<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2995" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=390374919-23112006>This week's TSC
shiurim are dedicated in <FONT size=2>memory of </FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=390374919-23112006><FONT
size=2> Chana Friedman (Chana bat Yaakov u'Devorah) A"H
</FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=390374919-23112006><FONT
size=2> on her 11th yahrzeit</FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=390374919-23112006></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=390374919-23112006>*************************************************************<BR>
THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]<BR> In Memory of
Rabbi Abraham Leibtag<BR> Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem
Leibtag<BR>*************************************************************</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=390374919-23112006>
PARSHAT TOLDOT - shiur # 2 </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=390374919-23112006> - WHAT MITZVOT DID THE AVOT
KEEP?</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=390374919-23112006> What mitzvot
did the Avot keep? <BR> There are those who claim that the Avot kept the
entire Torah - even the Oral Law and later Rabbinic prohibitions! Yet many
students, when hearing this opinion, find it difficult to
accept.<BR> In the following shiur, we analyze the pasuk that
forms the source for this opinion in an attempt to better understand the debate
among the commentators in regard to its interpretation. Our study will
also provide us with a rare insight into how the great commentators understood
the lives of our forefathers.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=390374919-23112006>INTRODUCTION<BR> Early on in Parshat Toldot, the
Torah tells us of a famine in Eretz Canaan that caused Yitzchak to consider
moving temporarily to Egypt. However, God intervened - instructing
Yitzchak to stay in Eretz Canaan, while re-affirming His promise to Avraham that
Yitzchak would be the 'chosen son' (see 26:1-5).<BR> We begin
our shiur by taking special note of God's concluding remarks to Yitzchak at that
time, as they form the basis of our discussion:<BR> "ekev asher shama
Avraham b'koli va'yishmor..." <BR> [because Avraham listened
to Me and kept:]]<BR>"MISHMARTI, MITZVOTEI, CHUKOTEI,
v'TORATEI."<BR> (see 26:5)</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=390374919-23112006> When reading
this pasuk, the obvious question arises: What is the precise meaning of each of
these words that describes the variety of ways that Avraham obeyed
God?<BR> a) SHAMA B'KOLI <BR> b) VA'YISHMOR
MISHMARTI<BR> c) MITZVOTEI<BR> d)
CHUKOTEI<BR> e) TOROTEI<BR> As we should expect, each of the
classical commentators contemplates this question, but to our surprise, each
commentator presents a very different answer.<BR> However, before we begin
our study of those commentaries, let's first consider what we should expect to
find.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=390374919-23112006>THREE
APPROACHES<BR> To identify the meaning of these five words (in the above
pasuk), one can take one of three basic approaches to define the meaning of each
word:</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=390374919-23112006>1) Look for
that same word in the story of Avraham's life -<BR>In other words, we must
conduct a 'word search' for each of these phrases in the Torah's account of the
life of Avraham (from Parshat Lech L'cha thru Chaya Sarah). If we find the
same word, then that must be what this pasuk refers to. [If we don't we'll need
to 'improvise'.]<BR> [as will do Rashbam &
Chizkuni]</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=390374919-23112006>2) Look for the same
word later on in Chumash -<BR>In other words, we must search the entire Torah to
find the various categories of laws that each word refers to, and assume that
what it refers to later on in Chumash is what it refers to as well in the life
of Avraham Avinu in Sefer Breishit.<BR> [Rashi, Ramban (l'fi
Chazal)]</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=390374919-23112006>3) Look for the
concept behind that word or phrase.<BR>In other words, based on the meaning of
each word in the Hebrew language (and in Chumash), we identify the concept of
what each word relates to. Then we search the Torah's story of the life of
Avraham Avinu to find and event relating to that concept.<BR> [Ibn
Ezra, Ramban (l'fi ha'pshat), Radak, Seforno] </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=390374919-23112006>WOULDN'T IT BE
NICE...<BR> Ideally, if we found an example of each one of these phrases in
the Torah's description of Avraham's life from Parshat Lech L'cha through Chaya
Sarah, then the first approach would work best. <BR> However, a
comprehensive search finds specific examples for only some of these words,
causing most of the "parshanim" [commentators] to employ a different
approach.<BR> We'll discuss their various interpretations and
approaches according to the order we suggested in our
introduction.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=390374919-23112006>RASHBAM
<BR> Rashbam follows our first approach, as he obviously begins by
searching for each specific word within the Torah's presentation of the story
Avraham Avinu. <BR> For the first three words, Rashbam is quite
'successful', as he quotes a precise example for each word:<BR> a) SHAMA
B'KOLI - at the Akeyda, as the Torah states:<BR> "...ekev asher
shamata b'koli" (see 22:18)</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=390374919-23112006> b) MISHMARETI
- to perform the mitzvah of brit milah. <BR> quoting from
Parshat Lech L'cha:<BR> "v'ata et briti TISHMOR... himol kol
zachar" (see 17:9)</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=390374919-23112006> c) MITZVOTEI -
brit Milah on the EIGHTH day<BR> as it states at the
circumcision ceremony for Yitzchak:<BR>"And Avraham circumcised Yitzchak his son
when he was eight days old - ka'asher TZIVAH oto ha'Elokim" (see
21:4)</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=390374919-23112006> However, for
the last two words - CHUKOTEI & TORATEI he is less successful, for there is
no 'exact match'. Therefore, Rashbam defaults to a more general definition for
"chukotei v''torotei", understanding that they refer to all of the 'ethical'
mitzvot that Avraham most certainly had kept. Even though God did not command
these mitzvot explicitly, it is quite implicit from Chumash that God expected
Avraham (and all mankind) to act in an ethical manner (see Breishit
18:18-19!).<BR> Note how Rashbam defines this as "ikar pshuto shel
mikra":<BR>"CHUKOTEI V'TORATEI: According to IKAR PSHUTO [simple pshat], all of
the 'obvious mitzvot' [i.e. ethical laws] like stealing, adultery, coveting,
justice, and welcoming guests; these we kept BEFORE Matan Torah, but were
renewed and expounded in the covenant [of Matan Torah]." (see Rashbam
26:5)</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=390374919-23112006>
Even though Rashbam understands "chukotei v''torotei" as general categories, he
does bring several examples of these ethical mitzvot that are found in specific
events in Avraham's life that are described in Sefer
Breishit:<BR> stealing - "asher GAZLU avdei Avimelech (see
21:25!!); <BR> adultery & coveting / Pharaoh & Avimelech taking
Sarah;<BR> justice - w/ Melech Sdom & Shalem, after war of 5
kings;<BR> welcoming guests - the 3 angels & story of Lot &
Sdom!</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=390374919-23112006>CHIZKUNI - even
'better' than Rashbam<BR> As we noted above, in his attempt to find a
specific example for each word, Rashbam is only '3' for '5'. However,
Chizkuni doesn't give up so quickly, and attempts to identify '5' for
'5'!<BR> After quoting the same first three examples as Rashbam, Chizkuni
also finds specific examples for the words CHOK & TORAH as well, but to do
so, he must employ some 'textual' assistance from Sefer Tehilim. What
Chizkuni does is simply ingenious, as he turns to Sefer Tehillim, to find
references to the life of Avraham Avinu where we find a word similar to "chok"
and "torah".<BR> CHUKOTEI - refers once again to BRIT MILAH, but this time
for all future generations as well, as it says in Tehilim:<BR>"zachar l'olam
brito... asher karat et Avraham... v'yamideha l'Yaakov l'CHOK, l'Yisrael BRIT
OLAM..." <BR> (see Tehillim 105:8-10 /or "hodu" in Psukei
d'zimrah!)</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=390374919-23112006> Hence, the
word "chukotei" in Breishit 26:5 relates to God's commandment to Avraham a Brit
Milah: "v'hayta briti b'vsarchem l'BRIT OLAM" (see
17:13)<BR> Similarly:<BR> TORATEI - refers to Avraham Avinu's original
'aliya' to Israel for it states in Tehillim:<BR> "askilcha
v'ORECHA b'derech zu TAYLECH" <BR> (see Tehilim
32:8)<BR> Here we find the word "hora'ah" - which implies an instruction -
in the same pasuk that describes 'walking in the path of God' (similar to God's
command to Avraham: of "lech l'cha..." (see 12:1-3)</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=390374919-23112006> This attempt
by Chizkuni to identify a specific example for each word is beautiful, however
he himself admits that it may be 'stretching' pshat a bit too much.
Therefore, he concludes his pirush by suggesting that a more simple "pshat" for
"mitzvotei chukotei v'toratei" would be to include the seven laws given to the
children of Noach, which Avraham himself also kept.<BR>[How these seven mitzvot
break down according to these three categories of "mitzvot", "chukim", and
"torot" will be discussed by Radak & Ramban.]</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=390374919-23112006>RASHI - a similar,
but opposite approach<BR> Rashi employs a different approach (the second
approach mentioned in our introduction), claiming that whatever these words
refer to later on in Chumash, are precisely what Avraham kept in his own life
time. [See Rashi inside.] <BR> Note how Rashi
categorizes these different words based on their definition later on in Chumash,
and cites an example for each word from the entire spectrum of Halacha, from the
Written Law, to the Oral Law, and even to later Rabbinic ordinations.
<BR> a) SHAMA B'KOL - when I tested him (at the Akeyda/ 22:18)<BR> b)
MISHMARTI - Rabbinic laws that protect the Torah laws<BR> c) MITZVOTEI -
the 'logical' and ethical laws of the Torah<BR> d) CHUKOTEI - the Torah
laws that have no apparent reason<BR> e) TOROTEI - the Oral law, and
"halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=390374919-23112006>
Hence, according to Rashi, Avraham Avinu kept the entire Torah (even though it
had not been given yet), or in essence, Avraham kept the same mitzvot that Rashi
kept!<BR> <BR>RAMBAN (according to Chazal)<BR> As usual, Ramban begins
his commentary by taking issue with Rashi's interpretation - that the Avot kept
all of the mitzvot. <BR> Ramban begins by questioning this
very assumption. After all, if the Avot kept the entire Torah, how did Yaakov
marry two sisters, and erect a MATZEYVA, etc.?<BR> Ramban attempts to
'patch' Rashi's interpretation, by explaining Chazal's statement that the Avot
kept the entire Torah from a different angle. Ramban claims that this
Midrash refers to the fact that the Avot kept SHABBAT, based on another
Midrashic statement that the mitzvah of Shabbat is equal in value to keeping all
the mitzvot of the Torah.<BR> Hence, Avraham kept the mitzvah of shabbat as
well as the seven mitzvot of Bnei Noach and brit milah. From this 'pool'
of mitzvot that Avraham kept, Ramban explains how each word in 26:5 may relate
to a specific category within the 7 Noachide laws:<BR> MISHMARTI -
extensions of "arayot" /forbidden marriages<BR> MITZVOTEI - not to steal or
kill<BR> CHUKOTEI - "eiver min ha'chay" - a limb from a live
animal<BR> TOROTEI - "dinim" establishing civil laws & no idol
worship</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=390374919-23112006>[Afterward, Ramban
returns to his original questions on Rashi's Midrashic interpretation [adding a
bit of 'zionism'], explaining the Avot's obligation to follow the
('future') laws of the Torah applied ONLY in Eretz Yisrael.]</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=390374919-23112006>RAMBAN - al derech
ha'pshat<BR> Ramban concludes his commentary by suggesting a totally
different interpretation that he introduces as "al derech ha'pshat" - [following
the way of the simple meaning of the text].<BR> In this
approach (which will follow the third approach that we discussed in our
introduction), Ramban simply follows the simple meaning of each word in Hebrew,
and applies those concepts to events in the life of Avraham
Avinu.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=390374919-23112006> MISHMARTI<BR> Most interesting is Rabman's
understanding of "mishmarti". This word stems from the Hebrew word
"li'shmor" - to guard. [A "shomer" is a watchman or body-guard.]
Hence, Ramban explains that "vayishmor mishmarti" relates to how Avraham
'guarded' or 'protected' God, and that was by both preaching and teaching
monotheism, and by publicly arguing against those who preached belief in other
gods. <BR> But where in Chumash does it say that Avraham did
so?<BR> Ramban explains that this is precisely the meaning of the phrase
"va'yikra b'shem Hashem" in relation to Avraham Avinu (see Breishit 12:8, 13:4
and 21:33].<BR>[Note how Ramban's explanation of "va'yishmor mishmarti" reflects
in many ways Ramban's own life experiences, as he too 'stood God's guard' by
publicly arguing against those he attacked Judaism!]</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=390374919-23112006> MITZVOTEI -
according to Ramban, implies a direct commandment, and hence refers to when God
commanded Avraham to move to Canaan ("lech l'cha" /see 12:1-3); to offer his son
(at the Akeyda/ see 22:1-2) , and to 'listen to his wife' - i.e. to send away
Hagar (see 21:12).</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=390374919-23112006> CHUKOTEI
- Ramban explains, refers to how Avraham 'followed the ways of God'
- being merciful & just, and doing acts of "tzedek u'mishpat" (social
justice). This interpretation, obviously based on Breishit 18:19, is
rather amazing, for most everyone thinks that a "chok" in the Bible defines a
law that 'doesn't make sense' (see Rashi on 26:5) - and here Ramban applies it
to the laws that make the most sense!<BR> At the conclusion of our shiur,
we'll return to explain why.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=390374919-23112006> TOROTEI -
Here, Ramban follows the popular understanding of the word "torah" as referring
to God's eternal laws, and hence during the time period of Avraham, it must
refer to the actual 'mitzvos' that he kept, such as brit milah & the seven
Noachide laws.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=390374919-23112006> Note how
Ramban's approach is most comprehensive, attempting to tackle pshat, while
taking serious consideration of the Midrash, and looking for overall thematic
significance - and consistent with his thematic understanding of Sefer
Breishit.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=390374919-23112006>IBN EZRA - short and
sweet<BR> Ibn Ezra, as we would expect, also follows the third approach,
looking for the simple meaning of each word, and applying it to Avraham's own
life. <BR> Ibn Ezra begins by understanding MISHMERETI as a
general category that includes all of the three sub-categories that follow -
MITZVOTEI CHUKOTEI v'TORATEI. <BR> [That solves one
definition.]<BR> Then he suggests examples for what those
three words may refer to (based on the meaning of each word in
Hebrew):</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=390374919-23112006> MITZVOTEI =
"lech l'cha..." i.e. Avraham's ALIYA<BR> CHUKOTEI = following God's
way of life' <BR> ('engraved' in his heart)<BR> TOROTEI =
by fulfilling the mitzvah of brit milah.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=390374919-23112006>
Note how these last three definitions are essentially identical to Ramban's
interpretation "al derech ha'pshat". [The truth is, Ibn Ezra lived before
Ramban, and we should have brought his opinion first.] <BR> Note as
well how Ibn Ezra makes no attempt to find a 'textual' parallel for each word in
this pasuk. Instead, he follows the concept behind the word!
</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=390374919-23112006>RADAK - 'widening
the pool'<BR> Radak's approach is quite similar to Ibn Ezra's, for he also
understands each of these words as general categories. However, Ibn Ezra seems
to limit his examples to those mitzvot that Avraham himself was commanded, while
Radak 'widens the pool' by including ALL of the mitzvot of Bnei Noach (assuming
that Avraham was commanded to keep them). Then, within this pool of mitzvot,
Radak differentiates between "mitzvot", and "chukim" etc. based on the
definition of these categories later on in Chumash (e.g. "mitzvotei" refers to
the "mitzvot sichliyot" [the laws that man can arrive at using his own intellect
- like stealing and killing etc.].</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=390374919-23112006>SEFORNO<BR> We
conclude with Seforno, as his approach adds an extra dimension to our
understanding of the thematic significance of this pasuk.<BR>
First of all, Seforno, like Ramban & Radak, follows the third approach - and
explains how these phrases relate to concepts (or general categories) that
include the "seven mitzvot of Bnei Noach". Secondly, Seforno adds an
'extra touch' to Ramban's understanding of "mishmarti", agreeing that it implies
to 'watching God's guard', but providing us with a different example of how
Avraham accomplished this:<BR>"He kept God's 'special guard' which was to do
kindness, as the verse in Tehillim states: ' All the ways of God are kindness
and truth (25:10); and to teach the proper way for those who had gone astray -
and this he did when he 'called out in God's Name', and kept as well mitzvotei,
chukotei, b'torotei - that God commanded Bnei Noach - and [Avraham] also
beautifully taught them and kept them - as a shining example for others to
follow [k'mofet l'rabim]"<BR> (see Seforno on
26:5)</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=390374919-23112006> Note how
Seforno. like Ramban, also relates "mishmarti" to how Avraham 'called out in
God's Name' - yet suggests a significantly different interpretation.
Ramban understood how this was accomplished by what he said ['verbally'] - i.e.
by publicly defending God. In contrast, Seforno explains that this was
accomplished by what Avraham's did, i.e. by his actions and the example he set
for others. <BR> Note how Seforno attempts to thematically connect the very
reason for why God chose Avraham Avinu ("or la'goyim" / see Yeshayhau 42:5-6) -
to Avraham's own way of life. <BR>[Note how Seforno takes into
consideration the primary theme of Sefer Breishit, as he attempts to understand
each pasukl!]</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=390374919-23112006> Finally,
Seforno adds an additional dimension, for he continues his commentary by
explaining how this statement relates to the events that follow in chapter 26.
<BR> Note how our pasuk (i.e. 26:5) does not conclude a
'parshia'; rather, it introduces a set of stories in which Yitzchak 'runs into
trouble' with the Plishtim and Avimelech (see 26:6-33). <BR>
Therefore, Seforno concludes that this pasuk serves as a bit of "musar"
[rebuke/ or at least encouragement] to Yitzchak, as God explains to Yitzchak
that so far he was chosen because he was Avraham's son. Nonetheless, God
now reminds Yitzchak that Avraham was a man of action, and 'earned' his special
status through his deeds - 'hinting' that Yitzchak should also begin to be a bit
more pro-active. If Avraham spent his time by preaching and teaching God's laws
- calling out in God's Name, and setting a personal example by pursuing "tzedek
u'mishpat", God now expects no less from Yitzchak. <BR> In this manner,
Seforno explains why Yitzchak suffered so much strife with Avimelech and his
servants in the story that follows (i.e. the arguments at "esek" &
"sitnah"). However, later in this same 'parshia', we find that Yitzchak himself
finally "calls out in God's Name" (see 26:25-29). From that time on, Yitzchak
becomes successful, and develops a positive relationship with his
neighbors. Ultimately, God is finally with Yitzchak, but only after he
fulfills his responsibilities.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=390374919-23112006>CHUKIM THAT MAKE
SENSE!<BR> To conclude our study, it is important to note how Ibn Ezra,
Ramban, and Rashbam all explained the word "chukotei" - as referring to God's
'way of life' - implying being a just an upright person, and acting with
kindness to others.<BR> The reason why is rather simple. The word
"chok" in Hebrew implies something set that doesn't change - like statutes (or
technically speaking something 'engraved'). In this sense, the laws of nature
are referred to as "chukim" - for they don't change (see Yirmiyahu 33:25).
<BR> Therefore, when God mentions "chukotei" - they refer to His [God's]
'way of life' - as His ways are to be kind and to uphold justice. In this
manner, Avraham emulated God by acting in His ways - and thus setting an example
for others to follow.<BR> The fact that so many commentators emphasize this
point as a key element in Avraham's own life, reflects their understanding that
being kind, just, and upright must be a core value in Judiasm. <BR> Even
though there may be a controversy concerning which specific mitzvot the Avot
kept (be it 613 or 7, or 8 or 9 etc.) - everyone agrees that their greatness
lied in their 'way of life' - their moral behavior, social justice, and their
dedication towards 'making a Name for God', thus setting a model for others to
learn from. <BR> Certainly - a model that we ourselves
must follow.<BR> .
<BR> shabbat
shalom<BR> menachem</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=390374919-23112006></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=390374919-23112006></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=390374919-23112006></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=390374919-23112006></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=390374919-23112006>*************************************************************<BR>
THE TANACH STUDY CENTER
[http://www.tanach.org]<BR>
In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag<BR> Shiurim in
Chumash & Navi by Menachem
Leibtag<BR>*************************************************************</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=390374919-23112006>
PARSHAT TOLDOT - shiur # 3</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=390374919-23112006> "MA'ASE
AVOT- 'SIMAN' LA'BANIM"</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=390374919-23112006> In Parshat Toldot, we find a
very lengthy story about the<BR>wells that Yitzchak dug (see chapter 26).
As this is one of<BR>the few stories where we find details about his life,
we<BR>should expect that story to be thematically important. To<BR>find
its significance, we begin our shiur with a short<BR>explanation of the
difference between a "bor" (pit or cistern)<BR>and "be'er" (well), which will
help us understand the story of<BR>Yitzchak and the
Plishtim.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=390374919-23112006>INTRODUCTION<BR> In ancient
times, there were two basic methods of water<BR>storage - the "bor" and the
"be'er":<BR>I. THE "BOR"<BR> The simplest manner to store rain water was
to dig a pit or<BR>'cistern' into the bedrock. In Hebrew, this cistern is
known<BR>as a "bor". To increase its efficiency, the "bor" must
be<BR>covered with "sid" [plaster] to stop the water from
seeping<BR>out.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=390374919-23112006>II. THE
"BE"ER:<BR> A "be'er" (a well) is quite different, for
instead of<BR>collecting rainwater (from the heavens), it taps
the<BR>underground water table [better known as an aquifer].
The<BR>aquifer receives its water from accumulative rainfall, which<BR>seeps
through the ground until it reaches a non-porous rock<BR>level. To reach
the aquifer, one must dig a hole into the<BR>ground. Once opened, the well will
supply water as long as<BR>water remains in the
aquifer.<BR> So what does any of this have to do with
Torah?</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=390374919-23112006>AN ANCIENT 'WATER
FIGHT'<BR> This background explains the quarrel between
Yitzchak and<BR>the Plishtim over the "be'erot" (see 26:17-26). Since
time<BR>immemorial there have always been disputes concerning the<BR>rights to
the underground water table, similar to the one that<BR>takes place in this
week's Parsha.<BR> During his life time, Avraham dug many wells, thus
staking<BR>his claim to their water supply. After his death, the
Plishtim<BR>plugged those wells, but then dug different wells to gain<BR>access
to the very same aquifer (see 26:18), thus staking<BR>their claim to that water
supply.<BR> Years later, Yitzchak wants to re-open the same wells
that<BR>his father had dug, thus claiming his water back. Upon doing<BR>so, the
Plishtim protest, claiming that the water belongs to<BR>them (see 26:20-21).
[See also Ramban on 26:17-18!]<BR> Instead of fighting,
Yitzchak tries again and again to re-<BR>open his father's wells, until he
finally opens a well that no<BR>one else claims - and hence naming it "Rechovot"
(see 26:22).<BR> So why does the Torah discuss such
mundane issues?</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=390374919-23112006>PEACE & THE
MIKDASH<BR> Ramban on 26:20-22 asks this very same
question! He<BR>claims that if we follow only the "pshat" of these
stories,<BR>they appear to carry very little significance. Instead,
Ramban<BR>claims that this story foreshadows future events ["maase Avot<BR>siman
la'banim"] that will take place in Jewish History -<BR>relating to the first,
second, and third Temples.<BR> In that commentary,
Ramban suggests that the first two<BR>wells (that concluded with strife) reflect
the First and<BR>Second Temples as they were ultimately destroyed, while
the<BR>third well (that concluded in peace) reflects our aspirations<BR>for the
Third Temple (that will never be destroyed).<BR> To
support Rabman's interpretation that these wells are<BR>'Temple related, we
examine the events that take place in<BR>chapter 26 in light of our thematic
study thus far of Sefer<BR>Breishit.<BR> Review 26:23-24, noting how
immediately after these three<BR>'well incidents', Yitzchak ascends to Be'er
Sheva. There, God<BR>appears unto him, confirming his "bechira" (the
blessing of<BR>Avraham), but reminds him once again that it is for the
'sake<BR>of Avraham'. In response to this "hitgalut" [revelation],<BR>Yitzchak
builds a MIZBAYACH and CALLS OUT in God's Name.<BR> The fact that Yitzchak
'calls out in God's Name' at this<BR>time should not surprise us, as once again
he is following in<BR>his father's footsteps. Recall how Avraham had done
precisely<BR>the same thing three times - twice at Bet-el (see 12:8 &
13:4)<BR>and once at Be'er Sheva (see 21:33). But why does he 'call<BR>out
in God's Name specifically at this time? [And why didn't<BR>he do so
earlier?]<BR> As Ramban himself explained in Parshat Lech L'cha
(see<BR>12:8), by 'calling out in God's Name', Avraham preached the<BR>existence
of God to the neighboring people - thus 'making a<BR>Name for God'. This
in itself also foreshadowed Jewish<BR>History, for the very purpose of God's
choice of Avraham Avinu<BR>- was to bring His Name to all
mankind.<BR> So what took Yitzchak so long to act in a
manner similar<BR>to Avraham? Seforno suggests that Yitzchak was
actually<BR>punished for not doing so earlier! In his commentary
to<BR>Breishit 26:5, he explains that Yitzchak's troubles with the<BR>Plishtim
were caused because he was not actively 'calling out<BR>in God's Name'. It
was only after he did so in Beer Sheva<BR>that he became successful. In
fact, immediately after<BR>Yitzchak builds his mizbayach, another well is dug
without a<BR>quarrel (see 26:25 and Seforno), and afterward Avimelech<BR>himself
offers to enter a covenant with Yitzchak, thus ending<BR>all future
quarrels.<BR> There remains however a small problem with
Seforno's<BR>interpretation, for Yitzchak had already achieved peace
after<BR>digging the third well - at Rechovot - which took place BEFORE<BR>he
calls out in God's Name in Beer Sheva. According to<BR>Seforno, it is not
clear why he achieved this success<BR>'prematurely'.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=390374919-23112006>WHAT COMES
FIRST?<BR> One could suggest a slightly different reason
for why<BR>Yitzchak did not 'call out in God's Name' until after digging<BR>his
third well. Recall that even before these incidents with<BR>the wells the
Plishtim and Yitzchak did not get along so well.<BR>[See 26:6-14, especially
26:14.] It seems that they had<BR>always been quite jealous of Yitzchak
and his wealth.<BR> The backdrop, together with the
serious disputes of the<BR>first two wells can provide us with a different
reason for why<BR>Yitzchak had not 'called out in God's Name'. The reason
why<BR>is simple - for there was no one would listen! If your<BR>neighbors
don't like you, they won't be interested in your<BR>opinions.<BR> It is
only after peace is achieved - i.e. after digging the<BR>third well, that
Yitzchak feels the time is finally ripe to<BR>ascend to Be'er Sheva to build a
mizbayach and follow his<BR>father's legacy of 'calling out in God's
Name'.<BR> In other words, Yitzchak's troubles were not caused by
the<BR>fact that he didn't call out in God's Name, rather - it was<BR>because he
encountered so many troubles - he was unable to do<BR>so!<BR> <BR>
If our understanding is correct, then we can infer from<BR>these events that
before Am Yisrael can fulfill its ultimate<BR>goal of building a Mikdash open
for all mankind, it must first<BR>attain a certain level of stability and
normalized relations<BR>with its neighbors. This 'prerequisite' can be inferred
as<BR>well from the Torah's commandment concerning when to build the<BR>Bet
Ha'mikdash as described in Sefer Devarim:<BR> "... and you shall cross the
Jordan and settle the land...<BR> and He will grant you safety from your
enemies and you will<BR> live in security, THEN you shall bring everything
I command<BR> you to HA'MAKOM ASHER YIVCHAR HASHEM - the place that
God<BR> will choose to establish His NAME [i.e. the Bet
ha'Mikdash]"<BR> (See Devarim 12:8-11)</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=390374919-23112006> This prerequisite is actually
quite logical, for if a<BR>primary purpose of the Mikdash is to provide a
vehicle by<BR>which all nations can find God (see I Melachim 8:41-43!),
then<BR>it should only be built once we achieve the status of a nation<BR>that
other nations look up to. [See also Devarim 4:5-8!]<BR> [Of course, Bnei
Yisrael need to have a MISHKAN - for their<BR> own connection with God -
immediately after Matan Torah.<BR> However, the transition from a Mishkan
to a Mikdash only<BR> takes place once Am Yisrael is ready to fulfill that
role.]</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=390374919-23112006> In the history of Bayit Rishon
[the first Temple], this<BR>is exactly the sequence of events. From the time of
Yehoshua<BR>until King David, there is only a Mishkan, for during this<BR>time
period, Am Yisrael never achieved peace with their<BR>enemies, nor did they
establish a prosperous state that other<BR>nations could look up to. Only in the
time of David did Am<BR>Yisrael reach this level of prosperity, peace, and
security -<BR>and this is exactly when David ha'melech asks to build
the<BR>Mikdash (see II Shmuel 7:1-3 and note the phrase "acharei<BR>asher
haniyach Hashem m'kol oyveyhem m'saviv".).<BR> Despite that request, God
agrees with David that there has<BR>indeed been a tremendous improvement,
but nevertheless Am<BR>Yisrael must wait one more generation until an even
higher<BR>level of peace and stability is reached before the Mikdash can<BR>be
built - i.e. only after Shlomo becomes king and both<BR>internal and external
peace is achieved. [Read carefully II<BR>Shmuel 7:1-15.]<BR> [The popular
reason given for why David could not build the<BR> Temple - because he had
'blood on his hands'- is not found<BR> in Sefer Shmuel, rather in Divrei
Ha'yamim in David's<BR> conversation with Shlomo - but this is a topic for
a future<BR> shiur. See I Divrei Ha'yamim 17:1-20, &
22:2-15!]</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=390374919-23112006> In this sense, this sequence
of events between Yitzchak<BR>and the neighboring Plishtim may not only
'foreshadow' what<BR>will happen in the future, but more significantly, it
can<BR>serve as guide to help us understand how we should prioritize<BR>our
goals and aspirations.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=390374919-23112006>
shabbat
shalom,<BR>
menachem</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=390374919-23112006><BR></SPAN></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>