Parashath Hayyei Sara Genesis XXIII,1-XXV,18) 11/18/11

A.

Eli‘ezer, Avraham’s servant, brings Rivqa back to become Yitzhaq’s bride. Till now, of course, she had not yet met her future husband. As the two approach Avraham’s encampment, they spy the prospective groom: ויצחק בא מבוא באר לחי ראי והוא יושב בארץ הנגב: ויצא יצחק לשוח בשדה לפנות ערב וישא עיניו וירא והנה גמלים באים: (“And Yitzhaq came from coming [mi-bo’] [to] Bë’ér La-Hai Ro’i; and he [was] dwelling in the land of the Negev. And Yitzhaq went out to converse [la-suah] in the field toward evening; and he raised his eyes and saw, and behold, camels [were] coming”; XXIV, 52-53).

The first thing which strikes the eye is the apparently awkward wording of our first verse. The reader with a living sense of the Hebrew language would expect to read simply, Vë-Yitzhaq ba’ mi-Bë’ér La-Hai Ro’i; the word bo’ seems intrusive and unnecessary.

The Talmud sees in our second verse testimony that Yitzhaq was preparing to pray, deducing from the timing that it was he who originated the final service of the day, minha (עיי' ברכות כ"ו:). If so, why does the verse not state straightforwardly that he was coming out lë-hithpallél, the usual word for prayer, rather than “to converse” in the field?

And whilst we are asking, why do we need to know that he was “dwelling in the Negev”? How does that advance our narrative? And why do we need to know that “he raised his eyes,” when the simple statement that “he saw camels coming” would seem adequate?

B.

The Zohar is at pains to tell us repeatedly that Yitzhaq’s salient characteristic was gëvura, “might, power,” or din, “judgment” (עיי' למשל ח"א קל"ז., ח"ב קפ"ו., וח"ג י"ח. בין השאר) in so pure a state that, as Rashi notes in his famous comment on Genesis I, 1, the world would not long have endured in his presence. For this reason, he married late, after the ‘Aqeida (which took place when he was 37 years old). The purpose of the ‘Aqeida, we learn elsewhere, was לאכללא אשא במיש ומיא באשא, “to combine fire with water and water with fire”; זוה"ק ח"א קי"ט:, ניצוצי אורות שם, ועוד)), i.e., to temper din with hesed (“kindness”), the salient characteristic of his father, Avraham (cf. Micha VII, 20), from which the amalgam of rahamim would emerge (cf. Rashi cited supra). Only then could he safely reproduce, as the result would be Ya‘aqov, the ish emeth (Micha, ibid.), for emeth, “truth” is the embodiment of both din and hesed, and therefore rahamim.

This reshaping of the world through the amalgamation of Yitzhaq’s din and Avraham’s hesed finds allusion in next week’s parasha, where we read: וישב יצחק ויחפר את בארות המים אשר חפרו בימי אברהם אביו ויסתמום פלשתים אחר מות אברהם וקרא להן שמות כשמות אשר קרא להן אביו: (“And Yitzhaq redug the wells of water [bë’éroth ha-mayim] which had been dug in the days of his father Avraham, and the Pëlishtim had shut them up after the death of Avraham, and he called them by names like the names which his father had called them”; XXVI, 18).

C.

With this in mind, we can begin to answer our questions. Vë-Yitzhaq ba’ mi-bo’ is rendered by Onqëlos ויצחק אתא ממתוהי, roughly, “And Yitzhaq came from whence he had come.” Yitzhaq’s origin and whole pattern of life before the ‘Aqeida had been based upon gëvura, upon din, but the amalgamation of din and hesed which resulted from the ‘aqeida now brought him out of that position, such that he found himself retracing his father’s steps.

This is the meaning of his redigging wells of water (that is, hesed) which his father had dug previously, in order that he might access that hesed and apply it to his native gëvura. Hazal tell us that Avraham’s purpose in digging these wells was to spread hesed throughout the region, planting his followers beside them so that, as people would come to avail themselves of the water and hospitality, they could be reminded of the Source of all this goodness, and thank Him for His bounty (בראשות רבה פס"ד סי' ז').

The Pëlishtim had shut these operations down; now Yitzhaq, his din having been amalgamated with hesed to form rahamim, was reopening them. As always, metaphysical reformulations are effected by physical actions in this world: The sabbath and holidays are sanctified through blessings on wine, for instance, or a metaphysical blockage is cleared by removal of the foreskin through circumcision. Every mitzva ma‘asith, practical commandment carried out in this world has metaphysical ramifications.

So, Yitzhaq felt obligated to retrace his father’s steps and reopen his wells in order to consolidate and complete what was started at the ‘aqeida. The name mentioned in our passage, Bë’ér La-Hai Ro’i, means roughly “The well of the Living One [i.e., G-d] Ro’i.” This last word is derived from the most common root meaning “to see,” réysh-alef-hé. Hazal tell us: ראי' עלי' אתמר "ואתה תחזה מכל העם אנשי חיל יראי אלקים אנשי אמת". וכמה נטורי תרעין תמן דאתקריאו עיני ד' ועלייהו אתמר "פקח עיניך וראה את שוממותינו" (“Concerning rë’iya, "sight”] it is said, ‘And you shall discern from all the people men of valour, G-d-fearing, men of truth’ [Exodus XVIII, 20]. And there are several guardians of gates who are called Ha-Shem’s eyes, concerning whom it is said, ‘Open Your eyes and see our desolations’ [Daniel IX, 18]; תקו"ז קכ"ב. בגירסת הגר"א וע"ע זוה"ק ח"ג רנ"ו: ברעיא מהימנא).

The verse from Exodus cited above forms part of Yithro’s advice to Moshe about the appointment of judges in Israel, and it may be deduced from both this and the quotation from Daniel that rë’iya involves knowledge, discernment, and judgment. The reference to “guardians of gates” concerns the מ"ט שערי בינה, “49 gates of bina” (“understanding, discernment”) which were destined to be given to Moshe, essential equipment for the acquisition and dissemination of Torah (ראש השנה כ"א:, נדרים ל"ח. וזוה"ק ח"ב קט"ו. וח"ג רט"ז.), which also find allusion in the gimatriya of our intrusive word mi-bo’, 49.

With this in mind, we note that the Zohar asserts numerous times that din is rooted in bina (עיי' למשל ח"א קנ"א., ח"ב ס"ד., ח"ג י: ועוד), which suggests that this specific well, dedicated to the Living G-d Who is the Source of knowledge, discernment, and judgment, represents the epitome of Yitzhaq’s reëxcavation of his father’s wells with the proper intent to amalgamate din and hesed.

Yitzhaq’s “dwelling in the land of the Negev” is also an allusion to this supremely important effort. We find concerning the verse: ויסע אברם הלוך ונסוע הנגבה (“And Avram traveled about toward the Negev”; Genesis XII, 9 that דא דרום הוא חולקי' דאברהם "הלוך ונסוע" דרגא בתר דרגא עד דסליק לדרום ותמן אתקשר כדקא יאות (“this is the south, Avraham’s portion; ‘traveling about’, level after level, until he reached the south and there was fittingly connected”; זוה"ק ח"א פ.), i.e., Avraham steadily rose in his application of the quality of hesed, level on level, until he had thoroughly mastered the trait. Hence Yitzhaq’s dwelling in the spiritual place which his father had pioneered is a testimony to the completion of his mission to effect the and consolidate the amalgamation of his native din with hesed which his father had initiated at the ‘aqeida.

D.

ויצא יצחק ךשוח בשדה לפנות ערב', begins our second verse, tëfilla being compared to siha, “conversation, dialogue”, as we have said.

There are two words translatable “field” in the Holy Language, sade and heqel. Rashi defines the difference between them by commenting on the description of ‘Ésav in Genesis XXV, 27 as an ish sade, that it is כמשמעו איש בטל וצודה בקשתו חיות ועופות (“as it sounds, an idle man hunting animals and birds with his bow”), i.e. a wild and uncultivated place. By following in his father’s pioneering footsteps, and effecting the world-changing amalgamation of din and hesed to produce rahamim, which reflects the true nature of the world inhabited and informed by humanity, and thus preparing the world for the advent of Ya‘aqov, the ish ha-emeth (“man of truth”), Yitzhaq was himself a pioneer, engaging with his tëfilloth the wild and unsettled nature of the world; in this light, we can read li-fnoth ‘erev as lë-fannoth ‘erev, “to dispel the night” and darkness there, ultimately to replace it with the light of Torah, as Ya‘aqov would become Yisra’él, and bring into existence the bënei Yisra’él who would receive the Torah.

Va-yissa’ ‘éynav, “and he raised his eyes.” We have already seen that Hazal assert that the “guardians of the gates” of bina are the ‘éynei Ha-Shem. The gimatriya of ‘éynav is fittingly 146, the same as that of hochma u-vina, “wisdom and discernment.” By preparing the necessary foundation on which the Torah-nation was laid, Yitzhaq was raising up the cause of wisdom and discernment in the world, va-yar’; and he himself saw, he brought rë’iya closer to fruition in this world.

This was what Rivqa the prophetess saw, as she approached Avraham’s encampment and beheld her future husband, whose work she would do so much to advance, by raising and nurturing a Ya‘aqov.

Parshath Hayyei Sara (Genesis XXIII,1-XXV,18) 10/29/10

A.

Immediately following the account of Sara’s death and burial in the cave of Machpéla, and before Avraham sends his servant Eli‘ezer to Haran in search of a wife for Yitzhaq, we read: ואברהם זקן בא בימים וד' ברך את אברהם בכל (“And Avraham was elderly, coming into days [zaqén ba’ ba-yamim], and Ha-Shem blessed Avraham with everything”; XXIV, 1). At the prodigious age of 137, the judgment seems justified.

Earlier, before Yitzhaq’s birth, we read: ואברהם ושרה זקנים באים בימים וגו' (“And Avraham and Sara were zëqénim ba’im ba-yamim....”; XVIII, 11), when he was ninety-nine years old and she eighty-nine. The parallelism of the language is very striking; why does the Torah repeat the words here, 38years later? What is the Torah telling us?

B.

Turn back for a moment to the account of the ‘aqédath Yitzhaq, in last week’s parasha. The Torah introduces the episode by telling us: והאלקים נסה את אברהם וגו' (“...and the Eloqim tested [nissa] Avraham....”; XXII, 1). The holy Zohar remarks: מאי "נסה"? הרמת נס, כמה דאת אמר "הרימו נס", "שאו נס", ארים דגלא דילי' בכל עלמא וכו' אוף הכי קב"ה בגין לארמא דגלא דצדיקיא איהו בחין לון לארמא רישייהו בכל עלמא (“What is nissa? The raising of a banner [nés], as you say, ‘Raise a nés’ [Isaiah LXII, 10], ‘Lift up a nés’ [Jeremiah IV, 6], He raised up the flag of Avraham in the whole world... So the Holy One, Blessed is He, in order to raise the flag of the tzaddiqim, tests them, to raise their profile in the whole world”; ח"א ק"מ.). Hazal here interpret the meaning of nissa, whose root is nun-samech-hé, in terms of the primal root nun-vav-samech, one of whose derivatives is the word nés, signifying “standard, banner”, and also the most commonly used term for “miracle.”

Avraham’s achievement of exalted status in the world through the ‘aqéda also finds allusion in our parasha, where Rashi comments, concerning ‘Efron ha-Hitti, the Canaanite from whom Avraham bought the Cave of Machpéla: אותו היום מנוהו שוטר עליהם מפני חשיבותו של אברהם שהי' צריך לו עלה לגדולה (“That very day [the Hittim] named him an executive over them; because of the importance of Avraham, who needed him, he ascended in greatness”), and also, commenting on XXIII, 17: "ויקם שדה עפרון" תקומה היתה שיצא מיד הדיוט ליד מלך (“‘And ‘Efron’s field rose’ – there was a rise [in status] since it had left the possession of a commoner for that of a king”).

To understand the nature of this elevation in stature, first recall that Yitzhaq was to be what the Torah calls an ‘ola (“ascending”), or an ishe (from ésh, fire) offering, because it is entirely burnt up on top of the altar. One of the sacrifices which takes this form is the tamid, offered twice daily, in the morning and toward evening, which G-d calls: קרבני לחמי לאשי ריח נחחי להקריב לי במועדו (“My sacrifice, My bread for My ishim, My savory aroma, to bring close to Me at its appointed time [bë-mo‘ado]”; Numbers XXVIII, 2), prompting the Zohar to ask: מאן "מועדו" בזמן דאתער אברהם למעבד רעותי' כדכתיב "וישכם אברהם בבקר" ובזמנא דאתעקד יצחק על גבי מדבחא דההיא שעתא בין הערבים הוה ואמר רבי ייסא אי הכי הא דכתיב "במועדו" "במועדים" מבעי לי' אמר לי' ההיא שעתא אתכליל אשא במיא ומיא באשא ובגין כך כתיב "במועדו" (“What is mo‘ado? At the time that Avraham was awakened to do His will, as it is written, ‘And Avraham got up early in the morning’ [XXII, 30], and at the time that Yitzhaq was bound atop the altar, for that moment was twilight [i.e., morning and evening]. And Rabbi Yisa said, 'If so, what is written, "bë-mo‘ado", should be "at the appointed times" [ba-mo‘adim].' He was answered, '[At] that moment, fire was subsumed in water and water in fire, and for this reason it is written, "bë-mo‘ado" [i.e., the moment of the ‘aqéda was a supremely important event, worthy of singular mention]”; ח"א קס"ד:).

Another aspect of the ‘aqéda is addressed elsewhere in the Zohar: "והאלקים נסה את אברהם" את יצחק מבעי לי' דהא יצחק בר תלתין ושבע שנין הוה והא אבוי לאו בר עונשא דילי' הוה כו' אלא "את אברהם" ודאי דבעי לאתכללא בדינא כו' והשתא אתכליל מיא באשא ואברהם לא הוה שלים עד השתא וגו' (“And the Eloqim tested Avraham’ [XXII, 1]; it should be Yitzhaq, for Yitzhaq was 37 years old, and his father was not liable for his punishment... But it should certainly be Avraham, for it was necessary to be subsumed in din [judgment].... and now water was subsumed in fire; and Avraham had not been perfected until now...;” שם קי"ט:).

And a third time: "ויתן אברהם את כל אשר לו ליצחק" רזא דמהימנותא עלאה לאתדבקא יצחק בדרגא דחולקי' כדקא יאות. ת"ח הכא דאתכליל מיא באשא וגו' (“‘And Avraham gave all he had to Yitzhaq’ [XXV, 8], the secret of exalted faith [mëhemnutha ‘ila’a], that Yitzhaq adhere to the level proper to his portion. Come, see, it was here that water was subsumed in fire....”; שם קל"ג:).

What is this subsumption of water in fire and fire in water on which the Zohar is so insistent in connection with Avraham and Yitzhaq?

C.

In last week’s parasha, we noted an insight of Rabbi Yoséf Dov ha-Lévi Soloveitchik זצ"ל, into the interplay between the divine names Eloqim, emblematic of din in the world, and the shém Ha-Shem, emblematic of divine hesed. With this in mind, consider what the Nitzotzei Oroth has to tell us about the second Zoharic passage: כי ברחמים יש דין ויש רחמים שהוא רחום בדין ולכן רחמים כולל חסד וגבורה כי ר"ח עולה יצחק ומים היינו חסד שאם יתנהג העולם בחסד אינם ראוים ואם בגבורה לבד יחרב העולם אלא שיהי' מסטרא דרחמי רחום בדין כנזכר (“For in rahamim there is din,and there is [being] merciful in din [rahum bë-din]; and therefore rahamim contains hesed and gëvura, [‘strength, power, valor’], for réysh-heth [the first two letters of rahamim, equal to 208] have the value of Yitzhaq, and mem-yud-mem [the last three letters, which spell mayim, ‘water’] is hesed [וע"ע זוה"ק ח"א רמ"ז.], since if the world be conducted [only] with hesed, [it would cease, for [its inhabitants] are not worthy, and if through gëvura alone, the world would be laid waste; rather it must be from the side of rahamim, rahum bë-din, as was mentioned”).

The quality which we know as rahamim, then, is a hybrid, consisting of din, or gëvura, (על כן שם אלקים גם בחינת גבורה, עיי' זוה"ק ח"ב פ"ג: וח"ג ה'. וי"א. וע"ע בראשית רבה פל"ג סי' ג' ) contained by or subsumed in hesed. This, I believe, is what Rashi meant by his famous comment on Genesis I, 1, cited last week, about the preëmption of din by rahamim: pure din must be tempered with hesed to yield rahamim. The process of translating the metaphysical reality set up at Creation (as Rashi informs us; וע"ע זוה"ק ח"א רנ"ו:-רנ"ז.) into the physical realm through human action, combining the fire of the ‘aqéda through which Yitzhaq became an ‘ola/ishe (if only in Avraham’s intent) with the “water” of hesed, was their mission.

D.

As we said, Avraham rediscovered the transcendent Creator’s existence in a world which had tried, under Nimrod, to replace transcendancy with anthropolatry, in which “man is the measure of all things” (as the Greek philosopher Protagoras later put it). Avraham’s nature was entirely hesed, as Hazal tell us concerning the beginning of last week’s parasha, when Avraham, in pain from his recent circumcision, insistently sat at the entrance to his tent to watch for guests (בבא מציעא פ"ו.), and as the prophet also attests, hesed lë-Avraham (Micha VII, 20), but the process by which his rediscovery took place, through logical deductions and dialectic based on his observations, are the stuff of din (עיי' עירובין נ"ג., מדרש הגדול פר' נח סי' י"א וכ"ח, תנא דבי אלי' זוטא סי' כ"ה ובראשית רבה סוף פל"ח).

Thus surrounded by and immersed in din (but unalloyed with it; by analogy, iron immersed in coal is dirty; iron alloyed with coal becomes steel), hesed was prevented from propagating itself in the world. Avraham was informed: ויאמר ד' אל אברם לך לך מארצך כו' ואעשך לגוי גדול (“And Ha-Shem said to Avram, 'Go for yourself from your land... And I shall make you a great nation'”; XII, 1-2), and Rashi elucidates: "לך לך" להנאתך ולטובתך ושם אעשך לגוי גדול וכאן אי אתה זוכה לבנים (“‘Go for yourself’, for your benefit and good, and there ‘I shall make you a great nation’, and here, you do not merit children”).

Avraham was then 75 years old; the birth of Yitzhaq lay 25 years in the future, after Avraham withstood additional trials. His and Sara’s spiritual maturation, their arrival at a stage such that they could embark on the next stage of the evolution of the goy gadol, the “great nation” which Avram had been promised, is heralded by the phrase zëqénim ba’im ba-yamim. A year later, Yitzhaq was born, the embodiment of gëvura, of din, as his son Ya‘aqov attested in his allusion to pahad Yitzhaq, “Yitzhaq’s fear/awe,” fear of the middath ha-din (XXXI, 42). But Yitzhaq could not be allowed to propagate himself, for the world would not long survive a heroic regime conducted strictly according to din; the emergence of pure din in Yitzhaq’s person was the necessary and inevitable result of frustrated, unalloyed hesed, as the Nitzotzei Oroth notes, because the denizens of this world are ultimately undeserving of such hesed. The recombination of din with hesed, yielding the compound hybrid called rahamim, is necessary for this world to be sustainable (וה"ק ח"א רנ"ו:-רנ"ז.). This was accomplished through the ‘aqéda; turning again to the Nitzotzei Oroth, we learn, כי כן הי' יצחק עקוד לפניו ונמצא האש כפוף ונכלל תחת ידי המים (“For so was Yitzhaq bound before [Avraham], and the fire is found to be subjugated and subsumed under the hands of the water”; זוה"ק ח"א קל"ג: אות ד').

Avraham’s achievement of this level of maturation is what is meant by zaqén, and readi-ness to enter the next stage, is, I believe, indicated by the phrase ba’ ba-yamim (just as it indicated the imminence of the intermediate stage, earlier) immediately before Eli‘ezer is sent to find Yitzhaq a suitable bride, at which point the next stage begins. The fruit of Yitzhaq’s union with Rivqa would be Ya‘aqov, the embodiment of rahamim (זוה"ק ח"א פ"ז:, רנ"ז.) who, on his maturation and the culmination of the process would produce the bënei Yisra’él, the ethnic basis of the ממלכת כהנים וגוי קדוש, the “kingdom of kohanim and holy nation” (Exodus XIX, 6), able to receive and administer the Torah, itself the amalgamation and subsumption of din in hesed, the fire of the ‘olath ha-‘aqéda with the soothing waters, and guarantee this world’s continued existence, the fulfillment or perfection of the patriarchal mission, the mëhemnutha ‘ila’a, the “all” with which Avraham was blessed and which he bequeathed to Yitzhaq.

For as the prophet Yirmëya warned, אם לא בריתי יומם ולילה חקות שמים וארץ לא שמתי (“If My covenant is not [observed] by day and by night, I do not set the laws of heaven and earth”; Jeremiah XXXIII, 28) and Hazal echo: התנה הקב"ה עם מעשה בראשית וא"ל אם ישראל מקבלים התורה אתם מתקיימים ואם לאו אני מחזיר אתכם לתהו ובהו (“The Holy One, Blessed is He, made a condition with Creation, and said, 'If Israel accept the Torah, you will continue to exist; and if not, I am returning you to chaos'”; שבת פ"ח. וזוה"ק ח"ג קצ"ג. רח"צ:).

Chayyei Sara (Genesis XXIII,1-XXV,18) 11/21/08

A.

Our parasha relates that Avraham sent his faithful servant, Eli‘ezer, back to Charan to find a suitable wife for his son, Yitzchaq. The Torah records that Eli‘ezer asked his master: אולי לא תאבה האשה ללכת אחרי אל הארץ הזאת ההשב אשיב את בנך אל הארץ אשר יצאת משם (“Perhaps the woman will not wish to go after me to this land; shall I bring your son back to the land whence you came?”; XXIV, 5).

Later on, as Eli‘ezer was sitting with Lavan in Charan and about to begin negotiating for Rivqa’s hand, he recapitulates, in part, his conversation with Avraham, and says that he had asked his master: אלי לא תלך האשה אחרי (“Perhaps the woman will not go after me”; ibid., 29). Rashi, evidently taking note of the fact that the word ulai (“perhaps”) is spelt malé with a vav in the earlier verse, and chasér, lacking the vav (so that it could be read élai, “to me”) remarks: בת היתה לו לאליעזר והי' מחזר למצוא עילה שיאמר לו אברהם לפנות אליו להשיאו בתו אמר לו אברהם בני ברוך ואתה ארור ואין ארור מתדבק בברוך (“Eli‘ezer had a daughter and was looking for a reason for Avraham to turn to him and marry [Yitzchaq] to his daughter; Avraham said to him, My son is blessed and you are cursed, and one who is cursed does not cling to one who is blessed”).

If the exchange recorded by Rashi in fact took place, surely it took place when Avraham and Eli‘ezer had their initial conversation. Why, then, does the Torah allude to it here, rather than there?

B.

That Eli‘ezer was “cursed” appears to be based upon the midrash, which records Rabbi Yossi ben Dosa’s opinion that כנען הוא אליעזר (“Kna‘an is Eli‘ezer”; בראשית רבה פ"ס סי' ח'). With this in mind, we recall that Noach said of his progeny: ארור כנען עבד עבדים יהי' לאחיו: ויאמר ברוך ד' אלקי שם ויהי כנען עבד למו (“Cursed is Kna‘an, a servant of servants will he be to his brothers. Blessed is Ha-Shem the G-d of Shem, and Kna‘an will be a servant to them”; IX, 25-6). Since Eli‘ezer was a Kna‘ani and Yitzchaq ben Avraham a descendant of Shem, Abrahsm’a remark can be understood.
But it is noteworthy that at the very neginning of his instructions to Eli‘ezer, Avraham said: ואשביעך בד' אלקי השמים ואלקי הארץ אשר לא תקח אשה לבני מבנות הכנעני וגו' (“And I shall have you swear by the G-d of the heavens and G-d of the earth that you will not take a wife for my son from the daughters of the Kna‘anim....”; v. 4), and Eli‘ezer related this, as well, to Lavan (v. 37). How, then, given Avraham’s explicit statement at the very beginning of their exchange and what we have learnt about Eli ‘ezer, could he have held out any hope whatever that his daughter might be deemed suitable by Avraham?

Our attention is drawn to the way in which Lavan greeted Eli‘ezer: בוא ברוך ד' (“Come, blessed one of Ha-Shem....”; 31). The Mizrachi quotes the midrash: וע"י ששרת אברהם הצדיק באמונה יצא מכלל ארוא לכלל ברוך (“by means of the fact that [Eli‘ezer] had served Avraham the tzaddiq faithfully, he had left the category of ‘cursed’ and come to the category of ‘blessed’”; בראשית רבה פ"ס סי' ט').

But if this so, it hardly seems to answer our question: Eli‘ezer only heard this from Lavan long after he had received his instructions from Avraham, and just before beginning the negotiations for Rivqa’s hand; when, then, could the exchange with Avraham have taken place?

C.

What follows is based on the comments of the Gur Aryeh (Maharal mi-Prag), the Maskil l’David, and the Be’er ha-Torah.

Whatever Eli‘ezer’s thoughts, hopes, or dreams might have been, he clearly had to have uttered the word "ulai" when he spoke to Avraham; the sentence would make no sense had he actually said élai in this context. Furthermore, he could hardly have misunderstood Avraham’s opening statement, and so would have known that, as a Kna‘ani, his daughter was ipso facto ineligible to marry Yitzchaq.

However, Avraham knew his servant, and knew what lay behind the apparently innocent question of whether or not the girl would be willing to go to the Holy Land. A good indication of the likely tensions that probably existed between them is Avraham’s cri di cœur to Ha-Shem before the birth of his son that his presumptive heir had been none other that Eli‘ezer (XV, 2-3). Thus, Avraham insisted that his servant, whom he knew also to be a tzaddiq, swear to him that he would faithfully execute his mission. Avraham knew that the oath would bind him, and override any temptations he might have.

But Eli‘ezer would not have been human had he not felt his hopes rise on hearing Lavan call him “blessed of Ha-Shem” (the midrash cited by the Mizrachi is evidence that this was not empty flattery, either). Even so, he proceeded to negotiate in good faith.

The Torah, however, strongly implies that Lavan’s friendly greeting was motivated by the jewelry which he saw that Eli‘ezer had given Rivqa (cf. Rashi on v. 29). This did not escape Eli‘ezer, either, and he now found himself in a quandary. Tzaddiq that he was, he honestly reported Avraham’s charge to him, but it is interesting to note which details he left out.
First, he reported that he had come to Charan because Avraham did not want a Kna‘ani daughter-in-law, but someone from his own family (vv. 37-38). Next, he reported his question concerning what to do if the girl would not follow him, but left out the detail concerning whether or not Yitzchaq might move to Charan. Let Lavan hope as he would.

At this point, however, he let slip his own ambitions: Lavan, he was saying, don’t drive too hard a bargain; don’t ask too high a price for this transaction. I, Eli‘ezer, might declare it uneconomical, and propose my own daughter.

And Lavan could clearly see, from Eli‘ezer’s bearing, deportment, and cultivated conver-sation, שאליעזר הי' ת"ח וצדיק גדול המושל בתורת רבו (‘that Eli‘ezer was a Torah scholar and great tzaddiq, with mastery over his master’s Torah”), to use the Maskil l’David’s words. He believed Eli ‘ezer’s implied threat possible, and came to an equitable agreement for Rivqa’s hand.

D.

We see in this further evidence of the greatness of Avraham our father, reflected in the intense loyalty and high quality of his adherents and servants, both those whom he and Sara had “made in Charan” (XII, 5), and those whom they attracted afterwards.

Parshath Chayyei Sara (Genesis XXIII,1-XXV,18) 11/1/07

A.

As our parasha opens, Avraham returns to Chevron from Mt. Moriya to find that his wife, Sara, has died at the age of 127 years. So, Avraham enters into negotiations with Efron, a member of the locally dominant Chitti tribe, for a burial place. After Avraham concludes the transaction, the Torah describes the field he has bought: ויקם שדה עפרון אשר במכפלה אשר לפני ממרא השדה והמערה אשר בו וכל העץ אשר בשדה אשר בכל גבלו סביב (“And Efron’s field which was in Machpela which was before Mamré consisted of the field and the cave which was in it and all the trees which were in the field, which were within all its border around;” XXIII, 17).

In the Talmud we find: המוכר את השדה מכר בו' ואת החרוב אשר אינו מורכב ואת בתולת השקמה, אבל לא מכר כו' את החרוב המורכב ןאת סדן השקמה (“One who sells a field has sold... ungrafted carob trees and virgin sycamores, but has not sold... grafted carob trees and sycamore trunks;” בבא בתרא ס"ח: במשנה). The Rashbam ad loc. explains that an ungrafted carob tree is still young and has not yet begun to bear fruit, whilst once it reaches maturity and begins to bear, it is grafted. Similarly, the mature sycamore tree produces numerous slender branches which have commercial uses and so are stripped from the tree, which then proceeds to bear more; hence, a “sycamore trunk” is a mature, branch-bearing tree.

In the course of its discussion of this concept, the gmara asks מנא הני מילי?, (“Whence [do we learn] these words?”) and finds the source in our verse.

The Rashbam explains that, by simply acquiring the field, Avraham had also acquired all the “trees.” The Hebrew words êtz and illan are a bit broader in meaning than the contemporary sense of the English word “tree,” and encompass any plant with a woody stem (remember that the blessing one makes when eating grapes is boré pri ha-êtz, “Who creates the fruit of the tree”). Accordingly, some “trees” are more important than others, כגון אילנות דקין שאין להם שם, והדבר שכוח מי נטעם, לפיכך צריך לעשות להם גבול סביב, אבל חרוב המורכב וסדן השקמה גדולים וחשובים כו' וידוע של מי הן ובקרקע מי הן נטועין ואין צריכין גבול, הלכך אינן בכלל השדה מסביב (“for example ‘thin trees’ which have no separate identity, and it is forgotten who planted them; therefore, it is necessary to make a boundary around them [to define whose property they are]. But a grafted carob and a sycamore trunk are mature and important...and it is known whose they are and on whose property they are planted, and have no need of a boundary; therefore they are not automatically ‘thrown in’ with the field;” רשב"ם, ס"ט:ד"ה מי שצריך גבול).

In other words, when Avraham bought Machpela, he did not buy such large, commercially important trees as fruit-bearing, grafted carob trees or branch-bearing sycamores; why not?

B.

Our question becomes even sharper when we remember that Avraham kept all of the Torah’s mitzvoth voluntarily, before they had been “officially” commanded to Israel at Sinai (יומא כ"ח:).
That said, we turn to Leviticus XIX, 23 and read: וכי תבאו אל הארץ ונטעתם כל עץ מאכל וגו' (“And when you come to the land you will plant every [sort of] food tree....”), which prompts the midrash to note that the care and preservation of fruit trees is an integral part of mitzvath yishuv ha-aretz, the mitzva to settle the Holy Land (עיי' תנחומא קדושים ח'). Indeed, the Talmud points out that it is forbidden to use the wood of fruit-bearing trees to fuel the altar fire in the Béyth ha-Miqdash because of yishuv ha-aretz (תמיד פ"ב מ"ג).

Armed with this information, we can see why Avraham. unconcerned with the commer-cial aspects of the transaction, might not have bothered about acquiring the sycamores, which are, after all, not fruit-bearing trees. The carob, however, is a fruit-tree, and, as we have established, the care and preservation of fruit-trees is part of yishuv ha-aretz.

Why, then, would Avraham not have purchased the carob trees to fulfill the mitzva?

C.

Elsewhere, the Talmud records a ruling concerning a pressing question dating from Israel’s conquest of the Holy Land: הנכרים העובדים את ההרים ואת הגבעות, הן מותרין ומה שעליהן אסורין כו' ר' יוסי הגלילי אומר "אלהיהם על ההרים" ולא ההרים אלהיהם, "אלהיהם על הגבעות" ולא הגבעות אלהיהם כו' אר"ע אני אובין ואדון לפניך, כל מקום שאתה מוצא הר גבוה וגבעה נשאה ועץ רענן, דע שיש שם עבודה זרה (“The foreigners who worship the mountains and the hills, [the mountains and hills] are permitted, and what is on them is forbidden.... Rabbi Yossi ha-Galili says, ‘Their gods are on the mountains’, and the mountains are not their gods, ‘their gods are on the hills’, and the hills are not their gods [Deuteronomy XII, 2].... Said Rabbi Aqiva, I shall explain and discuss [this] before you: Every place where you find a high mountain or a prominent hill and a shade tree, know that there is a place of idolatry;” עבודה זרה מ"ה. במשנה).

The licentious Canaanite rites involved the use of ashéroth, trees devoted to idolatrous purposes. An ashéra is not a specific species of tree, but any tree dedicated to idolatrous service.
Now, Rashi notes in a comment on Genesis XXXVII, 14 what any modern-day traveler in Eretz Yisra’él can confirm, namely that the central and oldest part of Chevron, the part which incorporates the cave of Machpela, is situated on a prominent hill. It would thus appear that Avraham had reason to suspect the non-commercial uses to which Efron’s trees might have been put. Standard-bearer of pure monotheism that he was, Avraham wanted no part of them.
A bit later in the same masechta, the interesting argument is made that Eretz Yisra’él and everything in it, to include the ashéroth, is ירושה היא להם מאבותיהם, ואין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו (“an inheritance of [Israel] from their forefathers, and nobody can forbid something which is not his;” שם, נ"ג:). In short (as Rashi ad loc. clarifies), ever since G-d told Avraham כי לך אתננה (“for to you shall I give [the land];” Genesis XIII, 17), the land and everything in it had technically belonged to Avraham, and through him to his heirs, the bnei Yisra’él. How, then, were the Canaanite squatters able to do anything to render the trees on the hilltops forbidden because of ifdolatry? The trees were not theirs!

Alas, continues the gmara, מדפלח ישראל לעגל גלו אדעתייהו דניחא להו בעבודת כוכבים וכי אתו עובדי כוכבים שליחותייהו עבדי (“ever since Israel had worshipped the [golden] calf, they had revealed that they were comfortable in their minds with idolatry, snd when idolators came [to worship], they were acting on [Israel’s] behalf”).

It would therefore seem from the above passage that any idolatrous installations made in the Holy Land from the time of the Golden Calf onward were made, as it were, with Israel’s tacit approval, since they had made it uncomfortably clear that such installations might not be repellent to them. If Rashi’s point is valid, though, any such installations made from Avraham’s arrival in the Holy Land up to that point should have been invalid, null and void, since idolatry was most emphatically not all right with Avraham.

Avraham had been seventy-five years old on his arrival in Canaan (ibid., XII, 4). Sara was ten years younger than her husband, and had just died at the age of 127. Hence, sixty-two years had elapsed since that pronouncement, during which any new idolatrous installation would have been nullified ab initio.

However, the Talmud informs us: חרוב זה משעת נטיעתו עד שנת גמר פירותיו שבעים שנה (“A carob tree, from the time it is planted until its [first] fruits are fully formed, [takes] seventy years”; בכורות ח., וע"ע תענית כ"ב.).

The carob trees which Avraham declined to purchase were those which had already been grafted, and hence were mature, fruit-bearing trees. This means that they had to have been planted at least seventy years before, and therefore pre-dated the Divine proclamation of Avraham’s ownership of the Holy Land. Hence, they would have been Efron’s property in every sense, and for that reason suspect ashéroth.

That, I believe, is why Avraham did not want them.

D.

If Avraham really held title to the Holy Land since shortly after his arrival there, why was it necessary for him to purchase Sara’s burial plot?

The simple answer, of course, would seem to be that the “title deed” was filed, as it were, in the Béyth Din shel Ma’âla, the Heavenly Sanhedrin, and nobody had informed the Canaanites (who at the time were in process of conquering the territory from the bnei Shém; cf. Rashi to Genesis XII, 6) that they were squatters, until Avraham’s descendants issued their “eviction notice” some 465 years later. The very name Kna’ân is derived from the verbal root כנ"ע, and can be understood to mean “subjugated.” For this reason alone, he would undoubtedly have wanted to secure Sara’s gravesite in such a way that the entire Chitti tribe would acknowledge his ownership.

However, the fact is that the field was already hallowed ground, in that the cave of Mach-pela was also the final resting place of the first man and first woman (ב"ר פנ"ח סי' ד'). It is not clear from our sources whether or not the Chittim, relative newcomers, were aware of this, but surely the prophet Avraham, concerning whom G-d had asked the rhetorical question: המכסה אני מאברהם אשר אני עשה (“Do I hide from Avraham what I do?” XVIII, 17), knew it.

This place, at least, should be free of the Canaanites’ loathsome rites, for their sake, as well as Sara’s. By purchasing the land (and paying an exorbitant price for it), Avraham was able to allow Efron to continue to enjoy the commercial value of the sycamores and carobs (since, after all, he had faithfully cared for them all those years), avoiding ownership of them himself because of their past history, whilst restricting any other, non-commercial uses of the land under the spreading canopies of those trees.

And that, I believe, was at least one of the reasons why he purchased the field.