The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash

Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat Har Etzion

by Rav David Silverberg

Parashat Chayei-Sara begins with the death and burial of Sara. After Avraham cries and mourns the loss of his wife, we are told, "Avraham rose from beside his dead and spoke to the Hittites… " Before approaching the Hittites with his request for a burial site for Sara, Avraham first "rises from beside his dead." The Ba'al ha-Turim writes that this suggests - if only by allusion - that Avraham specifically left the vicinity of Sara's body before initiating his discussion with the Hittites. The Ba'al ha-Turim thus sees in this verse a basis or allusion to the halakha forbidding conversation in the presence of a dead body.

However, the halakha in this regard codified in the Shulchan Arukh seems, at first glance, inconsistent with this reading of the verse by the Ba'al ha-Turim. The Shulchan Arukh (344:16) rules explicitly that one may speak in the presence of a dead body matters relating to the burial needs, just as one may deliver a eulogy in its presence. As Avraham's conversation with the Hittites involved the most basic burial need - a suitable plot of land, why, according to the Ba'al ha-Turim, did Avraham make a point of leaving the vicinity of Sara's remains?

Rav Avraham Yitzchak Sorotzkin (of the Telz Yeshiva in Cleveland, Ohio), in his "Rinat Yitzchak," answers based on a distinction drawn by the Brisker Rav between two purchases made by Avraham Avinu at this point. The field itself, in which the Me'arat ha-Machpela was situated, belonged to Efron, from whom Avraham purchased the field. But Avraham also made a purchase, of sorts, from the rest of the Hittites to confirm his rights to the field, to secure their guarantee that no one will ever question his ownership. Now only the actual purchase itself can be considered, halakhically, "tzorkhei ha-kevura" - the burial needs. The deal reached with the other tribesmen involved merely Avraham's long-term concerns; Sara's burial did not, however, require this arrangement. Therefore, the Ba'al ha-Turim understood that Avraham indeed had to leave Sara's presence before initiating his negotiations with Benei Cheit, which involved matter not directly related to her burial.

Rav Sorotzkin then adds another point necessary to properly understand the Ba'al ha-Turim's comment. In the aforementioned halakha, the Shulchan Arukh adds a significant restriction on this prohibition against conversing in the presence of a corpse: it applies only to Torah matters. Conversations relating to general matters, however, may take place in the presence of a dead body. This follows one view in the Gemara (Masekhet Berakhot 3b), the position accepted by Rav Hai Gaon, the Rif, the Ramban and the Rambam, among others. The Tur, however, follows the view that prohibits all conversation unrelated to the burial, regardless of whether it involves Torah or general matters. Thus, Rav Sorotzkin notes, the Ba'al ha-Turim - which, of course, was written by the same author as the Tur - follows consistently his view in the Tur, drawing no distinction between Torah-related and general conversation. He thus attributed Avraham's having "risen from beside his dead" to this prohibition against engaging in any type of conversation in the presence of a dead body.

*******

In the beginning of Parashat Chayei-Sara, Avraham purchases a parcel of land from Efron the Chittite as a burial site for his wife. Chazal are very critical of Efron for having asked (if only indirectly) for an exorbitant amount of money for the area. The Mekhilta (Yitro, 1) claims that the Torah alludes to Efron's lust for wealth as manifest in this transaction by dropping the letter "vav" from his name after Avraham pays him the money (see the different spellings of Efron's name in 23:16).

A question arises as to why Chazal single out Efron in this regard. According to a different Midrash, referred to by Rashi in his commentary to Bereishit 50:5, Esav made a similar deal with his brother, Yaakov. Yaakov had to give Esav all the gold and silver he earned during his years working for Lavan in exchange for burial rights in Me'arat ha-Machpela. Yet, nowhere do we find any comments by Chazal criticizing Esav for his selfishness in this regard. Why this prejudice between Efron and Esav?

One could have answered, perhaps, that Esav's demand for this enormous payment did not need any specific condemnation. Chazal's portrayal of Esav as a cruel, heartless man is sufficiently clear that we have no need for explicit criticism of this demand for money. It fits perfectly with the image of Esav adequately drawn by a wealth of Midrashic literature.

Nevertheless, the Chatam Sofer is cited (by Rav Dovid Moskovits, in his "Gelilei Zahav") as explaining much differently, viewing Chazal's silence with regard to Esav as an implicit approval of his demand. The Chatam Sofer points to a critical distinction between the two cases. As the Midrashim note, Efron was entirely unaware of the unique quality of the land in his possession. He had no idea that Adam and Chava were laid to rest in Me'arat ha-Machpela, nor could he have known about the inherent sanctity of the location as described by the Zohar and Midrashim. Therefore, his request of an enormous sum for the territory is undoubtedly worthy of Chazal's strong condemnation. Esav, by contrast, knew full well what the Me'arat ha-Machpela meant to the family. As with any valuable commodity, Esav asked a reasonably high price for the burial rights, and thus Chazal did not criticize the sale.

The Chatam Sofer went so far as to issue a halakhic ruling on this basis. A question came to him concerning the burial of a wealthy and prominent man, whose family requested that he be buried in the choicest area in the Jewish cemetery. Expectedly, the chevra kadisha placed a high price-tag on the site, given the prominence of the location. The family objected and demanded a lower price. Based on the aforementioned discussion, the Chatam Sofer reportedly ruled in favor of the chevra kadisha. The fact that Chazal do not criticize Esav's sale to Yaakov indicates that one may, in fact, charge a large sum of money for a superior burial site, and the chevra kadisha thus had no obligation to lower the price.

*******

Towards the end of Parashat Chayei-Sara, we read that Yitzchak went "la-su'ach ba-sadeh," to "converse in the field" (24:63). The Gemara (Masekhet Berakhot 26b) interprets "la-su'ach" as a reference to prayer. As this occurred "before the evening," as the verse describes, the Gemara claims that Yitzchak here instituted the afternoon mincha service. The Gemara does not, however, explain why we refer to this prayer as "mincha," which literally means, "gift." "Shacharit" means morning, and "arvit" means evening, which are understandable titles for these prayers. But why do we use the term "mincha" in reference to the afternoon service?

This question is addressed by Tosefot in Masekhet Pesachim (107a). They conclude that when Eliyahu ha-Navi contested the idolatrous prophets at Mount Carmel, he pleaded with God to reveal Himself, and was granted his request late in the day (as clearly emerges from a reading of Melakhim I chapter 18; see especially verse 29). The verse refers to this time as "ka-alot ha-mincha," the point when the mincha, or meal-offering, was brought. We, too, therefore refer to this prayer service as the verse does - mincha.

However, as Rav Yechiel Michel Epstein asks in his Arukh ha-Shulchan (beginning of O.C. 232), why did the verse refer to this point, later in the day, as "ka-alot ha-mincha"? After all, a mincha was offered in the Temple twice every day, once with the morning tamid (daily offering) and once with the afternoon tamid. Why, then, is the afternoon period in particular called "the time when the mincha is offered"? He explains that the afternoon mincha offering marked the very last service performed in tTemple during the day, which afforded the afternoon mincha unique significance and value. As an expression of the unique quality of the afternoon mincha, we refer to the afternoon prayer service as "mincha."

An entirely different approach is taken by Rav Yaakov Meklenberg, in his "ha-Ketav ve-ha-Kabbala" (Vayikra 2:1). He identifies the word "mincha" as a derivative of the Hebrew verb "le-hani'ach," to place. When one places an object on a surface, he lowers it. Similarly, during the afternoon hours the sun begins to move downwards, as opposed to the morning hours which it spends rising from the eastern horizon to the center of the sky. "Mincha" thus accurately reflects the afternoon period, just as the terms "shacharit" and "arvit" describe the times of day in which these tefilot are recited. (Without citing Rav Meklenberg, Rav Barukh Epstein - the son of the Arukh ha-Shulchan - presents this explanation, as well, in his Torah Temima on our verse in Parashat Chayei Sara. Tomorrow we will see a different explanation suggested by Rav Barukh Epstein.)

Rav Meklenberg applies this etymological theory to explain why the Torah refers to the meal-offering as the "korban mincha." Very often throughout Tanakh, the term "mincha" is used in the specific context of a tribute offered to a person of authority, or as an expression of submission. (See, for example, Bereishit 32:13 & 43:11; these are but a few of many, many examples.) This sense of submission, he claims, underlies the korban mincha, a small, modest offering meant as a symbol of one's acceptance of divine authority. Since by offering such a gift one effectively lowers himself before the recipient (or Recipient), the Hebrew language named it "mincha," which connotes descent or lowering.

*******

Yesterday we mentioned Chazal's comment (in Masekhet Berakhot 26b) that the Torah's description of Yitzchak as "conversing in the field" (in Parashat Chayei Sara - Bereishit 24:63) actually refers to his having prayed - and thereby instituted - the afternoon prayer, tefilat mincha. We then cited several possible explanations as to why Chazal named this service "mincha," which generally means "gift" or "tribute." Today we will look at the approach taken by Rav Barukh Epstein, in his work, "Tosefet Berakha." (As noted yesterday, in his "Torah Temima," Rav Epstein explains differently, following the approach of the "ha-Ketav ve-ha-Kabbala.")

He begins by citing a comment in the Gemara in Masekhet Berakhot 6b: "One must always be especially diligent with regard to the mincha prayer." The Tur explains that unlike shacharit and arvit, mincha can very easily be forgotten. When rising in the morning, one knows right away that praying constitutes his first obligation before starting his day. Likewise, in the evening, after one has returned home and has some free time, it is not terribly difficult to remember to recite arvit. Mincha, however, poses a unique challenge as it requires the individual to allocate time from his busy work schedule in the middle of the day. The Gemara therefore issues this statement, urging particular diligence and sense of responsibility when it comes to the mincha service.

Thus, Rav Epstein suggests, the defining characteristic of tefilat mincha involves the allocation of time from one's work schedule to pray to God.

Herein lies the clue to understanding the relevance of the term "mincha." In Masekhet Menachot 104b, Chazal identify the unique feature of the meal-offering, the korban mincha. The Gemara notes that specifically with regard to this offering, the Torah describes the individual bringing the offering as "nefesh," literally, "soul." The Gemara explains that it was generally the poorest people, who could not afford an animal sacrifice, who brought the simpler, less expensive mincha offering. Given the great sacrifice involved in the offering of even this small gift to God, the Almighty considers it as if the pauper has "sacrificed his soul before Me."

Therefore, Rav Epstein suggests, we refer to the afternoon prayer service with the term "mincha." Like the korban mincha, this prayer service entails a considerable sacrifice from one's livelihood, requiring him to take time out of his demanding and grueling schedule to address the Almighty. God looks favorably upon such a sacrifice, just He does upon the korban mincha, viewing us as if we have sacrificed our very souls on the altar before Him.

*******

Over the last two days we have discussed the mincha prayer, which, Chazal tell us based on a verse in Parashat Chayei-Sara, was instituted by Yitzchak Avinu. The Gemara (Berakhot 26b) actually asserts that all three daily prayers - shacharit, mincha and ma'ariv - were established by the three patriarchs. Avraham established shacharit; Yitzchak introduced the mincha prayer, and Yaakov instituted the evening arvit service. What connection did Chazal mean to draw between each of the patriarchs and the respective prayer he instituted?

Rav Zalman Sorotzkin, in his Oznayim le-Torah (in Parashat Vayetze), suggests that Chazal refer here to three different types of circumstances under which one prays. Shacharit, recited in the morning, symbolizes times of joy and good fortune, periods in one's life when "the sun shines." Appropriately, it was Avraham who founded the shacharit service, it was he who introduced the concept of worshipping God even when one feels content and enjoys success and prosperity. In this parasha, the Chumash describes Avraham as having been blessed by God with "everything" (24:1). Avraham enjoyed a life of wealth, honor and comfort. His only wish, to father a child, was ultimately granted. He thus taught the world the message of "shacharit," serving God amidst comfort and blessing.

Yitzchak, however, experienced "sunset," he beheld the early signs of distress and crisis. Unlike his father, he suffered hostility and contempt, having been driven from Gerar after rehabilitating the region's agricultural productivity during famine and then having his wells stolen by the local Philistines. Though Yitzchak did not experience actual exile - he remained in Canaan his entire life - he nevertheless felt its early signs - the sense of loneliness and isolation, the rejection by those around him, that throughout Jewish history has heralded the "sunset" of a bright era and the imminent onset of darkness. Yitzchak therefore established the mincha service - the concept of praying to the Almighty at the earliest signs of trouble, as the sun begins to set, asking Him to spare us the pain and suffering of exile.

It was Yaakov who indeed felt the darkness of exile, who instituted the arvit prayer. He was driven from home and spent much of his life struggling to survive and overcome adversaries. Yaakov thus introduced the concept of praying during times of darkness, of remembering the Almighty even when He cannot be seen, of remaining hopeful even when sheer darkness prevails.

*******

Parashat Chayei-Sara describes the mission undertaken by Avraham's servant to go to Charan and find a suitable wife for Yitzchak. As we know, the servant declares that the girl whom he would ask for water and would give for both him and his camels will be the girl destined to marry Yitzchak. The servant tells all this to the family of Rivka, who indeed offered water to the servant and his camels. The family, expressing their consent, responds: "The matter was decreed by the Lord; we cannot speak to you bad or good" (24:50). What do they mean when they say, "we cannot speak to you bad or good"?

Rashi explains "bad" and "good" as referring to the validity of an argument they could have potentially raised against the match. Not even a "good," or valid, argument could get in the way of God's will. Since Rivka's marriage to Yitzchak was clearly willed by the Almighty, no reason, not even a seemingly valid reason, can interfere.

Rabbenu Yossef Bekhor Shor and the Seforno explain differently, claiming that "good" refers to the family's consent to the marriage, whereas "bad" means their refusal. The family tells the servant that given the divine prof the match, they can say nothing; even expressing their consent would be superfluous, insofar as Providence has willed it. This approach appears to have origins in the Pesikta Zutreta on this verse, which reads, "One can understand 'bad'; but why [could they not speak] 'good'? Rather, the good is not from us, but was rather decreed from God." Meaning, any expression of consent on their part would imply their independent control over the matter; since God decreed this union, they cannot say anything, even to express their consent.

A novel, and perhaps homiletic, interpretation of the verse is suggested by the Chatam Sofer. "Good" and "bad" here refer to Rivka's qualities. Her family tells the servant that given that God clearly wishes for this marriage to occur, they do want to say anything that may discourage Avraham's servant from going through with it. Therefore, they will not say anything negative about Rivka, but nor will they say anything positive about her. In creating a marriage, a balance of qualities and characteristics is necessary. If the husband is particularly generous and gives out money freely, then generosity on the wife's part - an otherwise laudable quality - becomes a negative trait. Two free-giving donors in a marriage will leave the cupboard empty at home. Therefore, Rivka's family refrained from saying anything about Rivka - even her good qualities, lest this discourage the servant from accepting the match, which would then undermine God's plan.

*******

After his arrival in the home of Rivka's family, Avraham's servant recounts his experiences that day, his request that Rivka give him water and her generous offer of water to both him and his camels. He then tells the family that after Rivka completed the job of drawing water for the camels, he inquired as to her family background and discovered that she is from Avraham's family, whereupon he gave her jewelry as a sign of her selection as Yitzchak's wife. Rashi (to 24:47) notes a slight inaccuracy in the servant's story. A close reading of the actual narrative of his experiences reveals that he gave Rivka jewelry even before he asked who she was (see 24:22-23). Here, when the servant retells the story, he describes that he first asked her about her family and only thereafter gave her the jewelry. Rashi explains that he servant did not want the family to question his strange conduct - determining Rivka's selection before even finding out whether she has suitable family background. He therefore reversed the order.

Interestingly, however, the rest of the account the servant reports accurately. At least one detail we would have perhaps expected him to distort, consistent with the inaccuracy we have just seen. Namely, as soon as Rivka tells him that she is a cousin of Yitzchak, he immediately expresses thanks to God: "Then I bowed in homage to the Lord and blessed the Lord, the God of my master, Avraham, who led me on the right way to get the daughter of my master's brother for his son" (24:48). Would not this, too, seem a bit strange? How could he praise God for his successful trip even before securing the family's consent to the match? As we know from earlier in the parasha (24:5), the servant expressed concern that the chosen woman will not wish to resettle in Canaan in order to marry Yitzchak. Why, then, did he praise God already at this point, before he knows with certainty that his task is fulfilled?

Rav Moshe Feinstein zt"l (Kol Ram, vol. 2) answers that one must thank the Almighty not only when he experiences good fortune, but even when God grants him the ability to attain good fortune, when He brings about a situation which allows for the possibility of blessing. God will not always present us with precisely what we want, when we want it, in the most convenient manner possible. He expects us to do our share. Therefore, even a window of opportunity is cause for an expression of gratitude and appreciation. Avraham's servant had no need to distort this detail, as he felt it obvious that even the situation which allowed for the possibility of his successful mission warranted his emphatic praise of God.

Rav Moshe applies this to spiritual achievement, as well. Chazal famously posit that "everything is in God's hands except for fear of God." Our spiritual success depends on us, not God, and thus we do not thank the Almighty for our Torah observance per se. We must, however, thank Him for the situations in which He put us that allowed us to learn, appreciate, and observe His laws. A myriad of factors contribute to one's religious observance, many of which, particularly family background, education and the like, are clear gifts of God, rather than results of human effort. We must therefore learn to recognize these factors and acknowledge the many blessings that have allowed us to become the people we are, and that will hopefully lead us to become even better.

This shiur is provided courtesy of 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