Avraham's Servant: The True Path

We read in Parashat Chayei-Sara of the "test" conducted by Avraham's servant as he sets out to find the girl destined to marry Yitzchak. When he arrives at the well outside the city of Aram Naharayim, he prays that God should see to it that the first girl to offer water to both him and his camels should be the suitable match for Yitzchak. Sure enough, it is Rivka, the daughter of Avraham's cousin and a worthy marriage partner for Yitzchak, who immediately appears and offers water to the servant and his camels.

When the servant relates this incident to Rivka's family, he recalls as well his feelings of gratitude to the Almighty for answering his prayers: "I kneeled and bowed to the Lord, and I blessed the Lord, the God my master Avraham, who led me along a true path – to bring the daughter of my master's kinsman for his son" (24:48).

What precisely did the servant mean when he speaks of God leading him "along a true path" ("be-derekh emet")?

Instinctively, perhaps, we would interpret the word emet in this context to mean "proper" or "correct," rather than "true." The servant expresses his gratitude to God for leading him along the proper route, the route that led to the successful fulfillment of Avraham's command.

The Rashbam explains differently: "'Along a true path' – for the Almighty's promise to perform kindness to Avraham and his son was confirmed." The servant speaks of his route as a derekh emet because his success confirmed the fulfillment of God's promise to deal kindly with Avraham and Yitzchak.

An insightful homiletic interpretation of this expression was suggested by Rav Yitzchak Kunstadt of Pressburg, in his work Luach Erez (published in Vienna, 1915). Avraham's servant felt grateful for the ability to complete his mission be-derekh emet, through honest means, for not having to resort to wily, underhanded tactics to win the consent of the suitable girl. Rivka's family agreed to the match because "this matter has come forth from the Lord" (24:50), God Himself dictated that Rivka should marry Yitzchak. This overt divine intervention thus spared the servant the temptation to enlist dishonesty and deception in his effort to complete his assigned mission. He therefore gives thanks to the Almighty not only for ensuring his success – but also for allowing him to succeed by following "the true path," the path of pristine truth, honesty and integrity.

Volver al capítulo

Greed or Wisdom: What is Efron Saying?

Parashat Chayei Sara begins with the exchange that took place between Avraham and the neighboring Chittites surrounding the Machpela cave, which Avraham sought to purchase as a burial site after his wife’s passing. Efron, who owned the property, offered to give the cave and the adjacent field to Avraham free of charge, but the patriarch insisted on paying full price. Finally, Efron said, “A land worth four hundred shekels of silver – what is it to you and me? Bury your dead [wife]” (23:15). Avraham promptly paid Efron the specified sum and took possession of the land.

Chazal, in a number of Midrashim, portray Efron as a sly and greedy merchant, who put forth a façade of generosity while actually hinting to Avraham that he sought an exorbitant price for a small piece of property. A number of commentators, however, explained differently, claiming that Efron sincerely wished to give Avraham the property free of charge, viewing the land as not significant enough an asset to demand payment (see, for example, Radak).

Shadal offers a particularly insightful interpretation of Efron’s remark: “It is not appropriate for me or for you to excessively indulge in deliberations over this, for it is something trivial [davar kal] for us, and you must bury your dead [wife]. And since you do not wish to receive it as a gift, I will not stop you from paying its price.” According to Shadal, Efron’s intent here is to downplay the significance of the issue under discussion, to simplify the process by accepting Avraham’s demand so that Sara could be buried without further delay. Essentially, Efron told Avraham, “This is not worth any further discussion; if you insist on paying, then pay and take possession of the land without delaying the burial any further!”

As mentioned, our Midrashic tradition generally looks disdainfully upon Efron. Nevertheless, it would appear that according to Shadal’s interpretation, there is perhaps a simple yet significant lesson that we could learn from Efron’s handling of the situation. Whenever we find ourselves embroiled in any kind of argument, it is worth taking a moment to see if perhaps the subject of the dispute is a “davar kal,” a “trivial matter” that does not quite deserve an argument. Avraham and Efron were both insisting on doing the right thing: Avraham felt he should pay full price for the land, while Efron did not want to take money from a person of Avraham’s stature. But Efron quickly realized that at a certain point, there was no sense having an argument while a deceased woman was awaiting burial. Whether Avraham pays or doesn’t pay, Efron realized, the more critical concern is that he takes the land and buries his wife as quickly as possible. This is perhaps how we should approach the arguments and disagreements in which we find ourselves. We should ask ourselves, should we be giving this matter the time and emotional energy it is currently receiving? Are there perhaps other, more pressing matters that demand our attention but are being neglected because of this argument?

According to Shadal, Efron acted sincerely, and wisely. He was sincere in his desire to give Avraham the land without pay, and he was wise to realize that this issue was not worth arguing over while a righteous woman awaited burial. His conduct should serve as an instructive example of ending unnecessary conflicts so that we can redirect our time and focus onto more important matters.

Volver al capítulo

יום המשפט

מנקודת המבט של יואל, יום ה' מתמקד בגמול ה' לגויים, ואת כל העובר על עם ה' באותה התקופה הוא מזכיר בקיצור נמרץ. כך, למשל, נזכרו קיבוץ הגלויות ושיבתם לארץ, אגב קיבוץ הגויים לשם עריכת משפט בהם. מטרה נוספת לשמה הזכיר הנביא את השיבה לארץ, היא תפיסתו שרק לאחר תיקון עוול הפיזור של ישראל בגויים, תוכשר השעה לשפוט את האשמים בפיזור ובהגליה. מכל מקום הרעיון המרכזי במסכת הגאולה שבנביאים - קיבוץ הגלויות לארץ, תופס בספרנו מקום משני בלבד.
ופה כאילו חוזר יואל על תמונה המצויה בדברי כמה נביאים: גויים רבים עולים על ירושלים ומנהלים מלחמה עקובת דם ביניהם (יחזקאל ל"ט, זכריה י"ד). אולם בעיון קל מתגלה השוני בחזונו של יואל. כאן נקבצים הגויים למשפט ומורדים לעמק יהושפט על מנת להשמיע באוזניהם כתב אישום. גם פסוקים ט-יז המדברים על הכנות למלחמה - חוזרים לעניין המשפט, ולבסוף מתערפלים המושגים, והמלחמה הופכת לדישת תבואה, וכֵּלֶיהָ לכלי חקלאות. בסופו של דבר לא מדובר על מלחמה, אלא על המשפט.
יואל לא דיבר על המלחמה כשלעצמה, אלא ראה בה מעין חיתום הדין - תוצאת המשפט.
אמנם הגויים נקראים להכין עצמם למלחמה ולהכין לעצמם כלי משחית: "כתו אתיכם לחרבות... החלש יאמר גבור אני" (י), ואמנם נגשים ועולים לקרב כל אנשי המלחמה, אך בניגודיות אירונית לתכונה ולפעלתנות הרבה שלהם, מתואר הקב"ה כיושב לשפוט, כי שם ישפוט אלוקי המשפט את הגויים הגועשים, שאינו נבהל מהם ומהמונם, כפי שמתואר בתהלים:
"למה רגשו גוים ולאמים יהגו ריק. יתיצבו מלכי ארץ... על ה' ועל משיחו...
יושב בשמים ישחק, ה' ילעג למו" (תהילים ב', א-ד).

נערך ע"י צוות אתר התנ"ך

לקריאת המאמר המלא באדיבות אתר דעת

Volver al capítulo

מפלת סנחריב או מיתת גוג ומגוג?

'מורה הנבוכים' חלק ב פרק כט

מאמר יואל: "וְנָתַתִּי מוֹפְתִים בַּשָּׁמַיִם וּבָאָרֶץ דָּם וָאֵשׁ וְתִימְרוֹת עָשָׁן.

הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ יֵהָפֵךְ לְחֹשֶׁךְ וְהַיָּרֵחַ לְדָם

לִפְנֵי בּוֹא יוֹם ה' הַגָּדוֹל וְהַנּוֹרָא" (יואל ג', ג-ד)

והטוב אצלי שהוא מספר מיתת סנחריב על ירושלים,

ואם לא תרצה, זה יהיה ספורו: מיתת גוג ומגוג על ירושלים בימי מלך המשיח,

עם היותו גם כן בלתי נזכר בזה הענין, אלא רוב ההרג משרפת האש ולקות המאורות,

ואולי תאמר: איך יקרא יום ה' הגדול והנורא יום מיתת סנחריב כפירושנו?

הנה תדע כי כל יום שתהיה בו ישועה גדולה או מכה גדולה יקרא יום ה' הגדול והנורא,

כי גדול יום ה' נורא מאד ומי יכילנו.

רמב"ם - ר' משה בן מימון, נולד בספרד בשנת 1135. עבר למצרים, בה שימש כרב, מנהיג ורופא. גדול הפוסקים והפילוסופים היהודים. חיבר את ספר ה"משנה תורה" בו אסף, הכריע וסידר את כל ההלכות, וכן את "מורה הנבוכים" - ספר פילוסופיה. נפטר בשנת 1204.

Volver al capítulo

מכת הארבה במצרים ובימי יואל

יואל מתאר את מכת הארבה בימיו כייחודית:
"כָּמֹהוּ לֹא נִהְיָה מִן הָעוֹלָם וְאַחֲרָיו לֹא יוֹסֵף עַד שְׁנֵי דּוֹר וָדוֹר" (יואל ב', ב)

אך גם במכת הארבה של מצרים נאמר:
"לְפָנָיו לֹא הָיָה כֵן אַרְבֶּה כָּמֹהוּ וְאַחֲרָיו לֹא יִהְיֶה כֵּן" (שמות י', יד)

מסביר הרד"ק:

כי אותו של מצרים לא היה אלא מין אחד והוא הארבה

והיה רב אותו המין במצרים יותר ממה שהיה עתה בארץ ישראל

לפיכך אמר "ואחריו לא יהיה כן" (שמות י', יד)

והנה אמר "כמוהו לא נהיה" (יואל ב', ב) כן,

כי היו ארבעה מינים ושבמצרים לא היה אלא מין אחד.

רד"ק - ר' דוד בן יוסף קמחי, חי בדרום צרפת בין השנים 1160-1235. התפרסם כדקדקן על ידי ספרו "מכלול", הרבה לעיין בפילוסופיה ובמדעים. כתב פירוש לתנ"ך לספרי בראשית, נביאים ראשונים, נביאים אחרונים, תהלים ודברי הימים. פירושו עוסק הרבה בענייני לשון, ניקוד, מסורה, ופירוש המילים. הוא עוסק גם בשאלת חיבור הספרים וזמנם של הנביאים, שאלות היסטוריות וגיאוגרפיות, ובויכוחים עם הפרשנות הנוצרית לכתוב.

Volver al capítulo

שורש יבש

בהסתכלות ספרותית על הפרק, נראה ערבוב מבלבל של משל עם נמשל, של מציאות עם נבואה. באופן זה הנביאים גורמים לקורא לחשוב בעצמו, לפרש ולהסיק מתוך נבואותיהם למה בדיוק מתכוון הקב״ה במראותיו.

בפרק זה של נבואת הפורענות, מתוארים יובש ובצורת, וקשה להבין האם מדובר במשל על אפרים או בתיאור של הפורענות שתבוא על אדמת ארץ ישראל.

מספר דברים מתוארים בפרק:

א. הדגן, הגורן, היקב, התירוש - פירות אדמת הארץ - לא יגדלו, ולכן בני ישראל יאלצו לאכול טמא בגלות.

ב. עם ישראל כבר אינו כענבים במדבר וכתאנה בכורה - כאן נראה שמדובר במשל ברור.

ג. הזנות, כמשל לעבודה זרה, פוגעת בירידת הגשמים המשפיעים על פרי האדמה. זהו משל ידוע המופיע לכל רוחב התנ״ך, אלא שכאן אין תקווה שהכל יכול להשתנות – כי הפורענות פוגעת בצמח עצמו, בשורשו.

הפרק מסתיים בתיאור של גלות מוחלטת, ״מביתי אגרשם...שרשם יבש, פרי בל יעשון...ויהיו נודדים בגוים״. אין כבר שלום בית, מתוך כך הבית מתפרק והשורש יבש כך שאין כבר הפרייה לאף פרי. כאן נדמה שיש טשטוש גדול בין המציאות הנבואית לבין המשל, האם באמת הפרי מסמל את פירות ארץ ישראל, או שמא את פרי הבטן של העם, כמו שמתואר בפרק. האם התינוקות ימותו? פירות הארץ לא יגדלו? או שאולי הפרי מתייחס לרוחניות?

אשאיר אתכם עם השאלות, אך לדעתי מדובר במשל על השורש. השורש של הזוגיות מכל הבחינות - בין אפרים לאלוקים ובין העם לאדמת הארץ – ושורש הרוחניות הפנימית של העם. הכל מתפרק מהשורש. העם ינדוד בגולה עד שיגדל שורשים רוחניים חדשים שמהם יגדלו פירות בטן, פירות אדמה ופירות אמונה ורק אז יחזור לביתו.

הכותבים במדור זה הינם חברי ארגון נח"ת - נוער חובב תנ"ך, המהווה בית לללימוד תנ"ך בידי הנוער

Volver al capítulo

Did Avraham have a Daughter?

In Parashat Chayei-Sara, the Torah tells of the search for a wife for Yitzchak, and it introduces this section with the verse, "Avraham was old, advanced in years, and the Lord had blessed Avraham with everything" (24:1). The Gemara, in Masekhet Bava Batra (16b), records several views among the Tanna'im as to the deeper meaning of God's having blessed Avraham "with everything." Rabbi Meir, the first Tanna cited, explains this phrase to mean that Avraham never had a daughter, and in this sense he was "blessed with everything." Why does Rabbi Meir consider it a blessing not to have a daughter? In fact, Halakha follows the view in Masekhet Yevamot (61) that one fulfills the mitzva of procreation only once he has at least one son and one daughter. In what sense, then, was it a "blessing" for Avraham not to have begotten a daughter?

The Ramban, and, in further elaboration, Rav Shimshon Refael Hirsch, explain that in this particular instance, we can easily understand why – at least according to Rabbi Meir – the lack of daughters is to be viewed as a blessing. If Avraham had a daughter, she would inevitably be lost to idolatry. After all, marriage in the ancient world meant the wife's entry into the husband's family, which naturally entailed her integration into his entire milieu and culture. It is hardly likely that Avraham would find a family with a religious orientation suitable for his daughter. In the case of Avraham's son, of course, the girl would join Avraham's family, and it was understood that she and her children would ultimately embrace the culture of Avraham. If he had a daughter, however, she and her progeny would have undoubtedly become idolaters.

The second view recorded in the Gemara, that of Rabbi Yehuda, holds that to the contrary, the all-encompassing "blessing" mentioned in this verse refers to the fact that Avraham had a daughter. How would he respond to Rabbi Meir's argument, as understood by the Ramban, that the impossibility of finding a suitable match for a daughter renders it a blessing that Avraham did not beget a daughter? The Ramban writes, "This is the blessing 'with everything,' for he had everything that people long for, lacking nothing." Despite the problem in finding a suitable husband, Rabbi Yehuda still considers having a daughter a necessary component of a blessing "with everything," since people long to have both a son and a daughter.

Rav Hirsch explains Rabbi Yehuda's view differently, explaining that God blessed Avraham not only with a daughter, but also in the sense that she remained loyal to his teachings after marriage. Additionally, Rav Hirsch writes, through this daughter's marriage, Avraham "formed a bridge between the isolated house of Avraham and the rest of the world. Avraham was thereby granted a blessing that would have remained unobtainable in his isolation: to plant the Abrahamitic spirit in the non-Abrahamitic world." Avraham's daughter enabled him to establish a bond with the outside world, which represented the ultimate "blessing" for which he could have hoped.

Volver al capítulo

Sarah's Life: 127 Good Years

The opening verse of Parashat Chayei-Sara tells that Sara lived for one hundred and twenty-seven years. The verse then adds a seemingly superfluous phrase: "shenei chayei Sara" – "these are the years of Sara's life." Rashi somewhat ambiguously comments, "Kulan shavin le-tova" – the years of Sara's life were all equal in goodness. According to Rashi, the clause "shenei chayei Sara" emphasizes that the totality of Sara's life was good.

What exactly does it mean that all of Sara's years were "equal," and why is this point worthy of emphasis?

One explanation is cited in the name of the work, "Nachalat Chamisha." Sara lived most of her life with the anguish of infertility, and it was only in the final thirty-seven years that she enjoyed the pleasures of parenthood. One might have therefore considered only those final thirty-seven years the happy, content period of Sara's life, whereas the first ninety were marked by frustration and shame. In truth, however, "kulan shavin le-tova" – all of Sara's years were years of happiness and joy. The Torah here emphasizes Sara's positive attitude throughout her ordeal of infertility, that she never allowed her inability to conceive to interfere with her vitality and enthusiasm towards life.

Rav Soloveitchik zt"l suggested a different explanation of this passage in Rashi (cited in Abraham Besdin's "Reflections of the Rav," vol. 2, chapter 9). He explains that these comments of Rashi must be seen as a continuation of Rashi's previous comments on this verse. In recording Sara's age when she died, the verse writes that she lived "one hundred years, twenty years, and seven years." Rashi notes the obvious difficulty in this formulation, that rather than stating simply that Sara lived "one hundred and twenty-seven years," the verse instead describes three distinct periods – one hundred years, twenty years, and seven years. Based on the Midrash, Rashi explains that the verse seeks to compare these three periods in Sara's life. She was as sinless at one hundred as she was at twenty, and she was a beautiful at twenty as she was at seven. It is with this in mind that we must read the next passage in Rashi's commentary, that "they were all equal in goodness." Rav Soloveitchik explains that Sara managed throughout her life to retain the unique qualities of each stage. Rashi describes here three phases of life: childhood, youth, and adulthood. Rav Soloveitchik explains:

"The child is endowed with a capacity of an all-absorbing faith and trustfulness; youth bursts with zealousness, idealism and optimism; the adult, mellowed with years, has the benefit of accumulated knowledge and dispassionate judgment. Each age is physically and psychologically attuned to particular emphases, but the superior individual can retain and harmonize the positive strengths of all three periods during his entire lifetime."

Rashi describes Sara's years as "equal" because she never fully left behind any stage of her life. As she progressed from one phase to the next, she retained the unique characteristics of the earlier stage and refined it as she continued growing. Even in adulthood, Sara retained the "faith and trustfulness" of her childhood years, as well as the "zealousness, idealism and optimism" of her youth.

Volver al capítulo

Avraham's Servant's Story and Thanksgiving

After his arrival in the home of Rivka's family, Avraham's servant recounts his experiences that day, his request that Rivka give him water and her generous offer of water to both him and his camels. He then tells the family that after Rivka completed the job of drawing water for the camels, he inquired as to her family background and discovered that she is from Avraham's family, whereupon he gave her jewelry as a sign of her selection as Yitzchak's wife. Rashi (to 24:47) notes a slight inaccuracy in the servant's story. A close reading of the actual narrative of his experiences reveals that he gave Rivka jewelry even before he asked who she was (see 24:22-23). Here, when the servant retells the story, he describes that he first asked her about her family and only thereafter gave her the jewelry. Rashi explains that he servant did not want the family to question his strange conduct - determining Rivka's selection before even finding out whether she has suitable family background. He therefore reversed the order.

Interestingly, however, the rest of the account the servant reports accurately. At least one detail we would have perhaps expected him to distort, consistent with the inaccuracy we have just seen. Namely, as soon as Rivka tells him that she is a cousin of Yitzchak, he immediately expresses thanks to God: "Then I bowed in homage to the Lord and blessed the Lord, the God of my master, Avraham, who led me on the right way to get the daughter of my master's brother for his son" (24:48). Would not this, too, seem a bit strange? How could he praise God for his successful trip even before securing the family's consent to the match? As we know from earlier in the parasha (24:5), the servant expressed concern that the chosen woman will not wish to resettle in Canaan in order to marry Yitzchak. Why, then, did he praise God already at this point, before he knows with certainty that his task is fulfilled?

Rav Moshe Feinstein zt"l (Kol Ram, vol. 2) answers that one must thank the Almighty not only when he experiences good fortune, but even when God grants him the ability to attain good fortune, when He brings about a situation which allows for the possibility of blessing. God will not always present us with precisely what we want, when we want it, in the most convenient manner possible. He expects us to do our share. Therefore, even a window of opportunity is cause for an expression of gratitude and appreciation. Avraham's servant had no need to distort this detail, as he felt it obvious that even the situation which allowed for the possibility of his successful mission warranted his emphatic praise of God.

Volver al capítulo

Adoniyahu's Insurrection and the King's Clothing

The haftara for Shabbat Parashat Chayei Sara, which is taken from the first chapter of Sefer Melakhim, deals mainly with the revolt led by Adoniyahu, one of King David's older sons. This chapter tells of the efforts made by David's wife Batsheva and the prophet Natan to ensure that David would formally declare Shlomo – Batsheva's son – his successor, as he had promised to Batsheva.

The first verses of this narrative, however, tell the peculiar and seemingly unrelated story of Avishag, the attractive girl brought to the palace to help keep the king warm. As David aged, he found himself unable to keep warm through clothing alone, and his servants therefore brought him Avishag to provide warmth. The verse emphasizes that David did not engage in intimate relations with Avishag (1:4).

The Malbim proposes a surprising theory to explain the relevance of this story to the Adoniyahu narrative. Later, in the second chapter of Sefer Melakhim, we read that after David's death and Shlomo's ascension to the throne, Adoniyahu approached Batsheva and asked that he be allowed to marry Avishag. Batsheva brought his request to Shlomo, who interpreted it as a rebellion against his royal authority, and promptly had Adoniyahu executed. It is generally assumed that Adoniyahu asked to marry Avishag as a means of renewing his efforts to win the kingship. His marriage to Avishag would give him the appearance of David's successor, an image that would help him attract a following and overthrow Shlomo. The Malbim, however, claims that to the contrary, Adoniyahu's rebellion was, from the outset, driven by his desire to marry Avishag. He did not ask for Avishag as a means to rebel; he rebelled as a means to marry Avishag.

Naturally, then, the Torah introduced the story of Adoniyahu's rebellion by telling of David's illness and Avishag's invitation to the palace. It was Avishag's presence in the palace that drove Adoniyahu to the drastic measure of trying to assert himself as David's heir to the throne.

Rav Avraham Rivlin (of Yeshivat Kerem Be'yavneh), in his work Iyunei Haftara, suggests that the Malbim's approach may shed light on Chazal's famous comment concerning the peculiar illness from which David suffered towards the end of his life. The Gemara (Berakhot 62b) remarks that David's inability to warm himself with clothing came as punishment for his having torn a piece of King Shaul's garment many years earlier. As told in Sefer Shemuel I (chapter 24), King Shaul pursued David to kill him and happened to enter a dark cave where David and his men had been hiding. Rather than kill Shaul, David instead secretly cut the corner of his garment that he later used as evidence to Shaul that he was given the opportunity to kill him. The Gemara comments that David was punished for this sign of disrespect towards the king's garments, and later in life David was unable to keep himself warm by wearing layers of clothing.

Rav Rivlin notes that elsewhere in Tanakh, we find that cutting the corner of a garment serves to symbolize the end of a king's reign. Shemuel proclaimed the end of Shaul's reign by cutting his garment (Shemuel I 15:27), and the prophet Achiya prophesied the division of Shlomo's empire by tearing the garment of Yerovam (Melakhim I 11:30). David's tearing of Shaul's garment was perhaps understood in a similar vein, as a symbolic act foreseeing the imminent fall of Shaul's leadership. David was punished for this insult to Shaul by suffering an illness that resulted in Avishag's entry into the palace, an event that precipitated a threat to the stability of David's dynasty.

Volver al capítulo

Avraham's Servant: The True Path

Greed or Wisdom: What is Efron Saying?

יום המשפט

מפלת סנחריב או מיתת גוג ומגוג?

מכת הארבה במצרים ובימי יואל

שורש יבש

Did Avraham have a Daughter?

Sarah's Life: 127 Good Years

Avraham's Servant's Story and Thanksgiving

Adoniyahu's Insurrection and the King's Clothing

Pages

📲 Instala nuestra App