Parashat Chayei Sarah: Making the Most of Every Minute

Many of our children take a year off between high school and college to spend the year learning in Israel. I, too, had that privilege - I spent that time  learning many valuable lessons. I would have to say, the single most important thing I learned that year is the Jewish value of time. Let’s use this week’s parasha to elaborate on what I mean.

וַיִּֽהְיוּ֙ חַיֵּ֣י שָׂרָ֔ה מֵאָ֥ה שָׁנָ֛ה וְעֶשְׂרִ֥ים שָׁנָ֖ה וְשֶׁ֣בַע שָׁנִ֑ים שְׁנֵ֖י חַיֵּ֥י שָׂרָֽה:
“And the life of Sarah was one hundred years and twenty years and seven years; [these were] the years of the life of Sarah.”

Many commentators wonder why the Torah chooses to split up the numbers of Sarah’s lifespan into 100 and 20 and 7. But I choose to question the end of the pasuk; why the need to repeat the words “these were the years of the life of Sarah?” The beginning of the pasuk already said “and the life of Sarah was…,” why the need to repeat this at the end of the same pasuk?

Rashi suggests the message is to emphasize that all the days of Sarah’s life were equally good. But what does this mean? What exactly was equally good?

There is a Medrash (Beraishit Rabba 58:3) relating to a story that could shed light on the message of Sarah’s life. The Medrash relates that Rabbi Akiva was sitting and teaching his students Torah, when his audience began to fall asleep (every good Rabbi experiences this phenomenon at some point.) In an attempt to awaken his students, R’ Akiva said: “Why was Queen Esther seen fit to rule over 127 countries? Let the daughter of Sarah, who lived 127 years, rule over 127 countries.”  What does this mean? What was R’ Akiva trying to convey? Rav Asher Weiss explains that R’ Akiva had been in the middle of a lesson, teaching his students the importance of learning Torah, and how Torah can only be mastered by totally committing yourself to its pursuit. Torah is not something that can be acquired by kicking your feet back with a cup of coffee for a few minutes. This was learned from our forefathers who taught us to utilize every day to our fullest potential. Sarah lived for 127 years and “all of the days of her life were equally good,”, meaning she sanctified every moment of her life by applying each and every waking moment to the service of Hashem.

Similarly, Queen Esther must have learned this lesson from her great-great-great grandmother Sarah. It is hard enough to rule over 1 country; how does one rule over 127 countries successfully? It can only be done by paying careful attention to each and every city to ensure there is no rebellion which could ultimately spread out of control. She would have had to pay attention to everyone. The only possible way to do this would be to maximize every day of her life; a lesson she learned from Sarah Immeinu.

Wow! What an important lesson! It is our duty to maximize our time, to maximize each day of our lives. My experiences from my post high school year in Israel, coupled with this lesson from Sarah Immeinu, teach us that time is precious. Let us never look to “waste some time,” or look to do things just to “pass some time.” I don’t know how many of us will live until 120, but Sarah lived longer; she lived until 127 and made the most of every minute! We can do it too!

Parashat Vayeira - The Root of Morality

For the second time in as many parshiyot, Sarah is thrown into a situation where she is told to act as if  she is the brother of Avraham. On a simple level, we understand Avraham’s intentions were to save himself, for if she were to say she was his wife, they would kill him to take her.  But upon closer look, the text of these two incidents are not the same. When going down to Egypt and Pharaoh in Parashat Lach Lecha, Avraham actually says,

ויהי כאשר הקריב לבוא מצרימה ויאמר אל שרי אשתו, הנה נה ידעתי כי אשה יפת מראה את.

והיה כי יראו אתך המצרים ואמרו אשתו זאת והרגו אתי ואתך יחיו.

אמרי נא אחתי את, למען ייטב לי בעבורך וחיתה נפשי בגללך (יב:יא-יג)

Avraham warns Sarah that the Egyptians might see her beauty and upon hearing he is her husband, they might kill him. Therefore, she should say she is his sister.

However, when looking at the pesukim in this week’s parasha as Avraham and Sarah go south to Grar, all the Torah says is,

ויאמר אברהם אל שרה אשתו אחתי היא, וישלח אבימלך מלך גרר ויקח את שרה (כ:ב).

The text simply says that Avraham told Avimelech that Sarah was his sister.  The text makes no mention of Avraham warning Sarah about this or what his reasons were. Rashi suggests that after being taken by Pharaoh in last week’s parasha, Avraham feared that Sarah might not consent to this ploy for a second time. Here I offer another possibility, but it requires looking at a few more pesukim.

As the story with Avimelech continues, he takes Sarah, but before anything can happen, Hashem appears to him in a dream and says not to touch her for she is a married woman. Avimelech not only listens to Hashem, but claims his innocence for not knowing she was married; Hashem concedes Avimelech’s character would not have done anything with Sarah had he known she was married. Moreover, Avimelech wakes up in a panic, calls in his cabinet and tells them what happened and וייראו האנשים מאד, they were all frightened. It is clear that everyone is upset and scared. But why? The story continues as Avimelech goes to Avraham; This is where the message of the entire episode is found. Avimelech says, what did you do to me? By saying she was your sister you almost caused me to sin with a married woman. We do not do things like that in this place! Then comes the big question from Avimelech:

? What did you see here that caused you to do this- מה ראית כי עשית את הדבר הזה?

At this point, I feel sorry for Avimelech; he is upset about almost committing a huge sin, is seemingly not only sincere, but  seems right in his accusation against Avraham. What do you expect Avraham to answer? This is what Avraham replies,

ויאמר אברהם כי אמרתי רק אין יראת אלקים במקום הזה, והרגוני על דבר אשתי.

Sorry, Avimelech, there is no fear of G-d here and I was worried you would kill me to get to Sarah. Can this be correct? Am I understanding this correctly? We just had numerous pesukim showing Avimelech’s fine character. Chazal confirms that the city of Grar was a place of culture and morals (unlike Egypt), and Avraham’s response is that there is no fear of G-d? At first glance, this looks like Avraham spitting in Avimelech’s face. How is Avraham answering the question? What is even more puzzling is that Avimelech does not respond, apparently conceding to Avraham’s statement. What does this all mean?

My Rabbi of four years at Yeshiva University, Rabbi Abba Bronspigiel, suggested the following answer based on the commentary of Rav Hirsch and the Malbim. Avraham was saying the following: It is true that Grar is a place of fine culture and morals, but any time societal norms are based on anything but fear of G-d, there is the fear that they can change at any moment.

Perhaps today society does not condone illicit relationships, but if you want something badly enough and you are the King, you can just as easily change the norms. The only thing that is eternal and non-breakable are the laws created by G-d himself. Unfortunately, history has proven this to be true. Pre-World War Two Germany was viewed as a place of fine culture and high morals. There were even animal protection laws that were more more protective than those in most civilized countries today. (CLICK HERE to read about this). And yet, we all know how quickly the norms and acceptable practices changed in Germany. If they are not G-d given laws, they can change in a heartbeat. This was the answer Avraham gave to Avimelech and Avimelech’s lack of response shows he understood why Avraham was concerned for his life.

Perhaps we can use this idea to understand the differences in the Torah’s description of the events in Egypt vs. the events in Grar. When Avraham and Sarah go down to Egypt, they are going to a place known for its licentiousness, immorality and lewd behavior. In this instance, the Torah describes the detail and motivation of Avraham’s plan with Sarah. This was done as a warning, not just for Sarah, but for all of us to understand that when it comes to immoral places, we must do everything in our power to avoid the bad influences, perhaps even extending the truth. But when a similar episode occurs in Grar, the city of fine character and morals that are not based on fear of G-d, Sarah does not need any explanation. Like Avraham, she understood  he would be concerned about these non-G-d made norms and practices. The Torah didn’t want us to think  this situation was just like Egypt; no, it was an even harder challenge as it seemed like a nice city. To teach us this valuable lesson, the Torah chose to say less and hide this message in the story line. Perhaps the Torah not explicitly detailing Avraham explaining this to Sarah indicates, unlike Rashi’s concern, that she might not go along with it, but rather, she didn’t need any convincing at all.

Parashat Lech Lecha - The Test of Change

We are taught that Avraham Avinu was given ten tests by Hashem to develop and become the Patriarch of monotheism. We find one of these tests hinted to at the end of last week’s parasha when Chazal teach us the story of Avraham being thrown by Nimrod, the wicked king, into a fiery furnace. We find another test in the beginning of this week’s parasha when Avraham is asked to leave the comforts of his home and travel to some uncertain location.

As an educator, there is something odd about the sequence of these tests. If a teacher were to give a child an exam that assesses advanced algebra and geometry, would it make sense for him to create a second assessment that covers basic addition and subtraction? Isn’t that what Hashem is doing here? After such a huge test, being asked to give up his life and jump into a furnace, does it make sense to be given the apparently smaller test of leaving his hometown to travel to somewhere else? If he passed the first more difficult test, wouldn’t it be obvious that he could pass this second, easier test?

Rav Chaim Pinchas Sheinberg zt”l offers an insight that not only explains the sequence of these events, but it enlightens our viewpoint of life’s challenges. He says that the essence of a test “lies in the power to awaken in a man’s spirit his hidden potential for greatness and to bring it out into reality.” A test is not measured by how big or difficult it appears, but rather by the potential it has to have man grow beyond his natural inclinations and change them. The test of the fiery furnace at Ur Kasdim was huge; Avraham consciously chose to give up his life for Hashem, rather than acknowledge idol worship. But as big of a test as that was, it was a single, isolated, one-time event. It was an event, not a process.

The Vilna Gaon writes that the main purpose of a person’s life is to constantly grow and improve one’s character. He uses a strange language and says, and if you don’t do this, “why live?” Is there nothing else to living? The answer is NO. Do not think that you can live a life of Torah and Mitzvot without also refining your character; without improving your middot, our lives are nothing at all.

We know character refinement is hard, because it requires us to break our natural habits and inclinations. We all become accustomed to acting in certain ways that become second nature; to change that is very difficult. Hashem is teaching us with the test of Lech Lecha that we can change. A person can change his nature if he makes a continuous and intense effort. Avraham is told to first leave his country, then his family and finally his father’s house. To leave his country is not as difficult as leaving his family; leaving his family is not as difficult as leaving his father; that is just too hard to imagine. So the test of Lecha Lecha goes from easier to harder, hence being the test of change, divorcing oneself from the comfortable past. In essence, the test of Ur Kasdim was unique; to die al kiddush Hashem is not an opportunity that everyone is given. However, that was a one time, out of the ordinary test. In some way that is easier than going through the daily grind of continuous personal growth.

We all face tests on a daily basis. We wake up in the morning and are confronted with making the choice to take time to pray. We enter the workplace where we are confronted with challenges of honesty and integrity; do we cut corners to make an extra buck or to save ourselves some time? Do we treat everyone we encounter with a warm, friendly demeanor? These kind of tests call into question some of our basic tendencies, what we have grown accustomed to doing, the way “we have always done things.”

Hashem first tested Avraham with death and then with life. For the test of death, Avraham was helped with the miracles of Hashem. For the test of life, he was left to grow completely on his own. Are you ready for that test?

Parashat Noach - Let's Try to Understand Noach

Who was Noach? How righteous was he? One would think that the lone person saved in the generation of the flood must have been an incredibly righteous person. The Torah and Chazal’s understanding of Noach seem to be somewhat confusing. Let’s take a look at a few pesukim:

(אלה תולדות נח, נח איש צדיק תמים היה בדורתיו, את האלקים התהלך נח. (ו:ט

(ויאמר ה׳ לנח בא אתה וכל ביתך אל התבה, כי אתך ראיתי צדיק לפני בדור הזה. (ז:א

(ויחל נח איש האדמה ויטע כרם. וישת מן היין וישכר ויתגל בתוך אהלה.(ט:כ-כא

Let’s explore two overarching questions:

1. What exactly was Noach’s level of righteousness compared to other leaders in Tanach?

2. What are we to learn from Noach’s turn to drinking after leaving the Teivah?

The first pasuk states that Noach was a righteous person ״בדורותיו״, “in his generation.” Rashi quotes the famous Midrash that wonders if this language is meant לשבח, as a compliment, or לגנאי, literally translated as a depreciation of Noach. Does it mean that he was so righteous that even if he lived in the generation of other righteous people he would be viewed as righteous, or does it mean that in “his” generation he was considered righteous, but had he lived in the generation of Avraham Avinu he would not be viewed as righteous?

What should we take away from this?? If the Torah begins by calling Noach a Tsadik, why would Chazal even think this pasuk was meant to depreciate him? Furthermore, he is not just called a Tsadik, but a Tsadik Tamim, a complete Tsadik? Clearly, the word בדורותיו must be teaching us something important.

After planting a vineyard and getting drunk, the Midrash says Noach  went from being an איש צדיק to being an איש אדמה, a man of the land. What happened to Noach? He was the most righteous man in the world and he gave it up for wine? Wine led to the him to become totally exposed in front of his sons; how could he let that happen?

The sefer Otzrot HaTorah explains that the righteousness of Noach was in his ability to protect himself from the outside world - from those who stole and were involved in illicit relationships. He knew how to avoid negative outside influences and protect his own spirituality. You could say that his philosophy in serving Hashem was focused on the סור מרע, avoiding evil. However, perhaps Noach did not do all that he could in reaching out to  sinners in his community, try to bring them closer to Hashem, and to help them see their own shortcomings. Perhaps he did not focus enough on the עשה טוב of life. In reality, Noach as an איש אדמה, a man of the ground, but he grew spiritually to great heights by avoiding all the evil around him. That is why he is called an איש צדיק. But his greatness lied in his ability to keep himself protected; something he maintained until leaving the Teivah. However, once he left the Teivah into a world without evil people around him, he didn’t understand what spiritual challenges would confront him, and the איש אדמה in him returned to the forefront. This ultimately leads to his focus on the mundane of drinking wine and then to to his son’s sin. (An interesting study for another time would be to look at Moshe’s rise from an איש מצרי to an איש אלקים).

Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, zt”l, The Rav as he is known in the Yeshiva University world and beyond, wrote a book called The Lonely Man of Faith. In this book he describes how every tzadik feels alone, set apart from the rest of the world. This is the reality of a righteous person; knowing that he will often live in his own world, not connected or understood by those around him. If Noach was a lonely man of faith before the flood, we can only imagine how lonely he felt after the flood. Not only was he alone as a tzadik, but he watched the destruction of every single human being on earth except for his own family.

Rabbi Moshe Weinberger, once used this to to explain Noach’s turn to wine in a similar vein to that of the sefer Otzrot HaTorah mentioned above. He said that many great Chassidic masters often referred to Noach as the “tzadik in a fur coat.” If a room is freezing, there are two ways to warm up. One is to wear a fur coat. It warms the person up, but allows everyone else to freeze. The other method is to build a fire to give warmth to everyone in the room. Noach was a tzadik who wore a fur coat to shelter himself from a world which was freezing because of a lack of G-dliness. His loneliness eventually got the better of him and he was overcome by it. Avraham Avinu, however, built fires to warm up everyone he came into contact with. Even though he was alone in the world, he loved and cared for everyone else. 

Let us all remember that  we live in a world full of pitfalls and challenges that endanger our spirituality. It is our job to have our guard up, constantly looking to avoid succumbing to our physical temptations that are contrary to the Torah or that can lead us down the wrong path. Let us value spiritual pleasures. Children are like clay and will take the shape according to the way in which you mold them. If you want your child to appreciate Torah and Mitzvot with a real spiritual focus, then you must show him the way; lead by example. Finally, let us  emulate Avraham Avinu and look out for our fellow Jews. Let us not just look out for their physical and emotional well being, but for their spiritual well being too.

Parshat Bereishit: Sibling Rivalry Begins

The Torah does not waste any time introducing sibling rivalry into the world. The very first brothers in the world end up fighting, a fight that was so critical it led to one murdering the other. What exactly happened here and what are we supposed to learn from it? Let’s explore the story as told in the Torah and then fill in some gaps from the Medrash.

In chapter four, the Torah tells us Chava gave birth to Cain and Hevel.  Cain becomes a farmer and Hevel a shepherd. They both become successful and seek to bring offerings to Hashem. Cain brings an offering of the fruit of the ground, not his best quality, while Hevel follows with his own offering of the finest animals. Hashem “turns” to Hevel’s offering, but not to Cain’s. Cain gets really upset, and Hashem asks him “why are you so upset?”. Cain proceeds to speak to Hevel in the field and ultimately kills him. The aftermath is also interesting in how Hashem approaches Cain about this, but let’s leave that for another time.

What happened here? Why did Cain get so upset? The Torah clearly states Cain was upset, so why did Hashem ask him why he was so upset? Even if he was really upset, how did this lead to killing Hevel?

Medrash Rabba says they were fighting about how to rule the world.  One took the earth and one took the moveable objects. One said "That land you are standing on is mine!" and the other said "What you are wearing is mine!" One said "Take it off!" and the other said "Fly!" Because of this, "Cain rose up against Hevel his brother and slew him."

There is a famous story that once took place in the city of Brisk where a shochet came to the Beit din concerned one of his animals might have become a treifa and no longer kosher. He presented the animal to the dayan, Rav Simcha Zelig who confirmed the shochet’s fears that the animal was treif, and he had to bear the huge financial loss. The shochet accepted his ruling humbly and went home. A few weeks later, the same shochet comes into the beit din with a financial dispute with another individual, one of relatively minor financial impact. After hearing the case, the dayan rules against the shochet, whereupon he gets up enraged, begins yelling at the dayan and had to be escorted out of the beit din. Everyone was stunned and wondered why the same shochet who had accepted the dayan’s ruling a weeks prior on a matter that cost him a huge financial loss, would now get enraged over losing a few dollars? Rav Chaim Brisker explained the difference; in the second case he lost to someone else! When it was a case of his animal being treif, that was just him and halacha, no opposition, but in the second case he lost to someone else. The amount of money wasn’t the issue; it was that he couldn’t stand losing to someone else.

With this story in mind, Rabbi Frand suggests we can understand Cain and the source of his anger. If he was upset Hashem ignored his gift and felt rejected, that would be an understandable reason to be hurt. If, however, his anger stemmed from losing to Hevel, then his anger was unfounded. Hashem said to Cain, “Why are you annoyed?. It was because he knew Cain was angered by the competition. He was teaching Cain a lesson: When we get upset and angry, we need to assess our emotions to see where they stem from. Are we hurt because of our own failure or because someone else did better than we did?

The lesson for us is the same; we should strive for excellence in all we do, and if we have a setback or failure, it is ok to be upset and use that energy to refocus ourselves to be successful the next time around. But to be angered by competition and/or because others are striving while we struggle is not a healthy emotion.

Taking this one step further, the Medrash Tanchuma says Cain’s offering consisted of flax, while Hevel’s was of wool. Clearly the mixing of wool and flax (linen) is flammable and leads the Torah to prohibit the wearing of shaatnez (clothing with a mixture of wool and linen). Add this to the Medrash Rabba we mentioned above, it became clear to the brothers that they could not coexist and that is why they sought to divide the world - one with the land and one with the moveable objects. These offerings of shaatnez led to destruction... the first murder! I once heard Rabbi Pesach Krohn add to this the understanding of why there is only one exception to the halacha of shaatnez, only one person who not only is allowed to wear shaatnez, but is obligated to. The Kohen Gadol’s special clothing consisted of shaatnez. The first Kohen gadol was Aaron who we know was an אוהב שלום ורודף שלום, someone who always sought after peace. He was the opposite of Cain and Hevel; he brought people together as the rectification of discord.

Let us learn this invaluable lesson and seek self improvement, but not competition for its own sake. Let us seek to bring people together in peacefulness and not do things to create strife or hostility. Finally, let’s get along with our siblings!