Rabbi Michael Taubes

When looking at this Parsha in its entirety, one cannot help but be struck by the seemingly disproportionate amount of space devoted to what appears to be every last detail concerning the visit of Avraham’s servant (identified by Chazal, though not in the Torah, as Eliezer) to the house of Lavan and Rivkah in search of a suitable spouse for Yitzchak. The problem is compounded by the fact that certain details are recorded twice in the Torah, once when they are described as taking place and again when the servant’s full report to Rivkah’s family of all that had transpired is presented. When one considers that many fundamental principles and halachos of the Torah are barely hinted at or are described in the briefest possible terms, the question of why the Torah here has plenty of time and space to describe the specifics of Eliezer’s trip and his verbal recapitulation of his experiences becomes even more acute.

Chazal were, of course, sensitive to this problem. They therefore stated, as noted by Rashi (24:42), that "yafeh sichasan shel avdei avos lifnei Hamakom metorasan shel banim." The conversations of (even) the servants of our ancestors are (sometimes) more pleasing before Hashem than the Torah of their descendants. In other words, Hashem is more delighted by the discussions held by our great ancestors and their servants than by even the Torah thoughts expressed in later generations. Hashem therefore included in the Torah many details of Eliezer’s conversations while sometimes omitting or hiding significant Torah ideas elsewhere.

Why is this the case? Why does Hashem find the conversations of the servants of our ancestors so pleasing? Rav Nissan Alpert, zatzal, suggests two possible approaches (Sefer Limudei Nissan L'Parshas Chayei Sarah, 24:34). One is that from these conversations about particular events, we can gain insight into Hashem’s ways and his hashgachah pratees. It is only through a lengthy, fully detailed description of an event that one can begin to see that Hashem’s hand is always behind all that happens. The Torah’s lesson here is that if one wants to truly appreciate what Hashem does, he should not examine each incident in a chain of events independently, but should look at an entire picture. By examining the totality of an event, one will clearly see Hashem's role. The Torah therefore details the adventures of Eliezer, and his conversation about them, in order for us to clearly perceive the hand of Hashem in the unfolding of the episode. This, in a certain sense, is more pleasing to Hashem even than the Torah studied in subsequent generations.

His second approach is that through reading and analyzing such conversations, we learn something about chesed, a trait cerrtainly evident in the story of Eliezer. Since chesed is a product of emotion, and not just intellect, when one sees or describes acts of chesed one is motivated to demonstrate that quality as well. In order to inspire the heart, the Torah devotes a seemingly inordinate amount of attention to Eliezer's story. The conversations about this event, when analyzed properly, can motivate, perhaps even more than the study of Torah, the behavior which Hashem desires.

It is possible, however, to suggest a different approach. The conversations of the avdei avos, reflect the behavior and the characteristics that they learned from the avos themselves. By recording these conversations, the Torah is showing us what we really must learn from our ancestors: a moral and ethical code of conduct that impacts not only how we talk and act, but how those around us learn to talk and act. The study of Torah, and the quest to serve HKB"H, must impact the person's entire personality, affecting every aspect of his life and overall behavior. It is for this reason that the Torah spends so much time telling us about the avos - and even the avdei avos. The Torah is not a history book. The events of much of Sefer Bereishis are recorded in order to help teach us how to live and to inspire proper conduct. Therefore, even the experiences of the avdei avos become important. By reading about them, we see not only how the avos acted, but how their actions impacted others.

It is interesting to note that in the secular world, great accomplishments in art, literature, science and the like are considered significant without any investigation into the behavior or the ethical standards of the individual who attains these accomplishments. Indeed, many of us are no longer surprised to hear about the low moral level and sometimes even the depravity of someone who has earned the limelight based on a particular valued achievement. Not so in the world of Torah. No matter how brilliant or insightful a person may be, we are interested in his Torah only if he himself, in his personal life, lives up to the standards demanded by the Torah. It is thus of great importance to read about Eliezer's conversations, and to examine how he behaved, how he was influenced by Avraham Avinu, and, by extension, how Avraham himself must have acted. Because the study of Torah and achievement in Torah is of value only if the conduct, the day-to-day practices, and even the conversations of the person studying reflect the moral and ethical code that the Torah requires of us, such conversations are more significant in the eyes of Hashem than even the study of Torah itself.

This is why Chazal tell us (Vayikra Rabbah 9:3) that derech eretz kadmah l'Torah, proper ethical behavior is a prerequisite for success in Torah. Torah is valued only when presented by someone who is well grounded in derech eretz. This may also be why Rabban Gamliel, as reported by the Gemara (Berachos 28a), insisted that each talmid in his beis medrash must be tocho k'baro - his inside, his essence, his true personality had to reflect what he represented on the outside. If one presents himself as a Torah personality, he must truly be such a role model in his personal conduct. And this is also why the Gemara (Moed Katan 17a) states, bases on a pasuk in Malachi (2:7), that one should seek to learn Torah only from a teacher who is similar in behavior to a . Unlike in the secular world, where the level of morality of the individual disseminating knowledge is often not considered, in the Torah world we are required to seek out only those teachers and rabbeim whose personal code of behavior, whose integrity and honesty, and whose moral conduct are consistent with the Torah's demands. Even the conversations of our spiritual role models--and of those influenced by these role models--must serve as examples to us in order for their Torah teachings to possess value.

Menachem Schechter

Abarbanel, citing the Drashos HaRan, explains Avraham’s insistence on having Yitzchok marry a member of his own family when he knew that the family God ordered him to abandon were no less idolatrous than the local inhabitants. The Canaanim’s bodies, suggests the Abarbanel, were so compromised by their evil indulgences and actions that a physiological, inheritable predisposition to evil developed. Avraham’s relatives may have contaminated their intellects by worshiping idols, later progeny, however, could not inherit these mental mutations.

In all fairness, the kindness and altruism which made Rivkah so attractive were characteristic of Avraham’s whole family. Although Chazal shun the hacnosos orchim of both Lot and Lavan, both acted with great alacrity and dedication in opening their houses to guests. True, Lot’s hospitality can be viewed as nothing short of obscene after having submitted both his daughters to the whim of a crazed mob. Likewise, Lavan’s good heartedness becomes mere opportunistic hypocrisy when compared to his underhanded dealings with Yaakov. Still, the act of giving was a value deeply impressed in the conscience of Avraham’s kin, undoubtedly by Terach, the patriarch of his close knit family.(It is interesting to note that Terach singularly named his son Nachor after his own father)

In Midrash Tehillim, Terach is incongruously enumerated among a handful of great tzaddikim who were born circumcised. This fact is all the more striking considering that his son Avraham was tested with the commandment of milah. Bizarrely, almost all we know of Terach somehow reflects nisyonot of his illustrious son. In the well known midrash, Terach brings his own beloved b’chor to Nimrod and witnesses the boy thrown to a fiery death. Although Avraham is saved by Divine intervention (sound familiar?), Terach’s youngest, is engulfed by flames, "Vayomas Haran al pnei Terach aviv." Terach’s next recorded action was to gather his family and set out for Canaan. Although the trip was aborted at Charan, Avraham would pass another test by completing his trek to the Promised Land.

Terach, the idol maker, unwittingly represented the unfulfilled potential actualized by Avraham’s acceptance of Hashem. The recognition of God infused meaning to the otherwise meaningless acts of circumcision, the akeidah and entering Canaan. Lot’s excessive cordiality is hardly surprising when we consider that he was simply following family tradition rather than serving an objective good. In his haskamah to the Chofetz Chaim’s sefer Ahavas Chesed, the Netziv describes this additonal dimension of tzdakah, which obligates the Jew to be charitable according to Divine rather than human standards. Avraham may have recognized the latent good in the great-granddaughters of his father Terach. He hoped a marriage with his son would temper and give true meaning to the chesed of Terach’s house.

Moshe Blitz

The pasuk tells us that Sarah lived for "One hundred years and twenty years and seven years". Rashi comments that the word year is repeated to teach us that each segment of the pasuk has a drasha of its own. Although she was one hundred, she was comparable to a twenty year old regarding sin and although twenty, she was similar to a seven year old in beauty. This last statement of Rashi is very peculiar. While it makes sense to compliment someone for being similar to a twenty year old in regards to sin, it makes little sense to praise someone for being similar to a seven year old regarding beauty. What was Rashi’s intention in making this comparison?

This question has bothered many of the modern commentators. Rav Zalman Sorotzkin, in his Aznayim Latorah, believes that this statement of Rashi can best be understood with the help of the Goan of Vilna. The Goan tells us that it is from the age of seven that the yetzer harah tries to seduce people to sin. The gemarah in meseches Shabbos (76) tells us that a person’s battle with the yetzer harah weakens his body. This then, is Rashi’s allusion to Sarah having the characteristics of a seven year old. Her appearance showed no signs of the ongoing battle with the yetzer harah within her..

Rav Yonason Eibeshuitz, in his Tiferes Yehonason, offers another creative explanation of this Rashi. Our rabbis tell us that Sarah was called Yiscah. Two explanations are given for this nickname. One attributes the name to her affinity for ruach hakodesh, "shesachah beruach hakodesh". The second opinion explains the name Yiscah is a play on words that reflects her beauty, "shehakol sachin beyofiyah", everyone confabulates in her beauty. I once heard from the mashgiach katon of Kerem B’Yavneh, Rabbi Yosef Kritz, that when you see a machlokes in agadah, the two opinions are not arguing, they are merely two sides of the same coin. How then can this agadah be understood? Perhaps, there is no machlokes. Everyone agrees that Sarah’s nickname, Yiscah, was in reference to her beauty. The only machlokes was what aspect of her beauty the nickname complemented. It is possible, that much like Esther, whose complexion was yerakrok, yellowish, but through the shechinah’s surrounding presence, she was perceived as being extremely beautiful, so too Sarah’s affinity for ruach hakodesh made her appear very attractive. It was equally possible, that her beauty was innate and natural.

In order to establish which aspect of her beauty the name Yiscah referred to, R’ Yonason refers back to parshas Lech Lecha where Avraham exclaims, "Now I know that you are a beautiful woman". This statement came immediately upon Avraham and Sarah’s entering into Egypt. It was only upon their entering Egypt, a place of great idol worship and immorality, that Avraham realized that Sarah was Yiscah, not as a result of the shechina's effect on her appearance, but because she was naturally a beautiful woman. Certainly the shechina would not reside in a place like Egypt. If Sarah still looked beautiful in Egypt it could only be as a result of natural beauty. With this understanding we can understand Rashi’s perplexing statement. The gemarah tells us that after the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash, nevuah was given to the mentally incompetent and to children. We can infer from this statement that before the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash, children were incapable of prophesy. Sarah was as beautiful as a seven year old. One who sees a beautiful seven year old can be assured that the child’s beauty is not the result of ruach hokodesh. It could only reflect a tremendous inner attractiveness. So too, Sarah’s beauty was not the result of the shechina's presence but natural beauty.

David Flamholz

In this week’s Parsha, one finds two completely different reactions by Avraham and Sarah upon hearing that Yitzchak, their only son, was to be sacrificed. Avraham immediately and eagerly goes about fulfilling Hashem’s decree, repressing any feelings of mercy and compassion he might have for Yitzchak. Sarah, on the other hand, upon hearing the events that had transpired dies instantly of shock. How can it be that two such great people reacted so differently? Furthermore, we know that Sarah’s prophecy was greater than Avraham’s (see Rashi Bereishis 21:12).

R’ Chaim Shmulevitz, in his weekly discourses on the Parsha Ha’shavua uses an idea, we find elsewhere in Chazal, to answers this question: Instantaneous shock can often overwhelm a person to such a degree that it can often prove to be fatal to him.

The Gemara Kesubos 62b relates that when R’ Chananyah ben Chachinai arrived home after being away for thirteen years, his wife died instantly because "her heart felt his presence" before she saw him. Had she been able to see him and thereby accustom herself to his presence, she would not have died. The sudden overwhelming of her heart and mind with his presence was too much for her.

Says R’ Chaim Shmulevitz, the same is true regarding Avraham and Sarah. Avraham was made aware that his son was to be brought as a sacrifice in a gradual manner. Hashem first told him: "KACH NA ES BINCHA", Please take your son, then: "ES YICHIDCHA", your only son, then: "ASHER AHAVTA", whom you love. Only at the end of the pasuk does Hashem reveal to him that it would be Yitzchak: "ES YITZCHAK." Rashi (ibid) explains that Hashem revealed it to him in this way so he wouldn’t "lose his mind." Sarah, on the other hand, was suddenly overwhelmed with the knowledge that her son was to be sacrificed and consequently died from shock.

R’ Chaim takes this idea one step further.

The prophet Yechezkel tells us that when one comes to the Third Temple, he should do so in the following manner: