Join our weekly Peninim on the Torah list!

Category

Back to Home -> Toldos ->


“The voice is the voice of Yaakov, but the hands are the hands of Eisav.” (27:22)

Chazal imply that when the voice of Yaakov, the sound of Torah and tefillah, is strong and dominant the evil “hands” of Eisav are rendered powerless. Eisav’s strength is reinforced when we are weak in our commitment to Torah. This interpretation does not seem consistent with the text of the pasuk. The pasuk seems to suggest that it is possible for both the “voice of Yaakov” and the “hands of Eisav” to reign simultaneously. How are we to reconcile this apparent inconsistency? Horav E.M. Shach, Shlita, offers a novel interpretation. Hashem has established individual “borders” for Yaakov and Eisav. Yaakov’s…

Continue Reading

“The children agitated within her.” (25:22)

Rashi cites Chazal, who explain that the word ummr,hu is derived from the root .r, which means, “to run.” Hence, Rashi interprets the pasuk to suggest that when Rivkah walked by the yeshivah of Shem and Ever, Yaakov would “run” in an attempt to come forth. In a similar manner, when she walked by a temple of idol worship, Eisav would “run” and struggle to escape. Horav Yerucham Levovitz, z.l., questions Yaakov’s “ability” to perceive the presence of the Bais Ha’Midrash and Eisav’s tendency to sense the tumah, impurity, of the temple of idol worship. He explains that we, regrettably,…

Continue Reading

“These are the generations of Yitzchak, the son of Avraham, Avraham begat Yitzchak.” (25:19)

The commentators address the apparent redundancy of the pasuk. Obviously, if Yitzchak was the son of Avraham, then Avraham begat Yitzchak. In his commentary on Chumash, the Tzemach Tzedek offers an explanation rooted in Chasidus. Avraham Avinu is a figure who serves as a paradigm for avodas Hashem, service of Hashem, through love and chesed. In contrast, Yitzchak is the model of fear and stringency. These two divergent approaches to serving the Divine have two levels.  The lower level of fear is represented by yiraas ha’onesh, fear of punishment. The higher, more sublime sense of fear, yiraas ha’rommemus, is described…

Continue Reading

“And Yitzchak was comforted for his mother.” (24:67)

The Torah implies that Rivkah filled the void which the death of his mother had created in Yitzchak’s life. Chazal explain that the blessings which were conferred upon Avraham Avinu’s home, and the pious customs which distinguished it, ceased when Sarah died. These were restored when Yitzchak brought Rivkah into his parents’ home. In this regard, we may note two things from the Torah and Chazal.  First, only Yitzchak was comforted for his mother by Rivkah’s presence. Despite the apparent return to normal functioning in his home, Avraham Avinu was still bereft of his eishes ne’urim, the wife of his…

Continue Reading

“And I asked her and said, ‘Whose daughter are you?’… and I put … and the bracelets on her hands.” (24:47)

Eliezer set out on his journey to find a suitable wife for Yitzchak. His trust in Hashem was so strong that he implored Him to give him a clear sign indicating the worthy girl. No sooner had he completed his request of Hashem than Rivkah entered the scene and demonstrated the very sign that Eliezer had asked of Hashem. Secure in his belief that she was the right girl, Eliezer did not ask to discuss her family background. Rather, he proceeded to bestow upon her the jewelry that had been set aside for Yitzchak’s kallah. Only afterwards did Eliezer question…

Continue Reading

“And Sarah’s life was one hundred years and twenty years and seven years.” (23:1)

The Midrash cites an ambiguous statement attributed to Rabbi Akiva. Noticing his students dozing during a lesson, he asked, “How did Esther come to rule over 127 provinces?  Let the ‘daughter’ of Sarah who lived 127 years come and rule over 127 provinces!” Obviously, the profound message of this statement was meant to arouse his sleepy audience.  What was the underlying message? The Chidushei Ha’Rim explains that Rabbi Akiva wished to teach his students the value of time. Esther Ha’malkah merited to reign over an entire province for each year during which her ancestor, Sarah, devoted herself to spiritual endeavor….

Continue Reading

“And Sarah’s life was one hundred years and twenty years and seven years the years of Sarah’s life.” (23:1)

The final phrase of this pasuk, “the years of Sarah’s life,” seems superfluous. The commentators suggest a number of explanations for this apparent redundancy. Horav Yaakov Kamenetzky, z.l., offers a novel explanation which is noteworthy. The Midrash states that the Satan frightened Sarah to death with images of the Akeidah.  The shock of the sacrifice of her only child was too much for this elderly mother to bear. The Midrash seems to imply that Sarah would have continued to live had she remained unaware of the Akeidah. This, however, would have been a great chillul Hashem, desecration of Hashem’s Name,…

Continue Reading

“And Avraham returned to his young men.” (22:19)

The Midrash notes that Yitzchak’s name is not mentioned in the description of Avraham’s return. Chazal explain that Avraham dispatched Yitzchak to the Yeshivah of Shem and Ever to study Torah. He said, “All I have accomplished, all of the wonderful things that have occurred, are only the result of my endeavors in the area of Torah and mitzvos. I, therefore, want my son to devote his life to Torah, so that Torah will remain with my descendants.” The Midrash compares this to a woman who became wealthy as a result of a certain spindle she owned which made very…

Continue Reading

“And she (Sarah) said to Avraham, ‘Drive out the slave-woman with her son, for the son of that slave woman shall not inherit with my son, with Yitzchak …’ And Hashem said to Avraham, ‘Whatever Sarah tells you, heed her voice.” (21:10,12)

It seems unusual that a tzaddeikes such as Sarah Imeinu would be so “mercenary” as to fear Yishmael’s inheriting Avraham’s possessions. Undoubtedly, as Rashi states, she was concerned about Yishmael’s evil influence over Yitzchak. Nonetheless, what is the meaning of Sarah’s statement, “For the son of that slave-woman shall not inherit with my son”? Horav Elyakim Schlesinger, Shlita, explains that as long as Yitzchak and Yishmael’s relationship did not involve monetary dealings, Sarah did not fear any harmful persuasion from Yishmael. Once they would begin sharing an inheritance, however, this distinction would have slowly diminished.  Suddenly, Yitzchak would have been…

Continue Reading

“And they made their father (Lot) drink wine on that night and the first-born went in and lay with her father.” (19:33)

Rashi notes that regarding the younger sister, the Torah simply states, “And she lay with him, the younger (sister).” He explains that the younger sister did not initiate the immoral and forbidden act, but was rather “taught” by her older sister. The Torah, therefore, is lenient in not specifying her act. The repulsive act of the first-born sister, however, who also initiated it, is explicitly noted. The Talmud in Bava Kama 38b seems to imply the opposite of what Rashi is suggesting. The Talmud states that one should make mitzvah performance his greatest priority.  Since the older daughter preceded her…

Continue Reading

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Join our weekly Peninim on the Torah list!

You have Successfully Subscribed!