Parshas Chayei Sarah
1. On the verse, “And I came today to the spring, etc.,” Rashi cites the words “And I came today” and explains: “Today I set out and today I arrived; from here we learn that the earth contracted for him.” That is, from the seemingly superfluous wording of the verse “And I came today”—for, at first glance, why does it say “today”?—we derive that Eliezer’s intention was: “Today I set out and today I arrived… the earth contracted for him.”
It has been explained many times that when Rashi writes “from here” (and does not suffice with simply stating the explanation), his intent is to be precise and to exclude: that this matter is learned specifically “from here” and not from some other place earlier (even though, at first glance, one might have thought to learn it from there).
We need to understand, in our case, which “other place” is Rashi excluding by writing “from here the earth contracted for him”?
The source for this Rashi is in Sanhedrin, where it says: “Three for whom the earth contracted: Eliezer, servant of Avraham… as it is written, ‘And I came today to the spring’—to tell you that on that very day he set out.” But in Bereishis Rabbah on our parsha, on the verse “And he arose and went to Aram Naharayim,” it says: “Rabbi Yitzchak said: ‘He was a day old’ (‘On the very day he set out from there, on that very day he arrived at the spring’).” Thus, according to the Midrash, the matter of Eliezer’s miraculous journey is already hinted at in the earlier phrase “And he arose and went to Aram Naharayim,” that his arrival in “Aram Naharayim” was “on the very day” that “he arose and went.”
Accordingly, one might have said that Rashi’s intent in writing “from here the earth contracted for him” is to exclude the opinion of the Midrash, which learns this from the verse “And he arose and went to Aram Naharayim.” The reason for this is also understood: for in the plain meaning of the verse, there is no necessity in “And he arose and went” to say that he traveled miraculously (unlike “here,” where there is a superfluous word—“today”—as above).
However, this explanation is not sufficient, because Rashi only needs to exclude other places when there is reason, in the plain meaning of the verse, to learn this matter from elsewhere. But in our case, from the simple wording “And he arose and went,” there is no implication or necessity that the earth contracted for him—so, at first glance, Rashi does not need to exclude this.
[Especially since the Midrash itself continues: “That is the opinion of Rabbi Yitzchak, but ‘And I came today to the spring’—today I set out and today I arrived,” so it can be said that the Midrash’s intent is that the main proof that the earth contracted for him is from “And I came today”—and from this there is evidence to interpret “And he arose and went” as meaning “he was a day old.”]
2. Afterwards, Rashi continues: “Rabbi Acha said: The conversation of the servants of the Patriarchs is more pleasing before the Omnipresent than the Torah of their descendants, for the section of Eliezer is repeated in the Torah, while many essential laws of the Torah are only given by allusion.”
This is puzzling—what is this idea doing here, in the middle of Eliezer’s words? Seemingly, Rashi should have written this explanation (which refers to the entire “section of Eliezer”) right at the beginning of Eliezer’s words (which are repeated), or at their conclusion. Furthermore, why does Rashi bring it specifically on this verse?
It is even more puzzling: In Bereishis Rabbah, this statement of Rabbi Acha is brought in connection with the beginning of the repetition of Eliezer’s story, whereas Rashi changes this and brings it later, in the midst of the story, on the verse “And I came today, etc.”!
One might explain that Eliezer’s words before this verse (“And I came today, etc.”) are a retelling of Avraham’s words, and therefore it is not so surprising that the Torah repeats them; only with the verse “And I came today, etc.,” where Eliezer begins to recount (and speak) his own story, is it necessary to be precise as to why the Torah repeats (also) this matter—therefore, Rashi answers, “The conversation of the servants of the Patriarchs, etc.”
But aside from the forced nature of this distinction (that the question about the repetition is only on Eliezer’s own words)—in the end, even Eliezer’s earlier words are not (Avraham’s words) but “the conversation of the servants of the Patriarchs,” they are part of Eliezer’s narrative, and Rashi’s plain intent in “the conversation of the servants, etc.” is also about these words, as is clear from his continuation: “for the section of Eliezer is repeated in the Torah,” and it is obvious that the “section” includes also his earlier words.
3. It is also necessary to understand:
a) Even if we say that the main question about the reason for the repetition of the section is on this verse, and therefore Rashi explains it specifically here—still, it is not understood: why does Rashi write this matter as a continuation of his commentary “And I came today… from here we learn that the earth contracted for him,” when this is a separate matter and should have been written as a separate comment? [As we find in many places in Rashi’s commentary on the Torah, that when he explains two separate matters on the same words, his practice is to cite the words of the verse twice, dividing the two matters into two separate headings (since there is no connection between them in their content).]
Some explain that “Rashi is troubled: what does the verse come to teach us by telling us that the earth contracted for him? … One cannot say that this too is to prove that the matter was from G‑d, to give him Rivkah, for since this miracle happened to him, it is not a proof about Rivkah—perhaps there is another maiden in this city whom he will marry; or perhaps it was in the merit of Avraham that the earth contracted for him. Therefore, it must be that even though there is no need to write it and it teaches us nothing, nevertheless it is written in order to teach us that the conversation of the servants of the Patriarchs is dear before the Holy One, blessed be He, as Rabbi Acha says, etc.”
But this answer is difficult, for even if we say that in this miracle (of the earth contracting) there is no “proof about Rivkah” in particular, it is obvious that it openly shows that G‑d made his journey successful in this mission in general—and this was Eliezer’s intent, to prove to Besuel that G‑d was with him and made him successful in everything. How can one say that this “teaches us nothing”?
Especially since this matter is also relevant to the main request regarding Rivkah—Eliezer’s plea, “Do not delay me, for G‑d has made my journey successful,” meaning to take Rivkah without any delay, with the claim “G‑d has made my journey successful,” which, simply, is demonstrated by the fact that G‑d performed for him the miracle of the earth contracting; from this there is proof that there should be no delay in sending Rivkah.
b) Why does Rashi quote the name of the author of the statement—“Rabbi Acha said”? As has been discussed many times, when Rashi brings the name of the author, his intent is to address a question on the matter that could arise for a “sharp student” after careful consideration, and therefore Rashi does not need to answer it explicitly, but only by citing the name of the author of the statement—meaning, the answer is hinted at in the approach (or conduct, etc.) of that Tanna or Amora.
4. It can be said that one point answers the other; that is, Rashi’s precision (mentioned above in section 1) “from here we learn that the earth contracted for him” is what compels the continuation of his commentary, “Rabbi Acha said: The conversation of the servants of the Patriarchs, etc.”
The very repetition (even when it is in detail and at length)—according to the plain meaning of the verse, is not something that is so difficult as to require explanation, for we find many times in the Torah the repetition of a matter, and Rashi does not explain the reason for the repetition every time [as with the account of the creation of Adam, which is told twice in the Torah (once in general terms and once in detail), and Rashi does not explain why it is stated in two places (and the Torah did not write the entire account as one continuous narrative)].
The question arises only in the verse “And I came today,” from which we learn “that the earth contracted for him”: the verse tells us about this miracle, “that the earth contracted for him,” not earlier in its place—when it tells the actual events of Eliezer’s journey to Aram Naharayim (“And he arose and went to Aram Naharayim, etc.”)—but only in Eliezer’s recounting of the events to Besuel.
We must therefore say that the reason is: since this is mainly relevant to Eliezer’s words to Besuel, in which he wanted to prove to him that the matter was from G‑d and that he should not delay the match (as above), therefore it is written and made known that the earth contracted specifically in his recounting here.
But if so, since we see that the verse did not want to tell of this miracle twice, to the extent that it omits it from its place (the telling of the event itself—in order not to have repetition) and tells it only where it is necessary for understanding the matter—this raises a strong question: what is the reason for the lengthiness in the section of Eliezer, which is repeated in the Torah with all its details twice, and it would have sufficed to tell it only once (and certainly more so than the telling of a miracle)?
This is what Rashi explains: “And I came today, etc.—from here we learn that the earth contracted for him (and not earlier in its place).” And to the learner’s question—if so, why is the entire story repeated?—Rashi continues with the answer: Rabbi Acha said, “The conversation of the servants of the Patriarchs is more precious, etc., for the section of Eliezer is doubled in the Torah, while many fundamental laws of the Torah are only given by hint.”
5. However, a “sharp student” could ask: this itself requires explanation—why were many fundamental laws of the Torah only given by hint, and not explicitly and at length (especially since it is obvious that giving fundamental laws only by hint can lead to mistakes in understanding the halachah, etc.)?
The answer to this question is hinted at by Rashi in his citing the author of the statement—Rabbi Acha:
On the verse “And you shall speak of them” (regarding words of Torah), Rabbi Acha expounds: “‘And you shall speak of them’—make them fixed and do not make them temporary.” But this requires explanation: what is Rabbi Acha teaching us? Is this not an explicit Mishnah: “Shammai says, make your Torah fixed”?
We can explain this as follows:
The main intent of the Mishnah is regarding the constancy of time and in relation to work—that most of a person’s day should be dedicated to Torah study and not to work. This is “make your Torah fixed,” that a person’s work should be “temporary,” as the Rambam puts it: “Make your Torah fixed and your work temporary.”
However, Rabbi Acha’s innovation is: “Make them fixed and do not make them temporary”—the emphasis of the negation is not in relation to work, but regarding the words of Torah themselves—that one should not make words of Torah into something “temporary.” That is,
It can happen that a person spends much time studying Torah, but the Torah he learns is for him “temporary”—its matters do not become established in his soul, to the point that he quickly forgets them. This is what Rabbi Acha teaches: “Make them fixed and do not make them temporary”—that Torah study must be in a manner that the words become established in a person’s mind, by learning and reviewing each halachah many times until he understands it thoroughly and it is firmly established in his mind and he remembers it well, etc.
From this it is understood that according to Rabbi Acha’s view, there is no difficulty as to why many fundamental laws of the Torah were given only by hint—for according to his view, that there is an obligation to study words of Torah in a manner of “fixedness,” a hint suffices, because through constant study and review, again and again, one will certainly grasp and understand them thoroughly and arrive at the true meaning of the halachah (whereas if the words of Torah are not learned in a fixed manner—even if not by hint—one will learn them only temporarily).
6. However, according to the above—that “the section of Eliezer is doubled” in order to teach the great dearness found in “the conversation of the servants of the Patriarchs”—the question arises in the opposite direction: why was this detail, the miracle of the earth contracting, not also repeated? Moreover, it is “only given by hint” (through a superfluous word in the verse)?
On the level of peshat, this is not a question, because aside from the fact that if this detail too were repeated, it would no longer be possible to deduce the reason for the repetition of the section—furthermore: just as with “fundamental laws of the Torah” that “were only given by hint,” the meaning is not that all fundamental laws were given by hint, but “many fundamental laws”—there are many that were indeed stated explicitly, and even repeated (and obviously, in the study of peshat there is no question as to why these were stated explicitly and those only by hint)—so too, conversely, regarding “the conversation of the servants of the Patriarchs,” the intent is not that the verse comes to repeat every detail of “the section of Eliezer,” for even the repetition of most of the section suffices to emphasize the dearness of “the conversation of the servants of the Patriarchs” (and here too, in the study of peshat, there is no question as to why specifically these details were chosen).
But on the inner level, there is room to be precise: why is it specifically this miracle in the section of Eliezer, which is the most openly miraculous event in this section—not only is it not repeated in the Torah, but moreover, it is “only given by hint” (through a superfluous word in the verse)?
The reason for this can be explained as follows: the miracle of “the earth contracted for him” is especially connected to “the Torah of the children,” and therefore it is specifically given by hint.
7. This can be understood by first prefacing what is explained elsewhere regarding the (inner) reason that many fundamental laws of the Torah were given only by hint. Based on what is explained in the writings of the Tzemach Tzedek on our parsha, there is also the concept of “conversation” on high, so to speak—this refers to the speech of G‑d, through which the world was created (“With ten utterances the world was created”), as in the saying, “He conversed and it came to be.”
The difference above between “conversation” and Torah is as follows:
“Conversation” indicates that G‑d, so to speak, lowers and constricts Himself into the ten utterances in order to create the world through them and to sustain it. From this comes the natural order of the world.
By contrast, Torah is above the world, as our Sages say that Torah preceded the world, and from it comes the miraculous conduct of G‑d, which overrides the order of nature. [This is reflected in the precise wording “There is nothing new under the sun,” meaning that only “under the sun” can there be no innovation in the workings of creation, whereas through Torah, which is “above the sun,” it is possible to effect a new thing in creation.] “Therefore, the Tannaim and Amoraim performed wondrous miracles, such as ‘River, split for me!’ and ‘Zutra revived the dead by weeping’—this was by the power of their Torah.”
This is the reason that many fundamental laws of the Torah were given only by hint—because the essence of Torah is to draw down a “new light” that is above the world, it was therefore given below only in the form of a hint, in the manner of “(enough) for the wise with a hint,” where a very deep concept is conveyed specifically through a hint.
Similarly, this applies to our subject: the miracle of the earth contracting for Eliezer—which was a case of overriding the natural order—was not spelled out in detail in the Torah, but rather only “by hint,” just like the “fundamental laws of the Torah.” [Whereas all the other details of the story of Eliezer, which are spelled out at length in the Torah—even though from them it is clearly seen that G‑d made his way successful in a manner of “You have designated her for Your servant, for Yitzchak”—nevertheless, they did not involve an overriding of the natural order.]
One can say that the reason why, in “the section of Eliezer” (“the conversation of the servants of the Patriarchs”), the miracle of the earth contracting—which is connected to “the Torah of the children”—is included, is as follows: It is explained in various places that the reason for the great dearness of “the section of Eliezer,” to the extent that “the conversation of the servants of the Patriarchs is more beautiful than the Torah of their children,” is because Eliezer’s mission regarding the marriage of Yitzchak and Rivkah was connected to the general concept of the giving of the Torah [as is also hinted at in the giving of “two bracelets… ten gold shekels in weight” to Rivkah, which Rashi explains as “an allusion to the two Tablets… to the Ten Commandments”]; from this it is understood that even within “the section of Eliezer” itself, there must be something of the “new light” that is above the natural order, which is revealed through Torah—and this was in the miracle of the earth contracting.
8. This can be connected with the Baal Shem Tov’s explanation on the verse, as follows: “From the verse ‘And I came today to the spring’ emerges the name of the miracle of the earth contracting.” It is explained in Sefer Avodas Yisrael (by the Maggid of Kozhnitz) that “this is the meaning of Rashi’s words, ‘Today I left and today I arrived; from here we learn that the earth contracted for him’—that is, from these very words in this statement.” That is, “from this very verse itself emerges the name for the miracle of the earth contracting.”
Based on what was explained above, that the miracle of the earth contracting is connected to “the Torah of the children,” it can be said that this is why the name of the miracle of the earth contracting is hinted specifically in this verse (and not earlier, in the verse ‘And he arose and went’): because in the words “And I came today to the spring,” there is an allusion to Torah, as is explained in the Zohar that “the spring of water” in this story alludes to the wellspring of wisdom, the source of Torah. “And this is the meaning of ‘and she descended to the spring’—that she descended to draw the waters of wisdom of Torah, into her pitcher upon her shoulder, etc., and she filled her pitcher—these are the twenty-four books of the Torah.”
It follows that the verse “And I came today to the spring” is connected to the source of Torah itself, and therefore from this verse emerges the name of the miracle of the earth contracting—a miraculous conduct that is above nature.
(From a talk of Shabbos Parshas Chayei Sarah, 5736)