Chayyei Sarah #2: Was the servant of Avraham Eliezer?

In this week's parsha we read extensively of the actions of the servant of Avraham, but are not given his name. Chazal identify him as Eliezer. In part, this is a result of a closed-canon approach - that when encountering an otherwise unknown character in Tanach, we associate him or her with some character we already know of within the canon. {dictionary.com/canon: the books of the Bible officially accepted as Holy Scripture.} Since the only servant of Avraham we know of is Eliezer, it stands to reason that this servant is Eliezer. The alternative is an open-canon approach, in which if some new character occurs we will say he is someone new that we do not encounter elsewhere.

One might be inclined to assume the closed-canon approach is more midrashic, and an open canon more peshat-based. In this case this assumption might not be warranted.

Consider. Bereishit 15:1-4 states:

א אַחַר הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה, הָיָה דְבַר-ה אֶל-אַבְרָם, בַּמַּחֲזֶה, לֵאמֹר: אַל-תִּירָא אַבְרָם, אָנֹכִי מָגֵן לָךְ--שְׂכָרְךָ, הַרְבֵּה מְאֹד.	1 After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying: 'Fear not, Abram, I am thy shield, thy reward shall be exceeding great.'
ב וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָם, ה אלקים מַה-תִּתֶּן-לִי, וְאָנֹכִי, הוֹלֵךְ עֲרִירִי; וּבֶן-מֶשֶׁק בֵּיתִי, הוּא דַּמֶּשֶׂק אֱלִיעֶזֶר.	2 And Abram said: 'O Lord GOD, what wilt Thou give me, seeing I go hence childless, and he that shall be possessor of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?'
ג וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָם--הֵן לִי, לֹא נָתַתָּה זָרַע; וְהִנֵּה בֶן-בֵּיתִי, יוֹרֵשׁ אֹתִי.	3 And Abram said: 'Behold, to me Thou hast given no seed, and, lo, one born in my house is to be mine heir.'
ד וְהִנֵּה דְבַר-ה אֵלָיו לֵאמֹר, לֹא יִירָשְׁךָ זֶה: כִּי-אִם אֲשֶׁר יֵצֵא מִמֵּעֶיךָ, הוּא יִירָשֶׁךָ.	4 And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying: 'This man shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.'

Thus we are told that Avraham's expectation is that דַּמֶּשֶׂק אֱלִיעֶזֶר, who seems to be a servant born in his house.

Why do I say he seems to be a servant? Well, he certainly is not a son of Avraham, for Avraham has no son yet. And the term ben beiti, "one born in my house," seems to be equal to the term yelid bayit. And what is a yelid bayit? Well, consider Bereishit 17:12-13, where Avraham is told to circumcise the members of his household:

יב וּבֶן-שְׁמֹנַת יָמִים, יִמּוֹל לָכֶם כָּל-זָכָר--לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם: יְלִיד בָּיִת--וּמִקְנַת-כֶּסֶף מִכֹּל בֶּן-נֵכָר, אֲשֶׁר לֹא מִזַּרְעֲךָ הוּא.	12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every male throughout your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any foreigner, that is not of thy seed.
יג הִמּוֹל יִמּוֹל יְלִיד בֵּיתְךָ, וּמִקְנַת כַּסְפֶּךָ; וְהָיְתָה בְרִיתִי בִּבְשַׂרְכֶם, לִבְרִית עוֹלָם.	13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised; and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

And in Yirmiyahu 2:14:

יד הַעֶבֶד, יִשְׂרָאֵל--אִם-יְלִיד בַּיִת, הוּא: מַדּוּעַ, הָיָה לָבַז.	14 Is Israel a servant? Is he a home-born slave? Why is he become a prey?

Thus Eliezer seems to be a slave, born to Avraham's house and reaching a prominent position such that he is slated to inherit Avraham.

Then, in Chayyei Sarah, we are told in Bereishit 24:1-2:

א וְאַבְרָהָם זָקֵן, בָּא בַּיָּמִים; וַיהוָה בֵּרַךְ אֶת-אַבְרָהָם, בַּכֹּל.	1 And Abraham was old, well stricken in age; and the LORD had blessed Abraham in all things.
ב וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָהָם, אֶל-עַבְדּוֹ זְקַן בֵּיתוֹ, הַמֹּשֵׁל, בְּכָל-אֲשֶׁר-לוֹ: שִׂים-נָא יָדְךָ, תַּחַת יְרֵכִי.	2 And Abraham said unto his servant, the elder of his house, that ruled over all that he had: 'Put, I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh.

One could assume that the servant one who rules over the entire house would be identical with the one above who was slated to inherit Avraham. He is now an elder of his house since Avraham is at the end of his life and so Eliezer has now been with him for a long time.

But if the servant of Avraham in Chayyei Sarah is indeed Eliezer, why does the Torah not mention it. Why not consistently call him Eliezer? Why "the man" or "the servant?" Would this not suggest that it is in fact a different person?

I offer another question. Why, if it is a different person, is his name not mentioned? At the beginning of the narrative we could have found out the Avraham's servant Baruch was told to seek out a wife for Yitzchak, and then the pesukim could have used Baruch throughout. Instead, throughout we have הָעֶבֶד, "the servant," or הָאִישׁ, "the man."

I think the answer to this lies elsewhere. Consider the beginning of Shemot. In Shemot 2, we read of how "a man from the house of Levi" (אִישׁ, מִבֵּית לֵוִי) took "a daughter {from the house} of Levi" (בַּת-לֵוִי). "The woman" (הָאִשָּׁה) became pregnant and had "a son" (בֵּן). When she could hide him no longer she put "the child" (הַיֶּלֶד) in the bullrushes, and "his sister" (אֲחֹתוֹ) watched from far off. The "daughter of Pharoah" (בַּת-פַּרְעֹה) - {yes, even she has no name!) goes down to the Nile to wash, accompanied by "her maidservants" (וְנַעֲרֹתֶיהָ). She gets "the child" (הַיֶּלֶד) and sees that it is "a boy" (נַעַר) and has mercy on him. "His sister" (אֲחֹתוֹ) asks the "daughter of Pharoah" (בַּת-פַּרְעֹה) if she can get "a woman" (אִשָּׁה) who is a wetnurse. The "daughter of Pharoah" (בַּת-פַּרְעֹה) tells the young girl to go and she goes and fetches "the mother of the child" (אֵם הַיָּלֶד). It continues in this vein.

Later, we find out that it is Moshe, so now we have a name for him. But he grows old and sees an Egyptian hitting an Israelite. Again no names. Moshe kills the Egyptian and hides him in the sand. The next day he sees two Israelites fighting (again no names) and tries to intercede, and one of them asks if he will kill him as he killed the Egyptians. Moshe flees to Midian and dwells be the well. The daughters (no names) of the priest of Midian (no name) face trouble at the hands of the shepherds (no names) and Moshe saves them. Finally, we find (perhaps) that the priest of Midian is named Reuel, and one of his daughters, who marries Moshe, is Tzipporah, and she gives birth to a son, Gershom. But until that point, there is a curious absence of proper nouns. Names are avoided in favor of description of place in society, and where there is no description, there is a pronoun. {Note also that Pharoah is also in fact descriptive rather than a name.}

To show visually where proper nouns could have been (you can find the pronouns for yourself):

א וַיֵּלֶךְ אִישׁ, מִבֵּית לֵוִי; וַיִּקַּח, אֶת-בַּת-לֵוִי.	1 And there went a man of the house of Levi, and took to wife a daughter of Levi.
ב וַתַּהַר הָאִשָּׁה, וַתֵּלֶד בֵּן; וַתֵּרֶא אֹתוֹ כִּי-טוֹב הוּא, וַתִּצְפְּנֵהוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה יְרָחִים.	2 And the woman conceived, and bore a son; and when she saw him that he was a goodly child, she hid him three months.
ג וְלֹא-יָכְלָה עוֹד, הַצְּפִינוֹ, וַתִּקַּח-לוֹ תֵּבַת גֹּמֶא, וַתַּחְמְרָה בַחֵמָר וּבַזָּפֶת; וַתָּשֶׂם בָּהּ אֶת-הַיֶּלֶד, וַתָּשֶׂם בַּסּוּף עַל-שְׂפַת הַיְאֹר.	3 And when she could not longer hide him, she took for him an ark of bulrushes, and daubed it with slime and with pitch; and she put the child therein, and laid it in the flags by the river's brink.
ד וַתֵּתַצַּב אֲחֹתוֹ, מֵרָחֹק, לְדֵעָה, מַה-יֵּעָשֶׂה לוֹ.	4 And his sister stood afar off, to know what would be done to him.
ה וַתֵּרֶד בַּת-פַּרְעֹה לִרְחֹץ עַל-הַיְאֹר, וְנַעֲרֹתֶיהָ הֹלְכֹת עַל-יַד הַיְאֹר; וַתֵּרֶא אֶת-הַתֵּבָה בְּתוֹךְ הַסּוּף, וַתִּשְׁלַח אֶת-אֲמָתָהּ וַתִּקָּחֶהָ.	5 And the daughter of Pharaoh came down to bathe in the river; and her maidens walked along by the river-side; and she saw the ark among the flags, and sent her handmaid to fetch it.
ו וַתִּפְתַּח וַתִּרְאֵהוּ אֶת-הַיֶּלֶד, וְהִנֵּה-נַעַר בֹּכֶה; וַתַּחְמֹל עָלָיו--וַתֹּאמֶר, מִיַּלְדֵי הָעִבְרִים זֶה.	6 And she opened it, and saw it, even the child; and behold a boy that wept. And she had compassion on him, and said: 'This is one of the Hebrews' children.'
ז וַתֹּאמֶר אֲחֹתוֹ, אֶל-בַּת-פַּרְעֹה, הַאֵלֵךְ וְקָרָאתִי לָךְ אִשָּׁה מֵינֶקֶת, מִן הָעִבְרִיֹּת; וְתֵינִק לָךְ, אֶת-הַיָּלֶד.	7 Then said his sister to Pharaoh's daughter: 'Shall I go and call thee a nurse of the Hebrew women, that she may nurse the child for thee?'
ח וַתֹּאמֶר-לָהּ בַּת-פַּרְעֹה, לֵכִי; וַתֵּלֶךְ, הָעַלְמָה, וַתִּקְרָא, אֶת-אֵם הַיָּלֶד.	8 And Pharaoh's daughter said to her: 'Go.' And the maiden went and called the child's mother.
ט וַתֹּאמֶר לָהּ בַּת-פַּרְעֹה, הֵילִיכִי אֶת-הַיֶּלֶד הַזֶּה וְהֵינִקִהוּ לִי, וַאֲנִי, אֶתֵּן אֶת-שְׂכָרֵךְ; וַתִּקַּח הָאִשָּׁה הַיֶּלֶד, וַתְּנִיקֵהוּ.	9 And Pharaoh's daughter said unto her: 'Take this child away, and nurse it for me, and I will give thee thy wages.' And the woman took the child, and nursed it.
י וַיִּגְדַּל הַיֶּלֶד, וַתְּבִאֵהוּ לְבַת-פַּרְעֹה, וַיְהִי-לָהּ, לְבֵן; וַתִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ, מֹשֶׁה, וַתֹּאמֶר, כִּי מִן-הַמַּיִם מְשִׁיתִהוּ.	10 And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh's daughter, and he became her son. And she called his name Moses, and said: 'Because I drew him out of the water.'
יא וַיְהִי בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם, וַיִּגְדַּל מֹשֶׁה וַיֵּצֵא אֶל-אֶחָיו, וַיַּרְא, בְּסִבְלֹתָם; וַיַּרְא אִישׁ מִצְרִי, מַכֶּה אִישׁ-עִבְרִי מֵאֶחָיו.	11 And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown up, that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens; and he saw an Egyptian smiting a Hebrew, one of his brethren.
יב וַיִּפֶן כֹּה וָכֹה, וַיַּרְא כִּי אֵין אִישׁ; וַיַּךְ, אֶת-הַמִּצְרִי, וַיִּטְמְנֵהוּ, בַּחוֹל.	12 And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he smote the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand.
יג וַיֵּצֵא בַּיּוֹם הַשֵּׁנִי, וְהִנֵּה שְׁנֵי-אֲנָשִׁים עִבְרִים נִצִּים; וַיֹּאמֶר, לָרָשָׁע, לָמָּה תַכֶּה, רֵעֶךָ.	13 And he went out the second day, and, behold, two men of the Hebrews were striving together; and he said to him that did the wrong: 'Wherefore smitest thou thy fellow?'
יד וַיֹּאמֶר מִי שָׂמְךָ לְאִישׁ שַׂר וְשֹׁפֵט, עָלֵינוּ--הַלְהָרְגֵנִי אַתָּה אֹמֵר, כַּאֲשֶׁר הָרַגְתָּ אֶת-הַמִּצְרִי; וַיִּירָא מֹשֶׁה וַיֹּאמַר, אָכֵן נוֹדַע הַדָּבָר.	14 And he said: 'Who made thee a ruler and a judge over us? thinkest thou to kill me, as thou didst kill the Egyptian?' And Moses feared, and said: 'Surely the thing is known.'
טו וַיִּשְׁמַע פַּרְעֹה אֶת-הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה, וַיְבַקֵּשׁ לַהֲרֹג אֶת-מֹשֶׁה; וַיִּבְרַח מֹשֶׁה מִפְּנֵי פַרְעֹה, וַיֵּשֶׁב בְּאֶרֶץ-מִדְיָן וַיֵּשֶׁב עַל-הַבְּאֵר.	15 Now when Pharaoh heard this thing, he sought to slay Moses. But Moses fled from the face of Pharaoh, and dwelt in the land of Midian; and he sat down by a well.
טז וּלְכֹהֵן מִדְיָן, שֶׁבַע בָּנוֹת; וַתָּבֹאנָה וַתִּדְלֶנָה, וַתְּמַלֶּאנָה אֶת-הָרְהָטִים, לְהַשְׁקוֹת, צֹאן אֲבִיהֶן.	16 Now the priest of Midian had seven daughters; and they came and drew water, and filled the troughs to water their father's flock.
יז וַיָּבֹאוּ הָרֹעִים, וַיְגָרְשׁוּם; וַיָּקָם מֹשֶׁה וַיּוֹשִׁעָן, וַיַּשְׁקְ אֶת-צֹאנָם.	17 And the shepherds came and drove them away; but Moses stood up and helped them, and watered their flock.
יח וַתָּבֹאנָה, אֶל-רְעוּאֵל אֲבִיהֶן; וַיֹּאמֶר, מַדּוּעַ מִהַרְתֶּן בֹּא הַיּוֹם.	18 And when they came to Reuel their father, he said: 'How is it that ye are come so soon to-day?'
יט וַתֹּאמַרְןָ--אִישׁ מִצְרִי, הִצִּילָנוּ מִיַּד הָרֹעִים; וְגַם-דָּלֹה דָלָה לָנוּ, וַיַּשְׁקְ אֶת-הַצֹּאן.	19 And they said: 'An Egyptian delivered us out of the hand of the shepherds, and moreover he drew water for us, and watered the flock.'
כ וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל-בְּנֹתָיו, וְאַיּוֹ; לָמָּה זֶּה עֲזַבְתֶּן אֶת-הָאִישׁ, קִרְאֶן לוֹ וְיֹאכַל לָחֶם.	20 And he said unto his daughters: 'And where is he? Why is it that ye have left the man? call him, that he may eat bread.'
כא וַיּוֹאֶל מֹשֶׁה, לָשֶׁבֶת אֶת-הָאִישׁ; וַיִּתֵּן אֶת-צִפֹּרָה בִתּוֹ, לְמֹשֶׁה.	21 And Moses was content to dwell with the man; and he gave Moses Zipporah his daughter.
כב וַתֵּלֶד בֵּן, וַיִּקְרָא אֶת-שְׁמוֹ גֵּרְשֹׁם: כִּי אָמַר--גֵּר הָיִיתִי, בְּאֶרֶץ נָכְרִיָּה.	22 And she bore a son, and he called his name Gershom; for he said: 'I have been a stranger in a strange land.'

I think that it is eminently obvious that this avoidance of names in Shemot is a deliberate narrative device. We have a range of pesukim in which people are only identified by their description, followed by Moshe receiving a name, followed by another range of anonymous people who only go by description, followed again by people receiving names.

We can only speculate on the reason for this literary device. I would suggest that Pharoah's daughter encounters an unknown foundling from a strange, unknown culture. She does not know Yocheved, or Miriam, or Amram, or the boy who will be named Moshe. Thus, they are all anonymous, until she adopts Moshe and gives him a name. So too from Miriam's perspective - she is not on a first-name basis with the princess of her maidservants, and they are also unknowns to her, and so they do not get names.

When Moshe grows up, he goes out to see his brothers the Israelites, but he has no relationship to them. He sees some Egyptian he knows not hitting a Hebrew slave, and steps in. Perhaps the fact that he has no relationship with the Israelite (he does not even know his name!) shows the selflessness and power of this act. The same occurs the next day, when he tries to make peace between two fighting Hebrews. They stress that they have no relationship with him that he should be their judge.

When Moshe flees to Midian, he becomes the unknown Egyptian man. And to him, the priest of Midian, and the daughters of the priest of Midian, are just that. Yet he steps up and intervenes in a strange society in which he does not have a part, and saves them from shepherds, who are strangers to him as well.

Reuel, the priest of Midian reciprocates the kindness shown to his daughters, and now Moshe is once again Moshe as opposed to a strange Egyptian, and he marries one of the daughters, who is named Tzipporah, and they have a son who has a name, Gershom. Moshe names his son Gershom, showing how he was (in the past) a stranger in a strange land (Midian), perhaps implying that now he is no longer a strange.

A nice trend throughout is people from an alien culture step up and intervene to do acts of kindness for people who are, after all, strangers, and in many cases develop a relationship such that they are no longer strange foreigners but people with names. Perhaps this is too homiletic to be peshat, but I think it might in fact approach the reason (or one reason) that names are eschewed and then suddenly introduced.

Now, does the fact that Moshe's sister never is named here mean that she is not Miriam? Or that Amram and Yocheved are not named mean that they are in fact other people? Higher Biblical criticism might say yes, but I would doubt it. Rather, viewed from a literary perspective, the lack of names serves a purpose, and that is who Moshe's father, for example, is not called Amram.

{When discussing this on the phone with Eliyahu, he observed that the entire book is called Shemot, "names," yet here it leads off with a story in which people conspicuously do not have names given. Indeed, it is called Shemot because the first perek is a geneological list, giving people's names without giving any story; this leads into a story with (almost) no names. Perhaps this was done to present contrast.}

I would say that the same is true for the story of Avraham's servant. It is not only Eliezer who is not named. It is also the men who are with him. It is also initially Rivka, and at various points her mother, father, brother, and nurse.

א וְאַבְרָהָם זָקֵן, בָּא בַּיָּמִים; וַה בֵּרַךְ אֶת-אַבְרָהָם, בַּכֹּל.	1 And Abraham was old, well stricken in age; and the LORD had blessed Abraham in all things.
ב וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָהָם, אֶל-עַבְדּוֹ זְקַן בֵּיתוֹ, הַמֹּשֵׁל, בְּכָל-אֲשֶׁר-לוֹ: שִׂים-נָא יָדְךָ, תַּחַת יְרֵכִי.	2 And Abraham said unto his servant, the elder of his house, that ruled over all that he had: 'Put, I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh.
ג וְאַשְׁבִּיעֲךָ--בַּה אֱלֹקֵי הַשָּׁמַיִם, וֵאלֹקֵי הָאָרֶץ: אֲשֶׁר לֹא-תִקַּח אִשָּׁה, לִבְנִי, מִבְּנוֹת הַכְּנַעֲנִי, אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי יוֹשֵׁב בְּקִרְבּוֹ.	3 And I will make thee swear by the LORD, the God of heaven and the God of the earth, that thou shalt not take a wife for my son of the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell.
ד כִּי אֶל-אַרְצִי וְאֶל-מוֹלַדְתִּי, תֵּלֵךְ; וְלָקַחְתָּ אִשָּׁה, לִבְנִי לְיִצְחָק.	4 But thou shalt go unto my country, and to my kindred, and take a wife for my son, even for Isaac.'
ה וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו, הָעֶבֶד, אוּלַי לֹא-תֹאבֶה הָאִשָּׁה, לָלֶכֶת אַחֲרַי אֶל-הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת; הֶהָשֵׁב אָשִׁיב אֶת-בִּנְךָ, אֶל-הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר-יָצָאתָ מִשָּׁם.	5 And the servant said unto him: 'Peradventure the woman will not be willing to follow me unto this land; must I needs bring thy son back unto the land from whence thou camest?'
ו וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו, אַבְרָהָם: הִשָּׁמֶר לְךָ, פֶּן-תָּשִׁיב אֶת-בְּנִי שָׁמָּה.	6 And Abraham said unto him: 'Beware thou that thou bring not my son back thither.
ז ה אֱלֹקֵי הַשָּׁמַיִם, אֲשֶׁר לְקָחַנִי מִבֵּית אָבִי וּמֵאֶרֶץ מוֹלַדְתִּי, וַאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר-לִי וַאֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע-לִי לֵאמֹר, לְזַרְעֲךָ אֶתֵּן אֶת-הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת--הוּא, יִשְׁלַח מַלְאָכוֹ לְפָנֶיךָ, וְלָקַחְתָּ אִשָּׁה לִבְנִי, מִשָּׁם.	7 The LORD, the God of heaven, who took me from my father's house, and from the land of my nativity, and who spoke unto me, and who swore unto me, saying: Unto thy seed will I give this land; He will send His angel before thee, and thou shalt take a wife for my son from thence.
ח וְאִם-לֹא תֹאבֶה הָאִשָּׁה, לָלֶכֶת אַחֲרֶיךָ--וְנִקִּיתָ, מִשְּׁבֻעָתִי זֹאת; רַק אֶת-בְּנִי, לֹא תָשֵׁב שָׁמָּה.	8 And if the woman be not willing to follow thee, then thou shalt be clear from this my oath; only thou shalt not bring my son back thither.'
ט וַיָּשֶׂם הָעֶבֶד אֶת-יָדוֹ, תַּחַת יֶרֶךְ אַבְרָהָם אֲדֹנָיו; וַיִּשָּׁבַע לוֹ, עַל-הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה.	9 And the servant put his hand under the thigh of Abraham his master, and swore to him concerning this matter.

Here the servant is not named, but on the other hand neither is the woman. This could be because Avraham does not yet know who the woman is. (Although he had been informed that a daughter had been born to Milcah...)

Perhaps the servant is not named because of selflessness. After all, this was the servant that the pasuk stressed was ruling all that was to Avraham, which the immediately preceding pasuk stressed was a lot. Assuming this is in fact Eliezer, we know that before Yitzchak, he was slated to inherit all that was to Avraham. And now he is being asked to find a wife for his usurper! And a wife usually means children, which means there is no chance of Eliezer inheriting. Yet he swears and does his best to fulfill Avraham's mission. He is thus self-abnegating, and the Torah omits his name to reflect that.

(In an interesting aside, Chazal note that in Eliezer's retelling of the story, when he says אולי, perhaps, the woman will not come, it is written with defective spelling - without the ו, and thus as is written reads "to me." They take this to mean that he is expressing the desire that Yitzchak marry his own daughter. Some note that this is reinforced by the choice of the word אולי as opposed to פן. פן would connote "lest," rather than a more hopeful "perhaps." We can grab part of this derasha and note the weight carried by אלי, "to me," by the person who really was initially going to have it.)

Another possibility for why Eliezer is not mentioned by name is because the role he plays in the story is that of the servant of Avraham, fulfilling Avraham's request with total dedication. Thus a descriptive identifier as the servant of Avraham fits him.

Perhaps, though, the reason is as before, by Moshe. We have a stranger showing up in Nachor , at a well no less (!) and asking for assistance from a girl. He gives her ornaments, and asks after her family. Then, he wants to take the girl back with him. These people do not know him, except in relation to their relative, Avraham. That is the only reason they would possibly send the girl with him through the desert. Thus, he is defined as the man or the servant, as a stranger.

The same is true for the girl. He does not know who she is. She is just the woman who will hopefully marry his master's son. He is a stranger in a strange land. He knows no one there, and turns to the angel Avraham said would accompany him and asks for help, and sets up a test. Rivka comes out and we (though not he) are told her name and the names of members of her family. Note that even though in pasuk 15 Rivka is identified to us, in terms of the narrative she is just a damsel.

יד וְהָיָה הַנַּעֲרָ, אֲשֶׁר אֹמַר אֵלֶיהָ הַטִּי-נָא כַדֵּךְ וְאֶשְׁתֶּה, וְאָמְרָה שְׁתֵה, וְגַם-גְּמַלֶּיךָ אַשְׁקֶה--אֹתָהּ הֹכַחְתָּ, לְעַבְדְּךָ לְיִצְחָק, וּבָהּ אֵדַע, כִּי-עָשִׂיתָ חֶסֶד עִם-אֲדֹנִי.

14 So let it come to pass, that the damsel to whom I shall say: Let down thy pitcher, I pray thee, that I may drink; and she shall say: Drink, and I will give thy camels drink also; let the same be she that Thou hast appointed for Thy servant, even for Isaac; and thereby shall I know that Thou hast shown kindness unto my master.'

טו וַיְהִי-הוּא, טֶרֶם כִּלָּה לְדַבֵּר, וְהִנֵּה רִבְקָה יֹצֵאת אֲשֶׁר יֻלְּדָה לִבְתוּאֵל בֶּן-מִלְכָּה, אֵשֶׁת נָחוֹר אֲחִי אַבְרָהָם; וְכַדָּהּ, עַל-שִׁכְמָהּ.	15 And it came to pass, before he had done speaking, that, behold, Rebekah came out, who was born to Bethuel the son of Milcah, the wife of Nahor, Abraham's brother, with her pitcher upon her shoulder.
טז וְהַנַּעֲרָ, טֹבַת מַרְאֶה מְאֹד--בְּתוּלָה, וְאִישׁ לֹא יְדָעָהּ; וַתֵּרֶד הָעַיְנָה, וַתְּמַלֵּא כַדָּהּ וַתָּעַל.	16 And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her; and she went down to the fountain, and filled her pitcher, and came up.
יז וַיָּרָץ הָעֶבֶד, לִקְרָאתָהּ; וַיֹּאמֶר, הַגְמִיאִינִי נָא מְעַט-מַיִם מִכַּדֵּךְ.	17 And the servant ran to meet her, and said: 'Give me to drink, I pray thee, a little water of thy pitcher.'
יח וַתֹּאמֶר, שְׁתֵה אֲדֹנִי; וַתְּמַהֵר, וַתֹּרֶד כַּדָּהּ עַל-יָדָהּ--וַתַּשְׁקֵהוּ.	18 And she said: 'Drink, my lord'; and she hastened, and let down her pitcher upon her hand, and gave him drink.
יט וַתְּכַל, לְהַשְׁקֹתוֹ; וַתֹּאמֶר, גַּם לִגְמַלֶּיךָ אֶשְׁאָב, עַד אִם-כִּלּוּ, לִשְׁתֹּת.	19 And when she had done giving him drink, she said: 'I will draw for thy camels also, until they have done drinking.'
כ וַתְּמַהֵר, וַתְּעַר כַּדָּהּ אֶל-הַשֹּׁקֶת, וַתָּרָץ עוֹד אֶל-הַבְּאֵר, לִשְׁאֹב; וַתִּשְׁאַב, לְכָל-גְּמַלָּיו.	20 And she hastened, and emptied her pitcher into the trough, and ran again unto the well to draw, and drew for all his camels.
כא וְהָאִישׁ מִשְׁתָּאֵה, לָהּ; מַחֲרִישׁ--לָדַעַת הַהִצְלִיחַ יְהוָה דַּרְכּוֹ, אִם-לֹא.	21 And the man looked stedfastly on her; holding his peace, to know whether the LORD had made his journey prosperous or not.
כב וַיְהִי, כַּאֲשֶׁר כִּלּוּ הַגְּמַלִּים לִשְׁתּוֹת, וַיִּקַּח הָאִישׁ נֶזֶם זָהָב, בֶּקַע מִשְׁקָלוֹ--וּשְׁנֵי צְמִידִים עַל-יָדֶיהָ, עֲשָׂרָה זָהָב מִשְׁקָלָם.	22 And it came to pass, as the camels had done drinking, that the man took a golden ring of half a shekel weight, and two bracelets for her hands of ten shekels weight of gold;
כג וַיֹּאמֶר בַּת-מִי אַתְּ, הַגִּידִי נָא לִי; הֲיֵשׁ בֵּית-אָבִיךְ מָקוֹם לָנוּ, לָלִין.	23 and said: 'Whose daughter art thou? tell me, I pray thee. Is there room in thy father's house for us to lodge in?'
כד וַתֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו, בַּת-בְּתוּאֵל אָנֹכִי--בֶּן-מִלְכָּה, אֲשֶׁר יָלְדָה לְנָחוֹר.	24 And she said unto him: 'I am the daughter of Bethuel the son of Milcah, whom she bore unto Nahor.'
כה וַתֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו, גַּם-תֶּבֶן גַּם-מִסְפּוֹא רַב עִמָּנוּ--גַּם-מָקוֹם, לָלוּן.	25 She said moreover unto him: 'We have both straw and provender enough, and room to lodge in.'
כו וַיִּקֹּד הָאִישׁ, וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ לַה.	26 And the man bowed his head, and prostrated himself before the LORD.
כז וַיֹּאמֶר, בָּרוּךְ ה אֱלֹקֵי אֲדֹנִי אַבְרָהָם, אֲשֶׁר לֹא-עָזַב חַסְדּוֹ וַאֲמִתּוֹ, מֵעִם אֲדֹנִי; אָנֹכִי, בַּדֶּרֶךְ נָחַנִי ה, בֵּית, אֲחֵי אֲדֹנִי.	27 And he said: 'Blessed be the LORD, the God of my master Abraham, who hath not forsaken His mercy and His truth toward my master; as for me, the LORD hath led me in the way to the house of my master's brethren.'
כח וַתָּרָץ, הַנַּעֲרָ, וַתַּגֵּד, לְבֵית אִמָּהּ--כַּדְּבָרִים, הָאֵלֶּה.	28 And the damsel ran, and told her mother's house according to these words.

Thus she is still the damsel, because Eliezer specifically did not know who was family and who has not, and so she is anonymous.

We then are given Lavan's identity, and Eliezer tells over the story. Lavan and Betuel speak by name. But, when they are about to leave, there is another lapse into lack of names:

נג וַיּוֹצֵא הָעֶבֶד כְּלֵי-כֶסֶף וּכְלֵי זָהָב, וּבְגָדִים, וַיִּתֵּן, לְרִבְקָה; וּמִגְדָּנֹת--נָתַן לְאָחִיהָ, וּלְאִמָּהּ.	53 And the servant brought forth jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment, and gave them to Rebekah; he gave also to her brother and to her mother precious things.
נד וַיֹּאכְלוּ וַיִּשְׁתּוּ, הוּא וְהָאֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר-עִמּוֹ--וַיָּלִינוּ; וַיָּקוּמוּ בַבֹּקֶר, וַיֹּאמֶר שַׁלְּחֻנִי לַאדֹנִי.	54 And they did eat and drink, he and the men that were with him, and tarried all night; and they rose up in the morning, and he said: 'Send me away unto my master.'
נה וַיֹּאמֶר אָחִיהָ וְאִמָּהּ, תֵּשֵׁב הַנַּעֲרָ אִתָּנוּ יָמִים אוֹ עָשׂוֹר; אַחַר, תֵּלֵךְ.	55 And her brother and her mother said: 'Let the damsel abide with us a few days, at the least ten; after that she shall go.'
נו וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם אַל-תְּאַחֲרוּ אֹתִי, וַה הִצְלִיחַ דַּרְכִּי; שַׁלְּחוּנִי, וְאֵלְכָה לַאדֹנִי.	56 And he said unto them: 'Delay me not, seeing the LORD hath prospered my way; send me away that I may go to my master.'
נז וַיֹּאמְרוּ, נִקְרָא לַנַּעֲרָ, וְנִשְׁאֲלָה, אֶת-פִּיהָ.	57 And they said: 'We will call the damsel, and inquire at her mouth.'
נח וַיִּקְרְאוּ לְרִבְקָה וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלֶיהָ, הֲתֵלְכִי עִם-הָאִישׁ הַזֶּה; וַתֹּאמֶר, אֵלֵךְ.	58 And they called Rebekah, and said unto her: 'Wilt thou go with this man?' And she said: 'I will go.'
נט וַיְשַׁלְּחוּ אֶת-רִבְקָה אֲחֹתָם, וְאֶת-מֵנִקְתָּהּ, וְאֶת-עֶבֶד אַבְרָהָם, וְאֶת-אֲנָשָׁיו.	59 And they sent away Rebekah their sister, and her nurse, and Abraham's servant, and his men.

Thus others in the story are at various points anonymous. I would posit that there is a narrative device at play here, just as it is by Shemot perek 2, in which people do not have names for a reason.

That does not mean that people are other those who are identified elsewhere. And so, while an open-canon approach is possible here, so is a closed-canon approach. Once we can give a reason for the omission of the servant's name, and show that it is part of a general trend in the story and is so for some literary reason, the argument that if it were Eliezer we would have been told of this loses some of its force.

Chayyei Sarah #1: לוֹ, לוּ, לֹא אֲדֹנִי שְׁמָעֵנִי

An interesting feature of this week's parsha is the creative alternation of לוֹ, לוּ and לֹא (prefaced with the word לֵאמֹר) together with אֲדֹנִי and שְׁמָעֵנִי as well as pasuk breaks to convey different meanings:

ה וַיַּעֲנוּ בְנֵי-חֵת אֶת-אַבְרָהָם, לֵאמֹר לוֹ.

ו שְׁמָעֵנוּ אֲדֹנִי, נְשִׂיא אֱלֹהִים אַתָּה בְּתוֹכֵנוּ--בְּמִבְחַר קְבָרֵינוּ, קְבֹר אֶת-מֵתֶךָ; אִישׁ מִמֶּנּוּ, אֶת-קִבְרוֹ לֹא-יִכְלֶה מִמְּךָ מִקְּבֹר מֵתֶךָ.

י וְעֶפְרוֹן יֹשֵׁב, בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי-חֵת; וַיַּעַן עֶפְרוֹן הַחִתִּי אֶת-אַבְרָהָם בְּאָזְנֵי בְנֵי-חֵת, לְכֹל בָּאֵי שַׁעַר-עִירוֹ לֵאמֹר.

יא לֹא-אֲדֹנִי שְׁמָעֵנִי--הַשָּׂדֶה נָתַתִּי לָךְ, וְהַמְּעָרָה אֲשֶׁר-בּוֹ לְךָ נְתַתִּיהָ; לְעֵינֵי בְנֵי-עַמִּי נְתַתִּיהָ לָּךְ, קְבֹר מֵתֶךָ.

יג וַיְדַבֵּר אֶל-עֶפְרוֹן בְּאָזְנֵי עַם-הָאָרֶץ, לֵאמֹר, אַךְ אִם-אַתָּה לוּ, שְׁמָעֵנִי: נָתַתִּי כֶּסֶף הַשָּׂדֶה, קַח מִמֶּנִּי, וְאֶקְבְּרָה אֶת-מֵתִי, שָׁמָּה.

יד וַיַּעַן עֶפְרוֹן אֶת-אַבְרָהָם, לֵאמֹר לוֹ.

טו אֲדֹנִי שְׁמָעֵנִי, אֶרֶץ אַרְבַּע מֵאֹת שֶׁקֶל-כֶּסֶף בֵּינִי וּבֵינְךָ מַה-הִוא; וְאֶת-מֵתְךָ, קְבֹר.

I suggested last year that we could smooth all of the לוֹ, לוּ, לֹא into a consistent לוּ, since the letters vav and aleph are after all just to denote the presence of a vowel. We would also start each verse with this word לוּ. This would solve the issue of just what Ephron is objecting to in pasuk 11. Each is entreating the other with the polite word לוּ. We would not have to resort to the slightly midrashic approach that he was here trying to give the field to Avraham for free. (After all, just as before, the root נָתַתִּי is used, so why take it to mean "for free.") This would just be the way people speak when legally effecting a sale.

However, now I would say that we should resist the urge to smooth. It seems to be a delightful literary artifice, to use the same near phrase in different contexts and with different pauses inserted to convey different meaning.

I would note something interesting, however, about the לֹא-אֲדֹנִי שְׁמָעֵנִי in pasuk 11. If we look at Targum Yonatan, we see that he actually omits the word לא at the beginning of the verse in his translation, and actually translated is as בבעו, which would mean בבקשה， that is, please, or לוּ. However, when לוּ actually occurs in pasuk 13, he translates it as the wordy ברם אם צבו למעבד עמי טיבו, that is "however, if you want to do good for me." And even though Tg Yonatan seems to read לוּ, later on he inserts the word "as a present," that is, instead of selling it, thus following the midrashic tradition that is certainly based on translating/reading the first word of the pasuk as לא, "No."

+6 ketubot;

הדרן עלך נערה שנתפתתה!
הדרן עלך אף על פי!
הדרן עלך מציאה האשה!
הדרן עלך המדיר את אשתו!
הדרן עלך האשה שנפלו!
הדרן עלך הכותב לאשתו!
(prakim 4-9 of yerushalmi ketubot)

The first recorded instance of גמילות חסדים

Bereishit 24:20:

וַתְּמַהֵר, וַתְּעַר כַּדָּהּ אֶל-הַשֹּׁקֶת, וַתָּרָץ עוֹד אֶל-הַבְּאֵר, לִשְׁאֹב; וַתִּשְׁאַב, לְכָל-גְּמַלָּיו.

:)

The plural of חַבְרוּתָא

I have seen this often enough in speech and text that I felt this deserved a blog post. What is the plural of chavruta? Some say chavrutot, but this is in fact not correct.

The first thing to realize is that חַבְרוּתָא is not Hebrew. The first clue to this would be that it ends in kametz aleph, rather than kametz heh. The kametz aleph ending denotes the definite article in Aramaic. Let us look at some forms of the word חַבְרוּתָא.

Aramaic:
Absolute: חַבְרוּ = friendship
Construct: חַבְרוּת = friendship of
Definite: חַבְרוּתָא = the friendship
Definite plural: חַבְרְוָתָא = the friendships

The plural of the form is formed by changing the vowels, rather than by adding consonants to the word. We can use the definite plural rather than the absolute because in Babylonian Aramaic we often will have the definite ending on a word even when the word is not definite.

To compare, here is a word which has the definite plural form attested to:
Absolute: מַלְכוּ = kingship
Construct: מַלְכוּת = kingship of
Definite: מַלְכוּתָא = the kingship
Definite plural: מַלְכְוָתָא = the kingships

Compare with the Hebrew forms, choosing absolute plural rather than definite since it is more informative.
Absolute: חַבְרוּת = friendship
Construct: חַבְרוּת = friendship of
Definite: הַחַבְרוּת = the friendship
Absolute plural: חַבְרוּיוֹת = friendships

Absolute: מַלְכוּת = kingship
Construct: מַלְכוּת = kingship of
Definite: הַמַּלְכוּת = the kingship
Absolute plural: מַלְכוּיוֹת = the kingships

So even if we are going to choose the Hebrew form to make the plural of chavruta, it should be חַבְרוּיוֹת. After all, we do not say מַלְכוּתוֹת!

In fact, when people say chavruta, it seems to be the wrong word choice, for after all we are not talking about a friendship but a friend/learning partner. Perhaps this is based upon a misunderstanding of a gemara in the seventh perek of Bava Metzia, or in the third perek of Taanit. In Bava Metzia Rabbi Yochanan's mind turned after Resh Lakish died, and Rabbi Yochanan had no one to study with. The Rabbis prayed for him and he died. Thus, as people say, either friendship or death. The one in Taanis is about Choni Hameagel who slept through the Churban Bayit, had no equal, and people did not believe him: לא הימנוהו ולא עבדי ליה יקרא כדמבעי ליה חלש דעתיה בעי רחמי ומית אמר רבא היינו דאמרי אינשי או חברותא או מיתותא.

However, while this is taken to mean "either a friend or death," it likely means "either friendship or death." In constrast, in the 1st perek of Bava Batra, we have אמר רבא היינו דאמרי אינשי או חברא כחברי דאיוב או מיתותא

That is, "either a friend like the friends of Iyyov, or death." Thus, the word to describe a learning partner (/friend) in Aramaic should perhaps be חַבְרָא with the plural חַבְרִין.

There is an interesting post over at Hirhurim about parshat Vayera that I thought I would discuss. Simcha writes, based on a question by Gil Student:

Sarah, Wombs, Hazal and Science

The Torah tells us about Sarah (Bereishis 11:30) "Vatehi Sarah akarah,
ein lah valad - Now Sarai was barren, she had no child." The Gemara in Yevamos 64a-b learns from this verse that not only did Sarah not give birth, she did not have a "beis velad" (uterus) at all.

Bereishis Rabbah 53:5 and 63:5 says that Sarah did not have "ikar mitrin."

This all seems to imply that Sarah did not have a uterus. But if that is the case, how could she have menstruated? Aside from the midrashim that she menstruated (e.g. Bava Metzia 87a), the Torah tells us (Bereishis 18:11) that Sarah had stopped menstruating due to her advanced age, clearly implying that when she was younger she had menstruated. (Cf. Rashi, Bereishis 18:8 that Sarah miraculously regained her menses.) Is this a midrash that contradicts science as we now understand it or can the two be somehow resolved?

R. Yitzhak Weiss (Minhas Yitzhak 1:125:6-7) says that we cannot bring a proof le-halakhah

R. Ovadia Yosef in Yabia Omer vol. 3, Even Ha-Ezer 4:1 says about Sarah, "Therefore the text had to tell us that she did not have a 'beis velad' - she did not have a 'beis velad' at all." This is in implicit disagreement with the Minhas Yitzhak.

Dr. Shaul Weinreb has suggested that "she did not have a uterus" is not meant literally but that she did not have a functioning uterus.

Dr. Eddie Reichman suggested that these midrashim disagree with each other. This does not, however, explain how the midrash seems to contradict an explicit verse.

Dr. Josh Backon suggested that Sarah lacked eggs but had a uterus.

My rabbi, this past Shabbos, suggested that the midrash did not mean that Sarah literally had no uterus. It only meant that in shamayim it was decreed that she be incapable of giving birth. from Sarah because this midrash contradicts the physical reality as we know it. He then suggests that perhaps part but not all of Sarah's uterus was damaged.

I think we have to approach this issue carefully and deliberately, which involves looking not only at the drashot but also the derivations of these drashot from the pasuk.

Let us start with the midrash contradicting an explicit verse. I do not think it is really possible to contradict an explicit pasuk. That is, a pasuk is just an ordered collection of consonants (and vowels) encoded on paper or parchment. According to my definition, a pasuk does not have meaning. Separate from the pasuk is the semantic meaning assigned to and conveyed by the pasuk.

This semantic meaning can be on the level of peshat, derash, or something else. If you think a midrash contradicts an explicit pasuk, it is in truth only contradicting your understanding of the pasuk. The author of the midrash may have had a different understanding of the pasuk in question on a peshat or derash level. (This assumes that the midrash is not erroneous, where the author of the midrash forgot the pasuk.)

In this case, the pasuk actually does seem to have multiple possible meanings. The pasuk, Bereishit 18:11, reads:

וְאַבְרָהָם וְשָׂרָה זְקֵנִים, בָּאִים בַּיָּמִים; חָדַל לִהְיוֹת לְשָׂרָה, אֹרַח כַּנָּשִׁים.
"Now Abraham and Sarah were old, and well stricken in age; it had ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women."

This straightforward reading is as was suggested above. Sarah once menstruated, but (presumably because of age) she experienced menopause. Note the natural rendering of חָדַל as "had ceased" - that is, the pluperfect. Even as the entire narrative takes place in the past, Sarah's menopause happened still earlier. It is "had ceased" rather that "ceased," which would have implied that her menopause would be taking place now in the narrative.

That it is the pluperfect gives way to a midrashic interpretation of the verse (by Ephraim mekasha`a the student of Rabbi Meir, citing Rabbi Meir), based on a troubling context. Earlier, Avraham had asked Sarah to prepare cakes (18:6) yet he does not serve it to them, and in fact serves them other food not mentioned in preparation. The explanation attributed to Rabbi Meir in midrash rabba is that Sarah experienced a menstrual flow while preparing the cakes, making the taharot tame`. Therefore Avraham did not serve the cakes (and provided other food in its stead). Note that the cake discrepency is insufficient to explain all of the details of this midrash. Sure, it explains why the cakes were not brought forth, but the detail of it being because Sarah became a niddah comes from where exactly. (I maintain the position that generally all details of a midrash come from the pesukim.) The answer, to my mind, is perhaps that חָדַל is the pluperfect. Therefore, while her menstruation had ceased in the past, it was not necessarily the case that it was not present now. (I will revise this statement later on.)

The midrash rabba notes that the chachamim actually dispute this derasha, appealing to the principle of kal vachomer. If food whose preparation was not mentioned was served, then certainly the food whose preparation was mentioned explicitly in a pasuk was served! Thus they needn't (though they might still) make any drasha on the pasuk that Sarah became a niddah.

Another possibility of what the drasha of Rabbi Meir is (which I actually think is a bit more likely): While on a peshat level the word חָדַל is in the pluperfect, there is no distinct form in Hebrew to denote pluperfect. It has the same form as the perfect. It is therefore simpler, if we were to ignore context, to read it as the perfect, which means it is something that is happening now in the narrative. Now, the pasuk that states that חָדַל לִהְיוֹת לְשָׂרָה אֹרַח כַּנָּשִׁים precedes her laughter at the angel's remarks, and follows the actual serving of the food. Thus, the pasuk is to be understood thusly: Sarah was having an אֹרַח כַּנָּשִׁים, that is, she was seeing dam niddah. At this point, though, her flow stopped. Not permanantly, mind you, but for this instant. Thus, at no point does the pasuk imply menopause, but rather, it is telling us that she just had an אֹרַח כַּנָּשִׁים. Why? Well, according to Rabbi Meir, this would explain why the cakes were not served.

There is a problem according to Rabbi Meir. How are we to understand Sarah's laughter in the following pasuk. How could she be surprised that she was to have a child, if she just had (miraculously according to the first way I explained it, or naturally according to the second, and I think better, way) an אֹרַח כַּנָּשִׁים?

The midrash rabba actually addresses this issue in its rendering of the pesukim about Sarah's laughter. The pesukim, Bereishit 18:10-12, read:

וַיֹּאמֶר, שׁוֹב אָשׁוּב אֵלֶיךָ כָּעֵת חַיָּה, וְהִנֵּה-בֵן, לְשָׂרָה אִשְׁתֶּךָ; וְשָׂרָה שֹׁמַעַת פֶּתַח הָאֹהֶל, וְהוּא אַחֲרָיו
וְאַבְרָהָם וְשָׂרָה זְקֵנִים, בָּאִים בַּיָּמִים; חָדַל לִהְיוֹת לְשָׂרָה, אֹרַח כַּנָּשִׁים.
וַתִּצְחַק שָׂרָה, בְּקִרְבָּהּ לֵאמֹר: אַחֲרֵי בְלֹתִי הָיְתָה-לִּי עֶדְנָה, וַאדֹנִי זָקֵן.
"And [h]e said: 'I will certainly return unto thee when the season cometh round; and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son.' And Sarah heard in the tent door, which was behind him.--
Now Abraham and Sarah were old, and well stricken in age; it had ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women.
And Sarah laughed within herself, saying: 'After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?'"

The midrash translates Sarah's laughter slightly differently. אַחֲרֵי בְלֹתִי = after I am waxed old. הָיְתָה-לִּי עֶדְנָה: I have ornaments, just as I had when I was young. (The prooftext עֶדְנָה can connote ornaments is in Yechezkel 16:11: וָאֶעְדֵּךְ, עֶדִי; וָאֶתְּנָה צְמִידִים עַל-יָדַיִךְ, וְרָבִיד עַל-גְּרוֹנֵךְ). And I have a veset (idonim); or a zeman. All interpretations of the word עֶדְנָה. However, וַאדֹנִי זָקֵן = my husband is old. As Rabbi Yehuda says (immediately following), Avraham was not able to be polet zera anymore. Thus, she is not laughing about herself - her doubt stems from Avraham. In a famous midrash, the fact that when Hashem recounts Sarah as saying that she, rather than Avraham, is old, was a step taken to preserve Avraham and Sarah's shalom bayit. Thus, the fact that she just saw dam niddah poses no problem, midrashically speaking, to the fact that she laughs.

Now that we know that the midrash considers עֶדְנָה to mean a veset, we have an even better source for the midrash of Ephraim mekasha`a the student of Rabbi Meir. A little extra knowledge is required, and that is that bila, besides meaning "waxing old", also denotes "mixture." There is a famous talmudic principle stated by R Zera (Chullin 83) כל הראוי לבילה אין בילה מעכבת בו וכל שאינו ראוי לבילה בילה מעכבת בו - that even though there is a requirement to mix/stir the mincha's oil. If you do not mix, it is OK, so long as it is possible to mix it. But if it not possible to mix it (say the oil is up to the rim of the vessel), then bilah would present an absolute requirement. Thus, bila = mixing oil with flour.

Now let us reexamine the pasuk. We can translate: וַתִּצְחַק שָׂרָה, בְּקִרְבָּהּ לֵאמֹר: אַחֲרֵי בְלֹתִי הָיְתָה-לִּי עֶדְנָה, וַאדֹנִי זָקֵן. Sarah laughed to herself, saying: After I mixed the oil with the flour to make the cakes, I had a veset and saw dam niddah, so for me it would not be so surprising to have a child. However, my husband is old!

Whereas the previous explanations I gave about the perfect and pluperfect senses of the word חָדַל are tentative, this last derasha I would say is absolutely a source for the midrash. This derasha definitively links Sarah's veset to the preparation of the ugot. Thus we can understand why the ugot were not brought to the table even though they were prepared. Note that even though we give this source for the midrash, this does not preclude the midrashic explanation of the חָדַל pasuk I gave before.

There is another twist. What does the root חָדַל mean? We focused before on the tense - perfect or pluperfect. But what is the sense of the word? It is in fact not so simple. midrash rabba in fact discusses it. midrash rabba does not discuss the what the word amar, or zaken means. Regardless of how the midrash explains it, we see it is not a trivial word to translate.

We assumed חָדַל meant "to cease." Either this denoted menopause or denoted the end of her seeing dam niddah this time, as I suggested earlier. However, if we look at the Etymological Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew: Based on the Commentaries of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, we will see that Rav Hirsch gave various senses to the word. One sense is indeed "to cease." However, two other senses he gives are "to refrain" and "to lack."

Specifically, consider the tower of Bavel. In Bereishit 11:4, we read:
וַיֹּאמְרוּ הָבָה נִבְנֶה-לָּנוּ עִיר, וּמִגְדָּל וְרֹאשׁוֹ בַשָּׁמַיִם, וְנַעֲשֶׂה-לָּנוּ, שֵׁם: פֶּן-נָפוּץ, עַל-פְּנֵי כָל-הָאָרֶץ.
And they said: 'Come, let us build us a city, and a tower, with its top in heaven, and let us make us a name; lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.'

Then, they begin to build the tower, and Hashem confounds their language, and they scatter and never actually build the city. That is, in Bereishit 11:8:

וַיָּפֶץ ה אֹתָם מִשָּׁם, עַל-פְּנֵי כָל-הָאָרֶץ; וַיַּחְדְּלוּ, לִבְנֹת הָעִיר.
"So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth; and they left off to build the city."

Assuming this means that they left off from building the city (since they were scattered) instead of leaving off from building the tower and beginning to build the city, then this perhaps means that they never started to build the city. So חָדַל need not mean "to cease," but can mean "to refrain," to never start."

Rav Hirsch also gives the sense of "to lack," as in Yeshaya 53:3:
נִבְזֶה וַחֲדַל אִישִׁים, אִישׁ מַכְאֹבוֹת וִידוּעַ חֹלִי; וּכְמַסְתֵּר פָּנִים מִמֶּנּוּ, נִבְזֶה וְלֹא חֲשַׁבְנֻהוּ.
"He was despised, and forsaken of men, a man of pains, and acquainted with disease, and as one from whom men hide their face: he was despised, and we esteemed him not."

I don't really see how this connotes "lacking" as opposed to "ceasing," but if so, then we can say Sarah lacked an orach kanashim, as opposed to having one which ended.

Two better pesukim to illustrate this sense is in fact cited by the midrash, though to advance the meaning of "to cease." The first is in Devarim 23:23. Started from the previous pasuk:

כִּי-תִדֹּר נֶדֶר לַה אֱלֹקֶיךָ, לֹא תְאַחֵר לְשַׁלְּמוֹ: כִּי-דָרֹשׁ יִדְרְשֶׁנּוּ ה אֱלֹקֶיךָ, מֵעִמָּךְ, וְהָיָה בְךָ, חֵטְא.
וְכִי תֶחְדַּל, לִנְדֹּר--לֹא-יִהְיֶה בְךָ, חֵטְא.
"When thou shalt vow a vow unto the LORD thy God, thou shalt not be slack to pay it; for the LORD thy God will surely require it of thee; and it will be sin in thee.
But if thou shalt forbear to vow, it shall be no sin in thee."

Now this can mean that at one point he was making nedarim and then decided to stop the practice, or else, more likely, it means to not swear in the first place. If so, חָדַל need not mean to cease to much as to refrain, to not start in the first place, in which case חָדַל לִהְיוֹת לְשָׂרָה אֹרַח כַּנָּשִׁים might be taken to mean that she never had her period.

The second pasuk cited by the midrash is about someone who does not bring the korban pesach when he could have. In Bemidbar 9:13:
וְהָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר-הוּא טָהוֹר וּבְדֶרֶךְ לֹא-הָיָה, וְחָדַל לַעֲשׂוֹת הַפֶּסַח--וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא, מֵעַמֶּיהָ: כִּי קָרְבַּן ה, לֹא הִקְרִיב בְּמֹעֲדוֹ--חֶטְאוֹ יִשָּׂא, הָאִישׁ הַהוּא.
"But the man that is clean, and is not on a journey, and forbeareth to keep the passover, that soul shall be cut off from his people; because he brought not the offering of the LORD in its appointed season, that man shall bear his sin."

Note this is a perfect pair - in one case a man refrains and has a sin (because it is obligatory) and in the other he forbears and has no sin.

Onkelos gives the targum of the word as ve`itmena' - and he holds back.

Anyway, this seems to be a case where someone did not bring the pesach in the first place - not a matter of ceasing.

However, the midrash tries to explain what it means by Sarah, cites the first pasuk, says פסק (presumably meaning to cease), then cites the second pasuk. How exactly the midrash extracts this meaning out of these pesukim, I will not attempt to discover. The targum Onkelos on the pasuk in our parsha gives פסק as the explanation.

I will put aside the pasuk in our parasha for a moment and turn my attention to another pasuk, which is the source of a midrash that Sarah was an aylonit, and did not have a womb.

Sarah as an aylonit
Meanwhile, there is another pasuk that speaks about Sarah being barren. Now it is possible to be barren as a result of not having children, and it is possible to be barren because of not being physically capable of having children. The pasuk can imply either, but is taken by two separate midrashim to mean the latter. The pasuk, Bereishit 11:30, reads:

וַתְּהִי שָׂרַי עֲקָרָה: אֵין לָהּ וָלָד
"And Sarai was barren; she had no child"

Now, the repetition is unnecessary; if she was barren, then she had no child. Such a pasuk calls out to be interpreted midrashically. One way to interpret this is וַתְּהִי שָׂרַי עֲקָרָה = and Sarah was barren. Why was she barren? Because אֵין לָהּ וָלָד, she had no valad, that is short for she had no bet valad. That is, she had no womb.

Alternatively, as Rav Yehuda says in the name of Resh Lakish, she had no ikar mitrin, or womb. This would come from the same pasuk, but parsed as follows: וַתְּהִי שָׂרַי עֲקָרָה אֵין לָהּ = And Sarah, an akara = ikar mitrin she had not. And so Hashem engraved within her a womb.

The contradiction
Is there in fact a contradiction between these midrashim?

More specifically, what about the midrash given by Ephraim mekasha`a the student of Rabbi Meir? According to this midrash, Sarah menstruated, and thus Avraham did not serve the cakes. And there are other midrashim saying that she menstruated at this point. If medical science tells us that a woman cannot menstruate if the has no womb, then how could she have menstruated?

To answer this question, I will ask a better question. How could Sarah have become pregnant with and given birth to Yitzchak if she had no womb? Just as you cannot menstruate without a womb, you cannot birth a child.

The answer is not that Hashem allowed her miraculously to give birth to a child without a womb. If you look closely at what Resh Lakish said, he said that she had no ikar mitrin, and so Hashem was galaf for her a womb - he carved out a womb within her.

Thus, at this point in the narrative, Hashem has given her a womb. If so, then just as she can have a child, she can menstruate, for she has a womb! There is no necessary contradiction between the midrashim, so long as you assume she is only menstruating now.

However, let us say the midrashim actually insist that the continuously had a veset. Consider the one in which Sarah said she had a veset when she was young, and a veset now. That clearly states that she did have a veset in the past. Or even Rabbi Meir's one might be assuming that she had a veset in the past.

I would consider the possibilities.
1) Perhaps Chazal did not know that without a uterus one could have no veset. I would more readily say this than reinterpret the midrashim to mean something other than what they really mean. Whether this would present a problem with the midrash depends upon what one regards the role and goal of midrash to be. However, I believe that one would need to know Greek science well before making such a statement. I would doubt that they did not know something like that.

{Further, according to Rabbi Meir, Sarah made the cakes tameh. Even if Sarah could bleed, would this be considered dam from the makor, if she has no ikkar mitrin?}

2) Another possibility is that ikkar mitrin and bet havalad do not mean the actual womb was missing, but that she was infertile. Perhaps she did not have a functioning uterus. I would reject that on the basis of the fact that the midrash clearly is deducing the specifics of the diagnosis from the words of the pasuk. Further, Resh Lakish states that Hashem carved for her an ikkar mitrin. This does not signify a non-functioning uterus so much as lacking one altogether. The same goes for the suggestion that she lacked eggs but had a uterus. This is unlikely from the words that form the basis of the midrash and from the words of the midrash itself. So too Simcha's rabbi's suggestion that it was a gezeira from shamayim or that the uterus was present but deficient does not fit well the the source pasuk nor with the wording of the midrashim.

3) I think that Dr. Eddie Reichman's suggest is most likely the correct one. That is, these are two midrashim that contradict one another. The ones about Sarah's menstruating was said with regard to the series of pesukim in our parasha, as I explained above, and were said by a specific set of Tanaaim and Amoraim. {For Rabbi Meir's midrash, the one cited by Rashi, we are told is in fact a matter of dispute, with the chachamim saying we need not say the cakes became tame`.} The midrash where Sarah was saying that she was menstruating just as she did in her youth is stressing the fact that she feels she is entirely fertile, and the only grounds for the couple's infertility is Avraham. In contrast, the midrashim suggesting that Sarah is an aylonit is based on another, earlier pasuk {which has the word akara and valad in it}, is stated by different members of Chazal, and have a primary purpose to stress that Sarah was not fertile. I would say these midrashim clearly contradict each other, and must read each other's base pesukim in entirely different ways. I would say this without even coming to any question about science, wombs, and menstruation.

Ah, there is a problem that the aylonit midrashim contradict an explicit pasuk?! As a laid out before, I do not think it is possible to really contradict an explicit pasuk as much as contradict someone's understanding, on a peshat or derash level, of the pasuk. How Resh Lakish would understand that pasuk is unknown. But, I presented what I feel are quite legitimate interpretations of the pasuk, at least on the midrashic level, which is where we are operating. Specifically,
a) if that חָדַל is the perfect, then it is not saying that she at one point had a veset and then experienced menopause, from which she now recovers, so much as that she miraculously developed a womb, and then had a period, which ended when the angel finished speaking. Or,
b) if חָדַל does not mean "cease," but rather "lacked" or "refrained from having," then there is no contradiction. She lacked a period because she had no uterus.

I am sure that there are other possible explanations, and that the midrash does not in fact contradict an explicit pasuk.

A response to Rabbi Dr. David Berger

In one of the blogs I check regularly, the Town Crier, I saw an excerpt of an article in the Jewish press by David Berger about the issue of the copepods in New York city water. I have been meaning for a while to post something comprehensive about copepods, but have not gotten around to it. I read Dr. Berger's article, and I feel I must respectfully disagree with him on some of the points he makes.

1) Dr. Berger talks about how since water is such a staple, it is conceivable that "Even in an urban setting, it is easy to envision realistic scenarios involving jeopardy to the health of especially vulnerable observant Jews." I don't know how likely this (in cases of pikuach nefesh obviously the water would be OK, this is restricted to places where there is a metziut that must be worried about, and there are alternatives to non-filtered water), nor is this something that should necessarily influence the determination of whether something is or is not an issur diorayta. Note that Chazal talk about not drinking water from moving streams which have small non-kosher fish in it, and they probably strained such water to remove these creatures. The Aruch Hashulchan (Yoreh Deah Aleph, Siman 84:36-37) talks about a requirement to filter such water for the tiny creatures therein, as well as filtering for Pesach, so in the past they did not hesitate to forbid water. (Water which was left uncovered is another tempting example if not for the fact that the reason it is forbidden is because of safek sakana itself.) Other staples have been forbidden - chalav akum, stam yeinam, pas akum (though for the last in certain areas and times Chazal relaxed part of the prohibition perhaps because otherwise people would not have access to the staple.)

2) He points out this is not a new phenomenon, and "the almost universal, instinctive reaction that water imbibed over the years by a host of tzaddikim and talmidei chachamim must be permissible does not deserve to be dismissed as irrelevant." He cites the Talmudic dictum that if the animals of tzadikim (such as donkey of Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair who did not eat tevel) would not come to stumble then certainly not the tzadikim themselves. To show this is not merely an aggadic statement he cites Tosafot on Chullin 5b who speaks about it in a legal context and restricts it to the consumption of forbidden foods.

There are two answers to this, I think. Not every faucet receives copepods. Depending on the specific structure of the pipes, floor in the building, position of the house/apt. on the block, copepods may or may not reach the faucet at all or in sufficient amounts so as to pose a problem. Further, the prevalence of copepods vary with the seasons of the year. So it is possible that Hashem arranged it so that via fate, chance, and season, the tzadikim of the previous generation did not come to consume the forbidden.

Secondly, if you look at the Tosafot, it ends with a case in which Rabbi Zera did in fact eat tevel and in answer to the seeming contradiction, a statement by Rabbi Zera about yeridat hadorot - originally Rabbi Zera said that if the preceding generations were like sons of angels we are like sons of man, and if the preceding generations were like sons of man, we are like donkeys. Now, in response to this incident, Rabbi Zera (elsewhere it is Rabbi Mana) said that nowadays we are not even like the donkey of Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair (who did not eat tevel). Thus, there seems to be a yeridat hadorot from the Tanaaim and early Amoraim to the late Amoraim. The great ones of the last generation, while fantastic tzaddikim, are after all acharonim, and not even late Amoraim, so why assume they are afforded this protection, and consider this a basis for determining halacha?

To cite the gemara, which Tosafot refers to in Bereishit Rabba and Shekalim, but I will take from yerushalmi demai 3b:

רבי ירמיה שלח לרבי זעירא חדא מסאנא דתאנים דלא מתקנא
והוה רבי ירמיה סבר מימר מה ר' זעירא מיכול דלא מתקנא
והוה רבי זעירא סבר מימר מה אפשר דרבי ירמיה משלחה לי מילא דלא מתקנא
בין דין לדין איתאכלת טבל
למחר קם עימי' א"ל ההוא מסנאתא דשלחת לי אתמול מתקנא הוה?
א"ל אמרית מה רבי זעירא מיכל מילא דלא מתקנה?
א"ל אוף אנא אמרית כן הוה מה רבי ירמיה משלח לי מילא דלאו מתקנה?
רבי אבא בר זבינא בשם רבי זעירא אמר אין הוון קדמאי בני מלאכים אנן בני נש ואין הוון בני נש אנן חמרין
אמר רבי מנא בההיא שעתא אמרין אפי' לחמרתיה דר' פינחס בן יאיר לא אידמינן

Rabbi Yirmiyah sent to Rabbi Zera a basket of figs that was not fixed {was tevel}.
And Rabbi Yirmiyah thought to say: what, will Rabbi Zera eat without fixing it.
And Rabbi Zera thought to say: is it possible that Rabbi Yirmiyah will send me something not fixed?
Between this and that, tevel was consumed {by R Zera}.
The next day, he met him and said to him: the basket you sent me yesterday, was it fixed?
He said to him: I said: would Rabbi Zera eat something that was not fixed. {he would take off the required terumot and maaserot}
He said to him: so too did I say: What, would Rabbi Yirmiyah send me something that was not fixed?
Rabi Abba bar Zevina cited Rabbi Zera {who was the person who ate the tevel here} who said: if the First Ones were like children of angels, we are like men. And if they were like men then we are like donkeys.
Rabbi Mana said: At that hour {when Rabbi Zera accidentally ate the tevel} they said, even like the donkey of Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair we are not comparable. {The gemara continues by explaining how his donkey did not consume forbidden food.}

3) Dr. Berger adds another issue. The Torah was not given to angels, and so truly microscopic organisms should not present a problem, as was stated in previous permissive rulings. From mattan Torah until the invention of the microscope the existence of microscopic creatures could not be known. Copepods are a distinct situation but are similar in nature. A trained observer can spot it, but otherwise most people for "generations" would not spot it, and it looks like a glass of clear water.

In response, I would point out that the Aruch HaShulchan is one source that said there was no problem with microscopic creatures, because the Torah was not given to angels, and so anything the eye does not rule over presents no problem. However, he writes that if it is visible to the naked eye, even if is is incredibly tiny and even if it is only visible in direct sunlight, that is considered something the eye rules over, would therefore present a problem, and would need to be filtered just as some Jews filtered their water on Pesach. (I will cite it in full shortly.) This seems to directly address Dr. Berger's point, such that the two cases are to be distinct from each other in law.

Further, it is not necessarily so that people could not spot it for generations. There is an important distinction to be made between water with live copepods and water with dead copepods. When the copepods are alive, they move, and are readily visible. For generations, up to the time of the Tanaaim, and in Europe, there were live copepods. In New York, because of the nature of the the water system and the water treatment, the copepods, while not filtered out, are dead by the time they reach the faucet. As such they are not as readily visible. But in the past, if you go aenough generations back, they were most likely visible, just as they are readily visible if you were to go right now up to the reservior yourself and look.

The first scientist to describe a copepod was Aristotle, though this was a parasitic one, which is larger than the free range copepods we find in our water. But when this whole business started I took out on interlibrary load the book "The Copepodologist's Cabinet" which contained a history of copepodology. Even without microscopes, people saw sometimes silvery of red pools of water which was a mass of copepods. A 17th century scientist did a survey of various water sources in his area and noted the copepods and small marine plants in it. He suggested that people boil the water to create a soup, or else to filter the water through hat felt.

Dr. Berger points out that copepods are present in lake water and have been for centuries, but firstly a lake is non-moving water and so the copepods would likely be permitted on the basis of Chullin 66, and further such copepods would be alive and thus visible.

4) He points to the paucity of halachic literature on the issue says that it "underscores the obvious: in almost all cases, these Jews drank the water in question without noticing anything amiss."

I would answer that Chullin 66 is halachic literature on the subject, and it is brought down in Shulchan Aruch. The Aruch HaShulchan dealt with the issue and ruled that people should filter the water. I am not sure we can call this a paucity of halachic literature. Perhaps he means a paucity of literature about creatures which are at one point visible and later not visible - and now looks like a clear glass of water. After all, what prompted his article was in part the recent psak that once the copepods are visible once, they are considered a sheretz and present a problem even if no longer visible.

If this is in fact a new issue, we would not expect much halachic literature on the subject.

I would also note that it is not clear we should say they are not visible, based on the Aruch HaShulchan I mentioned. Here, by the way

I will end by citing the Aruch HaShulchan I mentioned above: This was written by Rav Yechiel Michel Epstein, born 1829, passed away 1888. So it is fairly recently that this issue came up.

לו: יש מי שכתב בשם חכמי הטבע דהמסתכל בזכוכית המגדלת שקורין ספאקטיוו"א יראה בחומץ מלא תולעים והנה בחומץ אין חשש כמו שנתבאר דהתולעים המתהוים בתלוש התירה התורה. אמנם שמעתי שבכל מיני מים וביחוד במי גשמים מלא ברואים דקים שאין העין יכולה לראותם. ובילדותי שמעתי מפי אחד שהיה במרחקים וראה דרך זכוכית המגדלת עד מאד כרבבות פעמים במים כל המיני ברואים, ולפי זה איך אנו שותים מים, שהרי אלו הברואים נתהוו במקורם, אמנם האמת הוא דלא אסרה תורה במה שאין העין שולטת בו, דלא ניתנה תורה למלאכים, דאם לא כן, הרי כמה מהחוקרים כתבו שגם כל האויר הוא מלא ברואים דקים מן הדקים, וכשהאדם פותח פיו בולע כמה מהם, אלא וודאי דהבל יפצה פיהם, ואף אם כן הוא כיון שאין העין שולט בהם, לאו כלום הוא. אמנם, במה שהעין יכול לראות, אפילו נגד השמש, ואפילו דק מן הדק, הוא שרץ גמור

לז: ולכן, יש ליזהר מאד בקיץ באותם ששותים מן הנהרות ומן האגמים ומעינות שאינם עמוקים דעל ידי החמימות נתהוו שם כמו זבובים קטנים ותולעים קטנים, ויש ליזהר לסנן המים במסננת דקה מן הדקה, או על ידי בגד, בדרך שאנו מסננים המים בפסח מפני חשש תערובת חמץ, אבל בבארות ומעיינות עמוקים אין הרחש מצוי בהם

36: There is one who writes, citing naturalists, that if one looks with a magnifying glass that they call spectiva he will see in the vinegar, full of of worms. And behold, in vinegar there is no concern, as was explained, that worm which come into being detached {J: presumably not attached to the ground} the Torah permits. However, I have heard that in all types of water, and specifically in rainwater, is filled with tiny creatures that the eye is not able to see them. {J: That is, they are not visible to the naked eye.} And in my youth I heard from one who was abroad and saw via a magnifying glass, many times in the water, all types of creatures. And, according to this, how can we drink water? For these creatures come into existence in their source!? However, the truth is that the Torah did not prohibit that which the eye does not rule over {J: that which is not visible to the naked eye}, for the Torah was not given to angels. For if not so, behold many of the investigators have written that also all of the air is full of finer than fine creatures, and when a man opens his mouth he swallows many of them. Rather, certainly they speak nonsense. And even if it is so, since the eye does not rule over them, they considers as if nothing. However, in that which the eye does rule over {J: what is visible to the naked eye}, even if only with direct sunlight, even finer than fine, is considered absolutely a Sheretz.

37: And therefore, there is to be very careful in the summer, for those who drink from rivers and from swamps and springs that are not deep, since via the heat there will cause to be there like small flies and small worms. And there is to be careful to filter the water with a filter, finer than fine, in the manner that we filter the water on Pesach because of the concern of a mixture of Chametz. But in the deep wells and springs the creeping creatures are not found in them.

5) Just because we cannot see something, or just because only a trained expert can detect something (this may not in fact be the metziut by copepods) does not mean that it has no halachic significance. Consider that some items are not halachicly nullified even in a ratio of 1 to 1000. And consider that when something is nullified in a 60 times its measure, this is because it no longer gives its taste. To determine whether something does give taste, they sometimes gave it to a non-Jewish chef, a קפילא ארמאה, who is an expert in detecting the presence of tastes in food (see e.g. Chullin 97a). Thus sometimes food can be prohibited if the forbidden within it is only detectable to a "trained observer." (I do not think Dr. Berger meant to imply otherwise - he was at the time speaking of whether there was a muit hamatzui of people in past generations who would know about the issue of these copepods, which is another matter entirely.)

6) I would end with a great source my friend Eliyahu brought to my attention. Apparently, the Perushim, Pharisees, were filtering their water for gnats in the days of Jesus, and are criticized by him for being hypocritical - specifically, for focusing on the minutia when what he felt were more major issues were ignored.

The quote can be found in Matthew 23:24:
"Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel."

It seems then that there is a very ancient precedent for filtering water for fear of consuming bugs.

Lech Lecha: "And the Canaanites were then in the land"

I think that Lech Lecha ("You Go") is a wonderfully appropriate name for last week's parsha, for it captures the major theme that Avraham begins an existence in which he is constantly in motion. He becomes a nomad, and wherever he would epect peace, quiet, and settling down, he is suddenly thrust into some new place or situation that does not allow him to become complacent.

Consider: In the beginning of the parsha (Bereishit 12:1), Hashem tells him to leave his country and father's house to another land. Avraham does so, taking Lot and Sara with him (12:4).

Hashem then tells him that he will inherit the land, but specifically his seed will inherit the land (12:7). This is in the future. Right now Avraham does not possess the land - he is passing through. To stress this, the preceding pasuk (12:6) mentions that the Canaanites were than in (and therefore in possession of) the land. וְהַכְּנַעֲנִי אָז בָּאָרֶץ. In fact, IMHO, the purpose of mentioning the Canaanites were there, on a pshat level, is to stress that he did not gain possession of the land then.

The next psukim talk about his travelling from place to place in the land, and finally, how he must leave because of the famine, and must go to Egypt (12:8-10). In Egypt, he does not have any power, and must resort to subterfuge, having Sara lie and deny they are married so that the Egyptians do not kill him (12:11-15).

Avraham then becomes a wealthy man in Egypt (12:16), and perhaps has been able to settle down, but then he is exiled from the land (12:20) when the king of Egypt discovers Sarah is actually Avraham's wife. Thus he resumes his wanderings.

He then returns to Canaan, and the pasuk stresses he is now wealthy, as was Lot (13:1-5). This did not let them settle down in peace because of a dispute between Avraham and Lot, and between their respective shepherds (13:6-12). The land was not able to bear both of them. Thus, ironically, the wealth caused at least one of them not to be able to stay in place, as well as creating discord rather than sheket.

The cause of this dispute, according to midrash rabba, is that Lot's shepherds refused to muzzle his animals as they passed through other people's fields, while Avraham's shepherds did muzzle the animals. The cause for this dispute? Lot maintained that Hashem said he would give them the land, so the land was theirs. Why should they then muzzle their animals. Avraham maintained that they did not yet have the land, but his descendants would inherit it in the future, and thus they did not currently have a right to it. In fact, we can see the source of this midrash in 13:7:

וַיְהִי-רִיב, בֵּין רֹעֵי מִקְנֵה-אַבְרָם, וּבֵין, רֹעֵי מִקְנֵה-לוֹט; וְהַכְּנַעֲנִי, וְהַפְּרִזִּי, אָז, יֹשֵׁב בָּאָרֶץ.

"And there was a strife between the herdmen of Abram's cattle and the herdmen of Lot's cattle. And the Canaanite and the Perizzite dwelt then in the land."

Once again we see the stress on the current inhabitants, and the midrash takes this instance as an explanation for the dispute, especially since they are juxtoposed within the same pasuk. Avraham insisted and recognized that they did not yet have the land and were living a nomadic existence.

I would add that I think the reason for this instance of "the Canaanite and Preizzite dwelt then in the land" is because in the subsequent narrative (13:9) , Avraham and Lot choose the land in which they will dwell, and Avraham is again told by Hashem that the land will be his (13:17). This is just as before when we are told that the Canaanite were then in the land, when Avraham is told that his descendants will inherit the land.

Continuing the trend, Avraham's (and Lot's) quiet is shattered by the war, and Avraham must go and save Lot (perek 14). And Avraham is told (perek 15) that his descendants will first go down to a strange land and will only inherit in the future, "for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full."

Thus this parsha details a very nomadic, not settled life, one which will only really be settled in the future when the nation of Israel possess the land.

When was this written?
A problem arises regarding the two psukim I cited, about the Canaanite, or the Canaanite and Perrizite then being in the land. Ibn Ezra notes the issue. (See his perush on Devarim 1:5.)

At issue is, could Moshe have written וְהַכְּנַעֲנִי וְהַפְּרִזִּי אָז יֹשֵׁב בָּאָרֶץ or וְהַכְּנַעֲנִי אָז בָּאָרֶץ? For to say that they were then (אז) in the land is to imply that at the time these words are being written, the Canaanite and Perrizite were not in the land. (Further, why mention they were in the land at that time, if after all, they are still in the land now?) It seems directed at an audience living at a time in which the Canaanites were not in the land, which would be after the Israelites took control in the time of Yehoshua. So how could Moshe have written this?

To me, this is really a non-issue. Why? Because these verses serve a specific purpose in the narrative - to note that even though talk is made of inheritance of Canaan, the settlement did not really happen back then, but other local groups were in possession. The psukim note that even though Avraham seems to be possessing the land, the Canaanite and Perizzite were then in the land. Then, at the time you would think Avraham is in possession. This does not in any way imply that now, when the psukim are being spoken and written, in the time of Moshe, the Canaanite and Perizzite were not in the land. It would possibly be more problematic were these psukim mere innocent interjections of demographic facts.

Some other explanations of the אז occurred to me:
1) They were then in the land. As opposed to when? If we are thinking of a terminus ad quem (end point) for the Canaanite occupation, then may be problematic, for even in Moshe's day they were in the land. But if we think of a terminus a quo (starting point), then it is no problem at all. At some point they were not in the land. Then they settled in the land. We are told that at this point they had already entered the land when Avraham was there. (See Rashi about Canaan vs. Shem in the land and see how this can fit in.) That they are still there in Moshe's day matters not at all. (The sefer is after all called Bereishit, The Beginning, and tracks peoples and lands from the beginning of time.)

2) The direct audience is a nation of Israel about to enter the land and possess it. As such, the expectation (and prophetic knowledge) is that in the next generation and on, the Canaanite and Perizzite would not be in the land. And while the אז and the statement about the Canaanites' presence is not necessary for Moshe's generation, the Torah was expected to be read by other audiences where this would not be the case.

+2 = masechet yevamot; + 2 ketubot

הדרן עלך האשה שלום!
הדרן עלך האשה בתרא!
(perek 15-16 of yerushalmi yevamot)
וסליקא לה מסכת יבמות

הדרן עלך האשה שנתארמלה!
הדרן עלך אלו נערות!
(perek 2 - 3) of yerushalmi ketubot)