ב"ה This week’s Shabbat package is dedicated in memory of Mar-Cheshvan, 5747), Grandmother of Vivienne Waysman 22) ,ע"ה Nellie (Segula) Lane Devorah bat Zechariah), (26 Mar-Cheshvan 5751) Mother of Vivienne Waysman) ,ע"ה Doreen Efron ע"ה 29th Mar-Cheshvan 5719) Father of Boris Waysman) ,ע"ה Yosef ben Dov Waysman

CHAYEI SARAH 5781

My article in the Parshat Chayei Sarah edition of “HaMizrachi” (which can be downloaded from Mizrachi Matters or picked up from the entrance of Shule) reflects on two educational models: teaching by instruction and teaching by example. My article reflects on the significant number of pesukim dedicated to the narrative of Avraham’s servant in this week’s Parsha, which you can learn more about from a different angle in the article by Prof. Nechama Leibovitz below.

In my article, I built on the explanation of my Rosh Yeshiva, HaRav Aharon Lichtenstein zt”l, that modelling behaviours can be a far more impactful tool that describing those behaviours in detail.

I have been reflecting on that message since the introduction of Leibler Yavneh College’s guide for the wellbeing of LGBTI+ students. The policy document was accompanied by a video I prepared together with Eitan Meyerowitz about the experiences of an LGBTI+ student in an Orthodox school. Both the policy and the video have received widespread positive feedback, most importantly from students and families inside and outside our school who are in need of the positive messages of Chizzuk and inclusion in the Jewish community.

However, I have been fascinated by the relative exposure of the two forms of communication, as while the document has been opened and read by many individuals, the video has been shared and watched many times more. On the one hand, this is simply a reflection of the way we consume and share media. We are far more likely to watch a video (especially a brief video) than read through a document. At the same time, I believe it also expresses an educational reality – that modelling behaviours is a more effective educational tool than writing a document about how people should behave.

In numerous areas of communal life, significant effort is placed into composing policies, agreements, pledges, guides and commitments. While each word of these documents is of value, the implementation and demonstration of those words is of even greater value,

Shabbat Shalom.

ב"ה

"And the life of Sarah was a hundred years and twenty years and seven years, the years of the life of Sarah. And Sarah died in Kiryat Arba, which is Chevron in the land of Canaan and Avraham came to eulogize Sarah and to cry for her" (Bereishit 23:1-2).

In the opening section of this week's Parsha, Avraham purchases Ma'arat HaMachpela in Chevron as a burial place for Sarah. Over the course of 17 verses (Bereishit 23:3-20) the negotiations and details of the sale are described, with Avraham eventually paying 400 silver shekels to Ephron for his field and cave. The Torah could have easily and briefly informed us in a single verse that Avraham bought Ma'arat HaMachpela. Why do we need to be told who he bought it from, how he found him, the full details of the negotiations and how much he paid?

My late sister, Liora Graham z"l, taught me a Midrash which connects Avraham's purchase of Chevron to two other Biblical purchases:

"Rav Yudan bar Simon said, 'This is one of three places about which the nations of the world cannot taunt Israel, saying, "They are stolen in your hands", and these are them: The Cave of Machpela and the Beit Hamikdash and the burial place of Yoseph'" (Bereishit Rabba 79:7). Chevron (in Yehuda), Shechem (in Shomron) and Har HaBayit (in East Jerusalem) are among the most disputed territories in the world today. According to the Midrash, the purchases of Ma'arat HaMachpela, Har HaBayit (Divrei HaYamim I 21:25) and Kever Yoseph (Bereishit 33:9) are fully documented in the Torah so that nobody should ever claim that they do not rightfully belong to us.

Whilst these words of the Midrash can provide us with encouragement today, they should not lead to arrogance or complacency. The Midrash HaGadol teaches a different lesson from Avraham's purchase of Ma'arat HaMachpela:

"Come and see the humility of Avraham Avinu, for The Holy One Blessed Be He promised him to give him and his descendants the Land forever and now he could only find a burial place for a (high) price, but he did not question the attributes of The Holy One Blessed Be He and he did not challenge. Furthermore, he only spoke to the inhabitants of the Land with humility" (Midrash HaGadol, Bereishit 23:4).

Although Hashem promised Avraham that the Land will always belong to us, he paid Ephron the full price for the field and cave and dealt with humility and decency towards the inhabitants of the Land.

ב"ה Let nobody ever claim that we do not rightfully own Ma'arat HaMachpela, Har HaBayit or Kever Yoseph. Indeed, the entire Land was promised to us by Hashem. At the same time, we cannot assume automatic control of the Land. We must approach the Land with confidence, but also with pragmatism and humility.

Reb Leor Broh

This Week’s Riddle: .in reverse order עשו Find three words that have initials spelling the name of

Answer to Last Week’s Riddle (Vayera): Find a word that appears 4 times in one verse, each time with a different cantillation (musical note).

וַיֹּ֨אמֶ ר קיִצְחָָ֜ אֶ ל־אַבְרָהָָ֤ ם אָבִ יו ֹּ֣ וַיאמֶ ר אָבִִ֔ י וַי אמֶ ר הִנֶ ֹּ֣נִִּֽ י בְנִִ֑י וַי אמֶ ר הִנֵָ֤ה הָאֵש וְהָֹּ֣עֵצִִ֔ ים וְאַיֵֵּ֥ה הַשֶ הלְ ע לִָּֽה׃

And Yitzchak said to his father Abraham, And he said “Father!” And he answered, “Here I am, my son.” And he said, “Here are the firestone and the wood; but where is the sheep for the burnt offering?” (Vayera 22:7)

See Rabbenu Bechaye who comments “This verse contains four statements and I do not know why”.

He then proceeds to quote a Midrash, Bereishit Rabbah 56:4, which provides some of the dialogue not appearing in the text of the Torah.

“And Yitzchak spoke to Avraham his father, and said: My father”. Samael, the bad angel, went to the our father Avraham and said: “Old man, old man! Have you lost your mind [lit. have you lost your heart]? You are going to slay a son given to you at the age of a hundred!’ ‘Even this I do,’ replied he. [Samael said:] ‘And if He sets you an even greater test, can you stand it?!’ [as it is written] “If a thing be put to you as a trial, will you be wearied” (Job 4:2)? ‘Even more than this,’ he replied. [Samael said:] ‘Tomorrow He will say to you, “You are guilty of murder, you murdered your son!” He replied: ‘Still I go’. Seeing that he could achieve nothing with him, he approached Yitzchak and said: ‘Son of an unhappy mother! He is going to slay you!’ He replied: ‘Still I go’. Samael said: ‘If so, all those fine tunics which your mother made be a legacy for Ishmael, the hated of her house, and you don't care [lit. don't let it enter your heart]?’ If a word is not completely effective, it may yet be effective in part, that’s why it is written, “And Itzchak spoke to Avraham his father, and said: My father”: why [his] father, [my] father twice? So that he should be filled with compassion for him. ב"ה And he said: Behold, the fire and the wood. Avraham said to him: ‘May that man who has thus seduced him be drowned! Any way, “God will provide himself the lamb, my son”; and if not you are “the lamb for the burnt-offering my son.” So "they went both of them together" (Gen. 22:8) — one to slaughter and the other to be slaughtered.

Prof. Nechama Leibowitz (Courtesy of Jewish Agency Website)

Table-Talk Of Patriarchs' Servants

The Torah relates, with a surprising wealth of detail, every action of the servant in chapter 24 till verse 26. His experiences are recapitulated (the conversation with Abraham, his prayer at the well, his meeting with Rebecca, her reaction, and the presentation of the bracelets) in the form of his report to Rebeca’s family in verse 35 to 48 of the same chapter. This lengthy and seemingly superfluous recapitulation has excited the comment of many of our expositors. In view of the Torah’s sparing use of words and avoidance of every unnecessary repetition, even the addition or subtraction of a letter, it is surprising, that we do not meet here with the brief note that the servant related to them all that had occirred, as is, indeed, the case when he returns home— And the servant told Isaac all the things that he had done. (24, 26)

The Torah must have obviously had a very special reason for recording the servant’s recapitulation of his experiences. Our sages commented on his unusual repetitiveness in the Midrash (Bereshit Rabbah 60,11) as follows;

Said R. Aha: The table-talk of the servants of the patriarchs’ households is more notable (literally: “beautiful”) than the scripture (Torah) of their descendants. Eliezer’s story is recorded and recapitulated, taking up to three pages, whereas one of the fundamental rulings of the Torah, to the effect that the blood of a creeping thing defiles in the same way as its flesh, is only known to us through the superfluity of one letter in the Scriptures (i.e. we deduce the principle that the blood of a creeping thing defiles from the superfluous word “the” in the verse literally translated as: “these also shall be into you the unclean among the creeping things” (Leviticus 11,29).

The Story The Recapitulation 1. And the Lord had blessed Abraham in all things. 35. And the Lord hath blessed ... and he is greatly; become great: and He hath given him flocks, and herds, and silver, and gold, and men -servants, and maidservants, and camels, and asses.

ב"ה 2. And I will make thee swear by the Lord, the God of 37. And my master made me swear, saying. heaven, and the God of the earth 3. That thou shall not take a wife unto my son of the Thou shall not take a wife to my son of the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell: daughters of the Canaanites, in whose land I dwell: 4. But thou shall go unto my country, and to my But thou shall go unto my father’s house. birthplace.And take a wife onto my son Isaac. And take a wife unto my son. 5. Peradventure the woman will not be unto this land: 39. Peradventure the woman willing to Must I needs bring thy son again unto the land from follow me. ------whence thou comest? 7. The Lord of heaven, which took me from my father’s 40. The Lord before whom I walk, house, and from the land of my birth, and which spake unto me... 7. He shall send His angel before thee, and thou shall 40. Will send His angels with thee, And take a wife unto my son from thence. thou shalt take a wife for my son of my kindred, and of my father’s house: 8. Only bring not my son thither again. ------12. O Lord God of my master Abraham, send me good 42. O Lord God of my master Abraham, if speed this day, and shew kindness unto my master now thou do prosper my way which I go: Abraham. 14. And she shall say, Drink and I will give thy camels 44. Both drink thou, and I will also draw for drink also: let the same be she that Thou hast thy camels; let the same be the Lord hath appointed for thy servant Isaac: and thereby shall I appointed out for my master’s son. know that thou hast shewed kindness unto my master. 15. And it came to pass before he had done speaking. 45. And before I had done Speaking in mine heart, 17. And said, Let me, I pray thee,drink a little water of 45. And I said unto her, Let me I pray thee. thy pitcher. drink, 18. And she said, Drink, my Lord: and she hastened 46. And she made haste, and let down her and let down her pitcher upon her and said, Drink, pitcher from her hand, and shoulder, gave him drink. 19. And when she had done giving him drink, she said, And I will give thy camels drink also: So I I will draw for thy camels also, until they have done drank, and she made the camels drink also. drinking. And she hasted, and emptied her pitcher into the trough, and ran again ...to draw water, and drew for all his camels. 22. And it came to pass, as the camels had done 47. And I asked her, and said: Whose drinking, that the man took a golden ring...and two daughter art thou? And she said the bracelets from her hands of ten shekels weight of daughter of Bethuel... gold. 23. And said, Whose daughter art thou? tell me, I pray And I put the ring upon her nose and the thee: is there room in thy father’s house for us to bracelets upon her hands. lodge in? 26. And the man bowed down his head, and 48. And I bowed down my head, and worshipped the Lord. And he said, Blessed be the Lord worshipped the Lord, and blessed the Lord God of my master Abraham, who hath not left God by my master Abraham. which had led destitute my master of his mercy and his truth: I being ב"ה in the way, the Lord led me to the house of my me in the right way to take my master’s master’s brethren. brother’s daughter unto his son.

Our classic commentators from Talmudic times onwards, including such great medieval exegetes as Rashi and Ramban, right down to Malbim and the “Netziv” in Haamek Davar in the last century made a point of explaining the significance of the variations, both great and small between these two accounts. We have the servant’s longer elaboration at the beginning of his report to Rebecca’s family in order to emphasise Abraham’s wealth , the glossing over of the differences in faith between Abraham and his family in Haran reflected in the omission of phrase “the Lord, the God of heaven, and the God of the God of the earth” which would not be appreciated in Laban’s circles (verse 3 and verse 37). We may note the emphasis given to Abraham’s command to find a wife for his son from among his “father’s house,” a sentiment which was not at all uttered by Abraham, (cf. verses 39 and 5), and finally the change in order on regard to the asking of the girl’s name and the giving of the presents. This latter change is noted in Rashi on verse 47:

“And I asked and I put”—he changed the order, for in reality, he first gave the presents and afterwards asked, but he did so, so that they should not catch him out and say: How did you give her before you knew who she was?

Isaac Arama in his Akedat Yitzhak goes into more detail:

Previously the servant had emphasised that he came on a special mission to Abraham’s family, preferring them above all other people for his son. If he would have said that presented the ring to Rebecca before he even knew to which family she belonged, this would have contradicted his previous assertion, since a man will not just give his valuables away to no purpose. Presumably, since he gave them to just any woman, they must have been given as marriage gifts. This is what Rashi referred to when he stated that Eliezer was afraid they would catch him out.

The variations referred to above and many others reveal the wonderful judgement, discretion and devotion of Abraham’s servant in carrying out his mission, until he brought it to a successful conclusion. No better evidence of his success can be cited than the very words of his listeners after hearing his persuasive eloquence:

The matter stems from the Lord: we cannot speak unto thee bad or good Behold Rebecca is before thee, take her, and go, and let her be thy master’s son’s wife, -as the Lord hath spoken. (24, 50, 51)

Had the Torah rested content with a brief phrase to the effect that the servant related to Rebecca’s family all that had befallen him, we would not have been apprised of the measure of his devotion and abilities in carrying out his master’s commands. To this our sages referred when they stated “the table-talk” of the servants of the Patriarch’s households is more notable...”

ב"ה

Rabbi James Kennard

Sarah has died. Avraham has to purchase an eternal resting place for her, which will become the first piece of the land of Israel to belong to the Jewish people.

He approaches the Hittite tribe, wishing to buy from them the Cave of Machpelah, and introduces himself by stating: גֵר בוְתֹושָ נאָ כִי עִמָ כֶם תְ נּו לִ י אֲחֻזַת קֶ בֶ ר I am a stranger/sojourner and a resident עִמָ כֶם וְאֶקְ בְרָה מֵתִי מִלְפָ נָי. )בראשית כג:ד( living with you. Give me a possession of a grave with you, that I may bury my dead from before me. (Bereishit 23:4) Is Avraham both of them at the same time? Or ?תֹושָ ב and גֵר What is the relationship between consecutively? Are they indeed compatible in any way? We will see three answers, one from the Rashbam and two from Rashi, that cover all possibilities.

is considered to be a hendiadys - two nouns גֵר וְתֹושָ ב See also Vayikra 25:47, where the phrase) with a single meaning, as it they were actually an adjective and a noun. In that case the combination means “a resident stranger”. Compare Macbeth’s “sound and fury” which is a more dramatic way of saying “furious sound”.)

in our verse as representing a chronological תֹושָ ב and גֵר The Rashbam (12th century France) sees progression:

מארץ נכריה באתי לגור כאן ונתישבתי עמכם I came from a foreign land to sojourn לכן אין לי מקום קברות אבות הנה: .(תושב) and I settled with you (גר) here Therefore I do not have an inherited burial place here.

he does not have a ,(תושב) Precisely because Avraham is an immigrant, albeit one fully integrated burial place already to call his own. Hence there is a link between the beginning and end of the verse.

Rashi (11th century France) offers two explanations. גר מארץ אחרת ונתישבתי עמכם, ,from another land (גר) I am) a stranger) .with you (תושב) and I have settled

And the Midrash says: if you are willing, I and if not I will be ,( גר) will be a stranger ב"ה

ומ"א אם תרצו הריני גר ואם לאו אהיה תושב (and take it (the cave ,(תושב) a resident ואטלנה מן הדין שא"ל הקב"ה לזרעך אתן את based on my legal right, because the Holy הארץ הזאת: One, Blessed be He said to me “I will give this land to your descendants (Bereishit 12:7)”

Nechama Leibowitz (20th century Israel) taught her students the skill of identifying the particular point of difference between two interpretations. In this case she describes the contrast thus: for ,are states that can exist simultaneously, but for his second תֹושָ ב and גֵר Rashi’s first explanation they are mutually exclusive options. Either Avraham can act like a stranger, and purchase the cave (as he is currently preparing to do), but the veiled threat is that he has the alternative option of claiming the territory anyway as part of his gift from Hashem.

(Note that despite the Rashbam’s customary faithfulness to the simple meaning of the text, his at the תֹושָ ב and גֵר explanation deviates from the implication in Avraham’s words that he is a same time. This problem is absent from Rashi’s first explanation which, although superficially because גר similar to the Rashbam’s, is subtly different, since according to Rashi, Avraham is still a because of his current status. See also Rashi on תושב of his origins, whilst simultaneously being a Vayikra 25:47).

The Chizkuni (13th century, France) raises a question on Rashi’s second explanation, based on Rashi’s own words on Bereishit 13:7, explaining the rift between the shepherds of Avraham and those of his nephew, Lot.

יהי ריב – לפי שהיו רועיו של לוט רשעים There was a quarrel because Lot's ומרעין בהמתן בשדות אחרים, ורועי אברהם shepherds were wicked and grazed their מוכיחין אותן על הגזל, והן אומרים: נתנה cattle in other people's fields. Avraham's הארץ לאברהם ולו אין יורש ולוט יורשו, ואין shepherds rebuked them for an act of זה גזל. והכתוב אומר: והכנעני אז בארץ, ולא robbery, but they replied, "The land has זכה בה אברהם עדיין. been given to Avraham, and since he has no son as heir, Lot will be his heir: therefore this is not robbery". The verse states: "The Canaanite and the Perizzite lived then in the land", and Avraham had not yet merited (to inherit the land).

If Rashi on 23:4 says that Avraham had a right to take the Cave of Machpelah since the entire land had been promised to him, why does Rashi himself on 13:7 say that Lot’s shepherds were at fault, because “Avraham had not yet merited to inherit the land”?

The Chizkuni answers that the promise of the land was to Avraham’s descendants (as Rashi on 23:4 is careful to quote precisely from Bereishit 12:7). At the time of the argument between the shepherds, Avraham has no children and therefore the promise of the land has not come into effect. Conversely, when he meets the Hittites in 23:4 Yitzhak has been born and the promise to give the land of Israel to Avraham’s descendants can now come into effect.

Yet this answer raises another question. It implies that Rashi says that Avraham’s claim can only be made on behalf of his children, yet he clearly wishes to acquire the cave for himself. The answer ב"ה therefore must be that Avraham in fact wants to acquire the property for the sake of the Jewish people as a whole (his descendants), in perpetuity, as would naturally be the case regarding a burial place, which would be available for generations to come.

This idea is implied by Rashi’s explanation of the apparent repetition in verses 17-20.

)יז( םוַיָקׇ השְדֵ עֶפְ רֹון אֲשֶ ר בַמַ כְפֵלָ ה אֲשֶר So the field of Ephron, which was in (17) לִפְ נֵי מַמְרֵ א הַשָדֶ ה וְהַמְ עָרָ ה ... ,Machpelah, which was before Mamre )יח( לְאַבְרָ הָם לְמִקְ נָה ... the field, the cave… were established )יט( יוְאַחֲרֵ כֵן קָ רבַ אַבְרָ הָם אֶת השָרָ אִשְתֹו ...to Avraham for a possession (18) אֶל מְ עָרַ ת שְדֵ ה הַמַ כְפֵלָה עַל פְ נֵי מַמְרֵ א הִ וא After this, Avraham buried Sarah his (19) חֶבְ רֹון בְאֶרֶ ץ כְ נָעַ ן. wife in the cave of the field of Machpelah )כ( וַיָקׇם ההַשָדֶ וְהַמְ העָרָ ראֲשֶ בֹו לְאַבְרָ הָ ם before Mamre that is, Hevron, in the land לַאֲחֻזַת קָ בֶ ר מֵאֵת בְ נֵי חֵת. of Canaan.

(20) The field, and the cave that is in it, were established to Avraham for a possession of a burying place by the Hittites. Was the field and cave established as belonging to Avraham twice, once in verse 18 and again in verse 20? Rashi explains that in verse 18, the field and cave were bought by Avraham, but in verse 20, after Avraham has dedicated the place to be used for burial, it becomes a possession - the property of his descendants for eternity.

Rav Soloveitchik (20th century America) sees the tension between being a stranger and a resident as a paradigm for our relationship with the non-Jewish society around us. Avraham’s definition of his dual status, we believe, describes with profound accuracy the historical position of the Jew who resides in a predominantly non-Jewish society. He was a resident, like other inhabitants of Cana’an, sharing with them a concern for the welfare of society, digging wells and contributing to the progress of the country in loyalty to its government and institutions. Here, Avraham was clearly a fellow citizen,a patriot among compatriots, joining others in advancing the common welfare. However, there was another aspect, the spiritual, in which Avraham regarded himself as a stranger. His identification and solidarity with his fellow citizens in the secular realm did not imply his readiness to relinquish any aspects of his religious uniqueness. His was a different faith and he was governed by perceptions, truths and observances which set him apart from the larger faith community. In this regard Avraham and his descendants would always remain “strangers” . . .

Our approach to the outside world has always been of an ambivalent character. We cooperate with members of other faiths in all fields of human endeavour but, simultaneously, we seek to preserve our distinct integrity which inevitably involves aspects of separateness. This is a paradoxical situation. Yet, paraphrasing the words of our first ancestor, Avraham, we are very much residents ב"ה

in general human society while, at the same time, strangers and outsiders in our persistent endeavour to preserve our historic religious identity. (Reflections of the Rav, p. 169)

are not contradictory, but תֹושָ ב and גֵר To conclude, another verse in the Torah implies clearly that are two facets of a single status. Vayikra 25:23 states, in the name of Hashem, that land in Israel cannot be sold, but only leased . וְהָאָרֶ ץ ל א תִ מָ כֵר לִצְמִ תֻ ת כִי לִי הָאָרֶ ץ כִי גֵרִ ים ,The land shall not be sold in perpetuity וְתֹושָבִ ים אַתֶם עִמָדִי. for the land is mine; for you are strangers .with me (תֹושָבִ ים) and residents (גֵרִ ים)

.both suggest a residence that is inherently temporary תֹושָ ב and גֵר ,In this context ,in the land of Israel גֵר וְתֹושָ ב Our verse in Bereishit, in which Avraham declares he is a complements the above verse in Vayikra which describes a future in which the entire nation that Even given our deep and .גֵרִ ים וְתֹושָבִ ים Avraham founded is living in that same land, and are still eternal connection to the land, we must remember that Hashem is the true owner, and compared to Him we will always be temporary guests.