Category: Food for Thought

זכרון ציפה תרצה – The Food for Thought Archives in blessed memory of Celia Rosenberg a”h

Posted on

Vayeishev -Two Dimensions

For Food for Thought in Spanish: Haga clic aquí para leer en español. Please share this with your Jewish Spanish speaking family, friends, and associates.

The classic debate of how to understand Hashem as all-knowing, with the ability to see what was, is, and will be, because He runs the world, while balancing it with the concept of free choice, and the question of man’s ability to make decisions or not, is discussed in a Medrish Tanchuma (4) on this week’s Torah portion of Veyeishev. The quickest way to resolve the dilemma is to say that Hashem exists on a different dimensional plane from us, can see into our dimension, in fact created it and interacts with it constantly, at every moment, and without His interaction we would cease to exist. When Chaza”l says He is everywhere, and a name for G-D is Hamakom, The Place, but also that his Shechina, Holy Presence, rests in certain places, what that means is that G-D in fact is everywhere from the viewpoint of His dimension interacting with ours, and He is The Place because He created everything, but He focuses His Holy Presence in certain places more than others into our world, and even at different strengths, depending on our time, place, and what we deserve. But from within our dimension, with our limited viewpoint of time and space, we have the ability to make choices between good and bad and everything in between. Hashem created it purposefully in this way because He is by definition good and wants us to earn the best state of spiritual bliss and closeness, basking in His glory, that we can possibly attain. This is basically how to understand and believe that there is a G-D who is all powerful and all knowing, who created the world and is in constant control of the upkeep of its existence, and yet we also have free will.
 However, there is an added insight that can be gleaned from this medrish, for it states: “’And Yosef was brought down to Egypt’ This is analogous with the pasuk in Tehillim (66:5), ‘Go and see the deeds of G-D, awesome in His excuses toward mankind.’ Rebbe Yehoshua ben Karcha says, that even the awesome wonders that You bring upon us are brought through an excuse. Come and see, for when Hashem created the world, from the first day He created the Angel of Death. How do we know this? Rebbe Brechiya says because it says in the Torah, ‘and darkness upon the surface of the deep’ (Breishis 2:1). This refers to the Angel of Death who darkens the faces of creation. Man was created on the sixth, and an excuse was hung upon him that he brought death onto the world, as it says, ‘on the day you eat from it you shall surely die’ (Breishis 2:17). This is compared to one who wanted to divorce his wife. When he was planning on going back home he wrote a get (divorce bill). He entered the house with the get in his hand. He needed some excuse to give it to her. He said to her, pour me a hot drink I can drink. She poured for him. He said to her, get out of my house for you poured me a lukewarm drink instead of a hot drink. She said to him, you already knew I would pour you a lukewarm drink, for you wrote a get and brought it with you in your hand! So to Adam said to Hashem, “Master Of The World, 2000 years before you created the world, the Torah was already a nursling by you, as it’s written, “And I was then His nursling, and I was then a precious delight day, day” (Mishley 8:30) which equals 2000 years (for a day is like a thousand years for Hashem. Not that Hashem is bound by time, G-d forbid, for thousands of years is like one second by Him because He’s beyond time, rather Hashem just said this in a language that people would understand-Etz Yosef). It is written inside the Torah, ‘This is the Torah, a person who died in the tent’ (Bamidbar 19:14). If you would not have enacted death to people, would you have written that? Rather you blamed the excuse on me.” This is what it means ‘awesome is the excuse on people.’” The Etz Yosef explains this means that what Hashem decreed in His wisdom that whatever should be in this world, is not brought upon man in a forceful manner, to the point that a person’s actions are controlled, but rather it’s unfolded into reality through the actions of mankind without controlling people to do their actions. Like this woman who was not forced to pour lukewarm or cold water as her husband thought she would do, intending to divorce her. The matter of lukewarm water being poured was only an excuse, if it had not happened that way, there would have been some other reason.
The medrish goes onto to give a second example, about how Moshe was never meant to bring the Jews into Israel, but Hashem orchestrated the excuse of Moshe sinning by the hitting of the rock for that to happen.
The medrish brings a third example from this week’s parsha, “And so too we find by Yosef it says, ‘and his brothers saw that their father loved him [more] because of the scarlet stripe that he made on his striped coat. For this there were four tragedies done to him…. because of this, the coat of stripes caused all the tribes to go down to Egypt. Rebbe Yudan said Hashem wanted to fulfill the promise to Avraham that his descendants will go into exile and be redeemed with wealth, and He brought an excuse to ensure all of it comes about in that Yaakov loved Yosef and his brothers hated him, sold him to the Yishmaelites, who brought him down to Egypt, eventually Yaakov heard that Yosef was alive in Egypt and went down with the tribes there and were subjugated there. This is what ‘And Yosef went down to Egypt’ is referring to but don’t read it ‘as he went down’ but rather that ‘he brought down’ his father and family to Egypt. Rebbe Tanchuna says, what is this comparable to? To someone who wants to put a yoke onto a cow’s neck and it refuses the yoke. What does he do? He takes her calf from in back of her and drags it to the place he wants the cow to plow. The calf moos. The cow hears her calf moo and not for her own good she walks to her son. So to Hashem wanted to fulfill the promise He made to Avraham and He brought an excuse for all these events to happen so that they can go down to Egypt and He pays up his document. That is why it says ‘and Yosef went down to Egypt’ and this is the awesomeness of an excuse etc.” (Click here for Hebrew text.)
 The medrish wanted to prove that Hashem doesn’t control us like preprogrammed robots, forcing us to do things, but rather He set into nature a chain of events that will lead to the end result of what He desires. Yet the means are through individuals being manipulated, but making choices which lead to the end, desired result.

The medrish gives 3 examples. One is that people were destined to be mortal, yet it only came to be out of the choice made by Adam and Chava to eat from the Tree Of Knowledge. Two, Moshe was never destined to enter the land of Israel, but it only came into fruition because of his decision to hit the rock. And three, the promise made to Avraham was destined to be fulfilled but only came about through the means of Yaakov choosing to favor Yosef, which had a domino effect which landed Yaakov and his family in Egypt. The first example was explained based on a parable of a man wanting to divorce his wife and manipulating events for that to happen. The second example did not have or need a parable, and the third example had the parable of manipulating the stubborn cow to get into the yoke to plow. Why were two parables needed to explain the concept, and what were they emphasizing?

The first parable showed that the wife really had a choice, and yet she chose to serve her husband lukewarm water which resulted in a divorce, because she clearly didn’t treat him nicely. He knew what was going to happen, anticipated it, and was of course right, so he was prepared with the bill of divorce; yet technically he could have and would have found another excuse to hand it to her. So too, Hashem knew Adam perfectly, and knew this was going to happen, but left it up to him to choose to do what he did, and if he hadn’t done it, there would have been some other incident that would have justified making humans into mere mortals.

The second example is along the same lines as the first; however the third example is a bit different than the first two. The first two showed that Hashem knows the way people think, so He manipulated the circumstances in order that they would choose the destined end game. The third example showed that Hashem orchestrated a chain of events to happen in order to get the destined result; not necessarily because of the way one thinks, but through multiple, multifaceted events and characters coming together through free will, to create the desired effect. That is what both parables are teaching us. We see from here that G-D runs and directs the world, but we have free choice to choose whether we will be part of the destiny of Hashem’s master plan or someone else will, or even if it will involve us, the question is how we will be involved.

One might ask: which is harder to comprehend, that there is a G-d running the world or that we have free choice? One might think I can understand we have free choice because we make decisions every day, but who says there is really a G-D? However we see from here, from the fact that the medrish had to give two parables explaining how we have free choice in these situations, without proving that G-D exists, it must be it’s obvious and easier to believe in Hashem once one has come to the realization there is an All Mighty, All Powerful Master of the Universe, but it’s still difficult to then come to grips with the fact that we are not simply puppets controlled by Him. Therefore the medrish gave to parables to explain how we still have free will.

Posted on

Vayishlach – Unhinged Vs. Leaders and Police

For Food for Thought in Spanish: Haga clic aquí para leer en español. Please share this with your Jewish Spanish speaking family, friends, and associates.

Yaakov engages with his brother Esav in the beginning of this week’s Torah portion of Vayishlach. The Pirkei diRebbe Eliezer (chapter 37) depicts the unhinged personality of Esav: “When Yaakov went to enter the land of Canaan, Esav came to meet him from Har Seir, fuming with great rage, to kill him as it says, “The wicked man plots against the righteous and gnashes his teeth at him” (Tehillim 37:12). Esav said, I will not kill my brother with bow and arrow, rather I will kill him with my mouth and suck out his blood, as it says “Esav ran to meet him and he hugged him and fell on his neck, and kissed him, and cried” (Breishis 33:4). Don’t read the word as וישקהו, and he kissed him, but rather וישכהו, and he bit him. However [miraculously], Yaakov’s neck turned hard as bone and blunted Esav’s teeth.

The beginning of this chapter in Pirkei diRebbe Eliezer quotes a pasuk in Amos (5:19) to explain Yaakov’s escape from Lavan but into the clutches of Esav: “As if a man flees from the lion and the bear meets him…” The lion is Lavan who ran after Yaakov to take his life. The bear is Esav who was standing on the road like an agitated bear coming to kill a mother with her children. The lion has feelings of shame, but a bear feels no shame. Yaakov got up and prayed before Hashem saying, ‘Master of the World didn’t you tell me to go back to the land of your forefathers, and where you were born, and I will be with you? But my brother Esav now comes to kill me and he is not afraid of You, and I am afraid of him.’ From here they say don’t be afraid of police or a ruler, rather from a person who does not fear Hashem and stands up against you on the road like an agitated bear to kill a mother with her children. The Beur Maspik explains that Lavan had shame before Hashem, for he said to Yaakov ‘And the G-d of your father…you shall watch yourself from talking with Yaakov good or bad’ (Breishis perek 31). Lavan was frightened from what Hashem told him in a dream. Accordingly, Chaza”l says that one who feels shame won’t be quick to sin but Esav did not have any fear of G-D before his eyes at all. (Click here for Hebrew text.)
In the Pesach Hagada we read “Come and learn what Lavan the Arami tried to do to our father Yaakov. While Pharoah decreed only against the males, Lavan desired to uproot all. For so it is written, ‘An Arami sought to destroy my father; and he went down to Egypt and dwelled there, a handful, few in number. There he became a nation, great, mighty, and numerous.” We see from here that Lavan was worse that Pharaoh in a sense because he wanted to wipe out the entire family and there would never have been a Jewish nation. But Pharaoh, despite all the terrible and torturous decrees he made, would at most only have wiped out the Jewish males. Furthermore, Lavan is referred in the Torah as a fraudster; he is unpredictable, constantly devising plots to undermine his fellow, in this case Yaakov. So wasn’t Yaakov concerned at least as much, if not more, about Lavan than about Esav? As with Esav, it can be seen pretty blatantly his wrath and intent, but Lavan could double cross him and he might not even realize it?

It would seem, though, that because Lavan had this shame, some level of moral decency, that it put him in check and was easier to deal with. But Esav, having a lack of care and decency for anything, was a totally unhinged character, unpredictable, and that is why Yaakov was afraid of him, and needed to reinforce his proper faith and trust in Hashem, which he eventually did, by praying to Hashem to save him from his brother and then setting up a strategic plan of splitting his family up into two camps and giving gifts to Esav in order to appease him.

This isn’t just about people who are G-D fearing or not G-D fearing, although that happened to have been the major difference between Lavan and Esav. Though one wouldn’t exactly call Lavan G-D fearing, he at least recognized that one doesn’t mess with Hashem if He comes to you in a dream. However, from the fact that the Ralbag extends this to any ruler or policeman, not just a Jew, it must mean that there is a fundamental difference between someone who has shame and one who is not shameful at all.  From the fact that the medrish compares a ruler or policeman to one who does not fear Hashem would seem to mean that just having a sense of law and order, living by the rule of law as a policeman or a ruler does, gives them at least the potential ability to be more attuned to fear of G-D, even if they don’t outwardly express any connection to religion but when faced with the opportunity as Lavan was, they would more relate to subjugating themselves to the will of G-D. They have the moral decency and more of a chance to feel ashamed if they break the rules they live by and enforce. Whereas a person who is lawless and doesn’t care about the law at all, has no shame and is crazily unhinged, He won’t ever be ashamed and fear Hashem with his current attitude, no matter how blatant and obvious the messages are being sent his way.  That is a reason to be worried and afraid of that type of person, versus the police or a ruler.

Lavan was a chieftain, a ruler of Aram, and even though he was a scam artist he at least had some moral decency and on some level even a fear of Hashem that kept him in check. So Yaakov felt he was able to deal with Lavan, whereas Esav was a totally unhinged person with no shame, and certainly no fear of Hashem, so he was totally unpredictable and that is why Yaakov was rightfully afraid of him.

Posted on

Vayetzei – Don’t Ask for Too Much

This Dvar Torah is dedicated l’iluy nishmas Chana Chaya bas Chaim Yachnes, a woman loved by all who knew her, May she be a melitza yosher for gantz Klal Yisrael, amen.



Did you ever wonder why Rochel named her first child Yosef? In this week’s Torah portion of Vayetzei the Torah states in perek 30:

23 And she conceived and bore a son, and she said, “G-D has taken away my reproach.” כגוַתַּ֖הַר וַתֵּ֣לֶד בֵּ֑ן וַתֹּ֕אמֶר אָסַ֥ף אֱלֹהִ֖ים אֶת־חֶרְפָּתִֽי:
24So she named him Yosef, saying, “May Hashem grant me yet another son!” כדוַתִּקְרָ֧א אֶת־שְׁמ֛וֹ יוֹסֵ֖ף לֵאמֹ֑ר יֹסֵ֧ף יְהֹוָ֛ה לִ֖י בֵּ֥ן אַחֵֽר:

The Rashbam says that Rochel could have named him Asaf, for Hashem ‘taking away her humiliation’ but she called him Yosef because she prayed to have another child so both names were in mind. Rashi adds: “She knew through prophecy that Jacob was destined to establish only twelve tribes. She said, “May it be His will that the one He is destined to establish be from me.” Therefore, she prayed only for another son [and no more]. — [from Gen. Rabbah 72:6]” (Click here for Hebrew text.)
The Ralbag, however, understands the pasuk as not saying that Rochel had prophesy, but rather the reason behind the prayer was purely practical. “It’s appropriate when asking for a favor or grace [from Hashem] to not ask for something big because maybe He will decisively reject giving the favor altogether. For this reason, you will find that Rochel only asked for one more son so that she will have at least one more child. She did not ask for many children. For this reason, you will find by Yaakov that he only asked from the Blessed Hashem for bread to eat and clothes to wear. For this reason, it’s observed that the blessing of a prophet is calculated according to the one receiving it because he will not beseech Hashem for an abundance of good, more than deserved.” (Click here for Hebrew text.)
Hashem is the All-knowing, Almighty, who can certainly do whatever He wants; therefore He has the ability to grant even a surplus of things if someone beseeches Him for that. Even if He doesn’t want to, or doesn’t think it is appropriate, why can a person not pray for an abundance of something and be satisfied with whatever he or she gets? It’s still connecting with Hashem and trusting Him, and if he doesn’t get all that he asks for; wouldn’t he be satisfied with what he does get? Why then does the Ralbag say he might get nothing if he asks for abundance? If one asks for a little and his or her prayers aren’t answered wouldn’t that person possibly question Hashem for not answering his or her prayers just as much as the person who asked for a lot and didn’t get all of it would seemingly question Hashem, which is probably why he or she will in the end get nothing?

It would seem that Hashem is unlikely to accept prayers asking for an abundance, but rather is ready to accept prayers asking for just what a person feels they need next. The reason must be because prayers for an abundance are really not full– hearted, and are more of a general plea,on which people would be willing to accept whatever they can get. For this reason, Hashem might not give them anything if He sees their intent, kavana, is not pure and strong. Asking in this fashion creates an attitude and feeling that one doesn’t need to pray as hard as they should. But when one is asking for a little, just enough for the next thing he wants or needs, then his davening will be more authentic, with greater kavana, intent and emotion, and therefore Hashem will be more receptive. And if he sees Hashem isn’t answering his pleas, there is more of a chance that he will understand that he himself isn’t praying hard enough, and he will try to redouble his intent before giving up or settling for what he has.

This is why Rochel only asked for one more son and Yaakov only asked for food to eat and clothes to cover his back, and why the prophet can only ask for what the person deserves, since the intent of the recipient will be more authentic.

Posted on

Toldos – Unwavering Dedication to Mesorah


In this week’s Torah Portion of Toldos, Yitzchak is found in Gerar due to another famine in the Land of Canaan. Yitzchak became very wealthy when in Gerar and the Torah relates, “And he had possessions of sheep and possessions of cattle and much production, and the Philistines envied him. And all the wells that his father’s servants had dug in the days of Avraham his father the Philistines stopped them up and filled them with earth. And Avimelech said to Yitzchak, ‘Go away from us, for you have become much stronger than we.’ And Yitzchak went away from there, and he encamped in the valley of Gerar and dwelt there. And Yitzchak again dug the wells of water which they had dug in the days of his father, Avraham, and the Philistines had stopped them up after Avraham’s death; and he gave them names like the names that his father had given them” (Breishis 26:14-18).
Rabbeinu Bachye elaborates on this episode. “The Torah is telling us that because of the jealousy the Plishtim felt they should close up the wells that were dug in the days of Avraham, his father, in order so that Yitzchak can’t make use of them for his crops and flock to drink. Yitzchak wound up overtaking them and digging up the wells and called them by the same names as his father. He did this in honor of his father. The fact that the Torah mentioned this seems to mean it was a merit to Yitzchak. There is inspiration to be learned from here and all the more so that one should not go against the ways of his forefathers. For we see that Yitzchak didn’t even want to change the names of the wells of his father all the more so one should follow the path of his forefathers, their customs and their mussar, (morality). And perhaps for this reason his name was not changed as our other forefathers, which was measure for measure. This is the explanation of the Gaon zt”l.” (Click here for Hebrew text.)
 We see from here that Yitzchak was so meticulous with following the ways of his father that even the wells that he had uncovered from when his father had first dug them were renamed the same names as his father had named them.
This was a gesture of respect for his father, to name the wells by the names his father had called them. Yet couldn’t he have shown his father even more respect by, let’s say renaming the wells after the many positive traits of his father, or something of the like, which would seemingly have been a greater honor to the memory of his father? What would have been the big deal if Yitzchak had changed the names of the wells?

It would seem that using the names his father had given to the wells is a greater honor to his father than naming them after his father. There also seems to be a connection to doing this simple act and the much broader picture of following his father’s morals and ways of life. This seems to be because adherence to tradition, to mesorah, in even the simplest of acts, reinforces our commitment to the ways of one’s parents and forefathers. Changing from these ways, as opposed to adaptation which might be needed at times, even if the change might seem  better, is a breech in the system of mesorah, which most definitely would lead to further excuses to change and possibly even eventual complete break away from the proper ways and customs of one’s family, religion and proper morals.

 Because of Yitzchak’s meticulous adherence to his family and their mesorah, measure for measure Hashem rewarded him with not needing to change his name.

Posted on

Chaye Sarah-Proper Etiquette

For Food for Thought in Spanish: Haga clic aquí para leer en español. Please share this with your Jewish Spanish speaking family, friends, and associates.


Many people are embarrassed by their hair going gray, yet on the contrary it is a crown of glory as the Medrish Tanchuma (3) at the very end of the piece on this week’s parsha concludes: “Another interpretation, ‘You were dressed in glory and splendor’ from Your glory and Your splendor You dressed Avraham’s head that You gave him glory in his old age as it says ‘and Avraham was old'”. The Etz Yosef explains that Hashem attributed the pasuk in Daniel 7:9, “His hair like clean wool” to Avraham. We see in fact that a head of white hair is actually a glorified crown on the head of a person.
 The Medrish Tanchuma elaborates in more detail about this concept in his first piece on the parsha based on the pasuk, “Now Avraham was old, well on in years, and Hashem had blessed Avraham with everything” (Breishis 24:1). The Medrish Tanchuma begins the parsha of Chayei Sarah by stressing the importance of being focused and having a clear mind while praying.The medrish then says, “There was no person who focused all his mind and intent in prayer like Avraham Avinu, who said before Hashem, ‘You should not do something like this.’ When Hashem saw that he was beseeching a merit for the world not to be destroyed, He started praising him and saying ‘You are more beautiful beyond any other man etc.’ (Tehillim 45:3). [Avraham]said back to [Hashem], what beauty do I have, when my son and I walk into a city they can’t differentiate between the father and the son because a person lives 100 or 200 years and doesn’t grow old! Avraham [further] said, Master of the Universe, You must differentiate between the father and son and between the young and the old, so that the elder will be distinguished by the youth. Hashem said back to him that I swear I will start with you. [Avraham] went his way and went to sleep that night and got up in the morning. Upon waking up he found that the hair on his head and beard had turned white. He said before Him, Master of the Universe, you made me an example! He said back to him, ‘The crown of splendor is old age’ (Tehillim 16:32). ‘The glory of elders is old age’ (Tehillim 20:29). That is why it says, ‘And Avraham was old.'”

The Anaf Yosefasks a blatant question on this medrish; “it already wrote by the destruction of Sodom ‘from the young to the old’ and Lot’s daughters said, ‘Our father is old’? Even by Avraham, himself, the Torah writes that Sarah said ‘My master is old,’ it also writes, ‘And Avraham and Sarah were old;‘ so why is this pasuk of ‘and Avraham was old’ any better than those pesukim to be indicative that white hair only started at this point? He answers that the feeling of being old out of living for most of one’s years was already felt in the world, but there was no recognition in the world of elderliness recognizable by hair graying, and therefore people who wanted to talk with Avraham would talk to Yitzchak. For this reason, Avraham asked for mercy that old age would be recognizable by the whitening of hair. The medrish is learning from this pasuk when it says ‘ Avraham was old well into his days’ though it wrote earlier before Yitzchak was born, ‘And my master is old’ as well as ‘And Avraham and Sarah were old’ for Avraham was then 100 years old. But the pasuk here was written after that for Yitzchak also had a nice long beard at this point and whoever wanted to speak with Avraham would mistakenly start speaking with Yitzchak, and therefore Avraham requested mercy that his hair would turn white.” (Click here for Hebrew text.)
Until that point people had felt their innards growing old, the aches and pains that come with old age; but nothing substantially different on the outside. Therefore, Yitzchak and Avraham, two great sages with long beards, looked the same, and people approached Yitzchak instead of Avraham if they went to a city of people who didn’t know them. Was Avraham jealous of Yitzchak? Why would he be, the Torah says Avraham had everything, he was an incredibly great tzadik and had nothing to be jealous about, especially over his own son. On the contrary, it should have been a source of great pride that his son was being treated with such respect and if Avraham felt someone really was supposed to be talking to him, he could politely say excuse me, I think you really wanted to speak to me, and Yitzchak could even direct the stranger to Avraham. So why did Avraham pray for his hair to turn white, asking for mercy, as if something terrible was happening every time he walked into a city with his son and they approached Yitzchak instead of him?

We must say that proper etiquette and basic manners is to first approach and speak to the elder before the younger person accompanying him and a breach of derech Eretz, proper manners might lead to a breakdown in society which Avraham did not want to cause so he beseeched from Hashem to change nature and have hair whiten in old age, which is the crown jewel of an elder who deserves the proper respect due to a person who has many years of experience in life.

Posted on

Vayera – Sanity Together Through the Will of Hashem

For Food for Thought in Spanish: Haga clic aquí para leer en español. Please share this with your Jewish Spanish speaking family, friends, and associates.
In this week’s Torah portion of Vayera, perek 20, Avraham goes down to Gerar and there is a confrontation between Avraham, the populace, and Avimelech, the king. In this encounter  Avraham, scared, feels he must tell them that Sarah is his sister in order to save his own life.

Unlike when Avraham went down to Egypt because of a famine, and when Yitzchak went to Gerar because of a famine, the Torah does not mention that Avraham went to Gerar because of a famine. Why then did he go there? The Radak says he traveled from there to the Land of Plishtim in order to dwell in every spot that Hashem promised him he would inherit so that he will have acquired every portion of the land. Plishtim was also part of the inheritance, belonging to the tribe of Yehuda as mentioned in Yehoshua 13:3. (Click here for Hebrew text.)

In fact, when they get to Gerar the pasuk says “Avimelech, the king of Gerar sent [soldiers] and took Sarah” (20:2). Rabbeinu Bachye asks, “After Sarah was taken in Egypt to Pharaoh and a great miracle happened, that great blemishes started showing up [on Pharaoh and his palace,] which forced him to return her, then why did he now go down to Gerar, and say she is my sister, is it appropriate to rely on a miracle each time, maybe a miracle won’t happen this time? Rabbeinu Chanannel zt”l writes that now when he came to Gerar, he divorced her because he was afraid that they would kill him if he would say she is his wife. Nevertheless, Hashem didn’t let him be totally separated from her and leave such a righteous woman by a wicked man because it’s not right to let the scepter of the wicked be left on the fate of the righteous. This divorce was under duress, and this is why Hashem told [Avimelech in a dream] that she is married, for it wasn’t a complete divorce.” (Click here for Hebrew text.)
Avraham, out of fear for his life not only said what appears to be a white lie, although it did contain an element of truth since Sarah was indeed his niece, the daughter of his brother, so she was like a sister once removed. (See the end of this piece in the Rabbeinu Bachye.) In order to minimize the reliance on a miracle, which there is a rule in Jewish Law that one should not rely on miracles, rather believe they can happen if Hashem wants them to happen, Avraham even divorced his wife. And even though he was motivated by fear, and therefore Hashem didn’t allow the separation to be complete, and Avraham, unbeknownst to himself at the time, but undoubtedly thankful afterwards, was in fact still married to Sarah.  Therefore Hashem decided a miracle once again was needed to be performed, to save Sarah’s dignity and life.

Eventually, after Avimelech gave Sarah back to Avraham, he insisted on making a peace treaty with Avraham, and Avraham acquiesced. Later in the next perek the Torah relates, “And Avraham contended with Avimelech about the well of water that the servants of Avimelech had forcibly seized” (Breishis 21:25). The Ralbag learns two lessons from this pasuk (Click here for Hebrew text.): 

  1. It is proper for a person to distance himself as much as possible from any sense of oppression in business and of stealing. We see this from the fact that Avraham rebuked Avimelech even though he was the king, over the robbery that his servants oppressed Avraham with, thinking that it was done under the king’s command.
  2. A person should be brave-hearted when appropriate and soft of heart when appropriate. For we see that Avraham Avinu was originally afraid of Avimelech and therefore said about Sarah that she was his sister, out of fear of being killed. But now he strengthened himself to claim against the king about the king’s servants oppressing him, so that it will be clear to him that Avimelech did not want anything bad to be done to him since Avimelech was seeking out peace with him.

 Fear is an emotional reaction which is inborn and very hard to control and to turn on and off. Even if Avraham was a good actor, it is known that actors go crazy from constantly playing different roles and changing their emotions on a sporadic basis. In reality we can assume Avraham wasn’t acting; so how was he able to control his emotions? What’s even more astounding is that the Ralbag says what he did should be a lesson for everyone to emulate. How can we be expected to control our emotions and be brave-hearted at the appropriate times, and soft-hearted at the appropriate times?

However, if one was to analyze what Avraham did and felt, and the motivations behind them, there is a common thread which binds it all together. That is doing Hashem’s will. Hashem wanted him to go place to place to live in every single spot he would be inheriting. Hashem did not want him to rely on miracles, and Hashem wanted him to admonish unlawful business, violence, and theft.

 Therefore there will be times where Hashem will want him to be in a state of natural fear because no one really wants to die, it’s instinctive to want to stay alive. He was also afraid of relying on a miracle to be saved from death, so he felt he had to reduce that threat of relying on a miracle by divorcing his wife, which Avraham thought was Hashem’s will. But when Avimelech’s servants robbed Avraham’s wells he got angry and stood up to King Avimelech because he thought they confiscated them under his direction. If you look closely at the Ralbag he did not “strengthen his heart” because Avimelech’s servants took something away from him, being a personal issue, rather because he felt he had to rebuke the king for allowing or maybe even enforcing such injustice. Avraham understood and felt the detriment of these actions on the world and therefore he knew it was Hashem’s will to stand up to the king whom he previously feared and to set him straight. One would think Avraham would want to appease him since Avimelech was trying to make peace with him.  Instead, the right thing to do was to rebuke Avimelech at this point; that is what Avraham calculated was Hashem’s will at that time and he acted in that fashion.

Running one’s life with the attitude of what does Hashem want from me at this moment, what is Hashem’s will right now, is not only an attitude that Avraham could live his life by, but the Ralbag is teaching us that you and I, everyone, has the ability to live every moment of one’s life with the attitude of what is Hashem’s will for me at this moment.

Through living by this attitude, it makes sense that at the right time one can have a brave heart, and at another right time have a soft heart, it is all for the same reason, what is Hashem’s will.

Posted on

Lech Licha – Excommunicating Oneself


For Food for Thought in Spanish: Haga clic aquí para leer en español. Please share this with your Jewish Spanish speaking family, friends, and associates.

Along with taking many students with him to Eretz Canaan, Avraham also took his nephew Lot and pledged to take care of him after his father was thrown into the furnace by Nimrod and burned, with no miracle saving him.

In this week’s Torah portion of Lech Licha on the pasuk of, “And Avram took Sarai his wife and Lot his brother’s son, and all their possessions that they had acquired, and the souls they had acquired in Haran, and they went to go to the land of Canaan, and they came to the land of Canaan” (Breishis 12:5), the Ralbag learns that one should watch over the wellbeing of his relatives, just as he takes care of himself, for in this way a person will get the help needed from his family. We find this by Avraham, that Lot went wherever he went and whatever Avraham chose for himself, he chose for Lot as well. (Click Here for Hebrew text.)
And yet, after the incident with Pharaoh capturing Sarah when they went down to Egypt during the famine and Pharoah sent them off with great wealth and servant, including his daughter Hagar, to be a maidservant for Sarah, the Torah reports, “And Avram came up from Egypt, he and his wife and all that was his, and Lot with him, to the south. And Avram was very heavy with cattle, with silver, and with gold… And also, Lot, who went with Avram, had flocks and cattle and tents. And the land did not bear them to dwell together, for their possessions were many, and they could not dwell together. And there was a quarrel between the herdsmen of Avram’s cattle and between the herdsmen of Lot’s cattle, and the Canaanites and the Perizzites were then dwelling in the land. And Avram said to Lot, ‘Please let there be no quarrel between me and between you and between my herdsmen and between your herdsmen, for we are kinsmen. Is not all the land before you? Please part from me; if [you go] left, I will go right, and if [you go] right, I will go left’” (Breishis 3:1-9).

The Ralbag learns from here that it is beneficial to distance oneself from arguments and strife as much as possible, for in this way the collective family and country will stay intact. For we see by Avraham, though he tried with all his strength and efforts to keep Lot with him to guide him on the good path as much as possible, however in order so that one would be able to help the other in a time of need, Avraham chose to part ways from Lot in order to distance himself from strife.
Avraham, with all his dedication, love, and kindness – why couldn’t he figure out a way to compromise or resolve any issues that was brewing amongst him, Lot and their herdsman? Couldn’t he then keep everyone together so that he could be a continued positive influence upon them?
The medrish Pesiksa DiRav Kahana (3:3) paints a picture of why Avraham had no choice but to disassociate from Lot. “Why were [the shepherds of Lot and Avraham] quarreling with each other? Because when a person is righteous even his household like him are righteous as well as anyone who clings to him. And when a person is wicked his household like him are wicked.” Avraham Avinu’s shepherds muzzled their flock so that they wouldn’t eat from other people’s property and steal their grass. Lot’s shepherds let their flock graze unmuzzled anyplace in the land. They claimed that the whole land belonged to them anyways because Avraham’s inheritors were promised by Hashem to inherit the Land of Canaan and since Avraham had no children the land would be given to Lot, his closest inheritor. And the reason why you are muzzling your flock is in order so that Lot will inherit weak flock. Avraham’s shepherds contended that right now the land was not theirs, it belonged to the Canaanite nations and they had no right to steal their grass. Hashem in fact proclaimed that Avraham’s shepherds were right, that right now it’s stealing from the Canaanites.

The medrish goes on to record in the name of Rebbe Azaria, “just as there were arguments between the shepherds there were also arguments between Avraham and Lot as it says, ‘may there please not be quarreling between you and I etc.’ Disassociate yourself from me is not written here, rather ‘separate’ (הפרד) just as a mule(פרדה) can’t have children so to my offspring shall not mingle with your offspring.”

The Zera Ephraim, a commentary on this medrish by Rav Ephraim Zalman Margolis, points out that although Chaza”l say that a Jew may marry a female Moabite or Ammonite, who are from Lot, and in fact King David and therefore the line of Moshiach comes from Rus the Moabite, that is only permitted after they convert. This is because it’s as if they were reborn again a new person; but if they don’t convert, a Jew may not marry them since Avraham separated himself from Lot and his offspring. Parenthetically, what’s interesting to note is that if not for this incident a Jew might have been allowed to marry a Moabite or Ammonite because they are cousins to us, according to the Zera Ephraim. The reason why Moabite and Ammonite men may not marry a Jew even after conversion is because of an incident that happened in the desert.

The Zera Ephraim also observes that when Rebbe Azaria describes the fighting amongst the shepherds, as well as Avraham and Lot, he calls it a תחרות, which the Zera Ephraim says refers to the beginning of a fight between two loved ones, and therefore Avraham was afraid as time went on infighting would erupt between them. That is why Avraham pleaded ‘please will we not quarrel;’ meaning, in order that there would not be any fight between you and I, let us please separate etc. Chazal say that the word תחרות originates from a word that means heating up, meaning from the heat of anger comes fighting. (Click here for Hebrew text.)
 It would seem from the Zera Ephraim that not even for an outlandish quarrel did Avraham abolish Lot from his presence, but rather for the beginning of a fight. Avraham must have had the proper inkling that this would just escalate into a full-blown fight, so he severed it at the roots. But why did Avraham not try to make amends? He had a positive influence on thousands of people, certainly his close relative who was like a son to him, he should have been able to get through to and settle whatever problems that had arisen. Didn’t the medrish itself say that when a person is a tzadik then his household and those that cling to him follow in his footsteps and are also righteous? Certainly Lot was part of Avraham’s household and clung to him like a son to a father?!

Perforce, we must say that Lot made an absolute decision to disassociate and disconnect from his uncle and his moral ways. In fact, the “Biur” on this medrish says that Lot was considered evil because he had a desire to be promiscuous, as what came to fruition in the end after Sodom was destroyed. Avraham senses Lot’s psychological disconnect, understood there was really no way to influence him in a positive manner, and knew he was better off severing ties with him completely in order to not escalate any fights and risk being tainted by the character trait of anger. If not for Lot deciding to sever ties with Avraham then Avraham would never have abandoned Lot, which led to Lot being captured and Avraham needing a miracle to save him and then Lot only being saved by the destruction of Sodom because of the merit of Avraham.

We see from here how destructive arguments can be and how important it is to avoid them at all costs, and even someone on the caliber of Avraham Avinu would not be able to get through and influence his own nephew, Lot, since he decided to disconnect from him (similar to a decision that Korach made to seperate himself from Moshe and the people, when he decided to pick a fight, see Chiddushei HaLev Bamidbar page 106, on parshas Korach 16:1, the second shmuz on “Vayikach Korach”.) That is why Avraham had to sever ties in order so that a major argument wouldn’t ensue and escalate.

Posted on

Noach – Nimrod the Circus Master and Hashem’s Master Plan


Nimrod was a powerful ruler who had thrown Avraham into the burning furnace for not believing in idols.  Avraham was miraculously saved . Nimrod is first singled out in this week’s Torah portion of Noach amongst the genealogy of Cham. “And Cush begot Nimrod; he began to be a mighty man in the land. He was a mighty hunter before the Lord; therefore it is said, ‘Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the Lord.’ And the beginning of his kingdom was Babylon and Erech and Accad and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. From that land emerged Asshur, and he built Nineveh and Rehoboth ir and Calah. And Resen, between Nineveh and between Calah; that is the great city” (Breishis 10: 8-12).
The Radak on these pesukim says the reason why Nimrod was singled out from the rest of the children of Kush, son of Cham, was because of his power and kingship that was mentioned in the Torah. He used his power and strength to capture many nations and became king over them. Before him there was no person who had the desire and will to fill his heart with such power to rule a whole nation. The Torah mentions all the nations he conquered because he was the first king, before him each nation was led by a group of judges or leaders (possibly like a democracy. This all took place after the incident of the Tower of Babel.

The Torah also mentioned how Nimrod controlled and overpowered vicious wild animals, trapping them with his strength and tricks, to the point that people were so awed over how he controlled them. They created an axiom when people of that generation and generations after saw someone subdue and catch vicious wild animals, they would say he is like Nimrod. (Click here for Hebrew text.)
 It’s striking to point out that Nimrod became more known for his hunting than his monarchy. He was the first person to overpower and impress upon nations to rule over them as an authoritarian king. He set a precedent for all kings after him, all that power and wealth, the way kings carry themselves, the aura of royalty all stemmed from Nimrod, yet the Torah testifies he was not known for his kingship but rather people  remembered him for being a keen hunter, a circus master in essence, why is that?

It would seem that dazzling tricks and a show of “cool prowess,” in a nutshell, celebrity fame is more memorable than cunning skill and force to mobilize and build up an empire, in the eyes of people.

The Radak goes on to say that Nimrod first captured Bavel and ruled over it and then he captured Erech, Achad, and Kalneh. Those 4 were in the land of Shin’ar. He then captured other lands that were not mentioned. But then Ashur, who probably came from the line of Shem (see pasuk 22 here) settled in the land of Shina’ar. Ashur (predecessor of Assyria) either captured it from Nimrod or from his children after Nimrod died and he became king of that land. Ashur was King of Bavel and the surrounding areas. The children of Cham were displaced from those areas, the children of Kesed, the kasdians, from the lineage of Shem, also settled there.

This entire story is to inform us, “the whole world and everything within it belongs to Hashem” (Tehillim 24:1). “And not by strength does man overtake another” (Shmuel Alef 2:9). And He can take the kingship of a land and give it to another, whatever He sees fit, as it says: “And He gave to who He saw fit in His eyes” (Yirmiyahu 27:5). Everything depends on their deeds “for He is a G-D of faith, and there is no injustice” (Devarim 32:4). All this story, as we already wrote, that even though Ashur conquered many lands and built great countries, and the monarchy of Assyria ruled over them for a very long time, still in all the monarchs of Bavel took them over, namely, Merodach, Baladan Ben Baladen, Nevuchadnetzar, and his children, and after that the kings of Persia conquered them, and so on and so forth from king to king. This is how it is in  all the lands throughout history, in order to prove that the land belongs to Hashem. 
If one delves into the history of one nation conquering another they might find methods and strategies for how it happened but to understand why empires are constantly being toppled, and seemingly powerful kings like Nimrod and nations like Bavel, Assyria, Persia, and even Greece and Rome all topple, the logic only points to the fact that there must be an All Powerful G-D that runs the world and He is in charge of how history ultimately plays itself out. Learning about history through a Torah perspective will enhance your appreciation and strengthen your belief and trust in Hashem. The very fact that Nimrod was known as the hunter and not as the father of all kings throughout history is a testament to this fact that ultimately Hashem is the King Of All Kings and He’s the one who ultimately runs the world.

What’s incredible to contemplate is the fact that all the displacement and even loss of life during each war and conquest all ultimately are for the sake of realizing Hashem’s authority and power in this world. By focusing on this and getting more clarity that the only answer to all the mysteries is that there must be a G-D running the show, will bring one closer to Him and it will ultimately be a great comfort to know that someone is “running the show” in a world which on face value seems to be so chaotic, but on a deep level there is a master plan and we have the ability to watch it all unfold with peace of mind and serenity.

Good Shabbos,
Rabbi Dovid Shmuel Milder

Posted on

Breishis – Beyond Even the Shadow of a Doubt

For Food for Thought in Spanish: Haga clic aquí para leer en español. Please share this with your Jewish Spanish speaking family, friends, and associates.

The Pirkei D’Rebbe Eliezer (chapter 12, 20) says that Adam HaRishon was created on Har Hamoriah, the Temple Mount. In chapter 11, the Pirkei D’Rebbe Eliezer says that in the 10th hour of the 6th day of creation, Hashem placed Adam into Gan Eden.

The pasuk in this week’s Torah portion of Breishis states and Rashi comments:

Now Hashem, G-d took the man, and He placed him in the Garden of Eden to work it and to guard it. (Breishis 2:15) טווַיִּקַּ֛ח יְהֹוָ֥ה אֱלֹהִ֖ים אֶת־הָֽאָדָ֑ם וַיַּנִּחֵ֣הוּ בְגַן־עֵ֔דֶן לְעָבְדָ֖הּ וּלְשָׁמְרָֽהּ:
took: He took him with pleasant words and enticed him to enter. — [Gen. Rabbah 16:5] ויקח: לקחו בדברים נאים ופתהו ליכנס:  

 The Gur Aryeh, wondering what it means that Hashem took Adam with words and why He did so, explains that for a person it is not possible to just physically take him or her, since the essence of a person is the fact that he or she is an intellectually thinking organism, and it is not possible to physically take them. For even though one’s body could be taken, one cannot just take one’s mind or intellect. Therefore Rashi explains the word “took” to mean that He took with words, and it therefore makes sense that He took also his mind, meaning with permission, through talking to him. So too, anytime the Torah writes the word “took” in reference to a person, Rashi explains it in this fashion; that he was convinced through words, so that the taking would be with the consent of the person. For the mind is the main essence of a person, and if this is not done then a person really isn’t taken, since the main essence of a person is his or her mind and intellect. 

Based on this Gur Aryeh, it would seem that if a person is captured, he or she is not willfully taken away unless he is convinced to go where he or she was taken, that is why Hashem didn’t just take Adam and place him in Gan Eden, He also told him what He was doing. However, Rashi also says that He had to manipulate, or literally seduce, Adam to enter Gan Eden. The Gur Aryeh asks why Adam had to be enticed to enter Gan Eden? However, he answers that this enticement was just to tell him he is entering Gan Eden; Hashem would not have taken him and brought him into Gan Eden without telling him because it would not be considered him going willfully. (Click here for Hebrew text.)
Wouldn’t you trust your loving father if he told you that you are moving to a new beautiful place? Now what if your father was a very powerful and wealthy king; you would be even more excited about where he was going to take you! All the more so if He is the King of Kings, All Powerful, All Loving, and only does good. Shouldn’t it be then obvious to Adam that Hashem, Master Of The Universe, would bring him to the most delightful place that would be perfect for all his needs and desires? Furthermore, Chaza”l say Adam was created by Hashem already an adult, with not just mature understanding, but on such a level that the angels mistook him as G-D, being that he was literally the son of G-D, formed by Hashem Himself, without any intermediaries helping Him. Hashem had to put him to sleep in order for the angels to realize Adam wasn’t the all-perfect G-D that Hashem is. Someone on such a level with such a relationship with Hashem, why would it need to be spelled out that he was being placed in Gan Eden as if he needed convincing that this is right for him?

It is true that it was very obvious that Hashem would only want and give Adam what would be best for him, and Adam knew that, however Hashem wanted to make sure Adam accepted with crystal clear, authentic clarity what he was getting himself into.

We see from here that there is a difference between the obvious and real clarity.

Posted on

Vezos Habracha – Mourning in Hashkafa


We have experienced over the past year and change the passing of Torah giants as well as world leaders. These are losses that have impacted people in a very deep way and have left marks that make us wonder what will be in the future, what is next, where are we heading? However, mourning for these tremendous losses can be put into perspective through one of the final pesukim in the entire Torah from the Torah portion of Vezos Habracha. “The Children of Israel bewailed Moshe in the plains of Moav for thirty days; then the days of tearful mourning ended” (Devarim 34:8).

The Ralbag learns from this pasuk that “it is improper to mourn a person too much, and even though he [or she] had the greatest of qualities possible. For we see that Moshe Rabbeinu with all his tremendous qualities in governing and greatness, still in all the Torah was not in agreement that they should mourn him for more than 30 days, which was the same mourning period for Aharon.” (Click here for Hebrew text.)

Besides the great loss of a leader, of a person of tremendous character, an example for every single person to emulate, there is another element which should be addressed, if one internalized what it says in Iggeres HaRamban, “At all times you should think in your heart that it is as if you are literally standing before Hashem and His Holy Presence is upon you since His Honor fills the entire world…and you shall be bashful from all people,” and Rav Yechazkel Sarna zt”l, Rosh Yeshiva of Chevron, explained that after you accept the reign of your Creator upon yourself, to always be like a servant before his master, you shall also accept the reign of your friend upon yourself” like a servant before his master” because each person was created in the Image of G-D. We find in the sefer Reishis Chochma also the concept of subjugating oneself before his friend just like he would before one’s Creator. (Click here for Hebrew text.)

If that is properly internalized then a loss of a friend and especially a loved one, and all the more so the loss of great leaders should be something which is almost insurmountable to overcome. If one truly felt the respect the way one should feel for every single person appreciating the quality of everyone’s loss and especially one that has such an impact on your life, it makes sense that the mourning process over their loss would be long and hard. However, the Torah says there is a standard, a line to be drawn even for the greatest of people, those who are most honorable and respected, there is still a limit.

We see from here that it is totally natural and healthy to mourn for the dead but within limits and though it might be hard to get over such a grave loss understandably, but the Torah knows it is within our ability to be comforted.

Hashem’s consolation to us is that He is eternal and will always be by our side to sustain us and guide us, this is the ultimate comfort.