Diplomacy and Cold Peace is Better Than Open Hatred

Parshat Toldot

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Some of the commentaries suggest that Akedat Yitzchak was, in some way, a reaction to what took place immediately before it in the Torah, the treaty that Avraham made with Avimelekh. That treaty, in which Avraham ceded some of the land promised to him by God, was a treaty Avraham, arguably, had no right to make without God’s instruction. As a result, this approach offers, he was challenged to wonder what the promises to him were worth if he would be tasked by God to take his son’s life. 

All that at least being a possibility, one wonders why Yitzchak would make the same mistake. 

Truth be told, Yitzchak’s similar encounter with Avimelekh is, on the one hand, not really a treaty. Secondly, he is bound by the treaty that his father made. Despite that, Yitzchak does have grievances over how he was treated by Avimelekh’s people, particularly since there had actually been a treaty between Avimelekh and Avraham’s family (note: Avimelekh might be a title similar to Pharaoh, so he might be dealing with a different person than the one Avraham dealt with). 

Yitzchak doesn’t make a treaty (Bris) with Avimelekh, as Avraham did (21:27). After wondering why they are coming to make peace with him after they had sent him away in light of his financial successes and their subsequent jealousy, their response to him is they saw that God is with him and decided it is better to be “with him than against him.” 

So he serves a meal to them – a common way to celebrate an agreement (see Daas Zekenim 25:34 and his interpretation of the food Yaakov fed Eisav at the time of the transaction of the Bechora/firstborn rights) – and they part ways. 

 Some of the commentaries note the disparity, though they are complimentary towards Yitzchak for ultimately being so accommodating. 

Alshikh: When they sent him away they didn’t make a meal for him, despite his being a “baal bris” (essentially a peace partner) with Avimelekh on account of the treaty with Avraham. Nevertheless, Yitzchak serves them food and accompanies them at the time of their departure, in a manner that they did not do for him. 

Netziv: He made a meal for them, as is the ways of the righteous to appease with ease, and to be open to those who wish to make peace. 

Chasam Sofer, on the other hand, notes a subtlety in the language, that Yitzchak sends them away בשלום and not לשלום. He notes Yitzchak’s kindness in feeding them, despite their “hatred” towards him (based on Mishlet 25:21), while also noting that when you depart from someone in a positive light the blessing is לך לשלום, but when departing from an adversary, the parting is בשלום. 

So which one is it? 

Perhaps more than anything, Yitzchak is teaching us what diplomacy can look like. When people are adversarial, while at the same time acknowledging existence and that there may be good and admirable qualities in their adversary, there is merit to having a cold peace, and even one that in public looks like we’re getting along. 

 Feelings behind closed doors are just that – behind closed doors. 

 Far more important than the inner feelings is the way we actually treat each other. 

No matter how Yitzchak truly felt, the image he conveyed is one who is kind, appeasing, and accepting of letting bygones be bygones, certainly within the realm of the public eye. 

 Even Chasam Sofer’s comment notes a subtlety that most people wouldn’t even pick up on – it’s Yitzchak’s way of giving a blessing, while perhaps quietly still harboring a small grudge, one that he keeps to himself while looking like he is getting along. 

 It is the way of the righteous to not harbor grudges at all, which is why that is the messaging of Netziv and Alshikh. Perhaps Chasam Sofer is acknowledging that even the righteous are human, and that they have a way of coming across publicly as taking the high road, while not completely disregarding their feelings, a completely understandable human stance. 

 For one’s own psyche, in general it is best to move on from difficult relationships, to forgive in one’s heart, and to let go of the anger and the past. 

However, we can acknowledge that that is not always so easy, and therefore to do our best to play the diplomacy game, while airing our grievances to ourselves, in the privacy of our own space so it not negatively impact anyone. Negativity brings everyone down. Positivity has a way of lifting others – even when they aren’t involved at all – because the image of peace between people who disagree conveys a vision for what the world can look like, despite natural differences between humans who may come from different cultures, have different sensibilities and values, and different ideas of what is best for everyone. 

In Yitzchak’s case, Avimelekh came to make peace after difficult interactions. That step, when genuine, indicates a need to move forward together. It is what happened with Israel and Egypt, Israel and Jordan, and is what we all hope to see with Israel’s other neighbors. That will bring a different kind of hope for the world, when the goal to eradicate Israel is gone, and everyone can work to better themselves without worrying about what their neighbor is planning, and what kind of dark future they envision.

Avraham's Children (and daughter?)

 Full transparency: I had already decided on this week’s topic, when I accidentally came across an article entitled “Did Avraham Have a Daughter?” - https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/399547 Thankfully, my research did not include the author’s main source (Rav Hirsch) so here we go. 

Parshat Chayei Sarah

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Rabbi Baruch HaLevi Epstein (in his Tosefes Bracha) notes the passage in Yevamos 62a that the mitzvah of reproducing (פרו ורבו) is to have a son and a daughter (according to one opinion) – so the parents essentially replace themselves. Avraham focuses on finding a wife for Yitzchak, which based on his analysis (which includes Baba Basra 141a, Bereshis Rabba 60, and Tosefta Bechoros chapter 6) that a wifeless father should usually find a wife for himself before concerning himself with his son finding a wife, unless he has already fulfilled the mitzvah of פרו ורבו. Therefore, the only way Avraham could concern himself with finding a bride for Yitzchak is if he, in fact, had a daughter as well – thus there is good reason to believe he had a daughter, even though the text makes no mention of one. 

 As noted here Seforno is of the opinion, based on Divrei HaYamim I 1:28 that Avraham only had two sons, Yishmael and Yitzchak, and that the 6 children of Keturah (ibid 1:32 and Bereshit 25:2) were hers from a previous union. Seforno describes Avraham as “raising her children” as he compares the situation to Michal bat Shaul being credited with giving birth to 5 children to Adriel (her sister’s husband) (Shmuel II 21:8), while a different verse tells us Michal never had children (Shmuel II 6:23)! Just as she raised her sister’s children that she didn’t birth, Avraham raised Keturah’s children that he did not father. 

 Before we even get to chapter 25 in Chayei Sarah, however, we are told at the beginning of chapter 24 that וה' ברך את אברהם בכל – God blessed Avraham בכל (typically translated as “with all” or “with everything”). The blessing of כל is a strange language, because it is highly unspecific. Obviously Avraham was not gifted all the wealth of the world. He couldn’t have been given “everything.” Perhaps it could mean he was given all he needed. Ibn Ezra notes he was given long life, wealth, honor, children – which is what makes for a “complete” life. Ramban expands on that noting that all he was missing was grandchildren so he put the steps in order to find a bride for his son. 

 Rashi notes that the word בכל has a numerical value (gematria) of 52, which is the same as בן, a son. This would imply that having Yitzchak is a fulfillment of the blessing being described. 

 The Talmudic discussion on this verse (Baba Batra 16b – an expansion of the passage noted above by Rabbi Epstein) is recorded by Ramban and Rabbenu Bachaye, and while the Talmud goes on to give other interpretations of what Avraham was blessed with, we’ll focus on the discussion surrounding how the blessing of בכל relates to children: Rabbi Meir says the blessing of כל is that he did not have a daughter. Rabbi Yehuda says he did have a daughter. Acherim said he had a daughter and her name was בכל (Bakol). 

 Ramban explains their thinking. Rabbi Meir understood that had there been a daughter she’d have to be married to the cursed Canaanites. And even were she to find a husband from his homeland, she’d undoubtedly only find herself attached to idolators, since the woman would follow the husband’s lead, and so Avraham was complete in not having a daughter, because of the challenges that would have posed to her at that specific time in history. Rabbi Yehuda felt he nonetheless had a daughter, because that is the complete blessing for parents, to minimally have a son and a daughter. Acherim gave her a name, based on the verse. 

 To quote Rabbenu Bachaye, “Ramban explained the deeper meaning [of Acherim’s interpretation], and expanded upon it far more than necessary…” 

Rabbenu Bachaye explained Acherim’s perspective in this way: They’re not teaching us whether he had a daughter or didn’t have a daughter. It’s not talking about a physical matter. It is a matter of the soul or spirit. 

 Based on Kabbalah, Avraham achieved a “middah” (quality) that is called כל, and anyone who achieves that is blessed in heaven and earth. When Acherim said he had a בת, what they meant was he had a quality, based on the word בת in the verse which describes the measurement of the Temple’s washbasin - אלפים בת יכיל – which means it contained two thousand measures. He had a “middah” (בת), and its name was בכל, and its from the larger blessing of הכל which God gave him. בת references the Bet Din of God. When it says וה' ברך, rather than ויברך ה' (two different ways of suggesting God blessed…) it refers to a kind of spiritual gift, rather than a physical one. 

 As he notes, however, Ramban expands upon this significantly, noting the following (translation from Sefaria, which is the translation of Rabbi Chavel). Even though Rabbenu Bachaye says he overdid it, it’s worth looking at. 

“Acheirim established a new interpretation on this verse, a very profound matter, and they explained with it one of the secrets of the Torah. Thus they said that the word bakol hints at a great matter, namely, that the Holy One, blessed be He, has an attribute called Kol (All), so called because it is the foundation of everything. It is with reference to this attribute that it says, I am the Eternal that maketh ‘Kol’ (all). And this is also what Scripture says, And the profit of the earth is ‘bakol’ (in all), that is to say, the profit of the earth and the abundant goodness that is bestowed upon all that come into the world is on account of this attribute Kol. It is the eighth attribute of the thirteen attributes. And there is another attribute called bat [literally “daughter”] that emanates from it, and with it He moves everything. This is “the Court of the Holy One, blessed be He,” that is hinted at in the word, Vahashem (And the Eternal), in all places. It is called kalah (bride) in the book of The Song of Songs because it is comprised of hakol (the All), and it is this attribute which the Sages have surnamed Knesseth Yisrael (the assembly of Israel) in many places because it is the gathering of hakol (the All). It was this attribute which was to Abraham as a bat (בת) because he was the man of kindness, and he conducted himself in accordance with it. This was why Acheirim said that this blessing with which Abraham had been blessed in all things does not allude either to his having begotten a daughter from his wife Sarah, as Rabbi Yehudah said, or not, as Rabbi Meir claimed, but instead it hints at a great matter, i.e., that he was blessed with an attribute called bat (בת) which is contained in the attribute Kol, and is therefore also called Kol, being analogous to the expression, For My name is in him. Thus Abraham was blessed in heaven and on earth. This is why he said, By the Eternal, the G-d of heaven and the G-d of the earth.” 

Owing to there really being no evidence in the text or the narrative of the Torah of Avraham having a daughter, and the likelihood that it was the Bris Milah, and the Bris Milah alone, which allowed for Avraham to have a single child with Sarah, and afterwards that same possibility dwindled, with Avraham being described as having aged, the view that the Talmud’s presentation of a בת meaning something other than a daughter, as kabbalistically explained by Ramban, makes a lot of sense. So why would R Yehuda or Acheirim even make the suggestion? Perhaps they thought people would understand the reference, and that the בת in question was a symbol of the experience of the lifetime of Avraham Avinu. 

We can certainly chime in on the debate as to whether Avraham had a daughter. If he did, for all purposes she is lost to our history. Either way, nothing changes, except the question of whether Avraham fulfilled his mitzvah of פרו ורבו. Since whether people have children is in God’s hands, the Talmudic sentiment of whether one fulfilled the mitzvah is not about a number of children, or how many males or females. It is rather best answered with one of the questions noted in the Talmud Shabbos 31a as to what a person will be asked at the heavenly tribunal – “Did you involve yourself in reproducing?” In other words, “Did you marry and try? Did you make an effort?” The Talmud is not saying one will be asked “What was your result?” 

Because, after all, the effort is in the human realm. But the Talmud (Niddah 31a) notes there is a third partner in the creation of a human being, God. And arguably, God is the deciding factor. 

For Avraham and Sarah, they certainly involved themselves, and they were singularly blessed with Yitzchak at a very late stage of life through a very serious intervention by God. Whether or not there was a daughter, they could admirably answer the question of “Did you involve yourself…” with a resounding “Yes. We made the effort, and the rest was in God’s hands.”

Doing Righteousness and Justice - Learning from Sodom

Parshat Vayera 

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Parshas Noach usually raises the question of what Noach’s “righteousness” was – in his generation only? Would he have been considered righteous in a different time period? – and the comparison is often made to Avraham, who defended wicked people. 

The Torah does not report on Noach advocating on behalf of the people of his time, nor does it present him as trying to get others to turn or return to God. 

Avraham advocates on behalf of the people of the five cities – Sodom, Amora, Admah, Tzvoyim, Bela (Tzo’ar). And he clearly walks around the land calling out in God’s name, letting the people know of the existence of God. 

 The many stories the Torah tells us of Avraham indicate a man who is prominent, at times wealthy, who communicates with outsiders (not co-religionists), who cannot be ignored. 

 One of the more telling moments of this is when Avimelekh, who had an unfortunate run-in with Avraham after taking Sarah to his home (in chapter 20), later comes to Avraham to make a peace treaty after the birth of Yitzchak (end of chapter 21). Perhaps the best argument, which is advanced by Chizkuni and others, is that now that Avraham has a child, and therefore will leave an heir and a legacy, he can’t be ignored as a fly-by figure. He too has a future. 

This is likely what inspired Daas Zekenim to record the following insight in God’s “deliberation” over whether to share what He is about to do to Sodom with Avraham. The way the Torah depicts it, as the angels are leaving Avraham’s home to head towards Sodom to save Lot from the pending destruction, and to initiate the destruction of Sodom, God says “Will I hide from Avraham that which I am going to do? And Avraham is to become a great and mighty nation, and through him all the nations of the land will be blessed. I know about him that he will instruct his children and his household after him, that they will keep the word of God to do righteousness and justice.” (18:17-19) 

Daas Zekenim records the following: 

 [God was saying] “… were Avraham to not be having a child in the future, I would not reveal to him the judgment of Sodom. What merit is there in telling him of their judgment if he is not going to have a child to whom he can impart the lesson? But Avraham will become a great nation… and I know about him…. And therefore I will tell him about Sodom, for I know that on account of the reckoning that the wicked will undergo, Avraham will instruct his descendants to guard the path of God, and to do righteousness and justice.” 

This tells us not only that God “believed” the promise He had given Avraham, but that He was counting on the sincerity of Avraham’s convictions. Knowing Avraham as God knew Avraham, clearly the messaging was that Avraham was the kind of person who could look at objective evil, take stock of the situation, and decide what to learn from everyone, and what to not learn from everyone. 

More than anything, Avraham will teach his children to learn the lesson from what happened to Sodom, and how all efforts he made on their behalf came to naught. 

What did Sodom do wrong? 

• They were רעים וחטאים לה' מאד – they were very evil and sinful to God 
• They were nasty to guests 
• They had no respect for their judges 
• They verily and readily practiced Sodomy (which is obviously named for them) 
• Throw on top of that all the terrible things they were guilty of which is not in the text of the Torah. 

 God is sure that the path Avraham will teach his children is of righteousness and justice. He has already demonstrated how to bring guests into his home. Avraham has the greatest respect for the שפט כל הארץ, the ultimate Arbiter and Judge in the universe. 

 After advocating on their behalf, Avraham came to the realization that if there aren’t even a minyan worth of decent people in the cities, then there’s not a chance for Torah teachings or Godly principles to prevail. More than that, because the destruction of Sodom will become so embedded in his mind, he will instruct his children so they never fall prey to that kind of behavior, and they’ll always go in the opposite direction of the behavior of the people of Sodom. 

This, therefore is our challenge: 

Whether from our own readings or from other perceptions, we must be able to weed through the good and the bad. Maybe a lot of it is obvious, but sometimes we don’t notice what is taking us away from our goals and our important Godly pursuits. [Think of just about every form of media...]

Avraham knew goodliness is worth saving if it is supported by numbers. One of the beautiful aspects of being part of a Jewish community is that ideally we all have lovely people we can look to and admire. Far more than ten people! 

We can also look to see how others relate to their fellow man and either emulate that (assuming it is good behavior!) or take the lesson of how not to relate to others. For instance, being rude, obnoxious, confrontational, yelling in public – all of these are not good traits. When we see them, our job is to distance from those traits all while preaching, teaching, and modeling the opposite! 

Not everyone has children – so this is not about what we are sharing or choosing to share with the next generation. But it is about seeing that EACH OF US is a child of Avraham. 

Our takeaway from this narrative is that each of us is meant to live a life modeled by that which Avraham stood for. If we do our main job properly, we are indeed fulfilling that which God said about Avraham and his descendants. “We live a life following the dictates of righteousness and justice.”

Bondage Makes For the Greatest Bond of the Ages

Parshat Lekh Lekha

by Rabbi Avi Billet

One of the great conundrums we face in understanding the history of our people, going back to Avraham Avinu, is why there was a need for exile? If God wanted Avraham’s descendants to inherit the land He gifted to our forefathers, why not just have it start with the birth of Yitzchak, with some kind of blueprint that as the family grows, they will spread further and further from the center, ultimately occupying the whole land, as promised? 

Perhaps it does not take too much imagination to see that things don’t necessarily work that way. Even in the recent election we saw how Americans have very different ideas as to what direction the country should be headed (to use a bland cliché). Even after only 250 years, the “United” country seems very “divided” over a number of issues. There is a Constitution, which some look at as the founding document behind which all future laws must be scrutinized. Others see it as a living document which was good in its time but needs to be rewritten for the realities of our times. 

The parallel is actually not very good, because truth be told, the US Revolution from England and the ratification of the Constitution is more parallel to the Exodus and the giving of the Torah (obviously – with all the differences of peoplehood and the Torah’s Divine source). But there is what to be said about the similarities of anyone being able to become an American, and everyone being able to become a Jew – provided certain civic responsibilities (all mitzvos for the Jew!) are affirmed and ideally adhered to. 

The Bnei Avraham (later Bnei Yisrael) would have been one large tribe that had spread across the land, but would not have much in common save their shared ancestry. 

So, on a simple level, they needed to have a shared experience of hardship (the degree would be in the hands of their oppressors to decide how far they’d take it), and then have the shared experience of the Exodus, followed by Revelation at Sinai, cementing a shared set of values that would become eternal, and that would define our people throughout history. 

So why did Bnei Yisrael have to go to Egypt? Couldn’t this have happened somewhere else? Perhaps not as oppressive? It is obvious that the promise made to Avraham that “Your descendants will be strangers in a strange land where they will be oppressed and enslaved for 400 years” refers to this exile. But the degree of slavery is not included in the promise. And even the strange land is not identified! So why did it have to come about in this specific way? 

Abravanel rejects a number of suggestions as to why they went down to Egypt, such as “a punishment to Avraham” or “to prime their hearts to be ready to receive the Torah” instead favoring that God told Avraham about it because God sees the future, and the venture down to Egypt was completely a measure for measure response to the brothers and Yaakov for their treatment of Yosef. The way Yosef gets down to Egypt and becomes the viceroy is all so clearly Hashgachas Hashem (God divinely orchestrating), in Abravanel’s eyes, as he proceeds to outline: 

 “It makes more sense to attach the ‘reason’ to the tribes, Yaakov’s sons, because the Torah testifies about them that they sinned a terrible sin on account of their sinat chinam (baseless hatred) of their brother Yosef. This includes their planning to kill him when he was simply looking to seek out their welfare, their throwing him in a pit, and their selling him to Egypt. And even if Reuven wasn’t at the sale, he participated in the hatred, and even advised. Later he said “We are guilty over our brother, in that we saw the suffering of his soul when he pleaded to us, and we did not listen. This is why this difficulty [referencing hot the Egyptian potentate Yosef was treating them] has come upon us.” (42:21) Since they all sinned, proper justice is that they should receive their punishment. And since they sinned with Egypt, in selling Yosef to be a slave there, they were deserving of themselves being stricken in Egypt, [eventually] becoming slaves there, them and their children and grandchildren, for many year, just as Yosef was exiled there, along with his children and descendants. 

Since they cast Yosef (שהשליכו) into the pit, their children were cast into the river היאורה ישליכוהו. Because on their account Yosef went down to Egypt, it was on his account that they all came down to the exile in Egypt. Since it was while they were shepherding sheep that Yosef visited them and they did their vile deed, the sheep were used as the excuse for why they had to come down to Egypt “For there is no pasture for our sheep in Canaan.” (47:4) 

Of course, Yosef was also to blame for becoming haughty over his dreams. But Yaakov also sinned through giving Yosef a special cloak (causing jealousy), and in sending Yosef to check on the welfare of the sheep, all while knowing that his brothers hated him.

This is why Yaakov and Yosef were included in the punishment of exile, since they were not blameless, however, since their sin was more negligence, they didn’t suffer as much as everyone else.” 

To summarize why the family of Yaakov (Bnei Yisrael) ultimately ended up in Egypt:

 • Sinas Chinam against Yosef

 • Plans to kill him when he is seeking their peace

 • Throwing him in a pit

 • Selling him as a slave to Egypt

 • Having no empathy for the position they put him in

 • Measure for measure

     o They cast Yosef in the pit, their sons were cast in the Nile

     o They sold him as a slave to Egypt so they became slaves to Egypt

   o Because their deed happened while taking care of sheep, sheep would be their main concern bringing them down to Egypt

 • Yaakov and Yosef put a “stumbling block” before the blind by sending Yosef to Shchem – into the lion’s den of hatred. While they all went down... Yaakov and Yosef alone merited that their remains were brought up to Canaan (while the text does not indicate anything similar happened to the remains of the brothers, the rabbis indicate all were brought out – see, for example Makkos 11b) 

Perhaps one can suggest that ultimately, since the number of years they were in Egypt was 210, that the actual years of slavery were around 120, based on the years of Yosef’s life, and the assumption slavery didn’t start until after the death of Levi. There is also an assumption made that Yosef was in Potiphar’s house for 1 year before he was put in prison, and that he was therefore imprisoned for 12 years, a period far worse than the excellent way he was treated in Potiphar's house. If 10 brothers are in a way responsible for Yosef’s descent to Egypt and eventual imprisonment, and he was in prison for 12 years, then 10x12=120... 10 consecutive sentences of 12 yrs each and you have 120 years of slavery. The 400 years, as noted, begin with the birth of Yitzchak – long before any descent to Egypt, and a number of commentaries claim that the actual Bris Bein HaBsarim took place out of order from how it is presented in the Torah, when Avraham was 70, based on the verses which indicate the Exodus was happening at the conclusion of 430 years (Shmos 12:40-41) 

The descent to Egypt was meant to cleanse the Bnei Yisrael of sin, and to remove from their hearts the kind of hatred that might cause one to sell a brother into slavery. Once the time of the sentence had passed, they were ready to face their destiny and become united as a nation forever through Revelation and receiving the Torah. 

The Torah has defined our people for thousands of years. Along with the covenant, the Torah is the main reason we are still here, after many other nations and empires have disappeared, and it is how we survived when all else was bleak. But it was the experience of exile that paved the path for Teshuvah, and for a nation to survive forever, as promised to Avraham Avinu. 

May we be so worthy to always see the success and growth of the Jewish people through the fulfillment of the Covenant!

Tzohar – Illuminating Where There is Darkness

Parshat Noach

by Rabbi Avi Billet

One of the early instructions given to Noach is to make a “Tzohar” for the Ark. What is Tzohar? While many people are likely familiar with what Rashi says (which we’ll get back to), it is interesting to note that Rashi’s presentation (though he’s really noting different opinions) is not exhaustive. 

The discussion surrounding what Tzohar (spelled צהר) means is based in the question of what the original Hebrew refers to. For example, צהרים refers to the light of midday, as even in modern Hebrew, whether one is לפני (before) the צהרים (in the morning) or אחר (after) the צהרים (afternoon) is a clear distinction in time that is based on High Noon. Does צהר come from צהרים? 

 The Gemara in Sanhedrin 108b says it does! צהר תעשה לתבה, אמר רבי יוחנן: אמר לו הקדוש ברוך הוא לנח: קבע בה אבנים טובות ומרגליות, כדי שיהיו מאירות לכם כצהרים. Rabbi Yochanan explains that God told Noach to take precious stones that would illuminate like the day (צהרים). 

Rashi’s summary notes two views of what צהר means, either a window (as noted) or a precious stone that illuminates – both of which are meant to have us understand that צהר refers to some kind of light source. 

 The second interpretation Rashi mentions is harder to connect to a root word – after all, צהר does not mean a stone! Rabbi Ovadah MiBartenura suggests that the word צהר is equivalent to זהר (which means light, or illumination), based on a very simple principle in Hebrew that allows for equating letters that are formulated using the same part of the mouth – in this case, זסשר"ץ. [Anyone familiar with his style could predict that Rav Shimshon Rephael Hirsch would do the same thing – and he does!] He even extends the interpretation beyond זהר, suggesting that a זהורית is actually the name of a precious stone which illuminates!

Rashi’s summary, however, is not precise, as there are questions which need attention. One window? More? One stone? More (like the Talmud says)? What kind of stone? Is there any significance to the stone? 

To the last question, Targum Yonatan suggests that Noach was told to go to the “Pishon River” (see Bereshis chapter 2) and procure a special stone from there, specifically for the purpose of illuminating. R’ Yaakov Kaminetsky pointed out that this particular river was noted for the special stones that could be found there (2:12) – the Bedolach and the Even HaShoham. 

Midrash Aggadah – like the Talmud – refers to many illuminating stones that would “give light for them like daylight.” The Midrash there also offers a second opinion referring to a single window through which Noach would be able to see what was going on outside. 

 R Levi in the Pesikta offers that it was a window in which he’d hang precious stones (expanding on what we’ve seen until now). When the light illuminated them, he’d know it was daytime; when they were dull, he’d know it was nighttime. (This leaves unclear where the root צהר fits in.) Why he couldn’t just look at the window – without any stones – is not made clear, unless the window was translucent, and not transparent. 

Ibn Ezra notes the possibility that there were a number of stones (the text just doesn’t go into that kind of detail), but he also jumps on the words ואל אמה תכלינה מלמעלה to note that a single stone would have been rather large – 1 cubit by 6 cubits. Noting that the word צהר comes from צהרים (in Tehillim 91, and as we’ve seen), he also opens the door to it coming from יצהר, which means oil, a fuel commonly used for illuminating dark places (to state the obvious). He also rejects the notion that some suggest, namely that the צהר is the opening of the Ark referred to in the same verse. 

 Radak, in noting the three options thus far presented (window, stone, oil), shows a clear preference for the oil interpretation, saying ובאמת הכין נח שמן לנר בהכינו כל צרכיו, under the assumption that a window was otherwise above them (some kind of skylight), which would likely be useless during the 40 darkened days of rain, as well as at night.

Chizkuni also mentions the יצהר (oil) connection, while suggesting (as does Malbim) that any window would have been protected by some overhang, and would have hardly been used to allow light in, but would be used more for allowing the birds to be sent out later on. 

 Ro’sh offers two gematrias, that צהר (295) equals לאור האבן – to the light of a stone (Baal Haturim says this one too, based on the Gemara quoted above). Or that צוהר (spelled with a ו, now 301) equals אור חלון – the light of a window. These are meant to support the opinions Rashi records, while not specifically picking a side. 

 Bringing together all of the opinions noted thus far, Rabbi Baruch HaLevi Epstein, in his Torah Temimah, compares Noach to Lot and his wife, who were told not to turn around on account of their being unworthy of seeing the downfall of the people in Sodom. Similarly, Noach is presumed to be worthy to himself be saved (along with his family) but not to see the wicked of his generation meet their doom. 

 This view follows the opinion of R Yochanan that is דורש לגנאי, that says Noach was only a צדיק in comparison to those of his generation. 

The goal of any illuminating stones would only be to give light to those who are inside. A window would allow (minimal) light in, but would also allow those inside to see what was going on outside. The “minimal” note in the previous sentence is simply because he doesn’t feel that one window would do much, when considering how large the Ark was. Were there an actual window (per that point of view), Torah Temimah writes, there would have been a need for MANY windows, and the notion of the word being used in the singular would be no different from when Yaakov said in the singular (at the beginning of Vayishlach) “I have an ox and a donkey,” or when the Torah describes the plague of frogs, noting that “a frog” came out of the river. 

 It is the insight of Torah Temimah which “opens the window” for our own takehome lesson. 

 The jury is out on Noach as to whether he did all he could or didn’t do enough to save the people of his generation. Surely, their being doomed to die in a flood was God’s choice, but the question is always whether there might have been a chance to reverse God’s decree. We know from the story of Yonah that the people of Nineveh were given that choice and that chance, and they changed their ways to produce an outcome in which they were not destroyed. Could Noach have had that same success? We don’t know, as we don’t know what he did, or whether it could be considered sufficient. 

But we do know that he was told to make a צהר, and virtually everyone agrees that in some form or another, he was instructed to have light in the Ark, and that light was because there is a need to prepare to be able to illuminate the darkness. 

 When we speak of light, and when we refer to darkness, we are not preparing for a flood. But we have to take the instruction given to Noach, and ask ourselves how we are preparing to illuminate. Are we bringing light to those who are experiencing darkness? Are we doing what we need to in order to bring ourselves out of the darkness we are experiencing?

Whether it is support for people suffering in Israel, or those on the ground who can help those in need – that is one kind of light for the darkness. If we are at a standstill in our relationships, taking important steps to rekindle the flame of connection, whether with a spouse, a child, a parent, a sibling – that is bringing light to the darkness. And if it is in our relationship with God which feels stale, bringing in Torah, re-embracing the experience of Tefillah, reading about it, wanting to challenge oneself to rise and to grow, that too is bringing light into darkness. 

Noach was told צהר תעשה – which literally means “You must make the Tzohar.” No one can do it for you, Noach. You must make it happen yourself. 

Surely there are others who are capable and willing to be of help. But ultimately, the Jew knows that our existence is defined by each of us taking personal responsibility for where we are individually headed. A community is an amazing resource! But in the end, אין הדבר תלוי אלא בי means that I must take the bull by the horns, and create my own light – to shine on others, and to illuminate my own path in the road of life.