English translation — חיי שרה א

A.

In this week's parshah, the Torah tells the sum total of the years of Sarah,

Abraham and Ishmael: at the beginning of the parshah¹

— "And the life of Sarah was one hundred years and twenty years and seven years"; and at the end of the parshah — "And these are the days of the years of Abraham etc. one hundred years and seventy years and five years"²,

"And these are the years of the life of Ishmael: one hundred years and thirty years and seven years"³.

One finds in this a wonder in Rashi's commentary on the Torah: although for all three the word "year" "years" appears both for the sum of one hundred,

both for the tens and for the units,

Rashi explains differently for each of them:

By the years of Sarah ¹

he explains: "Therefore a year is written in each and every detail to tell you that each one is expounded <b>for itself</b>",

and from this one learns "a hundred like twenty for sin ..

and twenty like seven for beauty";

By Abraham²

Rashi says "a hundred like seventy and seventy like five without sin" - what does it mean

(simply)

that one learns out

(<b>not</b> like by Sarah,

where "each one is expounded <b>for itself</b>",

one learns <b>two</b> matters - without sin and beauty - but)

only <b>one</b> matter and quality⁴,

that also

Being a son of 100, Abraham was

(like a son of 70 and a son of 80)

like a son of 5 "without sin";

And by Ishmael³

Rashi does not explain at all why "it is written a year in every general rule"⁵

Among the commentators of Rashi⁶

there is a great length and give-and-take how to answer the above changes in Rashi - but in addition to the various difficulties that exist in each of the answers

(that there is no place here to elaborate on this),

a <b>general</b> question arises here

(as discussed several times)

Since the matter is not at all simple,

to the extent that each commentator has a different reasoning on it - so Rashi,

who explains the verses

(also)

for a "five-year-old [student] of Scripture"⁷,

should have <b>clearly</b> made his commentary in a manner that no doubt should remain in the intention of his commentary.

One must say that Rashi's intention is clearly understood from the words that Rashi says in his commentary, and it is not necessary to add to it.

2.

The explanation in this:

From that which Rashi says

(by Sarah)

"therefore 'year' is written in every general statement to tell you that each one is expounded by itself: at 100 etc." - so from this⁸

that "'year' is written in every general statement" proves "that each one is expounded <b>by itself </b>etc. for sin etc. for beauty" - is understandable by itself,

that also afterwards by Abraham,

where also by him "year is written in every general statement",

each general statement must be "expounded <b>by itself</b>" and one learns out <b>two </b>matters⁹.

And consequently it is understood,

that when Rashi says by Abraham "at 100 as at 70",

he means thereby

(<b>not </b>merely a beginning of the lesson,

<b>one </b>lesson

(whose conclusion is "at 70 as at 5")

without sin",

but an addition - more)

a <b>separate </b>lesson¹⁰.

And this

What Rashi does not explain,

in what consists the lesson of "a son of 100 like a son of 70",

it is because the novelty and point in which by Abraham was "a son of 100 like a son of 70" is stated <b>explicitly</b> in the verse:

When the Almighty told Abraham,

that he would have a son from Sarah,

the verse says ¹¹

— "And he said in his heart, <b>Shall a child be born to him that is a hundred years old</b> etc." — there was by him a wonder that he could have a child at the age of one hundred years; and as <b>Rashi</b> explains there¹²,

that "in the days of Abraham the years were diminished already and senility came into the world ..

their offspring matured quickly, sons of 60 <b>and sons of 70</b>"¹³.

And accordingly it is understandable &lt;b&gt;simply &lt;/b&gt;in what it was that "a son of 100 is like a son of 70" by Abraham our father: even though that then

(from the aspect of the "weakening of strength in the world")

the age to have children was until "sons of &lt;b&gt;70&lt;/b&gt;" — but the weakening of strength was &lt;b&gt;not &lt;/b&gt;in

Abraham*&lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt;

that he fathered Ishmael at 86 years&lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt;),

that even being a "son of 100&lt;sup&gt;"&lt;/sup&gt;

he remained "like a son of 70"*&lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt;.

And with this it will be sweetened and understood Rashi on "To the one who is a hundred years old, will be born",

(Not that this is a wonder - how can he have a child at a hundred years old - but)

a "wonder that is <b>established</b>",

"He said in his heart <b>Shall I do this kindness to another</b> what the Holy One, blessed be He, does to me"].

But not so Sarah,

Since "it had ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women"¹⁵,

it was for her, according to nature, impossible then to bear children¹⁶

(And by <b>her</b>¹⁷

had to be the miracle¹²

- "Is anything too wondrous for the Lord?"¹⁸

- that by her should be born Isaac)

Only Sarah

thought that even Abraham could not have children¹⁹

- "And Sarah laughed, etc., 'After I am withered, etc., <b>and my lord is old</b>'"²⁰].

On this basis, a great difficulty is also answered - why Rashi does not address the fact that children were born to Abraham

(the children of Keturah²¹),

more than <b>forty years</b> after the birth of Isaac²²,

and it is not mentioned in connection with this that <b>the</b> birth was through a miracle¹²

Because this is already indicated in the words "a son of 100 is like a son of 20",

that by Abraham there was no weakness that limited having children until 20²³,

"weakness" had no dominion over him*²³

- and consequently

he had children at 100 and also much later,

in the manner of the quality of "without sin",

that although the expression is "a son of 20 is like a son of 5 without sin",

it does not mean that afterwards it was, heaven forbid, different,

but that he remained all the days of his life without sin²⁴.

3.

With this distinction between Avraham and Sarah — will also be justified the change in Rashi’s commentaries:

"Sarah nursed children" Rashi explains: "On the day of the feast the noblewomen brought their children with them and she nursed them,

for they were <b>saying</b> Sarah did not give birth but brought a foundling from the market."

On the verse²⁵

On the verse

(At the beginning of parshas Toldos²⁶)

"Avraham begot Yitzchak" Rashi says "because the scoffers of the generation were saying that Sarah became pregnant from Avimelech ..

What did the Holy One, blessed be He, do? He formed etc. and everyone testified that Avraham begot Yitzchak."

One must understand that regarding Sarah, Rashi says that the <b>sharos</b>²⁷

said "Sarah did not give birth,"

and regarding Avraham he explains that

that "the <b>scoffers of the generation</b> would say that Sarah became pregnant from Avimelech"²⁸?

Also it is not understood: that which "Sarah nursed sons" is only a clarification that "<b>Sarah</b> gave birth"

(and the child is not a "foundling"),

this is however not a proof that this is Abraham's child — the noblewomen could have said

(like the scoffers of the generation),

that "Sarah became pregnant from Avimelech"²⁹,

knowing that Abraham is an old man of a hundred years?

The wonder in this is even stronger: in the Gemara³⁰

the two matters are brought in <b>one</b> continuation — "the nursing of children Sarah ..

all the nations of the world were gossiping ..

that they brought foundlings from the market ..

Abraham our father went and invited all the great ones of the generation and Sarah our mother invited their wives ..

and she nursed all of them,

<b>And still they were gossiping</b> and saying: If Sarah at ninety years gives birth, Abraham at one hundred years begets, immediately the features of Isaac's face changed etc."

According to the above, it is answered: The novelty and wonder regarding the matriarchs was initially only concerning Sarah,

since regarding her "it had ceased to be etc." it is not possible to have children; but not so Abraham,

seeing that he had fathered Ishmael at eighty-six years,

was for them no longer a wonder that he could have a child also at one hundred years.

And therefore, even among important people in general, it was no wonder that "Avraham begot Yitzchak"; only the "scoffers of the generation" — to whom it does not matter how the matter truly is and they only seek a place to practice scoffing etc. — only <b>they</b> said

(and with scoffing)

"From Avimelech Sarah became pregnant."

The Almighty, however, wanted to protect even the "scoffers of the generation,"

and therefore "He made the face of Yitzchak similar to Avraham and <b>everyone</b> testified

(even the "scoffers of the generation")

Avraham begot Yitzchak."

4.

The reason why Rashi does not explain by Yishmael "a son of 100 as a son of 30 and a son of 30 as a son of 7"

(Even though there too it says "year in every general rule and general rule")

- is because it is understood <b>by itself</b>,

According to the explanation <b>Rashi</b> in the same continuation "And Abraham came": a son of 100 as a son of 30 - without weakness ³¹

And a son of 30 as a son of 7 - to sin

(Doing his repentance³²

- says thereby with the verse it was already from 30 years onward³³).

Based on this, however, one must understand Rashi's explanation <b>on the spot</b>:

On "And these are the years of the life of Ishmael etc."³

Rashi says: "Why were the years of Ishmael counted? In order to calculate from them the years of Jacob."

(As Rashi immediately explains,

that "from the years of Ishmael we learn that Jacob served in the house of Eber for fourteen years.")

This

means,

that by announcing the number of the years of Ishmael, the verse is not intended to tell

(or hint something)

in relation to <b>Ishmael himself</b>,

but rather this is "in order to calculate from them the years of <b>Jacob</b>."

Also, according to this Rashi, it is not understood at all - "why was a year written in every general principle"?

This compels one to say in Rashi that "why &lt;b&gt;was a year written &lt;/b&gt;etc." is initially not a question

(according to the explanation of Avraham,

as above)

- the question is, however, "why &lt;b&gt;were counted &lt;/b&gt;the years of Yishmael" &lt;b&gt;at all &lt;/b&gt;- as the Ben Chameish LaMikra sees that the Torah relates only matters which are relevant - even not about Chanoch and Metushelach&lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt;

the righteous&lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt;

Rashi answers that this is because of Yaakov Avinu.

According to this, however, it is understood,

that even with adding "a year in every general rule and specific rule" the verse is not about

to <b>compare</b> to each other the years of Yishmael

("a son of 100 like a son of 30 etc.")

- which this is only a wonder and virtue

(additional)

in Yishmael - because the verse <b>in general</b> is not about Yishmael himself,

but regarding <b>Yaakov</b>.

And that which the verse says further

(also)

by Ishmael "changed every general rule" - that the dividing of each "general rule" from the years to itself is as mentioned a hint to a virtue and quality that was by Ishmael in each of the times

(k,

l,

z)

is this

(<b>not</b> in order that one should <b>compare</b> the years of Ishmael, may his memory be for blessing,

that by him were these virtues etc.,

(only)

but)

"in order to attribute in them ..

<b>Jacob</b>"³⁶

: to make known lineage

(virtues³⁷)

Jacob - that which the Torah hints here regarding Ishmael

(his virtues)

is "to attribute in them ..

Jacob" - that one should know that by Jacob are <b>attributed</b> years - these same virtues are by Jacob <b>in a completely different manner</b>.

5.

The explanation in this:

The change that was in Ishmael to "son of K." is that he was already a <b>baal teshuvah</b>.

As <b>Rashi</b> says in his commentary³⁸,

that Ishmael did teshuvah during Abraham's lifetime,

and Ishmael was eighty-nine years old³⁹

at the time of Abraham's death⁴⁰.

And this Rashi guards,

that not looking upon that he was a baal teshuvah,

until that by him stands "vayigva" ⁴¹

(a language that stands only by tzaddikim⁴²),

it has however no relevance regarding the righteousness of Yaakov.

The quality of "ben shloshim" is - before the time of weakening of strength of ben shishim ben shiv'im - "ben shloshim <b>lekoach</b>"

(in the language of the Mishnah⁴³),

and as one sees <b>tangible</b> also a ben chamesh,

that at the age of thirty the strength is in a person in its full force.

And Yishmael,

being moreover such a one that "yado bakol"⁴⁴,

it is understood that at the age of thirty he was a gibor.

And nevertheless, also Yishmael's heroism had no effect against the heroism of Yaakov,

and as Rashi explains on the verse

"And he rolled the stone from the mouth of the well" - "like one who removes the stopper from the mouth of a flask, to inform you that his strength was great",

even though at that time Yaakov was - according to Rashi

- a son of 77 years.

The special aspect of a "son of seven" is understood from the aforementioned Rashi by Avraham - "a son of 70 is like a son of 5, without sin" - that being a minor he is "without sin".

One could think that in this detail it is not possible to distinguish

between Ishmael and Jacob — in the matter of minors "without sin" they are apparently both equal;

The Torah says that even in this⁴⁸

Yishmael has no standing relative to Yaakov,

because the <b>very existence</b> of Yaakov is different from Yishmael,

son of the maidservant⁴⁹,

And consequently, whatever matter is being discussed — in every single detail — Yaakov is <b>entirely</b> different,

higher than Yishmael⁵⁰.

And therefore "the years of Ishmael were not counted

(including the virtues that are hinted at in the 3 times "year")...

(only)

in order to <b>attribute</b> to them the years of <b>Jacob</b>".

(From the sicha of Motzaei Shabbat Parshat Chayei Sarah 5740)