The Torah should have said, “She departed to/towards the desert of Be’er Sheva and she strayed,” for she did not stray immediately upon her entry into the desert. The sentence reads that “she departed and strayed,” implying that she did not stray only in the concrete sense: she strayed from the truth immediately upon her departure. In his commentary, Rashi suggests that Hagar shirked off the yoke of belief, exchanging it for a life of nomadic belief, straying farther and farther from the truth. We have yet to understand Rashi’s reason for saying that “straying” here does not only…
Back to Home -> Vayeira ->
Akeidas Yitzchak, the Binding of Yitzchak, was Avraham Avinu’s tenth trial. It is considered the zenith of his devotion to Hashem, the culmination of his spiritual journey, indicating his uncompromising conviction and faith. The first trial took place in Uhr Kasdim, when Avraham was thrown into a fiery furnace. Interestingly, the Torah does not mention this supreme act of self- sacrifice. The Torah, however, dedicates an entire parsha to telling the story of the Akeidah. Every generation of Avraham’s descendants conjure up the memory of Avraham’s and Yitzchak’s devotion, but nothing is even mentioned of Uhr Kasdim. Furthermore, at Uhr…
Rashi states that Avraham Avinu sat at the entrance of the tent in order to see an “oveir v’shav” – passersby, who might be going “back and forth.” Interestingly, Rashi bases his exegesis on the Midrash which uses the word, “orchim,” guests, in contrast to the phrase which Rashi selects, “oveir v’shav.” Does Rashi suggest a specific reason for deviating from the Midrashic text? Horav Mordechai HaKohen, z.l., renders his words homiletically. “Oveir” is the root of “aveirah,” sin, and “shav” is the root of “teshuvah,” repentance. Inclusive in the mitzvah of hachnasas orchim, hospitality to wayfarers, which addresses their…
Rashi states that Avraham Avinu sat at the entrance of the tent in order to see an “oveir v’shav” – passersby, who might be going “back and forth.” Interestingly, Rashi bases his exegesis on the Midrash which uses the word, “orchim,” guests, in contrast to the phrase which Rashi selects, “oveir v’shav.” Does Rashi suggest a specific reason for deviating from the Midrashic text? Horav Mordechai HaKohen, z.l., renders his words homiletically. “Oveir” is the root of “aveirah,” sin, and “shav” is the root of “teshuvah,” repentance. Inclusive in the mitzvah of hachnasas orchim, hospitality to wayfarers, which addresses their…
The Torah seems to place an emphasis upon the word “mishom,” from there, as if the place from which the men left had a special significance. Also, Chazal teach us that the word, “vayashkifu,” and they gazed, has a negative connotation indicating the detriment of that which is being gazed upon. Why would “gazing” from Avraham’s home be the precursor of something bad? Sforno explains that in contrast to what they observed in Avraham Avinu’s home, the men viewed a negative picture from his home. Horav Sholom Shwadron, z.l., explains that the punishment one receives for transgression is commensurate…
The Torah should have said, “She departed to/towards the desert of Be’er Sheva and she strayed,” for she did not stray immediately upon her entry into the desert. The sentence reads that “she departed and strayed,” implying that she did not stray only in the concrete sense: she strayed from the truth immediately upon her departure. In his commentary, Rashi suggests that Hagar shirked off the yoke of belief, exchanging it for a life of nomadic belief, straying farther and farther from the truth. We have yet to understand Rashi’s reason for saying that “straying” here does not only…
Akeidas Yitzchak, the Binding of Yitzchak, was Avraham Avinu’s tenth trial. It is considered the zenith of his devotion to Hashem, the culmination of his spiritual journey, indicating his uncompromising conviction and faith. The first trial took place in Uhr Kasdim, when Avraham was thrown into a fiery furnace. Interestingly, the Torah does not mention this supreme act of self- sacrifice. The Torah, however, dedicates an entire parsha to telling the story of the Akeidah. Every generation of Avraham’s descendants conjure up the memory of Avraham’s and Yitzchak’s devotion, but nothing is even mentioned of Uhr Kasdim. Furthermore, at Uhr…
Even sin has limits. In order for Hashem to destroy an entire population, the evil must have stretched to its nadir. Indeed, we find only two places in the Torah which manifests destruction of such magnitude: the Mabul, flood; and the cities of Sodom and Amorah. True, other individuals sinned, but in these two incidents iniquity reached a milestone. What was there about these sins that was so baneful that the consequences for the sinners was total annihilation? As long as teshuvah, repentance, is an option, Hashem refrains from striking the final blow. Hashem’s disciplinary measures are not punitive. They…
If there had been tzaddikim, would they have made a difference? In reality, there were not even ten righteous people. If there would have been ten tzaddikim, however, the city would have been saved. Why? Will a few tzaddikim accomplish so much that their presence would save the city from disaster? The answer is yes, if these few righteous Jews do not isolate themselves from the community. The key phrase is, “b’soch ha’ir,” in the midst of the city. The fact that tzaddikim live in a community is not necessarily a guarantee that it will be spared. Hashem does not…
The Ran infers from this pasuk that Lot was spared only because of Avraham. Chazal question what did Lot do that granted him such merit that he was saved from the destruction that befell Sodom. They respond that when Avraham referred to Sarah as his “sister” in order to protect himself from the Egyptians, Lot did not utter a word in dispute. Since he was compassionate with Avraham, Hashem took pity and spared him. The various commentators ask if this was the only merit that Lot possessed. Surely, he must have performed acts of chesed and good deeds that would…