AND ABRAHAM AROSE AND

PROSTRATED HIMSELF TO THE PEOPLE OF THE LAND, TO THE SONS OF HETH. AND HE SPOKE

WITH THEM, SAYING, "IF IT IS YOUR WILL THAT I

BURY MY DEAD FROM BEFORE ME, LISTEN TO ME AND ENTREAT FOR ME TO EPHRON THE SON

OF ZOHAR. THAT HE MAY GIVE ME THE MAKHPELAH

CAVE, WHICH BELONGS TO

HIM, WHICH IS AT THE END OF HIS FIELD; FOR A FULL PRICE LET HIM GIVE IT TO ME

IN YOUR MIDST FOR BURIAL PROPERTY."

(Bereishit 23:7-9)

Kiryat Arba – Four Cubits

One should contemplate upon this parasha, which hints that even if a person's rank is

magnified, and he comes to possess the entire world and all that is in it, (in

the end) he owns nothing but the four cubits of his grave. Abraham was given

the entire Land as a gift, and first he purchased there the Ma'arat

HaMachpeilah, in Kiryat

Arba, which is Hebron.

(Rabbeinu

BeHayey, Bereishit 23: 20).

"…and this is the portion of each person in his world, that he is

buried in the space of his four cubits (kiryat

arba amotav), a hint to

those four cubits left to Abraham after the entire land was given to him as a

gift, in reality, that is all that is left to any human being from all his

greatness and property that he acquires in his lifetime."

(Y. Leibowitz: Sheva Shanim shel Sihot

al Parashat HaShavua,

p. 94).

Massacre in Ma'arat Ha'Makhpela

In the early morning of Purim

day 5754 Dr. Baruch Goldstein, a resident of Kiryat Arba and a physician by profession, entered Ohel Ya'akov in Ma'arat Ha'Makhpela. Suddenly, he

opened fire on the crowd of Muslim worshippers. Twenty-nine people were killed

and tens more injured…

The sin against the sons of

Ishmael son of our father Abraham is only one side of the coin. On the other

side is inscribed a terrible sin against Heaven and against the Torah of

Israel, whose ways are ways of pleasantness and all of whose paths are peace.

Who dares to dress the Torah and its commandments in such cruelty and ugliness?

It became clear that terror can grow not only in Islam, but also in the margins

of Orthodox Judaism, wearing a kippa, and that

not enough has been done amongst those who study and teach Torah to pull out

false thoughts and ideas by their roots…

An anonymous boy from Herzliah participated in the mass funeral held for

Goldstein in Hebron.

He was impressed by the "dedication" of Goldstein and his admirers. In

less than two years Yigal Amir

would continue the awful madness and would shed the blood of the Prime Minister

of Israel.

(Harav Amital, as published in Ve'Eleh Shenot, Nissim Mishal, editor)

Field, Well And House

Yehonatan Chipman

"And Isaac went

24:63)

In this verse, set at the moment before Yitzhak's encounter

with the woman destined to be his bride, we see the figure of a man accustomed

to solitude, to long, quiet walks in the field – perhaps to pray, perhaps to be

alone with his thoughts, or perhaps to simply enjoy the cool, soothing evening

breeze, after the intense heat of a long day in the desert.

The verb la-suah, here

translated "to meditate," may also mean: to converse, to commune, to

pray. The verse plays a role in two rabbinic sayings, both of which

counterpoise Yitzhak to the other two patriarchs. First, a halakhic

sugya in Berakhot

26b discusses the question: What is the origin of the various daily

prayers?

R. Yossi b. R. Hanina said: prayers were introduced by the patriarchs. R Yehoshua b. Levi said: prayers were instituted to

correspond to the daily sacrifices… R. Yossi b. Hanina said: Abraham introduced the Morning Prayer (Shaharit), as is said: "And Abraham rose early

in the morning, to the place where he had stood" (Gen 19:27)… Yitzhak introduced the Afternoon Prayer (Minhah), as is said, "And Yitzhak went out to

commune in the field before evening" (Gen

24:63), and sihah refers to prayer, as

is said, "The prayer of a poor man, when he enwraps himself and pours out

his siah before the Lord" (Ps 102: 1). Yaakov introduced the Evening

Prayer (Arvit), as is said, "and he came

upon (vayifga) the place and slept there"

(Gen 28:11)…

Without entering into a detailed analysis of this passage,

with its various proof texts and the manner in which they are used – a major

discussion in its own right – it seems to me that the central idea underlying

the view that "The Patriarchs introduced prayer" is that prayer is

essentially a personal, inward experience, that came about in a specific

context within the life of each of the fathers, reflecting in one way or

another the unique personality and life-approach of each one of them. This is

so, even when the verses are used, in the final analysis, as examples or

archetypes of prayer to be recited (by all Jews!) at different periods of time

during the course of the day. By contrast, the second view, "Prayers were

introduced to correspond to the sacrifices," emphasizes more strongly the

fixed and ritualistic aspect of prayer, as a service that man most perform

before his Creator, in much the same way as our ancestors offered the daily

offerings upon the altar in the Temple, at fixed times. The fixity of prayer

thus symbolizes the constancy of the Jewish people – and of each individual

therein – in their worshipful standing before God, as a regular part of their

life routine.

In this context, Yitzhak emerges as the mystic among the

three. Abraham is a man of action, but also a man of kindness and generosity,

who turns towards others and asks mercy from God on behalf of others (such as

the people of Sodom),

and who gets up early to stand before God. Yaakov prays in a completely sudden,

spontaneous manner, when he comes upon a place which unexpectedly proves to be

holy. Only in the case of Yitzhak is there a sense of calm, of inner quiet, of "communion"

– of one used to pouring his heart out before God at this time and in this

place, far removed from the voices of other people and from the tumult of busy

life.

In the end, the poskim fixed

the halakhah according to the view of R. Yehoshua b. Levi – namely, that prayer is essentially a

fixed act, a mitzvah to be performed at set times, and that, in practice, even

if kavvanah does not come, one is not

to postpone prayer for that reason. Yeshayahu Leibowitz once remarked that the saying of R. Shimon (b. Yohai) in Pirkei Avot (2.18), "When

you pray, do not make your prayer a fixed thing, but (asking) compassion and

supplication before the Omnipresent," was rejected as a halakhic statement. In point of fact, it seems to me that

today, when there is a certain renewal of what is called "spirituality,"

more than a few people are attempting to emphasize the other aspect and to, so

to speak, to emulate Yitzhak.

A second Talmudic passage (Pesahim 88a) speaks of the three patriarchs in terms of

relating to God in different

kinds of locii:

Rabbi Eleazar said:

What is meant by the verse, "And

many nations will come and say: Come, let us go

up to the mountain

of God,

to the House of the God of Jacob" (Isa 2:3)? Why do they

not say, "the God of Abraham and Yitzhak"? Not like Abraham, who is connected

with a mountain, as is

written "on the mount of the Lord shall He be seen" (Gen 22:14). Not like Isaac, who is connected with a field, as is said, "And

Isaac went out to meditate in the field" (Gen

24:63). Rather, like

Jacob, who is connected with a "house," as is written, "And he

called the name of that place Beth-El (the House of God)" (Gen 28:19).

It seems to me that this dictum may be read as a typology

of different kinds of encounters between man and God or, in the terminology of

academic religious studies, of the "religious experience." "Mountain" conjures up images of transcendence: a high, lofty, mysterious

place, midway between heaven and earth, in which man experiences God as distant, as "Wholly Other," as utterly beyond the ken of

human comprehension. Man, in order to meet God, must first and foremost ascend

far beyond himself. This is the primal experience of the revelation of the One

God, Creator of All, "the master of the palace" – suitable to the

founding experience of Abraham, who discovered the truth of God, according to

the midrash, through profound

reflection upon the nature of the universe. Such an approach is diametrically

approached to the pagan approach of Terah and his

world, who saw numerous divine forces coming into play

within the familiar, everyday world – generally speaking, of nature gods.

The field in

which Yitzhak walked to commune with his God suggests the experience of God's immanence, His omnipresence. He "fills all worlds"; He is "the

Life of Life," found in in every flower and every blade of grass, if

one but knows how to look. This aspect is particularly accessible,

it would seem, in open, natural

settings, far from the noise and

tumult of human society. Yitzhak's

experience is a mystical one, of the type known as "panentheism"

– i.e., that Nature may be identified as being within, and part of God, but

that He is not encompassed by nature, but transcends it: "He is the place

of the world, but the world is not His place" (Bereshit Rabbah 68.9).

This somewhat circuitous, dialectical formulation is important so as to

distinguish the Judaic concept of immanence from pantheism, which borders on

the pagan.

There is something very unique about this experience. A

person requires a special sort of vision in order to perceive these things. Yitzhak's

son Esau was "a man of the field" – this may well have been the

reason for Yitzhak's special love for him – but the latter saw the field in

mundane terms, as a place through which one passed in order to get someplace

else, or as the home of wild animals ready to be hunted – but decidedly not as

a source of religious inspiration, that stimulates a deeper form of seeing and

a sense of God's presence as He who "gives life to all." This was

Yitzhak's critical mistake: he thought that Esau felt the same things he did in

the field –  but

alas, he did not.

What is the meaning of "house," the name that

Jacob saw as suitable for calling upon God? "House" signifies a place

that is well-defined, intended for a special purpose. Not a mountain, which

awakens feelings of awe, suggesting the Infinite; nor a field, open in every

direction, as far as the eye can see; but something modest, human, limited, "homey"

(heimish). The holiness of the Temple, of a synagogue or

study house, is defined by means of the walls or partitions that define its boundaries.

The same holds true for the Sukkah, as it does for a

courtyard or other area in which one is permitted to carry on Shabbat; there is

a concept in halakhah of kedushat

mehitzot. Jacob's "house" was a house

of prayer for all: not only for unique personalities possessing extraordinary

religious sensibilities, but also for amkha – for

ordinary folk and great alike, in the sense of "together, all the tribes

of Israel."

This is perhaps the reason why our gemara

gave preference, in the end, to the "house" of Jacob – above the "high

and lofty mountain" of God, and the immanent Presence felt in the field.

Another, albeit related, interpretation also seems

plausible. The "house" – well-defined, and a very human sort of

habitation – may be seen as symbol for the halakhah

itself. "Once the Temple

was destroyed the Holy One blessed be He has naught in

His world but the four ells of halakhah." And

these four ells are, as is known, the minimal dimensions of the place "occupied"

by an individual (laws of a "place" for Shabbat; met mitzvah,

etc.).

We conclude with the saying of R. Hiyya

bar Abba in Berakhot 31a: "A

person should always pray in a place that has windows, as is said, 'And he

opened windows in it' (Daniel 6:11; cf. its

application as halakhah in Rambam,

Hilkhot Tefillah 5.10;

Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayyim 90.4). True,

the emphasis there is that the window should be specifically directed towards Jerusalem. But it seems to

me that there is another aspect as well: that a person must be open towards the

outside; that even during the hour of prayer there must be an integration of "without"

and "within" – that a person gaze inwardly, praying for his own needs

and those of his closest ones, but that he also have a broader purview, seeing

the needs of the broader community, of the entire Jewish people, and even of

humanity as such.

Rabbi Jonathan Chipman is a

translator by profession, and a scholar in Jewish studies. He writes a weekly

sheet (in English) on the portion of the week and the Haftara,

titled "Hitsei Yehonatan".

(Anyone interested in ordering a sample of subscription can write via email to:

yonarand@internet-zahav.net.)

And Abraham came

living.

It is human nature to first cry privately, and then to publicly

lament, as is written, And the Lord… summoned

to weeping and lamenting (Isaiah 22:12),

but because Abraham had come from a far-away place, and because a large crowd

had already gathered around the house, Abraham first lamented for her publicly.

There is another distinction concerning the deceased and his mourners; if the

demise brought about a change in the mourner's behavior, and his sorrow is

greater than the praise for the deceased himself, then the weeping is primary

and precedes lament. Such is not the case if, on the contrary, the death brings

about breakdown of the mourner's behavior, and his (the deceased's) praise is

greater, then the lament becomes primary, and precedes the weeping. Therefore,

upon the destruction of the temple, The Holy One, Blessed Be He, called for

weeping over the behavior of His world, for it led to disruption in the order

of the Holy Service and many more developments not to His liking – and this

exceeded his lament over the few righteous men who were killed during the

destruction of the Temple, and therefore the text records weeping before

lament. But such was not the case after Sarah's death; her death caused no

change in Abraham's way of life, and Isaac, her son, who was the main

objective, had already matured; and the lament for her was great because of her

prominence, therefore Abraham first lamented her and only later wept for her.

Therefore the (letter) kaf in the word 'livekotah' – 'to weep for her' – is diminished, in

order to teach us that the weeping was but little, but the lament was great.

(Haamek

Davar, Bereishit 23:2)

Why Did Abraham Object

So Strongly to the Canaanite Women?

From the Daughters

of the Canaanites – Lest they say I entered the land through inheritance

and bequest, but I only want it by God's hands, that he give

it to me as a possession.

(Hizkuni 24; 3)

We must recall that

when Abraham rejected the Canaanite women, the people of Aram were also

idolaters. It follows that Canaan's moral

corruption, rather than its strange gods, motivated his decision. Paganism is

in essence an intellectual error that can be corrected. However, moral

corruption takes hold of the whole of a person's being, to the depths of the

soul and the emotions. Here (in Canaan),

Abraham could not hope to find his son a modest and morally pure wife, a wife

who would bring to his home the pearl of nobility and the purity of morals.

(R. Samson Raphael Hirsch, Bereishit

24: 4)

Is It Permissible to Criticize the Actions

of the Righteous?

Rabbi Shmuel bar Nahmani

said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: Three made

improper requests, two were answered properly, and one was answered improperly

– Eliezer servant of Abraham, and Saul ben Kish,

and Yiftah HaGiladi. Eliezer, servant of Abraham, as is written (Bereishit

24) May it be that the

maiden to whom I say: Pray lower your pitcher etc. Even

if she were to be crippled, even blind!? Nonetheless, he was answered

properly, and Rebecca appeared.

(Taanit

4a)

One may not practice divination as do the idolaters, as is written You are not to practice divination. What is

divination? For example, those who say, "Because my bread fell from my

mouth or my staff from my hand, I will not go to such and such a place today

because if I do go, I will not succeed in my affairs" or "Because a

fox passed on my right, I will not leave my house today, for if I go out a

scoundrel will harm me." Or those who hear a bird chirp and say: "It

will be so and not so," "It will be advantageous to so and bad to do

otherwise," and those who say "Slaughter this chicken who crowed at

night", "Slaughter this hen who crowed like a rooster," and so

one who devises omens for himself, "If such and such will happen to me, I

will do so and so, and I will not be harmed," or "I will not do as Eliezer servant of Abraham," and all

similar cases, all this is forbidden, and whoever acts in accordance

with any of the above, is to be flogged.

(RaMBaM,

Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot

Avoda Zara 11:4)

…we follow the opinion of our sages, and do not consider it our task

to be apologists for our great men and women, just as the Word of God, the

Torah itself never refrains from telling us of their errors and weaknesses. If

Rebecca brought it about that Jacob deceived his father, it says unequivocally your

brother came in deceit.

(Rabbi S.R. Hirsch on Bereishit 27:1, Levy translation)

If you enjoy Shabbat Shalom, please consider contributing towards

its publication and distribution.

• Hebrew edition distributed in Israel

  $700

• English edition distributed via email $

  100

Issues may be dedicated in honor of an event, person, simcha, etc. Requests must be made 3-4 weeks in advance to

appear in the Hebrew, 10 days in advance to appear in the English email.

In Israel, checks made out to Oz VeShalom may be sent to Oz VeShalom-P.O.B.

4433, Jerusalem

91043. Unfortunately there is no Israeli tax-exemption for local donations.

US and British tax-exempt contributions to Oz VeShalom may be made through:

New Israel Fund, POB

91588, Washington, DC 20090-1588,

USA

New Israel Fund of Great Britain, 26 Enford Street, London W1H 2DD, Great

Britain

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE NEW ISRAEL

FUND IS NO LONGER ACCEPTING DONATIONS UNDER $100.

PEF will also channel donations and provide a tax-exemption. Donations

should be sent to P.E.F. Israel Endowment Funds, Inc., 317 Madison Ave., Suite 607, New

York, New York 10017 USA

All contributions should be marked as donor-advised to Oz ve'Shalom, the Shabbat Shalom project.

About us

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom is a movement

dedicated to the advancement of a civil society in Israel. It is committed to

promoting the ideals of tolerance, pluralism, and justice, concepts that have

always been central to Jewish tradition and law.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom shares a deep

attachment to the land

of Israel and it no less

views peace as a central religious value. It believes that Jews have both the

religious and the national obligation to support the pursuit of peace. It

maintains that Jewish law clearly requires us to create a fair and just

society, and that co-existence between Jews and Arabs is not an option but an

imperative.

5,000 copies of a 4-page peace oriented commentary on the weekly Torah

reading are written and published by Oz VeShalom/Netivot

Shalom and they are distributed to over 350 synagogues in Israel and are

sent overseas via email. Our web site is www.netivot-shalom.org.il.