Parashat Toldos

ויאמר יעקב אל אביו אנכי עשו בכרך עשיתי כאשר דברת אלי

בראשית כז:יט

ויאמר אתה זה בני עשו ויאמר אני

בראשית כז:כד

יעקב tricked his father in giving him the firstborn's blessing, which יצחק intended to bestow upon יעקב's older brother עשו.  Regardless of whether יעקב lied in the process of tricking his father, there is trickery involved here.

For some, this trickery raises moral quandaries.  In my view, a more practical quandary is raised:

אמר ליה זרעה חיטי ואזל הוא וזרעה שערי ואשתדוף רובא דבאגא ואשתדוף נמי הנך שערי דיליה מאי מי אמרינן דאמר ליה אילו זרעתה חיטי הוה נמי משתדפא או דלמא מצי אמר ליה אילו זרעתה חיטי הוה מקיים בי ותגזר אומר ויקם לך מסתברא דאמר ליה אי זרעתה חיטי הוה מקיים בי ותגזר אומר ויקם לך

מס' ב"מ, דף קו.

The גמרא in בבא מציעא presents an interesting case where one man (ראובן) hires another man (שמעון) to plant his (ראובן's) field with wheat.  שמעון instead plants barley.  The barley crop, along with much of the crops in the fields neighboring ראובן's field, is destroyed in blight.  The גמרא inquires as to whether שמעון must pay ראובן for the lost crops or whether ראובן must absorb the loss.  On one hand, שמעון can argue that no matter what he planted that crops would have been destroyed in the blight, so he caused no loss to ראובן.  שמעון's argument is strongly supported by the fact that the neighboring crops were similarly destroyed.  On the other hand, ראובן can argue that he specifically prayed for his wheat crop to succeed, and that his prayers would have protected his crop from the blight, but because שמעון planted barley instead of wheat, ראובן's prayers were not properly focused on the crops (which were actually barley and not wheat) and were therefore ineffective at protecting those crops from the blight.

The גמרא concludes that שמעון is at fault for planting barley since the barley was not protected by ראובן's prayers and had he planted wheat, it is possible that ראובן's crops would have been saved from the blight.

The גמרא's conclusion is built off a simple premise.  A misdirected prayer is ineffective.  In other words, if ראובן davens for his crops to succeed, but thinks his crops are wheat when they are actually barley, ראובן's prayers are ineffective.

Let's apply this principle to the blessings יצחק gave to יעקב.  יצחק attempts to bless עשו.  However, יצחק is unaware that he is actually blessing יעקב.  Based on the reasoning of the גמרא in בבא מציעא, one would expect that יצחק's prayer should be ineffective.  How then did יעקב steal עשו's blessing?

In order to understand the nature of a "mistaken prayer," we must look to another application of this principle, which appears during a battle between the Jews and עמלק towards the end of their journey through the desert.

זה עמלק . . . ושנה את לשונו לדבר בל' כנען כדי שיהיו ישראל מתפללים להקב"ה לתת כנענים בידם והם אינם כנענים ראו ישראל לבושיהם כלבושי עמלקים ולשונם לשון כנען אמרו נתפלל סתם שנאמר אם נתון תתן את העם הזה בידי

רש"י במדבר כא:א ד"ה יושב הנגב

In that battle, the Jews encountered a nation that wore the clothing of עמלק but spoke the language of כנען.  As such, the Jews did not know how to identify this nation in their prayers.  Therefore, instead of asking that ‘ה help them to defeat "עמלק" or to defeat "כנען," the Jews asked ‘ה to deliver "that nation" into their hands.  The vagueness of the Jews' prayers helped cover for any possible foe, and as such, the Jews' prayers were effective and their battle against "that nation" was victorious.

Which this in mind, it is worth noting that the blessings recited by יצחק never refer to either יעקב or עשו by name.  Generally, in the Torah, when a blessing is given (e.g., יעקב to his sons, Moshe to the tribes), the recipient of the blessing is identified by name.  Here, however, יצחק carefully leaves the recipient of his blessings nameless and vague:

ראה ריח בני כריח שדה . . . ויתן לך האלקים מטל השמים ומשמני הארץ . . . הוה גביר לאחיך וישתחוו לך בני אמך

בראשית כז:כז‑כט

יעקב could never trick his father into blessing the wrong son.  But יצחק could willfully choose to bestow a vague blessing on the strange "son" standing in front of him:

הקל קול יעקב והידים ידי עשו

בראשית כז:כב

The "son" standing in front of him wore the clothing of עשו and spoke the language of יעקב.  No blessing could be directed at "עשו" or at "יעקב."  So יצחק did the only practical thing, he blessed "that" son.

Whichever son it was,

גם ברוך יהיה

בראשית כז:לג

Parashat Chayei Sarah

"יצחק וישמעאל "מכאן שעשה ישמעאל תשובה והוליך את יצחק לפניו והיא שיבה טובה שנאמר באברהם

רש"י בראשית כה:ט ד"ה יצחק וישמעאל

Before his death, ישמעאל did תשובה.  Does this mean that ישמעאל was a צדיק?  The גמרא in בבא בתרא explores:

ושעשה ישמעאל תשובה בימיו מנלן כי הא דרבינא ורב חמא בר בוזי הוו יתבי קמיה דרבא וקא מנמנם רבא א"ל רבינא לרב חמא בר בוזי ודאי דאמריתו כל מיתה שיש בה גויעה זו היא מיתתן של צדיקים א"ל אין והא דור המבול א"ל אנן גויעה ואסיפה קאמרינן והא ישמעאל דכתיב ביה גויעה ואסיפה אדהכי איתער בהו רבא אמר להו דרדקי הכי א"ר יוחנן ישמעאל עשה תשובה בחיי אביו שנאמר (בראשית כה, ט) ויקברו אותו יצחק וישמעאל בניו ודילמא דרך חכמתן קא חשיב להו אלא מעתה (בראשית לה, כט) ויקברו אותו עשו ויעקב בניו מאי טעמא לא חשיב להו דרך חכמתן אלא מדאקדמיה אדבורי אדבריה ומדאדבריה שמע מינה תשובה עבד בימיו.

מס' ב"מ, דף טז:

According to the גמרא's conclusion, that ישמעאל did תשובה is proof that he died a צדיק.  Therefore רבינא's assertion that any death described in the Torah as "expiring and gathering" is the death of a צדיק is validated.

The לבוש thinks differently:

ללמדים שעשה ישמעאל תשובה אתא לאשמועינן וגם זה לא משום שבחו של ישמעאל אתא לאשמועינן אלא להורות לנו שמת אברהם אפילו בשיכה טובה זו דבלאו הכי מאי צריך לאשמועינן שעשה ישמעאל תשובה מאי נפקא לן מינה בתשובתו כיון שלא היה צדיק.

לבוש האורה בראשית כה:ט ד"ה יצחק וישמעאל

The לבוש plainly states that ישמעאל was not a צדיק.  This itself contradicts the גמרא in Bava Basra.  The לבוש asserts that the fact that ישמעאל did תשובה does not prove that ישמעאל was a צדיק.  This assertion also outright contradicts the גמרא in Bava Basra.  Certainly the לבוש was aware of the גמרא.  After all, רש”י quotes this very גמרא only a few pesukim below:

לא נאמרה גויעה אלא בצדיקים

רש"י בראשית כה:יז ד"ה ויגוע

How can the לבוש state that ישמעאל was not a צדיק?

The לבוש's statement is very perplexing and requires further thought.  Instead of proposing a weak answer, I would rather propose no answer at all. 

Parashat vaYeira

וירא אליו יהוה באלני ממרא והוא ישב פתח האהל כחם היום

בראשית יח:א

Why did ‘ה appear to אברהם?  רש”י suggests:

 לבקר את החולה

רש"י בראשית יח:א ד"ה וירא אליו

The third day after אברהם’s מילה was as good a time as any for ‘ה to pay a ביקור חולים visit to אברהם.  But how does רש”י know that ‘ה appeared for this purpose?  Doesn’t ‘ה Himself explain the reason for His visit?

ויהוה אמר המכסה אני מאברהם אשר אני עשה יח ואברהם היו יהיה לגוי גדול ועצום ונברכו בו כל גויי הארץ יט כי ידעתיו למען אשר יצוה את בניו ואת ביתו אחריו ושמרו דרך יהוה לעשות צדקה ומשפט למען הביא יהוה על אברהם את אשר דבר עליו

בראשית יח:יז-יט

According to ‘ה, He appeared in order to inform אברהם about the impending destruction of סדום.  רש”י is clearly aware of ‘ה’s explaination.  Why then is רש”י compelled to provide a different explanation?

Several commentaries provide explanations as to רש”י’s seemingly unnecessary comment.  I would like to offer my own explanation.

The first pasuk contains a simple but glaring oddity.  The pasuk does not acknowledge אברהם by name.  Rather, ‘ה appears to “him,” as if we already know to whom ‘ה appeared.  Why is אברהם’s name missing?

Perhaps we can suggest that use of a general pronoun, instead of אברהם’s actual name, is an indication that ‘ה appeared to אברהם regardless of his stature and his name.  As ‘ה explains, He chose to inform אברהם about the destruction of סדום because אברהם was the father of all nations (as is indicated by his name).  Therefore, if ‘ה had appeared to אברהם in the first pasuk for the purpose of informing him about סדום, we would expect to find אברהם mentioned by name.

But when ‘ה pays a ביקור חולים visit, it doesn’t matter whether He is visiting an international figure or any other individual.  חסד does not discriminate between the two.  Therefore, the first pasuk does not mention אברהם by name.  Ultimately, it does not matter whether he is אברהם the Father of Nations or some other person.  He is a sick man in need of ‘ה’s visit.  And so ‘ה appears to “him,” regardless of his name.

Parashat Lech Lecha

The רמב”ם describes how אברהם אבינו discovered ‘ה and shared his discovery with the world:

לא היה לו מלמד ולא מודיע דבר אלא מושקע באור כשדים בין עובדי כוכבים הטפשים ואביו ואמו וכל העם עובדי כוכבים והוא עובד עמהם ולבו משוטט ומבין עד שהשיג דרך האמת . . . ובן ארבעים שנה הכיר אברהם את בוראו כיון שהכיר וידע התחיל להשיב תשובות על בני אור כשדים . . . ושיבר הצלמים והתחיל להודיע לעם שאין ראוי לעבוד אלא לאלוה העולם . . . בקש המלך להורגו ונעשה לו נס ויצא לחרן והתחיל לעמוד ולקרוא בקול גדול לכל העולם ולהודיעם שיש שם אלוה אחד לכל העולם . . . עד שיחזירהו לדרך האמת עד שנתקבצו אליו אלפים ורבבות.

רמב"ם, הלכות ע"ז א:ג

אברהם was sunken, with his father and brothers, in the idolatrous practices of אור כשדים.  At age 40, through his own intellect, אברהם came to recognize his Creator, and he began to tell others about his discovery.  That led to אברהם breaking his father’s idols, which in turn led to אברהם’s confrontation with Nimrod, which in turn led to אברהם’s journey to כנען, where he further spread the name of ‘ה and amassed followers by the thousands and myriads.

The ראב”ד takes issue with the רמב”ם’s description:

א"א ותמה אני שהרי היו שם שם ועבר איך לא היו מוחין. ואפשר כי מוחים היו ולא אירע להם שישברו את צלמיהם לפי שהיו מתחבאים מהם עד שבא אברהם ושבר צלמי אביו.

ראב"ד, הלכות ע"ז א:ג ד"ה והיה מהלך וקורא וכו'

The ראב”ד’s question is short and to the point.  He doesn’t understand why אברהם had to rebuke everyone for worshiping idols.  After all, שם and עבר were both still alive, and surely they knew of ‘ה.  Why couldn’t שם and עבר rebuke everyone?

The ראב”ד suggests that שם and עבר tried to issue rebuke, but did not succeed.  אברהם, on the other hand, smashed his father’s idols, and so אברהם takes all the credit.

The ראב”ד’s answer requires further clarification.  The ראב”ד does not explain why שם and עבר did not succeed at rebuking others.  The ראב”ד also does not explain how אברהם’s smashing his father’s idols helped him succeed at rebuke, especially considering that, by the רמב”ם’s account, smashing those idols led to אברהם’s being thrown into a furnace.  What significance does smashing a few idols bear in differentiating the rebuke of אברהם from that of שם and עבר?

The ראב”ד’s question is also confusing.  The ראב”ד appears to take issue with the notion that only אברהם, and not שם and עבר, was available to rebuke others for worshiping idols.  The ראב”ד’s question thus presumes that שם and עבר were aware of ‘ה’s presence.  Yet the ראב”ד does not appear to take issue with the רמב”ם’s notion that אברהם discovered ‘ה all on his own, without any assistance.  How is this possible?  If שם and עבר were aware of ‘ה’s presence, and if שם and עבר could make ‘ה’s presence known to others, then why couldn’t שם and עבר make ‘ה’s presence known to אברהם?  Certainly אברהם would not turn down their rebuke!  How then can the ראב”ד accept the notion that אברהם discovered ‘ה on his own?

Perhaps we can offer a further insight into the difference between אברהם’s discovery of ‘ה and שם and עבר’s awareness.  שם and עבר did not discover ‘ה on their own.  Rather, ‘ה made His presence known to them and to their father נח.  Their awareness of ‘ה was thus forced on them.  This is what is meant by verse, את האלהים התהלך נח, Noach walked with ‘ה.  Only with the guidance provided by ‘ה were Noach and his sons able to recognize their Creator.

אברהם, to the contrary, discovered ‘ה on his own.  אברהם deduced that ‘ה existed, and that the idols worshiped by his peers were false deities.  Only afterwards did ‘ה appear to אברהם.  This is what is meant by the verse, התהלך לפני והיה תמים, walk in front of Me.  אברהם was already spreading ‘ה’s name throughout the world before ‘ה ever appeared to him.

With this distinction in mind, we can suggest that אברהם’s awareness of ‘ה’s presence was considerably different from that of שם and עבר.  שם and עבר were aware of of ‘ה, a powerful deity that flooded the world.  But שם and עבר did not know, and could not prove, whether other deities also possessed power.  Therefore, שם and עבר could not prove whether anyone else worshiped a false deity, and thus could not break their idols.

But אברהם was not only aware of ‘ה’s presence, but also knew that there was no deity other than ‘ה.  ‘ה controlled the world.  ‘ה put the sun, moon and stars in their place.  ‘ה brought forth the sky and ground and all living things.  ‘ה was the only deity, and all other deities were mistakenly worshiped.  That was אברהם’s discovery, and that was what he shared with the world.  אברהם knew, and could prove by his intuition, that no other deity rivals ‘ה.  Therefore, אברהם could prove that his father’s idols were false deities, and אברהם could smash those idols.

The ראב”ד’s question and answer thus highlights a critical aspect of אברהם’s discovery of ‘ה.  אברהם’s discovery of ‘ה garnered attention only because אברהם could smash the idols worshiped by others.  And אברהם could smash those idols only because he discovered ‘ה on his own.  Therefore, אברהם is given all the credit for bringing the awareness of ‘ה’s presence back to the world, whereas שם and עבר are given no credit at all.