AND ABRAHAM AROSE AND PROSTRATED HIMSELF TO THE PEOPLE OF THE LAND, TO THE SONS OF HETH. AND HE SPOKE WITH THEM, SAYING, "IF IT IS YOUR WILL THAT I BURY MY DEAD FROM BEFORE ME, LISTEN TO ME AND ENTREAT FOR ME TO EPHRON THE SON OF ZOHAR. THAT HE MAY GIVE ME THE MAKHPELAH CAVE, WHICH BELONGS TO HIM, WHICH IS AT THE END OF HIS FIELD; FOR A FULL PRICE LET HIM GIVE IT TO ME IN YOUR MIDST FOR BURIAL PROPERTY."

(Bereishit 23:7-9)

 

 

Kiryat Arba - Four Cubits

One should contemplate upon this parasha, which hints that even if a person's rank is magnified, and he comes to possess the entire world and all that is in it, (in the end) he owns nothing but the four cubits of his grave. Abraham was given the entire Land as a gift, and first he purchased there the Ma'arat HaMachpeilah, in Kiryat Arba, which is Hebron.

(Rabbeinu BeHayey, Bereishit 23: 20).

 

"...and this is the portion of each person in his world, that he is buried in the space of his four cubits (kiryat arba amotav), a hint to those four cubits left to Abraham after the entire land was given to him as a gift, in reality, that is all that is left to any human being from all his greatness and property that he acquires in his lifetime."

(Y. Leibowitz: Sheva Shanim shel Sihot al Parashat HaShavua, p. 94).

 

Massacre in Ma'arat Ha'Makhpela

In the early morning of Purim day 5754 Dr. Baruch Goldstein, a resident of Kiryat Arba and a physician by profession, entered Ohel Ya'akov in Ma'arat Ha'Makhpela. Suddenly, he opened fire on the crowd of Muslim worshippers. Twenty-nine people were killed and tens more injured...

The sin against the sons of Ishmael son of our father Abraham is only one side of the coin. On the other side is inscribed a terrible sin against Heaven and against the Torah of Israel, whose ways are ways of pleasantness and all of whose paths are peace. Who dares to dress the Torah and its commandments in such cruelty and ugliness? It became clear that terror can grow not only in Islam, but also in the margins of Orthodox Judaism, wearing a kippa, and that not enough has been done amongst those who study and teach Torah to pull out false thoughts and ideas by their roots...

An anonymous boy from Herzliah participated in the mass funeral held for Goldstein in Hebron. He was impressed by the "dedication" of Goldstein and his admirers. In less than two years Yigal Amir would continue the awful madness and would shed the blood of the Prime Minister of Israel.

(Harav Amital, as published in Ve'Eleh Shenot, Nissim Mishal, editor)

 

 

Field, Well And House

Yehonatan Chipman

"And Isaac went out to meditate in the field in the evening... " (Gen 24:63)

In this verse, set at the moment before Yitzhak's encounter with the woman destined to be his bride, we see the figure of a man accustomed to solitude, to long, quiet walks in the field - perhaps to pray, perhaps to be alone with his thoughts, or perhaps to simply enjoy the cool, soothing evening breeze, after the intense heat of a long day in the desert.

The verb la-suah, here translated "to meditate," may also mean: to converse, to commune, to pray. The verse plays a role in two rabbinic sayings, both of which counterpoise Yitzhak to the other two patriarchs. First, a halakhic sugya in Berakhot 26b discusses the question: What is the origin of the various daily prayers?

R. Yossi b. R. Hanina said: prayers were introduced by the patriarchs. R Yehoshua b. Levi said: prayers were instituted to correspond to the daily sacrifices... R. Yossi b. Hanina said: Abraham introduced the Morning Prayer (Shaharit), as is said: "And Abraham rose early in the morning, to the place where he had stood" (Gen 19:27)... Yitzhak introduced the Afternoon Prayer (Minhah), as is said, "And Yitzhak went out to commune in the field before evening" (Gen 24:63), and sihah refers to prayer, as is said, "The prayer of a poor man, when he enwraps himself and pours out his siah before the Lord" (Ps 102: 1). Yaakov introduced the Evening Prayer (Arvit), as is said, "and he came upon (vayifga) the place and slept there" (Gen 28:11)...

Without entering into a detailed analysis of this passage, with its various proof texts and the manner in which they are used - a major discussion in its own right - it seems to me that the central idea underlying the view that "The Patriarchs introduced prayer" is that prayer is essentially a personal, inward experience, that came about in a specific context within the life of each of the fathers, reflecting in one way or another the unique personality and life-approach of each one of them. This is so, even when the verses are used, in the final analysis, as examples or archetypes of prayer to be recited (by all Jews!) at different periods of time during the course of the day. By contrast, the second view, "Prayers were introduced to correspond to the sacrifices," emphasizes more strongly the fixed and ritualistic aspect of prayer, as a service that man most perform before his Creator, in much the same way as our ancestors offered the daily offerings upon the altar in the Temple, at fixed times. The fixity of prayer thus symbolizes the constancy of the Jewish people - and of each individual therein - in their worshipful standing before God, as a regular part of their life routine.

In this context, Yitzhak emerges as the mystic among the three. Abraham is a man of action, but also a man of kindness and generosity, who turns towards others and asks mercy from God on behalf of others (such as the people of Sodom), and who gets up early to stand before God. Yaakov prays in a completely sudden, spontaneous manner, when he comes upon a place which unexpectedly proves to be holy. Only in the case of Yitzhak is there a sense of calm, of inner quiet, of "communion" - of one used to pouring his heart out before God at this time and in this place, far removed from the voices of other people and from the tumult of busy life.

In the end, the poskim fixed the halakhah according to the view of R. Yehoshua b. Levi - namely, that prayer is essentially a fixed act, a mitzvah to be performed at set times, and that, in practice, even if kavvanah does not come, one is not to postpone prayer for that reason. Yeshayahu Leibowitz once remarked that the saying of R. Shimon (b. Yohai) in Pirkei Avot (2.18), "When you pray, do not make your prayer a fixed thing, but (asking) compassion and supplication before the Omnipresent," was rejected as a halakhic statement. In point of fact, it seems to me that today, when there is a certain renewal of what is called "spirituality," more than a few people are attempting to emphasize the other aspect and to, so to speak, to emulate Yitzhak.

A second Talmudic passage (Pesahim 88a) speaks of the three patriarchs in terms of relating to God in different kinds of locii:

Rabbi Eleazar said: What is meant by the verse, "And many nations will come and say: Come, let us go up to the mountain of God, to the House of the God of Jacob" (Isa 2:3)? Why do they not say, "the God of Abraham and Yitzhak"? Not like Abraham, who is connected with a mountain, as is written "on the mount of the Lord shall He be seen" (Gen 22:14). Not like Isaac, who is connected with a field, as is said, "And Isaac went out to meditate in the field" (Gen 24:63). Rather, like Jacob, who is connected with a "house," as is written, "And he called the name of that place Beth-El (the House of God)" (Gen 28:19).

It seems to me that this dictum may be read as a typology of different kinds of encounters between man and God or, in the terminology of academic religious studies, of the "religious experience." "Mountain" conjures up images of transcendence: a high, lofty, mysterious place, midway between heaven and earth, in which man experiences God as distant, as "Wholly Other," as utterly beyond the ken of human comprehension. Man, in order to meet God, must first and foremost ascend far beyond himself. This is the primal experience of the revelation of the One God, Creator of All, "the master of the palace" - suitable to the founding experience of Abraham, who discovered the truth of God, according to the midrash, through profound reflection upon the nature of the universe. Such an approach is diametrically approached to the pagan approach of Terah and his world, who saw numerous divine forces coming into play within the familiar, everyday world - generally speaking, of nature gods.

The field in which Yitzhak walked to commune with his God suggests the experience of God's immanence, His omnipresence. He "fills all worlds"; He is "the Life of Life," found in in every flower and every blade of grass, if one but knows how to look. This aspect is particularly accessible, it would seem, in open, natural settings, far from the noise and tumult of human society. Yitzhak's experience is a mystical one, of the type known as "panentheism" - i.e., that Nature may be identified as being within, and part of God, but that He is not encompassed by nature, but transcends it: "He is the place of the world, but the world is not His place" (Bereshit Rabbah 68.9). This somewhat circuitous, dialectical formulation is important so as to distinguish the Judaic concept of immanence from pantheism, which borders on the pagan.

There is something very unique about this experience. A person requires a special sort of vision in order to perceive these things. Yitzhak's son Esau was "a man of the field" - this may well have been the reason for Yitzhak's special love for him - but the latter saw the field in mundane terms, as a place through which one passed in order to get someplace else, or as the home of wild animals ready to be hunted - but decidedly not as a source of religious inspiration, that stimulates a deeper form of seeing and a sense of God's presence as He who "gives life to all." This was Yitzhak's critical mistake: he thought that Esau felt the same things he did in the field -  but alas, he did not.

What is the meaning of "house," the name that Jacob saw as suitable for calling upon God? "House" signifies a place that is well-defined, intended for a special purpose. Not a mountain, which awakens feelings of awe, suggesting the Infinite; nor a field, open in every direction, as far as the eye can see; but something modest, human, limited, "homey" (heimish). The holiness of the Temple, of a synagogue or study house, is defined by means of the walls or partitions that define its boundaries. The same holds true for the Sukkah, as it does for a courtyard or other area in which one is permitted to carry on Shabbat; there is a concept in halakhah of kedushat mehitzot. Jacob's "house" was a house of prayer for all: not only for unique personalities possessing extraordinary religious sensibilities, but also for amkha - for ordinary folk and great alike, in the sense of "together, all the tribes of Israel." This is perhaps the reason why our gemara gave preference, in the end, to the "house" of Jacob - above the "high and lofty mountain" of God, and the immanent Presence felt in the field.

Another, albeit related, interpretation also seems plausible. The "house" - well-defined, and a very human sort of habitation - may be seen as symbol for the halakhah itself. "Once the Temple was destroyed the Holy One blessed be He has naught in His world but the four ells of halakhah." And these four ells are, as is known, the minimal dimensions of the place "occupied" by an individual (laws of a "place" for Shabbat; met mitzvah, etc.).

We conclude with the saying of R. Hiyya bar Abba in Berakhot 31a: "A person should always pray in a place that has windows, as is said, 'And he opened windows in it' (Daniel 6:11; cf. its application as halakhah in Rambam, Hilkhot Tefillah 5.10; Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayyim 90.4). True, the emphasis there is that the window should be specifically directed towards Jerusalem. But it seems to me that there is another aspect as well: that a person must be open towards the outside; that even during the hour of prayer there must be an integration of "without" and "within" - that a person gaze inwardly, praying for his own needs and those of his closest ones, but that he also have a broader purview, seeing the needs of the broader community, of the entire Jewish people, and even of humanity as such.

Rabbi Jonathan Chipman is a translator by profession, and a scholar in Jewish studies. He writes a weekly sheet (in English) on the portion of the week and the Haftara, titled "Hitsei Yehonatan". (Anyone interested in ordering a sample of subscription can write via email to: yonarand@internet-zahav.net.)

 

And Abraham came to mourn for Sarah and to bewail her - between mourning and lamenting ; respect for the deceased, respect for the living.

It is human nature to first cry privately, and then to publicly lament, as is written, And the Lord... summoned to weeping and lamenting (Isaiah 22:12), but because Abraham had come from a far-away place, and because a large crowd had already gathered around the house, Abraham first lamented for her publicly. There is another distinction concerning the deceased and his mourners; if the demise brought about a change in the mourner's behavior, and his sorrow is greater than the praise for the deceased himself, then the weeping is primary and precedes lament. Such is not the case if, on the contrary, the death brings about breakdown of the mourner's behavior, and his (the deceased's) praise is greater, then the lament becomes primary, and precedes the weeping. Therefore, upon the destruction of the temple, The Holy One, Blessed Be He, called for weeping over the behavior of His world, for it led to disruption in the order of the Holy Service and many more developments not to His liking - and this exceeded his lament over the few righteous men who were killed during the destruction of the Temple, and therefore the text records weeping before lament. But such was not the case after Sarah's death; her death caused no change in Abraham's way of life, and Isaac, her son, who was the main objective, had already matured; and the lament for her was great because of her prominence, therefore Abraham first lamented her and only later wept for her. Therefore the (letter) kaf in the word 'livekotah' - 'to weep for her' - is diminished, in order to teach us that the weeping was but little, but the lament was great.

(Haamek Davar, Bereishit 23:2)

 

Why Did Abraham Object So Strongly to the Canaanite Women?

From the Daughters of the Canaanites - Lest they say I entered the land through inheritance and bequest, but I only want it by God's hands, that he give it to me as a possession.

(Hizkuni 24; 3)

 

We must recall that when Abraham rejected the Canaanite women, the people of Aram were also idolaters. It follows that Canaan's moral corruption, rather than its strange gods, motivated his decision. Paganism is in essence an intellectual error that can be corrected. However, moral corruption takes hold of the whole of a person's being, to the depths of the soul and the emotions. Here (in Canaan), Abraham could not hope to find his son a modest and morally pure wife, a wife who would bring to his home the pearl of nobility and the purity of morals.

(R. Samson Raphael Hirsch, Bereishit 24: 4)

 

Is It Permissible to Criticize the Actions of the Righteous?

Rabbi Shmuel bar Nahmani said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: Three made improper requests, two were answered properly, and one was answered improperly - Eliezer servant of Abraham, and Saul ben Kish, and Yiftah HaGiladi. Eliezer, servant of Abraham, as is written (Bereishit 24) May it be that the maiden to whom I say: Pray lower your pitcher etc. Even if she were to be crippled, even blind!? Nonetheless, he was answered properly, and Rebecca appeared.

(Taanit 4a)

 

One may not practice divination as do the idolaters, as is written You are not to practice divination. What is divination? For example, those who say, "Because my bread fell from my mouth or my staff from my hand, I will not go to such and such a place today because if I do go, I will not succeed in my affairs" or "Because a fox passed on my right, I will not leave my house today, for if I go out a scoundrel will harm me." Or those who hear a bird chirp and say: "It will be so and not so," "It will be advantageous to so and bad to do otherwise," and those who say "Slaughter this chicken who crowed at night", "Slaughter this hen who crowed like a rooster," and so one who devises omens for himself, "If such and such will happen to me, I will do so and so, and I will not be harmed," or "I will not do as Eliezer servant of Abraham," and all similar cases, all this is forbidden, and whoever acts in accordance with any of the above, is to be flogged.

(RaMBaM, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Avoda Zara 11:4)

 

...we follow the opinion of our sages, and do not consider it our task to be apologists for our great men and women, just as the Word of God, the Torah itself never refrains from telling us of their errors and weaknesses. If Rebecca brought it about that Jacob deceived his father, it says unequivocally your brother came in deceit.

(Rabbi S.R. Hirsch on Bereishit 27:1, Levy translation)

 

 

If you enjoy Shabbat Shalom, please consider contributing towards its publication and distribution.

• Hebrew edition distributed in Israel $700
• English edition distributed via email $ 100

Issues may be dedicated in honor of an event, person, simcha, etc. Requests must be made 3-4 weeks in advance to appear in the Hebrew, 10 days in advance to appear in the English email.

In Israel, checks made out to Oz VeShalom may be sent to Oz VeShalom-P.O.B. 4433, Jerusalem 91043. Unfortunately there is no Israeli tax-exemption for local donations.

US and British tax-exempt contributions to Oz VeShalom may be made through:

New Israel Fund, POB 91588, Washington, DC 20090-1588, USA

New Israel Fund of Great Britain, 26 Enford Street, London W1H 2DD, Great Britain

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE NEW ISRAEL FUND IS NO LONGER ACCEPTING DONATIONS UNDER $100.

PEF will also channel donations and provide a tax-exemption. Donations should be sent to P.E.F. Israel Endowment Funds, Inc., 317 Madison Ave., Suite 607, New York, New York 10017 USA

All contributions should be marked as donor-advised to Oz ve'Shalom, the Shabbat Shalom project.

 

About us

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom is a movement dedicated to the advancement of a civil society in Israel. It is committed to promoting the ideals of tolerance, pluralism, and justice, concepts that have always been central to Jewish tradition and law.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom shares a deep attachment to the land of Israel and it no less views peace as a central religious value. It believes that Jews have both the religious and the national obligation to support the pursuit of peace. It maintains that Jewish law clearly requires us to create a fair and just society, and that co-existence between Jews and Arabs is not an option but an imperative.

5,000 copies of a 4-page peace oriented commentary on the weekly Torah reading are written and published by Oz VeShalom/Netivot Shalom and they are distributed to over 350 synagogues in Israel and are sent overseas via email. Our web site is www.netivot-shalom.org.il.