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.