Parshat Vayetze
by Rabbi Avi Billet
One of the more challenging fact-finding questions we encounter year after year is “how old are the Biblical heroes in the tales which are shared with us?” In some cases the Torah tells us, removing all doubt. We know Avraham was 75 at when he came to Canaan, 86 when Yishmael was born, 99 when he had his bris, 100 when Yitzchak was born and 175 at his death. There are many Midrashic viewpoints as to how old Avraham was when he discovered God. I’ve seen 20-days, 3, 13, 40, 48, 50, 52 years – all as legitimate options. Clearly only one of these can be correct.
Friday, November 20, 2015
Wednesday, November 11, 2015
This Land is NOT your Land, This Land is MY Land
Parshat Toldot
by Rabbi Avi Billet
There are a number of three-word verses in the Torah. Some of them would seem to require no commentary, as only names are mentioned. See, for example, 25:14, when three of Yishmael’s children are listed, “Mishma, Duma, Masa.” 35:24 – “Rachel’s children: Yosef and Binyamin” (four Hebrew words). See also Shmot 1:2-4, when the 11 tribes who descended to Egypt are simply listed.
Fascinatingly, some of the commentaries go off on lengthy expositions of either what to take from the verse or how to understand the three-word verse.
Bereshit 46:23 is a great example: “And the children of Dan: Chushim.”
Another classic is in Yaakov’s blessing to his sons, when he cries out, “I pray that God will help you” – “lishu’atkha kiviti Hashem” (49:18).
In our parsha, we have a seemingly inconsequential verse alerting us to Yitzchak’s settling in the city of Gerar – “Vayeshev Yitzchak B’Gerar.” (26:6) The background to the verse is that Yitzchak seemed to follow his father’s footsteps in settling in Gerar on account of a famine. God affirmed for Yitzchak that the blessing bestowed upon Avraham would be transferred to Yitzchak in his father’s merit. And now he is settling in Gerar, about to use the same rouse that his parents used, declaring himself and his wife to be siblings in order to avoid being killed in anticipation of his wife being taken to King Avimelekh’s harem.
by Rabbi Avi Billet
There are a number of three-word verses in the Torah. Some of them would seem to require no commentary, as only names are mentioned. See, for example, 25:14, when three of Yishmael’s children are listed, “Mishma, Duma, Masa.” 35:24 – “Rachel’s children: Yosef and Binyamin” (four Hebrew words). See also Shmot 1:2-4, when the 11 tribes who descended to Egypt are simply listed.
Fascinatingly, some of the commentaries go off on lengthy expositions of either what to take from the verse or how to understand the three-word verse.
Bereshit 46:23 is a great example: “And the children of Dan: Chushim.”
Another classic is in Yaakov’s blessing to his sons, when he cries out, “I pray that God will help you” – “lishu’atkha kiviti Hashem” (49:18).
In our parsha, we have a seemingly inconsequential verse alerting us to Yitzchak’s settling in the city of Gerar – “Vayeshev Yitzchak B’Gerar.” (26:6) The background to the verse is that Yitzchak seemed to follow his father’s footsteps in settling in Gerar on account of a famine. God affirmed for Yitzchak that the blessing bestowed upon Avraham would be transferred to Yitzchak in his father’s merit. And now he is settling in Gerar, about to use the same rouse that his parents used, declaring himself and his wife to be siblings in order to avoid being killed in anticipation of his wife being taken to King Avimelekh’s harem.
Wednesday, November 4, 2015
Establishing a Rebirth in the Land
Parshat Chayei Sarah
by Rabbi Avi Billet
Every year, Shabbos Chayei Sarah is accompanied by a special Jewish gathering in Hevron, the “City of the Patriarchs.” The source for this epithet is our parsha, in which we find Avraham purchasing the “field, and the cave which is in it” to serve as an “acquisition” and a burial plot for his family.
There is a strange verse which begs for explanation that describes the moment after the purchase is finalized. “Ephron's field in Makhpelah adjoining Mamre arose. [This included] the field, its cave, and every tree in the field, within its entire circumference.” (23:17)
The word which is odd is “arose” – in Hebrew, “Vayakam” – and it appears again in 23:20.
The Midrash Aggadah takes a very literal angle, claiming the land was literally elevated ½ a cubit so it would be recognizably distinguished from the other fields.
One can argue that this is the most plausible explanation. After all, every time the word “Vayakam” appears in the Torah, it means “And he got up.” Usually the person described is going somewhere or heading to do something.
However, since we are talking about a piece of land that is not moving, and despite the Midrash’s creative solution, as there is no indication of an earthquake happening in the Torah at this moment, we have to try to find a more suitable way to explain this word.
by Rabbi Avi Billet
Every year, Shabbos Chayei Sarah is accompanied by a special Jewish gathering in Hevron, the “City of the Patriarchs.” The source for this epithet is our parsha, in which we find Avraham purchasing the “field, and the cave which is in it” to serve as an “acquisition” and a burial plot for his family.
There is a strange verse which begs for explanation that describes the moment after the purchase is finalized. “Ephron's field in Makhpelah adjoining Mamre arose. [This included] the field, its cave, and every tree in the field, within its entire circumference.” (23:17)
The word which is odd is “arose” – in Hebrew, “Vayakam” – and it appears again in 23:20.
The Midrash Aggadah takes a very literal angle, claiming the land was literally elevated ½ a cubit so it would be recognizably distinguished from the other fields.
One can argue that this is the most plausible explanation. After all, every time the word “Vayakam” appears in the Torah, it means “And he got up.” Usually the person described is going somewhere or heading to do something.
However, since we are talking about a piece of land that is not moving, and despite the Midrash’s creative solution, as there is no indication of an earthquake happening in the Torah at this moment, we have to try to find a more suitable way to explain this word.
Thursday, October 29, 2015
Avraham's Menu Planning
Parshat Vayera
by Rabbi Avi Billet
When the three men/angels come to visit Avraham, the Torah describes the food he offers them, bread (18:5), followed by the meal he actually gives them in 18:8. Many of the commentaries note how the Torah doesn’t mention Avraham’s giving them bread, but that does not mean that the cakes he had Sarah prepare, and the bread he promised were not delivered. If he said it, he did it. Radak similarly argues that he surely served them wine, though it isn’t mentioned. [Radak also claims the entire episode is actually a prophesy and not something that really happened.]
Compare this story to 25:34, after Yaakov makes a deal with Eisav and seals it over the soup he agreed to share. The only food discussed is the red “nazid” (stew), but then Yaakov gives bread as well, and Eisav goes on to eat (the bread and the stew), and drink (wine, presumably). Yaakov never discussed bread or any drink. But bread and wine are standard fare at ANY meal in Biblical times.
Why do we need the details of the food he gave them – Chem’ah (butter), Chalav (milk), and calf meat? [Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan records a number of possibilities of what Chem’ah is, including cottage cheese, curd, leben or yogurt, cream.] The midrash claims that angels don’t eat anyway! These angels were faking it!
by Rabbi Avi Billet
When the three men/angels come to visit Avraham, the Torah describes the food he offers them, bread (18:5), followed by the meal he actually gives them in 18:8. Many of the commentaries note how the Torah doesn’t mention Avraham’s giving them bread, but that does not mean that the cakes he had Sarah prepare, and the bread he promised were not delivered. If he said it, he did it. Radak similarly argues that he surely served them wine, though it isn’t mentioned. [Radak also claims the entire episode is actually a prophesy and not something that really happened.]
Compare this story to 25:34, after Yaakov makes a deal with Eisav and seals it over the soup he agreed to share. The only food discussed is the red “nazid” (stew), but then Yaakov gives bread as well, and Eisav goes on to eat (the bread and the stew), and drink (wine, presumably). Yaakov never discussed bread or any drink. But bread and wine are standard fare at ANY meal in Biblical times.
Why do we need the details of the food he gave them – Chem’ah (butter), Chalav (milk), and calf meat? [Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan records a number of possibilities of what Chem’ah is, including cottage cheese, curd, leben or yogurt, cream.] The midrash claims that angels don’t eat anyway! These angels were faking it!
Wednesday, October 21, 2015
Lot's Failures
Parshat Lekh Lekha
by Rabbi Avi Billet
by Rabbi Avi Billet
Lot looked up and saw that the entire Jordan Plain, all the way to Tzoar had plenty of water. (This was before God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.) It was like God's own garden, like the land of Egypt. Lot chose for himself the entire Jordan Plain. He headed eastward, and the two separated. Abram lived in the land of Canaan, while Lot dwelt in the cities of the Plain, having migrated as far as Sodom. But the people of Sodom were very wicked, and they sinned against God. (13:10-13)From one general perspective, Avram’s nephew Lot is considered to be a positive, albeit tragic figure. We give credit to the trait of hakhnosas orchim (welcoming guests) that he learned from his uncle, and the Rabbis believed Lot was eventually a judge in Sodom. There were rules about how Ammon and Moav (Lot’s sons conceived through an incestual relationship) were to be treated by Moshe and the conquering Israelites on account of the familial relationship, which were only cancelled when Moav attacked Israel in Bamidbar 24, as described in Devarim 2:9, as well as the historical note of Sichon having conquered those lands (see Bamidbar 21:26), making them available to Israel to conquer from Sichon.
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
Love Can Overcome Differences
Parshat Noach
by Rabbi Avi Billet
All Harry Potter fans know that Lily Potter gave her life for her son, and what saved his life in his various encounters with the villain of the series (who must not be named) is Love.
The theme of Love was also the savior in Madeleine L’Engle’s “A Wrinkle in Time” when minds and destinies were to be lost and destroyed were it not for love.
I am sure this theme is recast in many forms in countless successful books.
But it seems far removed from the tale of Noach, in a story in which it might have played a critical role.
by Rabbi Avi Billet
All Harry Potter fans know that Lily Potter gave her life for her son, and what saved his life in his various encounters with the villain of the series (who must not be named) is Love.
The theme of Love was also the savior in Madeleine L’Engle’s “A Wrinkle in Time” when minds and destinies were to be lost and destroyed were it not for love.
I am sure this theme is recast in many forms in countless successful books.
But it seems far removed from the tale of Noach, in a story in which it might have played a critical role.
Thursday, October 1, 2015
To See vs To Experience: Learning the "Real" Goal in Life
Parshat V'Zot HaBracha
by Rabbi Avi Billet
What is better – to see something in its entirety, or to experience a smaller portion of that entity?
This is the debate which winds itself through the commentaries on Devarim 34, as Moshe’s ascent to Mt Nebo is described and the vision he is given is interpreted.
It is interesting that Moshe is shown places with names of the tribes already assigned. It seems that God was showing him the locations that would be occupied by the specific tribes mentioned by name – they are the outer borders of the land. And the Midrash notes that Moshe was also shown visions of how these lands would be in turmoil before the land would be settled peacefully, and what things would look like when the people are in place, in their homes and living life, under God.
We are told that Moshe saw the entire land. Chizkuni and others note that Moshe saw the entire land, while Yehoshua did not merit to walk along all the places Moshe saw. After all, Yehoshua was unsuccessful in conquering the entire land – it was one of his failures as a leader. And even if he had conquered all the land, would he have walked everywhere?
I have on my table a book called “Wonders of the World” by Sandra Forty. It has pictures of some of the most amazing natural phenomena and man-made structures on Earth. Turning the pages of this book, one marvels over the works of both Creator and man. It is very unlikely that I will see many of these places in person.
Who will be better off? Someone who goes through the expense, and who has the time, to see all of these amazing wonders in person, to touch them and see them in their majesty and glory? Or me, who gets to see them all and marvel over them through the course of 30 minutes by simply turning the hundred or so pages?
It depends on one’s goal. It seems that one of Moshe’s main intentions was to be able to fulfill the mitzvot associated with the Land of Israel. Without being there, some mitzvot never applied to him and he could never fulfill them. On the other hand, maybe he wanted to experience the land that Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov walked, where they had the most special relationship with God.
He could have had many goals.
Yehoshua merited to bring the people into the Land. But his experience was mired with battles and experiences that surely took away from his ability to enjoy the land in the manner Moshe would have liked. To the point, he never accomplished his goal of having the Israelites settle the entire land, and of driving out the enemies that remained a thorn in the Israelites’ side throughout Biblical history.
What is better – a helicopter ride or a drive through? With the former you see the magnitude, the grand scale of everything, while with the latter you are much closer to feeling the space, to identifying with every rock, shrub, tree, blade of grass.
Perhaps comparing experiences is not fair – everything is in the eye of the beholder. For Moshe, that he got to see more than what Yehoshua experienced did not matter. He wasn’t as interested in seeing the entire land as he was in getting closer to God through doing mitzvot.
That is the most important take-away lesson. Certain experiences could be replaced with knowledge and education, such as looking at a coffee table book which has incredible pictures of scenery and landscapes.
The question becomes what we do with our time beyond that? Moshe spent his last moments in quiet contemplation with the Master of the World. He had his helicopter ride, it was over almost as quickly as it begun. And then he experienced the ultimate connection with the Divine.
Yehoshua was in the trenches, living real life, suffering fallbacks and setbacks and never really accomplishing what was meant to be his goal. And yet, he had great moments as well, in the land promised to the forefathers.
Let us not fall into the debate of which is better, for each has its merits. Let us instead aim to challenge ourselves to make the most of our time on earth – no matter what we see, touch or experience – so we can get as close to God as possible.
by Rabbi Avi Billet
What is better – to see something in its entirety, or to experience a smaller portion of that entity?
This is the debate which winds itself through the commentaries on Devarim 34, as Moshe’s ascent to Mt Nebo is described and the vision he is given is interpreted.
It is interesting that Moshe is shown places with names of the tribes already assigned. It seems that God was showing him the locations that would be occupied by the specific tribes mentioned by name – they are the outer borders of the land. And the Midrash notes that Moshe was also shown visions of how these lands would be in turmoil before the land would be settled peacefully, and what things would look like when the people are in place, in their homes and living life, under God.
We are told that Moshe saw the entire land. Chizkuni and others note that Moshe saw the entire land, while Yehoshua did not merit to walk along all the places Moshe saw. After all, Yehoshua was unsuccessful in conquering the entire land – it was one of his failures as a leader. And even if he had conquered all the land, would he have walked everywhere?
I have on my table a book called “Wonders of the World” by Sandra Forty. It has pictures of some of the most amazing natural phenomena and man-made structures on Earth. Turning the pages of this book, one marvels over the works of both Creator and man. It is very unlikely that I will see many of these places in person.
Who will be better off? Someone who goes through the expense, and who has the time, to see all of these amazing wonders in person, to touch them and see them in their majesty and glory? Or me, who gets to see them all and marvel over them through the course of 30 minutes by simply turning the hundred or so pages?
It depends on one’s goal. It seems that one of Moshe’s main intentions was to be able to fulfill the mitzvot associated with the Land of Israel. Without being there, some mitzvot never applied to him and he could never fulfill them. On the other hand, maybe he wanted to experience the land that Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov walked, where they had the most special relationship with God.
He could have had many goals.
Yehoshua merited to bring the people into the Land. But his experience was mired with battles and experiences that surely took away from his ability to enjoy the land in the manner Moshe would have liked. To the point, he never accomplished his goal of having the Israelites settle the entire land, and of driving out the enemies that remained a thorn in the Israelites’ side throughout Biblical history.
What is better – a helicopter ride or a drive through? With the former you see the magnitude, the grand scale of everything, while with the latter you are much closer to feeling the space, to identifying with every rock, shrub, tree, blade of grass.
Perhaps comparing experiences is not fair – everything is in the eye of the beholder. For Moshe, that he got to see more than what Yehoshua experienced did not matter. He wasn’t as interested in seeing the entire land as he was in getting closer to God through doing mitzvot.
That is the most important take-away lesson. Certain experiences could be replaced with knowledge and education, such as looking at a coffee table book which has incredible pictures of scenery and landscapes.
The question becomes what we do with our time beyond that? Moshe spent his last moments in quiet contemplation with the Master of the World. He had his helicopter ride, it was over almost as quickly as it begun. And then he experienced the ultimate connection with the Divine.
Yehoshua was in the trenches, living real life, suffering fallbacks and setbacks and never really accomplishing what was meant to be his goal. And yet, he had great moments as well, in the land promised to the forefathers.
Let us not fall into the debate of which is better, for each has its merits. Let us instead aim to challenge ourselves to make the most of our time on earth – no matter what we see, touch or experience – so we can get as close to God as possible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)