Parsha Partner

View/Print the PDF Version of this Parsha Partner

 View/Print a Text Version of this Page

Parsha Perspectives

by OZER ALPORT

ויקח תרח את אברם בנו ואת לוט בן הרן בן בנו ואת שרי כלתו אשת אברם בנו ויצאו אתם מאור כשדים ללכת ארצה כנען ויבאו עד חרן וישבו שם

“Terach took his son Abram and Lot the son of Haran, his grandson, and his daughter-in-law Sarai, the wife of Abram his son, and they departed with them from Ur Kasdim to go to the land of Canaan. They arrived at Charan, and they settled there.” (Genesis 11:31)

Parshat Noach ends by recording that Terach, the father of Abraham, took Abraham and his wife Sarah, as well as his grandson Lot, and they set out for the land of Canaan. Curiously, the verse concludes by stating that they arrived at Charan and settled there. As we know that the Torah only records information that is relevant to all generations, what lesson could we learn from this seemingly trivial detail about their travel itinerary? Further, if they set out for the land of Canaan, why did they stop in the middle of the journey before successfully reaching their destination?

Rabbi Yisrael Meir Kagan, known as the Chofetz Chaim (1838-1933), notes that next week’s parsha – Lech Lecha – contains a similar verse. After Hashem commands Abraham to leave his homeland to go to the land which He will show him, the Torah relates (12:5) that Abraham took his wife Sarah, nephew Lot, their possessions, and those they had converted, and set out for the land of Canaan – and they came to the land of Canaan. Why does the Torah emphasize that they left for Canaan and that they successfully arrived there? Why isn’t it sufficient to simply state that they successfully arrived in Canaan, the land to which Hashem had directed them?

Rabbi Kagan explains both verses by noting that while our Sages don’t tell us exactly what happened, it’s clear that although Terach set out with a certain itinerary in mind, he wasn’t sufficiently focused and determined to see it to fruition. As soon as the first difficulty arose, his plan was derailed and he aborted it in the middle to settle in Charan. Abraham had been traveling with his father and saw what could happen when one’s commitment to a project is deficient. He understood that at any moment an obstacle could present itself and threaten the success of his entire mission. He therefore harnessed the initial enthusiasm one typically has at the beginning of a new endeavor, constantly reminding himself, “I’m going to Canaan, I’m going to Canaan,” – never letting his guard down to stop, even when he was only a step away from the border of Canaan. The Torah emphasizes that when Abraham began his journey it was with a clear focus on his objective to arrive in Canaan. Not surprisingly, as the Torah reminds us, he succeeded in doing so.

We all have moments in our lives – an uplifting Torah class, Yom Kippur, or a miraculous “sign” from Heaven – when we see, hear, or experience something which gives us a flash of inspiration to make changes in our life or to undertake new projects. The passage of time however, wears away at that enthusiasm and we are left without achieving any of our goals. We should learn from the Torah’s emphasis on Abraham’s itinerary that the best way to seize such moments is to stay constantly focused on our resolutions – and not just set out for Canaan but actually arrive there!

Return to top

Parsha Talking Points

by RABBI ELAZAR MEISELS

1. SEVEN DAYS OF MOURNING

“And it was after the seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.” 7:10

And it was after the seven days — Anytime the Torah uses the term “VeYehi” — and it was, it connotes anguish. Here too, it is as if the Almighty anguished over the world He created in seven days. That’s why it refers to them as “the seven days,” and not merely, “after seven days,” because it’s referring to the seven days of creation. “Why,” lamented the Almighty, “did I waste all that time creating a world that I would soon need to destroy?” — Sifsei Kohein Al HaTorah

And it was after the seven days — These seven days were the traditional seven days of mourning during one laments over the loss of a beloved. — Midrash Tanchuma, Shmini 1

The Great Flood was certainly not the Almighty’s method of exacting revenge against that generation. To the contrary, it caused Him great distress and anguish to destroy the universe which He had so carefully crafted to benefit mankind. Often, we act with disregard for the will of the Almighty, reckoning that the only one to suffer from our misbehavior is we ourselves. This Midrash tells us that is not the case. The Almighty too, suffers great anguish when the universe that He so desired to benefit us, can no longer do so as a result of our actions.

2. DISAPPOINTING RESULTS

“And He obliterated every being that was on the surface of the ground; from man to animals, to creeping creatures, and to the birds of the heaven, they were eradicated from the earth. Only Noach and those with him in the Ark survived.” 7:23

Only Noach…survived — This apparently contradicts the Midrash [Yalkut Shimoni 14:72] that says that Og, King of Bashan, also survived the Great Flood? Fascinatingly, the words Ach Noach [Only Noach] have a numerical equivalent of 79, which is the same as the name Og. Thus, the verse says that both Noach and Og survived. — Daas Zekeinim, Baal HaTurim

Only Noach…survived — Earlier, upon mentioning Noach, the Torah crowns him with all sorts of honorifics. It speaks of his righteousness, perfection, and outstanding status in his generation. Why at this point following his salvation is he referred to only by his name and nothing more? Our sages took Noach to task for failing to impact his generation in a positive direction and spare them this terrible fate. One who neglects to act on behalf of others eventually descends as well. Following his salvation, in which he, and only he, was saved, it became clear that Noach was no longer the great person he was prior to the Great Flood. His unwillingness to act to save his generation meant that he was unworthy of these honorific titles any longer. — Rabbi Meir Shapiro zt”l

In blaming Noach for his inaction, our sages did not mean to mitigate the blame on the members of his generation. Their wickedness fully earned them their tragic end. Yet, a truly great person is not content to allow others to wallow in their sinfulness, and he does not rest until he has extricated them from the clutches of their evil inclination. Noach, although personally a very decent and upstanding human being, failed to demonstrate sufficient concern for his fellows, and this disqualified him from further veneration or adulation, and following the Great Flood, no longer was he the subject of G-d’s special attention.

3. STEAK HOLDERS

“Every moving creature that lives, shall be yours for food, like the green vegetation, I have given you everything for consumption.” 9:3

I have given you everything for consumption — G-d said: “I did not permit Adam HaRishon to eat meat but only vegetables. To you, however, just as the vegetables which I permitted for Adam HaRishon, I have given you everything.” — Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 59b

I have given you everything — From the word “everything” one might deduce that all flesh of all animals is permitted. Therefore, the Torah compared this new authorization to the vegetation of the field. Just as one cannot consume all forms of vegetation and must stick only to those that are healthful and not harmful, so too, one must only consume those forms of flesh that the Torah allowed and refrain from those that the Torah forbade. — Rabbeinu Bachya

Why, suddenly after the Great Flood, did Hashem permit the consumption of animals and not beforehand? Rabbi Zalman Sorotzkin in his commentary titled Oznaim L’Torah, explains that this was to teach mankind about the importance of the human race and its superiority over the animal kingdom, a point that had not yet been fully appreciated before this time. The Great Flood came as a result of two grave sins: adultery and thievery. Both of these demonstrate an utter lack of regard for the next person and resemble the behavior of the animal, which places no value on the possessions on another. Because they were forbidden to eat the animals, mankind reasoned that they were on par with them and not held to a higher standard. Of course, this is patently not the case. Mankind is the central component in G-d’s universe, without which, it ceases to exist or have meaning. To drive this point home more saliently, G-d decided to allow the consumption of animals — a clear sign that mankind is superior to animal kingdom and that we don’t share a moral plain.

Return to top

Partner Talk

A YIDDISHE KUP

by RABBI ELAZAR MEISELS

Rabbi Meisels,

I was wondering whether it would be permitted to wash ones hand for bread by placing the hands under a faucet of running water. I know that it’s traditional to use a special cup for this purpose but I am unsure whether it’s mandatory or simply custom? We used to have a really nice cup that was purchased in Israel but it broke some time ago, and I haven’t been back in Israel since.

Cherie L.

Cherie,

Thank you for writing me and allowing me to shed light on this important question, which, in actuality, is a two-part question:

1. Must one use a cup to wash his hands for bread?

2. Assuming a cup must be used, must one use a special cup or can any cup suffice?

In answer to your first question, the answer is that one must wash the hands with a cup in the prescribed manner and may not simply run his hands under running water. This is because there are two basic requirements for how the water must reach a person’s hands in order to fulfill the obligation to wash the hands:

1. Via a utensil

2. By human force [i.e. poured by hand, not by machine or through gravity]

Thus, even if one were to hold his hands under a faucet and open and close the faucet by hand, which might technically satisfy the requirement of “human force,” he will not have satisfied the requirement to wash from a utensil as the faucet does not qualify as a utensil. [It is possible that if the water was collected in an urn (which may qualify as a utensil), then one may place his hand under the spigots, press it with the other hand, and fulfill his obligation in this manner. However, for this method to be valid, one would have to use only the first gush of water that is released upon pressing the spigot, as only this can accurately be termed “human force.” Thus, he will need to do so twice for each hand.]

As for your second question, the answer is that one should use a cup but it need not be special decorative cup, or even designated for this purpose. All that matters is that ideally it should be a permanent utensil [as opposed to a disposable cup] and it will suffice for the purpose of washing the hands for bread. The cup may be made of any material, whether plastic, wood, metal, or stone. If one does not have a permanent utensil, many halachic (Jewish legal) authorities are of the opinion that a disposable one may be used as a last resort. If you’d like to purchase another decorative cup, you might be interested to know that they’re available for purchase in virtually any Judaica store in your neighborhood or online.

I must add, however, that ideally, it is not advisable to use a bottle, soda can, or any vessel with a narrow opening for netilat yadaim, since it is preferable that the entire amount of water required for washing reach the hand in the initial gush from the vessel from which it is being poured. Nevertheless, if no other vessel is available, it is permitted to use one with a narrow opening as long as the water is poured in an uninterrupted flow.

Best regards,
Rabbi Elazar Meisels

Return to top

Soul Talk

The nations of the world — who were living in total unity, with, שפָה אֶחָת וּדְבָרים אֲחדיםָ, one language and of common purpose (11:1) — joined together with a plan to build a tower with its top in the heavens. Their goal was to rebel against Hashem’s rule. In response, Hashem broke their unity by confusing their languages. The Midrash tells us that when one person would ask another for a hammer, the second would instead hand him a brick. The resulting frustration led to violent chaos, which totally stymied any efforts toward further construction and led to the dispersion of man to many areas of the earth.

Why, many ask, did Hashem remove peace and unity from this generation? It is true that they were using this trait for the wrong purpose. However, isn’t unity an inherently positive quality? Why did Hashem feel it necessary to destroy their unity, instead of finding another way to halt the construction of the tower?

Rav Naftali Tzvi Yehudah Berlin, 1817- 1893, (also known as the Netziv) makes an observation that answers this question. As we mentioned, Hashem confused the languages of the peoples of the world, and a person working on building the tower was no longer able to understand the person standing next to him. This lack of communication resulted in chaos, which led to people returning to their respective nations, far away from others. Why did this happen? It is true that it was unquestionably frustrating when they were unable to continue building the tower, but why did this disappointment lead to blows? Furthermore, why did the peoples of the world leave Babel when they could no longer build the tower, instead of simply remaining there?

The answer, explains the Netziv, is that the worldwide teamwork that was clearly present during the construction of the tower was not rooted in peace or unity. Instead, it was simply cooperation, or mutually beneficial aid. [This is in fact clearly seen in the opening verse of this passage, which states that mankind was שפָה אֶחָת וּדְבָרים אֲחדים, of one language and of common purpose. All the nations had a common purpose, and possessed the means — one language — to amass the manpower needed to achieve their aim.] Beyond their ambition to achieve a common goal, however, these people had no affection for anyone unlike themselves. Nevertheless, they were motivated by a drive to complete the job, and thus worked together with others whom they disliked to achieve this goal. This is the explanation for what happened when building the tower was no longer possible. Since there was no longer a common thread binding all the people, there was no longer a reason to co-exist, and the hatred that they harbored for one another, which had always been present beneath the surface, burst forth to chaos and open war. It was thus impossible for them to remain together in Babel, for without the reason that brought them all together; these people were unable to live in peace.

Because the unity that bound the builders of the tower was only a unity of convenience, there was no reason for it to be preserved. True peace and unity, concludes the Netziv, to which we must aspire, is peace even with a person or group with whom we do not share common ground. We must nevertheless peacefully co-exist with such people because of the simple reality that they too are human beings, creations of Hashem.

With permission from Artscroll’s Daily Dose

Return to top

Table Talk

FOR DISCUSSION AROUND THE SHABBAT TABLE

א) After beginning to introduce the descendants of Noah, the Torah pauses (6:9) to praise his piety and righteousness. Rashi explains that this teaches us that the primary “offspring” of the righteous are their good deeds. Why is this lesson specifically taught with reference to Noah? (Darash Moshe Vol. 2)

ב) The prophet Isaiah describes (65:25) the peacefulness which will reign in the times of Moshiach, noting that even natural enemies such as wolves and sheep will dwell serenely side-by-side. Why is this considered such an accomplishment of the Messianic era when wolves, sheep, and every other species in existence peacefully coexisted on one level of the ark (7:8) for an entire year? (Rabbi Meir Shapiro quoted in Peninim Vol. 5)

Return to top

Hey I Never Knew That

Amazing Insights About the Weekly Parsha

by OZER ALPORT

1) Q: Hashem told Noah (9:12-13) that the rainbow will be the sign of His covenant to never again destroy the earth. Does this mean that rainbows never existed prior to the flood and Hashem changed the laws of nature in order to bring about their existence, or that they occurred previously but only now achieved a new symbolic meaning?

A: A number of our greatest Rabbis disagree about this very question. After first assuming that if Hashem declared that He was creating the rainbow to serve as a sign, it must have been a new creation at that time, the Ramban proceeds to quote the Greeks, who maintained that their advanced scientific knowledge indicated that a rainbow was a natural result of light shining in moist air. As a result, he concludes that rainbows naturally occurred prior to the flood, but only took on new significance at that time. As a proof to this position, the Ramban and Rabbi Saadyah Gaon note that Hashem didn’t say, “I am placing my rainbow in the cloud”, which would indicate that the rainbow was created at that time, but rather, “I have placed my rainbow in the cloud as a sign of the covenant.”

The Derashos HaRan (Derush 1) and the Gur Aryeh, by Rabbi Yehuda Loew, disagree. The Ran questions how something which has always existed, such as the rising of the sun in the morning, can suddenly take on symbolic properties. They write that although scientists teach that a rainbow is a naturally-occurring phenomenon, the laws of nature prior to the flood were such that the sun’s rays weren’t strong enough to create a rainbow. As far as the proof from the tense of the verb, the Ibn Ezra suggests that it can be consistent with this opinion by reading it as saying, “I have placed – now – my rainbow in the cloud as a sign of the covenant.”

2) Q: Rashi writes (9:23) that in the merit of Shem’s swiftness in covering the nakedness of his drunken father (Noah), he merited that his descendants – the Jews – would receive the mitzvah of tzitzit (Bamidbar 15:37- 41). As we know that Hashem rewards people for their good deeds measure-for-measure, what parallels exist between the actions of Shem and the mitzvah of tzitzit.

A: Rabbi Moshe Meir Weiss points out that when reciting the Priestly Blessing, the Kohanim wrap themselves in a tallit. This is because we merited receiving the mitzvah of tzitzit through the actions of Shem and of Abraham, both of whom were Kohanim (Nedorim 32b).

Shem acted quickly to cover his father and protect him from being disgraced and humiliated. Interestingly, the minimum size for a four-cornered garment to be obligated in tzitzit is determined by whether it is large enough to cover enough of a person’s body so that he would be willing to wear it outside in public without being embarrassed (Mishnah Berurah 16:4).

When approaching their drunken father with a garment to cover him, Shem walked backward and turned away his face so as not to see or even face his father’s nakedness. As a result, the first thing one does when donning a tallit is to wrap it around his face so that he cannot see. Additionally, the Torah specifically writes (Numbers 15:39) the prohibition against lusting after the immodesty viewed by his eyes, in the section containing the mitzvah of tzitzit. Not surprisingly, the Talmud (Menachos (44a) tells the story of a man who was about to sin with a harlot when he was saved from his immoral plan by his tzitzit!

Mitzrayim was a son of Cham (10:6), who had the audacity to either castrate or sodomize his intoxicated father. Not surprisingly, the Medrash in Tanna D’vei Eliyahu (7) teaches that the Egyptians were the most immoral and depraved people in the world. As a result the section in the Torah containing the mitzvah of tzitzit also contains the mitzvah to remember the Exodus from Mitzrayim (Egypt), as the mitzvah of tzitzit represents the triumph of morality and decency!

Return to top

Parsha Summary

Parsha Summaries are coming soon!