The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash

In Parashat Chayei-Sara, Avraham summons his faithful servant – generally identified as Eliezer, though he is never mentioned by name in this narrative – and has him swear that he will not select a wife for Avraham's son, Yitzchak, from among the local Canaanite population. Avraham instructs the servant to perform a symbolic act expressing his vow – "place your hand under my thigh" (24:2). Most of the classic "peshat" commentators, who rarely show preference for Midrashic interpretations over the straightforward reading of the text, explain that in ancient cultures, vows were accompanied by such a ritual. Placing one's hand under the other's thigh expressed subservience and devotion to the other, and hence the person's commitment to obey the given oath. The Rashbam claims that this was done only when a child made an oath to his father (such as when Yosef promised Yaakov that he will bring his remains to Canaan – Bereishit 47:29), or a servant to his master (such as in this instance). Ibn Ezra and Chizkuni note that this oath-taking ritual was still practiced in their day in India.

Chazal, however, both in the Midrash (Bereishit Rabba 59:8) and in the Gemara (Shavuot 38b), explain differently, as cited by Rashi in his commentary to this verse. According to Chazal, this verse serves as the source for the halakha known as "nekitat chefetz" – that a person swearing on oath must hold in his hand a sacred object, generally a Sefer Torah or tefillin. In Avraham's time, when the only mitzva that God had commanded was the mitzva of mila, the only sacred object available was Avraham's berit mila (circumcision). Avraham thus ordered his servant to place his hand "under my thigh" – meaning, at the place of his circumcision, in fulfillment of this requirement to take hold of a sacred object when uttering an oath. This then is the source of the halakha of "nekitat chefetz."

The Rosh in Masekhet Shavuot (6:1), however, claims that the rule of "nekitat chefetz" is actually rabbinic in origin, and the Gemara did not extract this requirement from Avraham's instructions to Eliezer. After all, "nekitat chefetz" is required in only one specific instance of a Biblically-ordained oath, a situation of "modeh be-miktzat" – when the defendant concedes to part of the claim made against him, and the Torah obligates him to swear that he does not owe the remainder. In other situations of oaths, however, no sacred object is required, and in the case of a "shevu'at bituy" – when a person vows to perform or refrain from a given action, the oath takes effect even in the absence of "nekitat chefetz." Now this vow taken by Avraham's servant clearly falls under the category of "shevu'at bituy." Thus, if this verse indeed forms the basis for the "nekitat chefetz" requirement, it would have to apply even in cases of "shevu'at bituy." Seemingly, then, we must understand the Gemara's reading of this verse as an "asmakhta" – a subtle allusion in the Biblical text to a halakha ordained by Chazal. The purpose of this halakha, the Rosh claims, is to instill fear in the one taking the oath, as holding a sacred object in his hand helps create an aura of solemnity and perhaps even intimidation.

Rav Chayim Hirschenson, in his "Nimukei Rashi," extends the Rosh's comments one step further, claiming that Chazal never intended to read the verse to mean that Avraham had his servant place his hand on his mila. This would clearly be inappropriate and disrespectful, and it is hard to imagine, Rav Hirschenson argues, that Avraham would have his servant act in such a manner. Rather, Chazal saw in this verse a subtle allusion to the notion of holding onto a sacred object while swearing on oath, as it can be read to mean that Eliezer placed his hand on his master's circumcision. In truth, however, even Chazal follow the interpretation mentioned above, that ancient peoples had the practice of placing a hand under a person's thigh as an expression of obedience and subservience. We should note, however, that Rashi, as mentioned, brings the Gemara's reading of the verse, that Avraham had his servant place his hand on his circumcision, and appears to adopt this interpretation as the primary reading. It seems to difficult to believe that Rashi adopts in his commentary a reading that is intended merely as a subtle allusion to such a concept. Furthermore both Ibn Ezra and Chizkuni cite the Gemara's reading before disputing it (on the level of "peshat") and advancing their approach, that the verse refers to the ancient practice of placing a hand under the other's thigh when taking an oath. Neither of these two commentators raise this argument – of the impropriety of Avraham's servant placing his hand on his mila – in objecting to the Gemara's interpretation. Seemingly, they felt that for purposes of "nekitat chefetz" there is nothing inappropriate with such conduct.

(We should note that the Torah Temima takes issue with the Rosh and claims that Chazal indeed extracted the halakha of "nekitat chefetz" from this verse, and their reading should not be understood as merely an "asmakhta.")

*****

Yesterday, we discussed the oath Avraham's servant makes to him, promising that he will not choose a wife for Yitzchak from the local Canaanite population. As part of the formal process of taking a vow, Avraham instructs his servant, "Please place your hand under my thigh" (24:2), which Chazal (Shavuot 38b) understand to mean that the servant was to place his hand near or upon Avraham's berit mila. The halakha known as "nekitat chefetz" requires that a person making an oath (under certain circumstances) hold a sacred object in his hand while uttering the vow. Generally, the person holds a Sefer Torah or tefillin. Here, however, when the only mitzva Avraham had received from God was that of circumcision, he had his servant hold his berit mila.

It is interesting to note that Avraham had his servant take hold of his – Avraham's – mila, rather than taking hold of his own (the servant's). The final verses of Parashat Lekh-Lekha state explicitly that Avraham circumcised not only himself, but also his entire household, including his male servants. Indeed, the mitzva of mila requires that one circumcise his male gentile servants, and on Pesach one may not partake of the korban pesach (paschal offering) until his sons and male servants all undergo circumcision. Why, then, couldn't Avraham's servant take hold of his own mila, instead of placing his hand on Avraham's mila?

The Maharal, in his "Gur Aryeh," suggests that the halakha of "nekitat chefetz" requires taking hold of something external to one's self. Placing one's hand on a part of one's own body does not qualify as "nekita" – holding onto something. Avraham's servant thus had to place his hand on Avraham's mila, rather than on his own.

Rav Shmuel Barukh Deutsch, in his "Birkat Kohen," draws support for the Maharal's theory from the Rambam's description of the "nekitat chefetz" process in his Hilkhot Shavuot (11:11-12). As mentioned, "nekitat chefetz" is normally performed by taking hold of either a Sefer Torah or a pair of tefillin. In describing the option of holding tefillin, the Rambam writes, "he holds them in his hand" – clearly indicating that one must actually hold the tefillin in his hand, and wearing them does not suffice for this requirement. Why should wearing tefillin be considered any less than holding tefillin? Apparently, as the Maharal claimed, "nekitat chefetz" demands holding an object external to one's body, and thus tefillin worn on the body does not suffice.

Rav Deutsch himself, however, suggests a different possible answer to this question. The mila was chosen for "nekitat chefetz" in lieu of a Sefer Torah or tefillin due to the special sanctity it embodies and represents. Now with regard to the sanctity of the berit mila, we might distinguish betthe circumcision of a Jew and that of his non-Jewish servants. Although Halakha requires both, the fundamental nature of the mila perhaps differs in these two instances. For one thing, Rabbi Akiva Eiger, in his glosses to the Shulchan Arukh (Y.D. 267), raises the question of whether the servant himself bears the obligation to undergo circumcision, or if the obligation rests upon the master to perform or otherwise ensure his servant's circumcision. Rav Deutsch observes that the Rambam's comments towards the beginning of Hilkhot Mila strongly suggest that the servant bears no personal obligation with respect to mila, and it is rather the master upon whom the obligation rests. This might reflect a basic difference in status between the mila of a Jew himself and that of his servants. Even more significantly, the Malbim, in his comments to Parashat Lekh-Lekha, explicitly distinguishes between the fundamental nature of mila in general and that of servants' circumcision. Although a master must circumcise his servants, the Malbim writes, this circumcision does not constitute or symbolize the servant's entry into a formal berit (covenant) with God, as does the mila of a Jew.

Quite reasonably, then, we might contend that Avraham's servant's circumcision lacked the status of sanctity required for "nekitat chefetz," and for this reason he had to place his hand near Avraham's mila, rather than his own.

*****

The haftara for Parashat Chayei-Sara is taken from the opening chapter of Sefer Melakhim, which tells of King David's illness towards the end of his life and the unsuccessful attempt by his son, Adoniyahu, to seize the throne. The first verse of this chapter tells, "King David was old, advanced in years; and though they covered him with clothing, he did not feel warm." To help alleviate David's chills, his servants find an attractive girl to stay with the king to keep him warm.

Rashi cites two views from the Midrash as to why David was stricken with this ailment. According to the second explanation, this illness resulted from the incident recorded in the final chapter of Sefer Shemuel, where God punishes Benei Yisrael with a devastating plague because of the census ordered by David. As outlined in Sefer Shemot (30:11-16), Benei Yisrael may not be counted directly, but rather through the half-shekel tax they pay each year. David violated this law, and God punishes the people with a plague that killed thousands and threatened to destroy Jerusalem, as well. David appeals for compassion as he sees the destroying angel threatening Jerusalem, and God orders the angel to withdraw. The Midrash writes that this traumatic experience left David "cold," to the point where he was unable to feel warm.

Why would the sight of the angel affect David in this manner, that he could not warm himself?

An insightful approach to this Midrash, and to this entire first chapter of Sefer Melakhim, is taken by Rav Eliyahu Mali (of Yeshivat Ateret Kohanim in Jerusalem), in his work, "Orot Mi-Tziyon." What led David to conduct a census of the people, and why did God punish the people so severely? The Ralbag, in his commentary to Sefer Shemuel, explained that the census reflected David's trust in his kingdom's manpower, undermining his sense of dependence on God. In a slightly different vein, Rabbi Yosef Ibn Yechiya, in his commentary to Sefer Divrei Hayamim, views the census as an expression of arrogance: "When he [David] saw how he was triumphant and reigned over a great nation – in both quantity and quality – he wished to know their number." David takes this census towards the end of his reign, after a long and spectacular military career, having triumphed over all of Israel's enemies, expanded the kingdom's borders, and established, once and for all, peace and security within the country. It was for this sense of pride and overconfidence for which he – and the entire nation – were punished.

With this in mind, Rav Mali suggests, we can perhaps explain the incurable "coldness" from which David suffers after this incident. Upon seeing the near destruction of his empire as a result of his preoccupation in the country's military, economic and diplomatic achievements, David can no longer bring himself to focus on the mundane needs of the kingdom. The final chapters of Sefer Divrei Hayamim I describe at length David's inexhaustible efforts in his final years preparing for the construction of the Beit Ha-mikdash, which would occur, of course, shortly after his death. These chapters sharply contrast with the king's portrait in our haftara, which depicts him as aged, helpless and incapacitated. In Divrei Hayamim, David's final years are filled with vigor and vitality, as he prepares the materials and the architectural plans for the Mikdash and arranges the tribe of Levi into their various shifts. After the experience of the plague, David becomes "frozen" with respect to all his mundane responsibilities and the basic necessities of his kingdom. After having been found guilty of overconfidence in the nation's material achievements, the king now veers to the opposite extreme, focusing his energies exclusively on the country's spiritual needs, particularly the Beit Ha-mikdash. Indeed, the Ramban writes (Bamidbar 16:21) that the plague that struck Am Yisrael during David's time served as punishment not for the census itself, but rather for their neglect in preparing for the construction of the Temple. This experience "freezes" King David, who can now concentrate and nothing other than the nation's spiritual concerns.

By the end of this chapter, however, David has regained some balance. Upon learning of Adoniyahu's revolt, he manages to overcome his "cold spell" and proclaim that Shelomo will succeed him, thus ensuring the smooth transfer of power and paving the way for the glorious period Benei Yisrael will enjoy during the time of Shelomo.

******

In Parashat Chayei-Sara, Avraham instructs his servant, generally identified as Eliezer, to find a suitable match for Yitzchak. In introducing this narrative, the Torah writes, "Avraham said to his servant, the elder of his household, who had charge of all that he owned…" (24:2). Why does the Torah introduce Avraham's servant in this context with such a lengthy description?

Intuitively, we might explain that the Torah here explains why Avraham felt confident in assigning such a task to this servant. This servant was "zekan beito" (the "elder of his household"), who has worked for Avraham longer than any other employee. And in addition, this servant "had charge of all that he owned." He had already earned Avraham's trust in his financial affairs, to the point where he managed all of Avraham's assets. Avraham thus felt he could trust him with the task of selecting a wife for Yitzchak. This is indeed the approach taken by the Radak.

This explanation, however, gives rise to one obvious difficulty: Avraham does not appear to place too much trust in this servant. In the very next verse, Avraham orders the servant to swear on oath that he will not choose a wife for Yitzchak from among the local population. If Avraham had selected this servant specifically because he was trustworthy, why would he impose an oath upon him?

For this reason, perhaps, we find among the commentators other reasons for this description of Avraham's servant. Malbim explains that the Torah here emphasizes not the servant's faithfulness, but rather his position of authority. It was important, Malbim writes, for Avraham to appoint for this task a person whose authority Yitzchak would respect. Otherwise, Yitzchak might not accept the servant's recommendations for marriage. The Torah therefore describes the servant as a prominent member of Avraham's household who in fact "had charge of all that he owned" and held a position of authority in Avraham's household.

The Netziv explains differently, claiming that the Torah here refers to three qualities the servant would potentially need to carry out this task. He writes that an agreement can be reached in one of three ways. Sometimes, the negotiator needs a soft, respectful demeato reach an advantageous deal, whereas in other instances, he might need a tougher tone and approach. And in some situations, all that is needed is keen intelligence and clever thinking. The Torah therefore emphasizes that this servant was, first and foremost, "his servant" – accustomed to conducting himself softly and obediently. Secondly, he was "zekan beito," a term understood by the Netziv as a reference to wit and intelligence. Finally, the Torah mentions that he "had charge of all that he owned" – he had experience in authority and management, such that should the situation demand a tougher stand, the servant would conduct himself accordingly.

A particularly insightful approach to this verse is cited in the name of Rav Chayim of Brisk. He explained that indeed, as we initially suspected, the Torah here emphasizes the servant's loyalty and the trust Avraham generally placed in him, specifically to draw a contrast between this general trust and the suspicion Avraham displays in this context. Although Avraham entrusted the servant with his assets and finances, and never insisted on an oath, when it came to this mission, which would have grave repercussions for the future of the nation he is to build, he had the servant take an oath. Rav Chayim gave the example of a person who cavalierly trusts any "kosher" sign printed on a shop or restaurant, but before investing money will thoroughly investigate and inquire about the given enterprise. Avraham's conduct, as alluded to here by the Torah, reflects the precise opposite approach. When it came to his finances, he placed full trust in his servant; with regard, however, to the spiritual future of his progeny, he insisted on an oath, rather than taking any chances.

******

In Parashat Chayei-Sara, the Torah tells of the search for a wife for Yitzchak, and it introduces this section with the verse, "Avraham was old, advanced in years, and the Lord had blessed Avraham with everything" (24:1). The Gemara, in Masekhet Bava Batra (16b), records several views among the Tanna'im as to the deeper meaning of God's having blessed Avraham "with everything." Rabbi Meir, the first Tanna cited, explains this phrase to mean that Avraham never had a daughter, and in this sense he was "blessed with everything." Why does Rabbi Meir consider it a blessing not to have a daughter? In fact, Halakha follows the view in Masekhet Yevamot (61) that one fulfills the mitzva of procreation only once he has at least one son and one daughter. In what sense, then, was it a "blessing" for Avraham not to have begotten a daughter?

The Ramban, and, in further elaboration, Rav Shimshon Refael Hirsch, explain that in this particular instance, we can easily understand why – at least according to Rabbi Meir – the lack of daughters is to be viewed as a blessing. If Avraham had a daughter, she would inevitably be lost to idolatry. After all, marriage in the ancient world meant the wife's entry into the husband's family, which naturally entailed her integration into his entire milieu and culture. It is hardly likely that Avraham would find a family with a religious orientation suitable for his daughter. In the case of Avraham's son, of course, the girl would join Avraham's family, and it was understood that she and her children would ultimately embrace the culture of Avraham. If he had a daughter, however, she and her progeny would have undoubtedly become idolaters.

The second view recorded in the Gemara, that of Rabbi Yehuda, holds that to the contrary, the all-encompassing "blessing" mentioned in this verse refers to the fact that Avraham had a daughter. How would he respond to Rabbi Meir's argument, as understood by the Ramban, that the impossibility of finding a suitable match for a daughter renders it a blessing that Avraham did not beget a daughter? The Ramban writes, "This is the blessing 'with everything,' for he had everything that people long for, lacking nothing." Despite the problem in finding a suitable husband, Rabbi Yehuda still considers having a daughter a necessary component of a blessing "with everything," since people long to have both a son and a daughter.

Rav Hirsch explains Rabbi Yehuda's view differently, explaining that God blessed Avraham not only with a daughter, but also in the sense that she remained loyal to his teachings after marriage. Additionally, Rav Hirsch writes, through this daughter's marriage, Avraham "formed a bridge between the isolated house of Avraham and the rest of the world. Avraham was thereby granted a blessing that would have remained unobtainable in his isolation: to plant the Abrahamitic spirit in the non-Abrahamitic world." Avraham's daughter enabled him to establish a bond with the outside world, which represented the ultimate "blessing" for which he could have hoped.

Yet another explanation of Rabbi Yehuda's view is advanced by Rabbi Nachman Cohen, in his work, "Mirrors of Eternity." Rabbi Cohen contends that Rabbi Yehuda generally approaches Torah from a mystical, Kabbalistic viewpoint. In this instance, Rabbi Yehuda maintains that since the mitzva of procreation is fulfilled only by begetting one son and one daughter, had Avraham not fathered a daughter, this would have left a spiritual blemish on his soul – something Rabbi Yehuda could not accept. He therefore insisted that Avraham fathered both a son and a daughter, a Halakha requires.

We should note that Rabbi Yehuda makes no mention of this daughter's marriage, the problem regarding which led Rabbi Meir to claim that Avraham did not have a daughter. Rav Menachem Kasher, in his "Torah Sheleima" (Bereishit, chapter 24, note 24), writes that he found one source that speaks of this daughter's marriage. A manuscript entitled "Yalkut Teimani Mayan Ganim" contains the following perplexing passage: "A daughter was born to him [Avraham]… and whom did she marry? Shem, the son of Noach, and she gave birth to Avner ben Ner [the general of King Shaul]." Rav Kasher notes that he does not know of any earlier source for this daughter's marriage to Shem. It is also very unclear what this Midrash means when it claims that she bore Avner, who lived many centuries later.

Tomorrow we will iy"H examine the other views recorded in the Gemara in explaining this verse.

******

Yesterday, we began discussing a passage in the Gemara (Bava Batra 16b) concerning the verse in Parashat Chayei-Sara, "Avraham was old, advanced in years, and the Lord had blessed Avraham with everything" (24:1). We encountered two views in the Gemara as to whether this all-encompassing blessing refers to the fact that Avraham did not have a daughter, or, to the contrary, it means that he specifically had a daughter.

After citing these two views, the Gemara proceeds to cite an anonymous, third position claiming that Avraham indeed had a daughter, just as the second view maintains, only according to this third opinion, her name was "Bakol" (literally, "with everything"). We should thus read this verse as, "… and the Lord blessed Avraham with Bakol," referring to the name of his daughter. At first glance, it seems very difficult to understand why Avraham would name his daughter "Bakol," or why the Torah would find this worthy of mention. How should we understand this view in the Gemara?

The Ramban, in his commentary to this verse, claims that this view alludes to a profound mystical concept, which the Ramban describes as one of the great secrets of the Torah. The Gemara here refers to a certain divine attribute represented by the word "ba-kol," and Avraham inculcated this quality to the point where it is described as his "daughter." He embodied this attribute to such an extent that it could be said to be under his control and authority, similar to the control and authority a man has over his own daughter.

The "Orach Yesharim" (cited in "Likutei Batar Likutei" to Bava Batra) explains along similar lines, but in a manner readily accessible and meaningful even to those unacquainted with the Kabbalistic concept to which the Ramban referred. According to the "Orach Yesharim," the Gemara here seeks to resolve an obvious difficultin this verse: how can anyone be blessed with "everything"? After all, the more a person possesses, the more he desires. How, then, could Avraham had received "everything"? The Gemara here responds that Avraham had developed within him the attribute of "ba-kol" – the ability to feel satisfied with his lot and truly feel as if he has been blessed with everything. This was Avraham's "daughter" – the great gift of fulfillment, and freedom from the unending desire to acquire more.

Rav Shimshon Refael Hirsch, in his commentary, advances an entirely different approach. As we mentioned yesterday, the second view in the Gemara claimed that "ba-kol – "with everything" – means that Avraham was blessed with a daughter. Rav Hirsch, as we saw, explained that Avraham's daughter signified Avraham's blessing "with everything" because her marriage enabled the formation of a bridge between Avraham and his pagan contemporaries. According to this third view, Rav Hirsch claims, Avraham attained this blessing even without the birth of a daughter. This purpose was served by the very fact that Avraham "was so visibly blessed in every direction, by which the eyes of the world were turned on him, and feelings of respect aroused." Avraham had a more effective means of creating this bond with and impacting upon the pagan world. Rather than fathering a daughter who would marry into that world, Avraham instead was blessed with everything his contemporaries could ever desire, thus eliciting their respect and admiration.

Rav Hirsch continues this line of thought to explain the final two views in the Gemara, as well. Rabbi Elazar Ha-modai explains the phrase "blessed Avraham with everything" as a reference to Avraham's astrological knowledge, which attracted prominent monarchs and noblemen who came to consult with him. Rav Hirsch explains that Avraham's contemporaries attributed Avraham's success to some magical powers and thus flocked to his door in an attempt to discover his secret. In this manner, Avraham achieved the greatest blessing for which he yearned – the opportunity to connect with his contemporaries and disseminate his teachings. This similarly explains the final view in the Gemara, that of Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai, who claimed that Avraham's "blessing" was a precious gem that had the power to cure the ailments of anyone who would look upon it. Here, too, Rav Hirsch suggests that we interpret this view allegorically, as a reference to Avraham's influence on his contemporaries. Avraham's personality, Rav Hirsch writes, "was so strikingly impressive and so extraordinarily benevolent, that it alone was sufficient to draw suffering people to him."

It turns out, then, that the final four of the five views recorded in the Gemara understand "with everything" as referring to Avraham's ability to influence his contemporaries. One view points to the marriage of Avraham's daughter as the factor that formed the bridge enabling this influence. Another opinion views Avraham's success per se as the source of his widespread influence, whereas the other two attribute his influence to the magical powers he appeared to possess, or the magnetic charm of Avraham's personality.

******

Parashat Chayei-Sara consists mainly of the story of Avraham's servant's journey to Aram Naharayim, Avraham's birthplace, to find a wife for Yitzchak. At the end of the story, the servant receives the consent of Rivka's family to allow her to move to Canaan and marry Yitzchak. The final verse of this narrative reads, "Rivka and her maids arose, mounted the camels, and followed the man [Avraham's servant]; the servant took Rivka and went his way" (24:61).

Several commentators have noted the seeming superfluity of this verse's concluding clause: "the servant took Rivka and went his way." What does this clause add to the story? Once we are told that Rivka mounted a camel and joined the servant, what is added by this phrase?

The Ramban explains that this phrase indicates the servant's diligent concern for Rivka's welfare, staying near her to protect and help her throughout the long journey to Canaan. Ramban then cites Ibn Ezra's very similar explanation, namely, that the servant was so busy tending to Rivka's needs over the course of travel that he did not even notice where they were until they suddenly reached Yitzchak.

Seforno and Malbim explain differently, claiming that this phrase informs us that the servant now formally became Rivka's servant. Halakha establishes that once a betrothed woman joins the company of the groom's messengers who have come to take her to him, she at that point officially becomes his wife. Therefore, once Rivka joined Avraham's servant and his entourage, she formally became Yitzchak's wife, and thus, by extension, the servant of Avraham and Yitzchak became subservient to her, as well. This verse therefore emphasizes that "the servant took Rivka" – at this point he became her servant.

Rav Yechezkel Abramsky is cited as offering a different explanation of this phrase, whereby it comes to reveal an admirable quality of Avraham's servant. This point, when Rivka joins his entourage and they begin their return to Canaan, marks the successful completion of the servant's mission. The Torah here wishes to emphasize that despite having succeeded in bringing a suitable match for Yitzchak, Avraham's servant still saw himself as just that – Avraham's servant. A lesser person would have perhaps responded to his own success with an exaggerated sense of satisfaction, to the point where he would see himself as his master's equal. Avraham's servant understood that despite his accomplishment – for which he had every right to feel proud – he was still but a servant, who has not even drawn near to the status or stature of his master.

This verse, then, teaches us to keep our achievements in perspective, never to allow our successes to lead us to view ourselves as somebody we're not. Pride – important an emotion as it is – must never become a source of delusion and an exaggerated sense of self-importance.