SEDRAH SELECTIONS PARSHAS VA'YEIRO 5765 BS"D
Dear Sedrah Selection readers: I attempt to expand my Torah commentary
library to have a larger pool of commentators from whom to offer divrei Torah on the
weekly parsha. For well over a decade I have attempted to procure the works
of Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel, a Rishon. It has been out of print for a while and
the family of the motzi lo'or had none left in stock. It has just been
reprinted b"H, and upon purchasing it I immersed myself into the writings of this
oft-quoted Rishon. You will now understand why almost every dvar Torah on this
parsha is taken from the writings of Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel. Only those divrei
Torah that are from another source will carry an attribution in this week's
Sedrah Selections.
Ch. 18, v. 2,3: "V'hi'nei shloshoh anoshim, Va'yomer A-DO-NOY" - And behold
three men, And he said A-DO-NOY - There is a false theological concept of
trinity, that there are three combined spiritual powers/beings that combine into
becoming one deity, hence tri-nutty. They bring a proof from these two verses.
Three people came in front of Avrohom and he addresses them as one and calls
them a-do-noy, one.
This cheap bit of theological logic is readily rebutted:
1) If indeed Avrohom was addressing the 3/1 as G-d, why did he offer
them/him food?
2) If, as they posit, the three join to become one inseparable unity, how is
it that they part, as only two went on to S'dom, "Va'yovo'u shnei ho'anoshim
S'domoh" (19:1)?
3) In 18:22 the verse states, "Va'yifnu mishom ho'anoshim va'yeilchu
S'domoh," - the people turned away from there and they went to S'dom. They left
Avrohom, and yet the verse continues, "v'Avrohom o'denu omeid lifnei Hashem," - and
Avrohom was still standing in front of Hashem. If they are G-d Himself and
they/he left, how could Avrohom still be standing in front of Hashem?
We might add that this third point explains why the verse says "o'denu," a
seemingly superfluous word. We can say that the verse wants to stress this
rebuttal, adding that although they left he was STILL in front of Hashem. (Nirreh
li)
Ch. 18, v. 5: "Vo'ek'choh fas lechem" - And I will take a piece of bread -
Why doesn't the verse say "kikar lechem"? In verse 6 it says "vaasi UGOS," while
by Lote (19:3) it says "uMATZOS ossoh." Here there is no mention of
"mishteh," while by Lote there is (19:3).
This can all be explained with information supplied by the M.R. 48:8 (with
slight variations). The three people came to Avrohom on the eve of Pesach in the
fourth hour of the morning. A limited amount of chometz was available, hence
he only offered "pas lechem," a piece of bread. Alternatively, we can say that
Avrohom said little (a piece of bread), and did a lot, giving bread in
abundance. This also explains why Avrohom did not offer night lodging in the
beginning and even said that they should feel free to leave immediately after the
meal in verse 5, "achar taavoru." (This might also explain the omission of
"mishteh" in Avrohom's words.) Once the time came when chometz was Rabbinically
prohibited he asked Soroh to make UGOS, enriched matzoh, made with eggs and the
like. This is not acceptable for matzos mitzvoh, and may therefore be eaten on
the eve of Pesach. Proper matzoh may not be eaten on the 14th of Nison (gemara
Yerushalmi P'sochim 10:1). The 2 messengers reached Lote in S'dom in the
evening (19:1), when Pesach had begun. He therefore baked specifically matzos and
also offered drink, as two goblets of wine are required before the matzoh is
eaten.
Ch. 19, v. 8: "Asher lo yodu ish" - Who have not known a man - The words "lo
yodu" seem problematic. Since the man is the active partner in cohabiting the
verse should have said "lo y'do'on ish," as we find in 24:16, "v'ish lo
y'do'oh." This expression alludes to what would shortly take place. Lote was
intoxicated and cohabited with his daughters He was stone drunk and they were the
motivators (19:33,36). Hence he was saying that as of now his daughters had not
instigated cohabiting and were virgins. Later they would instigate his
cohabiting with them.
Similarly, we find this anomalous expression by the daughters of Midyon, who
instigated sin with the bnei Yisroel, "kol ishoh YODAAS ish" (Bmidbar 31:17).
Ch. 19, v. 17,26: "Al tabit acha'recho, Vatabeit ishto mei'acharov" - Do not
look behind yourself, And she looked from behind him - The intention of not
looking behind themselves was simply so that they should leave as quickly as
possibly, which would be hampered by looking behind themselves. The rush was to
avoid becoming enveloped in the cloud of sulfur and salt. Iris, the wife of
Lote, slowed down and was indeed caught in this noxious cloud and was stopped in
her tracks. She then became encased in a thick layer of salt.
Pirkei d'Rebbi Eliezer (end of chapter #25) relates that the pillar of salt
that was Lote's wife became a cow lick.
Ch. 19, v. 33: "Vatashkenoh es avi'hen yayin balayloh hu" - And they gave
their father to drink wine on that night - In this verse, relating the actions of
the older daughter, the verse mentions the wine ahead of night, while in
verse 35, where the actions of the younger daughter are related, the verse first
mentions night and then wine, "balayloh hahu es avi'hen yoyin." Two other
differences are that by the older daughter the verse says "es ovihoh" and "vatovo,"
while by the younger daughter it says "imo" and "vatokom."
These three differences are explained as follows: The older daughter waited
until almost the end of the night before she cohabited with her father, hence
first wine and then night. This also explains "es oviho," as he became slightly
cognizant of his situation hours after he was drunk. This also explains
"vatovo," as she came from another matter before the act, waiting numerous hours.
The younger daughter cohabited with her father as soon as he was totally
drunk, hence night and then wine, as there was no passage of hours of the night
after the drinking and before the act. This also explains "imo," as her father
had no knowledge that he was a father cohabiting with his daughter. He was
still totally drunk. There was also no "vatovo," as she did not have a dividing
matter between his becoming drunk and the act,
hence, "vatokom."
Note that both Ovos d'Rebbi Nosson ch' #34 and the Baal Haturim disagree with
Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel, as they write that the dot above the word "uvkumoh"
in verse 33 indicates that the older daughter had relations with her father
before midnight.
Ch. 20, v. 12: "V'gam omnoh achosi vas ovi hee" - And also in truth she is my
sister the daughter of my father - Why does Avrohom explain his misleading
words here to Avimelech, and by very similar circumstances with Paroh (12:19) he
makes no attempt to explain? Sifsei Chachomim (Maharsha"l) answers that only
here did Avrohom have to explain himself because Avimelech asked his question
twice, clearly necessitating an answer.
Perhaps another answer will emerge by prefacing with the famous words of the
Ramban on Breishis 12:6, "Kol mah she'ira l'ovos simon labonim" (Tanchuma #9),
- all that happened to the Patriarchs portends what will happen to the
descendants. Avrohom would surely prefer to justify his words, and that is exactly
what he did in our parsha with Avimelech. He could have done the same and
explained similarly to Paroh. However, he prophetically knew that his descendants
would be exiled to Egypt, and that their leader would request a three-day
hiatus from Egypt to serve Hashem. In the strictest literal form this ended up
being a lie. "Maa'sei ovos" required that he plant a seed through his own dialogue
with Paroh for this to happen. He therefore gave no explanation afterwards so
that his saying that Soroh was his sister should indeed be false. (Nirreh li)
Ch. 21, v. 30: "Es sheva kvosos tikach mi'yodi baavur t'h'yeh li l'eidoh" -
Seven sheep shall you take from my hand so that it shall be for me a testimony
- Sheep are a most unusual item to offer a king. Why not give him an item of
beauty? Since Avrohom wanted the item to serve as testimony that the well was
his, sheep served this purpose very well. Had he offered an item such as
jewellery, Avimelech would have just added it to his chest of trinkets, out of
sight. By offering sheep, and specifically female sheep, Avrohom's purpose was well
served. Males are slaughtered, while fmales are kept alive to reproduce. By
giving livestock, they would be brought daily to the well to drink, people
would ask about the addition of these sheep to the flock, and the reminder of the
wells belonging to Avrohom would be the topic of conversation. Intentionally
seven sheep were given, as "sheva" is phonetically similar to "shvuoh," an oath
(verse 31).
Ch. 22, v. 3: "Va'yachavosh es chamoro" - And he saddled his donkey - We find
the same expression by Bilom, "va'yachavosh es asono" (Bmidbar 22:21). The
reason the same term is used by both, while we find other terms for preparing an
animal for travel, is because of the connection between these two, "k'var
kodomcho Avrohom."
Paa'nei'ach Rozo explains that the same term is used by Yoseif, "va'ye'sor es
markavto" (Breishis 46:29), as by Paroh, "va'yesor es richbo" (Shmos 14:6),
to indicate that Yoseif's action would overpower Paroh's.
On a simple level it seems that the differing expressions are appropriate for
the situation. When preparing a donkey for traveling, one just saddles it,
"v'ayachavosh." When one prepares horses for pulling chariots, tying down
headgear and ropes connected to the horses and chariots is required, hence
"va'ye'esor." (Nirreh li)
Ch. 22, v. 14: "B'har Hashem yei'ro'eh" - On the mount of Hashem it will be
seen - The gemara P'sochim 88a says that Avrohom called the Temple Mount a
mountain, "har." Yitzchok called it a field, "so'deh." Yaakov called it a house,
"bayis." Perhaps this is alluded to in our Yom Tov prayer "V'seiro'eh
l'fo'necho asiro'seinu," where we say "HoSHeiV sh'chinos'cho l'Tzion." HoSheiV is an
acronym for Har, So'deh, Bayis. (Nirreh li)
A GUTTEN SHABBOS KODESH. FEEL FREE TO DISTRIBUTE BY COPY OR ELECTRONICALLY.
FEEDBACK IS APPRECIATED. TO SUBSCRIBE, KINDLY SEND REQUEST TO: SHOLOM613@AOL.COM
See also Oroh
V'Simchoh - Meshech Chochmoh on the Weekly Parsha and Chasidic Insights |
