Torah Tidbits 1349 - Parshat TO-L'DOT



WORD OF THE MONTH

The announced molad of Kislev was Wednesday morning around 7:00 o'clock. Kiddush L'vana is said, according to Minhag Yerushalayim, from 3 days after the molad. This month, that is Shabbat morning, so the first opportunity for KL is Motza'ei Shabbat. That's the eve of 3 Kislev. Some people mistakenly think that KL has to be after three days of the month. Not so! Three days after the molad - which Motza'ei Shabbat is. The strict 7-days-after-the-molad people have their first op on Wednesady evening, December 4th. Motza'ei Shabbat KL sayers have this Motza"Sh or next Motza"Sh, but in the winter months, it is not a good idea to wait that long, because of possible rainy or cloudy nights. KL is a special mitzva/bracha and should be on one's agenda of must-do items.

ParshaPix explanations
Top-left: Yaakov with lentil stew t Next: one of Yitzchak's workers on a break from digging wells t Or, perhaps, Eisav coming from the field exhausted t Seder plate - Rashi tells us that it was the first night of (the future) Pesach that Yaakov presented himself to Yitzchak for the bracha, explaining the two goats that Rivka prepared as the main dish and the Korban Pesach (which is why Yitzchak couldn't eat Eisav's food) t near Seder plate is a king on his father's back. The finger is pointing to the father, who would be AVI-MELECH t Rain cloud is part of the bracha that Yaakov received t The sword is part of the bracha to Eisav t The lion cub on the map of Israel GUR BAARETZ HAZOT - What G-d said to Yitzchak and what G-d says to every Jew - Live in this Land! t Tow truck: pun - Yitzchak lived in GERAR t Above truck is emblem of NAHAL, part of IDF. Combined with the truck it reads NACHAL GERAR, the place where Yitzchak settled after Avimelech kicked him out of Gerar t Teddy bear is holding the number 7 in one paw and an upraised hand in the other. Two meanings to the name Be'er Sheva. One is from the seven sheep that Avraham gave Avimelech as a token of the covenant between them, and the other is for the oath(s) that were taken in that agreement. SHEVA has both connotations t Towards the bottom is the Davka Judaica Graphic of Yaakov, the studious ISH TAM, dweller in the tent of Torah, and Eisav, the ISH SADEH, the man of the field, the hunter t two street signs represent Rechovot - the meaning of the word streets, not the town by that name. They represent the third well that Yitzchak dug t C is 100 in Roman numerals. With a gate inside the C, you get ME'AH SHE'ARIM. That Yitzchak established Me'ah She'arim is consistent with the fact that he is recorded as being the first Charedi, as in VAYECHERAD YITZCHAK CHARADA G'DOLA AD M'OD - he was very charedi t The emblem of Ben Gurion University stands for Be'er Sheva, the city in which it is located t Next to it is the emblem of the city of Rehovot - with microscope, book, and orange - is for the well of the same name t To its right is a photo of a Pygmy Marmoset, the smallest of all monkeys... represents the small KUF (monkey is KOF - KUF/KOF, close) in the word kATZTI, that Rivka said in expressing her disgust if Yaakov were to marry a local K'naanit t Upper-right is an artistic version of the Zodiac sign Gemini. Although it is the mazal of Sivan, it fits in with Toldot because of the twinship of Yaakov and Eisav t Below that is the lentil plant t And below that is a water drill, which stands for the attention paid in the sedra to Yitzchak's digging water wells that Avraham had dug t The increasing numbers in size and value stands for the Torah's statement that Yitzchak grew greatly t Goat - Goats are significant in more than one context. In Toldot, Rivka has Yaakov bring her two goats so she can prepare a sumptuous meal for Yitzchak. She also wraps goat skin around Yaakov's arms and on his neck. Later, Yosef's brothers slaughter a goat and dip his Kutonet Pasim in its blood to show Yaakov who would conclude that Yosef had been killed by a predator. Yehuda sends a goat to Tamar. Two identical goats are an important part of the Avoda on Yom Kippur in the Mikdash t And to the right of the goat is a well t There is a picture of a yoke. In Hebrew, OL = 70+6+30 = 106, the number of p'sukim in Toldot. So too the line, in Hebrew, KAV, 100+6 = 106. t Which brings us to 2 Unexplaineds, which are visual TTriddles

Weekly inspiration

It is a mitzvah to wholeheartedly taste the joy, the sweetness and the aura of holiness of the Land of Israel . - HaRav Avraham Yizchak HaKohen Kook zt”l (Eretz Chefetz 1:12)

TO-L'DOT
6th of the 54 sedras; 
6th of 12 in B'reishit
Written on 172.7 lines, ranks 36th
4 Parshiyot; 2 open, 2 closed
106 p'sukim, ranks 29 (9th in B'reishit)
Tied with Vayigash and Bo; shorter than each in words & letters and length
1432 words, ranks 34 (10th in B'reishit)
5426 letters, ranks 33 (10th in B'reishit)
Its p'sukim are below average in length
Mitzvot
None of the 613 mitzvot are in Toldot, however, as we mention often, there are Midot and values and other lessons to be learned. 
This is one of 17 mitzva-less sedras, 9 of which are in Sefer B'reishit, 3 in Sh'mot, none in Vayikra, 2 in Bamidbar, and 3 in D'varim.
Aliya-by-Aliya Sedra Summary
[P> X:Y (Z)] and [S> X:Y (Z)] indicate start of a parsha p'tucha or s'tuma. X:Y is Perek:Pasuk of the beginning of the parsha; (Z) is the number of p'sukim in the parsha.
Kohen - First Aliya - 21 p'sukim - 25:19-26:5
[P> 25:19 (16)] This is the history of Yitzchak b. Avraham; Avraham fathered Yitzchak.
 Rashi quotes the Gemara that tells that when Yitzchak was born, scoffers said that Avraham and Sara, who were old and childless for so long, had found a baby and claimed it as their own. Avraham invited the leaders of the nations, their wives and infants, and Sara miraculously was able to wet-nurse all the babies - not just her son Yitzchak. (The Gemara points to the plural "banim" in 21:7.) Then the scoffers accepted that Sara bore Yitzchak, but chided Avraham that Avimelech was the father (since Yitzchak's birth followed Sara's abduc- tion). A miracle occurred and baby Yitzchak was the very image of his father Avraham, until the scoffers pro- claimed, "Avraham sired Yitzchak".
A note on proper pronunciation. We go out of our way to write TO-L'DOT (in English) because of how common it is in the yeshiva world and among Anglos, to mispronounce the name of this week's sedra, twice. First, the word should be accented on the last syllable, not on the next-to-the-last syllable as is very common in certain circles. This mis-accenting is very common with people's names as well as the names of the sedras. Israelis and S'faradim don't have this problem. The Moshes they know, they call mo-SHEH. We (the aforementioned Anglos) say MO-sheh. And so on. Last week's sedra was cha-YEI sa-RA, not CHAyei SA-ra, as we would say.
Which syllable to accent aside, the other problem with the pronunciation of this week's sedra is the SH'VA under the LAMED. Most common mispro- nunciation is TOL-dot (or TOL-dos). That treats the SH'VA as a syllable-closing SH'VA NACH - which it is not. Rather, the first syllable is TO. The LAMED has a SH'VA NA under it and it attaches itself to the DOT syllable. So the two syllables are TO and L'DOT, which is why we often write it the way we do. sho-F'TIM is the other sedra so plagued. The wrong syllalbe accented goes for a majority of the sedras. BO and TZAV we get right. But not Mikeitz or B'shalach... and most of them.
It isn't the end of the world to day TOL-dot; it's just not correct.
Yitzchak is 40 years old when he marries Rivka (3 years after the Akeida). The Torah emphasizes Rivka's family background.
Safe to say that most of us learned from way back that Rivka was 3 years old when she married Yitzchak. This notion is based on the Torah's telling us of the birth of Rivka right after the portion of the Akeida. Yitzchak was 37 at the time of the Akeida and the death of Sara Imeinu. He married at 40, hence Rivka was 3 at the time.
However, Chizkuni (an early commen- tary of Torah and of Rashi) argues that if Rivka was only 3, there would be a discrepany in the chronology of the rest of her life. We have sources that indicate she was 133 at the time of her death. Working backwards with various events, we find that she was 14 when she married Yitzchak. The account of Nachor's family - including Rivka, does not necessarily mean that she was just born at the time of the Akeida. The Torah is just introducing us to Rivka in order to bring her into the picture, so to speak, as Yitzchak is about to take over the mantle of Partiarchhood from Avraham Avinu.
After 20 years of childlessness (10 until Rivka was of child-bearing age - based on the 3 year old opinion - plus an additional 10 years without a child), Yitzchak and Rivka pray to G-d. G-d hears their (actually his) prayer and Rivka becomes pregnant. She is having a "rough time" and goes to Shem b. No'ach (who outlived Avraham, by the way) who tells her G-d's message, that she will give birth to twins who will go in very different ways and become great adversarial nations.
 Commentaries say that Rivka was unaware that she was carrying twins; she thought the turmoil within her existed in a single baby - THIS had her very upset; she was somewhat calmed by the Divine message of her carrying twins. Another commentator suggests that Rivka knew she'd have twins but did not see the benefit of bringing a Yaakov into this world if it meant also having an Eisav. Part of the reply to her question "why do I need this?" is that her conclusion was wrong.
T'hilim 53:3 states that: God looked forth from heaven upon humans, to see if there were anyone of understanding, that did seek after God. B'reishit 25:22 tells us of someone who was wise enough to do just that - Rivka Imeinu...

:wv›,¤t Jr§sˆk Q†k¥T³u hˆf«b¨t v®Z v¨NŠk i‡F›o¦t r¤nt«T³u VŠC§r¦e‰C oh°bŠC©v Um…m«r§,°H³u

:oh¦vOw¡t›,¤t J¥r«S khˆF§G©n J¯h£v ,It§rˆk o¨s¨t h¯b‰C›k‹g ;h¦e§J¦v o°h©n¨­¦n oh¦vOw¡t
These two p'sukim are Gimatriya Twins (a.k.a. Gematriya Match) - 3561
Eisav and Yaakov are born, Yaakov clutching the heel of Eisav. The boys grow and develop different personalities - Eisav is the hunter and outdoorsman; Yaakov, the mild, studious "tent-dweller". Yitzchak loves Eisav; Rivka loves Yaakov.
SDT There are many different commentaries on these relationships. Note that Yitzchak's love is based on Eisav's providing food for him (or deceiving him - based on various drashot). Rivka's love is unconditional. Pirkei Avot says that only an uncondi- tional love will endure forever.
Yaakov is preparing a lentil stew for his father. (The Gemara tell us that this was the day that Avraham died; Yaakov was preparing a traditional mourner's meal for Yitzchak.)
Eisav returns from the field in a state of exhaustion. He asks Yaakov for some of the food. In exchange for the food, Yaakov acquires the birthright, which is insignificant in Eisav's eyes, but meaningful to Yaakov.
[P> 26:1 (33)] A famine hits the Land (like the one in Avraham's time - this is one of the many similarities between the lives of Avraham & Yitzchak) and Yitzchak goes to Avimelech in Gerar. G-d appears to Yitzchak and reminds him that he must not leave the Land. G-d also repeats his promises of the Land and of the large nation that will descend from him.
Levi - Second Aliya - 7 p'sukim - 26:6-12
Yitzchak dwells in Gerar.
Yitzchak and Rivka pose as brother and sister (as did Avraham and Sara, and for the same two reasons). After a while, Avimelech discovers that they are actually husband and wife and complains to Yitzchak about the deception. Avimelech orders his people to leave Yitzchak and Rivka alone. Yitzchak and family flourish in Gerar and G-d blesses them.
Shlishi - Third Aliya - 10 p'sukim - 26:13-22
Yitzchak thrives in Gerar, which creates jealousy among the locals who fill in the wells that Yitzchak has dug. 
(There is great symbolism in the Torah's account of the wells, their names, their failures, and then their successes.) Yitzchak is driven away from Gerar. A new well that Yitzchak digs (Eisek) is taken over by the shepherds of Gerar, as is yet another well (Sitna). Only the third well (Rehovot) permits Yitzchak to live in relative peace.
Some see this as a hidden reference to the 1st and 2nd Beit HaMikdash, which fell, and the 3rd which will stand forever. May we see it soon in our time.
R'vi'i - Fourth Aliya - 7 p'sukim - 26:23-29
Yitzchak sets himself up in Be'er Sheva. G-d appears to him and reiterates the promises for prosperity made to Avraham. Yitzchak builds an altar to G-d and continues to prosper. Avimelech, realizing that his own prosperity was due to the presence of Yitzchak, comes with a delegation to Yitzchak in order to enter into a covenant with him.
Not a rare experience through the generations - Jews expelled from a country, which subsequently regrets its actions because of the decline they experienced without them. And we, somehow, kept going back.
Chamishi 5th Aliya - 33 p'sukim - 26:30-27:27
Yitzchak and Avimelech partake of a meal and exchange oaths. Be'er Sheva is reaffirmed as "the city of the Avot" by Yitzchak's actions. Another example of the similarity between Yitzchak's life and Avraham's.
[S> 26:34 (2)] Eisav marries at 40 years of age - a (sub)conscious attempt to emulate his father. However wicked Eisav is, he is genuinely respectful and loving of his father. On the other hand, Eisav's choice of a wife disgusts both Yitzchak and Rivka.
[S> 27:1 (55)] Yitzchak is old and blind and calls Eisav to prepare for him a special meal and then receive a special blessing. While Eisav is in the fields doing his father's bidding, Rivka prepares Yaakov to receive the blessing instead of Eisav. She tells Yaakov to bring her two goats and she will prepare the dishes that Yitzchak loves. Yaakov hesitates for fear that Yitzchak will feel his smooth skin and realize that Yaakov has come to deceive him. Rivka dresses Yaakov in Eisav's garments and places a goat-skin on his neck to give it a rough feel. She gives Yaakov the food to bring to his father.
It seems obvious that Yaakov was punished measure for measure for his deception of Yitzchak. The Brothers not only deceived Yaakov concerning the fate of Yosef, but they used a goat and a garment (exactly the two items that Yaakov used to deceive his father) to bring about their deception. If we accept the idea that Yaakov was supposed to get the bracha that Yitzchak thought he was going to give to Eisav, that it was G-d's will, and even G-d's command, according to Onkeles, to Rivka to “set it up”, then why was Yaakov punished so severely? 
An answer might be suggested in the form of an analogy. When one has to take drastic, life-saving treatments - "serious" medication, radiation, etc., what is done might be absolutely necessary, but there are often harsh side-effects.
SDT When the Torah tells us that Yaakov gave his father wine to drink, the TROP note under the word LO (to him) is a MEIRCHA CH'FULA, double meircha. This rare note, suggests the Meshech Chochma, reminds us of the proper way to drink a cup of wine - not gulping it down in one shot, but rather finishing it in two "installments".
Shishi - Sixth Aliya - 23 p'sukim - 27:28-28:4
The blessing invoked by Yitzchak upon Yaakov, for bountiful produce and respected status among nations, has been borrowed by us to be recited on Motza'ei Shabbat -
V'YITEN L'CHA HA-ELOKIM... 'May G-d grant you the dew of heaven and the fat of the earth, much grain and wine. Nations will serve you; governments will bow down to you. You shall be like a lord over your brother; your mother's children will prostrate themselves to you. Those who curse you are cursed, and those who bless you are blessed.'
As Yitzchak finishes blessing Yaakov, Eisav returns from the hunt. He prepares food for his father and presents it with a request (demand) of the blessing. Yitzchak trembles greatly when he realizes that the bracha went to Yaakov. When Yitzchak explains to Eisav that Yaakov received (rightly so) the blessing, Eisav bitterly cries out and asks his father for a blessing too. Yitzchak gives Eisav a blessing (not as exalted as Yaakov's). Eisav plans to kill Yaakov for this, the second time he has taken something away from him. Rivka hears (how? Ru’ach HaKodesh, perhaps.) of Eisav's plans and encourages Yaakov to flee to Rivka's hometown until Eisav's wrath subsides. Rivka suggests to Yitzchak that he send Yaakov away to find a proper wife.
Note that Rivka did NOT tell Yitzchak that Eisav wanted to kill Yaakov. Perhaps she felt that it would pain him too much to learn of Eisav's true character. Perhaps, Yitzchak would have refused to believe that his Eisav would contemplate such a thing. Instead, Rivka expresses another (legiti- mate) concern as her reason for wanting Yitzchak to send Yaakov away. 
Yitzchak calls for Yaakov and blesses him again and sends him off to Padan Aram to find a wife from Rivka's family. He gives Yaakov "the blessing of Avraham", thus providing for the continuity of what becomes The Jewish People.
Sh'VII Seventh Aliya - 5 p'sukim - 28:5-9
Yitzchak sends Yaakov off to Padan Aram to Lavan b. B'tu'el, the brother of Rivka who is the mother of Yaakov and Eisav. (Unusual ID.) Eisav sees that their father has sent Yaakov to find a wife, because he does not want him to take a Canaanite wife. Yaakov goes on his way and Eisav takes as another wife, the daughter of Yishmael, Machalat b. Yishmael... 
Talmud Yerushalmi exclaims that this is Bas'mat, and asks why her name was changed. The astonishing answer is that all Eisav's sins were forgiven when he took a wife intended to please his parents. The Talmud generalizes and gives this as the source that the sins of a CHATAN (and KALLA) are forgiven when they marry. Strange source for a significant concept.
Haftara 21 p'sukim Mal-achi 1:1-2:7
There is speculation as to whether Mal'achi is the name of an individual, or a description of "My messenger". Some say that Mal'achi was Ezra. Mal'achi is known as the last of the prophets. Mal'achi brings G-d's message to the people that He loves Yaakov (and his descendants), and hates Eisav, even though Yaakov and Eisav are brothers. Thus, the Haftara echoes the rivalry and relationship between the two brothers that is the substance of the sedra Toldot. The haftara refers to the respect a son has for his father. In this regard, Eisav was exemplary.
Mal'achi criticizes the kohanim of the time for not being careful in the offering of korbanot. We can see this as a preparation for the building of the new Beit HaMikdash in the hopes that it will function properly and be a true honor to G-d.


Probing the Prophets - Rabbi Nachman (Neil) Winkler

The precise identity of the last prophet in Trei Asar, the navi Malachi, is shrouded in mystery, with the G’mara in Megilla (15a) quoting various opinions, including those identifying him as Ezra or as Mordechai. Most scholars, however, agree with the majority opinion of the Rabbis that Malachi was a separate and distinct individual who prophesied during the period of Bayit Sheni. And, although the exact time of his activities is also in question, most contend that Malachi was the last of the biblical nevi’im, so that his prophecies remain the last words of G-d delivered to the nation of Israel. As such, it is interesting to analyze this week’s haftarah, the first perek in Sefer Malachi, and find messages directed to the navi’s contemporaries but also meaningful for the future exiled generations who would, after all, lack the prophetic connection to Hashem that the people had throughout biblical times.

Much of the haftarah focuses upon the Kohanim, the “priests” who attended Hashem in Bayit Sheni. The Second Temple had already been built and was fully functioning, once again making Yerushalayim the center of worship for the Jewish nation. The Beit HaMikdash that Hashem had described as the place He chose “l’shaken sh’mo sham,” as the dwelling place of His “NAME”, was serving all of Israel once more.  Likewise, the kohanim, had returned to their rightful post as servants of Hashem in the Bet HaMikdash. But rather than sanctify the “name” of G-d that dwelled there, the kohanim are accused of being “bozei sh’mi” those who scorned and defamed His holy name. 

But what has this to do with our parasha?  The navi Malachi begins his words by stating that Hashem had chosen Ya’akov over Eisav, much as Yitzchak chose to confer the bracha of Avraham (birkat Avraham) on Ya’akov and not on his eldest, Eisav. Hashem’s choice of Ya’akov, the navi states, was based upon the fact that he hated Eisav (“v’et Eisav saneiti”) and as a result, the land of Edom was doomed to destruction. However, Malachi emphasized that Hashem’s anger at Edom would not automatically provide Israel with redemption. It is essential that the Jews earn G-d’s favor by properly worshipping Him as He commanded them to. The corruption of the sacrificial rite that ran rampant at the time is the focus of the prophet’s harsh words against the Kohanim for their encouragement of the belief that perfunctory ritual in the Beit HaMikdash is all that was necessary. Their practice of offering sickly animals as sacrifices while saving the healthy ones for themselves was abhorrent to   G-d.
Malachi paints the picture of what the Kohanim should be: they must be more than ritual functionaries; they must be teachers and arbiters and they must be the ones to spread the knowledge of Torah and, through that understanding, the knowledge of Hashem. The prophet’s message closes with the reminder that the tribe of Levi had a special covenant with G-d and, over the generations, they turned people away from sin. It is THIS that Hashem demands of the Kohanim. And it is this that Hashem demands of Israel.

Israel must earn the favor of G-d and not take for granted that, due to His anger at Eisav, He will embrace Israel. This last prophet of Israel prepares the nation for the long galut that would follow by reminding them that it will not be the sacrificial rite that will preserve them in the Diaspora, but the Torah taught by the Kohanim who, when doing their job, fulfill their responsibility as agents of Hashem. 

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks

Yitzchak and Eisav

It’s a haunting question. Why did Yitzchak love Eisav? The verse says so explicitly: “Yitzchak, who had a taste for wild game, loved Eisav, but Rivka loved Yaakov” (B'reishit 25:28). Whichever way we read this verse, it is perplexing. If we read it literally, it suggests that Yitzchak’s affections were governed by no more than a taste in a particular kind of food. Surely that is not the way love is earned or given in the Torah.
Rashi, citing a Midrash, suggests that the phrase translated as, “who had a taste for wild game,” and referring to Yitzchak, in fact refers to Eisav, and should be read “there was hunting in his mouth,” meaning that he used to entrap and deceive his father by his words. Eisav deceived Yitzchak into thinking that he was more pious and spiritual than in fact he was.
Bolstering this interpretation, some suggest that Yitzchak, having grown up in the household of Avraham and Sarah, had never encountered deception before, and was thus, in his innocence, misled by his son. Rivka, who had grown up in the company of Laban, recognised it very well, which is why she favoured Yaakov, and why she was later so opposed to Yitzchak’s blessing going to Eisav.
Yet the text suggests undeniably that there was a genuine bond of love between Eisav and Yitzchak. The Zohar says that no one in the world honoured his father as Eisav honoured Yitzchak. Likewise, Yitzchak’s love for Eisav is evident in his desire to bless him. Note that Avraham did not bless Yitzchak. Only on his deathbed, did Yaakov bless his children. Moses blessed the Israelites on the last day of his life. When Yitzchak sought to bless Eisav, he was old and blind, but not yet on his deathbed: “I am now an old man and don’t know the day of my death” (B'reishit 27:2). This was an act of love.
Yitzchak, who loved Eisav, was not deceived as to the nature of his elder son. He knew what he was and what he wasn’t. He knew he was a man of the field, a hunter, mercurial in temperament, a man who could easily give way to violence, quickly aroused to anger, but equally quickly, capable of being distracted and forgetting. 
He also knew that Eisav was not the child to continue the covenant. That is manifest in the difference between the blessing Yitzchak gave Yaakov in Genesis 27 (believing him to be Eisav), and the blessing in Genesis 28 that he gave Yaakov, knowing him to be Yaakov.
The first blessing, intended for Eisav, is about wealth – “May God give you of the dew of heaven and the fat of the earth” – and power, “Let peoples serve you, and nations bow to you.” The second blessing, intended for Yaakov as he was leaving home, is about children – “May God Almighty bless you and make you fruitful and increase your numbers until you become a community of peoples” – and a land – “May He give you and your descendants the blessing given to Avraham, so that you may take possession of … the land God gave to Avraham.” The patriarchal blessings are not about wealth and power; they are about children and the land. So Yitzchak knew all along that the covenant would be continued by Yaakov; he was not deceived by Eisav. Why then did he love him, encourage him, wish to bless him?
The answer, I believe, lies in three extraordinary silences. The most pointed is the question, What happened to Yitzchak after the binding? Look at the text in Genesis 22 and you will see that as soon as the angel has stopped Avraham from sacrificing his son, Yitzchak drops out of the picture completely. The text tells us that Avraham returned to the two servants who accompanied them on the way, but there is no mention of Yitzchak. 
This is a glaring mystery, tantalising the commentators. Some go so far as to say that Yitzchak actually died at the binding and was brought back to life. Ibn Ezra quotes this interpretation and dismisses it.  Shalom Spiegel’s The Last Trial is a book-length treatment of this idea.  Where was Yitzchak after the trial?
The second silence is the death of Sarah. We read that Avraham came to mourn for Sarah and weep for her. But the primary mourner is the child. It should have been Yitzchak leading the mourning. But he is not mentioned in the entire chapter 23 that relates to Sarah’s death and its consequences.
The third is in the narrative in which Avraham instructed his servant to find a wife for his son. There is no record in the text that Avraham consulted with Yitzchak his son, or even informed him. Avraham knew that a wife was being sought for Yitzchak; Avraham’s servant knew; but we have no idea as to whether Yitzchak knew, and whether he had any thoughts on the subject. Did he want to get married? Did he have any particular preference as to what his wife should be like? The text is silent. Only when the servant returns with his wife-to-be, Rivka, does Yitzchak enter the narrative at all.
The text itself is significant: “Yitzchak had come from Beer Lahai Roi.” What was this place? We have encountered it only once before. It is where the angel appeared to Hagar when, pregnant, she fled from Sarah who was treating her harshly (B'reishit 16:14). An ingenious Midrash says that when Yitzchak heard that Avraham had sent his servant to find a wife for him, he said to himself, “Can I live with a wife while my father lives alone? I will go and return Hagar to him.” A later text tells us that “After Avraham’s death, God blessed his son Yitzchak, who then lived near Beer Lahai Roi” (B'reishit 25:11). On this, the Midrash says that even after his father’s death, Yitzchak lived near Hagar and treated her with respect.
What does all this mean? We can only speculate. But if the silences mean something, they suggest that even an arrested sacrifice still has a victim. Yitzchak may not have died physically, but the text seems to make him disappear, literally, through three scenes in which his presence was central. He should have been there to greet and be greeted by the two servants on his safe return from Mount Moriah. He should have been there to mourn his departed mother Sarah. He should have been there to at least discuss, with his father and his father’s servant, his future wife. Yitzchak did not die on the mountain, but it seems as if something in him did die, only to be revived when he married. The text tells us that Rivka “became his wife, and he loved her; and Yitzchak was comforted after his mother’s death.”
That seems to be the message of the silences. The message of Beer Lahai Roi seems to be that Yitzchak never forgot how Hagar and her son – his half-brother – Ishmael had been sent away. The Midrash says that Yitzchak reunited Hagar with Avraham after Sarah’s death. The biblical text tells us that Yitzchak and Ishmael stood together at Avraham’s grave (B'reishit 25:9). Somehow the divided family was reunited, seemingly at the instigation of Yitzchak.
If this is so, then Yitzchak’s love for Eisav is simply explained. It is as if Yitzchak had said: I know what Eisav is. He is strong, wild, unpredictable, possibly violent. It is impossible that he should be the person entrusted with the covenant and its spiritual demands. But this is my child. I refuse to sacrifice him, as my father almost sacrificed me. I refuse to send him away, as my parents sent Hagar and Ishmael away. My love for my son is unconditional. I do not ignore who or what he is. But I will love him anyway, even if I do not love everything he does – because that is how God loves us, unconditionally, even if He does not love everything we do. I will bless him. I will hold him close. And I believe that one day that love may make him a better person than he might otherwise have been.
In this one act of loving Eisav, Yitzchak redeemed the pain of two of the most difficult moments in his father Avraham’s life: the sending away of Hagar and Ishmael and the binding of Yitzchak. 
I believe that love helps heal both the lover and the loved. 
 
Person in the Parsha - Rabbi Tzvi Hersh Weinreb

Strength, Patience, and Hope

When I was a young boy, I had two distinct images of a strong man. One was of Charles Atlas. Do you remember him? If you do, you are no longer a youngster. Pictures of Charles Atlas appeared on the rear cover of the comic books that I voraciously read as a child. His muscular body was presented as the model of strength, and all of us "98 pound weaklings" were urged to correspond with Mr. Atlas, who, through his "dynamic tension" technique, could make similarly muscular men out of all of us.

The other image was of a man I knew who attended the small synagogue that my father, of blessed memory, frequented every Monday and Thursday, when the Torah was read. I don't think that anyone in the shul knew the man's real name. Everyone referred to him as "the Shtarker," the Strong Man. I was then no more than eight years old, so to my eyes, he was at least seven feet tall. He was certainly head and shoulders above everyone else in that tiny synagogue. His physical prowess was demonstrated when he lifted the Torah after the Torah reading concluded. He lifted it high and extended his arms so that ten or twelve of the Torah columns were exposed. My memory may deceive me, but I think that no one else in the shul was ever given the honor of lifting the Torah. No one else could compete with the Shtarker's feat.

Over the years, I have come to reflect upon the many "shtarkers" in the Bible. Samson is one obvious candidate for the title. But even kindly Abraham was a warrior, and a victorious one. Jacob was proud of his triumphant use of "my sword and my bow." Moses was able to slay the Egyptian who tormented his Jewish victim. Joshua, Saul, and David were all "shtarkers" who led their people in battle.

One biblical figure stands out as a "non-shtarker," a gentle soul, perhaps even a pacifist. I refer, of course, to Isaac, the hero of the Torah portion we read this week, Parashat Toledot (Genesis 25:19-28:9). Isaac commits no aggressive acts, however legitimate they might be, and never even asserts himself verbally.

I have long been conscious of the contrast between Isaac and the other major characters of the Bible. But only recently was I made aware of a fascinating problem. It was brought to my attention by Rabbi Yehuda Shaviv in his excellent book on the weekly Torah portions, entitled MiSinai Ba (He Came From Sinai). Rabbi Shaviv concurs with my view of Isaac as a decidedly non-militant personality. But he is troubled by the fact that in the Jewish mystical tradition, the trait of gevurah, strength, is assigned to Isaac and not to the other Patriarchs. Thus, in Kabbalistic terminology, Abraham represents chesed, compassion, and Jacob stands for tiferet, harmony. It is gentle Isaac who carries the banner of gevurah. How are we to understand this perplexing attribution of strength to that patriarch who seems to least exemplify it?

Rabbi Shaviv answers this dilemma with the following provocative sentence: "Forgoing the military option is itself a show of strength." I can accept his formulation, but I choose to modify it slightly. The way I see it, there are two types of strength. One way is to exert power. Abraham chose that way when he waged war against the four kings in the story we read just a few short weeks ago. Similarly, Joshua and David found that way necessary in their struggles.

But Isaac knew the secret of another way of demonstrating strength. He faced challenges that he could have met aggressively. More than once, he faced hostility. In our parasha, we read of the enmity he confronted at the hands of the Philistines, who stopped up the wells he needed to water his flock. In verses 13-22 of chapter 26, we read "…The Philistines envied him…They stopped up all the wells his father had dug…" What was Isaac's response? Not war! Rather, "Isaac departed…" He left the scene, he dug new wells, but again he faced violent opposition. "The herdsmen of Gerar quarreled with him…" They continued to stop his wells. In response, he dug another well and dug yet another well. He persisted, swallowing his pride and suppressing every impulse of striking back violently. Ultimately, he prevailed. Finally, he dug a well which was uncontested. 

Some find his patience in the face of his enemies frustrating. But Midrash Tanchuma finds it admirable and remarks: "Behold! See what strength Isaac possessed!" The Midrash validates Rabbi Shaviv's contention that sometimes, "forgoing the military option is itself a show of strength."

There is a verse in the biblical Book of Proverbs which is particularly apt here. It reads, "Better to be forbearing than mighty; to have self-control than to conquer a city." (Proverbs 16:32).

Isaac's method of achieving goals persistently but patiently is again demonstrated in a very different context in this week's Torah portion. We are told that he was forty years old when he married Rebecca, whereas his children were not born until he was sixty. He suffered twenty years of disappointing childlessness. It would have been perfectly appropriate for him to take another wife, or a concubine, during those twenty years. After all, his father Abraham had done just that, marrying Hagar when Sarah could not bear him a child. Could Isaac not have assumed that Rebecca would have given her consent to such a move, as did his mother Sarah?

Isaac rejected that option. Instead, again patiently and persistently, he chose to pray. He prayed fervently, year after year. The great medieval commentator Rabbi David Kimchi, or Radak, remarks: "He prayed consistently and for a long period of time because he loved Rebecca exceedingly. He did not wish to offend her by taking another wife. Therefore, he persisted in prayer until the Lord answered him."

There are many texts in our tradition that give support to Isaac's way of demonstrating strength. One that particularly intrigues me is this Talmudic statement: "Who is the strongest of the strong? He who transforms his enemy into a friend." This was Isaac's way. He asks us to strive to convert our enemy into a friend.

Another text illustrates that strength is more about patient self-control than physical might. It is found in the Talmudic tractate Kiddushin 40a, where the tale is told about a certain Rabbi Zadok, who resists the attempts of a particularly powerful noblewoman to lead him astray. He exerts moral strength, and to him the Talmud applies the following biblical verse: "Bless the Lord, O His angels, mighty creatures who do His bidding, ever obedient to His bidding. Bless the Lord, all His hosts, His servants who do His will." (Psalms 103:20-21)

Isaac's way recognizes the necessity for great patience and forbearance. If we adopt Isaac's way, we must be prepared for a lengthy process before our challenges are resolved. In the words of Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, words which have been memorialized in a popular song, "An eternal people does not fear the long and arduous path."

Patience is necessary for those who follow Isaac's way. But a wise woman taught us that patience is but another name for hope. That woman was Jane Austen, who put these words into the mouth of one of the characters in her great novel, Sense and Sensibility: "Know your own happiness. You want nothing but patience—or give it a more fascinating name: call it hope."


From the Gustave & Carol Jacobs Center for Kashrut Education  

Why does the OU not certify dairy bread?

The Talmud (Pesachim 36a) relates that one may not bake milchig or fleishig bread. Since bread is generally consumed at every meal, one might forget that the bread contains milk and eat it at a fleishig meal (or vice versa). For this reason, Chazal ruled that milchig or fleishig bread is non-kosher and may not be eaten, even alone.
However, the Talmud offers one exception: One may bake milchig or fleishig bread if it is made “ke’ein tura”. Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 97:1) offers two explanations of “ke’ein tura”:
Like the eye of an ox, i.e., a small amount. One may bake and consume a small amount of dairy or meat bread because it is assumed that the individual eating the bread will remember the meat or dairy status without difficulty. Rama (Yoreh De’ah 97:1) writes that the volume that one will eat in a single day is considered a small amount.
In the shape of an ox, i.e., a unique shape. By baking the bread in a unique manner, the shape of the bread will serve as a visible reminder that the bread is not pareve.



Midei Chodesh b'Chodsho - Rabbi Shmuel Goldin

A Kislev Contemplation: “To Another Year”

Some messages are simply too important to ignore. One such message, I believe, emerges from two words in the Talmud’s short discussion of the Chanuka Festival. While overwhelmingly vital and powerful, however, this communication is easily missed. We have to be sensitive enough and honest enough to note it. 
After briefly describing the Hasmonean victory over the Syrian Greeks and the miracle of the sole remaining cruse of oil, the Talmud states: “L’shana acheret, to another year, [the rabbis] established and rendered [these eight days] permanent festival days with praise and thanksgiving.” 
The Talmudic record is clear. Chanuka is not established immediately as a festival, but only in conjunction with “another year.” Faced with this assertion, many commentaries render the phrase l’shana acheret as “to the next year.” Chanuka is established as an ongoing festival, these scholars maintain, one full year after the Hasmonean victory and the rededication of the Temple; once the rabbinic authorities recognize the full significance of the events that have transpired under their watch.
 If this is the case, however, why doesn’t the Talmud use the specific language l’shana ha’ba’a, literally, “to the coming year?” Even if Chanuka is established only a year later, might the rabbis be teaching us a lesson through their use of the broader phrase l’shana acheret? 
A potential answer can be gleaned from the powerful observations of Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik (the Rav) concerning Judaism’s approach to time. This great scholar identifies three dimensions of “time awareness” as essential to the life of each Jew: retrospection, anticipation and appreciation:
Retrospection refers to man’s ability to re-experience the past in the present. What for others is only a memory, the Rav maintains, must become for the Jew a “creative living experience.” To lead meaningful Jewish lives, our personal journeys must be actively shaped by the events, and populated by the personalities, of our peoples’ past.
Anticipation, according to the Rav, speaks of man’s projection of visions and aspirations into the future. Within this dimension, the Jew enters the realm of foresight and expectation. He recognizes the need to act now, in order to propel his dreams, and his people’s dreams, forward.
The third and final dimension of time-awareness, appreciation, is the most crucial of all. Here, the challenge is to recognize the unique nature of the here and now. So central is the dimension of appreciation, according to the Rav, that it lends meaning to the other two dimensions. “Retrospection and anticipation are significant only insofar as they transform the present.” The past and future are valueless to the Jew, the Rav maintains, unless they affect the way he/she acts now.
To go one step further, we might argue that appreciation is not only the most central of the three dimensions of time-awareness; but also the most difficult one to enter. 
To fully “appreciate” our times, we must learn to view our lives through the lens of history. The stipulations of appreciation thus form a fundamental imbalance: we must judge ourselves as we will be judged in the future; but we must render that judgment now. We are challenged to ask ourselves: One hundred, two hundred, five hundred years from now; how will our generation’s story and our generation’s contributions to Jewish life, be measured? Clearly, these are difficult questions to answer. Lessons from the past are easily accessed through hindsight. Visions of a glorious future are readily imagined.  A true assessment of present opportunity, challenge and performance, however, can remain elusive.  Such appraisal often seems to need the perspective granted by a shana acheret, another year. And waiting for a shana acheret is a luxury that we can generally ill afford.  
In our day, few within the committed Jewish community would argue with the fact that the establishment and development of the State of Israel has been a transformative event, unequaled in thousands of years of Jewish history. We are privileged to be part of a continuing grand experiment, replete with innumerable, ever-shifting facets: the ongoing return of a dispersed people from across the globe to its ancestral homeland; the cobbling together of disparate populations, vastly different from one another, into a working, functioning, governable democracy; the blending of Jewish tradition with democratic principle; the unaccustomed use of power by a people powerless for centuries; the forging of an ever-changing relationship between Diaspora Jewry and Israeli citizenry; the rapid rise of the new-born State into an economic powerhouse; the development, by necessity, of an ever-adapting, world-class, powerful military and security apparatus; the positive changes wrought in the psyche of Jews across the globe because of the very existence of a Jewish State; and so much more…
And yet, a full appreciation of the extraordinary realities that mark our days can be difficult to maintain. Day to day, caught up in our own personal concerns and challenges; frustrated by the bureaucracy that confronts us; disappointed in the politics that seem to “govern our government;” it is easy to lose historical perspective.  It is easy to lose sight of the miracle that greets us every time we walk through the streets of our homeland. It is easy to forget that, as an acquaintance recently observed: If any Jew who lived between 70 CE and 1945 CE miraculously came back to life today on the streets of Yerushalayim; he/she would not ask, “When will Moshiach come?” He/she would ask, “When did Moshiach come?”

 Don’t get me wrong. Moshiach is not fully here quite yet. In fact, I firmly believe, the verdict is still out. Whether or not these miraculous days will turn out to be Reishit Semichat Ge’ulateinu (the beginning of the flowering of our redemption) will be up to us. Hashem is granting us an opportunity, one that had been unimaginable for thousands of years. What we do with that opportunity will ultimately determine its significance. Will we learn to live and work together towards the common good? Will we find a way to move forward as one, as we confront the many challenges that face us? Will we put aside the petty differences that too often mark our religious and political discourse? Will we succeed in creating a truly sanctified society? While, as mentioned above, the verdict is still out on these issues- one thing is clear. As a first step, we must arrive at a full awareness and appreciation of our time. Only if we recognize the historic potential that marks our day, can we hope to realize that potential.

Centuries ago, the Hasmoneans saved Judaism, only to ultimately fall victim to their own excesses and lost perspective. Could the Talmud be hinting at one of the reasons? Perhaps the rabbis are teaching us that: had our ancestors recognized the true significance of the Chanuka victories immediately, and not l’shana acheret,” they would have successfully retained their footing in a turbulent world. 

If we learn to fully appreciate the gifts divinely granted to us in our day, perhaps, this time, we will also learn to appreciate the challenges they bear. And, just perhaps, we will rise to meet those challenges together while there is still time, l’shana ha’zot, to this year.


Vebbe Rebbe - Ask the Rabbi – Rabbi Daniel Mann, Eretz Hemda

Bankruptcy in Halacha – part II

Question: I have $30,000 of credit debt (in the US). I lost my job, and my new job pays less. I do not see how I can pay the debt. What does Jewish law say about filing for bankruptcy?

Answer: [We responded to the querier regarding his situation but are broadening (in brevity) the discussion. Last time we saw reasons for and against accepting the discharge of debt even though the original halacha disallows it. This time, we will explore practical issues including distinctions between cases. We cannot cover all elements and cases.] 
Poskim are quite lenient regarding debts owed by corporations. The Pitchei Choshen (Halva’ah 2:(63)) says that all agree that in doing business with a corporation, which are defined by corporate laws, people expect that the law of the land will govern, even if the owners and officers are religious Jews. This obviously applies to investors in a corporation, but it also should apply to suppliers and even workers. When an individual owes money to a financial institution (e.g., banks, credit card companies), the laws of bankruptcy apply. After all, they plan based on the expectation that a percentage of their debtors will go bankrupt, and they factor this is when setting interest rates. Bankruptcy is valid in regard to corporate as well as non-Jewish creditors, since the governing law in their regard is the law of the land. 
The matter is more complicated when an individual Jew lends money to another Jew, especially based on the latter’s need (see more on this distinction in Chelkat Yaakov, Choshen Mishpat 32) supplies goods to him on credit, or employs him. (When a creditor has a connection to the debtor or is a charitable person and can afford it, he could decide to forgive the money and count it as tzedaka, but that is his decision. We should also remember that the idea of forgiving debt is not foreign to Judaism, as according to Torah law, every seven years, debt is forgiven. When this is practically applicable is beyond our present scope.) If the one who is owed money did not make actuarial calculations and reasonably believed the debtor felt obligated to pay his debt, the matter of acting based on local practice is not so applicable. It is also unclear if the law, whose rationale is most societally compelling for growing the economy, is justified to contradict Torah law regarding personal consumer debt. Also, often a debtor knows he will be able to pay, just with difficulty. It is possible that the hardship of paying is not much greater than the hardship of loss to the creditor, and there are not moral grounds to not fulfill one’s obligation. If an individual debtor fully regains his ability to pay, it is morally correct to pay his fellow individual even if bankruptcy law does not require it.
Bankruptcy applies in regard to all of one’s creditors. During the process, one is forbidden to pay creditors selectively; the court dictates payment. Therefore, if one has a moral right to file for bankruptcy due to corporate debt, the loss to the individual creditor is a necessary casualty, at least initially. However, nothing legally prevents the debtor, after the receiver takes assets as instructed by the court, from paying those to whom he feels a higher moral obligation, which he should do as possible. (It can be difficult to deal with a case in which there are multiple such creditors and insufficient funds for them all.)
Bankruptcy is an important tool of survival for an honest debtor. Unfortunately, some abuse the right, sometimes illegally by deceiving the court in a variety of ways. Even without deception, not every bankruptcy filing is halachically or ethically proper, and this can often create a chillul Hashem as well. These factors should play a major role in determining whether bankruptcy is called for. Therefore, one who is considering filing should not only consider its impact on his financial future and discuss legality and process with a competent and ethical lawyer, but it is proper to also discuss the details with a rabbi or other moral advisor.        


Rabbi Moshe Bloom, Torah VeHa'aretz Institute

Is monk fruit considered orlah?

Question: 
Monk fruit grows in China and is used as a natural sweetener. A mashgiach, who certifies a factory in China, discovered that the fruits harvested by the factory are always from the plant's first three years. Does that mean that monk fruit is orlah? 
 
Answer: 
The mashgiach told me that at least two factories receive new monk plants each year. There are a few other factories that produce monk fruit in that area in China, and may be in other contries in the area. 
The work practices of farmers or corporations do not change a species's classification: if a species is halachically classified as a tree, even if growers decide to cultivate it in a different way for convenience' sake, this does not necessarily change its halachic status to be a vegetable.
The monk plant tree produces fruit within the first year, so according to the Radbaz and others (mostly Sephardi poskim), it is not considered a tree at all — so there would be no issue of orlah.
Even if we are concerned that it is a tree, as long as we are not 100% certain that the fruit is from an orlah tree, it is considered safek orlah; to date, we haven't checked all of the factories producing monk fruit. Outside the Land of Israel, safek orlah is permitted. 
 
Since (1) there is a doubt whether the fruit is orlah and (2) there is a dispute as to whether the plant is indeed a tree, we can be lenient. If we should decide to grow this plant in Israel, a comprehensive study is called for to examine the plant's characteristics; orlah in the Land of Israel is a biblical prohibition, and even safek orlah is prohibited.


Rabbi Judah Mischel

Toldot: Wells of Living Waters 

The Tzadik Reb Mordechai Yosef Leiner of Ishbitz, the Mei Hashiloach, was an original thinker. He had a unique Derech in Avodas Hashem, and gave the world a Torah commentary that blends Peshat and Sod, advancing a way of seeing the mystical interpretation as the basic understanding of the text. After the Histalkus or passing of the Mei HaShiloach, his son Reb Yaakov, who also was a creative expert in the secrets of the Torah, succeeded him.
   
Known as the “Beis Yaakov”, Reb Yaakov’s phenomenal genius was matched by his Yirat Shamayim. However, after the initial excitement of his ascending to the position of Rebbe, some of the Chasidim began to murmur amongst themselves. The new Rebbe was breaking with tradition of his father and doing certain things differently. He changed the order of Niggunim sung at gatherings, the parts of davening that were accentuated by his father, how the Seudos of Shabbos were conducted, and the style of Divrei Torah.

One of older Gabbaim approached the new Rebbe and expressed the concern of the Chasidim: his path was not in-sync with his father’s legacy and his way of serving G-d was breaking from the family tradition. 

Beis Yaakov responded, “You are mistaken. My Derech in Avodas Hashem is very much the same as my righteous father’s. My father did his own thing, and I am doing mine.”

~

“The Philistines stopped up all the wells that his (Yitzchak’s) father’s servants had dug in the days of Avraham, his father, and they filled them with earth.”(26:15)

Rabbeinu Bachaye interprets: the wells dug by Avraham represent the revealing of  wellsprings of faith buried within the hearts of those whom he and Sarah Imeinu had met and affected. 

Throughout their travels, masses were inspired by their uplifting message and profound lessons in monotheism. However, after the death of Avraham, these “wells” were filled with “dirt”. Yitzchak went down to Gerar and made efforts to re-dig his father’s wells. Although Yitchak prospered and merited Divine blessings along the way, we don’t see evidence that Yitzchak’s work in perpetuating the religious revolution, his ‘re-digging of the wells’, had succeeded. 

Reb Simcha Bunim of Peshischa zy’a was one of the Mei Hashiloach’s primary influences. He explains that the Pelishtim (Philistines) had been inspired by Avraham Avinu and they mimicked his ways. However, they went through the motions of what Avraham taught, without internalizing or considering the deeper goal and intention — namely, to cultivate a personal relationship with the Ribbono Shel Olam. Since the Pelishtim failed to ‘dig their own wells’ and relied on the spiritual work of others, their sense of inspiration did not last. They reverted to their old ways when Avraham passed away.

Reb Simcha Bunim taught: “Any movement in Avodas Hashem must have an inner life force, without which, the Avoda will not have lasting power, nor will it ascend on high.” When we mimic the Avodas Hashem and pathway of others, we are are akin to spiritual Philistines.  

Yidishkeit is meant to be lived by each of us in a personal and unique way. There is no canned or scripted screenplay. Each of us are charged to engage in Torah and Mitzvos — to struggle, ponder, question, explore and enjoy Yidishkeit — authentically. We are to use the blueprints of those who came before us, but we are to dig our own wells. 


Emes L'Yaakov? - Rabbi Shalom Rosner

Yaakov is known for the midda of Emes - truthfulness, as is stated in Micha (7:20): "Titen Emes L'Yaakov, Chesed L'Avraham."  Really? Yaakov, the same individual who in this week's parsha seems to have to engage in deception in order to obtain the brachos from his father Yitzhak?  Hakadosh Baruch Hu had no other way to grant Yaakov the brachos other than by having Yaakov deceive his blind father? 

Yaakov always tried to act in an honest manner.  We are told of his conduct in Lavan's home. (see Rambam, end of Laws of Sechirus). He had opportunities to take advantage of situations for economic gain, yet he refrained. He was a straight and honest individual.  He exhibited his disapproval of the behavior of Shimon and Levy toward the people of Shechem during the fiasco with Dina.  So why is it that Yaakov who exemplifies the characteristic of honesty has to engage in this act of deception in order to attain the brachos that were intended to be granted to him all along?  

Rav Yaakov Kaminetzky in his sefer "Emes L'Yaakov" (a most appropriate source for this topic), offers an interesting explanation.  Avraham was known for his midda of chesed.  He excelled in hosting guests and he prayed on behalf of the city of Sedom. Therefore, Avraham's nisyonos (tests) required him to go against his grain and conduct himself in a way that was not so caring and sensitive to others.  Avraham was instructed "Lech Lecha" – to leave his aging father and hometown; to expel Hagar and his son Yishmael from his home and the ultimate test, to sacrifice his son, Yitzhak.  After spending years spreading the word that G-d is caring, sensitive and merciful and that the act of sacrificing a child which was prevalent during that period was not what the Almighty desired, he was then instructed to act against everything he believed in and stood for.  Hashem tests us with situations that are against our nature to show that we would oblige l'shem shemo, for His honor and not out of our own convenience. 

As with Avraham, Yaakov's nisyonos were – to serve Hashem where he was uncomfortable.  In situations which are not straightforward in their truthful appearance.  Being untruthful for Yaakov was like worshipping idolatry. It was so difficult for Yaakov to deal with Lavan and to act in a deceiving manner when dealing with his father.  

Yitzhak's mida is gevura and din.  He is tested by challenging his midas HaDin. In the gemara in Shabbos 89b, we are told of a future conversation between Hashem and the Avos, whereby Hashem informs them "your children sinned".   Avraham and Yaakov can come up with no defense of Am Yisrael’s behavior. Yitzchak, however, steps up to the plate and defends Am Yisrael by utilizing midas Harachamim.  Although Yitzhak usually exemplified Midas HaDin , on this occasion he passed his test and was able to invoke the Midas Ha'Rachamim. 

Yaakov epitomizes the characteristic of honesty and truthfulness. He experiences several encounters throughout his life where this trait is challenged, precisely to test his commitment to Hashem.  Yaakov proves that he is willing to do whatever it takes to fulfil his responsibility as a God-fearing individual, even if it places him in uncomfortable situations. 

May we all be able to overcome every challenge with which we are confronted, and exhibit our love, appreciation and total faith in our Creator under all circumstances. 


Divrei Menachem - Menachem Persoff

In this week’s Parsha, we learn that Yitzchak prayed, in the presence of his wife, because of Rivka’s barren state. The Torah employs the term “Vaya’ater” to express Yitzchak’s entreaty to Hashem – and  Hashem responds with the same term, “Vayei’arteh,” best translated as Hashem ‘allowed Himself to be entreated’ (after Artscroll). How fascinating that the narrative so describes this mutual encounter between Yitzchak and Hashem!
Our rabbis tell us that although Rivka also prayed for a child, only Yitzchak, the son of a Tzaddik, was answered. Clearly, the merit of Avraham played a role, hence the introductory description of Yitzchak as Avraham’s progeny. Rivka, by contrast, was the daughter of a wicked man. 
Rashi explains that the term “Vaya’ater” implies much and extended prayer. For, following the Radak, Yitzchak was insistent not to beget a child from any handmaiden, but only from his beloved wife Rivka. Nevertheless, asks the Netivot Shalom, why was this Hebrew term employed and not, say, “Vayitchanan” – ‘and he implored’ – as was Moshe’s plea to enter Eretz Yisrael described. And why record that Hashem reciprocated? Would it not have been enough to say that Yitzchak ‘knew his wife and she conceived,’ in the more common vernacular of the Chumash?
***
To explain, the Netivot Shalom invokes the story of Menashe, King of Judah. As recorded in Divrei Hayamim Bet, chap. 33, Menashe committed the worst of evils, destroying holy places and replacing them with idols. When punished, Menashe begs for mercy and Hashem responds (“Vaya’ater”) by forgiving him. In a Talmudic debate on this issue, Chazal remind us that since the letters ‘Ayin’ and ‘Chet’ are interchangeable, “Vaya’ater” can be written as “Vayachater,” meaning that Hashem ‘dug out’ or ‘broke through.’ That is to say that although Menashe was undeserving, Hakadosh Baruch Hu nevertheless responded to his plea by “exposing a small gap in the clouds of glory to let his prayers reach Him.”
Thus with Yitzchak: He had every reason to despair and to give up after so many “unanswered” prayers. But he continued to entreat Hashem who, finally, dug a hole under the heavy metal obstruction that had impeded the prayers until now, to paraphrase the Netivot Shalom. Now Hashem responds in like manner, seemingly touched by the deep sincerity and authenticity of Yitzchak’s entreaties. And so, even when we feel undeserving and that the outlook is bleak, let us pray fervently in the knowledge that Hashem actually wants to hear from us and will answer us, like a good friend, in a mutual manner.  


Chizuk & Idud - Rabbi Yerachmiel Roness
 
Last week, in Parshat Vayeira, we read of the growing friction between Sarah Imeinu and Hagar. The two mothers of Avraham Avinu’s sons - Yishmael and Yitzchak – are at loggerheads with one another.Avraham receives a clear directive from G-d: He is to take Sarah’s side, and do everything that she tells him to. This quickly brings him face to face with an additional Nisayon, and he must muster the inner fortitude needed to cast out Yishmael from his home. This traumatic event has left reverberations throughout history, and till this day Yishmael’s descendants continue to bear animosity towards the Jewish People…
In this week’s Parsha, this already familiar theme is continued: In order to attain the divine blessing, a painful process of separation and individuation must take place. Avraham had separated himself (-LechLecha) from his homeland and his father’s house; he had been willing to distance himself from his own son, and yet this is still not enough. Similar to his father Avraham, Yitzchak will also not be able to impart the divine Bracha equally upon both of his two sons, and once again a similar historical animosity will ensue: “And Eisav hated Yaakov because of the bracha that their Father had blessed him and Eisav said in his heart let the days of my Father’s mourning draw near and I will kill my brother Yaakov”, (Bereishit27:41). Here too, these negative feelings will continued on through the ages. As Rashi writes: Halacha Hi -Bi’yadua She’Eisav Soneh Le’Yaakov.
Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l explained that this historical insight bears the status of a ‘Halacha’ in the sense that it requires of us to take action. He explains that we are to be aware that the Christian World’s animosity toward the Jewish People, carries on to this day, and as a result we must apply extra caution even in our dealings with world leaders who are ostensibly in favor of the Jewish People, (Igrot Moshe,Choshen Mishpat 2, 77). Recent world events only authenticate these points, and in light of the anti-Jewish animus sadly found in every corner of the globe, the raison-d’etre of the Jewish State is more evident than ever.
The Midrash tells us that for Rivka Imeinu the two brothers’ different predilections were apparent from the very beginning. “Vayitrotzitzu Habanim Be’kirba”. When Rivka passed near a pagan temple Eisavwould try to wriggle out, and when she passed a place of Torah Yaakov would impatiently try to exit the womb. She quickly learned that her twins would strive with one another for the inheritance of two worlds. "Two nations are in your womb and two kingdoms will separate from within you".
This dichotomous picture, which was clear in Rivka’s mind, was not shared by her husband Yitzchak: “And it came to pass, that when Isaac was old, and his eyes were dim, so that he could not see, he called Eisavhis elder son, and said unto him… Behold now, I have grown old; I do not know the day of my death…”,(Bereishit 27:1-2). As Yitzchak prepares to pass on the Divine blessing to the next generation, his impaired vision sets the scene for the well-known charade that will soon come to pass. What caused the ‘dimness’of the Yitzchak’s eyes? Was it simply old age?
Rashi, on this pasuk, quotes the Midrash which claims that when Avraham tied Yitzchak upon the altar to offer him as a sacrifice to G-d, the angels on high shed tears! These tears fell into Yitzchak’s eyes and caused them to become dimmed. This viewpoint suggests that Yitzchak’s early history, his MesirusNefesh, critically affected his behaviour towards the end of his life. It was the Zechus of the Akeida that indirectly insured that he made the right choice steering the blessing towards Yaakov. A second view brought by Rashi explains that Yaakov’s eyes were adversely affected by the smoke which was constantlywafting through the air in Yitzchak’s home, rising up from the idolatrous offerings Eisav’s wives’ regularly brought to Avodah Zara.
This second suggestion assumes a simple and powerful fact of life: No one is an island. - The people – and society - surrounding us have a crucial effect on our daily lives.
This understanding, that everyone (Even Ytiachak Avuinu) is greatly affected by the goings on around them, is one of the reasons Chazal always emphasized the importance of living in Eretz Yisrael.
The reality is that we are continuously wrestling with both the Arab and Christian world for domination over the Holy Land. As Chazal tell us when one rises the other falls. On a broader level, we are sparring with them on a moral-spiritual and theological plane as well. For our world view to prevail we need to be able to see clear and far. We cannot bear to have our eyesight dimmed by the ‘smoke’ rising from our surroundings. We must distance ourselves from the foreign influences which affect a minority living within a Gentile society and come home to OUR Land where we set the cultural and spiritual tone.
It is within our power to make Jerusalem rise and never fall - by rising to the occasion and making Aliya!
 

Simchat Shmuel - Rabbi Sam Shor
 
Our Sedra this week contains the challenging episode of  Rivka Imeinu, disguising her son Yaakov as his older brother Eisav, in order to seemingly deceive an elderly and frail Yitzchak to bestow upon Yaakov  the blessings of the first born. What is the significance of this troubling episode? How could it be that Yaakov Avinu would come to receive these blessings in such a manner? How could it be that Rivka would facilitate this entire episode?
 
In the subsequent pesukim, Eisav approaches his father, having prepared his favorite foods, in anticipation that his father will indeed bless him, he is shocked to hear Yitzchak's reply:
 
"Ba Achicha B'Mirma, vayikach birchatecha-" Your Brother came cunningly, and took your blessing. "
 
The Ateret Yehoshua of Dzhikov, zy'a offers a fascinating insight- the word B'mirma is equal in numerical value to the word afikoman. 
 
When Eisav  approaches his father with this meal, Yitzchak answers him that it is Pesach night, and I have already eaten a meal which your brother served me, which included the Afikoman - I therefore am no longer allowed to eat from your meal, as one is prohibited to eat any additional food on Pesach night, once they have consumed the Afikoman.
 
This novel approach of course takes into account the midrashic suggestion that each of the Avot fulfilled the entire Torah through ruach hakodesh, even though they had not received the Torah and were not commanded to do so.
 
Rabbi Moshe Weinberger, shlita, points out that on the Seder night, the matza which is set aside as the Afikoman, is one half of the matza which is broken for Yachatz, at the beginning of the Seder. Yachatz, as explained by Rabbi Weinberger, is an acronym for the words: Yadav, Chelkat Tzavarav- his hands and the smooth of his neck - a reference to the parts of Yaakov's  body, which Rivka  covered with fur to disguise him as Eisav!
 
So what are we to learn from both this episode of disguise and deception, as well as it's connection to the Afikoman of Layl HaSeder?
 
On the Seder night, many have the custom that the Afikoman  is hidden for the children to find, or to take it and "steal it" in exchange for a finder's fee or present upon its return.  Rabbi Weinberger points out that there is an important message hidden within this custom. Yaakov Avinu, the ultimate Ish Emet, did not feel it was right for him to receive the blessing, he was not the bechor and therefore did not see himself as deserving to be blessed accordingly. 
 
So too, many of us may feel that we are unworthy or not deserving to learn the depths of Torah,  to delve into penimiut hatorah- the inner secrets of Torah. Rabbi Weinberger suggests that on the Layl HaSeder, we too must step out of our comfort zone like Yaakov Avinu and hide or steal the Afikoman, to realize that yes, we too, are worthy to learn the secrets of Torah.
 
 
Walk thru the Parsha with Rabbi David Walk

ALL IN THE FAMILY

People are always trying to categorize Judaism: Is it a religion? An ethnicity? A race? A nationality? Perhaps, the best answer is E: All of the above. Judaism just doesn’t fit well into the normal animal, vegetable, mineral cubby holes of categories. A few years back I became enamored of the term ‘praxis’, which means a set of behaviors. To me Judaism was a comprehensive set of rules to follow. In other words, to determine if someone is Jewish just observe their actions. As an observant Jew, this description appeals to me. However, it excludes too many of our brethren. This week’s Torah reading offers a point of view on this topic, which just can’t be ignored.
Our parsha claims that we’re a family. And it does it right at the outset: These are the offspring of Yitzchak, son of Avraham. Avraham gave birth to Yitzchak (Breishit 25:19). The verse is emphasizing that this new ideology spawned by Avraham was primarily a family. 
The word which communicates this concept is TOLDOT. It's not an easy term to explain. The Malbim asserts that the term describes the three kinds of ‘offspring’ a person can produce: 1. physical children, from our animal side; 2. spiritual insights, from our Divine side; 3. justice in society, from our logical, intellectual side (Breishit 6:9). So, we must carefully determine how it’s being used.
The Rashbam, Rashi’s grandson, on the other hand, insists that according to P’SHAT, literal meaning, the word always means ‘children’. It’s root after all is YELED or child. Any other approach is non-literal.
It’s Rabbeinu Bechaye who most strongly advocates for our parsha being about family. He introduces our parsha with: Children’s children are the crowning glory of elders; the splendor of children is their parents (Mishlei 17:6). Shlomo Hamelech is informing us that grandeur is the result of the unbroken chain of generations. 
The Midrash in Breishit makes a similar point. The last verse in parshat Breishit states, ‘Noach found favor in the eyes of God (6:8), while the first verse in Noach declares, ‘These are the TOLDOT of Noach.’ So, the Midrash explains that the favor he found was through his offspring, Toldot. It continues that kindness (CHESED) from God is rewarded through the merit of one’s ancestors, but favor (CHEN) goes in the other direction.
However, this scenario only works when the grandchildren continue the paths of the grandparents. Otherwise, the situation becomes an embarrassment, ‘like a branch which denies its own root’. On a personal note, my mother of Blessed Memory often told me as I was becoming observant that her father would be so pleased that he had a religious grandson. 
Our pasha begins by recording that moment in history when we morphed from a nuclear family to an extended family. Ya’akov ends the book of Breishit by blessing his sons who become the Tribes, but they remain the Children of Israel. The expression AM YISRAEL came much later. And, of course, Moshe Rabbeinu ends Chumash by going back to that same format, while blessing the family groupings.
Yitzchak oversaw this transition to a family-based people. It’s an idea which never grows old. The prerequisite for automatic Israeli citizenship is having at least one Jewish grandparent. But, perhaps, to really feel Jewish, one must see all Jewish children as their personal future.     


Rebbetzin Shira Smiles

One of the main goals of learning is to make us into a mensch.  Our challenge is to glean from each Pasuk, each Rashi, lessons to enhance our lives, and interactions with others.  A case in point, is the first Pasuk in Parshat Toldot.  “These are the generations of Yitzchak son of Avraham; Avraham gave birth to Yitzchak.”  Clearly, the redundancy in the Passuk needs to be explored.  Rashi, quotes a Midrash, that says since the scoffers of the generation said that Avimelech fathered Yitzchak, the Chumash emphasizes that he was Avraham’s son.  Indeed, Hashem made a miracle, to fashion the appearance of father and son in an identical way to prove to others beyond a shadow of a doubt, their biological connection.  Although, Rashi responds to the problem in the Chumash, we are now bothered by why Hashem would do a miracle just to quite scoffers!

R. Leib Mintzberg in Ben Melech explains that the Passuk is teaching us the appreciation of life.  The Passuk begins with the life of Yitzchak, and the fist thing that is mentioned is that Avraham Avinu gave birth to him.  This is the first milestone in his life; he was born in a miraculous fashion. The scoffing is just underscoring the miracle that was present at his birth.  A person first and foremost, needs to be cognizant of the constant miracles that Hashem bestows upon us, to acknowledge them, and to give thanks for them.  It is so easy to take everything in life for granted.  The first word we say upon awakening in the morning, is modeh.  Grammatically, the first word we should say is ani; woe, unto a person, notes R. Pincus, if the first word out of our mouths in the morning is ‘I’!

What do we learn from the Midrash that Hashem responded to the scoffers, and made their appearance identical?  R. Baruch Ezrachi in Birkat Mordechai explains that the miracle was not done for these people, it was done for Avraham Avinu.  Avraham Avinu loved every person as if they were son.  When he heard that there were people that were making fun, he was not bothered by what they said, as much as who they were.  It bothered Avraham Avinu that there were people in this world who could disbeliever, and say such cruel things.  In order to take away the pain of Avraham Avinu Hashem performed this miracle.

Further, notes R. Ezrachi, it is fascinating to note, that Hashem was not concerned about what these types of people would say when He said ‘naaseh Adam’ in the plural.  Hashem, is more concerned with the way Avraham Avinu would feel when he heard people making fun of him.  Sensitivity to others is the hallmark of Yiddishkeit.


Sivan Rahav Meir

Fatigue Is the Enemy

And Eisav said to Yaakov, “Pour for me some of this red, red stew, for I am tired”; therefore he was named Edom. (B'reishit 25:30)

Much has been written about the differences between Jacob and Esau. The sages have noted Jacob’s good inclination and his decision to be an innocent and righteous man, as opposed to Esau’s evil inclination and the violent and cruel choices he makes. A seemingly trivial factor which influences Esau’s choices is fatigue. 

Fatigue is not only a modern ailment. Thousands of years ago, in Parashat Toledot, the Torah warned us about its dangers. One of the most important events in this parasha is Esau’s agreement to sell the birthright and future spiritual leadership to Jacob in exchange for a red lentil stew. What led Esau to make this choice? Why does he prefer the temporal stew to something eternal? Esau’s fatigue is mentioned twice in this narrative. First we are told that he was tired when he returned from the field and again when he asked Jacob to eat the stew he said that he was tired. Fatigue is both a physical and a mental state. It causes apathy and leads to a lack of concentration and difficulty in listening. Sleep deprivation and living on a sleep deficit results in poor judgment, lack of motivation, moodiness, and anxiety. So it is not surprising that the tired Esau could not focus on delicate spiritual matters. 

Rabbanit Yemima Mizrachi notes that the Code of Jewish Law opens with the instruction: “One should strengthen oneself like a lion to get up in the morning to serve his Creator.” A person must make the effort and overcome temptation when getting out of bed. While this may seem obvious, Mizrachi adds that in our times we must also be diligent about going to bed on time in the evenings. It is easier to keep the midnight oil burning than to call it a day because of all the things distracting us. We feel we have to check our WhatsApp, email, Facebook once or even multiple times before we allow ourselves to go to bed. So nowadays a person has to “strengthen himself like a lion” in order to go to sleep.

Sivan Rahav-Meir is an Israeli journalist, currently on shlichut of World Mizrahi movement to the US. She is the author of #Parasha. To receive her daily insight on the portion of the week, text your name to: 972-58-679-9000


Portion from the Portion - Rakel Berenbaum

FROM RED HEADS TO RED EYES
 
We have a number of red heads in our extended family. It's even a joke that when a new great-grandchild is born my father-in-law, after asking how mother and new baby are, will proceed to inquire as to the color of the newborns hair. "Is it red?" 
What's so unique about red heads? Besides the fact that they sunburn faster, absorb vitamin D better, sense hot and cold more acutely and have a higher pain tolerance, they are thought to be more wild, vivacious and fiery.
 
In our portion, in the section describing the birth of Rivka's twins, Eisav and Yaakov, the Torah tells us (25:25), that the first one came out " With a ruddy complexion, and as hairy as a woolen garment ADMONI, KULO KADERET SEAR "  .  The Torah tells us that Esau was a red head. Why would the Torah waste words to tell us this bit of information? 
Rashi says that the redness of Esau's complexion portended his murderous nature. But is being born a redhead a self fulfilling prophecy to being a murderer? Can one move away from their inborn tendencies?
We can find an answer to this question by looking closer at another redhead in the Tanach, none other than David. When Shmuel comes to Yishai's  house looking for the one who will take Shaul's place, we are told that he was " ADMONI IM YEFE ENAIM VTOV ROI"- ruddy with nice eyes and sees well"
Shmuel was worried that David, as a redhead would have a tendency to unnecessary bloodshed. But God lists other qualities of David-  he has nice eyes as well. This could be referring to him being good looking, or rather to his way of looking at the world.  He has soft eyes, possibly red eyes from crying in prayer- as he says about himself in Tehilim ( 6:7) " I melt away my couch with my tears" . His unique eyes show that he was able to work on himself and become sensitive as well. He doesn't let his redheadedness master him, he works hard to control the possibly destructive side of his personality. As the king and ruler there were many opportunities for his redheadedness to take over, but the midrash says that when there was a question about whether someone should be killed, he did it only with a ruling of the Sanhedrin, the "eyes" of the nation. He didn't let his wild side lead him. 
So it is important to learn that all inborn traits, even apparently difficult ones, can be used for good. We must take responsibility and learn ways to master our nature. Esau and David we're both redheaded. Esau let his nature control him and therefore is for us the epitome of evil. David, on the other hand, used his personality wisely and became one of the best leaders. We could use another leader like him.
-------+
Since red heads are also called "carrot tops" I thought it appropriate to include a recipe with orange colored veggies. So I'm including a recipe for pumpkin pie for all those who want to serve it at a Thanksgiving dinner. It has ginger ( even freshly ground if you really like it) since red heads are referred to as gingers. And a bit of pepper as well, since they are referred to as being fiery.
 
PARVE PUMPKIN PIE
12 Graham crackers
1/4 c sugar 
6 Tblsp oil
Process first two ingredients till finely ground. Add oil and process till moist. Line the pie pan with the mixture.
 
2 c. pumpkin puree 
2/3 c. Brown sugar (packed)
1/3 c. Soy or rice milk
2 eggs
1 tsp ground ginger
1/2 tsp salt
1/4 tsp black pepper (optional)
2-3 Tblsp finly freshly ground ginger(optional)
Combine ingredients and fill pie crust. 
Bake about 40 minutes at 180°C or till knife comes out clean. 
 
 
Rabbi Ephraim Sprecher 

Prayer – The ORIGINAL Soul Food

The Talmud (Berachot 26b) says, "Tefilot Avot Tiknum" – "Prayer was established by the Avot". The Talmud then uses the following verse (Bereshit 19:27) to prove how Avraham established Prayer: "Vayaskem Avraham baboker el hamakom asher amad sham et pnei Hashem" – "And Avraham got up early in the morning to the place where he had stood before G-d".

The connection here is in the word "AMAD" – "Stood" and its association with the Amida Prayer. Strangely though, the Torah relates, just one chapter later (Bereshis 20:17), "Vayitpalel Avraham el Ha'Elokim" – "And Avraham prayed to G-d". The word "VAYITPALEL" is directly related to "TEFILA" - "Prayer". When proving that Avraham established Prayer, why didn't the Talmud use this verse?

Furthermore, in the case of Avraham's Tefilah, G-d answered his prayer and miraculously healed Avimelech, the King of the Plishtim, and his entire household. Why isn't this clear, explicit and successful Prayer our foundational model?

The Talmud's first proof text for Prayer offers us a profound lesson. Let's take a deeper look at our original proof text: "And Avraham got up early in the morning to the place where he had stood before G-d". What's so special about this place? This place was of deep significance to Avraham. It was the place where he stood, argued and confronted G-d before the destruction of Sodom and A'mora.

This is the place where Avraham stood alone, face to face with the Creator of the Universe, mustered all his courage to demand (Bereshis 18:23), "Hashofet kol haaretz lo yaaseh mishpat?" – "Shall the Judge of the entire earth not do justice?" And Avraham continues to challenge G-d, "Chalilah Lecha l'hamit tzaddik im rasha?" "How dare You kill the righteous together with the wicked?"

By using this verse as a foundation for Jewish Prayer, the Talmud teaches us that the place of Jewish Prayer is NOT centered on miracles or good fortune. Rather, Prayer is the place where we confront G-d for what seems to us to be unfair and unjust. Prayer is the place where we struggle and argue with G-d Who loves righteousness and justice but allows suffering, pain, and death of innocent children. Prayer's place is where we, like Avraham, stand and see the distance between the world as it is and the world as it could be.

This is where our Prayer begins. In our daily AMIDAH in the paragraph beginning with Shema Kolenu, one should add his personal pleas and petitions. The Yaaros D’vash emphasizes that such personal prayers may be in any language or style, for our feelings and devotion are more important than the form of the prayer! This is where hope begins, and where redemption begins. We have a lot of work to do. Let's get started by having a daily conversation with G-d and telling Him our troubles. He yearns to hear from us. It's the best therapy there is, and it's free! Prayer is the ORIGINAL Soul Food!

Through Prayer, we become G-d's partners and messengers to demonstrate how to handle life's difficult tests. We show our family and friends how to have Emunah and Bitachon (Faith and Trust in G-d), despite our pain and suffering.

How does Emunah (Faith) differ from Bitachon (Trust)? Emunah means to believe that whatever happens to us, good or even G-d forbid, tragedies, ALL comes from G-d. Bitachon (Trust) is a higher level than Emunah alone, for even in the tragic events in life, I TRUST G-d that somehow these happenings are also part of G-d's Plan for the Ultimate Good.


Rbbi Berel Wein on TOLDOT
 
Sibling rivalry is the name of the game.  In fact the entire book of Beraishis can be described as a narrative of sibling rivalry.  We have Kayin and Hevel, Shem, Cham and Yefet,  Avraham and his nephew Lot, Yishmael and Yitzchak, Yaakov and Eisav, and Yosef and his brothers.  It is as though the Torah wishes to inform us and impress upon us the true nature of human beings.  I often think that that is what is meant when the Torah said that the nature of human beings is bad from its onset.  We are, by nature, competitive creatures, and the competition always begins at home with those who are closest to us.  We should, therefore, not think of our children as being angelic, but, rather, deal with them with their true natures, and recognize the pitfalls that natural sibling rivalry will always engender.  

Every child is a different world, and no two children – even identical twins – are the same.  Because of this element of human nature, competitiveness is built in to the structure of all children.  It is the task of education and the home to channel this competitiveness into positive behavior and creative goals.  This is what the Rabbis meant by their statement that the competitiveness between scholars and wise men is a method for increasing wisdom and understanding generally.  Without competitiveness there can be very little creativity or advancement in all forms of life – technology, healthcare, finance, politics and human nature.  The task, however, is to channel that competitiveness towards positive aims, and to limit it so that it does not descend into violence and tyranny.

Part of the problem of Eisav is not competitiveness but, rather, insecurity.  He always feels his younger brother is tugging at his heel and preventing him from achieving the greatness that he feels is his due.  Because of this insecurity, he seeks fame and fortune in opposing the ideas and lifestyle of his own very family.  He scorns his birthright because he feels that fulfilling its demands will only inhibit him.  Eisav feels that only by being different than Yaakov can he achieve permanent respect.  Therefore, as all of his plans crumble, he cries in anguish to his father that he wants the blessings that Yaakov has received, and he realizes that only in those blessings, which he will have to share always with Yaakov, can his destiny truly be fulfilled.  This is what Yaakov himself tells Eisav at their last meeting, which we will read about in a few weeks: that eventually Yaakov will come to the mountain of Eisav, and then Eisav will be redeemed by his acceptance of Yaakov and of the moral values and tradition of his family. Throughout the books of Tanach we find this constant struggle of insecurity versus acceptance, and competitiveness versus conformity.  We are uncomfortable when we see people who are different than we are.  But the only way to achieve personal greatness is by realizing that our own inner security need not be weakened by competitiveness with others.


MACHON PUAH - Rabbi Gideon Weitzman

Avoiding Shabbat

We continue looking at the answers received related to the halachic definition of a couple undergoing fertility treatment, especially in relation to undergoing treatment on Shabbat. 
Rabbi Yaakov Ariel, the Chief Rabbi of Ramat Gan and a recognized authority in many halachic areas, including medicine and halacha, permitted the couple to undergo certain medical treatments on Shabbat but he preceded his comments with a general limitation.
This is only in a case where the treatment has to be performed on Shabbat and cannot be brought forward to Friday or delayed until after Shabbat. In addition, the couple, and their medical team, must make every effort to ensure that treatment will not be on Shabbat. They cannot simply create a situation in which the treatment is performed on Shabbat out of convenience.
Sometimes the doctor has a preference to push off a treatment to the weekend when the hospital is less busy. With careful planning and concern, often a treatment will not need to be on Shabbat and can be timed to avoid weekends. Some doctors have told me that they have never performed a Shabbat retrieval. 
The same is true of the chagim, and it is advisable for a couple to steer clear of treatment during Tishrei or Nissan, otherwise there will often be an unavoidable clash between their treatment and the festivals.
Rabbi Ariel stated that if, despite all the couple's and doctor's efforts, the treatment will still be on Shabbat, it can only be permitted in a case when otherwise the couple would miss the opportunity to undergo treatment and another opportunity would only be available after a long time.
Another possibility would be that the couple would have to incur a loss if they would miss the treatment. He wrote that the loss could be financial, emotional or physical, i.e. if the woman has already received hormonal injections and stopping the treatment may have detrimental consequences for her health, then the treatment can be done on Shabbat. This would also be the case if the couple would incur significant costs to change the date or cancel the treatment, then this is also a reason to be lenient and permit them to undergo the treatment on Shabbat. This would also be the case if the couple would suffer serious anxiety or anguish due to the cancelation of the treatment.
I would add that age is also a significant factor; fertility decreases with advanced maternal age. If the woman is in her late 30's there is more room to be lenient regarding treatment on Shabbat than for a younger patient. With the older patient, we are concerned that the decrease in fertility may be significant and fast-approaching, and so each month is critical.                                                           More on this next week.


THE NEW OLD PATH with Rabbi Benji Levy, CEO of Mosaic United

Wells of Meaning

When famine strikes Israel yet again, Isaac is forced to flee to the land of the Philistines to find refuge, just like his father did previously:

And Isaac dug anew the wells (be’erot) of water which they had dug in the days of Abraham his father and the Philistines had stopped up after Abraham’s death; and he called them by the same names that his father had called them.

The Torah continues to describes the seemingly trivial incident of Isaac re-digging these wells in great detail as opposed to the many pits that were in the area. There is a significant distinction between a well (be’er) and a pit (bor) which may explain the attention given to these diggings. 

The word bor consists of the two letters bet and reish alone, whereas in the word be’er, an additional aleph is embedded between these two letters. This letter aleph is emblematic of the word Elokim (God); both as an abbreviation and in the numerical oneness that it denotes. 

This distinction between the two words continues, when considering the practical difference between a pit and a well. A pit is a hole dug in the ground, serving as a container of sorts that must be be filled with water from the outside. A well also serves as a container of water, however, it is dug until a natural supply of water is reached, allowing it to self-sustain.

This notion with regard to wells can also be understood in the symbolic sense. Just like Isaac exerted extensive effort in digging these pits until they became wells, so too, we should metaphorically dig wells of meaning in our own lives. We should ‘dig’ through the layers of materialism and human complacency in order to uncover the abundance of spiritual wealth that resides beneath the surface. Everywhere we dwell there is capacity to dig. In some places we need to dig deeper and in some places we need to take longer. In some places the digging is smooth and in others the diggers encounter obstacles. Ultimately, however, there is an opportunity to tap into a deep unlimited source in nearly every situation. 

Rav Kook discusses a similar idea in the context of the pioneers that established the State of Israel. He speaks of people doing backbreaking work, digging through the earth in search of fresh water. Eventually some people give up. They have worked hard and only see dirt rather than the fruits of their labour. Exhausted and disappointed, they put down their tools and leave. Other diggers are still hopeful that they will reach water. They have faith that the work is not in vain and eventually they reach a trickle of water. The excitement is immense! But then they see that the water is dirty – filled with sand. This discovery is shattering – after their hard work they realise that the water is not fit for drinking. They too despair and with acute disappointment, lay down their tools and give up. Some, with even deeper faith, continue the challenge. They understand that the muddied water is still water and a sign that they have nearly reached their destination – they just need to dig a little deeper. This group renew the digging with even greater energy and effort until they bypass the grit and sand and finally reach the pure flowing water. 

Rav Kook’s message, similar to that which we learn from Isaac in his re-digging of the closed-up wells, is that of faith. Even when life is difficult, even if the water lacks clarity, if we dig deep enough, we will always find meaning. The Torah is often compared to water, because just as water nourishes our bodies, spirituality nourishes our souls. Our generation seems thirstier than ever before and yet we often attempt to quench that thirst with dirty water from a pit and when that pit dries up, we have to fill it with something else from outside, rather than tapping into our spiritual source.

Ultimately, our basic mission in life is to metaphorically dig a well to achieve our greater mission in life. Though Abraham’s wells lasted the duration of his lifetime, the Philistines came and filled them with sand when he died. Isaac comes along and re-digs them and reaches the same depth, tapping into the same limitless source that his father did. Though at first, it may be hard to see fruition when we try to delve into the depths of spirituality in our own lives, and though sometimes the pits we dig are temporarily filled in, ultimately, if we continue to dig deep enough, our efforts and our faith will culminate in wells of meaning. 


From the writings of the Ramchal - Jacob Solomon

Yitzchak returned and re-dug the wells of water which were bored in the days of Avraham… and which the P'lishtim subsequently stopped up after Avraham's death (26:18)

The middle section of Parashat Toldot recounts Yitzchak's trials and tribulations when famine in Canaan prompted him and his pastoral nomadic activities to migrate to the neighboring lands of Avimelech, which in today's terms would be the western Negev. The Torah recounts that he followed in his father's footsteps, to the degree that his retinue of workers put into action the same sources of water as his father's retinue of workers. 

Geologically, the rocks of that region are permeable. When it rains, the water percolates through the rock and accumulates in natural reservoirs below. The water may be accessed by boring wells: in those days a highly labor-intensive activity. As long as the well is maintained and in action, it continues to serve people and communities. The well is naturally sustainable: water from the next downpour replaces the underground water of the previous one. 

It follows that a person who digs a sustainable well is doing an act of chesed, an act of kindness that repeatedly assists locals and travelers. He not only serves himself, but those who come along after him.

This was line with Avraham's character: "attribute kindness to Abraham" (Micha 7:20), exemplified by his welcoming of the strangers, his intercession on behalf of the people of Sodom, and his forbearance of Avimelech's offensive behavior. 
The Ramchal (in Otzrot Ramchal) extends Avraham's chesed to having an impact in not only his circle, but within the wider community, indeed within the Creation. He explains that creating access to water that also serves other people is an act of promoting chesed through the world. It effects a tikkun; it brings the world closer to the Creator. As the Creator wishes to help people, those individuals who help people without thought of personal gain "walk in His ways" (Deut. 28:9), effecting a tikkun that brings the world closer to Him.

The P'lishtim blocked those wells after Avraham died (26:15), even though everyone gains and nobody loses when people get access to water, with (according to Rashi) the explanation that the well might supply water to an army that might decide to invade. Probably an excuse rather than a reason. 

Yitzchak's retinue dug and re-opened those same wells, thus continuing the work of his father. But Yitzchak was not Avraham. Avraham's frame was chesed, but Yitzchak's frame was gevura, strength, might. That is a vital difference. While the "right arm" of chesed is designed to bring people near, the "left arm" of gevura reserves the option of pushing away the undeserving. For though the spread of chesed was too strong to prevent during Avraham's lifetime, the P'lishtim blocked up the wells once Avraham died (26:18). 

As Yitzchak epitomized gevura, there was no reason that he should permanently open wells for a people who deliberately caused others to suffer by blocking the water supply. Gevura effectively urged: "after that, they don't deserve it. They might well take advantage of you. Don't help them." 
This, implies the Ramchal, is why the Torah associates Yitzchak's re-boring the well with Avraham's previous boring of the well. Avraham's frame was chesed, Yitzchak's was gevura. Gevura by itself blocks the chesed. By itself, in the worlds of the Ramchal, gevura can "block the light" of chesed, so that chesed does not continue to spread. But this can come with a cost: in everyday language, justly punishing someone can promote the very bad quality that the punishment is designed to prevent.

However, the Torah emphasizes Yitchak's actions as a continuation of Avraham's previous actions indicating that he grounded his own behavior into his father's behavior. He grounded his own gevura into his father's chesed. That meant that his own chesed came from a position of gevura, strength, which made the chesed all the more powerful. His retinue labored to re-open the wells on a permanent basis: not because he had no choice, but because he had the power to decide and that opening the wells was the right thing to do.

Though the first two wells didn't work out according to plan, the third one - Rechovot - did, and was so named from a position of strength: "He (Yitachak) named it Rechovot… for G-d has extended our space so that we may flourish in the land" (26:22). Kindness is something that is most respected when it comes from a position of strength.


GREAT CITIES IN JUDAISM (3) - Dr. Meir Tamari

If cities have character then Shechem is the city of divisiveness; there Dinah was raped, there Yosef was sold and there Yeravam ben Nevat divided the 10 tribes from the House of David, from the kingship of Israel. Our Sages tried to find out what prompted this divisiveness and concluded that it was arrogance. Dinah went out to seek the daughters of the land as she was not content with being merely the daughter of Yaakov. Yosef was sold because the brothers could not subject themselves temporally to him instead of the permanent rule of Yehudah. Yeravam was told that he, ben David and Hashem would walk together. His question was who was to walk in front? Who was to be the first? Arrogance. 
Or Sages taught that Noah was considered a tzaddick in his generation but had he lived at the time of Avraham he would not have been considered one. Why not?  The Torah tells us that Noah walked with Hashem.  Admirable but nevertheless, limited since he could only walk with help. However, Hashem said to Avraham, "Arise, walk before Me". Avraham could walk unaided before Hashem; that is true spiritual greatness. That is the greatness of Yosef who could remain true to his father's teachings even when he was a youth, alone, in Egypt, a foreign land, one devoted to immorality, idolatry and violence. These could easily lead to pride and arrogance, yet he reveals himself to his brothers who had sold him into captivity, as, "Yosef, your brother". Likewise, we have the portrait of Moshe, raised as a prince, who goes out to his brothers, the Hebrew slaves. Rebbe Elimelech said that Reb Zusha was so modest that if the bookcase would be warped, he would bend and be its support.  All these teach us not to confuse modesty and humility with any lack of ability or power. Menachem Mendel of Kotsk taught that only respecting Moshe is it written that he was the most modest of men. "First one has to be a Moshe before one is truly humble; otherwise, humility is the greatest form of arrogance". 


We can find arrogance even amongst Torah scholars. "Why was the Bayit Sheini destroyed?  Because of the arrogance of scholars. They could not accept the scholarship of their fellow scholars and the needless hatred which resulted, caused destruction" (Torah Temimah; Introduction to Bereishit). Once, in a group of scholars, one stole the Kiddush cup of the host. Rabbi Yisrael Salanter, founder of our modern Mussar movemen, stood and watched them wash their hands. When one dried his hands on the coat of his fellow, the Rav proclaimed him as the thief. "It was simple", he explained, "one who is capable of such an act, is also capable of theft". This explains how destruction could come even where there were none of the 3 cardinal sins which had led to the first churban.S
Avoiding the sin of arrogance does not mean self-abasement or the negation of family honor or even the denial of self-worth. Yosef is proud of his father's house so his sole defense against Potiphar's wife, is to say he was a Hebrew and was stolen from his father's house. Yonah, similarly clears himself of crime by simply saying that he was a Hebrew fleeing before a commandment of Hashem and not before human justice. The very first king in Jewry, Saul, was deemed unsuitable for establishing a dynasty because of redundant modesty. Perhaps, the best example is the story of Cain and Hevel. The former has a continuation in his descendants despite the evil he does, while the saintly Hevel, does not. "Regarding Hevel the Torah states he also brought a sacrifice, emphasizing that he really belittled the effort. The world cannot have a continuation through one who belittles everything, even his worship" (Shem Mi Shemuel).  In contrast, the Shulchan Aruch, opens the laws of daily conduct by saying, "arise like a lion (like royalty) in the service of his Creator" (Orech Chaim, 1:1). Our Sages in different generations, different countries and different conditions, all see this pride as essential in withstanding both the personal weaknesses of the individual and the communal difficulties of Jewry. There are, in our own times, many religious people who achieve fame or importance in various fields. However, few of them retain the externalities of Jewish dress and Jewish appearance; all too often the demands of Shabbat, Chagim or other rituals are disguised by referring to other general considerations.  
Our Sages queried why Moshe, father of the Prophets, Lawgiver and  Savior of Israel was not allowed to enter Eretz Yisrael dead or alive whereas Yosef was allowed to be buried there. Yosef never denied his origin, but told how he was stolen from the Land of the Hebrews. However, when the daughters of Yitro said that an Egyptian had save them, Moshe remained silent. For that denial of his nationality, he was to  remain buried in Chutz la Aretz.


Rabbi Aaron Goldscheider

Both twins, Esav and Yaakov, want the blessing. Their mother and father are not of one mind on who deserves the blessing.

This is one of the most critical and one of the most mystifying chapters in the Torah. Critical because the events will unfold in such a way that only one son will carry on the leadership of the Chosen People. And mystifying because it seems unreasonable that Yitzchak would choose Esav to receive the blessing.

Esav had just married out of the faith. This caused great pain to Rivkah and Yitzchak: “And when Esav was forty years old he took as a wife Judith the daughter of Be’eri the Hittite, and Basmath the daughter of Elon the Hittite; and they were a bitterness of soul to Yitzchak and Rivkah.” (B'eishit 26:35) In these words the Torah attests to Esav’s intermarriage with the local women; an act of defiance towards his parents and grandparents before him. Guilty of this sin, and others enumerated by the Sages, why would Yitzchak wish to confer the blessing on him?

A number of Torah commentators insist that Yitzchak was well aware of Esav’s
unseemly conduct. However, it can be argued, he wished to confer blessings on him for this very reason. Because Esav had a tendency for indulgence and aggressive behavior, Yitzchak wanted him to turn those traits toward the service of God. He believed in Esav and in his potential to transform his negative characteristics.

Chassidic masters expound on this approach:

(c:uf ,hatrc) h,un ouh h,gsh tk h,bez tb vbv rnthu
According to one translation of this verse, Yitzchak wishes to impart a blessing before leaving this world. The great Chassidic master, Rebbe Zvi Elimelech of Dinov points to another interpretation. 

Yitzchak actually says,’ I never knew’ - in the past tense - ‘the day of my death'. Yitzchak seems to be implying something else.

The Rebbe suggested that Yitzchak was sharing with his son a window into the way he had served God throughout his life. There are those whose service to God is based on fear and punishment. They remind themselves regularly that they will one day face God in judgment.

This idea is actually based on a teaching in the Talmud which instructs a person tempted by sin to contemplate his/her day of death (B'rachot 5a).

Yitzchak relays to Esav that this was never his way. Such thoughts are only a last resort. “I never needed to conjure up such frightening thoughts of death.” The pasuk can be understood to mean: ‘I have not known - in my past or throughout my life - the day of my death.’ My relationship with God has been saturated with joy. The ‘yirat Hashem’ that has permeated my relationship with the Almighty consisted of awe and wonder that has engendered simchat hachayim.

The Chassidic master Rebbe Chaim Chernovitz, author of Be’er Mayim Chaim, offers an analogous approach to the Rebbe of Dinov. He detects two critical motifs embedded in Yitzchak’s directive to Esav. Let us examine the verse in which Yitzchak instructed Esav to procure meat in preparation for receiving the blessing:

“And now lift your weapons, your sword and bow, and go forth to the field and hunt game for me.” (Bereshit 27:3)

Why, asked the Rebbe, did Yitzchak use the word ‘now’, which apparently is unnecessary? He answered that the word ‘now’ is a term which alludes to the notion of teshuva or returning to God. The midrash (B'reishit Rabbah 21:6) says: “The term ‘ata’, now, always refers to teshuva.” ‘Ata’ connotes that at any moment, even now, one can change. Yitzchak was intimating to Esav that he could do the same.

The words that follow in this pasuk are also puzzling. Why does Yitzchak need to tell his son to take weapons for his hunt. Is this not obvious? Also, why does Yitzchak specifically say ‘lift’ your weapons; it should have simply said, ’take your weapons’. The Rebbe suggested that Yitzchak asked Esav to take his ‘weapons’, meaning, his aggressive and forceful personality traits, and lift them up, elevate them to be used positively and productively in serving God. The most elevated form of teshuva is when one uses all of one’s varied traits and strength l’shem shamayim, ‘for the sake of Heaven’.

In the eyes of the chassidic masters cited above, Yitzchak was well aware of Esav’s shortcomings. However, evidently, Yitzchak felt that bestowing a blessing on his son would encourage him. Yitzchak did not merely have in mind to bless Esav, he wished to impart encouraging messages that would inspire him toward greatness. He imparted to his son the notion that a life dedicated to God need not be heavy or burdensome. Quite the opposite. A life in service to the Master of the World is replete with joy. True ‘Yirat Shamayim’ engenders delight and happiness. Second, even when one veers from a path of goodness and righteousness, the door is always open for return; every moment offers an opportunity to come back home. Third, every personality trait can be channeled into positive behavior and creative goals.

The lessons imparted by our forefather Yitzchak need to taken to heart in our own pursuit of a life dedicated to Torah and service to the Holy One Blessed Be He.

This dvar Torah is based on a piece from Rabbi Baruch Simon’s shlita, Imrei Baruch, Bereshit pp. 133-137
OzTORAH - Rabbi Raymond Apple

DOES GOD NEED OUR PRAYERS?

The Torah text says that Isaac entreated God on behalf of his barren wife Rivkah (Gen. 25:22). The Targum Onkelos amends the word "entreated" to "prayed".

Another change made by Onkelos is to insert the word "before": i.e. "Isaac prayed before the Lord". This seems to remove the close physicality of the person who is praying towards the One to whom he is praying.

In fact it suggests another dimension of prayer, that it brings benefit to the pray-er, not to God. As Maimonides reminds us (Guide to the Perplexed 3:32), God remains pure, perfect and permanent, regardless of whether we pray to Him. Our aim in prayer is to change things in and around ourselves, not to change God.

Someone once said, "He who rises from prayer as a better person, his prayer has been answered."


TORAH TIDBITS THIS 'n THAT (A.K.A. TETRA-TUKI)
Torah Tidbits is more than the hard copy TT has increased the number of Torah articles each week. This has resulted in the necessity of leaving out some articles from the hard copy. In most cases, the 'missing' pieces can be found on our website: www.ttidbits.com where you will find links to the whole TT in three different forms, separate articles (both those in the hard copy and those that are not), the yearly calendar for z'manim, the daily learning chart, Rosh Chodesh Benching pages... and some good external links too. Check them out...
Since last week we discussed the absence of Eliezer from Parshat Chayei Sara, let's look at the names that are found in Toldot. Leader of the name count is Yitzchak, with 39 occurrences. Eisav is in second place with 35, and Yaakov in third with 29. Rivka and Avraham are mentioned 13 times each. Avimelech is mentioned 7 times. What does this all mean? Maybe nothing. Maybe something. 
Remember the old ad slogan - Does she or doesn't she? Only her hair dresser knows for sure. (What was the ad for?) In Parshat Toldot we can ask the same question about Rivka Imeinu. Does she or doesn't she? Receive NEVU'A, prophecy. 
When Rivka becomes pregnant and is experiencing turmoil inside her, she goes LIDROSH ET HASHEM - she went to Sheim ben No'ach, to inquire G-d about it. 
The Torah says that G-d told her about the two sons she was carrying.
Rashi, based on the Midrash, says that G-d spoke to her through Sheim, who received Divine inspiration. The implication is that G-d did not communicate directly with Rivka; she was not a prophetess. In fact, the Gemara lists 7 prophetess and Sara is the only one of the IMAHOT on the list.
However, later in the sedra, when Rivka overhears Yitzchak's instruc- tions to Eisav, she has Yaakov bring her two goats, she prepares food for Yitzchak, and tells Yaakov to pretend he is Eisav... because the bracha belongs to him. When he hesitates for fear of his father realizing who he really is and cursing him rather than blessing him, Rivka says ALAI KIL'LATCHA B'NEI - the curse will be on me... Onkeles adds a crucial phrase - ALAI ITAMAR BINVU'A - to me it was told in prophecy (that we should do this). Yaakov immediately com- plies. 
Still further in the sedra, Rivka is 'told' of Eisav's intention to kill Yaakov. Eisav only had these thoughts in his heart. Who told Rivka? Says Rashi - RU'ACH HAKODESH.
So is she or isn't she? Apparently, there are levels to Ru'ach HaKodesh. Nevu'a is a higher level than Divine Inspiration, Ru'ach HaKodesh.