Batar Likutei" on Masekhet Bava Batra.

The Yismach Moshe writes that a political leader's effectiveness depends largely not on his own qualifications, but on the efforts of those he appoints to work beneath him. A ship's captain, by contrast, navigates the vessel with his own skill, entirely independent of other people's efforts. Avraham Avinu's leadership excelled in both areas. He influenced others to follow his lead, thus ensuring a competent network of spiritual leaders to guide the world. However, Avraham still remained the primary religious pillar of his time in his own right, protecting his generation through his merits. The nations of the world thus acknowledged the fact that although Avraham left behind him a large following, he was the sole "captain" of the world's "ship," who can never be replaced.

The Petach Einayim understands the two clauses as referring to different types of time periods. The generic reference to a "world leader" speaks of times when things more or less run as usual. The world needs qualified leadership during times of peace and stability to ensure the maintenance of this tranquillity. The image of a "ship" here refers to time periods characterized by "stormy seas," when the world faces instability and an uncertain future. At these times a unique type of leader is required, to steer his constituents back to safety and security. The nations of the world lamented the loss of Avraham Avinu, who provided both forms of leadership.

Thirdly, the "Torat Bar Nash" explains that an ordinary world leader is eventually replaced by another. In due course, another influential and effective leader will emerge to assume the role left empty by the loss of his predecessor. This provides little comfort, however, to commuters on a vessel whose navigator suddenly dies. Stranded in the middle of the ocean without a captain, how can they find their way back to land? Who will show them the way? The world leaders thus lamented not only the loss of an outstanding personality, but the fact that the world will now toss and turn like an unmanned ship. Avraham Avinu's contribution was so unique that no one can continue his work, muchas a ship has no way of replacing its captain.

This shiur is provided courtesy the Virtual Beit Midrash, the premier source of online courses on Torah and Judaism - 14 different courses on all levels, for all backgrounds.

Make Jewish learning part of your week on a regular basis - enroll in the
Virtual Beit Midrash

Yeshivat Har Etzion
Alon Shvut, Israel, 90433
office@etzion.org.il