Chayei Sarah

Parsha in a Nutshell: Death of Sarah, the purchase of Machpela, Eliezer being sent by Abraham to find a wife for Yitzchak, Eliezer and Rivka at the well, the negotiations with Laban and Rivka returning to marry Yitzchak.

24/57 - How can you arrange a marriage to a child if, according to this Rashi, you cannot marry off a woman without her consent. Consent wouldn't (or shouldn't) be able to be given until someone reaches an age of maturity.

24/67 - The repetition of "he married Rebecca, she became his wife" is left untouched by Rashi. Seems ripe for a short explanation.

Some clever notes and insights by DovBear are here

A laundry list of articles on the parsha can be found on Hirhurim

Vayeira

Parsha in a Nutshell: Abraham and his three guests/angels, Destruction of Sodom & Gemora, Lot being spared and his wife dying, Lot's incest with his daughters, Abraham and Abilmelech, Sarah giving birth to Yitzchak, and the Akeida

Notes:

18/7 - Am I the only one surprised that there isn't a minhag to have cow tongue and mustard at kiddush this week?

19/3 - The pasuk say's they baked matzo. Ok, maybe in the sense that they baked unleavened bread as a part of a feast. But Rashi's comment is that it was Pesach. Both the inclusion of the word matzo and his explanation are a bit strange. How can a future historical event be the explanation for the inclusion of a key symbol in an earlier context. Something has been overlooked.

19/8 - This just offends my modern day sensibilities and there is no soothing explanation.

19/29 - Rashi's explanation of the somewhat strange insertion of "And G-d remembered Abraham" centers around Lot's loyalty to Abraham in not revealing that Sarah was Abraham's wife to Abimelech. That is a somewhat tortured reason for saving Lot. A more simple explanation would have been that although HaShem destroyed Sodom, and had pledged to destroy it completely, He spared Lot and his family in honor Abraham's pleas to save the cities.

22/2 - According to Rashi, Abraham is uncomfortable with where this conversation is going. but right before HaShem asks Abraham to offer up his son, he uses the phrase Lech Lecha, which as explained before, has a deeper meaning according to Rashi - that everything will be both pleasurable and worthwhile. Was HaShem putting Abraham at ease before the big ask by reusing the language?


For Rabbi Gil Student's week parsha round up, click here

For Dovbear's comment's, click here

Lech Lecha

Parsha in a Nutshell: Avram begins his journey out of his father's home, to Egypt and back to Israel. He has no children until he takes Hagar who bares Ishmael. Hagar and Ishmael are banished from Avram's house. Sari bares Issac. Avram and Sari have their names changed to Avraham and Sarah. HaShem enters into a covenant with Avraham promising the land of Israel and his everlasting bond, signified by circumcision.

General Observation

During the course of the parsha, G-d approaches Avram three times promising children. In the first instance, Avram's decendants are to be as numerous as dust. In the second, as countless as the stars. In the final instance of this promise, it requires HaShem to introduce himself in a forceful manner, using the name Sh-di for the first time in the narrative of the Torah and causing such awe in Avram, that the message seems to finally sink in. Why all the convincing? Avram left the security of his father's household with barely a suggestion. But for this he needs to be knocked over the head? What is that teaching us and why doesn't Rashi note it in some manner? It seems like an obvious question, but his line by line commentary doesn't end itself to commenting on the arc of the narrative.

• 12/5: In Rashi's notes that this pasuk signifies Avram and Sari converting their slaves. But to what? The key covenant with Avraham has not yet occurred. In a similar vein, 14/14 describes Avram's "initiates". One explanation is that they were initiated into the commandments or the commandment of circumcision. But how could that be since, like 12/5 these things were not a part of the vernacular at this point in time. Rashi rejects that and suggests that they either agreed to work with him or gave him advice on circumcision. But again, how can they give advice on something that hasn't happened. The episode theat leads to the Brit Milah is dramatic and sudden. How could Avram be taking advice on the matter at this point?
  

• 12/18: Pharoh says..."Why did you not tell she is your wife" How did he know this was the cause of his affliction? There is noting the narrative that would suggest he had an inkling and Rashi is silent on this passage.
  

• 16/2: Although we might learn that having children is key to being "built up" and not having a life of ruin, per Rashi's commentary, why are we learning this through the birth of Ishmael? One could extrapolate this teaching to mean that one should go to any lengths to have a child, even if it destroys the family, which almost happened to Avram and Sari.

Noach

Parsha in a Nutshell: After establishing Noach as a righteous man, HaShem restates in more detail his displeasure with humanity, informs Noach and gives him instructions regarding the construction of an ark and procedures for his family and animals, the flood, the subsiding of the flood, HaShem's covenant with Noach, tower of Babel and the the descendants of Noach.

Introduction

• Pasuk 6/9: The sentence reads, "These are the offspring of Noach, Noach was a righteous man..." Why wasn't this sentence written as..."These are the offspring of Noach, a righteous man, perfect in his generations, who walked with HaShem." Why the multiple use of the name Noach? Rashi only comments on the non sequitur in an explanation of his righteousness. For another take on the first Rashi in this parsha see DovBear's post here.
  

• 6/7-13: I know this sounds foolish, but what about the fish? G-d is clearly disappointed in the whole lot of his creation and seeks to wipe it all out and start over. But when push comes to shove, the method only removes animals, birds and beasts. Why was it not at least commented on by Rashi? Does their exclusion or his choice of punishment (flood) not teach us something?
  

Noach's Instructions

• Pasuk 6/18: Why is this covenant different from the one detailed later in the parsha? Rashi explains that this covenant was to promise that the food will last. Wouldn't the more simple meaning be that HaShem's initial commitment to a covenant was made prior to the flood, and that later in the parsha (9/8-17) we come to understand the breadth and seal (a rainbow) of that covenant?

• Pasuk 7/2: Rashi explains that Noach learned the Torah and henceforth knew which animals were "pure". I would appreciate an alternative explanation.
  

Subsiding of the Flood

• 8/1: "G-d remembered Noach"...In Rashi's commentary on this portion of the sentence, Rashi notes that HaShem also remembered the animals on board the ark when choosing to have the waters subside. Specifically, he says that they had not corrupted their ways, either prior to or while on the ark. But that runs contrary to the Torah and Rashi's commentary to 6/7 and 6/11-12 which clearly layout that all flesh and animals were corrupted. How do we resolve this?

Debasing of Noach

• 9/20-24: Noach debased himself by planting a vineyard prior to his other duties. He then was found naked in his tent by his son Ham. According to Rashi, Ham's son Canaan is cursed for the subsequent the sin of Ham which is presumed to be either having relations with Noach or otherwise emasculating him. I think the commentary misses the point of this episode. Soon after the flood, Noach knowingly makes a poor choice. What Ham "saw" was the result...the vineyard and Noach's drunkenness. He then reported this to his brothers, which is what Noach came to understand. In other words, he understood that he was caught. This entire episode immediately follows the newly formed covenant to not to again wipe clean the face of the earth. What we see in the curse of Canaan is an alternative punishment and HaShem staying true to his word. If I'm correct, then the better question would be why is Canaan the recipient of the punishment rather than Noach, Ham, his brothers or the current generation? This idea also more closely follows the pattern of reward and punishment conveyed in the story of Cain and Abel.

Tower of Babel

• 10/31-11/8: According to verse 10/31, there were many languages, but that at the root of all of these was the Holy Language per Rashi's commentary to 11/1. For the balance of this section, language then becomes a synonym for harmony according to Rashi. The underlying theme of the Tower of Babel is that HaShem is displeased with the fact that people do not recognize the gift of harmony he has provided and views the construction of the Tower of Babel both as a sign of ungratefulness and an affront to his domain. His resolution is to create disharmony and dispersion. But that would seem to run counter to His intent at the beginning of parsha and is not commented on by Rashi. Disharmony doesn't promote goodness.

• For a different take on the Tower of Babel see this posting by DovBear here and here
  

Miscellaneous

• For a few other notes on DovBear's blog regarding Noach look here.

• For a long list of other lectures and posting on the parsha, see Hirhurim by Rabbi Gil Student here.
  

Bereishis

Parsha in a Nutshell: There are four basic topics covered: Creation, the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden, Cain and Abel and HaShem's conclusion that He is dissatisfied with what he created which bridges us to next week's parasha.

Creation

• Pasuk 1/1-4: I found Rashi's first commentary to the Torah to be relevant in today's society. The language and imagery of creation is beautiful, and with Rashi's commentary, resolving creation and our ever increasing understanding of science is elegant. If you will consider the idea that science is a tool to help us reveal the world that HaShem created for us to occupy, then the beginning of the Torah should excite you, not burden you with doubt. And Rashi's commentary is amazingly precinct. Free your mind, visualize the words and read the first four sentences of the Torah again with Rashi's commentary and I think you'll have a far more interesting experience.

• Pasuk 1/5: I had never noticed the inconsistency of not using "Rishon" (first) to end the first day and found the explanation of using "Echad" (One) reassuring.

• Pasuk 1/7: Rashi explains that the work of gathering together the waters to reveal the land on Day Three is the completion of creating water on Day Two. Hence, the double "ki tov" later in the parsha. But left unexplained is why...why did HaShem, who can do anything, not choose to complete this in the entirety of a single day?

• Pasuk 1/26: "They shall rule over the fish of the sea"...Rashi explains that the word "v'yirdo" means both "ruling" and "declining". Further, inasmuch as we are worthy, man will rule over the beasts. And if we are not, we will become inferior to them. I think you can read this comment with a view towards our current times. The beasts of society surround us, particularly social and economic pressures. And our ability to be good and worthy (not the coolest or smartest), is possibly the best indicator of our ability to rule over these challenges.
  

• Pasuk 1/28: "and subdue it"...Why did Rashi conclude that "it" was a woman and that man was to rule over her? The entire clause is "fill the land and subdue it." The context of the chapter, sentence and clause make Rashi's alternate explanation more sanguine...that man is to be fruitful and multiply (from earlier in the sentence) and rule the earth. In addition, Rashi usually uses the phrase, "Alternatively" when he has a second explanation. In this case he uses the word "Furthermore". Why the stylistic change? Does it tell us something about the first explanation?
  

• Pasuk 1/29-30: I'm surprised more Jews are not vegetarians. If we are a light unto nations, and ultimately yearn for mashiach, why wouldn't we emulate what HaShem outlined as a best practice? I understand, that HaShem later permitted the consumption of meat (and I wholeheartedly participate in that practice), but in a world of ever increasing stringency, why has this one not been instituted or encouraged?

Expulsion from the Garden of Eden

• Pasuk 3/2-3: In verse 2, the fruit of any tree from the garden can be eaten. In verse three, the fruit of tree in the center of the garden cannot be eaten. I thought this called for some explanation.

• Pasuk 3/19: Rashi explains that "by the sweat of your brow" refers to the work we now have to do to farm the land, make bread and sustain ourselves, but are you surprised that there is no minhag to eat a salty bread in remembrance of this pasuk?
  

Cain and Abel

• My primary takeaway from Cain and Abel is that presumptive knowledge, like that gained by eating the fruit of the Tree, is not our aim. That we are to strive to live a good and worthy life, one filled with humility and grace.

HaShem's Conclusion

• Pasuk 6/7: I'm surprised Rashi didn't refer back to pasuk 3/19 when attempting to explain the use of the phrase "dissolve" for the destruction of man.

Shabbat Shalom.

A-

V'Zot HaBracha

In the spirit of our tradition I intend to finish where I started with a second reading of V'Zot HaBracha next Simchas Torah. I'm posting this first blog from memory and will come back later and update it when I have a chumash in front of me.

Out of the entire parsha and commentary, I found two things most interesting and curious:

• The last eight sentences: The explanation that Joshua wrote the final eight sentences is, in my mind, the most elegant and reasonable. I don't believe it detracts from the spirit of authorship of the Torah and in many ways seems most appropriate. Joshua succeeded Moshe in leading the Jewish people and he started where Moshe finished. Further, the level of detail given and the fact that we don't know where Moshe was buried, makes Rashi's explanation challenging.

• The Blessing of Yisachar-Zevulun: Of all the blessings, this one caught my attention the most. I suspect that is because it resonates with a current real world issue. The pasuk is as follows - Rejoice, Zevulun, in your going out, and Yisachar in your tents. Rashi's basic explanation was that these two were paired together because Zevulun was to travel abroad as a merchant and support Yisachar who stayed home to learn Torah.
  

Over the past 20 years, there has been a growing trend of full-time learning within the Orthodox community. I, on the other hand, fall clearly into the Torah V'Avodah camp. So I found this commentary unsettling. Later in the week Rabbi Gil Student posted an alternate Midrash from Yalkut Shimoni which describes the relationship between Yisachar and Zevulun in symbiotic business terms; Yisachar, in this case, is a local merchant selling merchandise to Zevulun who sells abroad. This relationship allows Yisachar more time to study by virtue of staying close to home, but doesn't free him from the obligation to make an economic contribution and provide for his family and community.

There are two wonderful things about this pasuk and alternate midrash. First, I clearly prefer the Yalkut Shimoni's midrash as an explanation of the pasuk and believe it is a good example of the Torah giving us guidance on how to balance our lives. Call me biased. Second, and maybe more importantly, had I not invested the time in the parsha and Rashi, Rabbi Student's post would not have been as interesting or meaningful. I consider that a great dividend on my first investment.

You can find Rabbi Student's post here.

So that's a wrap. Standby for Bereishis...

A-

Introduction

Welcome to my blog. The goal is pretty simple. I made a personal commitment to read each parsha this year in its entirety and the accompanying Rashi. I find that most folks (myself included) have never actually read the Torah end to end. We take a class here or there and we pay attention on Shabbos, but to purposely read each word in a cycle I believe to be the exception rather than the rule. I thought it would be more fun and interesting to read the Rashi as well.

I don't have a study partner. I don't have an agenda. And this blog is simply a way for me to record my questions and observations on a weekly basis.

I hope you enjoy it.

Shabbat Shalom.

A-