CHAMISHOH MI YODEI'A - FIVE QUESTIONS ON THE WEEKLY SEDRAH - PARSHAS PARSHAS VA'YEIRO 5770 - BS"D

2) Ch. 19, V. 24: "Gofris vo'eish" - asks, "Why were these cities destroyed specifically by fire?"

3) Ch. 21, v. 8: "Mishteh godol" - Rashi says that "godol" refers to the guests, that the great people of the generation attended. Rashi lists them as Sheim, Eiver, and Avimelech. We understand that Sheim and Eiver are g'dolim by virtue of their having an academy of Torah study, but how does Avimelech join this elite group?

4) Ch. 21, v. 17: "Ba'asher hu shom" - We are all well acquainted with Rashi's (gemara R.H.) explanation that Yishmoel was judged in his present state, and not for what the future held. How would we explain these words in a "pshuto shel mikra" manner?

5) Ch. 22, v. 4: "Va'yar es haMOKOME mei'rochoke" - Earlier Hashem told Avrohom that he should elevate his son as an "oloh" offering upon one of the mountains that Hashem would show him. If so, why doesn't our verse say "va'yar es hoHOR mei'rochoke?"

ANSWERS:

#1

The Beis Halevi answers that "ofor," dust, may have a bright future, as it may be used to make beautiful earthenware vessels, but its past represents a lowly thing. Hence, Avrohom's modesty regarding the PAST, was expressed with the word "ofor." This corresponds to the Mei Sottah, which is a drink with earth mixed into it. It clarifies if a woman who was suspected of adultery, was guilty of deeds of the PAST. Eifer symbolizes Avrohom's modesty regarding the FUTURE because "eifer," ash has no FUTURE use, but it may have had a past of being something exquisitely beautiful. This corresponds to the Mei Chatos of Poroh Adumoh, a mixture that includes the ashes of a red heifer, which provides purity for the FUTURE, as it removes the impurity of someone who came in contact with a dead person. Avrohom's level of modesty shows that in the past and in the future he is naught. Therefore we have mitzvos helping bnei Yisroel for the past and future.

#2

The Gaon of Ragotchov answers with a Tosefta Sanhedrin 14:1 which proves that a city which has the status of "ir hanidachas," a city where the majority of its adult population has been lured into accepting false gods, has not only the guilty people's possessions destroyed, but also the property of the righteous inhabitants are burned along with everyone else's. The proof is from Lote who escaped the destruction of Sdom but was not allowed to remove his belongings. We see from here, says the Ragotchover Gaon, that Sdom had the status of an "ir hanidachas."

With this he explains a difficult ruling of the Rambam, hilchos avodoh zoroh 4:6. The Rambam says that before an "ir hanidachas" is destroyed, the court sends two Torah scholars to warn the people and attempt to have them repent from their wrong ways. If they repent, they are not judged as an "ir hanidachas," but more leniently, as independent people who have worshipped avodoh zoroh. The Ra'avad strongly disagrees, saying that he found no gemara stating that repentance changes the ruling of the court.

Now that it is established that S'dom is an "ir hanidachas" there is a basis for the Rambam's ruling. The Targum Onkeles on 18:21 "V'im lo, ei'doh'oh" says "v'im toyvin loh es'p'roh," and if they repent, I will not give them this punishment of "kolloh', total annihilation. We see from here that Hashem sent TWO ANGELS to see if they repented. This is the source for the two Torah scholars and that repentance changes the ruling.

Numerous other things fall into place with this Tosefta. In verse 24 we see that Hashem rained sulfur and fire upon S'DOM and AMORAH, but in verse 25, He only turned over the rest of the cities, but did not burn them. This is the source for the ruling that more than two cities are not judged as "o'rei nidachas" at once, as per the mishneh Sanhedrin 2a. Lote escaped, but did not want to once again live with Avrohom. He looked to a nearby community for refuge, but feared that it too might be destroyed. He came upon the idea of Tzoar, assuming it would not be destroyed because (v. 20) "ha'lo MITZOR hee u's'chi nafshi, is it not SMALL, and I will remain alive." What does its being small have to do with being a safe haven? Once again, since he feared the nearby towns would be subject to the same ruling of "ir hanidachas" as Sdom (see Rashi v. 30), he would be safe in a small community, as per the opinion of Rabbi Yonoson in the gemara Sanhedrin 15b that a city with a population of under one hundred cannot become an "ir hanidachas." This opinion is the halachic conclusion of the Rambam hilchos avodoh zoroh 4:2.

Possibly, in the same theme, other points can be added. Rashi in verse 4 says (M.R. 50:5) that the angels spoke to Lote about the status of the city's inhabitants. He responded by saying that the MAJORITY was evil. Since they were sent by Hashem to destroy the city, what place is there for hearing about their level of piety? However, since Targum Onkeles says that verse 21 tells us that repentance would save the city from being destroyed, they had to know the most recent status. This would also explain why Lote told them the MAJORITY of the city is sinful. A majority is needed to have the status of "ir hanidachas."

Another possible point - Since the Rambam rules in hilchos avodoh zoroh 4:4 that more than two cities can be made into "o'rei nidachas" if they are not near each other, why were only two destroyed by fire? Rashi on 19:25 d.h. "Va'yahafoch" brings a Medrash Breishis Rabboh 51:4 that the five (Rashi says four, see Sifsei Chachomim) cities were all built on one rock. Since they were right next to each other, only a maximum of two can be ruled as "o'rei nidachas."

PLEASE NOTE: Although we have mentioned numerous exemptions from becoming an "ir hanidachas," this only means that the inhabitants of the city are not judged with the special "ir hanidachas" rules, such as death by decapitation and their belongings destroyed, but the individuals are still judged as idol worshippers, an offence which carries capital punishment.

#3

Possibly it is because of his greatness in another arena, that of being the king of Gror. Another possible thought might be that since scoffers were saying that Avimelech, and not Avrohom, sired Yitzchok (see Rashi 25:19), it would be totally inappropriate for Avimelech to show his face at a festivity arranged by Avrohom for Yitzchok, had he indeed sired Yitzchok. Avimelech's attendance was a sure sign that he committed no impropriety with Soroh. This effort on the part of Avimelech, a distinguished king, to dispel the negative accusation, put him into the league of the great people of the generation.

#4

The Mahari"l Diskin offers a new interpretation. The Medrash Rabboh says that the distance Hogor removed herself from her dying son (v. 16, "kimtachvei keshes") was a "mil," approximately 3/4 of a mile, slightly over a kilometre. Had the spring of water appeared at her location, she would have had to walk the distance to her son and carry him back, as he was close to death in his sick and dehydrated condition and could not walk. In the interim, he would have died. Hashem was accommodating to the point that he had the spring appear "ba'asher hu shom," at Yishmoel's location, allowing her to go there and give him to drink immediately. (This also explains why "Va'yifkach Elokim es ei'ne'hoh va'tei're b'eir moyim" (v. 19), so that she was able to notice the spring from the distance of a "mil.")

N.B. I don't fully understand this, as she had a vessel (v. 19, cheimes) and filled it before serving him, she could have done the same at her location and then carried it to him. There is the gain of time between carrying an empty vessel over one filled with water, however.

#5

The Medrash Tanchuma at the end of chapter 22 says that when Avrohom came to the designated place he did not see a mountain, but rather a valley. This is why the verse says that he saw a "mokome" and not a "har." Knowing that in the future the Temple would be built upon this location, Avrohom prayed that for the honour of Hashem it should change into an elevation, a mountain. Hashem then commanded the mountains surrounding the valley to combine and become a mountain in the location of the valley, and they complied. This is why the Temple Mount is also called "Har Hamorioh," the mountain of fear, since the mountains surrounding this area did Hashem's bidding to create the temple Mount out of fear of Hashem.

The gemara Avodoh Zoroh 45a says in the name of Rabbi Akiva that there is not a land elevation in Eretz Yisroel that did not have an idol placed upon it. Tosfos d.h. "Kol mokome" says that the gemara Yerushalmi asks, "How then was the Beis Hamikdosh built on the Temple Mount since it was used for idol worship, thus invalidating it for being the location of the Temple?" Tosfos says that the Yerushalmi answers that the location was disclosed through a prophet and obviously was never used for that purpose.

Even though this same gemara derives from Dvorim 12:2 "al hehorim eloheihem" that their gods are on mountains, but the mountains themselves cannot become their gods, i.e. even if a section of earth, mountain, etc. is deified, this does not give it a status of an idol and thus does not bring about a prohibition against deriving benefit from it, nevertheless, this is only regarding people's personal use, but it is still rendered unfit for use for a Sanctuary. (Proshas Drochim) The Chasam Sofer in his responsa O.Ch. #208 writes in the name of his teacher Rabbi Noson Adler that since the Temple Mount was a valley until the Akeidoh, no one placed an idol on that location. Once Avrohom came to sacrifice Yitzchok and it became a mountain, Avrohom was given ownership of the land of Canaan. Thus, even if one were to place an idol on Mount Morioh it would not be detrimental to its status, as per the rule, "Ein odom o'seir dovor she'eino shelo" (P'sochim 90a, Y'vomos 83b, K'subos 59a, Avodoh Zoroh 54b, Z'vochim 114a, Chulin 40b), a person cannot create a prohibition upon something that does not belong to him. This is the intention of King Dovid in T'hilim 132:4,5, "If I will I give sleep to my eyes ......, Until I find MOKOME for Hashem, sanctuaries for the mighty of Yaakov." Dovid was in search of the proper site for the Beis Hamikdosh and knew that all elevated places had been used for idol worship. He was looking for a MOKOME, a non-elevated place, where no idol was ever placed, and not a mountain. Yet he knew that it was only appropriate to build the Beis Hamikdosh on a height as mentioned above from the Medrash Tanchuma. His prayers were answered and the prophet told him the location where Avrohom brought Yitzchok as a sacrifice, which was a MOKOME and had turned into a mountain.

It seems from the words of Rabbi Noson Adler that the point made by the Proshas Drochim mentioned above does not apply to personal property of one person misused by another, and it would not be negated even for use as the communal Sanctuary. One of the Chasidic greats explains that the verse is telling us that Avrohom did not have a powerful spiritual exposure of Hashem's Holy Spirit when he was about to offer Yitzchok. This would have greatly detracted from his test. Instead, there was no special encounter with Hashem, and this is the meaning of "Va'yar es haMOKOME" meaning Hashem, "mei'rochoke," distanced.

A GUTTEN SHABBOS KODESH. FEEL FREE TO DISTRIBUTE BY COPY OR ELECTRONICALLY.

FEEDBACK IS APPRECIATED. TO SUBSCRIBE, KINDLY SEND REQUEST TO: SHOLOM613@ROGERS.COM

See also Sedrah Selections, Oroh V'Simchoh - Meshech Chochmoh on the Weekly Parsha and Chasidic Insights