Parshat Vayigash: The Hidden Message of the Trope

In the beginning of this week's parsha we are presented with Yehuda's desperate plea to save his youngest brother, Binyamin, from incarceration in Egypt. After having been found with a royal goblet in his bags Binyamin was sure to face a stiff punishment. Yehuda, fearing that the pain of losing another son, the only son remaining from his beloved Rachel, would kill his father, stepped forward with an emotional appeal to the Egyptian viceroy. The Torah tells us (Breishit 44:18),

ויגש אליו יהודה, ויאמר בי אדני, ידבר נא עבדך דבר באזני אדני, ואל יחר אפך בעבדך כי כמוך כפרעה

Then Judah came near unto him, and said: 'Oh my lord, let thy servant, I pray thee, speak a word in my lord's ears, and let not thine anger burn against thy servant; for thou art even as Pharaoh.

Surely, this was a daring proposition. Who was Yehuda, a foreigner, to question the judgment and actions of the Egyptian viceroy? By confronting Yosef he was putting his own well being at risk. The Vilna Gaon asks an even sharper question: Why did Yehuda step forward? Yehuda was the fourth born son of Yaakov, why didn't Reuven the first born, or the brave warriors Shimon and Levi, challenge Yosef?

The Gaon writes that in order to answer this question we must look back at last week's parsha. In convincing Yaakov to permit the brothers to bring Binyamin down to Egypt, Yehuda told his father (43:9),

אנכי אערבנו מידי, תבקשנו אם לא הביאתיו אליך והצגתיו לפניך, וחטאתי לך כל הימים

I will be surety for him; of my hand shalt thou require him; if I bring him not unto thee, and set him before thee, then let me bear the blame for ever.

Rashi comments on Yehuda's assurance and writes,

וחטאתי לך כל הימים: לעולם הבא

Then let me bear the blame for ever - for the world to come

According to Rashi, Yehuda offered to give up his share in the world to come if Binyamin did not return home with the rest of the brothers.

The Gaon writes that this is what motivated Yehuda to step forward and challenge Yosef - he saw that losing Binyamin was a real possibility and he could not stand by idly as his share in the world to come was slipping away before his very eyes. The Gaon says that there is iron clad proof that this is what motivated Yehuda within the trope, the cantillation, of the first words of our parsha. (Below is the trope, if you find it difficult to view the image, you can view it in larger form by following this link)

The cantillation on the first two words, are קדמא ואזלא, which the Gaon says refer to the fact that Yehuda was קדם ואזל, meaning he came forward and went. On the word "Yehuda" is the cantillation known as רביעי, meaning fourth. Why did the fourth son come forward and go toward Yosef? The answer is found in the next set of cantillation - on the words ויאמר בי אדני, "and he said, please my master", are the notes of זרקא מנח סגול, with זרקא meaning "thrown" and מנח סגול meaning "from the chosen resting place." Explains the Gaon, Why did Yehuda, the fourth son, step forward? Because he saw that he was going to be thrown out of the resting place of the chosen people, the world to come. The Gaon's explanation is brilliant and authentic, especially considering that the Torah's trope is a tradition passed down from Sinai.

Parshat Miketz: Yosef's Interpretation of Pharaoh's Dreams and Pharaoh's Irrational Response

This week's parsha begins with the dreams of Pharaoh. In his first dream Pharaoh saw seven healthy cows rise from the Nile only to be consumed by seven gaunt cows. After the first dream, he woke up, only to fall back asleep and have another dream in which seven healthy ears of grain were consumed by seven thin ears of grain. Pharaoh awoke troubled by his dreams and sought an interpretation from all of the magicians and wise men of Egypt, but no one could explain the meaning of the dreams. The Midrash explains that there were in fact many interpretations given, but Pharaoh was simply not satisfied with any of them. The Midrash writes (Breishit Rabbah)

פותרין היו אותו, אלא שלא היה קולן נכנס באזניו: שבע הפרות הטובות – שבע בנות אתה מוליד; שבע הרעות – שבע בנות אתה קובר. שבע השבלים הטובות – שבע איפרכיות אתה כובש; שבע השבלים הרעות – שבע איפרכיות מורדות בך

They did solve it, only none of them were satisfactory for him: the seven fine cows signified seven daughters that Pharaoh would give birth to. The seven gaunt cows signified the seven daughters that he would bury. The seven fine ears of grain represented seven nations that he would conquer. The seven thin ears of grain represented the seven nations that would rebel against him.

If this indeed was the case - that there were solutions offered to Pharaoh, only he refused to accept them, what did he see in Yosef's interpretation that convinced him that it was the correct one?

One must also question Pharaoh's reaction to Yosef's interpretation. We are told that once he heard Yosef's words he immediately appointed him viceroy of Egypt, placing the country's entire future in his hands. Writes Rabbi Don Isaac Abarbanel,

מה ראה פרעה שאומר לעבדיו: “הנמצא כזה איש אשר רוח אלהים בו”, ושאמר לו: “אין נבון וחכם כמוך”, ושעשאו אדון לכל ביתו ומושל בכל ארץ מצרים טרם ידע אם יצדקו דבריו וייצא הדבר לפועל כאשר פתר, אם לא? כי הנה שר המשקים לא עשה דבר כאשר פתר לו חלומו לטובה. ואולי לא יהיה הדבר כאשר פתר אותו לפרעה ולמה אם כן גידלו קודם שינסה הדבר, ונתן לו אשר מטובי הארץ?

What did Pharaoh see that he said to his servants, 'Could we find another like him - a man in whom is the spirit of God?' and that he said to him, 'there is no one as discerning and wise as you," and that he appointed him as master of his household and ruler over all of Egypt before he knew whether or not his words were justified and if his interpretation would come true? Even the chief butler did nothing after Yosef had favorably interpreted his dream for him. Perhaps this interpretation of Pharaoh's dream would not be fulfilled? Why did they then exalt him, before it could be tried out and give him from the best of the land?

How could Pharaoh have acted so rashly? Yosef was a prisoner who had been released on a temporary basis to answer a simple question, which he had answered to Pharaoh's satisfaction. Perhaps a pardon would have been in order, but why did Pharaoh immediately elevate an incarcerated foreigner to second in command of Egypt? Why not wait to see if his dream would play out before giving him such a promotion?

The Abarbanel answers all questions by explaining why Pharaoh favored Yosef's interpretation of his dreams over all others. He writes,

החולם חלום צודק יראה הענין כמו שהוא מושפע עליו מההשגחה האלוקית, אלא שהכח המדמה יגשים אותו השפע ויחקה אותו בחיקויים ובהמשלים, ולכן כשהפותר אומר לחולם את הנכון ואת האמת, מיד יזכור החולם וירגיש בנפשו שזהו מה שראה, כי זה בעצמו טבע השוכח איזה דבר - וכל שכן כשלא יעבור עליו זמן רב - שכאשר יזכיר לו אדם אחר אותו הדבר, מיד יזכור בעצמו שהוא מה ששכח.

One who is a positive that they have had an authentic dream will look at matters as he has been directed by Divine Providence. But his imaginative perception will translate this direction into pictures and symbols. As soon as the interpreter discovers their true and accurate meaning, the dreamer will immediately sense that this was what he saw. Memory acts in this manner, particularly, where a considerable time has not elapsed since the event. As soon as someone else reminds him he will himself recall that this was what he forgot

.

According to Abarbanel, Pharaoh knew the correct interpretation of the dream, but he had forgotten it - as if often the case with dreams, people tend to forget them altogether or at least parts of them. When Yosef gave his interpretation it recalled the memory of the dream's true meaning and Pharaoh knew without a doubt that it was the correct one. This explains why Pharaoh favored Yosef's interpretation over all others - when everyone else gave their interpretations no memories were triggered and Pharaoh knew that they were incorrect. This also explains why Pharaoh so hastily anointed Yosef as the second in command of Egypt - he did not need to wait to see if the dreams would come true because he knew that they would.

Parshat Toldot: The Symbolic Destruction of Avraham's Wells

In this week's parsha we learn that Yitzchak amassed a great amount of wealth. The Torah tells us (Breishit 26:12-14) that Yitzchak settled in Gerar, the Philistine capital, sowed in the land and reaped one hundred times what he had sown, for God had blessed him. Not only was he a prolific farmer, but he also acquired flocks, herds and real estate as well. His wealth, however, came at a price; the Plishtim grew jealous of him and stopped up the wells that his father's servants had dug. The Torah says that they went even further than simply stopping up his wells (26:15),

וכל הבארות אשר חפרו עבדי אביו בימי אברהם אביו סתמום פלשתים וימלאום עפר
All the wells that his father's servants had dug in the days of Avraham his father, the Philistines stopped up, and filled them with earth.

One could understand that the jealous Plishtim would cover up the wells that belonged to Yitzchak's family, but to fill them with dirt was an even more demonstrative act. But why did they do this? As Nechama Leibowitz writes,

מה הדבר הזה? הרי מונעים הם טוב מעצמם, הרי כורתים הם אוכל מפיהם ומפי בהמתם. ולא רק “סתמום” אלא גם “וימלאום עפר” - שלא ימצאום שוב, שלא תהא באר במקום הזה, שלא יפכו כאן מים חיים. למה
What was this? They withheld good from themselves, they are removing food from their mouths and from the mouths of their animals. They did not only stop them up, but they also filled them with earth so that they could never be found again, so that there would never be a well in that place, so there would not be water in that spot. Why?

It would be one thing to prevent Yitzchak from using the wells or to block them off, but why did they destroy them? Surely they also drank from those wells!
In answering this question,Rabbi Yaakov Tzvi Mecklenburg (1785-1865) in his work Ha'ketav V'Hakabbalah, writes,

ויקרא להן שמות כשמות אשר קרא להן אביו: ויתכן דקריאת שמות לבארות היה דומה לשאר קריאת שמות שהיו לזכרון חסדי ה' ופעולותיו, כעניין ויקרא אברהם שם המקום ההוא "ה' יראה", "ה' נסי", על כן קרא לבאר "באר לחי ראי", כן עשה אברהם בבארות אשר חפר שקרא את שמם בשם ה'... לפי שהייתה מידתו של אברהם ללמד לרבים דעת את ה' ולהורות להם שאין ממשות באלילים, המציא תחבולה נפלאה להכניס על ידה את המוטעים אל תחת כנפי השכינה... קרא שם הבאר בשם אשר יורה על אמיתת מציאות ה', בזה הרגיל בפי הבריות הבאים לשאוב מים מבארו, באמרם נלכה נא לשאוב מים מבאר ה' אל עולם, שנתעוררו על דעתם המשובשת ויתנו לבם אל השגה אמתית; לפי שהבארות הם צרכי רבים וכל המון עם הורגלו בזה לדעת ידיעות אמתיות ולהכיר את ה' יתברך... ודבר גדול עשה אברהם אהוב ה', שהיה כעבד הנאמן למלך המשתדל להביא אנשים שברחו להם ממדינתו מפני מרדם בו, והוא ידבר אל לבם מטוב הנהגת המלך עד שיתנו שכמם תחת עולו. ככה עשה אברהם להטות לבב מכחישי אל אל ה'. ובעודנו חי והיה נשיא אלוקים בתוכם, היה מוראו עליהם והניחו הבארות ושמותן עליהם. אמנם אחרי מותו חזרו לגילוליהם וכדי לבטל מפי הבריות שמות הבארות האלה, לפי שהיו כולם מורים הפך דעתם המשובשת, לכן סתמו הבארות ובהתבטל הבאר, נתבטל שמה. ובא הכתוב להודיע, כי יצחק אחז במעשי אברהם והתאמץ לחפור אותן הבארות ולהחזיר שמותן, כדי להחזיר עטרת אמונה אמתית למקומה
'And he called their names after the names by which his father had called them' - it is conceivable that Isaac's naming of the wells bore affinity to other expressions of calling names - to mark the kindnesses of the Lord such as where it is stated that Abraham called the name of that place: 'the Lord will see,' 'the Lord is my sign,' 'the well of him that lives and sees me.' Abraham did the same thing with regard to the wells which he dug, calling them by the name of the Lord. Since it was his preoccupation to spread abroad the knowledge of the Lord and show the people that idols were valueless, Abraham thought out a wonderful device to help to bring those who were misled under the wings of the Divine Presence. He called the well by a name that would drive home the lesson of the true existence of the one God. By this he would arouse in them an awareness of the truth by saying, Let us go and draw water from the well of theeternal God! The ells were a public necessity, and in this manner, the people were initiated into a knowledge of the true God. Like the faithful servant of a king who tries to persuade rebellious subjects who had fled, to return to their country, so Abraham strove to turn the hearts of those who denied God. While he was alive - as the prince of God among them, his fear was upon them, and they left the wells intact with their names, but after his death, they reverted to idolatry and in order toerase from their memory the names of these wells, which recalled the very opposite of their false opinions, they stopped up the wells. With the disappearance of the well, the name also disappeared. The Torah then comes to inform us that Isaac followed in his father's footsteps and endeavored to dig out these same wells and resurrect their names in order to restore the crown of the true faith to its former glory.

According to Rabbi Mecklenburg, the Plishtim realized full well (no pun intended) that stopping up the wells would eliminate a valuable source of water, but the ends justified the means. They were not just destroying the wells, they were destroying what they stood for - monotheism and the religion of Avraham and Yitzchak.

Parshat Toldot: Why Me? The Approaches of Different Commentators to Rivkah's Pain During Pregnancy

In the beginning of this week's parsha we learn of Yitzchak and Rivkah's struggles with infertility. This comes on the heels of last week's parsha when we learned the matchmaking of Eliezer when he found Rivkah in Avraham's hometown - it seemed like a perfect match. Suddenly, when it seemed like their would be a smooth transition from Avraham to Yitzchak and that the blessing Hashem bestowed on Avraham to have descendants that were as many as the stars in the sky and the dust of the earth would be carried out by Yitzchak and Rivkah, they ran into the same roadblock that had plagued Avraham and Sara.
Yitzchak and Rivkah's suffering lasted twenty years until finally she was able to conceive - only the trouble did not end there. The Torah tells us (Breishit 25:22),

ויתרצצו הבנים בקרבה ותאמר אם כן למה זה אנכי ותלך לדרוש את ה
And the children struggled within her, and she said, 'If [it be] so, why am I [like] this?' And she went to inquire of the Lord.

Rashi explains,

ויתרוצצו: על כרחך המקרא הזה אומר דורשני, שסתם מה היא רציצה זו וכתב אם כן למה זה אנכי. רבותינו דרשוהו לשון ריצה, כשהיתה עוברת על פתחי תורה של שם ועבר יעקב רץ ומפרכס לצאת, עוברת על פתחי עבודה זרה עשו מפרכס לצאת. דבר אחר מתרוצצים זה עם זה ומריבים בנחלת שני עולמות
Perforce, this verse calls for a Midrashic interpretation, for it does not explain what this struggling was all about, and [Scripture] wrote,'If it be so, why am I [like] this?' Our Rabbis (Gen. Rabbah 63:6) interpreted it [the word ויתרצצו] as an expression of running (רצה) . When she passed by the entrances of [the] Torah [academies] of Shem and Eber, Jacob would run and struggle to come out; when she passed the entrance of [a temple of] idolatry, Esau would run and struggle to come out. Another explanation: They were struggling with each other and quarreling about the inheritance of the two worlds

According to Rashi the struggling that went on inside Rivkah's womb was Yaakov and Esav trying to escape; Yaakov tried to escape when she passed by places of Torah and Esav tried to escape when she passed by places of idolatry.
Rashi explains further that when Rivkah asked, "why am I like this?" she meant,

ותאמר אם כן: גדול צער העבור
למה זה אנכי: מתאוה ומתפללת על הריון
ותלך לדרוש: לבית מדרשו של שם
לדרוש את ה': שיגיד לה מה תהא בסופה
If [it be] so: that the pain of pregnancy is so great
why am I [like] this?: [Why did I] desire and pray to conceive?
And she went to inquire: to the academy of Shem
to inquire of the Lord: that He should tell her what would happen to her in the end.

Accordingly the struggling that went on inside Rivkah's womb caused her great physical pain. The pain was so excruciating that she began to regret praying for a child in the first place. Confused and wondering what would be, she went to inquire of Hashem.
The Ibn Ezra takes a different approach than Rashi. He writes,

והיא שאלה לנשים שילדו אם ארע להם ככה, ותאמרנה לא. וטעם ותאמר אם כן הדבר והמנהג למה זה אנכי בהריון משונה
And she asked women who had given birth if they had experienced this (the excruciating pain), and they told her 'no.' When she said 'if so' she said 'if this is [not] the normal way, why do I deserve such a difficult pregnancy?'

Unlike Rashi, Ibn Ezra writes that when Rivkah proclaimed, 'why me?' she did not wonder this aloud to herself, but rather she asked friends of hers who had children if they had experienced the pain she was experiencing. When they responded that they had not, she went to ask Hashem why she deserved to have such a painful pregnancy.
Ramban, after dismissing the opinions of Rashi and Ibn Ezra offers a shocking approach. He writes,

והנכון בעיני כי אמרה אם כן - יהיה לי למה זה אנכי - בעולם, הלואי אינני, שאמות או שלא הייתי...
And what is correct in my opinion - when she said 'if so' - she meant, 'if this is what will happen to me, why am I in this world? It would better if I was not - better I should die or have never been born at all.

According to Ramban, the pain was so terrible that Rivkah said that she would have been better off dead or never born at all.
While the Ramban writes that Rivkah's struggles were emotional and psychological, the Kli Yakar, Rabbi Shlomo Efraim Luntschitz, writes that they were theological.

ויתרוצצו הבנים בקרבה וגו'. רציצה זו היה שבעוברה על פתח בית המדרש של שם ועבר יעקב מפרכס לצאת ועשו מעכב על ידו, ובעוברה על פתח עבודה זרה עשו מפרכס לצאת ויעקב מעכב על ידו, והיא סברה שאין הדבר כן אלא ולד אחד בבטנה ורוצה לצאת בין לפתחי בתי מדרשות בין לפתח עבודה זרה ואם כן חס ושלום שמא שתי רשויות יש, לפיכך אמרה למה זה אנכי כי כמוני כשאר נשים עובדי עבודה זרה ומה יתרון יש לי עליהם אם חס ושלום שתי רשויות יש, לפיכך ותלך לדרוש את ה' רצה לומר לדרוש אחר מציאות ה' ממש מהו:
And the boys struggled within her - this struggling took place because when she passed by the entrance to the Beit Midrash of Shem and Eber, Yaakov began to squirm in order to get out and Esav prevented him from doing so. When they passed by the entrances of idolatry Esav squirmed in order to get out and Yaakov prevented him from doing so. And she did not know what was really going on. She thought that there was only one child inside of her stomach and it wanted to get out when she passed by the entrances of both the Beit Midrash and the idolatrous temples and if so, God forbid, maybe there were two deites. Therefore she said, 'why am I like this?' - meaning I am like all of the other idol worshiping women, how am I any better than them if God forbid there are multiple deities? Therefore she went to inquire of Hashem - it means to say she went to inquire about the existence of God.

According to Rabbi Luntschitz, when Rivkah felt the intense kicking inside of her stomach she was unaware that there were two babies inside of her. Rivkah began to wonder if there was any significance to this strange behavior and she came to the conclusion that indeed there may be shtei reshuyot, more than one God, - there was the God of Abraham, but there were also other gods who possessed divine powers. Lamah Zeh Anochi, says the Kli Yakar, does not mean 'why me?', but rather 'how am I any different than anyone else?' Until now she had seen herself as the mother of God’s chosen people, but now she feared that there was more than one god and she was just like everyone else - she was not the wife of Yitzchak the father of a blessed people, but rather the wife of Yitzchak, a regular, run of the mill priest, who were at that time, a dime a dozen.
When Rivkah inquired of Hashem she was told that she had it all wrong; there was one God, but two babies inside of her stomach - one who would worship Hashem and the other who would be an idolater.
Given the Kli Yakar’s explanation, the most striking thing about Rivkah’s ordeal is what does not happen. God does not criticize her for having a crisis of faith, for asking questions. We therefore come to the conclusion that she did the right thing by asking such questions.
Rivkah’s pregnancy brought her to a religious crossroads, but because she was not afraid to question and God was not put off by her questioning, she was able to gain a greater appreciation of God, allowing her to be one of the mother’s of our people.

Parshat Toldot: A Striking Resemblance

Our parsha is filled with drama; Yitzchak and Rivkah struggle with infertility, Yaakov and Esav are born, Yitzchak and Rivkah play favorites with their children, Yaakov convinces Esav to sell him his birthright, famine forces Yitzchak to move his family to Gerar and Yaakov takes Esav's blessing forcing him to flee to Lavan to avoid his brother's wrath.
With the all of the excitement contained within the parsha, one could easily gloss over the first pasuk of the sedra and not notice an apparent redundancy. The pasuk states (Breishit 25:19),

ואלה תולדות יצחק בן אברהם אברהם הוליד את יצחק
And these are the offspring of Yitzchack son of Avraham, Avraham begot Yitzchak.

If Yitzchak is the son of Avraham, of course Avraham begot him; seemingly, the Torah could have done without the final clause of the pasuk!
The Ibn Ezra writes, in an explanation that is most likely the closest to peshat, the simplest understanding, of the pasuk,

ויש אומרים כי טעם הוליד גדל ורבה, כמו יולדו על ברכי יוסף (נ,כג), והעד שאמר וישלחם מעל יצחק בנו
And there are those who say that the meaning of 'begot' is 'raised', like 'they were raised on Yosef's knees'(Breishit 50:23), and the proof is that it says 'he sent them away from Yitzchak his son' (Breishit 25:6)

According to the Ibn Ezra, the first part of the pasuk informs us that Yitzchak was Avraham's son, while the second part tells us that not only was he his son, but he was also raised by him. This second clause is not redundant because Yitzchak is the only one of Avraham's children who was raised by Avraham. All of the others (Yishmael, Zimran, Yakshan, Medan, Midian, Yishbak and Shuach - see Breishit 25:2) were sent away; Yishamel was kicked out of the house with his mother at the urging of Sara and we are told explicitly (25:6) that the other children were sent away to lands in the east.
The following Midrash, quoted by Rashi, paints a completely different picture. Rashi writes,

אברהם הוליד את יצחק - על ידי שכתב הכתוב יצחק בן אברהם הוזקק לומר אברהם הוליד את יצחק, לפי שהיו ליצני הדור אומרים מאבימלך נתעברה שרה, שהרי כמה שנים שהתה עם אברהם ולא נתעברה הימנו, מה עשה הקב"ה, צר קלסתר פניו של יצחק דומה לאברהם, והעידו הכל אברהם הוליד את יצחק, וזהו שכתב כאן יצחק בן אברהם היה, שהרי עדות יש שאברהם הוליד את יצחק:
Since Scripture wrote: 'Yitzchak the son of Avraham,' it had to say: 'Avraham begot Yitzchak,' because the scorners of the generation were saying that Sara had conceived from Avimelech, for she had lived with Avraham for many years and had not conceived from him. What did the Holy One, blessed be He, do? He shaped the features of Yitzchak’s face to resemble Avraham’s, and everyone attested that Avraham had begotten Yitzchak. This is the meaning of what is written here: 'Yitzchak, the son of Avraham,' because here is proof that 'Avraham begot Yitzchak.'

According to Rashi, Sara conceived not long after the incident with Avimelech (Breishit 20). People began to scoff and started rumors that Avimelech was the father of Yitzchak. They began to reason that Avraham and Sara had been married for years and had not been able to have children and after being abducted by Avimelech she suddenly had a child? It must not be Avraham's! In order to dispel this notion, Hashem caused Yitzchak's appearance to starkly resemble Avraham's so that no one could claim that Avimelech was his father.
Rabbi Shlomo Efraim Luntschitz (1550-1619) in his commentary the Kli Yakar has a different take on the Midrash. He writes,

וכדי שלא ימצא המערער מקום לחלוק, ולומר אם יצחק נולד כל כך בקדושה וטהרה א”כ למה יצא ממנו עשו שהיה צד נשים תחת בעליהן, ודאי מאבימלך נתעברה שרה ע”כ נמשך בן אחד אחר טבעה של שרה, והשני אחר טבע אבימלך, כי מטעם זה אמרו רז”ל (ב”מ פז.) שהיה צר קלסתר פניו דומה לאברהם.
In order that the scorner would not find room to argue and say that if Yitzchak was really born with holiness and purity, then how could Esav who hunted women from their husbands have come from him? It must be that Avimelech impregnated Sara. As a result one child (of Yitzchak's) had the nature of Sara and the second one had the nature of Avimelech. It is for this reason that our Rabbis of blessed memory said that Hashem shaped the features of his face to look like Avraham's.

The explanation of Rashi seems to be more rational than that of the Kli Yakar. Rashi intimates that people began to question who Yitzchak's father was around the time he was born and so Hashem quashed those rumors by making Yitzchak look like his father; presumably these changes took place as he matured - it is often hard to tell if babies look like their parents at a young age, but once they get older the resemblances become clearer. According to Rashi, Yitzchak began to resemble his father in a more natural way. However, according to the Kli Yakar people only began to question Yitzchak's lineage once they saw the behavior of his rebellious, amoral, son Esav. The Kli Yakar explains that it was at this point, when Esav attained his less than savory reputation, that God altered Yitzchak's appearance to look like Avraham in order to put to rest all of the rumormongers who claimed Yitzchak could have only been the father of Esav if his father was actually Avimelech; according to the Kli Yakar Yitzchak had a sudden change in physical appearance when he was over 60 years old (Esav was born when Yitzchak was 60 and could have only been recognized as a rebel once he grew up).
Perhaps another lesson can be gleaned from this Kli Yakar. The Kli Yakar wrote that the people began to question the identity of Yitzchak's father once they saw Esav's behavior because they could not believe the grandson of Avraham would behave in such a way. However their hypothesis was disproved when Hashem changed Yitzchak's appearance to make him look like a clone of Avraham. While Hashem dispelled the rumors, the question was never answered - how can it be that Avraham could have a grandson and Yitzchak a son, as evil as Esav? The Kli Yakar never answers the question, but an answer can be found in the following Gemara (Nedarim 81a),

מפני מה אין מצויין ת"ח לצאת ת"ח מבניהן? אמר רב יוסף: שלא יאמרו תורה ירושה היא להם.
Why is it uncommon for Torah scholars to have children whom are also Torah scholars? Rabbi Yosef said: So that they (people) will not say that the Torah is their inheritance

The Gemara observes that Torah scholarship and observance are not dynastic. After all, we hear about many heroes of the Tanach who had children that did not follow in their footsteps (Yishmael, Esav, Moshe's sons, Aharon's sons, the sons of Eli the Kohen Gadol, the sons of Shmuel, many of the sons of David Hamelech, etc.). Rav Yosef answers that the reason why this is such a common occurrence is because Hashem does not want people to think that the Torah is private property, an inheritance passed down from father to son; people should not think that because their parents were not great Torah scholars they do not have a share in Hashem's Torah. Hashem made examples out of certain talmidei chachamim to illustrate this rule. An example of this rule is Esav. How could it be that Avraham had a grandson and Yitzchak a son as wicked as Esav? To teach us that Torah knowledge and leadership are not hereditary. It is within everyone’s grasp - man, woman and child.

The Reconciliation of Avraham's Family: A Lesson For Generations

At the end of Avraham's life, after Sara had passed away, we are told that he took another wife whose name was Keturah, with whom he had an additional six children. The Torah does not tell us anything about Keturah other than her name. Rashi, however, identifies her as Hagar, the mother of Yishmael. Rashi writes (25:1),

קטורה - זו הגר, ונקראת קטורה על שם שנאים מעשיה כקטרת ושקשרה פתחה שלא נזדווגה לאדם מיום שפרשה מאברהם
This is Hagar. She was called Keturah because her deeds were as beautiful as incense (קטורת), and because she tied (קטרה, the Aramaic for“tied”) her opening, for she was not intimate with any man from the day she separated from Abraham.

According to Rashi, Hagar had reformed. She was no longer a rebellious maid who challenged her mistress' authority; her deeds were as fragrant as incense and she had not been with another man since she was sent away from Avraham, perhaps because she anticipated the day when she would reunite with him.
Rashi earlier on in the parsha points out that this reunion was made possible by none other than Yitzchak. When Eliezer returned home with Rivkah we are told that Yitzchak had just returned from a trip to Be'er Lechai Roi. Previously, Be'er Lechai Roi was identified as the place where Hagar had an encounter with angel who promised her that she too, like Sara, would have a son whose descendants would be numerous (16:13-14). Rashi, wondering what Yitzchak was doing in Be'er Lechai Roi writes (24:62),

מבוא באר לחי ראי - שהלך להביא הגר לאברהם אביו שישאנה
Coming from Be’er Lachai Roi: where he had gone to bring Hagar to Abraham his father, that he should marry her

Not only did Avraham and Hagar reunite because of Yitzchak's urging, Yishmael and Yitzchak also were able to smooth things over. When Avraham passes away at the end of the parsha we are told that Yitzchak and Yishmael buried him in Me'arat Ha'machpeila (25:9). Where did Yishmael come from? We have not heard from him since he was kicked out of his father's house. And why would he want to have anything to do with the father who rejected him?
Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, with the help of a Midrash from the Pirkei D'Rabi Eliezer, offers a beautiful explanation. He writes, (Covenant and Conversation, Parshat Chaye Sara 5769, for the full text of article click here),

Not only did Isaac feel guilty about the banishment of Hagar and Ishmael. So did Abraham, according to this interpretation. We know that Abraham did not want to send Ishmael away. The text (Gen. 21: 11) is explicit on this point. But Sarah was insistent, and God told Abraham to listen to her. Throughout the lifetime of Sarah, reconciliation was impossible. After her lifetime, however, Abraham sought her out and brought her back. Hagar did not end her days as an outcast. She returned, in honour, as Abraham's wife. That is why, at Abraham's funeral (he died thirty-eight years after Sarah), Isaac and Ishmael were both present. The divided family was reunited.
There is an extraordinary midrash (Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer, 30) which tells the story of how Ishmael was twice visited by Abraham. On both occasions, Ishmael was not at home. On the first, his wife, not knowing Abraham's identity, refused the stranger bread and water. Ishmael divorced her and married a woman named Fatimah. This time, when Abraham visited, again not disclosing his identity, the woman gave him food and drink. The midrash then says "Abraham stood and prayed before the Holy One, blessed be He, and Ishmael's house became filled with all good things. When Ishmael returned, his wife told him about it, and Ishmael knew that his father still loved him."
There is a story here of immense consequence for our time. Jews and Muslims both trace their descent from Abraham - Jews though Isaac, Muslims through Ishmael. Fatimah is an important figure in Islam. She is the daughter of the prophet.
Beneath the surface of the narrative in Chayei Sarah, the sages read the clues and pieced together a moving story of reconciliation between Abraham and Isaac on the one hand, Hagar and Ishmael on the other. Yes, there was conflict and separation; but that was the beginning, not the end. Between Judaism and Islam there can be friendship and mutual respect. Abraham loved both his sons, and was laid to rest by both. There is hope for the future in this story of the past.

Avraham's Real Estate Negotiations: A Final Test

Many of the meforshim wonder why the Torah needed to go into such great detail when telling us about Avraham's acquisition of a burial plot for Sara. Why not simply tell us that when Sara passed away, Avraham bought Me'arat Ha'machpeila from Ephron?
The classic answered offered by the Midrash (Breishit Rabbah 79:6) is that the Torah wanted the transaction put on record in case anyone ever disputed Bnei Yisrael's claim to the land. The Midrash goes on to say that this explains why we are told that David Hamelech purchased the land that the Beit Hamikdash stood on (Divrei Hayamim I 21:25) and that Yaakov purchased land in Shechem, the eventual burial place of Yosef (Breishit 33:19). Hashem knew that at some point in the future other people would dispute Bnei Yisrael's claim to these lands and therefore He wanted a historical record of their purchase.
The Ramban however offers a different approach. In one of his explanations for the necessity of this story he writes (Breishit 23:19),

ונכתבה זאת הפרשה להודיע חסדי השם עם אברהם שהיה נשיא אלהים בארץ אשר בא לגור שם והיחיד, וכל העם היו קוראין לו "אדוני", והוא לא אמר להם כן שהיה שר וגדול, וגם בחייו קיים לו ואגדלה שמך והיה ברכה
And this section was written to inform us of the kindness of Hashem toward Avraham that he was a prince of God in the land in which he came to settle and he was unique. And the entire nation referred to him as 'My Master', and he never told them that he was an officer or great person. In his life the blessing was fulfilled that his name would become great and it would be for a blessing

According to Ramban the importance of this story is contained within the periphery. The fact that Avraham bought a burial plot for his wife is immaterial; what is important is the fact that God's blessing started to come true in Avraham's lifetime because the people honored him and treated him as God's prince.
The Chizkuni however offers a different approach, which directly contradicts the Ramban's claim. The Chizkuni notes that when Avraham initially spoke to the Bnei Cheit about purchasing a burial plot he, "rose up and bowed down" (23:7). On this the Chizkuni comments,

ויקם אברהם וישתחו אברהם היה צריך לכולן שאפי' מכר לו עפרון את השדה לא היה אברהם רשאי לעשותו בית הקברות שלא ברשות כל בני העיר ולכך הוצרך לקום כדי להשתחוות לכולם אפי' לאותם של אחוריו. אבל בהשתחות לעפרון שהיה יחידי לא הוצרך לקום אלא להשתחות לפניו.
Avraham rose up and bowed down. Avraham needed to do both of these because even if Ephron sold him the field Avraham would not have been permitted to convert it into a cemetery without the permission of all of the townspeople. Therefore he need to rise in order to bow down to all of them, even those who were behind him. But when he bowed down to Ephron, who was but one individual, he did not need to rise, rather he bowed down before him.

According to Chizkuni, even if Avraham was known as a prince, as Ramban writes, he still needed to grease the palms of the local zoning board or else he would not have been able to bury Sara where he wanted to. According to the Ramban, Avraham did not have a difficult time finding a resting place for Sara - he was a prince and the locals were honored to sell him the land. However, according to Chizkuni, Avraham did not receive any preferential treatment and needed to go through the political process just like anyone else.
The explanation of the Chizkuni fits in well with a Midrash (Midrash Ha'Gadol), which explains that the need to purchase a burial plot for Sara was yet another test of Avraham's belief and dedication to Hashem. Writes the Midrash,

בוא וראה ענוותנותו של אברהם אבינו! שהבטיחו הקב”ה לתת לו ולזרעו את הארץ עד עולם ועכשיו לא מצא קבורה אלא בדמים מרובים, ולא הרהר אחר מידותיו של הקב”ה ולא קרא תגר, ולא עוד אלא שלא דיבר עם יושבי הארץ אלא בענוה, שנאמר: “גר ותושב אנכי עמכם” - אמר לו הקב”ה: אתה השפלת עצמך, חייך שאני אשימך אדון ונשיא עליהם.
Come and see the humbleness of Avraham Avinu! God had promised to give him and his offspring the Land and now he could only find a burial place for a large sum of money and he did not question the ways of the Holy One Blessed be He and he did not rebel; not only that, but he even spoke to the locals with humility, for it says, 'I am an alien and resident among you' - The Holy One Blessed be He said to him: You lowered yourself, I swear that I will make you a master and prince over them.

According to the Midrash, this entire chapter is a test of Avraham's will. God had commanded him to leave his homeland and he listened. God had brought a famine to Canaan, forcing him to leave for Egypt and his faith never wavered. God had commanded him to sacrifice his beloved son and he was willing to go through with it. Then his wife died and he wanted to bury her in the Land that God had promised to give him, but he had to pay a large sum of money for a small piece of the Land that was supposed to be his. Avraham could have said, "Enough is enough! I was willing to sacrifice my own son, why do I deserve this?" But he did not. As the Chizkuni and the Midrash teach us, he went through with the ordeal of purchasing the plot of land just like anyone else. The Torah goes into such great detail about this business transaction to show us Avraham's humility in passing yet another test; Avraham got approval both from the local zoning board and from Hashem.

Archeological Findings and Sarah's Treatment of Hagar

After years of suffering without a child, Sarah told Avraham to marry their Egyptian maidservant Hagar. Sarah felt that the blessings that Hashem had promised to give to Avraham's offspring could not possibly be fulfilled through her because of her old age and she told Avraham to fulfill his destiny through Hagar. Shortly after marrying Avraham, Hagar conceived a child (Breishit 16:4)

ויבא אל הגר ותהר ותרא כי הרתה ותקל גברתה בעיניה
He consorted with Hagar and she conceived; and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was lowered in her esteem.

Sarah had hoped that Hagar and Avraham would have a child together, but she did not anticipate that this would lead Hagar to belittle her. Rashi comments,

אמרה שרי זו אין סתרה כגלויה, מראה עצמה כאלו היא צדקת ואינה צדקת, שלא זכתה להריון כל השנים הללו, ואני נתעברתי מביאה ראשונה
She said, 'This Sarai her conduct in secret is not like her conduct in public. She shows herself as if she is a righteous woman, but she is not a righteous woman, for she did not merit to conceive all these years, whereas I have conceived from the first union.'

Sarah complained to Avraham about Hagar's negative attitude and he told her that she was free to do with her whatever she saw fit. The Torah tells us (16:6)

ותעניה שרי ותברח מפניה
And Sarai dealt harshly with her, so she fled from her.

What exactly did Sarah do to Hagar that caused her to runaway? Rashi writes that she enslaved her harshly. Radak, however, goes into greater detail. He writes,

ומה שעשתה שרי לא היה טוב בעיני הא-ל, כמו שאמר המלאך אל הגר: “כי שמע ה’ אל עניך” והשיב לה ברכה תחת ענויה.
And what Sarai did was not proper in the eyes of God, as the angel said to Hagar: 'for Hashem has heard your suffering' and he gave her a blessing because she had suffered.

Radak claims that Sarah sinned by treating Hagar harshly. He goes on to describe exactly what Sarah did to Hagar,

עשתה עמה יותר מדאי, ועבדה בה בפרך. ואפשר שהייתה מכה אותה ומקללת אותה, ולא הייתה יכולה לסבול וברחה מפניה... אף על פי שאברהם מחל לה על כבודו...היה ראוי לה למשוך את ידה לכבודו ולא לענותה... אין ראוי לאדם לעשות כל יכולתו במה שתחת ידו
She did too much to her and she enslaved her with hard labor. And it is possible that she beat her and cursed her, and she could not withstand it so she fled...even though Avraham gave up his honor...it would have been appropriate for her to hold back for his honor and not afflict her...It is not appropriate for a person to do all that is within their power to a subordinate.

Radak is not alone in his criticism of Sarah. The Ramban criticizes both Avraham and Sarah when he writes,

חטאה אמנו בעינוי הזה, וגם אברהם בהניחו לעשות כן
Our mother committed a great sin with her harsh treatment and Avraham also sinned by allowing her to do this

Rabbi Elchanan Samet (Iyunim L'Parashot HaShavua Vol 1 pp. 33) writes that there is evidence, found in archeological digs that might defend Sarah from her critics. He quotes a Hebrew translation of Hammurabi's Code, the system of laws developed by King Hammurabi who lived during the same time period as Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov. Hammurabi's code records the following law,

כי ייקח אישה כוהנת, והיא תיתן לאישה אמה, אם תלד בנים ואחרי כן תשווה עצמה לגברתה, גברתה לא תיתן אותה בכסף, מפני שילדה בנים. היא תשים עליה אות ותמנה אותה בין האמהות. אם לא תלד בנים, תיתן אותה בכסף
When a man marries a woman who is barren and she gives her husband a maidservant, if the maidservant has children and then puts herself on the same level as her mistress, her mistress may not sell her, for she has had children. She shall place a symbol on her and enumerate her amongst the maidservants. If she does not have children she may be sold.

In the time and place of Avraham it was common practice for a barren woman to give over her maidservant to her husband in order for them to have children. However, the maidservant remained a maidservant; she was not on equal footing with her mistress. Hagar viewed herself as being superior to Sarah because she conceived the first time she was with Avraham and she began to act like she was the head of the household. Sarah complained to Avraham and he told her that she was free to do what she wished, because Hagar had acted inappropriately - what she did was against the law. Hammurabi's code called for the mistress to "place a symbol on her", to do something to let the maidservant know her place in the household hierarchy. Accordingly, Sarah and Avraham did not sin when they afflicted her, it was Hagar who sinned by viewing herself as an equal.
Given this archeological evidence, one could argue that Radak and Ramban would take back what they said about Sarah's behavior. On the other hand, perhaps they would stand their ground; such behavior may have been permissible according to the letter of the law, according to Hammurabi's code, but perhaps Avraham and Sarah were expected to not simply abide by the letter of the law, but rather to go beyond it.

Escaping the Famine: Did Avraham Sin?

Not long after he arrived in Canaan, Avraham was forced to make a critical decision. He had uprooted his entire family from Charan and moved to Canaan because Hashem had commanded him to do so, but a famine had struck his new homeland (Breishit 12:10). Without the food and water he and his family needed to survive, what was Avraham to do? The Ramban (12:10) writes,

יציאתו מן הארץ, שנצטווה עליה בתחילה, מפני הרעב, עון אשר חטא, כי האלהים ברעב יפדנו ממות. ועל המעשה הזה נגזר על זרעו הגלות בארץ מצרים ביד פרעה
His leaving the Land, about which he was commanded to settle because of the famine, was a sin, for God, in times of famine, saves people from death. And because of this, the exile in Egypt was decreed on his offspring

According to Ramban, Avraham should have had faith in Hashem that He would provide for him during the tough times of the famine; just like Avraham had faith in Hashem that things would work out if he moved from Charan to Canaan, so too he should have had faith and remained in Canaan. His sin was so egregious that Hashem decreed that Avraham's children would suffer as a result and be exiled to the very Egypt that Avraham had runaway to.
Rabbi Don Isaac Abrabanel, vehemently disagrees with the Ramban's theory. He writes,

וכבר ראית דברי הרמב"ן...וכבר תפשו על הדעת הזה הר"ן כי הנה יציאתו מארץ כנען לארץ מצרים מפני הרעב חז"ל מנוהו מכלל הנסיונות ובידוע שה' צדיק יבחן ומי שיעמוד בנסיונו אין ראוי שיקרא חוטא וחליל שינסה השם את אברהם להכשילו...ודי שנאמר עתה ששתי הסבות הניעו לאברהם לרדת למצרים. האחת היא שחשב שהמצוה האלהית היתה לשבת בארץ כנען ושלא נאסר עליו מפני זה ללכת מצרים אם לסחורה או לצורך אחר כי לא היה עובר בזה על המצוה כיון שלא היה דעתו בהליכתו להתישב שמה דירת קבע אלא דירת עראי וימים אחדים עד עבור הרעב ומיד ישוב לארץ כנען וכמו שהיו עושים בני ישראל בהיותם בארץ שהיו הולכים למצרים לעשות סחורה ושבים ובזה האופן היו מעשיו של אברהם לשם שמים... וכבר זכרה התורה הסבה הזאת באמרה וירד אברם מצרים לגור שם כי היה הרעב בארץ רוצה לומר בדרך גרות לא להתישב שם. והסבה הב' היא שהמצוות האלהיות הם על תנאי אשר יעשה אותם האדם וחי בהם ולא שימות בהם
And I have already seen the words of the Ramban...Rabbeinu Nissim has already challenged this position because Avraham left the Land of Canaan for Egypt because of the famine. Furthermore our sages enumerated this as one of the tests given to Avraham and it is known that Hashem only tests the righteous and those who can stand up to his tests. It is suitable to explain that Avraham had two motives for going down to Egypt. Firstly he believed that the divine commandment was to settle in the Land of Canaan; travel to foreign countries such as Egypt for business or some other need was not forbidden. He did not violate the commandment because he did not travel there to settle, but rather he went there temporarily until the famine ended - and when it did, he immediately returned. This is what Bnei Yisrael did when they eventually settled the Land - they went to Egypt to conduct business and then returned home. In a similar vein, Avraham's actions were for the sake of Heaven. And the Torah already alludes to this fact when it says, 'Avraham went down to Egypt to dwell their because there was a famine in the land.' This means to say, he went as a stranger, not to settle. And the second reason he went to Egypt is because God's commandments are conditional - one does not need to give up their life in order to fulfill them.

Rabbi Abrabanel argues with the Ramban and claims that Avraham's actions could not have been a sin because if his acts were sinful, he would have failed one of the tests given to him by God. Furthermore, there was no sin in going to Egypt temporarily. Finally, he went to Egypt because had he stayed in Canaan he would have had to do so at the risk of his life and the lives of his family members. Hashem had commanded him to settle and live in Canaan, not to die there of starvation.

Rambam's History of Religion

The Rambam, in the first chapter of his Hilchot Avodat Kochavim, gives a brief history of religious practice beginning with the creation of the world through the birth of the Jewish people. The Rambam writes that at first man exclusively worshiped God. However during the days of Enosh (Breisht 5:6,9-11) the generation's belief system was corrupted by a mistaken theory. The people reasoned that God had placed the sun, the moon, stars and planets in the heavens because He held them in high regard. The people then reasoned further, that it would be appropriate to worship and praise the stars as a way of honoring Hashem; everyone knew that Hashem was the only God, however they felt that a king is honored when his most loyal servants are honored.
As the years went by false prophets emerged claiming that they were told by God to build temples and offer sacrifices to the sun, moon and stars. They also claimed to have been told to build images and idols of the constellations. As time went on, people began to claim that the idols and the sun and the moon and the stars were actual gods; no longer were they "servants of God", they themselves were gods. As time went on even further, the people forgot the One and true God entirely.
Rambam points out that along the way there were individuals who were able to recognize the existence of God, such as Noach, Shem, Eiver and Metushelach. However, no one was able to reach the heights that Avraham reached. Avraham, writes the Rambam, spent day and night contemplating the existence of a single God. He looked at the sun, moon and stars and believed that there must be a deity controlling them; they could not be without a leader. Finally, at the age of 40, Avraham came to the realization that there was only one God in the world. Shortly thereafter he began to spread the word of God to people of his town. He would engage in religious debates with them and would always emerge victorious. Avraham's attempts to convert people to monotheism caused him to be ridiculed by his fellow townspeople, eventually leading the king to throw him into a fiery furnace, prompting his family's move from Ur Kasdim to Charan.
Avraham successfully spread monotheism wherever he went and eventually passed on his position as God's chief advocate to his son Yitzchak who then passed it on to Yaakov. And the rest is history.

Comparing Avraham and Noach

Given their close proximity to one another in the Torah and their loyalty to Hashem, it is understandable that Chazal, through Midrashim, compare Noach and Avraham to one another. The most well known comparison is mentioned by Rashi in the beginning of Parshat Noach (Breishit 6:9). The Torah writes that Noach was a tzaddik, a righteous man, in his generation. Picking up on the words "in his generation," Rashi cites a debate that is found in the Midrash:

יש מרבותינו דורשים אותו לשבח, כל שכן שאלו היה בדור צדיקים היה צדיק יותר, ויש שדורשים אותו לגנאי, לפי דורו היה צדיק, ואלו היה בדורו של אברהם לא היה נחשב לכלום
Some of the sages interpret it (the phrase 'in his generation'), favorably: How much more so if he had lived in a generation of righteous people, he would have been even more righteous. Others interpret it derogatorily: In comparison with his generation he was righteous, but if he had been in Abraham’s generation, he would not have been considered of any importance.

Those who viewed Noach as a tzaddik who would have transcended generations believed that had he lived during a time period other than that of the evil generation of the Flood, he would have flourished even more. On the other hand, those who claim that Noach "would not have been considered of any importance" in Avraham's generation believe that Noach's righteousness was relative; he was righteous, but look at the people around him - had he lived at a time when the rest of humanity possessed the least bit of morality and integrity he would not have stood out like he did in his generation.
While the debate over the transcendence of Noach's righteousness is left unresolved, the Zohar cites another difference between Noach and Avraham, which seems to indicate that Noach's righteousness was relative. The Zohar writes,

“

ויגש אברהם ויאמר: האף תפסה צדיק עם רשע” (בראשית יח,כג) - אמר ר’ יהודה: מאן חמא אבא דרחמנותא כאברהם? תא חזי: בנח כתיב (ו,יג-יד): “ויאמר אלוקים לנח: קץ כל בשר בא לפני... והנני משחיתם את הארץ. עשה לך תבת עצי גפר...” ואשתיק ולא אמר לו מידי ולא בעי רחמי. אבל אברהם, בשעתא דאמר ליה קב”ה: “זעקת סדום ועמורה כי רבה וחטאתם כי כבדה מאד. ארדה נא ואראה...” - מיד כתיב: ויגש אברהם ויאמר: האף תפסה צדיק עם רשע
'And Abraham drew near and said, will You also destroy the righteous with the wicked? (Breishit 18:23) - said Rabbi Yehuda: Who has seen a father as compassionate as Avraham? Come and see: Regarding Noach it is stated (6:13) 'and God said to Noach, the end of all flesh is come before me;...and behold I will destroy them from the earth. Make an ark of gopher wood...' And Noach held his peace and said nothing, neither did he intercede. Whereas Avraham, as soon as the Holy One blessed be He said to him: 'Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous. I will go down and see...' Immediately, as it is stated, 'And Abraham drew near and said: Will you destroy the righteous with the wicked?'

When Hashem told Noach that He was going to destroy the world and that he should build an ark to save himself and his family, Noach obediently listened. He was a tzaddik and was worthy of being saved. However, according to the Zohar, Avraham was greater because when informed that Sodom was going to be destroyed he challenged Hashem in the hopes that he would be able to save the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah.
In the words of Nechama Leibowitz (Iyunim L'Sefer Breishit pp. 46),

נח אינו ערב לאנושות, נח אין בו אחריות לעולם כולו, נח הוא מאלה הניצולים אשר את נפשם הצילו. והעולם - יחרב. והוא נחרב. “צדיק תמים?” כן, בדורותיו.
Noach a guarantor of mankind, Noach does not have a responsibility to the world as a whole. Noach belonged to those who were satisfied to save their own souls, while the world is destroyed. [He was] 'a perfect tzaddik?' Yes, but only in his generation.

The Difference Between the Sacrifices of Kayin and Hevel

After Adam and Chavah were evicted from the Garden of Eden we encounter two of their sons, Kayin and Hevel. Eight pesukim later, Hevel is a murder victim, killed by his own brother. Prior to Kayin's murderous act we are privy to another incident involving the brothers when they both offered korbanot to Hashem. The Torah tells us (Breishit 4:3-5),

ויהי מקץ ימים ויבא קין מפרי האדמה מנחה לה'. והבל הביא גם הוא מבכורות צאנו מחלבהן וישע ה' אל הבל ואל מנחתו. ואל קין ואל מנחתו לא שעה ויחר לקין מאד ויפלו פניו
After a period of time, Cain brought an offering to Hashem of the fruit of the ground. And as for Abel, he also brought of the firslings of his flock and from their choicest. Hashem turned to Abel and to his offering, but to Cain and to his offering He did not turn. This angered Cain exceedingly, and his countenance fell.

Why did Hashem accept Hevel's sacrifice but reject Kayin's? In fact, it would seem more logical for Hashem to have accepted Kayin's - Kayin was the first one to bring a korban; only once Kayin offered his sacrifice did Hevel offer his. Kayin took the initiative, while Hevel simply mimicked his brother!
Rashi famously comments about Hevel's sacrifice:

מפרי האדמה - מן הגרוע, ויש אגדה שאומרת זרע פשתן היה
From the inferior and there is an aggadah (legend) that says it was a flax seed

Rashi says that Kayin's sacrifice was from inferior fruits. According to Rashi this is peshat, the simple understanding of the pasuk. He then quotes a Midrash, which he says is not peshat, which claims that he offered a mere flax seed as his korban. How can Rashi claim that the simple explanation of the pasuk is that Kayin offered inferior fruits? What sort of indication is there from the text that this was the case?
Nechama Leibowitz offers a beautiful insight into Rashi's explanation of peshat. She writes (Iyunim B'Sefer Breishit pp. 29),

לימדנו רש”י לשים לב להקבלה ולאי-הקבלה בפסוקים. בהבל נאמר “מבכורות צאנו”, מן המובחר, ממיטב. אצל קין לא מצינו מקביל לו, אלא “מפרי האדמה” שלא מן המובחר. והשני אצל הבל נאמר “מבכורות צאנו” - משלו, יש כאן נתינת עצמו, הזדהות. אצל קין “מפרי האדמה”, אין כאן שום עניין אישי, אין הנתינה ממלאת מקום עצמו.
Rashi teaches us to pay careful attention to parallels and the lack thereof in verses. Regrading Abel it says "of the firstborn of his flock" - implying from the choicest. Regarding Cain we do not find a parallel, rather "of the fruit of the ground" - that they were not of the choicest. Secondly regarding Abel it is stated: From the first of his flock" - his very own, while Cain brought "of the fruit of the ground." Cain made no individual sacrifice and did not go out of his way to select the best of his personal possessions.

Rashi noticed the subtleties within the pesukim, which show us the inferior nature of Kayin's sacrifice. The Ramban writes that the purpose of animal sacrifice is for the animal to take the place of the person. In reality the person bringing the sacrifice wishes that he could offer himself, but knows that God has outlawed such practice, so he offers an animal in his stead. Hevel understood this, so he offered the best, the choicest of his flock, while Kayin offered the worst; Hevel made a sacrifice with his sacrifice, giving up his valuable possessions, while Hevel simply offered fruit of the earth, possibly as little as a flax seed.

The Creation of Man and the Royal We

The story of creation is very cryptic and difficult to grasp causing many commentators to offer allegorical explanations for many of the events that took place. On the sixth day, the final day of creation, Hashem created man in His image. While the way in which God actually created man may be difficult for us to comprehend, the way in which he commissioned his creation poses a potential theological quandary. The Torah states (Breishit 1:26),

ויאמר אלוקים נעשה אדם בצלמנו כדמותנו
And God said, 'Let us make Man in Our image...

The question arises: To whom was God referring to when he said "us" and "our?" The implication seems to be that there was more than one deity. The Targum Yonatan answers the question by saying that Hashem was speaking to the angels when he said "we", but not that there was, God forbid, more than one god.
The explanation offered by the Targum Yonatan does not explain why Hashem needed to consult with the angels when deciding to create man. In fact, the fear that one could come to the wrong conclusion, that there are multiple deities, is expressed in a fascinating story in Masechet Megillah (9a):

.

מעשה בתלמי המלך שכינס שבעים ושנים זקנים, והכניסן בשבעים ושנים בתים, ולא גילה להם על מה כינסן. ונכנס אצל כל אחד ואחד ואמר להם: כתבו לי תורת משה רבכם. נתן הקדוש ברוך הוא בלב כל אחד ואחד עצה, והסכימו כולן לדעת אחת. וכתבו לו... אעשה אדם בצלם ובדמות
There was an incident involving King Ptolemy who gathered 72 elders and placed them into 72 different rooms and did not inform them as to why he had gathered them. He went to each and every one of them and said to them: 'Write me the Torah of Moshe your teacher.' Hashem divinely inspired each of them and they all came to the same opinion. And they wrote, 'I will make a man in an image and likeness.'

When King Ptolemy had the rabbis translate the Torah into Greek the rabbis realized that it would be best for all concerned if they made some changes to the Torah. Even though they were unable to consult with one another a miracle happened and they all made the same changes. One of the changes that was made was the changing of the phrase, "Let us make man in Our image after Our likeness" to "I will make make in an image and likeness." Ptolemy would have come to the wrong conclusion that there was actually more than one god, so the rabbis changed it to avoid the issue.
Rabbi Baruch HaLevi Epstein (1860-1941) explains why Hashem used the plural form instead of the singular. In his Torah Temimah he writes,

ומה שבאמת כתיב בלשון רבים הוא משום דמדרך הכבוד והגדולה כך הוא, וכמו במלך בו"ד שמדבר בלשון רבים, אלא שתלמי לא היה מקבל זה מפני שאולי היה רוצה למצוא עילה בתורת משה. ונראה דאע"פ שהיו יכולים להביא לו ראיה דרשות אחת בבריאה מדכתיב בפסוק הסמוך ויברא אלהים את האדם
And in truth it is written in the plural because this is the way of honor and greatness, just as a king of flesh and blood speaks in the plural. Ptolemy, though, would not have accepted this because it is possible that he wanted to find a pretext [for disputing the validity of] Moshe's Torah. And it appears that even though they (the rabbis who translated the Torah) could have brought proof that there is only one deity from creation that it states in the next verse, 'And God created man...'

Rabbi Epstein explains that the Torah used the plural not because there is more than one god nor because he was consulting with the angels about the creation of man, but rather because that is the way kings - even the King of the Universe - speak. Indeed, according to the Torah Temimah, Hashem was the first king to speak in the royal we.

Halacha of the Week: Lighting Candles on Simchat Torah

By Rabbi Leonard Matanky

This year, Simchat Torah, will occur on Motzaei Shabbat, and therefore, one cannot light candles before Maariv/Hakafot. Therefore, when should the candles be lit?

While Shabbat and Yom Tov candles should ideally be lit at the beginning of Shabbat or Yom Tov AND at home (there are some exceptions to this latter issue) Rabbi Yehoshua Neuwirth suggests that on Yom Tov, if one is not at home for the meal, candles could even be lit when one returns home [Shmirat Shabbat K'hilchata vol. 2 chapter 43 note 24].

Therefore, when Simchat Torah is on Saturday night and candles could not be lit earlier in the evening (since it was still Shabbat) it would be permitted to wait until AFTER hakafot (even after the shul dinner) to return home and light Yom Tov candles.

The Death of Moshe: The Punishment for a Reluctance to Lead

The holiday of Simchat Torah has become one of the more joyous holidays on the Jewish calendar. Dancing around the bima, and in some places in the streets, with the Torah marks the conclusion of the annual Torah reading cycle and the beginning of the next year's cycle. However, along with the joy and happiness of completing the Torah comes the death of Moshe Rabbeinu.
The emotional ending of the Torah is made even more dramatic by the words of Rabbi Shimon in the Gemara (Bava Batra 15a), speaking of the last eight pesukim of the Torah, which take place after we are informed of the death of Moshe:

עד כאן הקב"ה אומר ומשה אומר וכותב, מכאן ואילך הקב"ה אומר ומשה כותב בדמע
Until here God spoke and Moshe repeated and wrote (the Torah), from here and on God spoke and Moshe wrote with tears.

The Maharsha (Chidushei Aggadot Bava Batra 15a) writes that Moshe actually used his tears to write the last pesukim of the Torah instead of the ink he used for the rest of the Torah.
Why did the Torah need to end on such a sad note, with the death of the greatest teacher and prophet ever to live, before he could enter the land he so desired to dwell in?
The simple explanation is that Moshe was punished for his part in the sin of the rock (Bamidbar 20). However various Midrashim, most likely troubled by the severity of Moshe's punishment, sought alternative reasons for God denying him entry into the Land.
One such approach, which appears throughout many Midrashim, claims that Moshe was denied entry into the Land because of a sin that took place well before Bnei Yisrael entered the desert. The Mechilta of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai (Parshat Va'era 6:2) relates in the name of Rabbi Tarfon:

אמר הקב"ה גלוי וידוע לפני שישראל ראויים לצאת ממצרים ולהנתן ביד עמון ומואב ועמלק אלא בשבועה נשבעתי ללחום מלחמתם ואושיע אתכם... והריני מבקש להוציאם ממצרים, ואתה אומר לי: שלח נא ביד תשלח

God said: It is known to Me that Bnei Yisrael is worthy to leave Egypt and then be given over in the hands of Amon, Moab and Amalek, but I have taken an oath to fight their wars and save them. And behold I am asking you to take them out of Egypt and you tell me: "Send whomever you shall send!?"

According to Rabbi Tarfon God became angry with Moshe because he had the audacity to tell Him to send someone else in his stead to lead the people out of Egypt. God had preordained a plan to redeem the people and had backed up His promise by taking an oath that He would fulfill His word and now Moshe decided that he did not want to be part of His plan; in the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon, Moshe's modesty, in this case, was misplaced.
The same Midrash quotes the opinion of Rabbi Nechemiah, who harshly criticizes Moshe's reluctance to lead.

גלוי וידוע לפני צער ישראל במצרים... צער קשה... הם שרויים בצרה ואתה שרוי בריוח ואני כבר פקדתי אותם ברחמים להוציאם ממצרים, ואתה אומר שלח נא ביד תשלח
It is known to me the pain of Israel in Egypt...the intense pain... they are in a state of pain and you are in a state of comfort and I have already remembered them with mercy to redeem them from Egypt and you say "Send whomever you shall send!?"

According to Rabbi Nechemia, God was outraged with Moshe for not identifying with the pain and suffering of his own people. Here he was sitting comfortably in Midian with his brethren suffering in the bitter slavery of Egypt. He was given the opportunity to save the people and he shrugged it off, claiming that someone else should do it.
According to both Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Nechemia God was angry with Moshe for not wanting to lead. With all of that said, they do not make a connection between God's anger and God's denying Moshe entry into the Land. Another tanna, Rabbi Elazar ben Arach, however, does make the connection.

ר' אלעזר בן ערך אומר: וכי מפני מה נגלה הקב"ה משמי מרום והיה מדבר עם משה בסנה, והלא היה לך מארזי הלבנון ומראשי ההרים ומראשי גבעות, אלא השפיל הקב"ה את שכינתו ועשה דברו כדרך ארץ, שלא יהיו אומות העולם אומרים מפני שהוא אלוה ובעל עולמו עשה דברו שלא כדין. לפיכך כבש הקב"ה את משה ששה ימים ובשביעי אמר לו שלח נא ביד תשלח
Rabbi Elazar ben Arach says: Why did God descend from the Heavens and speaking to Moshe from a bush? He should have spoken to him from the cedars of Lebanon, from the mountaintops or hilltops! Rather, God lowered His Presence and made His speech natural so that the other nations would not say that because he is God and Master of the world, he followed his word. Therefore God courted Moshe for six days and on the seventh day Moshe told him, "Send whomever you shall send."

According to Rabbi Elazar ben Arach, God brought Himself down to Moshe's level and even courted him for six days, but Moshe rejected God's recruitment pitch. Rabbi Elazar continues to illustrate his point through an analogy:

משלו משל למה הדבר דומה, למלך שהיה לו עבד והיה אוהבו אהבה גמורה. בקש המלך לעשותו אפטרופוס שלו להיות מפרנס בני פלטין של מלך. מה עשה המלך, תפס את העבד בידו והכניסו לבית גנזיו, והראהו כלי כסף וכלי זהב אבנים טובות ומרגליות וכל מה שיש לו בבית גנזיו. ומאחר כן הוציאו והראהו אילנות גנים ופרדסים... לאחר כן כבש העבד את ידו ואמר איני יכול לעשות אפטרופוס להיות מפרנס בני פלטין של מלך. אמר לו המלך: הואיל ולא היית יכול לעשות אפטרופוס, למה הטרחתני כל הטורח הזה, וכעס עליו המלך וגזר עליו שלא יכנס לפלטין שלו. כך כבש הקב"ה למשה ששה ימים ובשביעי אמר לו שלח נא ביד תשלח. נשבע לו הקב"ה שלא יכנס לארץ ישראל, שנאמר: לכן לא תביאו
To what can this be compared to? To a king who had a servant whom he truly loved. The king wished to appoint the servant as his caretaker to support the king's subjects. What did the king do? He took the servant by the hand and brought him into his treasure house and showed him his silver and gold utensils, his precious stones and pearls and all of the other contents of his treasure house. Afterward he took him out and showed him his trees, gardens and orchards. שׁAfterward the servant withdrew his hand and said, "I cannot be the caretaker of your subjects." The king said to him, "Since you had no intention of being a caretaker, why did you burden me to show you all of this?" The king became angry at him and decreed that he could not enter his palace. So too, God courted Moshe for six days and on the seventh day, Moshe said to him, "Send whomever you shall send." God swore to him that he would not enter the Land of Israel, as it says, "Therefore you will not bring them..."

Rabbi Elazar ben Arach explicitly writes that even before Moshe went to Egypt to take the Jewish people out of slavery it had been determined that he would not be able to enter the Land of Israel. His sin was unforgivable; he did not want to lead the people and in doing so he spurned God.
According to the tanaim in the Midrash, Moshe was punished because he was initially reluctant when asked to lead Bnei Yisrael out of the treacherous and inhumane conditions in Egypt. Moshe was fit to lead and initially refused to do so; even though he eventually relented, his inability to recognize his duty to the Jewish people was so severe that he was punished so harshly.

The Sefer HaChinuch and the Symbolism of the 4 Minim

The holiday of Sukkot is filled with symbolism. There are countless explanations amongst the commentators, which speak of the true symbolism behind leaving our permanent homes for the temporary dwelling place of the sukkah. There are also many theories which detail the symbolic nature of the lulav, etrog, hadasim and aravot (the arbah minim).
One such explanation is offered by the Sefer HaChinuch. Throughout the Sefer Hachinuch the author develops the theory that,

אחרי הפעולות נמשכים הלבבות
The heart follows after actions

In essence the Chinuch feels that a person's being and psyche are influenced by their actions. If a person performs mitzvot, even if they are not initially motivated to do so, the performance of the mitzvah will leave an impression on them, eventually causing them to want to do mitzvot out of their own volition. This theory is very similar to the encouraging words of Rabbi Yehuda who said in the name of Rav (Horayot 10b),

לעולם יעסוק אדם בתורה ובמצות אפילו שלא לשמה, שמתוך שלא לשמה בא לשמה
A person should always be involved in Torah [study] and [the performance of] mitzvot even if it is not for their (the mitzvot's) own sake, because out of doing them not for their own sake, you will come to do them for their own sake.

The Chinuch (No. 285) writes that Sukkot is a time of great happiness for the Jewish people; having completed the harvesting of their crops at the beginning of autumn, the people would rejoice over the fruits of their labor. As a result God gave us a holiday, Sukkot, at this time, so that all celebrations should be done in His name, with the celebrants receiving reward for their performance of a mitzvah.
He goes on to explain, beautifully, the symbolism behind the arba minim,

ועוד יש בארבעה מינים אלו עניין אחר, שהם דומים לאברים היקרים שבאדם, שהאתרוג דומה ללב, שהוא משכן השכל, לרמז שיעבוד בוראו בשכלו, והלולב דומה לשדרה, שהיא העיקר שבאדם, לרמז שיישר כל גופו לעבודתו, ברוך הוא; וההדס דומה לעינים, לרמז שלא יתור אחרי עיניו ביום שמחת לבו; והערבה דומה לשפתים, שבהן יגמור האדם כל מעשהו בדיבור, לרמוז שישים רסן בפיו ויכוון דבריו ויירא מהשם אף בעת השמחה
These four species are similar to the vital limbs and organs of a person. The etrog is similar (in appearance) to the heart, the sanctuary of intellect, to indicate that a person should serve his Creator with his intellect. The lulav is similar (in appearance) to the spine, which is essential to man, to indicate that a person should straighten his entire body in His service, blessed is He. The hadas (myrtle) is similar (in appearance) to the eyes, to indicate that a person should not stray after their eyes on the day of his rejoicing. The aravah (willow) is similar (in appearance) to the lips, for with them a person completes all of his actions with speech, to indicate that a person should place a rein on his mouth and fear God even at a time of rejoicing.

The Chinuch, in keeping with his theory that we are influenced by our own actions, teaches that the purpose of the arbah minim is to make sure that we remain focused on God and maintain an even keel even during times of tremendous simcha.

The Season of Sukkot

The Gemara (Sukkah 11b) records a dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva concerning the historical origin of the holiday of Sukkot. The Torah (Vayikra 23:43) writes that we should celebrate Sukkot,

"So that your generations will know that I caused the Children of Israel to dwell in booths (sukkot) when I took them from the land of Egypt; I am Hashem, your God."

Regarding the booths that Bnei Yisrael dwelt in while in the desert, the Gemara states,

כי בסכות הושבתי את בני ישראל - ענני כבוד היו, דברי רבי אליעזר. רבי עקיבא אומר סוכות ממש עשו להם.

'I caused the Children of Israel to dwell in booths...' Rabbi Eliezer says this refers to the clouds of glory (ananei ha'kavod). Rabbi Akiva says that He made actual booths for them.

Rashbam writes that view of Rabbi Akiva is the simplest way of understanding the pasuk; presumably because the pasuk states that Hashem caused Bnei Yisrael to dwell in booths and makes no mention of the ananei ha'kavod.
Whichever approach we take, Sukkot serves as a remembrance of the time Bnei Yisrael spent in the desert and the kindness God showed them by protecting them from the elements. Accordingly, Hashem could have chosen any time of year for us to celebrate the holiday - why did He choose the 15th of Tishrei?
In answering this question Rashbam points out that the Torah goes out of its way to describe the season in which Sukkot occurs (Vayikra 23:39),

אך בחמשה עשר יום לחדש השביעי באספכם את תבואת הארץ תחוגו את חג ה' שבעת ימים
But on the fifteenth day of the seventh month, when you gather in the crop of the Land, you shall celebrate Hashem's festival for a seven-day period

Sukkot is referred to as the חג האסיף, the Holiday of the Harvest, because it takes place immediately following the autumn harvest. Rashbam explains,

למען תזכרו כי בסוכות הושבתי את בני ישראל במדבר ארבעים שנה בלא יישוב ובלא נחלה, ומתוך כך תתנו הודאה למי שנתן לכם נחלה ובתיכם מלאים כל טוב. ואל תאמרו בלבבכם: "כוחי ועוצם ידי עשה לי את החיל הזה" (דברים ח')... ולכך יוצאים מבתים מלאים כל טוב בזמן אסיפה ויושבין בסוכות לזכרון שלא היה להם נחלה במדבר ולא בתים לשבת. ומפני הטעם הזה קבע הקדוש ברוך הוא את חג הסוכות בזמן אסיפת גורן ויקב. לבלתי רום לבבם על בתיהם מלאים כל טוב פן יאמרו ידינו עשו לנו את החיל הזה
So that you shall remember that I caused Bnei Yisrael to dwell in booths for forty years in the desert away from civilization and without land and as a result you shall give thanks to the One who gave you land and homes filled with every good thing. And do not say to yourselves, 'My strength and the might of my hand made me all this wealth.'... Therefore we depart our homes, which are filled with everything good at the time of the harvest and sit in sukkot as a remembrance that we did not have land nor homes to dwell in while in the desert. And because of this reason Hashem established the holiday of Sukkot during the time of the harvest to prevent them from becoming haughty over their homes filled with everything good, lest they say that our hands created this strength.

According to Rashbam, Sukkot takes place during the fall season because it is a time when people rejoice over their material possessions. Leaving our homes, which are filled with our material possessions, for the sukkah serves as an acknowledgment that we would not have our material possessions if not for Hashem's kindness.
However, a different reason for celebrating Sukkot in Tishrei is given by Rabbi Yisrael Meir Kagan, quoting the Tur (Rabbi Yaakov ben Asher 1269-1343) in his Mishna Berurah (625:1)

ואע"פ שיצאנו ממצרים בחודש ניסן לא ציונו לעשות סוכות באותו זמן לפי שהוא ימות הקיץ ודרך כל אדם לעשות סוכות לצל ולא היתה ניכרת עשייתינו שהם במצות הש"י ולכן ציוה אותנו שנעשה בחודש השביעי שהוא זמן הגשמים ודרך כל אדם לצאת מסוכתו לביתו ואנחנו יוצאין מן הבית לישב בסוכה בזה מראה שהוא עושה לשם מצות הש"י

And even though we left Egypt in the Month of Nissan, He did not command us to make sukkot during that time because it is during the days of summer and it is customary for people to make booths during those times for shade and it would not be recognizable that they were being made because of a commandment of God. Therefore He commanded us to make the holiday during the seventh month, which is the rainy season, when most people leave their booths for their houses, but we leave our houses to dwell in the sukkah; through this we show that we are doing so because it is a mitzvah from God.

According to Rabbi Kagan, Sukkot should take place during Nissan because it is directly linked to the Exodus from Egypt; it was moved to Tishrei to show just how grateful we are for the kindness that God showed us in the desert - we are so appreciative that we eat in our Sukkot even though it might not be the most pleasant time of year to do so.
According to both Rashbam and the Mishna Berura, Sukkot is a time of thanksgiving in which we take a step back, or in this case out(side), in order to appreciate all that Hashem has done for us from the time He led us through the desert and sheltered us from the elements to the modern day when He is the sole source and provider of our material possessions.