Vol 20.12 - Chayei Sarah 1        Spanish French Audio  Video

Page79   Page80   Page81   Page82   Page83   Page84   Page85

Translation:

1. In today’s Sidra, the Torah tells us the sum-total of the years of Sarah, Avraham and Yishmael.

• In the beginning of the Sidra it states, “And the life of Sarah was one hundred years and twenty years and seven years."
• At the end of the Sidra - "And these are the days of the years of Avraham's life that he lived: one hundred years and seventy-years and five years”.
• “And these are the years of the life of Yishmael: one hundred years and thirty years and seven years”.

One finds a puzzling thing in Rashi’s comment on the Torah:

Although regarding all three, the word "year" and "Years" are stated, both at the amount of 100, as well as by the amount of 10’s and even in single digits (1’s). Nevertheless, Rashi’s comment is different in each of the verses:

Regarding the years of Sarah, he explains:

"The reason that the word “years” was written after every digit is to tell you that every digit is to be expounded upon individually”.

Therefore, we learn:

“When she was one-hundred years old, she was like a twenty-year-old regarding sin. . And when she was twenty, she was like a seven-year-old as regards to beauty”.

Regarding Avraham, Rashi says:

"When he was one hundred years old, he was as one who is seventy-years old, and when he was seventy-years old, he was as one who is five years old, without sin”.

This means (simply) that one learns (not like Sara, where "every digit is to be expounded upon individually”, that two aspects are learned - without sin and beauty – rather) just one aspect and virtue. Namely, that even at one-hundred years Avraham was (as one who is seventy-years old, and when he was seventy-years old, he was) as one who is five-years old, without sin”.

And regarding Yishmael, Rashi does not at all explain why “the word “years” was written after every digit”!

In the commentators of Rashi there is a lengthy elaboration and debate how to answer the aforementioned changes in Rashi. However, in addition to the various difficulties which are in each of the answers (where this is not the place to elaborate upon them), there is a general question (as discussed, many times):

Because the issue is entirely not simple, so much so, that every commentator has a different reasoning - therefore Rashi, who interprets the verses (also) for a “five-year-old Chumash student", should have made his explanation clear in a way that there should remain no doubt about the intent of his explanation.

One must therefore say that Rashi's intent is clearly understood from the words that Rashi states in his comment, and that it is not necessary to add to it.

2. The explanation of this is:

From that which Rashi states (regarding Sarah):

“The reason that the word “years” was written after every digit is to tell you that every digit is to be expounded upon individually: when she was one hundred years old etc.” -

that from that which “the word “years” was written after every digit”, it proves that "every digit is to be expounded upon individually . . sin . . beauty” - it is self-understood that even afterward regarding Avraham, where also “the word “years” was written after every digit” that each digit “must be expounded upon individually”, and one must learn from it two aspects.

Therefore, it is understood that when Rashi states regarding Avraham, "one-hundred years old as one who is seventy-years old", he means,

(not just an introduction to the teaching - one teaching

(whose conclusion is "one who is seventy-years old as one who is five years old”) without sin",

but rather an addition – after) a separate teaching.

And the reason that Rashi does not interpret, what the teaching of “one hundred years old, as one who is seventy-years old” is, is because the innovation and aspect that concerns why it states “one hundred years old, as one who is seventy-years old” regarding Avraham, is expressly stated in the verse:

When G-d said to Avraham that he will have a son from Sarah, the verse states -

"He said in his heart: "Can a hundred-year-old man have children etc.?” –

He was astonished that he could have a child at the age of 100 years, as Rashi explains there:

"In the days of Avraham, life was already shorter and a waning of strength had set in the world. . who hastened to beget children at the age of sixty and seventy”.

Accordingly, it is understood simply what "one hundred years old as one who is seventy-years old" meant regarding Avraham Avinu.

Although at that time (due to the “waning of strength that had set in the world”) the upper age to have children was up to "seventy-years old " - nevertheless, Avraham did not have a waning of strength (as we see that he begat Yishmael in his 86th year"),

Thus, even at a "one hundred years old" he remained like one who is “seventy-years old”.

(According to this Rashi’s explanation of “Can a hundred-year-old man have children” fits nicely.

 (Not that this is an astonishment - How can he have a child at the age of 100 years? But rather) a “positive assertion” (תמי׳ קיימת), (Note: meaning: of course it will happen). “He said to himself, “Was such kindness done to anyone else, that the Holy One, blessed be He, is doing for me?”)

Whereas regarding Sarah, since "Sarah had ceased to have the way of the women" - for her it was impossible at that time for her to naturally give birth to children".

(and regarding her there had to be the miracle, "Is anything hidden from the L-rd?", in order for her to give birth to Yitzchak.)

(However Sarah thought that even Avraham could not have any children (which is why): "Sarah laughed . . After I have become worn out . . And also, my master is old.”).

According to this, a great question is also answered:

Why does Rashi not address the issue that Avraham sired children (the children of Keturah) more than forty years after Yitzchak's birth, and there is no mention that that this siring was through a miracle"?

The reason is because this is already forewarned in the words "one hundred years old, as one who is seventy-years old". Namely, that regarding Avraham there was not any waning of strength that limited him from having children until seventy-years old. “Weakening strength” had no control (שליטה) over him. Therefore, he had children up to one hundred years old and even much later.

This is similar to the virtue of “without sin". For although the wording is, "one who is seventy-years old, as one who is five years old, without sin", it does not mean that afterward it was, G-d forbid, different. Rather, that he remained all the days of his life without sin.

3. With this distinction between Avraham and Sarah – the differences in Rashi's commentary are also righted:

On the verse, "that Sarah would nurse children" Rashi explains:

"On the day of the feast, the princesses brought their children with them, and she nursed them, for they were saying, “Sarah did not give birth, but brought in a foundling from the street.”

On the verse (at the beginning of Parshat Toldot) "Avraham begot Yitzchak" Rashi states:

"Because the scorners of the generation were saying that Sarah had conceived from Abimelech . . What did the Holy One, blessed be He, do? He shaped the features of Yitzchak’s face to resemble Avraham’s, and everyone attested that Avraham had begotten Yitzchak".

One must understand why regarding Sarah, Rashi says that the princesses (important women) said "Sarah did not give birth", whereas regarding Avraham, he explains that "the scorners of the generation were saying that Sarah had conceived from Abimelech"?

Nor is it understood:

Sarah’s “nursing children" is just a clarification that "Sarah gave birth" (and that the child is not a "foundling”). However, this is not an indication that this is Avraham's child. The princesses could have said (like the scorners of the generation), that "Sarah had conceived from Abimelech", knowing that Avraham is an old man of hundred years?

This puzzlement if even stronger:

In the Talmud, the two aspects are brought in one section:

"Sarah should nurse children? . .All of the nations of the world were gossiping ‘they brought a foundling from the market’ . . What did Avraham, our forefather, do? He went and invited all of the great men of that generation, and Sarah, our foremother, invited their wives. . and she nursed all of these children. And still those people were gossiping and saying to each other: Even if Sarah, at ninety years of age, can give birth, can Avraham, at one hundred years of age, father a child? Immediately, the countenance of Yitzchak’s face transformed and appeared exactly like that of Avraham etc.”

According to the aforementioned it is answered:

The novelty and astonishment of the princesses was, at the very onset, just regarding Sarah. Since she had "ceased to have etc.", it was not possible for her to have children.

Whereas regarding Avraham, seeing that he had sired Yishmael at 86 years old, they no longer were amazed that he could have a child even till 100.

Therefore, even regarding important people, in general – it is not a wonder that “Avraham begot Yitzchak”.

It is just “the scorners of the generation” - who do not care whether the matter is true, and they just seek out a place to promulgate scorn etc. – only they said (and with scoffing), “Sarah had conceived from Abimelech”.

However, G-d wanted to forewarn even “the scorners of the generation”. Therefore, “He transformed Yitzchak’s face similar to that of Avraham. Everyone testified (even the scorners of the generation): “Avraham fathered Yitzchak”.

4. The reason why Rashi does not explain regarding Yishmael,

"One hundred years old, as one who is thirty-years old; and thirty-years as one who is seven-years old”

(Although, even there it states “the word “years” written after every digit”),

is because this is self-understood, according to Rashi‘s explanation in the same section regarding Avraham:

One hundred years old, as one who is thirty-years old – without waning of strength. Thirty-years as one who is seven-years old – without sin (his doing Teshuvah . . with this the verse states that this was already from thirty-years on.

According to this, one must understand Rashi’s explanation at its place:

On the verse “And these are the years of the life of Yishmael, etc.:

Rashi states:

“Why were Yishmael’s years counted? In order to trace (לייחס) through them the years of Yaakov”)

As Rashi immediately explains, that,

“From the years of Yishmael we learn that Yaakov studied in the academy of Eber for fourteen years”).

This means that that by informing us of the number of years of Yishmael, the verse is not coming to state (or to allude to something) regarding Yishmael himself, but rather that this is “in order to trace through them the years of Yaakov”).

Even according to this explanation of Rashi, it is entirely not understood “why the word “years” was written after every digit”?

Therefore, this forces one to say in Rashi’s comment that “why was the word “years” written?” is from the very onset not a question (after the explanation regarding Avraham, as aforementioned).

The question however, is “why were Yishmael’s years counted”, at all? As a five-year-old Chumash student sees, the Torah only tells aspects that are relevant - even not regarding the Tzaddikim Chanoch and Methuselah.

Rashi therefore, answers that this is regarding Yaakov Avinu.

According to this, it is however understood that even with placing “the word “years” after every digit”, the verse does not come (just) to equate Yishmael’s years to each other – (“One hundred years old, as one who is thirty-years old etc.”). For this is just an innovation and (additional) virtue in Yishmael – since the verse, in general, is not regarding Yishmael himself, but rather regarding Yaakov.

The reason that the verse albeit (also) expresses, regarding Yishmael, “the word “years” after every digit”

– where the differentiation between each “digit” of years individually, is, as aforementioned, alluding to a virtue and innovation which was regarding Yishmael in each of the times (hundred, thirty, seven)-

this is

(not in order to equate the years of Yishmael between them) that he possessed these qualities etc., rather, it is)

“In order to trace the years of Yaakov”.

This means, to inform us of the “tracing” (יחוס - the virtues) of Yaakov. The reason that the Torah alludes here regarding Yishmael (his qualities) is to “trace them to . . Yaakov). That one should know regarding Yaakov that his years were quality years (מיוחס׳דיקע). These virtues themselves were by Yaakov in an entirely different manner.

5. The explanation of this is:

The change that happened to Yishmael when he was "one hundred years old" is that he was already a Baal Teshuvah. As Rashi states in his comment that Yishmael repented during the life of Avraham, and Yishmael was eighty-nine years" at the death of Avraham.

Thus, Rashi forewarns us, that notwithstanding that he became a Baal Teshuvah, so much so, that it states regarding him the word “and he expired” (ויגוע) (a word that is only stated regarding Tzadikim), it nevertheless had no relevance (באטרעף) to the righteousness of Yaakov.

The advantage of a "thirty-year old" is - before the time of waning of strength of one who is 60 or 70 years old, as it states – “30 years for strength" (in the language of the Mishnah). As even a five-year old sees in actuality, at the age of 30, the might of a person is at the epitome of strength.

Moreover, regarding Yishmael, being one whose “hand was upon all”, it is understood that at the age of thirty, he was a strong person.

Nevertheless, Yishmael’s might had no comparison to Yaakov's strength, as Rashi comments on the verse:

“Yaakov drew near and rolled the rock off the mouth of the well" - “As one who removes the stopper from a bottle, to let you know that he possessed great strength”.

Notwithstanding that at that time Yaakov was, according to Rashi’s explanation – seventy-seven years old.

The special aspect of a "seven-year-old" is understood from Rashi‘s aforementioned explanation regarding Avraham: “seventy-years old as one who is five years old”, without sin”. Namely, that being a child, he is “without sin”.

One could think that in this detail, it is not applicable to differentiate between Yishmael and Yaakov – that in the context of their being small children “without sin", they are seemingly both equal.

However, the Torah says that also in this, Yishmael has no comparison with Yaakov, for the very being of Yaakov is different from Yishmael, the son of the maidservant. Therefore, no matter what aspect it is speaking of – in each and every detail – Yaakov is completely different, higher than Yishmael.

Therefore "the years of Yishmael were not expounded" (including the virtues that are alluded to in the thrice mentioned "year") . . . rather (only in order to trace/relate them to the years of Yaakov."

M’Sichas Motzai Shabbat Parshat Chayei Sarah 5740