Chananya Weissman on Parshas Vayeira: The Place for Silence

Dvar Torah on Vayeira: Know what to answer

וירא
דע מה שתשיב
[כ:ט-י]
וַיִּקְרָא אֲבִימֶלֶךְ לְאַבְרָהָם וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ מֶה עָשִׂיתָ לָּנוּ וּמֶה חָטָאתִי לָךְ כִּי הֵבֵאתָ עָלַי וְעַל מַמְלַכְתִּי חֲטָאָה גְדֹלָה מַעֲשִׂים אֲשֶׁר לֹא יֵעָשׂוּ עָשִׂיתָ עִמָּדִי: וַיֹּאמֶר אֲבִימֶלֶךְ אֶל אַבְרָהָם מָה רָאִיתָ כִּי עָשִׂיתָ אֶת הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה
Avimelech called Avraham and said to him: “What did I do to you, and what have I sinned against you, that you brought upon my and my kingdom a great sin? You have done things with me that should not be done.” And Avimelech said to Avraham: “What did you see that you did this thing?”
Q: These pesukim seem to be redundant. Furthermore, since the second pasuk is simply a continuation of Avimelech speaking to Avraham, why does it begin anew with “ויאמר אבימלך אל אברהם”? We already know who is talking. [The אור החיים is sensitive to this issue in his commentary.]
A: A similar anomaly appears in the previous parsha, along with a clue to the answer. After the war between the kings, Hashem assured Avraham that his reward would be very great. Avraham replied as follows:
[טו:ב-ג]
וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָם אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה מַה תִּתֶּן לִי וְאָנֹכִי הוֹלֵךְ עֲרִירִי וּבֶן מֶשֶׁק בֵּיתִי הוּא דַּמֶּשֶׂק אֱלִיעֶזֶר: וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָם הֵן לִי לֹא נָתַתָּה זָרַע וְהִנֵּה בֶן בֵּיתִי יוֹרֵשׁ אֹתִי.
And Avram said: “Hashem Elokim, what can you give me when I am on the way to being childless, and the custodian of my home is Eliezer of Damascus?” And Avram said: “Behold, you have not given me a child and a member of my home stands to inherit me.”
These two pesukim also seem redundant, each beginning with “ויאמר אברם” despite the fact that we already know it was him speaking. Both the redundancy and the double introductions are remarkable.
But look closer. These two statements are very different. At first Avram makes a declarative statement about the future; he will never have children. This is inappropriate; although the future certainly looked bleak, Avram had no right to throw in the towel.
In addition, he refers to Eliezer in a dismissive, scornful way, as a foreigner destined to take over his home. This is inappropriate; Eliezer was an extremely pious and loyal servant, and it was not his fault that Avram was in this predicament.
How did Hashem respond?
He didn’t. He said nothing.
Avram got the message and realized that his words were inappropriate. He rephrased his question and tried again. That’s why the second statement is introduced with “ויאמר אברם”. It wasn’t a continuation of the first statement, but a brand new statement, following a break of silence.
This time, instead of declaring that he would not have children, Avram said that Hashem did not yet give him children. This is appropriate; there’s nothing wrong with telling Hashem the situation looks bleak as long as you don’t declare the future.
This time, Avram referred to Eliezer as a ben bayis, part of his home. Granted, not a son, and not his first choice to inherit him, but a loved and respected member of his household.
The next pasuk reads as follows:
וְהִנֵּה דְבַר יְהוָה אֵלָיו לֵאמֹר לֹא יִירָשְׁךָ זֶה כִּי אִם אֲשֶׁר יֵצֵא מִמֵּעֶיךָ הוּא יִירָשֶׁךָ.
Behold! The word of Hashem came to him.
Now we can take another look at what happened with Avimelech:
וַיִּקְרָא אֲבִימֶלֶךְ לְאַבְרָהָם וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ מֶה עָשִׂיתָ לָּנוּ וּמֶה חָטָאתִי לָךְ כִּי הֵבֵאתָ עָלַי וְעַל מַמְלַכְתִּי חֲטָאָה גְדֹלָה מַעֲשִׂים אֲשֶׁר לֹא יֵעָשׂוּ עָשִׂיתָ עִמָּדִי: וַיֹּאמֶר אֲבִימֶלֶךְ אֶל אַבְרָהָם מָה רָאִיתָ כִּי עָשִׂיתָ אֶת הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה
Avimelech accused Avraham of causing him and his kingdom to sin for no reason, and for acting totally improperly.
How dare Avimelech speak to Avraham this way? Avraham is not some lowly subject. He is a king among men, a holy prophet, one of the greatest men who ever lived, whose fame had already spread far and wide. Furthermore, Avraham had all the leverage in this conversation. Avimelech was in desperate trouble, he needed Avraham to intercede for him. Avraham didn’t need to take any malarchy from him, and he didn’t.
He responded to Avimelech just as Hashem responded to him when he’d spoken out of line: with complete silence. He ignored him.
Avimelech got the message and changed his tune. He started again and respectfully asked Avraham why he had done what he did. Instead of an accusation, it was a humble inquiry.
Only then did Avraham respond.
This is a beautiful lesson for us to learn from Avraham, who emulated Hashem. We don’t have to respond to every fool who insults us or says something out of line. We don’t need to react and overreact to everything. Oftentimes, the best response is to ignore people who speak inappropriately until they change their tune.

What Is a ‘Carlebach-Style’ Minyan??

A street sign announced a new happy-clappy, “Carlebach-Style Minyan”.

I am trying and failing to understand what this means.

  • Do they mean ignoring the Mechitza, Carlebach-style?
  • Or does everyone have to rape and molest minors afterward, to imitate S. Carlebach?

Bottom line, why are otherwise-observant Jews honorably commemorating a wicked hypocrite?! Just describe the Nusach!

MUST-SEE: Bill Kristol and the Neocons’ Hubris Beaten In Full View

Watch Scott Horton’s One-Sided Debate Beatdown Of Warmonger Bill Kristol

By Caitlin Johnstone
CaitlinJohnstone.com

October 12, 2021

An important and long-overdue debate has occurred between Iraq-raping arch-neocon Bill Kristol and the tireless libertarian war critic Scott Horton on the subject of US interventionism, and you should definitely drop whatever you’re doing and watch it immediately. The resolution up for debate was “A willingness to intervene, and to seek regime change, is key to an American foreign policy that benefits America,” with Kristol obviously arguing in the affirmative and Horton in the negative.

The winner of the debate will be obvious to anyone watching. Horton plowed through criticisms of the way US foreign policy is constantly “creating its own disasters it must then attempt to solve” from his encyclopedic knowledge of interventionist bloodbaths and their undeniable repercussions while Kristol appeared frequently flustered, passed on multiple rebuttals, and got called on blatantly false claims. Horton rattled off nations, dates and death tolls in rapid succession and repeatedly referenced Kristol’s own role in imperialist bloodshed, while Kristol relied almost entirely on insubstantial assertions to defend his position that “we can be at once a republic and a liberal empire” and empty dismissal of Horton’s points about the destructive nature of various US foreign interventions.

In the end a deflated-looking Kristol gave closing remarks which amounted to little more than whining that Horton’s position doesn’t assume war hawks like himself are acting “in good faith”, while Horton’s closing statement just continued his blistering assault.

By the end of it you almost feel bad for old Bill.

The audience unsurprisingly sided overwhelmingly with Horton by a significantly greater margin at the end of the debate than the beginning. The only unanswered question when all was said and done was, how the hell did Kristol get it in his head that entering this debate was a good idea?

One can only assume hubris. Hubris arising from a life in an elitist echo chamber where his warped views are seldom challenged, and continual marination in the kind of unearned validation that only Beltway swamp monsters ever receive.

So watch and enjoy, folks. Participating in this kind of humiliating debate is not a mistake that any high-profile neocon is likely to repeat anytime soon.

From LRC, here.