Join our weekly Peninim on the Torah list!

Category

Back to Home -> Vayeira ->


“He took cream and milk and the calf which he had prepared, and placed these before them.” (18:8)

Rashi explains that Avraham did not serve any bread, since Sarah had become a niddah, ritually unclean on that day. Therefore, her dough was considered to be tamei, unclean. The Talmud in Bava Metzia 87a states that Avraham Avinu was careful to eat chullin, unconsecrated food, only if it was ritually clean. Consequently, he would not give the bread that had become contaminated to his three guests.  We may question the approach which caused Avraham to be so exacting with his guests. After all, according to halacha one may eat chullin that is tamei.  Avraham Avinu had accepted upon himself…

Continue Reading

“And Hashem said, ‘Nevertheless, your wife Sarah will bear you a son and you should name him Yitzchak.'” (17:19)

The name Yitzchak does not mean, “he who laughs,” or “he who rejoices”, it means “he who causes laughter,” who brings a smile to the lips of his parents. Also, the word generally denotes an ironic form of laughter, brought about by something utterly ridiculous or inconceivable.  Indeed, the fact that Yitzchak is given his name simply to “commemorate” the laughter his forthcoming birth provoked, is especially significant. Horav S.R. Hirsch, z.l., in raising these issues, comes to the following conclusion. To expect a 100-year-old man and a 90-year-old woman, who had never before had children, to give birth to…

Continue Reading

“And there came the fugitive and told Avram, the Ivri.” (14:13)

The Radak explains that Avram was called “Ivri,” since he was the descendant of Ever. Presenting an alternative approach, the Midrash contends that he was called Ivri in recognition of his position vis-a-vis the rest of the world. The word “rcg” means “the other side.” This suggests that Avraham was on one side of the moral/spiritual divide, while the rest of the world was on the other side. Although Avraham had many disciples, he remained essentially alone. His beliefs and moral rectitude precluded his integration into the pagan society which reigned at the time. The concept of “being alone” in…

Continue Reading

“Also, Lot who went with Avram had flocks, cattle and tents. And the land could not support their dwelling together for their possessions were abundant and they were unable to dwell together.” (13:5,6)

The parsha relating to Lot is difficult to understand. Hashem’s command of “Lech Lecha,” His imperative for Avraham to uproot himself, to leave his country and birthplace, is considered one of Avraham’s ten trials.  Yet, Lot accompanied Avraham as a devoted student without being commanded to do so!  He went along simply out of a profound desire to be with Avraham and to learn from him. If this is so, how did Lot suddenly transform into a greedy person, willing to throw it all away and live in the degenerate city of Sodom, just for the sake of material gain?…

Continue Reading

“They said to one another, ‘Come let us make bricks and burn them in fire.'” (11:3)

The Torah begins the narrative discussing the sin of the Dor Haflagah, generation of the dispersion. Everyone assembled under the leadership of the evil Nimrod, self-proclaimed king of the world, to build a tower ascending to Heaven. From this vantage point they planned to wage war against the Almighty. It seems, therefore, superfluous to mention their comments of, “Let us make bricks.” Do the technicalities of the development of the tower carry any significance with regard to the sin? It is clear that Bavel/Iraq is — as Rashi notes — situated on a plain, where there are no stones available…

Continue Reading

“Noach walked (served) with Hashem.” (6:9)

Regarding Avraham Avinu, the Torah states, “Walk before me.” Rashi distinguishes between Noach’s and Avraham’s spiritual plateaus. Avraham was strong enough to walk alone, whereas Noach needed the support of the Almighty. The Midrash presents a parable from which we can gain a better insight into understanding Noach’s spiritual essence. A father who walks with his little child, while the youngster is still unsteady and learning to walk, must lend his total support to prevent his son from falling. As the child grows older, he is weaned from his father’s support. Noach, ostensibly, did not have the spiritual stamina to…

Continue Reading

“These are the offspring of Noach — Noach was a righteous man.” (6:9)

The pasuk opens with an introduction to Noach’s offspring, but then continues by mentioning that Noach was a righteous man. Rashi cites the Midrash which explains that the primary progeny of the righteous are their good deeds. Children are our legacy, the chain with which we connect to our future.  Children are the way we eternalize ourselves.  They carry on from the point where we depart this world. So, too, are a person’s good deeds his precious legacy!  He is remembered by them, as they serve to inspire others to continue in the same path upon which he tread. The…

Continue Reading

“And Kayin knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Chanoch, he became a city builder and named the city after his son, Chanoch.” (4:l7)

A name carries a great deal of meaning. What is the significance of Chanoch’s name that Kayin selected it over any number of similarly appropriate names? Also, why did he use the same name that he gave to his son for his first city? The Koheles Yitzchak relates a novel explanation for the use of this name, in the name of a Gadol Echod. In retrospect, Kayin was distressed over his reprehensible act of killing Hevel. He asked himself how someone of his stature and nobility could kill his brother in cold blood? Where did he get that burning passion…

Continue Reading

“The blood of your brother cries out to Me from the ground.” (4:10)

The word d’mei is written in the plural, lending itself to be translated as “bloods.” Chazal infer from this plural distinction that Kayin’s violent crime was not directed at Hevel alone. Indeed, he is held responsible for shedding the “blood” of all future generations. In an alternative interpretation, Chazal indicate that Hevel bled from different wounds. Not knowing how to kill his brother, Kayin flung sticks and rocks which inflicted many wounds upon his entire body. Only after he struck his neck did Hevel die. Hashem, upon demanding justice from Kayin, emphasized that each and every wound, every bit of…

Continue Reading

“And they heard the sound of Hashem… and the man and his wife hid from Hashem… ‘Where is Hevel, your brother?’ and he (Kayin) said, ‘I do not know, am I my brother’s keeper?'”(3:8, 4:9)

Two serious sins were committed in this parsha, one by a father and the other by his son. A remarkable lesson can be derived from the progression of the sins and the apparent degeneration in the attitude that the father and son each demonstrated towards his transgression.  When Hashem confronted Adam, the Torah relates that he “hid” from Hashem. The Targum Yonasan comments that he hid out of shame. He simply could not face Hashem after what he had done. When Hashem inquired if Adam had eaten from the Eitz Ha’Daas, Adam immediately confessed his guilt. There was no cover-up,…

Continue Reading

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Join our weekly Peninim on the Torah list!

You have Successfully Subscribed!