‘Ma’aseh Avot Siman Labanim’ – Rabbi Yaakov Moshe Charlap on Chayei Sarah

Posted on November 1, 2018 (5779) By Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein | Series:  | Level: 

Let him grant me the Machpelah Cave which is his.[2]

We are sometimes called Hashem’s children, while at other times we are called his servants. Which is better? We pride ourselves on being called banim/ children, for the closeness that it implies. Yet, in praising Moshe, the best honorific that the Torah comes up with is “servant of G-d.” The answer, it turns out, is similar to the one we use to find a way out of other contradictions. In short – it depends.

We often speak of the revealed and the hidden aspects of things, especially more esoteric matters that relate to Hashem Himself. We are used to assuming that the revealed portions are a small fraction of the larger entity or concept. This larger portion remains remote and inaccessible. In truth, this is an inaccurate approximation, because the hidden element is often something that is infinite, and we cannot really speak of a fraction or portion of the infinite!

The kedushah of the Jewish people is one of those areas. In its revealed part, we readily discern righteous Jews, average Jews, and evil Jews. Not so regarding the hidden part. There, “Your people are all righteous; they shall possess the land forever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I might be glorified.”[3] No distinctions here. This more hidden, essential kedushah is not so sullied by our misdeeds. It persists despite them.

Here we arrive at the true difference between son and servant. The eved of the Bible is wholly in the possession of his master, as if his core essence does not belong to him. Now, in looking at the “revealed,” open, manifest elements of being, we look at a son as far more elevated in distinction than a servant. But the latter has something that the former does not. The eved – all of him, including his more hidden dimensions – belongs wholly to another. So, too, it is in our relationship with HKBH. With concern to the more “external” parts of a relationship, we are like children. That is the more distinguished place to be. With respect to the more hidden parts of ourselves, however, we much more resemble avadim, who are wholly possessed by the Master. The hidden dimensions of our being are also His. If you are looking for the place of our most profound connection to Hashem, it is in those regions.

Avrohom rose to a level in which all of his thoughts were a kind of minor prophecy. Having rid himself of all evil, his mind operated in synch with that of Hashem, at least to the extent that the only thoughts that came to him were those that coincided with the Will of HKBH. This was the basis for his observing the Torah well before it was given. Because he had developed a strong sense that he was to act in a certain way, i.e. to perform the various mitzvah activities, he knew that this was also the Will of his Creator.

For this reason as well, he waited as long as he did before attempting to marry off Yitzchok. He had never developed a strong sense before that this is what he was to do. Without that sense, he knew that it could not be what Hashem wanted of him at that time!

Around the time of the Akeidah, however, this led to strong self-doubt. Having almost lost Yitzchok, he realized that if his son had married and had children, there would have been a possibility of continuity for his work and the berachah he had earlier received from Hashem. But if this now seemed so clear, why had he not had the strong sense of direction that he had always had before about how he should act? He began worrying that he had somehow stumbled and slipped, and lost this capacity to sense the Divine Will. He had to be reassured by Hashem that this was not the case. Avrohom had remained on the same madregah. He had not sensed a compelling need to marry off Yitzchok only because a suitable mate had not yet been born!

This itself requires explanation. It begins with the premise that part of the mission of the Jewish people is to banish the conventional form of death. When that goal would be accomplished, death as a horrible end to life would disappear. It would be replaced by what we know as death-by-neshikah, the Divine kiss, as it were. Neshikah is not a tragic finality, but rather a wonderful beginning. It means that all parts of the person rise step by step in perpetuity. The elements of the person that we mentioned above – the profound, mysterious inner core elements – become revealed, and know their greatest gains.

This process is part of our existence after the resurrection of the dead. For it to occur, it had to be made part of our national being at the earliest stage of our history. This happened through the Akeidah. Yitzchok, in effect, died and was reborn. Techiyas ha-meisim became part of us for all time.

Because Yitzchok had to die and, in essence, begin anew, he was not destined to marry before this event. His mate was to join him only in the second stage of his life, the one he began after the Akeidah, so that his progeny could all bear the imprint of his transition.

This elevated form of death was now made available to Soro, and eventually to Avraham as well. No burial plot had been secured for any of them prior to the Akeidah, because the Land of Israel was meant to support this higher form of death, not the ordinary kind. Once this aspect had become part of the First Family, their subsequent deaths could find an appropriate location.

That place was the Ma’aras Ha-Machpelah. It is not called kepeilah, or double, but machpelah, that which doubles. The two-tiered cave certainly hints at a doubled life, one if which we spend some time in mortal existence, and then the rest of eternity in the next stage – a spiritual life. The cave is also machpelah, connoting doubling, meaning that the acquisitions of the soul are multiplied in value after what we ordinarily call death, especially as the more hidden parts of our neshamos are allowed to flourish and openly thrive.

At the time that tehiyas ha-meisim will become a widespread event, the nations of the world will attach themselves to the Jewish mission. They will gladly assume positions of support to a Jewish strategy for the world, subjugating themselves to its message. In our passage, this is why the Bnei Cheis as a group participate in the sale. It is a harbinger of the day in which the nations will validate the mission of Avraham’s children, and attach themselves to it.

  1. Based on Mei Marom, Bereishis, Maamar 31 
  2. Bereishis 23:9 
  3. Isaiah 60:2 

From Torah.org, here.

צניעות אמתית פירושה ‘לא לזרום’ – הרב אברהם אופנבכר

עיון ברש”ר הירש בעניין בתוליה של רבקה

(אברהם אופנבכר, תורת החיים שיעור ה’, ליל כ”ו חשוון ה’תשע”ט)
כתוב על רבקה: “והנערה טובת מראה מאוד בתולה ואיש לא ידעה” (בראשית כ”ד:ט”ז). והנה, מדוע התורה אומרת גם “בתולה” וגם “איש לא ידעה”? מילא אם הייתה כותבת: “ואיש לא ידעה” ואז: “והיא בתולה”, נגיד, אבל ברור שאם היא בתולה שלא ידעה איש! יש מיישבים כך, כמו במדרש אגדה: “בתולה – ממקום בתולים, ואיש לא ידעה – שלא כדרכה”, ורש”י מסביר: “לפי שבנות הגוים היו משמרות מקום בתוליהן ומפקירות עצמן ממקום אחר, העיד על זו שנקייה מכל”, אך אם כן, לא היה מספיק לומר ש”איש לא ידעה”, וכל שכן שהייתה בתולה! הרי לא יתכן לומר שאיש לא ידעה כדרכה!
במדרש שכל טוב מבואר: “שלא תבע בה איש מעולם והרהרה והשיר בתוליה”, כלומר שלא נגעו בה בוודאי, אבל אפילו איש לא הכיר בה לתבוע אותה לתשמיש שהיה עלול להביא לה הרהורים ותשיר בתוליה, או יותר חמור מזה, דברי הרשב”ם: “אפילו מעשה חידודין, כי צנועה הייתה”, כלומר שלא רק שלא נבעלה כדרכה או שלא כדרכה, אלא אפילו “מעשה חידודים”, דהיינו “דרך איברים”, לא עשתה, וזהו: “איש לא ידעה”, אך וכי מצינו ידיעה אצל מעשה חידודים? וגם דברי המדרש, שלא נתבעה והשירה בתוליה, וכי אף אם כן – וכי הייתה התורה כותבת זאת בלשון הזה?
ורבינו חיים פלטיאל פירש: “בתולה – ממה שהיא יפת מראה נראה שהיא בתולה לפי שדמיה כנוסים לתוכה. ואיש לא ידעה – לפיכך אמר ואיש לא ידעה, ולא אמר אשר לא ידעה איש, כמו שאמר בבנות לוט (בראשית י”ט:ח’) ובבנות מדיין (במדבר ל”א:י”ז), לפי שבנות הגוים שטופי זימה ומחזרות אחר הזכרים ושולטות בעצמן, אבל רבקה שהייתה צנועה תלה הכתוב הידיעה באיש ולא בה. ואיש לא ידעה – פירש רש”י: אפילו שלא כדרכה. ואי תימא, והא כתיב: והמלך לא ידעה (מלכים א’ א’:ד’), וההוא רוצה לומר בכדרכה, דהא שלא כדרכה שכב עמה, כדכתיב: ותהי למלך סוכנת, נאמר כאן: סוכנת, ונאמר להלן: ההסכן הסכנתי (במדבר כ”ב:ל’), מה להלן דרך אישות – אף כאן דרך אישות, צריך עיון”.
אך קשה מאוד לומר כרבינו חיים פלטיאל, לעניות דעתי, וכמו שכותב בעל הטורים כאן: “לא ידעה – ב’ במסורת. הכא בתולה ואיש לא ידעה, והמלך לא ידעה, מה להלן – לא ידעה בין כדרכה ובין שלא כדרכה, אף הכא נמי – ואיש לא ידעה, בין כדרכה ובין שלא כדרכה”, וגם באמת תימה גדולה, כי היכי דמי שלא כדרכה זו אצל דוד? אם נשא אותה לאשה – הרי אסורה עליו מחמת שהיו לו כבר י”ח נשים ואסורה משום: “לא ירבה לו נשים” (דברים י”ז:י”ז), ואם לא נשא אותה לאשה – וכי נתן אותה לזנות?! אלא פשיטא שלא בא עליה, אלא מה הועילה? ש”בא עליה” בדרך חידוד איברים, שגופה חיממה אותו בלי שבא עליה, ואז ממילא גם אולי אפשר לומר שבכך נסתרים דברי הרשב”ם ש”איש לא ידעה” זה דרך חידודין.
ובאמת מעניין, שבכל המקרא כולה רק פעמיים כתוב: “איש לא ידעה”, כאן וכן במלכים: “המלך לא ידעה”, כאשר בשאר המקומות “איש” בא אחרי “לא ידעה”, וכמו שציין רבינו חיים פלטיאל, ובעוד מקומות במקרא (שופטים י”א:ל”ט, כ”א:י”ב). לא בכדי שכך, אלא זה זועק: “דרשני!”, ומה ניתן ללמוד מכך? אז הרש”ר הירש מבאר בדרכו הוא, מדוע נכתב כאן הפוך מהרגיל:
אחרי שכבר אמר “בתולה”, הרי ואיש לא ידעה איננו יכול להתייחס אל הבתולים בלבד! גם אין הוא אומר: “לא ידעה איש”, כדרך המקרא בכל מקום, אלא: “ואיש לא ידעה”, ביטוי שאינו חוזר בשום מקום אחר. אלא: לא רק “בתולה” הייתה – “ולא ידעה איש” – כי אם צנועה הייתה, עד כי “איש לא ידעה”, שום גבר לא העיז מעודו להתקרב אליה מתוך חיבה וקלות ראש. האשה הצנועה באמת, הדר לה ותואר לה, שלא מדעתה הופעתה עושה רושם, וגם הקל שבפרחחים לא יעיז לנבל את פיו בנוכחותה, קל וחומר שלא יהין לתלות בה עין חמדנית. אכן היה זה דבר מיוחד במינו, ולא כל שכן בארם.
דבריו מזכירים את דברי המדרש שכל טוב לעיל (מקורו כנראה מבראשית רבה ס’:ה’), וגם את דברי רבינו חיים פלטיאל, שבדומה לכך כותב גם הריב”א. רבקה לא הייתה להוטה אחר העריות, היא הייתה שמורה, אבל לא רק ששמרה על עצמה ולא נתלהטה אחר העריות, אלא מרוב צניעותה וקדושתה גם לא תבעו אותה אחרים, על אף שבוודאי חשקו בה מרוב יופיה. היה פעם סיפור ששמעתי ממישהו, שסיפר לי שבתו רחמנא ליצלן הייתה איפה שהייתה, וקרה לה משהו, ואחר כך נפל לה האסימון כי אילו הייתה קצת יותר צנועה (או פחות חשופה) אז לא היו נוגעים בה והיו מתרחקים. זאת כי הצניעות בהגדרתה משמרת ומרחקת, כי הפריצות מזמינה ומגרה רחמנא ליצלן.
נמצא, שלא רק הייתה רבקה בתולה מבחינה פיזית, אלא גם בתולה מבחינה רוחנית, נפשית. היא הייתה פרושה ומסוגרת לעצמה, ולא נתנה לאחרים לחדור אליה. זהו מהות הצניעות והקדושה. יכולה אשה להיות סגורה ומכוסה, אך עדיין תהיה להוטה אחר גברים וזימה (ובאמת, גם להיפך, יכולה אשה להיות חשופה ועדיין להיות סגורה לעצמה, לא שזה מתיר כזו פריצות). רבקה הייתה באמת צנועה וקדושה, ולכן לא העזו להתקרב אליה, ליצור אתה קשר, כי היא לא הייתה זורמת בכלל, ולכן התייאשו מראש.
לפי זה, אולי נוכל להבין את העניין הזה אצל דוד המלך ואבישג השונמית. היא הייתה בתולה ואיש לא ידעה, הייתה סוכנת למלך (כעין שמיכה חשמלית מתחממת שיש כיום, לכאורה, או כרית חשמלית מחממת), והנה, מה החידוש כאן? שעל אף ששימשה למלך לסוכנת, הוא לא “ידע אותה”, לא רק במובן הפיזי שזה בוודאי נכון, כי הייתה אסורה עליו, אלא גם במובן הנפשי רוחני. כמו שפחה ששוטפת את כלי המלך שאין בינה למלך שום קשר או היכרות, כך גם דוד לא דיבר עם אבישג מעבר לנצרך ממש וגם לא הכיר אותה לעומק, מבחינתו הייתה משרתת וכמו רובוט (או כמו המכשירים הנזכרים לעיל), ותו לא, והוא לא “הכיר אותה”, מעבר לזה שלא בא עליה.

Mr. Lew Rockwell Makes the Case Against Public Libraries

Sell the Public Libraries

On the ballot in Steve County, Washington, is a referendum to cut off tax-funded (public) libraries in rural areas. We are supposed to find this a horrible and vicious thing to have on the ballot, a clear sign that antigovernment sentiment in the West (might it spread?) is getting so out of hand that it is even attacking literacy itself.

The public libraries being the earliest and perhaps ultimate symbol of the turn-of-century social uplift movement, the attempt to get rid of themu2014the first that has ever been documentedu2014is being denounced as flagrantly reactionary and dangerous. Indeed, we can look forward to 80 solid days of hysteria on this issue, starting now.

The New York Times, in reporting on the referendum, notes that the anti-public library movement is supported by people who want to “end all property taxes” and desire “government based on biblical tenets.” If the specter of the Christian Right attempting to close libraries isn’t scary enough for you, the Times further notes that the voting population in question includes “small but persistent groups of people who are strongly antigovernment, even some militia supporters.”

And this is only mid-August! By November, the good-government liberals at the Times, in their passionate fervor to save universal literacy from extinction, will probably discover that the referendum supporters are antigay, racist, and secessionist, with probable ties to the Oklahoma City bombing and perhaps even 9-11. They can say so with no more evidence than they currently give for the claim that the militias are somehow anti-library.

And in a very odd twist, the Times has suddenly shifted from its usual anti-homeschooling bias to invoking the cause of homeschoolers, who turn out to be some of the main users of public libraries. How can the antigovernment movement be so cruel hearted as to dream of ripping the library cards out of the hands of hard-working homeschooling moms? Will they stop at nothing to destroy every vestige of civilization in America?

Well, you know what? Many public libraries have been a disgrace for decades. Like most public institutions, they are architectural monstrosities. They have terrible hours, which they blame on underfunding. Their selection is often severely limited, vacillating between being out of date and carrying only the latest, tackiest bestsellers. Others have gradually purged all books that offer ideas the ruling regime rejects.

In an effort to attract more users, they have become the leading distributors of videos, CDs, and DVDs, thereby competing with for-profit businesses and doing so at taxpayer expense. And it was the public libraries, with their computers and net access, that managed to shut down the internet café business of the mid-1990s. With public libraries offering the same services for free, why should anyone pay?

Of course, we do pay, just indirectly. As with every publicly financed operation, libraries are voracious consumers of tax dollars. No matter how much money you throw at them, it is never enough. No one can whine about budgets like a public librarian. This is the main grounds on which the Stevens County libraries are being denounced. The salaries are too high, it seems, and those who benefit from the libraries are not paying the costs, while those who do pay for them have superior alternatives.

In arguing against public libraries, one might bring into question fundamental doctrines of the civic religion, like the claim that universal literacy is essential to a thriving civilization. This was the view that led Andrew Carnegie to bribe thousands of communities into building these tax-siphoning book warehouses in the first place. It was an early version of the same nonsense spouted in the 1990s that if everyone would just get on the internet, we would all be smart.

We might raise such questions, but it is not necessary to do so. Clearly, public libraries of some sort have broad support. And that is precisely the point: an institution this beloved and this desired by the public can be supported privately on a for-profit or non-profit basis. Cut the tie to government, and you would find that the services offered by libraries would be better targeted, more rationally organized, and less expensive.

A for-profit library? Why not? For nearly a hundred years, these public libraries have crowded out what might have been a thriving entrepreneurial sector of for-profit libraries. A for-profit library might, for example, have different lending policies based on a fee schedule. Why should all books be due in three weeks? Why shouldn’t customers who pay more enjoy a longer lending period?

I recall in my childhood near Boston a used bookstore that lent bestsellers for a dime a day. It was a thriving service that brought people into the store, a mutual benefit for the public and the firm. But then the public library horned in on this small bookstore’s business, and did so at public expense, forcing it out of business. In a small but serious way, it was the triumph of book socialism.

The complaint is raised that pro-profit libraries serve only narrow interests. But why should one library attempt to serve all the people? In a for-profit world, there might be children’s libraries, fiction libraries, romance-novel libraries, religious libraries, and technical libraries. If it seems implausible, consider that for-profit video-lending business got a huge headstart on the public libraries in providing the same service.

Continue reading…

From LRC, here.

There Are Lies, Stats Lies… and Then There Are Corona Vaccine Lies

BREAKING: Israeli physicians, scientists advise FDA of ‘severe concerns’ regarding reliability and legality of official Israeli COVID vaccine data

An independent Israeli group of physicians, lawyers, scientists, and researchers called the Professional Ethics Front today advised the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regarding the upcoming FDA discussion on administering COVID-19 vaccines to children aged 5-11, expressing “severe concerns” regarding the reliability and legality of official Israeli COVID vaccine data.

“We are aware that the state of Israel is perceived as ‘the world laboratory’ regarding the safety and efficacy of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, as reflected by statements made by Dr. Albert Bourla, Dr. Anthony Fauci, and other senior figures in leading health authorities throughout the world,” the letter reads. “It is therefore our understanding that the data and information coming from Israel play a crucial role in critical decision-making processes in regards to COVID-19 vaccination policies. We thus see it of utmost importance to convey a message of warning and raise our major concerns regarding potential flaws in the reliability of the Israeli data with respect to the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, as well as many significant legal and ethical violations that accompany the data collection processes.”

The letter elaborates: “We believe that the significant failures underlying the Israeli database, which have been brought to our attention by numerous testimonies, impair its reliability and legality to such an extent that it should not be used for making any critical decisions regarding the COVID-19 vaccines.”

Continue reading…

From America’s Frontline Doctors, here.