227. Oneg Shabbos Chaya Sarah

Issue

227

‫בס"ד‬

‫הריני בא ללמוד תורה לשמה לעשות נחת רוח לאבינו שבשמים‬ ‫מוצאי שבת ר"ת‬

‫מוצאי שבת‬

‫פרשת חיי שרה‬

‫כ"ה חשון תש"פ‬ 23 Nov 2019

‫קבלת שבת‬

JLM

MAN

LON

JLM

BMTH

GLSCW

GHD

MAN

LON

JLM

BMTH

GLSCW

GHD

MAN

LON

5.54

5.14

5.15

5.16

5.07

5.02

4.54

5.01

4.58

4.00

3.58

3.44

3.38

3.47

3.47

THE UNIQUENESS OF YITZCHOK Yitzchok is unique amongst the Avos for many reasons. He is often portrayed as being more passive than his father or sons. Rather than choosing his own spouse his father instructs his servant, Eliezer, to select a wife for him. These instructions emphasise another extraordinary facet of Yitzchok.

After Avrohom makes Eliezer swear that he will not take a wife for Yitzchok from among the daughters of the Canaanites, he commands Eliezer to travel to Avrohom’s birthplace and to bring a wife for Yitzchok from there.

Sensibly Eliezer asks: “Perhaps the woman will not agree to follow me to this land; shall I then take your son back to the land from which you departed?”

Avrohom’s answers: “Guard yourself lest you take my son back to there. …And if the woman does not agree to follow you, then you will be free of this oath of mine; only do not take my son back to there.”

This seems to be an absolute prohibition on Yitzchok leaving the land.

Notably these words, said about thirty five years before he died, are the last words of Avrohom recorded in the Torah.

Abravanel asks an interesting question about the directives given to Eliezer: Why did Avrohom command him not to take a wife [for Yitzchok] from among the daughters of the Canaanites? Apparently, the advantage of the women of Charan is that they are descendants of Shem, who was blessed, while the Canaanites are descended from Cham, who was cursed. If the intended wife would not travel back to Canaan would it be better for Yitzchak to marry one of the local women or to leave the land and marry a woman who is a descendant of Shem?

‫ספר דברים‬

‫ספר במדבר‬

‫לע"נ ר' יקותיאל זלמן נאה ז''ל‬ ‫בן ר' חנניה יו''ט ליפא הי''ד‬ ‫נלב''ע ט''ז אדר תשע''ז‬

Rabbi Alan Wilkinson Rabbi, Great Ormond Street Hospital and Rav Ahavat Yisrael, Edgware

Rashi and Ramban seem to disagree on this point. Rashi seems to say that taking a Canaanite wife, a descendant of Cham for Yitzchok is better than him leaving the land to marry a wife who is a descendant of Shem. Ramban disagrees. He interprets Avrohom’s words as an absolute prohibition on taking a wife for Yitzchok from among the Canaanites.

Both Rashi and Ramban agree however, that Avrohom won’t allow Yitzchok to leave the land to marry. The Halacha nowadays states that one of the conditions allowing people to leave Israel is to get married.

Yitzchok himself later instructs Yaakov to go to Charan and to find a wife. Why is Yitzchok different?

Chazal explain that after the akeidah, Yitzchok was imbued with a kedusha that prohibited him personally from leaving the land. This explains why Avrohom wouldn’t let him leave. Similarly, when the land had a famine Hashem wouldn’t let him leave the land even though both Avrohom and Yaakov left during similar famines.

Avrohom taught us chessed and emunah despite all his trials. What lesson can we learn from Yitzchok? Yitzchok stresses our connection with the land. Yitzchok’s role is to This weeks issue is dedicated transmit a permanent connection ‫לעילוי נשמת‬ with Eretz Yisrael. He remains in the land even at the cost of ‫ע"ה‬ marrying a Canaanite wife even in ‫נלב‘‘ע כ‘‘א חשון תשמ‘‘ו‬ times of famine. This connection ‫ה‬.‫ב‬.‫צ‬.‫נ‬.‫ת‬ between Am Yisrael and our land For more information about sponsoring an issue please contact sponsor@oneg.org.uk is Yitzchok’s legacy to us. M

‫שרה בת בערל‬

‫ספר ויקרא‬

‫ספר שמות‬

Please daven for

‫הב' אברהם יוסף אריה‬ ‫בן רוחמה אילה נ"י‬

‫לרפואה שלימה בתוך חולי ישראל‬

‫לע"נ מרת טויבא רחל נאה ע''ה‬ ‫בת ר' שמואל שמעלקא הי''ד‬ ‫נלב''ע כ''ה מנחם אב תשע''ז‬

‫לע''נ ר' מרדכי בן ר' שלום ז''ל‬ ‫נלב''ע ט''ו סיון תשס''ב‬

‫לע''נ ר' בנימין בן ר' מאיר דוד ז''ל‬ ‫נלב''ע ב׳ אדר תשע''ז‬

To request a brochure form or make a donation please contact sponsor@oneg.org.uk

‫ספר בראשית‬ ‫לע"נ‬

‫אריאל יהודה ז״ל‬ ‫בן ר׳ פינחס צבי נ״י‬ ‫קליין‬

‫נלב''ע י״ז תמוז תשע''ח‬

MEDIA PARTNERS N OW R E AC H

ING

OPLE 24,00C0OPUENTRIES I N 24

Yerushalayim, Amsterdam, Antwerp, Baltimore, Beit- Shemesh, Birmingham, Borehamwood, Budapest, Cancun, Detroit, Edgware, Elstree, Gateshead, Gibraltar, Glasgow, Hale, Henderson, Hong Kong, Ilford, Johannesburg, Lakewood, Larnaca, Las Vegas, Leeds, London, Los Angeles, Manchester, Melbourne, Memphis, Miami, Milan, New York, Oslo, Paris, Petach Tikva, Philadelphia, Pressburg, Radlett, Rio de Janeiro, Rotterdam, Ruislip, Santiago, Sao Paulo, Stanmore, Southend, Tallinn, Tarzana, Toronto, Uman, Vienna, Zurich

2

Oneg Shabbos Issue 227 This page is sponsored by OGR Stock Denton | ogrstockdenton.com

CLEAN SPEECH

Remembering the past to build the future

T

Take seven of every kosher animal… and of every animal that is not kosher take two. (Bereshith 7:2)

he loss of one’s beloved spouse, especially Rabbi Berel Wein after many years and Founder & Director, Destiny Foundation decades of marriage and shared life, is always a traumatic and shattering blow.

Those of us, who unfortunately have also experienced this occurrence own lives can testify as to the emotional damage and even physical harm that this sad experience can create.

We see from the life of our father Yaakov that even decades later he reminds his children and himself of the pain and suffering caused by the death of his beloved wife, Rachel. In essence, it seems that Yaakov never again was the same person after the death of Rachel. However, Avraham apparently dealt with the death of Sarah in a more stoic fashion.

The Torah itself indicates this by inference, when it wrote concerning Avraham’s reaction to the tragedy by using a small letter kaf in its description of the grief and weeping of Avraham over the death of Sarah.

It is not that Avraham is less grieved at the loss of Sarah then Yaakov was at the death of Rachel, It is rather that after all of the challenges and trials that Avraham had already endured, his attitude towards life and its vicissitudes was now always one of looking forward and never dwelling on the past.

Those who live exclusively in the past are doomed to self-pity and great emotional angst. This only causes a sense of victimhood and hopelessness. It reflects itself in every aspect of later life and stunts any further spiritual, social, personal or societal growth. The greatness of Avraham, as taught us by the Mishnah, was his resilience and continued spiritual and personal growth. Avraham constantly looked forward – ahead - and never dwelled on past misfortune.

I heard an outstanding speech delivered by George Deek, which illustrates this important point. He is a Christian Arab who is a member of the Israeli Foreign Office. In telling the story of his life he describes how his family lived in Jaffa for many generations and how they fled to Lebanon during the 1948 War of Independence. Sensing the squalor and political manipulation of the refugees by the Arab powers, whose sole goal was the destruction of Israel and not in saving and resettling the refugees, his grandfather escaped Lebanon and somehow brought the family back to Jaffa and Israel, regained his job with the Israel Electric Company. He raised generations of successful professionals, all citizens of Israel.

He said that the Jewish refugees from Europe and the Moslem world attempted to forget their past and build a new future for themselves and their descendants when they arrived in Eretz Yisrael. The Palestinian Arab refugees, under the misguided leadership of their spiritual and temporal heads, revelled instead in their past defeats, in their legend of nakba and, in the main, devoted themselves to attempting to destroy Israel rather than rehabilitating themselves.

That attitude and mind-set has served them badly and cost them dearly. Whilst it is true that the past needs to be remembered and recalled because it is so treasured and instructive to us, it really is the future and what we choose to make of it that ultimately determines our worth and our fate. That is one of the great lessons to be derived from the story of the life of our father Avraham.M For questions on Divrei Torah, please email the editor Rabbi Yonasan Roodyn at editor@oneg.org.uk

From the posuk that we read a few Rabbi Daniel Travis short weeks ago in Kollel Toras Chaim Parshas Noach, we Rabbinical Leadership Institute see how careful one must be to avoid unseemly speech. The Torah is always meticulous about brevity; in fact, numerous halachos are derived from the addition or omission of even a single letter.

Yet in this verse the Torah used many more letters than necessary to describe “every animal that is not kosher,” when it could have written simply “impure animal.” The Torah went out of its way to avoid the use of an expression that might border on the vulgar.(1) Included in this category is the use of euphemism (sagi nahor) when the literal expressions have negative connotations. When referring to punishment, the Gemara writes that our “enemies” are smitten as a result of foul language. Although the subject of the Gemara is the Jewish nation, it is considered improper to refer directly to the punishment of the Jewish People.(2) Someone once informed the Chazon Ish that a person was a liar. The Chazon Ish immediately rebuked the one who spoke to him: “That is no way to speak about someone. Say rather that his words are not true. The Torah tells us to distance ourselves from sheker – we should not allow ourselves near even the language of sheker. The very word “lie” is something we should avoid!”(3) Sometimes though, ensuring that our words are pure may come in conflict with avoiding falsehood.

How should we react, for example, if our children ask us to explain a verse in the Torah that deals with a delicate topic which may be improper for us to discuss with them? Should we fabricate an explanation that would be more appropriate for a child’s ears? Modernday halachic authorities concur that the Torah may never be altered no matter how noble the reason, for it is absolute truth.(4) Nevertheless, while we should explain such passages to our children in a way that does not contradict the true meaning of the words, we need not go into explicit detail.(5) M

1. Pesachim 3a.

2. Shabboth 33a 3. Pe’er HaDor Vol. 3 p. 20 4. Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv and Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurebach as cited in Titein Emeth L’Yaakov p. 61. See also the responsa Yosef Ometz who writes that even if one is reciting Psalm 20 for a woman in childbirth (which is commonly accepted as a positive omen) that they should not change the gender of a verse from masculine to femanine.

5. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach ibid Titein Emeth L’Ya’akov. A halachic authority should always be consulted.

To receive this via email please email subscriptions@oneg.org.uk

To suggest an idea or a response to the ideas exchange please email ideas@oneg.org.uk

23 Nov 2019

‫כ"ה חשון תש"פ‬

‫פרשת חיי שרה‬

Choosing a Spouse Factors beyond our control

R

ashi writes (24:17) that Eliezer saw that the water in the well miraculously rose to greet Rivka as she approached. Why did he proceed with his original plan to test her willingness to offer him and his camels water to drink after he already recognized her tremendous piety as demonstrated by her ability to perform miracles?

The Brisker Rav (Nesivos Rabboseinu 24:66) and Rabbi Shlomo Margolis (Darkei HaShleimus) answer that the performance of miracles does not necessarily demonstrate a person’s piety. Even though the water miraculously rose to greet Rivka, Eliezer was solely interested in her conduct and actions, as this is the sole determinant of a person’s spiritual level and was the test by which Eliezer evaluated her fitness to marry Yitzhak.

Similarly, the Torah records (24:66) that when Eliezer returned with Rivka, he related to Yitzhak all of the miracles that he witnessed and experienced, yet the Targum writes that this didn’t impress Yitzhak. Only after Yitzhak saw that her actions were similar to those of his mother Sarah did he marry her.

No Canaanite wife!

When Avraham instructed his trusted servant Eliezer regarding the selection of a wife for his son Yitzhak, he was very insistent that Eliezer not choose a wife from their Canaanite neighbours, but rather from Avraham’s original homeland and family in Charan. Avraham lived amongst the Canaanites and rejected the possibility of allowing Isaac to marry one of them due to their idolatrous ways.

However, in light of the fact that the women in Charan worshipped idolatry just as did the Canaanites, what was the benefit of sending Eliezer to seek a wife from his homeland?

The Derashos HaRan (Derush 5) explains that Avraham’s objection to

a Canaanite daughter-in-law wasn’t based on their idolatrous practices, but rather on the immorality and lack of proper character traits they exhibited in their behaviour. Although Avraham’s relatives in Charan also worshipped idols, he knew that at the core their values and ethics were wholesome and intact.

As immodest and unethical behaviour originates in one’s very essence and can be passed on to one’s children, the Canaanites were thereby disqualified from marrying into Avraham’s family. On the other hand, matters of philosophical belief are taught, not inherited. The idolatry of Avraham’s relatives could therefore be remedied much easier by simply educating and exposing them to belief in Hashem.

The Ran’s point – that intellectual knowledge and pursuits aren’t passed through the generations – is illustrated by the following amusing story. One of my Rebbes spent several years living in Jerusalem. As he was interested in the practical aspects of applying the knowledge he had spent many years acquiring, he obtained permission to sit in a prestigiouss Beis Din and observe the various happenings.

One day a woman came before the Beis Din for a proceeding.

When asked for her last name, she replied, “Einstein.” Curious, my Rebbe respectfully waited until the end of the session and then approached the woman to inquire about her identity. Sure enough, she explained, she was none other than the great-granddaughter of the illustrious Albert Einstein.

At this point, with her ancestry clarified, he couldn’t help but ask if she followed in the path of her famous great-grandfather and spent her time studying advanced physics

3

This page is sponsored by M&N Insurance | mninsure.com

Rabbi Ozer Alport Author of Parsha Potpourri and Renowned Lecturer

and the theory of relativity. Albert Einstein’s great-granddaughter replied that she never understood the subject and found Albert Einstein’s work totally uninteresting and incomprehensible.

The path that our children will take and the families they will raise are beyond our control. Although we will try our utmost to shape their goal and priorities in life, they will ultimately be influenced and determined by factors beyond our control. What is in our power, however, is to work on our own character traits and to encourage our children to marry those with similar giving dispositions, which will become a permanent part of our spiritual legacy, passed down from generation to generation – just as we learn from Einstein’s theory of “relative”-ity. M Shema Yisrael Torah Network Parsha Potpourri

4

Oneg Shabbos Issue 227 This page is sponsored ‫לע''נ ביילא בת ר׳ משה ע''ה‬

The Acquisition of Meoras Hamachpela ...‫ויקם השדה‬...‫ לאברהם למקנה‬...‫ויקם שדה עפרון‬ )‫כ‬-‫יז‬:‫לאברהם לאחזת קבר (כג‬

T

he question that the Rishonim grapple with is why does there seem to be an unnecessary repetition of the statement that the field of Efron became – through the purchase – the property of Avraham Avinu?

Rashi’s answer to this question is that the second expression of vayakam is not referring to the legal acquisition of the field; rather it is an implication of stature (mi’lashon tekumah).

Because the field became the property of Avraham Avinu, it was spiritually elevated.

The Rashbam takes a different angle, highlighting the different expressions adjacent to the word vayakam. The first vayakam is joined by the word miknah, acquisition, whereas the second vayakam is joined by the words la’achuzas kaver, as a burial area. So, says the Rashbam, the first vayakam is referring to the fact that the ownership of the field was transferred – through the payment of the money – from Efron to Avraham Avinu. The second vayakam, though, is in reference to the field’s designation as a cemetery. Further underscoring this approach, adds the Rashbam, is the fact that by the first vayakam it says sdei Efron, the field of Efron, whereas by the second vayakam it says mei’eis bnei Cheis, from the people of Cheis. In other words, as far as the private transaction is concerned, that was between Efron and Avraham Avinu. Avraham Avinu paid the money to Efron – who was, after all, the private owner of this field – and thereby acquired it for himself. However, the “acquisition” of designating the field as a cemetery for his family, that was from the People of Cheis. What does that mean?

There is a halachah that to designate a certain site as a cemetery, one has to have the agreement of the townspeople.

As such, Avraham Avinu could not “acquire” the field as a family burial plot simply by buying the field from Efron. For that specific designation, he had to have the agreement of the townspeople. Hence, by the second vayakam it says mei’eis bnei Cheis, from the People of Cheis.

I heard another approach from my grandfather, Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik zt”l which I subsequently saw in the Meshech Chochmah as well. The Gemara towards the end of perek Chezkas Ha’Batim says that when a Jew buys a field from a non-Jew, the field indeed is removed from the non-Jew’s ownership by the cash payment (kinyan kesef); however, it does not become the full acquisition of the Jew who is buying it from the non-Jew until the Jewish purchaser makes a chazakah. The reason for this, says the Gemara, is that “lo samcha daateih” – the Jewish buyer does not have full faith in the validity of the transaction until he sees that he is making use of the property and the non-Jewish seller is not attempting to renege or

Rabbi Moshe Twersky ZTL Vayigdal Moshe

Yahrzeit ‫כ''ה מרחשון תשע''ה‬

any way intervene. The examples that the Gemara gives of a chazakah are locking up the field, banging open a gateway in the wall or fence surrounding the field, or putting up a fence or wall around the field.

It goes without saying, though, that burying one’s deceased in the field is most certainly a valid form of chazakah.

Accordingly, the first vayakam is referring to the field leaving Efron’s ownership as a result of the cash payment that Avraham Avinu made for the field, and the second vayakam is referring to the field becoming the full possession of Avraham Avinu after – as the pesukim in the interim state – he buried Sarah Imeinu therein. Because he executed an act of chazakah – making use of the field by burying Sarah Imeinu therein– the field became his full-fledged possession.

Parenthetically, there is a halachah that it is forbidden to derive and personal benefit from a beis ha’kevaros (cemetery).

The Shiltei Giborim adds that this is the case not only for the area of the field where there are already people buried there, but even for the part of the field that still is completely empty – as long as it has already been set aside to serve as a cemetery – that too is already assur b’hanaah (forbidden to derive personal benefit therefrom). A beis ha’kevaros, elaborates the Shiltei Giborim, has the same status of kedushah as a Shul.

Once the area is huktzah l’mitzvaso – set aside and designated for the purpose of fulfilling the mitzvah of burying the dead – it becomes forbidden for the derivation of personal benefit, no different than a Shul. It is important to bear this in mind when visiting kivrei tzaddikim, such as the burial places of the Arizal and the Beis Yosef in Tzfas, to understand that one is not “taking an excursion” to a beis ha’kevaros. It is not a tiyul. Eating and drinking are not allowed inside of a beis ha’kevaros ( just like in a Shul these activities are forbidden), and one may not sit down on any of the graves. It is a place of kedushah, and that is something that it is important to remain cognisant of.

Based on this halachah, the Chasam Sofer asks a question on the Gemara in Brachos 18b that says a pious man once went to sleep in a cemetery when his wife got into a quarrel with him.

How could he do that? Isn’t it forbidden to derive personal benefit from a cemetery? The answer, says the Chasam Sofer, is that a cemetery has the same status as a Shul. When it comes to a Shul, talmidei chachamim who spend their days and nights primarily involved in learning Torah are allowed to take care of basic needs such as eating, drinking, and sleeping even while inside a Shul. Therefore, they are allowed to do so as well inside of a beis ha’kevaros. M Please see back page for a short story about Rabbi Moshe Twersky

23 Nov 2019

‫כ"ה חשון תש"פ‬

‫פרשת חיי שרה‬

5

A match made in Heaven HaRav Shlomo Wolbe Zt”l

A

Bais Hamussar

fter Rivkah drew water for both Eliezer and his camels thereby successfully fulfilling Eliezer’s criteria as a wife for Yitzchok, Eliezer adorned her with jewelry. “The man took a golden nose ring weighing a beka, and two bracelets on her arms weighing ten gold shekels” (Bereishis 24:22). Rashi explains that the nose ring weighing a beka was meant to allude to the shekalim that Bnei Yisrael would donate to the Mishkan - each weighing a beka. The two bracelets represented the two luchos and their weight of ten shekels alluded to the Ten Commandments inscribed upon them.

Why did Eliezer decide to allude to Rivkah specifically regarding the money donated to the Mishkan and the Aseres HaDibros? Rav Wolbe cites the Maharal who explains that Rivkah had just passed the exam which would allow here to gain entrance into the house of the avos.

Consequently, she was being informed that as a matriarch of Klal Yisrael, she must ensure that her house and family would be founded on the three most fundamental pillars of Torah, avodah and gemilus chassadim. She had already proven herself as an exemplary ba’alas chessed, and therefore, Eliezer made allusions to the remaining two pillars of Torah (i.e. the luchos) and avodah (i.e. the Mishkan where sacrifices were offered in the service of Hashem).

The Mishna in Pirkei Avos (1:2) informs us that these three pillars are not just the foundation of the house of our avos, they are the pillars “upon which the world stands.” The meforshim explain that “the pillars upon which the world stands”

refers to the reasons for which the world was created. Chazal have informed us of the purpose of life.

Thus, we must ask ourselves, “Are these three principles the focal points of our lives and our homes?” They are not meant to be perceived as mere extracurricular activities, but as the foundation upon which our homes stand and the core around which our lives revolve.

This page is sponsored by Hassans | gibraltarlaw.com

We must ask ourselves, “Are these three principles the focal points of our lives and our homes?”

W

hen Lavan and Besuel heard the extraordinary sequence of events leading up to the marriage proposal offered to Rivkah, they exclaimed, “This matter has originated from Hashem!” Chazal state (Moed Kattan 18b) that it is clear from the Torah, Nevi’im and Kesuvim that marriage of a man to his specific wife, originates from Hashem. The above pasuk is one of the pesukim cited to substantiate their statement.

Rav Wolbe asks the obvious question.

Doesn’t every aspect of our lives originate from Hashem? He answers that although it certainly is true that everything comes from the Creator, however, in the area of shidduchim, His providence is so overt that it is almost tangible.

We live in an era where Hashem’s presence is hidden to a great degree.

Yet, He leaves open small windows through which

we can perceive His guiding hand most clearly. One such window is the area of shidduchim. Everyone has their own personal miracle how their shidduch came about. If one takes the time to appreciate this phenomenon, it will ultimately lead him to an awareness that everything he encounters in life is in truth “a match made in Heaven.” M

6

Oneg Shabbos Issue 227

Harder than the Akeida

A

vrohom Ovinu, in last week’s parsha, passed all the tests Hashem gave him. There are different opinions about what the ten tests were, especially which was the first. Some begin with Nimrod’s fiery furnace, others start with Lech Lecha, leaving his father’s home and the place where he came from at Hashem’s command. Even within this test, some learn that the test was not his willingness to go but that he should go purely for the intention of fulfilling Hashem’s command, disregarding His promises of children, wealth and a good name if he went. However nearly all the mefarshim agree that the Akeida was the tenth and final test, after which the malach said, “Now I know that you fear Hashem.” (Bereishis 22:12). But Rabbeinu Yona (Pirkei Avos 5:3) holds that the final test was the burial of Soroh in this week’s parsha. He doesn’t say the death of Soroh but having to pay for a burial plot for her. Was that so difficult?

Rabbeinu Yona explains that Avrohom Ovinu had been promised the land of Canaan by Hashem, yet now he has to pay four hundred shekels to Efron for one cave. But a further explanation is still necessary. Logically, the tests must go in

Going to the Siyum?

If you want to recall the main points of every daf, This sefer is for YOU

an ascending order of difficulty. After Avrohom Ovinu had passed the test of the Akeida, surely finding a burial plot for Soroh, whilst frustrating, and even though Eretz Canaan had been promised to him, was not more difficult. Why was this, the last and most difficult test of Avrohom Ovinu?

The wife of Reb Chatzkel Sarna zt’’l1, the Rosh Hayeshiva of Chevron Yeshiva wrote about a truly amazing miracle which happened to her during the Holocaust. As the Nazis were storming her town, she managed to escape and hide in a nearby forest. After a day or two without food she realized that she would not last much longer and walked further.

Suddenly she noticed an imposing house and ran up to the front door, hoping that the owner would have mercy on her.

After a servant opened the door, she was taken in to see the owner of the house who was no less than the commander of the Nazi troops who were rampaging her town. He stared at her and asked “How did you get in? At the gate are my soldiers who guard me and they have dogs which are ready to dismember any unauthorized person who comes in. She answered, “It must have been a miracle from my G-d.”

The commander laughed cynically. “If your G-d can save you once, let Him save you again. Walk back down the path but this time I will be watching. I’m sure that my dogs will pounce on you and eat you alive. If by any chance you do survive, I will write you a pass, saying that no-one may hurt you and you can go anywhere you want.” As he assembled all his servants to watch and enjoy the spectacle 1 Editor’s note: It is possible that this story is actually about his son Rav Chaim Sarna zt’’l’s wife being that Rav Chatzkel moved to Eretz Yisroel in 1925. In 1950 Rav Chaim married Rebbetzin Rochel, the daughter of R’ Malkiel Friedman from Memel (who himself was a Talmid of the Alter of Slobodka).

This page has been sponsored anonymously

Rabbi Michoel Fletcher Author of sefarim: “Do You Know Hilchos Shabbos?”, “Do You Know Hilchos Brachos?”, “From Strength to Strength”, “Dancing in our Heart” and the soon to be published; “The Hidden Light, a New look at the Holocaust and other essays”.

of a Jewish girl being eaten alive by his dogs, she davened as never before, pleading with Hashem to save her. She walked down the path with her head high, still davening. Every person watching, anticipating the gruesome sight of the girl being mauled to death was utterly dumbfounded as she reached the gate safely . The commander kept his word and wrote a note for safe passage. She managed to reach Switzerland, later came to Eretz Yisroel, married Reb Chaim Sarna and had a key role, herself, in the development of the Yeshiva.

Nearly fifty years ago I heard a shiur

by Reb Mattisyahu Salamon shlita who explained the final test of Avrohom Ovinu according to Rebeinu Yona. If Hashem commands a Jew to do something, he will, of course, do it. If we were forced to choose between converting and being thrown into a raging fire we would declare, “Throw me into the fire.” We are descendants of Avrohom Ovinu -- sacrificing ourselves to sanctify Hashem’s name is in our genes. But if a business deal falls through or the freezer breaks down or we are running late and every traffic light is red, we can easily become annoyed. If we have to deal with annoying bureaucracy or our children aren’t behaving or our spouse has forgotten something (s)he promised to do, we can ‘lose it’. Avrohom Ovinu’s final test was having to deal with an Ephron, reneging on his agreement, and wasting precious time talking to the Bnei Cheis when all he wanted was to bury Soroh.

His challenge was to remember that Hashem orchestrates every detail of our lives. Every moment of frustration is also min hashamayim. Whatever we are doing, in times of conflict or peace, success or failure -- ein od milvado, there is nothing besides Hashem. Ein Keilokeinu – There is nothing like our G-d. Remembering this at all times is sometimes harder than the Akeida. M

23 Nov 2019

‫כ"ה חשון תש"פ‬

‫פרשת חיי שרה‬

7

Rabbi Yaakov Asher Sinclair

Three Relationships “Beware not to return my son to there…” (24:6)

W

hy didn’t Avraham want Yitzchak to go to Charan? Surely it would have been preferable for him to see his future wife than Eliezer to act as an agent?

As a result of Avraham’s bringing Yitzchak up on an altar as a korban (offering), Yitzchak became infused with a special sanctity. He became an olah temima, a ‘pure elevation-offering.’ Avraham did not want Yitzchak to lose that elevated status by Eliezer’s taking him out of the Land of Israel.

The first Beis Hamikdash was destroyed as a result of the Jewish People’s transgressing the three cardinal sins: murder, idol worship and immorality. These three sins represent a breakdown in the three relationships that a person has in this world: with his fellow, with Hashem, and with himself.

Murder is the ultimate breakdown of man’s relationship with his neighbour. Idol worship is the breakdown of man’s relationship with Hashem, and immorality is the breakdown of

Editorial credit: / Shutterstock.com

Ohr Somayach Institutions

man’s relationship with himself: He loses his tzuras ha adam – his elevated human status - and becomes more like an animal.

It occurred to me that these three relationships are mirrored in the Avos. Avraham is ultimate antidote to murder: He is the pillar of chessed, of kindness, the ultimate expression of love for one’s fellow. It was Avraham whose tent was open to the four compass points ready to receive guests.

Yitzchak is the ultimate antidote for idol worship as we saw above. He is the olah temima, the ultimate expression of mesirus nefesh, of being prepared to give up one’s life for Hashem.

The medrash that describes Yaakov’s dream discusses how the malachim were ascending and descending on it. The medrash compare the visage engraved on the Kisei HaKavod — the mystical Throne on which Hashem sits — with the likeness of Yaakov. In other words, Yaakov is the tzuras Adam hamushlemes, the true picture of man and all that makes him holy and elevated above the beasts. M Sources: Pesikta Zutresa, Radak, Maharal

The Challenge of Donating Tzedakah The Volozhiner Yeshivah was once in serious financial straits, and they sent Rav Chaim Brisker zt’’l, to Minsk to raise a large sum of money. Rav Chaim stayed with the well-known philanthropist Reb Baruch Zlatowitz zt’’l.

Reb Baruch promised to help raise money while Rav Chaim continued learning in his home. After several days, Rav Chaim asked Rav Baruch how successful he had been.

Reb Baruch said he had already raised half of the necessary funds. Rav Chaim expressed his satisfaction and continued learning. A week later, Reb Baruch said he had all the money.

Rav Chaim thanked his host warmly and returned to Volozhin.

Later, Rav Chaim learned that Rav Baruch had donated the entire sum from his own pocket. The next time they met, Rav Chaim asked the philanthropist, “If you were donating money anyway, why did you keep me there for two weeks?” Does the Rav think it is easy to give away so much money? I had to work on myself to part from the first half of the sum, and then it took me even more time until I could finally part with the rest!” M Reprinted from the Parshas Vayakhel 5779 email of Torah Sweets Weekly edited by Mendel Berlin.

8

Oneg Shabbos Issue 227

Restoring the primacy of Choshen Mishpat Restoring the primacy of Choshen Mishpat Under the auspices of Harav Chaim Kohn ‫שליט"א‬ Under the auspices of Harav Chaim Kohn ‫שליט"א‬

Rabbi Meir Orlian Halachah Writer, BHI

AN EXTRA WEEK’S RENT Dov was looking to share a room in the city. He heard that his friend Yosef had signed a lease for an apartment and was looking for a roommate to share it with.

“I’m looking to share an apartment for the coming year,” Dov said to Yosef.

“However, I expect to be relocated sometime during the year. I don’t know exactly when, but will have three months’ notice.”

“I’m willing to have you until you relocate,” said Yosef. “Then I’ll look for someone else.”

“I may be relocated at any point during the month,” Dov clarified. “I’m only accepting responsibility until I relocate, even in the middle of the month.”

“I don’t have anybody else at the moment,” said Yosef. “I’m happy to have you for as long as you’re here.”

Dov was notified that he would be relocated on October 24. He informed Yosef about the date. Yosef posted advertisements for the room, and found a replacement roommate, who would be able to come at the beginning of November.

“Would you be willing to cover the final week in October, despite our initial agreement?” Yosef asked Dov. “OK,” Dov agreed without giving it much thought.

When October came, Dov realized that, given the high rent they were paying, the extra week amounted to a few hundred dollars. The relocation entailed many costs, not all of which would be reimbursed.

“I decided that there’s no reason to pay you for the extra week,” Dov said to Yosef. “I don’t think it was so fair of you to ask me in the first place.”

“But you already agreed,” said Yosef.

“It was nothing but a verbal statement,” said Dov. “Perhaps it’s not nice of me, but I don’t think my agreement is binding without any kinyan.”

“I don’t see why not!” replied Yosef. “Once you committed, why should it not be binding?”

Is Dov liable for the extra week’s rent?

This page is sponsored by nextgenrealestate.co.uk

“Stipulations and terms agreed upon before beginning the rental are undoubtedly binding even without a kinyan, since the rental usage itself serves as the kinyan for the agreedupon terms,” said Rabbi Dayan. “Therefore, had the initial arrangement been that you would cover the rent until the end of the month or until the replacement tenant entered, your agreement would certainly be binding, and you would be liable for the week” (C.M. 315:2, 4; Sma 315:3).

“However, the nature of your agreement to cover the extra week in this case is unclear. Perhaps it was an agreement to extend the rental a week beyond the time that you needed until the replacement tenant would enter. If your relocation plans were delayed a week would you not feel a legal right to continue using the room on account of your additional payment?!” Machaneh Ephraim (Hil. Sechirus #13) addresses the case of a tenant who arranged verbally with the landlord to extend the rental during the initial rental period. He concludes, against the Radvaz, that the continued usage of the house during the initial period – locking and unlocking – can serve as a kinyan for the extension of the rental.

“Conversely, perhaps there was no intent to extend the rental, since you would no longer be present. All that you agreed was to pay for the week, despite the fact that you were no longer renting. This is essentially a gift to Yosef.

A verbal commitment to give a gift is not legally binding.

Nonetheless, it is meritorious to uphold one’s word.

Moreover, it is considered untrustworthy to retract if the recipient truly expected to receive the gift. This depends on the language and amount of the gift, and the financial status of the giver (C.M. 204:8; 241:1; Pischei Choshen, Kinyanim 15:4[5]; B’tzel Hachochma 5:158).

“Thus, in light of the second possibility, you cannot be made to pay for the extra week,” concluded Rabbi Dayan, “but it is proper to do so.”

Verdict: It is unclear whether Dov’s agreement to pay for the extra week is binding, but it is proper that he pay. M

‫לע''נ אריאל יהודה ז''ל בן ר' פינחס צבי נ''י קליין‬

Provided by Business Halacha Institute. The BHI is a non-profit organization based in New York that educates and guides people in up to date applications of monetary halacha. For more information or to browse the BHI archives, visit www.businesshalacha.com

23 Nov 2019

‫כ"ה חשון תש"פ‬

‫פרשת חיי שרה‬

MIDDOS ‫דרגה יתירה‬ Rabbi Zalman Guttman Ramat Shlomo

‫ויברכו את רבקה ויאמרו לה אחתנו את היי‬ )‫כד‬-‫לאלפי רבבה וגו‘ (ס‬

We often minimize the small things in life.

R’ Binyomin Levine Shlit’’a said: “It’s the big things in life that show ability, but it’s the small things in life that show quality!” When a person does a “big thing,” i.e. organises a tzedakah event, etc. - it proves that this person has great ability and utilises it well.

But when a person does a “small thing”, i.e. gives his neighbour a big smile and “Good morning,” holds open the door for the person behind him - this shows the true quality of the person!

When Rivkah gave a thirsty man and his camels some water to drink, her kind yet simple act determined the course of her life as a Matriarch of Klal Yisroel. As Chazal say: “‫אדם‬ ‫”נפעל כפי פעולותיו‬ - Man is formed by his actions. One doesn’t need to do “great things” in order to become a “great person.”

Even simple acts of kindness can help one achieve ‫!גדלות‬ This is how Hashem chose many of our great leaders. He tested them with “small” things, things which depict the true character of the person, before he raised them up to a position of greatness. Moshe Rabbeinu and Dovid Hamelech were simple shepherds who really were not so “simple” after all. When Hashem saw how they cared for their sheep with such compassion and devotion, He said, “I see how trustworthy you are with your sheep; come and tend to My flock - ‫ישראל‬ ‫”!כלל‬

9

SHEMIRAS HALOSHON

FOOD FOR THOUGHT TO SPARK N CONVERSATIO

WHERE DO WORDS GO? YOU KNOW SOMETHING INTERESTING THAT YOU’RE PASSING ALONG TO A FEW FRIENDS. IT’S NEUTRAL INFORMATION FOR THEM. BUT WHAT IF THEY REPEAT THE INFORMATION TO SOMEONE ELSE, WHO FINDS IT INSULTING?

THE DILEMMA

Shimon is talking to his co-worker Levi about changes in his community. “My neighbour Reuven told me that a boy in his son’s class was kicked out of school for smoking in the playground. An 11-year-old—smoking!”

A few days later, Levi is at a wedding. The table conversation turns to troubled youth. Levi jumps in: “Listen to this! Shimon’s neighbour Reuven told him that a kid in his son’s fifth-grade class got kicked out of yeshivah for smoking!”

Levi didn’t know that the fifth-grader’s father was at the table. He is now furious at Reuven for discussing his son’s mistake. Was Shimon speaking rechilus when he told Levi the story, even though he didn’t know it would eventually cause bad feelings between Reuven and the boy’s father?

THE HALACHAH

You are responsible for where your words go once they leave your mouth. You are not allowed to say something that could cause strife if it is repeated. When Shimon spoke to Levi his words were not rechilus; ultimately they became rechilus. Hence, sharing the information with Levi was prohibited.

Sefer Chofetz Chaim, Hilchos Rechilus 3:3

This is how Eliezer chose Rivkah; from a simple act of chessed - giving a stranger a drink - she was zoche to marry Yitzchok Avinu and shape the destiny of the Jewish People.

So the next time you meet a thirsty man with a bunch of camels at an oasis in the desert, offer him a drink... you never know!

The Chofetz Chaim Heritage Foundation Reviewed by Rabbi Moshe Mordechai Lowy. For discussion only; actual halachic decisions should be made by a rav or halachic expert on a case-by-case basis.

10

Oneg Shabbos Issue 227

47 X

DAYS

CO U

‫נ“ב‬ ‫בכורותל"א‬ ‫נדה‬

E TH

Daf Yomi WEEKLY

DOWN TO NT

Siyum Hashas

Gemara GEM THE CORRUPTED VIEW OF THE EVIL BILAAM ‫ועל דבר זה נסמית עינו של בלעם הרשע‬

In preparation to declaring his vexing words, Bilaam climbed to a perch overlooking the Jewish nation, from where he “set his gaze toward the desert.” Onkelos explains that Bilaam set his sights upon the calf which the Jews had worshiped in the desert, as he aimed to have the Jews condemned for their previous faults and failures. Bilaam hoped to have his curse become firmly established by its being founded on the indignities of the past record of the Jews.

Yet, suddenly, as he set his sights upon the Jewish camp, Bilaam noticed that their tents were arranged so that the doorways were not directly across one from the other, and he was overwhelmed. He then began to pronounce his wonderful blessing of “Mah Tovu.” What was it that impressed Bilaam so that his attitude changed suddenly from one extreme to the other?

Bilaam was an evil person. He was jealous of the successes of others, and he craved and coveted money that was not his. The Mishna (Avos 5:17) expounds upon the depraved character of Bilaam. “He who has these 3 things is a disciple of the wicked Bilaam - an evil eye, a haughty spirit and an insatiable soul.” Rashi explains that a “good eye” refers to one who is not jealous of what others have, and one who honours the respect and dignity of other people with the same degree of esteem that he sees fit for himself.

Rambam and Bartinuro understand a “good eye” to refer to one who lives with proper restraint, and does not indulge in earthly pleasures for their own sake. Bilaam epitomized the opposite of these traits.

Bilaam could not tolerate the success that the Jewish people were experiencing, and he wanted to cast upon them an evil eye.

While situated high on the peak of Peor, overlooking the Jewish camp, Bilaam noticed something which appeared quite strange to him. While he had spent his entire life staring with a destructive focus upon other people and their money and possessions, jealously pursuing others and their amassed wealth, here Bilaam observed and beheld a nation whose nature did not allow them to gaze one upon another’s physical station. In fact, even the manner in which they camped was designed so that the doorways of each tent did not face each other, in order to guard against one person’s watching the happenings in his neighbour’s abode.

This sight shook Bilaam to his very soul. In that one moment he was confronted with the lowly depths to which his own soul had fallen. He pondered the lofty and holy station of the Jews, in terms of their conduct between man and his fellow man, as well as in all areas. He then realised that he would never succeed in cursing the Jews, and he decided that they indeed were deserving of a blessing due to their elevated status and unique destiny. M Brought to you by

Stories from the Daf H2

E

liezer is searching for a wife for Yitzchak. He is looking for someone who would be worthy of becoming a Mother of the entire Jewish people. He realised that this needs to be a woman who would be a role model in the area of Chessed and ‘found’ Rivka.

Rivka’s chessed teaches us invaluable lessons in this area.

DO MORE THAN THE MINIMUM: Someone who loves to give, will do more than he/ she is asked to do. Eliezer only asked for water for himself, but Rivka went above and beyond by providing for the camels too.

ACT WITH MODESTY: Give with pure intentions rather than for validation from others.

Rivka only mentioned after giving Eliezer a drink that she would also give the camels. Had she said all her intentions at the beginning it would have been conceited. (Rabbi S R Hirsch)

BE PROACTIVE: If you are able to help people in some way, let people know. Whilst others would hide their jugs to avoid the bother of lending them out, Rivka carried hers on her shoulder so that people might ask to borrow it. (Tiferes Yonoson) The way that Rivka acted shows that she was someone who truly loved Chesed. She is described as running to do something she wasn’t even asked to do!

This midda of chessed is encoded into our spiritual genes. We can learn from Rivka to be people who personify the trait of giving to the highest level. We can become people who look for opportunities to give, and when granted them perform them with enthusiasm and grace.

Ideas adapted from Love Your Neighbour by Zelig Pliskin Brought to you by

www.jgift.org

23 Nov 2019

‫כ"ה חשון תש"פ‬

‫פרשת חיי שרה‬

11

Sages through Ages

Dr Benji Schreiber

THE

The Netziv

Mir, Russia 1816 – Warsaw, Poland 1893 ‫כ”ח באב‬ Rav Naftali Zvi Yehuda Berlin, commonly known by his initials as the Netziv - ‫נצי”ב‬, was born in Mir, today in Belarus into a meyuchas family of talmidei chachamim.

Legend has it that he applied himself to his studies after overhearing his parents debating whether he should pursue a trade. His first wife, Reina Basya – whom he married at the age of 13 - was the daughter of Rav Yitzchok of Volozhin, the son of Rav Chaim Volozhin.

She bore him three children. After she died he married his niece, Miriam, a daughter of Rav Yechiel Michel Epstein (1829-1908), author of the Aruch HaShulchan. She was thirty years younger than him and bore him two sons.

Volozhin The Volozhin yeshiva was founded in 1806 by Rav Chaim Volozhin (1749-1821), student of the Vilna Gaon (17201797). In 1854, after his father-in-law passed away, the Netziv became the new Rosh Yeshiva. The post was contested by the Beis HaLevi, Rav Yosef Ber Soloveichik zt’’l (1820-1892, not to be confused with his great grandson of the same name), who was Reb Chaim Volozhin’s great-grandson. The Beis HaLevi became the assistant Rosh Yeshiva and in 1865 left to become a rabbi in Slutsk, Warsaw and of course Brisk.

The Netziv and the Beis HaLevi had very different styles of learning. The Netziv had a traditionalist approach while the Beis HaLevi pioneered the highly analytical style of lomdus.

The Netziv continued as Rosh Yeshiva until 1892 when the Russian authorities demanded that “teachers of all subjects must have college diplomas ... no Judaic subjects may be taught between 9am and 3pm ... no night classes are allowed ... total

hours of study per day may not exceed ten”. He then decided to close the yeshiva. He had named his son Rav Chaim Berlin to succeed him but others felt Rav Chaim Soloveitchik, son of the Beis HaLevi, might be a better choice.

Eretz Yisrael He strongly favoured Jewish settlement in Eretz Yisrael, then under the control of the Ottoman Empire and he was initially a member of the Chovevei Tzion movement, a forerunner of modern Zionism, founded in response to Russian pogroms in 1882. He objected to the leadership of Dr Leon Pinsker (18211891), who was not observant, but felt that the Rabbonim should not distance themselves from this early pre-Zionist movement.

Approach to Torah He gave a daily shiur in Volozhin on the weekly Sedra, which in time led to his best-known work, the ‫ העמק דבר‬on Chumash. He wrote halachic response, chiddushim on Shas, and the ‫העמק שאלה‬ on the 680-752( ‫)שאילתות דרב אחאי‬, which was the first sefer written after the Talmud that we know of.

Family His son Rav Chaim Berlin (1832-1912) was an outstanding Talmid Chacham who was Chief Rabbi of Moscow and then assistant Rov of Yerushalayim with Rav Shmuel Salant. Yeshivas Chaim Berlin, where Rav Aharon Shechter and Rav Yitzchok Hutner were Roshei Yeshiva, was renamed in his memory, at the suggestion of his brother Rav Meir.

His son, Rav Meir Berlin (1880-1949), born from his second wife, later Hebraicised to Meir Bar-Ilan, learnt in Volozhin, Telshe, Brisk and Novardok and then in Berlin University. He became president of the Religious Zionist Mizrachi movement in the United States and Rosh Yeshiva in Rav Yitzchok Elchanon, which became Yeshiva University. He made Aliya in 1926 and inspired the founding of Bar Ilan University in Israel which is named for him. M

Do you have an interest in a business or properties in America with an American bank account?

Capitalize on the protection! You or your business may be eligible to enjoy the long-term, tax-free return on investment and business protection.

Please call Leo (Itzy) Eckstein +1 347 838 0869 for details.

Oneg Shabbos would like to thank the Pirchei Agudas Yisroel of America for providing this page +1 (347) 838-0869

Please be careful to dispose of this sheet in the proper manner as required ‫על פי הלכה‬.

Please do not read this publication during ‫קדיש‬, ‫ קריאת התורה‬or ‫חזרת הש''ץ‬. Please do not read the adverts on Shabbos or Yom Tov. Please would you ensure that there are ample sheets left in shuls for Shabbos before taking one home. ‫בברכת שלא ימוש התורה מפי זרעינו ומפי זרע זרעינו מעתה ועד עולם‬