CHESED AND CHACHMA - CHAYEI SARAH

Avraham Avinu sends his faithful eved, Eliezer to find a suitable wife for his righteous son, Yitzchak Avinu. When Eliezer arrives at his destination he prays to Hashem to send him a sign to enable him to determine who should be Yitzchak’s wife He asks; “Let it be that the maiden to whom I shall say, ‘Please tip over your jug so I may drink’ and who replies, ‘Drink, and I will even water your camels;’ she, You will have designated for Your servant, for Yitzchak, and may I know through her that You have done kindness with my master. ”

The commentaries explain that he did not merely suggest a random sign, rather he wanted to ascertain that the future Matriarch would have a highly developed sense of kindness. The commentaries see in the exactness of his prayer that it was not sufficient that she merely respond to his request for water; he planned to only ask for water for himself and he hoped that she would react on her own initiative and offer to water the camels as well. The Seforno points out that he wanted her to delve beyond his verbal request for water for himself and perceive that his true needs were far greater, and act accordingly .

In a similar vein the Malbim points out that it was not sufficient that Rivka be kindhearted, rather Eliezer also wanted her to demonstrate chachma that would enable her to best serve his needs. He is further medayek Eliezer’s request; he davke asked that she tip the jug for him as opposed to him taking the jug from her and drinking himself. He hoped that rather than being angered by his supposed laziness, she would try to judge him favorably that he must have some kind of pain in his hands. Accordingly, she would realize that if he does not have the strength to hold the jug for himself, then all the more so, he would be unable to draw water for the camels. Consequently, she would perform the arduous task of watering the ten camels herself! When she successfully passed these tests, Eliezer saw that he had found an appropriate match for Yitzchak .

The Seforno and Malbim show that it was not sufficient that Rivka be kind, rather she needed to demonstrate chachma that would enable her to perceive Eliezer’s true needs without him even asking her directly. We learn from here that in order to perform chesed in the most optimal way, a person must use chachma. It seems that this does not mean that he needs to have an exceedingly high IQ, rather that he develop an awareness of the people around him so that he can perceive others’ needs and provide for him rather than waiting to be approached.

The Beis HaLevi derives a similar point from a passuk in the end of Megillas Esther. In extolling the praises of Mordechai as the leader of the Jewish people, the Megilla tells us that, “he was doresh tov l’amo”, that he seeked out the good for his people . The Beis HaLevi asks, surely all Torah leaders want to do good for the people, what is the uniqueness of Mordechai that he was ‘doresh tov le’amo’? He explains that Mordechai would not wait until people come to him and request from him to help him. Rather, he would preempt them by coming to them and trying to discern their needs and how he could help them .

The Beis HaLevi himself exemplified the trait of understanding people's needs through his keen awareness before they even came to him. On one Seder night, he was asked if it was permissible to use milk for the Four Cups. In reply, he sent a messenger to the questioner’s home with a generous amount of wine and meat. He realized that they obviously did not have wine with which to drink the four cups. Moreover, since they were planning to drink milk, they evidently did not have any meat to eat. He acted accordingly and provided for their unasked for needs!

Throughout our daily lives we encounter people who may be in need of some kind of assistance. However, very often, they are too embarrassed to explicitly ask for help. Thus, it is necessary to strive to emulate the hanhago of Rivka and work out their needs. For example, one person was found to be living in desperate poverty - how was it discovered? A friend had lent him 25 Shekalim some weeks earlier and casually asked if his friend could repay it. The borrower’s face turned white at the sheer impossibility of having to pay back such a loan. Such a reaction alerted his friend and he made some investigations and discovered that this man did not have enough money to live on the most basic level. Sometimes, the facial expression of a person, or a casual comment will indicate a certain need. It is in our power to develop an awareness to such hints and thereby greatly increase our capacity for doing chesed.

THE BATTLE OF BODY AND SOUL - CHAYEI SARAH

After enduring the nisayon of the Akeida and the death of his wife, Avraham Avinu is forced to enter into lengthy negotiations with the wily Efron in order to acquire a burial plot for Sarah Imainu. Finally, he buys it for the extortionate sum of 400 silver pieces. The commentators note that Efron’s name is spelt with a ‘vav’ in every instance except for the passuk in which the transaction finally takes place, in that passuk, his name is lacking the ‘vav’. Rashi explains that Efron spoke a lot but did little, he initially told Avraham that he was willing to give away the land, but in the end, he charged a very high price, as a result his value decreases The Baal HaTurim makes a different observation about the missing ‘vav’. He notes that the gematria of the name Efron without a ‘vav’ is 400, the same as the amount of money that he earned from this transaction ! What is the significance of this? Rav Elchonon Fishman Shlita explains that when Efron acquired this money it gave him a new sense of value - now he saw himself as ‘worth’ 400 sliver pieces. Efron’s self-estimation was dependent upon his financial status. He fell prey to the common yetser hara of emphasizing his material status over his spiritual standing. There is a natural tendency to do this because, since Chet Adam HaRishon, man is far more aware of his body than his soul. Rav Motty Berger Shlita observes that we tend to identify ourselves as our body - for example, when a person is sick, he says, “I am not feeling well,” seeing his body as his main identity. A more accurate statement would be, “my body is not feeling well,” implying that our soul is the ikar part of us. An essential part of our Avodas Hashem is to develop greater awareness of our soul and its needs.

We can gain a deeper understanding of the body-soul relationship by making a further observation about the Baal HaTurim’s gematria. When Efron received the money he surely felt that he had increased his importance in the world - now he was a wealthy man. However, he actually lost a letter to his name and we know that a person’s name represents his essence. This indicates that his ‘real value’ as a person went down. Moreover, it is significant that the letter that he lost to his name was the ‘vav’. The ‘vav’ is the letter of connection; it means ‘and’ - it joins concepts and nouns together. It’s shape also signifies it’s connecting ability; it is shaped like a hook with which we can connect two things together. When Efron gained in physicality he went down in spirituality and lost an element of connection with Hashem. When a person gives more importance to his body, then, mimayla, his soul will suffer.

The inverse relationship between body and soul is also alluded to in next week’s parsha. The navi tells Rivka that the two babies inside her will develop into two conflicting nations and that when one of these falls, the other will rise. The pshat of this passuk is that the nations of Klal Yisroel and Edom will counter-balance each other, when one ascends the other declines. But there are commentaries who see another battle alluded to in this passuk - they say that Yaakov represents the soul, and Esav the body; there is a continual battle between these two forces. If the soul is in the ascendancy then the body will consequently weaken, and if the soul weakens then the body will correspondingly rise. A striking example of this is a story involving Beis Yosef: He was often visited by a Malach due to his great spiritual level. However, for a few days, the Malach stopped appearing to him. He was told that the reason for this was that on one hot day the Beis Yosef spent a little too much time searching for cold water. This slight focus on his bodily needs effected a decline in his spiritual level to the extent that he was not now on the level to speak to the Malach!

We see from these sources that it is impossible for a person to be devoted to both his body and his soul. A person may think that this is not the case - he can be osek in Torah and mitzvos and simultaneously strive to attain physical satisfaction. However, ultimately this kind of person is merely a slave to his body; it may allow him to do mitzvos but if he cannot pull himself away from his desires for food and money then that is a sure sign that the body is in the ascendancy. Rav Shlomo Brevda Shlita demonstrates this point with two stories. He once sent a promising yeshiva bachur to America to learn in a very good yeshiva. When the boy arrived there he was impressed with the hasmada of the bachurim. However, he was equally surprised at the lunch break - those same bachurim who had learnt with such vigor were now filling their stomachs with equally great zest! Rav Brevda says that these bachurim were slaves to their bodies. In another instance, Rav Brevda was speaking to a large number of religious teenage girls. At one point in his lecture, he said that the purpose of life is not to live in the nicest house with the most beautiful furniture. Later that day a teacher came to him, saying that one girl in the audience was experiencing a great deal of confusion. She had been brought up in an observant home in which it was stressed that it is essential to live the high life in terms of materialistic comforts. After hearing Rav Brevda’s words she realized that he was right and that she had been taught an attitude that is alien to the true Torah outlook.

Rav Brevda argues that there is supposed to be a milchama between the body and soul. The body is very powerful and often overcomes our drive for spirituality but as long as we at least recognize that there is a battle, then we can begin to strengthen our soul. However, he argues that for many fully observant Jews there is no battle - there is no conflict when a person is, for example, faced with the opportunity to eat a piece of cake when he is not at all hungry - he gulps it down without thinking. But worst of all is that he doesn’t even realize that his body is in total control of his being.

What can person do to at least join the battle? David HaMelech tells us that there are two ways of working on oneself - to leave evil and do good . ‘Leaving evil’ refers here to weakening the hold of the body. Rav Brevda offers a suggestion of how we can begin to do this; when we eat a main meal, we should only eat one serving - we are allowed to take as much as we want for that serving but we should at least develop the ability to refrain ourselves from taking more - this way we have at least began the milchama with our body. But we should also focus on the ‘aseh tov’ - by growing in spirituality we will automatically weaken our bond to physicality. Rav Noach Orlowek Shlita was once asked by a bachur that he looked forward to lunch more than mincha - how could he work on this failing? Rav Orlowek answered that he should strive to appreciate tefilla more, by doing so he will thereby inevitably feel less excited about physical enjoyment. Rav Brevda offers a suggestion about how to do this as well - for the first ten minutes of pesukey dezimra a person should do his utmost to only focus on his siddur and not look around. By doing this he can shut out the distractions that prevent him from focusing solely on the tefilla. Rav Brevda says that people have told him that this exercise has drastically improved their Avodas Hashem.

The battle between body and soul is long and challenging, however, if we at least join the battle then it is in our hands to succeed. The Maharal makes a vital point on the Rashi about the conflicting fortunes of Yaakov and Esav . He notes that Rashi says that when Yaakov falls, Esav rises but not the other way around. He explains that Yaakov is in control of who is stronger - Esav only ascends as a result of Yaakov’s falings, but if Yaakov succeeds, then Esav is helpless. The same can be said with regards to the battle between body and soul. It is in a person’s control who is on the ascent - if he strives to strengthen his soul then the power of the body will inevitably wither. May we all be able to join the milchama of body and soul.

RELYING ON MIRACLES - CHAYEI SARAH

After arranging the burial of his wife, Sarah, Avraham sends his faithful servant, Eliezer, to search for a suitable wife for his son, Yitzchak. Eliezer brings along with him ten of Avraham’s camels. In that time, most people were not careful to muzzle their animals, despite the fact that they would inevitably graze from other people’s land. The Medrash brings a machlokes (dispute) as to whether Avraham’s camels were muzzled or not. The first opinion holds that Avraham’s camels were indeed muzzled in order to prevent them from grazing. However, Rav Huna and Rav Yirimiyah points out a difficulty with the idea that Avraham needed to muzzle his camels in order to prevent them from stealing. They discuss the donkey of the great Tanna, Rav Pinchas ben Yair, who would not eat forbidden food. From there, the gemara in Chullin learns out a principle that HaShem does not allow the animals of tzaddikim to commit ‘aveiros’. Accordingly, Rav Huna and Rav Yirimiyah notes that if Pinchas ben Yair was on the level that his animals would not sin, all the more so that should be the case with regard to Avraham Avinu. Therefore, they argue that there was no need for Avraham to muzzle his camels. The Medrash ends with that argument unanswered.

There is a machlokes amongst the commentaries as to which opinion in the Medrash is correct. Rashi adopts the first opinion, that Avraham did indeed muzzle his camels. In contrast, the Ramban prefers the second view, that the camels were not muzzled because this was unnecessary, due to Avraham’s great righteousness. Indeed, the proof from Rav Pinchas Ben Yair needs to be answered by the opinion in the Medrash that Avraham did muzzle his camels, (and according to Rashi who follows this opinion). According to them why was this at all necessary, Avraham’s camels would surely not have stolen in any event?! The Re’eim and Maharal both answer that the first opinion agrees that Avraham’s camels would not steal. Nonetheless, Avraham had to muzzle them because of the principle of ‘ein somchim al haneis’ , that a person should not act in such a way that he relies on miracles. Based on this principle, Avraham would not have been allowed to take his camels to places where, according to derech hateva (the regular laws of nature), they would have grazed on other people’s land. This answer seems so persuasive that one now must explain how Rav Huna and Rav Yirimyahu, and the Ramban who follows them, could maintain that Avraham did indeed leave his camels unmuzzled, thereby relying on a miracle that they would not eat any grass on their whole journey.

It seems that they do not totally reject the principle of ‘ein somchim al haneis’, rather they hold that it only applies to normal people. However, tzaddikim (righteous people) need not follow this principle, rather they can rely on miracles. Avraham Avinu was on such a level of greatness that he could live beyond the normal laws of nature (me’al derech hateva). The idea that the Ramban holds a tzaddik can rely on miracles, and that Rashi argues, was heard from my Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits shlita, in his discussion of an earlier section in Sefer Bereishis. In the beginning of Parshas Lech Lecha, Avraham leaves Eretz Yisroel immediately after arriving, because of a famine. Rashi understands that he was correct to leave, however the Ramban explains that this was a great sin. He argues that Avraham should have relied on HaShem and stayed in Eretz Yisroel despite the fact that there was such a strong famine, which one could not survive, derech hateva. Rav Berkovits explained the machlokes in the same vein. Rashi held that to remain in the land would break the idea of ‘ein somchin al haneis’, whereas the Ramban held it does not apply to a tzaddik such as Avraham, therefore Avraham was obligated to stay and trust that HaShem would somehow provide him with food.

According to the Ramban, why is it the case that ‘ein somchin al haneis’ does not apply to tzaddikim? It is a well-known principle that HaShem does not like to break the normal laws of nature for a person. The reason for this is that when such events occur they take away from one’s free will ability to decide whether to serve G-d or not – now that they see such a clear manifestation of His presence they have no choice but to believe in Him. Because of this idea, a normal person cannot rely on a neis, because he is forcing HaShem to change the laws of nature and cause an imbalance in his free will. However, a tzaddik is so clear that everything is from HaShem, that events that transcend nature do not change his free will anyway, because, regardless of such ‘miracles’ he is fully aware of HaShem’s presence. Since for him, a neis is no different than anything else, the Ramban holds there is no problem of relying on miracles. For even when they take place, they do not alter his free will.

Despite the fact that Rashi argues on the Ramban with regard to relying on a miracle, it seems clear that everyone agrees that the more bitachon (trust in HaShem) that a person has, the more HaShem will do for him in response. This idea is brought out in numerous places in Tanach and the early mussar works, such as Chovos Levavos. He writes that HaShem reacts in kind to the level of trust one has in Him – for example, with regard to one who does not trust in HaShem, he writes, “whoever trusts in what is other than G-d, G-d removes His Providence from him and leaves him in the hands of whatever he trusted in.” The only point that Rashi and the Ramban disagree on, is when the reliance leaves the realm of what could be considered derech hateva, and becomes me’al derech hateva However, everyone agrees that when a person has higher level of trust, he is required him to act in a different way from someone with lesser bitachon. In this vein, the Vilna Gaon zt”l said that in truth, a sick person should not take medicine in order to heal him from his sickness, rather he should rely on HaShem alone to heal him. However, since most people do not reach such a level, they are allowed, and indeed obligated to take medicine. Yet it is known that the Vilna Gaon himself did not take medicine. This is because on his level, it was appropriate not to take medicine, whilst for others, it would be irresponsible.

We see from this principle that it is essential for a person to recognize his level of bitachon and act accordingly. If he stands back and does nothing where his level of bitachon does not merit such inaction, then it is considered irresponsible. However, equally, he must be careful not to do too much hishtadlus (effort) where he should rely more on HaShem. It is very easy to get caught in the trap for thinking one has not exerted sufficient hishtadlus, when in truth he should stand back and rely on HaShem. A well-known example of this is that of Yosef, who, after languishing for ten years in prison, asked the sar hamashkim to help get him released from prison. Yosef was punished for his seeming ‘lack of bitachon’ by suffering for an extra two years before being released. Why did Yosef perform such hishtadlus? Rav Tzadok HaKohen explains that Yosef felt that he had to make an effort because otherwise he would transgress the principle of ‘ein somchin al haneis’. However, in truth, for someone on his high level of bitachon, it was appropriate to avoid any hishtadlus and rely on HaShem for finding a way of getting him released in the most optimum fashion.

There are two very important lessons that can be derived from the above discussion. The first relates to the difficult question of how to find the correct balance between bitachon and hishtadlus. As a general guide, Rav Berkovits suggests that the amount of effort that is considered ‘normal’ given one’s situation, is correct. For example, if it is normal for such a person to work eight hours a day, then for him to work extra hours may constitute unnecessary hishtadlus, whilst working less hours may be considered insufficient hishtadlus. However, we have now seen that the appropriate level of bitachon varies according to each person, as well as what is normal in general. Therefore, if a person develops a heightened sense of bitachon, he may, in theory, be able to reduce his work hours, and learn more, instead, based on his clear recognition that one’s livelihood ultimately comes only from HaShem and not from work.

The second, connected lesson, is that one should constantly strive to increase his bitachon. By doing this, he will then be able to increasingly free himself from the shackles of hishtadlus, and focus on more spiritual activities. Moreover, the Sefer HaChinuch writes that the more a person relies only on HaShem, he makes himself a vessel that is fitting to receive HaShem’s blessings. Therefore, it is an essential aspect of one’s Avodas HaShem, is to constantly work on his bitachon. May we all merit to constantly grow in our trust of HaShem.

DEPTH AND SUPERFICIALITY - NOACH

The Parsha ends with a very short account of the early life of Avraham Avinu. It outlines his family, including his brother, Haran, and how he met an untimely death. The Torah briefly tells us that Haran died in front of his father. The Medrash provides the details to the background of this tragedy. It discusses how Avraham rejected the rampant idol worship of his time and came to belief in one G-d. He destroyed the idols in his father, Terach’s store, and as a result, Terach handed him over to King Nimrod. Nimrod tried to force him to worship idols and when he refused, Nimrod had him thrown into a fire. Haran was an onlooker to all this and knew that he would be forced to side either with Avraham or Nimrod. Before Avraham was thrown into the fire, Haran took a very practical approach – if Avraham would survive, then Haran would join him, but if he would die, then he would side with Nimrod. When Avraham emerged unscathed from the fire, Haran accordingly declared his support for Avraham. As a result, he was thrown into the fire and was killed.

The Medrash points out that his death was somewhat unusual in that only his internal organs were destroyed, implying that his external body was left undamaged. What is the significance of this unusual death? The answer is given that on an external level, Haran was righteous, in that he made himself out to be of the same ilk as Avraham, however, internally, he was did not believe with a leiv shalem. Accordingly, his insides were destroyed because they were lacking merit. However, his exterior was unharmed because it appeared righteous.

This explanation provides us with an example of the principle that it is possible to observe Torah and Mitzvos on two different levels – internally or externally. Internal observance means that a person imbues himself with the attitudes espoused by the Torah – his outlook and life goals are solely defined by the Torah. External observance means that a person may observe all the Mitzvos, however, his deep-seated desires and aspirations are not in tune with doing ratson HaShem (HaShem’s will), rather, other factors drive him. Haran proved himself to be someone whose adherence to belief in one G-d was purely superficial, therefore, he was only protected on a superficial level. Avraham, in contrast, held a deep internal commitment to fulfilling ratson HaShem on all levels, as a result he was fully protected from Nimrod’s fire.

Haran’s trait of externality was emulated by his son, Lot. On a superficial level, Lot observed the Torah, however, many of his actions demonstrated that internally, he was lacking a true desire to follow Avraham’s ways. He was more interested in satisfying his desire for financial success and immorality. The extent to which Lot represents a dichotomy between his internal and external nature is borne out by Chazal in Parsha Lech Lecha. Having settled in Eretz Yisroel, Lot’s shepherds begin to justify grazing their animals on the land of the inhabitants. Avraham’s shepherds protested his, correctly arguing that it constituted thievery, and as a result, a dispute broke out. At that point, Avraham requested that they separate, arguing that they were ‘brothers’ . The obvious problem with this argument is that they were not brothers, Avraham was Lot’s uncle. Moreover, what was the rationale of his argument that they were brothers? The Medrash explains that Avraham was saying that they were like brothers in that they were extremely similar in appearance. Accordingly, Avraham was concerned that people would see Lot grazing other people’s land with his animals and think it was Avraham. We see from here that on a superficial level, Lot was very similar to Avraham, indeed he must have appeared to be a very righteous person, yet internally, he resembled his father, Haran.

Haran had another child, Sarah Imeinu. It seems that she succeeded in avoiding the failing of her father and brother, and became someone whose external observance was matched by internal righteousness. In our Parsha, she is called by a second name, that of Yiskah. The Gemara offers two reasons for this name. One is that she saw with ruach Hakodesh, the other is that everyone would gaze at her beauty. It seems that these two explanations complement each other. The beauty she possessed was not merely of a physical nature, rather it was a spiritual beauty. This emanated from her high spiritual level, which was demonstrated by the fact that she had ruach Hakodesh. Thus, her external beauty was a result of her internal righteousness. In this way, we see that she was able to emulate Avraham in matching her external observance with internal sincerity.

There are many lessons that can be derived from the failings of Haran and Lot, and the greatness of Avraham and Sarah. As Haran demonstrated, it is very easy to be a ‘superficial tzaddik’, it is not hard to dress in a certain way and perform certain actions that make a person look ‘righteous’. However, such externality is very dangerous in that it can cause a person to be a mere shell of an Eved HaShem (one who serves HaShem), whilst on the inside, he is anything but an Eved HaShem. The Prophet, Yeshaya, informs us of the seriousness of this failing: He describes how HaShem will punish Klal Yisroel, “because this people approached [Me] with it mouth and honored me with its lips, but its heart was far from me…”

Moreover, emphasis on externalities can actually hinder one’s internal gowth. One of the methods of the yetser hara is to make a person who wants to grow focus on external changes, whilst distracting him from internal growth. My Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits describes a secular person who had a tendency to violence. He became ‘observant’, dramatically changing his dress code and external actions, however, he retained his internal tendency to violence. Now he channeled it in a different, ‘frum’ way, by throwing stones at people whom he disagreed with, but he did not change his true self. In a less dramatic fashion, this pitfall can affect all people who try to improve their Avodas HaShem and overemphasize external changes at the expense of true growth. It is essential that a person make a cheshbon hanefesh of the balance between his external and internal Avodas HaShem. May we all merit to emulate Avraham and Sarah and internalize what we believe in.

RELYING ON MIRACLES - CHAYEI SARAH

After arranging the burial of his wife, Sarah, Avraham sends his faithful servant, Eliezer, to search for a suitable wife for his son, Yitzchak. Eliezer brings along with him ten of Avraham’s camels. In that time, most people were not careful to muzzle their animals, despite the fact that they would inevitably graze from other people’s land. The Medrash brings a machlokes (dispute) as to whether Avraham’s camels were muzzled or not. The first opinion holds that Avraham’s camels were indeed muzzled in order to prevent them from grazing. However, Rav Huna and Rav Yirimiyah points out a difficulty with the idea that Avraham needed to muzzle his camels in order to prevent them from stealing. They discuss the donkey of the great Tanna, Rav Pinchas ben Yair, who would not eat forbidden food. From there, the gemara in Chullin learns out a principle that HaShem does not allow the animals of tzaddikim to commit ‘aveiros’. Accordingly, Rav Huna and Rav Yirimiyah notes that if Pinchas ben Yair was on the level that his animals would not sin, all the more so that should be the case with regard to Avraham Avinu. Therefore, they argue that there was no need for Avraham to muzzle his camels. The Medrash ends with that argument unanswered.
There is a machlokes amongst the commentaries as to which opinion in the Medrash is correct. Rashi adopts the first opinion, that Avraham did indeed muzzle his camels. In contrast, the Ramban prefers the second view, that the camels were not muzzled because this was unnecessary, due to Avraham’s great righteousness. Indeed, the proof from Rav Pinchas Ben Yair needs to be answered by the opinion in the Medrash that Avraham did muzzle his camels, (and according to Rashi who follows this opinion). According to them why was this at all necessary, Avraham’s camels would surely not have stolen in any event?! The Re’eim and Maharal both answer that the first opinion agrees that Avraham’s camels would not steal. Nonetheless, Avraham had to muzzle them because of the principle of ‘ein somchim al haneis’ , that a person should not act in such a way that he relies on miracles. Based on this principle, Avraham would not have been allowed to take his camels to places where, according to derech hateva (the regular laws of nature), they would have grazed on other people’s land. This answer seems so persuasive that one now must explain how Rav Huna and Rav Yirimyahu, and the Ramban who follows them, could maintain that Avraham did indeed leave his camels unmuzzled, thereby relying on a miracle that they would not eat any grass on their whole journey.
It seems that they do not totally reject the principle of ‘ein somchim al haneis’, rather they hold that it only applies to normal people. However, tzaddikim (righteous people) need not follow this principle, rather they can rely on miracles. Avraham Avinu was on such a level of greatness that he could live beyond the normal laws of nature (me’al derech hateva). The idea that the Ramban holds a tzaddik can rely on miracles, and that Rashi argues, was heard from my Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits shlita, in his discussion of an earlier section in Sefer Bereishis. In the beginning of Parshas Lech Lecha, Avraham leaves Eretz Yisroel immediately after arriving, because of a famine. Rashi understands that he was correct to leave, however the Ramban explains that this was a great sin. He argues that Avraham should have relied on HaShem and stayed in Eretz Yisroel despite the fact that there was such a strong famine, which one could not survive, derech hateva. Rav Berkovits explained the machlokes in the same vein. Rashi held that to remain in the land would break the idea of ‘ein somchin al haneis’, whereas the Ramban held it does not apply to a tzaddik such as Avraham, therefore Avraham was obligated to stay and trust that HaShem would somehow provide him with food.
According to the Ramban, why is it the case that ‘ein somchin al haneis’ does not apply to tzaddikim? It is a well-known principle that HaShem does not like to break the normal laws of nature for a person. The reason for this is that when such events occur they take away from one’s free will ability to decide whether to serve G-d or not – now that they see such a clear manifestation of His presence they have no choice but to believe in Him. Because of this idea, a normal person cannot rely on a neis, because he is forcing HaShem to change the laws of nature and cause an imbalance in his free will. However, a tzaddik is so clear that everything is from HaShem, that events that transcend nature do not change his free will anyway, because, regardless of such ‘miracles’ he is fully aware of HaShem’s presence. Since for him, a neis is no different than anything else, the Ramban holds there is no problem of relying on miracles. For even when they take place, they do not alter his free will.
Despite the fact that Rashi argues on the Ramban with regard to relying on a miracle, it seems clear that everyone agrees that the more bitachon (trust in HaShem) that a person has, the more HaShem will do for him in response. This idea is brought out in numerous places in Tanach and the early mussar works, such as Chovos Levavos. He writes that HaShem reacts in kind to the level of trust one has in Him – for example, with regard to one who does not trust in HaShem, he writes, “whoever trusts in what is other than G-d, G-d removes His Providence from him and leaves him in the hands of whatever he trusted in.” The only point that Rashi and the Ramban disagree on, is when the reliance leaves the realm of what could be considered derech hateva, and becomes me’al derech hateva However, everyone agrees that when a person has higher level of trust, he is required him to act in a different way from someone with lesser bitachon. In this vein, the Vilna Gaon zt”l said that in truth, a sick person should not take medicine in order to heal him from his sickness, rather he should rely on HaShem alone to heal him. However, since most people do not reach such a level, they are allowed, and indeed obligated to take medicine. Yet it is known that the Vilna Gaon himself did not take medicine. This is because on his level, it was appropriate not to take medicine, whilst for others, it would be irresponsible.
We see from this principle that it is essential for a person to recognize his level of bitachon and act accordingly. If he stands back and does nothing where his level of bitachon does not merit such inaction, then it is considered irresponsible. However, equally, he must be careful not to do too much hishtadlus (effort) where he should rely more on HaShem. It is very easy to get caught in the trap for thinking one has not exerted sufficient hishtadlus, when in truth he should stand back and rely on HaShem. A well-known example of this is that of Yosef, who, after languishing for ten years in prison, asked the sar hamashkim to help get him released from prison. Yosef was punished for his seeming ‘lack of bitachon’ by suffering for an extra two years before being released. Why did Yosef perform such hishtadlus? Rav Tzadok HaKohen explains that Yosef felt that he had to make an effort because otherwise he would transgress the principle of ‘ein somchin al haneis’. However, in truth, for someone on his high level of bitachon, it was appropriate to avoid any hishtadlus and rely on HaShem for finding a way of getting him released in the most optimum fashion.
There are two very important lessons that can be derived from the above discussion. The first relates to the difficult question of how to find the correct balance between bitachon and hishtadlus. As a general guide, Rav Berkovits suggests that the amount of effort that is considered ‘normal’ given one’s situation, is correct. For example, if it is normal for such a person to work eight hours a day, then for him to work extra hours may constitute unnecessary hishtadlus, whilst working less hours may be considered insufficient hishtadlus. However, we have now seen that the appropriate level of bitachon varies according to each person, as well as what is normal in general. Therefore, if a person develops a heightened sense of bitachon, he may, in theory, be able to reduce his work hours, and learn more, instead, based on his clear recognition that one’s livelihood ultimately comes only from HaShem and not from work.
The second, connected lesson, is that one should constantly strive to increase his bitachon. By doing this, he will then be able to increasingly free himself from the shackles of hishtadlus, and focus on more spiritual activities. Moreover, the Sefer HaChinuch writes that the more a person relies only on HaShem, he makes himself a vessel that is fitting to receive HaShem’s blessings. Therefore, it is an essential person of one’s Avodas HaShem, is to constantly work on his bitachon. May we all merit to constantly grow in our trust of HaShem.

THE BATTLE OF BODY AND SOUL -vCHAYEI SARAH

After enduring the nisayon of the Akeida and the death of his wife, Avraham Avinu is forced to enter into lengthy negotiations with the wily Efron in order to acquire a burial plot for Sarah Imainu. Finally, he buys it for the extortionate sum of 400 silver pieces. The commentators note that Efron’s name is spelt with a ‘vav’ in every instance except for the passuk in which the transaction finally takes place, in that passuk, his name is lacking the ‘vav’. Rashi explains that Efron spoke a lot but did little, he initially told Avraham that he was willing to give away the land, but in the end, he charged a very high price, as a result his value decreases The Baal HaTurim makes a different observation about the missing ‘vav’. He notes that the gematria of the name Efron without a ‘vav’ is 400, the same as the amount of money that he earned from this transaction ! What is the significance of this? Rav Elchonon Fishman Shlita explains that when Efron acquired this money it gave him a new sense of value - now he saw himself as ‘worth’ 400 sliver pieces. Efron’s self-estimation was dependent upon his financial status. He fell prey to the common yetser hara of emphasizing his material status over his spiritual standing. There is a natural tendency to do this because, since Chet Adam HaRishon, man is far more aware of his body than his soul. Rav Motty Berger Shlita observes that we tend to identify ourselves as our body - for example, when a person is sick, he says, “I am not feeling well,” seeing his body as his main identity. A more accurate statement would be, “my body is not feeling well,” implying that our soul is the ikar part of us. An essential part of our Avodas Hashem is to develop greater awareness of our soul and its needs.

We can gain a deeper understanding of the body-soul relationship by making a further observation about the Baal HaTurim’s gematria. When Efron received the money he surely felt that he had increased his importance in the world - now he was a wealthy man. However, he actually lost a letter to his name and we know that a person’s name represents his essence. This indicates that his ‘real value’ as a person went down. Moreover, it is significant that the letter that he lost to his name was the ‘vav’. The ‘vav’ is the letter of connection; it means ‘and’ - it joins concepts and nouns together. It’s shape also signifies it’s connecting ability; it is shaped like a hook with which we can connect two things together. When Efron gained in physicality he went down in spirituality and lost an element of connection with Hashem. When a person gives more importance to his body, then, mimayla, his soul will suffer.

The inverse relationship between body and soul is also alluded to in next week’s parsha. The navi tells Rivka that the two babies inside her will develop into two conflicting nations and that when one of these falls, the other will rise. The pshat of this passuk is that the nations of Klal Yisroel and Edom will counter-balance each other, when one ascends the other declines. But there are commentaries who see another battle alluded to in this passuk - they say that Yaakov represents the soul, and Esav the body; there is a continual battle between these two forces. If the soul is in the ascendancy then the body will consequently weaken, and if the soul weakens then the body will correspondingly rise. A striking example of this is a story involving Beis Yosef: He was often visited by a Malach due to his great spiritual level. However, for a few days, the Malach stopped appearing to him. He was told that the reason for this was that on one hot day the Beis Yosef spent a little too much time searching for cold water. This slight focus on his bodily needs effected a decline in his spiritual level to the extent that he was not now on the level to speak to the Malach!

We see from these sources that it is impossible for a person to be devoted to both his body and his soul. A person may think that this is not the case - he can be osek in Torah and mitzvos and simultaneously strive to attain physical satisfaction. However, ultimately this kind of person is merely a slave to his body; it may allow him to do mitzvos but if he cannot pull himself away from his desires for food and money then that is a sure sign that the body is in the ascendancy. Rav Shlomo Brevda Shlita demonstrates this point with two stories. He once sent a promising yeshiva bachur to America to learn in a very good yeshiva. When the boy arrived there he was impressed with the hasmada of the bachurim. However, he was equally surprised at the lunch break - those same bachurim who had learnt with such vigor were now filling their stomachs with equally great zest! Rav Brevda says that these bachurim were slaves to their bodies. In another instance, Rav Brevda was speaking to a large number of religious teenage girls. At one point in his lecture, he said that the purpose of life is not to live in the nicest house with the most beautiful furniture. Later that day a teacher came to him, saying that one girl in the audience was experiencing a great deal of confusion. She had been brought up in an observant home in which it was stressed that it is essential to live the high life in terms of materialistic comforts. After hearing Rav Brevda’s words she realized that he was right and that she had been taught an attitude that is alien to the true Torah outlook.

Rav Brevda argues that there is supposed to be a milchama between the body and soul. The body is very powerful and often overcomes our drive for spirituality but as long as we at least recognize that there is a battle, then we can begin to strengthen our soul. However, he argues that for many fully observant Jews there is no battle - there is no conflict when a person is, for example, faced with the opportunity to eat a piece of cake when he is not at all hungry - he gulps it down without thinking. But worst of all is that he doesn’t even realize that his body is in total control of his being.

What can person do to at least join the battle? David HaMelech tells us that there are two ways of working on oneself - to leave evil and do good . ‘Leaving evil’ refers here to weakening the hold of the body. Rav Brevda offers a suggestion of how we can begin to do this; when we eat a main meal, we should only eat one serving - we are allowed to take as much as we want for that serving but we should at least develop the ability to refrain ourselves from taking more - this way we have at least began the milchama with our body. But we should also focus on the ‘aseh tov’ - by growing in spirituality we will automatically weaken our bond to physicality. Rav Noach Orlowek Shlita was once asked by a bachur that he looked forward to lunch more than mincha - how could he work on this failing? Rav Orlowek answered that he should strive to appreciate tefilla more, by doing so he will thereby inevitably feel less excited about physical enjoyment. Rav Brevda offers a suggestion about how to do this as well - for the first ten minutes of pesukey dezimra a person should do his utmost to only focus on his siddur and not look around. By doing this he can shut out the distractions that prevent him from focusing solely on the tefilla. Rav Brevda says that people have told him that this exercise has drastically improved their Avodas Hashem.

The battle between body and soul is long and challenging, however, if we at least join the battle then it is in our hands to succeed. The Maharal makes a vital point on the Rashi about the conflicting fortunes of Yaakov and Esav . He notes that Rashi says that when Yaakov falls, Esav rises but not the other way around. He explains that Yaakov is in control of who is stronger - Esav only ascends as a result of Yaakov’s falings, but if Yaakov succeeds, then Esav is helpless. The same can be said with regards to the battle between body and soul. It is in a person’s control who is on the ascent - if he strives to strengthen his soul then the power of the body will inevitably wither. May we all be able to join the milchama of body and soul.

CHESED - THE KEY TO SHALOM BAYIS - CHAYEI SARAH

Avraham Avinu's loyal servant, Eliezer, arrives at Aram Naharaim in search of a wife for Yitzchak Avinu. Immediately he prays to Hashem to help him find a suitable wife for Yitzchak. He even asks Hashem to give him a sign for the identity of the prospective wife, requesting that she treat him with great chesed. The commentaries note that Eliezer deliberately wanted to ascertain that Yitzchak's wife excel in the trait of chesed in particular. Why was this mida, above all others, so important to Eliezer?

The Maharal provides us with the key to answering this question. After Eliezer decides that Rivka is the fitting wife for Yitzchak, he immediately bestows her with gifts; "And it was when the camels had finished drinking, the man took a golden nose ring, its weight a beka, and two bracelets on her arms, ten gold shekels their weight." Rashi tells us that there were deeper allusions contained in these gifts. The beka mentioned in the passuk, alludes to the future mitzvo of giving half a shekel, where the Torah instructs the Jewish people to give a "beka per head", a beka being half the weight of a shekel. The two bracelets alluded to the two Luchos (Tablets) given at Sinai, and the ten gold shekels hinted at the Ten Commandments. The Maharal explains that Eliezer was alluding to the three pillars of Torah, Avoda (service of G-d) and Gemillut chasadim, upon which the world stands. The shekalim referred to the pillar of kindness, whereby everyone gave money. The reference to the nose alludes to the smell present in every korban offered in the Beis HaMikdash. Accordingly, Eliezer was hinting at the pillar of Avoda, with this gift. Finally, the Luchos were references to Torah.

The Maharal continues that Eliezer was hinting to Rivka that since she excelled in one of the three pillars, that of chesed, she would also merit to receive the pillars of Avoda and Torah. Her connection to Avoda would be through her marriage to Yitzchak, who epitomized that trait, and her connection to Torah would be through Yaakov Avinu who represents Torah. The Maharal explains that chesed is the pillar through which all others midos derive, accordingly, Rivka merited all the pillars through her excelling in the one pillar of chesed. With this explanation we can understand why the mida of chesed was so important to Eliezer - he recognized that of all the positive traits, the most fundamental was that of chesed because it was the root of all good traits. Accordingly, this was the most important mida to be found in the prospective wife of Yitzchak.

The Maharal makes a similar point in Parshas Lech Lecha. Hashem promises Avraham that his name would be mentioned in the chasima of the first bracha in the Shemoneh Esrei. Why should his name be mentioned any more than those of Yitzchak or Yaakov? Maharal explains that Avraham's mida of chesed contains within it the midos of Yitzchak and Yaakov.

The idea that chesed is the root of all other traits is strongly supported by the famous gemara in which a prospective convert asks Hillel to teach him the Torah 'on one foot'. Hillel answers him, "that which is hateful to you, do not do to your friend, the rest is commentary, go and learn it." The commentaries understand that Hillel was teaching the non-Jew the mitzvo of 'love your neighbor as yourself', the most fundamental of all the mitzvos relating to bein adam lechaveiro. However, they ask how this encapsulated the numerous mitzvos that do not fall within the realm of bein adam lechaveiro? The Chazon Ish zt"l explains that Hillel was teaching the non-Jew a profound lesson. A person who is self-centered will never try to step out of his own way of thinking and viewing the world. Consequently, he will never relate to the thoughts and opinions of other people. Such a person will be unable to properly keep the Torah. This is because in order to follow the Torah, and the outlook prescribed by it, a person must step out of his own way of viewing the world, and subjugate his opinions to those of Hashem. One who cannot relate to the views of those around him will surely not be able to truly accept the views of Hashem. Hillel was teaching the non-Jew that only by stepping out of one's selfish world, can he begin to come to accepting the Torah.

The Chazon Ish's explanation helps us understand how the mida of chesed lies at the root of seeing the truth of the Torah. A baal chesed is one who can step out of his own world, and appreciate the needs and thoughts of others. Therefore, he can also, more easily step out of his own biases to shift his outlook to fit with that of the Torah. We also see this idea in the Torah's focus on Avraham Avinu's midos. My Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits shlita points out that Chazal characterize Avraham for his incredible desire to seek truth, as well as his great chesed. The Torah goes to great lengths to teach us about Avraham's kindness but there is no mention of his philosophical quest for the truth. It is Chazal who point out this aspect of Avraham. Rav Berkovits explains that the root of Avraham's ability to find the truth was his mida of chesed. It was his very selflessness that brought him to the truth. Since his chesed lay at the root of his greatness, the Torah stressed that aspect of his personality as opposed to the intellectual honesty that came as a result.

It is also clear that the midos of Avoda (service of G-d) and gevurah (strength) epitomized by Yitzchak also stem from chesed. Yitzchak is most praised for his total self-sacrifice. This self-sacrifice emanated from his desire to do G-d's will. Thus, his self-discipline and self-sacrifice stemmed from his desire to do chesed, (so to speak) to Hashem. Even the mido of din, (strict judgment) in fact comes from chesed. We know that the reason Hashem created a world of judgment whereby one can falter, is because of the concept of 'bread of shame'. A person feels far less satisfaction when he receives something without having worked for it. Only by earning it through his own efforts does he really feel joy at his acquisitions. In this way, even Hashem's strict judgment derives from His desire to bestow chesed on his creations.

We have seen many sources that the root trait is that of chesed. This is why Eliezer was so focused on finding this mida in Yitzchak's wife. In a similar vein, one renowned talmid chacham pointed out that when his daughters were dating, he would often be told about the brilliance of their prospective husbands. He would say that their intellect was far less important to him than how they would treat his daughters.

It is clear how important the trait of chesed is in all relationships, and in marriage in particular. By working on one's chesed, a person will immeasurably enhance his marriage. To the degree that he (or she) remains ensconced in his own world he will be unable to understand and meet his spouse's needs. This indeed seems to be the cause of many of the problems that plague bad marriages. In contrast, when a spouse strives to relate to his wife, then, in time, their bonds will grow stronger and stronger. May we all merit to marriages filled with chesed.

THE BATTLE OF BODY AND SOUL - CHAYEI SARAH

After enduring the nisayon of the Akeida and the death of his wife, Avraham Avinu is forced to enter into lengthy negotiations with the wily Efron in order to acquire a burial plot for Sarah Imainu. Finally, he buys it for the extortionate sum of 400 silver pieces. The commentators note that Efron’s name is spelt with a ‘vav’ in every instance except for the passuk in which the transaction finally takes place, in that passuk, his name is lacking the ‘vav’. Rashi explains that Efron spoke a lot but did little, he initially told Avraham that he was willing to give away the land, but in the end, he charged a very high price, as a result his value decreases The Baal HaTurim makes a different observation about the missing ‘vav’. He notes that the gematria of the name Efron without a ‘vav’ is 400, the same as the amount of money that he earned from this transaction! What is the significance of this? Rav Elchonon Fishman Shlita explains that when Efron acquired this money it gave him a new sense of value - now he saw himself as ‘worth’ 400 sliver pieces. Efron’s self-estimation was dependent upon his financial status. He fell prey to the common yetser hara of emphasizing his material status over his spiritual standing. There is a natural tendency to do this because, since Chet Adam HaRishon, man is far more aware of his body than his soul. Rav Motty Berger Shlita observes that we tend to identify ourselves as our body - for example, when a person is sick, he says, “I am not feeling well,” seeing his body as his main identity. A more accurate statement would be, “my body is not feeling well,” implying that our soul is the ikar part of us. An essential part of our Avodas Hashem is to develop greater awareness of our soul and its needs.

We can gain a deeper understanding of the body-soul relationship by making a further observation about the Baal HaTurim’s gematria. When Efron received the money he surely felt that he had increased his importance in the world - now he was a wealthy man. However, he actually lost a letter to his name and we know that a person’s name represents his essence. This indicates that his ‘real value’ as a person went down. Moreover, it is significant that the letter that he lost to his name was the ‘vav’. The ‘vav’ is the letter of connection; it means ‘and’ - it joins concepts and nouns together. It’s shape also signifies it’s connecting ability; it is shaped like a hook with which we can connect two things together. When Efron gained in physicality he went down in spirituality and lost an element of connection with Hashem. When a person gives more importance to his body, then, mimayla, his soul will suffer.

The inverse relationship between body and soul is also alluded to in next week’s parsha. The navi tells Rivka that the two babies inside her will develop into two conflicting nations and that when one of these falls, the other will rise. The pshat of this passuk is that the nations of Klal Yisroel and Edom will counter-balance each other, when one ascends the other declines. But there are commentaries who see another battle alluded to in this passuk - they say that Yaakov represents the soul, and Esav the body; there is a continual battle between these two forces. If the soul is in the ascendancy then the body will consequently weaken, and if the soul weakens then the body will correspondingly rise. A striking example of this is a story involving Beis Yosef: He was often visited by a Malach due to his great spiritual level. However, for a few days, the Malach stopped appearing to him. He was told that the reason for this was that on one hot day the Beis Yosef spent a little too much time searching for cold water. This slight focus on his bodily needs effected a decline in his spiritual level to the extent that he was not now on the level to speak to the Malach!

We see from these sources that it is impossible for a person to be devoted to both his body and his soul. A person may think that this is not the case - he can be osek in Torah and mitzvos and simultaneously strive to attain physical satisfaction. However, ultimately this kind of person is merely a slave to his body; it may allow him to do mitzvos but if he cannot pull himself away from his desires for food and money then that is a sure sign that the body is in the ascendancy. Rav Shlomo Brevda Shlita demonstrates this point with two stories. He once sent a promising yeshiva bachur to America to learn in a very good yeshiva. When the boy arrived there he was impressed with the hasmada of the bachurim. However, he was equally surprised at the lunch break - those same bachurim who had learnt with such vigor were now filling their stomachs with equally great zest! Rav Brevda says that these bachurim were slaves to their bodies. In another instance, Rav Brevda was speaking to a large number of religious teenage girls. At one point in his lecture, he said that the purpose of life is not to live in the nicest house with the most beautiful furniture. Later that day a teacher came to him, saying that one girl in the audience was experiencing a great deal of confusion. She had been brought up in an observant home in which it was stressed that it is essential to live the high life in terms of materialistic comforts. After hearing Rav Brevda’s words she realized that he was right and that she had been taught an attitude that is alien to the true Torah outlook.

Rav Brevda argues that there is supposed to be a milchama between the body and soul. The body is very powerful and often overcomes our drive for spirituality but as long as we at least recognize that there is a battle, then we can begin to strengthen our soul. However, he argues that for many fully observant Jews there is no battle - there is no conflict when a person is, for example, faced with the opportunity to eat a piece of cake when he is not at all hungry - he gulps it down without thinking. But worst of all is that he doesn’t even realize that his body is in total control of his being.

What can person do to at least join the battle? David HaMelech tells us that there are two ways of working on oneself - to leave evil and do good. ‘Leaving evil’ refers here to weakening the hold of the body. Rav Brevda offers a suggestion of how we can begin to do this; when we eat a main meal, we should only eat one serving - we are allowed to take as much as we want for that serving but we should at least develop the ability to refrain ourselves from taking more - this way we have at least began the milchama with our body. But we should also focus on the ‘aseh tov’ - by growing in spirituality we will automatically weaken our bond to physicality. Rav Noach Orlowek Shlita was once asked by a bachur that he looked forward to lunch more than mincha - how could he work on this failing? Rav Orlowek answered that he should strive to appreciate tefilla more, by doing so he will thereby inevitably feel less excited about physical enjoyment. Rav Brevda offers a suggestion about how to do this as well - for the first ten minutes of pesukey dezimra a person should do his utmost to only focus on his siddur and not look around. By doing this he can shut out the distractions that prevent him from focusing solely on the tefilla. Rav Brevda says that people have told him that this exercise has drastically improved their Avodas Hashem.

The battle between body and soul is long and challenging, however, if we at least join the battle then it is in our hands to succeed. The Maharal makes a vital point on the Rashi about the conflicting fortunes of Yaakov and Esav. He notes that Rashi says that when Yaakov falls, Esav rises but not the other way around. He explains that Yaakov is in control of who is stronger - Esav only ascends as a result of Yaakov’s falings, but if Yaakov succeeds, then Esav is helpless. The same can be said with regards to the battle between body and soul. It is in a person’s control who is on the ascent - if he strives to strengthen his soul then the power of the body will inevitably wither. May we all be able to join the milchama of body and soul.

CHESED AND CHACHMA - CHAYEI SARAH

　
Avraham Avinu sends his faithful eved, Eliezer to find a suitable wife for his righteous son, Yitzchak Avinu. When Eliezer arrives at his destination he prays to Hashem to send him a sign to enable him to determine who should be Yitzchak’s wife He asks; “Let it be that the maiden to whom I shall say, ‘Please tip over your jug so I may drink’ and who replies, ‘Drink, and I will even water your camels;’ her will You have designated for Your servant, for Yitzchak, and may I know through her that You have done kindness with my master.”

The commentaries explain that he did not merely suggest a random sign, rather he wanted to ascertain that the future Matriarch would have a highly developed sense of kindness. The commentaries see in the exactness of his prayer that it was not sufficient that she merely respond to his request for water; he planned to only ask for water for himself and he hoped that she would react on her own initiative and offer to water the camels as well. The Seforno points out that he wanted her to delve beyond his verbal request for water for himself and perceive that his true needs were far greater, and act accordingly.

In a similar vein the Malbim points out that it was not sufficient that Rivka be kindhearted, rather Eliezer also wanted her to demonstrate chachma that would enable her to best serve his needs. He is further medayek Eliezer’s request; he davke asked that she tip the jug for him as opposed to him taking the jug from her and drinking himself. He hoped that rather than being angered by his supposed laziness, she would try to judge him favorably that he must have some kind of pain in his hands. Accordingly, she would realize that if he does not have the strength to hold the jug for himself, then all the more so, he would be unable to draw water for the camels. Consequently, she would perform the arduous task of watering the ten camels herself! When she successfully passed these tests, Eliezer saw that he had found an appropriate match for Yitzchak.
The Seforno and Malbim show that it was not sufficient that Rivka be kind, rather she needed to demonstrate chachma that would enable her to percieve Eliezer’s true needs without him even asking her directly. We learn from here that in order to perform chesed in the most optimal way, a person must use chachma. It seems that this does not mean that he needs to have an exceedingly high IQ, rather that he develop an awareness of the people around him so that he can perceive others’ needs and provide for him rather than waiting to be approached.

The Beis HaLevi derives a similar point from a passuk in the end of Megillas Esther. In extolling the praises of Mordechai as the leader of the Jewish people, the Megilla tells us that, “he was doresh tov l’amo”, that he seeked out the good for his people. The Beis HaLevi asks, surely all Torah leaders want to do good for the people, what is the uniqueness of Mordechai that he was ‘doresh tov le’amo’? He explains that Mordechai would not wait until people come to him and request from him to help him. Rather, he would preempt them by coming to them and trying to discern their needs and how he could help them.

The Beis HaLevi himself exemplified the trait of understanding peoples’ needs through his keen awareness before they even came to him. On one Seder night, he was asked if it was permissible to use milk for the Four Cups. In reply, he sent a messenger to the questioner’s home with a generous amount of wine and meat. He realized that they obviously did not have wine with which to drink he four cups. Moreover, since they were planning to drink milk, they evidently did not have any meat to eat. He acted accordingly and provided for their unasked for needs!

Throughout our daily lives we encounter people who may be in need of some kind of assistance. However, very often, they are too embarrassed to explicitly ask for help. Thus, it is necessary to strive to emulate the hanhago of Rivka and work out their needs. For example, one person was found to be living in desperate poverty - how was it discovered? A friend had lent him 25 Shekalim some weeks earlier and casually asked if his friend could repay it. The borrower’s face turned white at the sheer impossibility of having to pay back such a loan. Such a reaction alerted his friend and he made some investigations and discovered that this did not have enough money to live on the most basic level. Sometimes, the facial expression of a person, or a casual comment will indicate a certain need. It is in our power to develop an awareness to such hints and thereby greatly increase our capacity for doing chesed.