לקוטי שיחות חלק כ׳ - חיי שרה א

Parshas Chayei Sarah

1. In this week’s sidrah the Torah tells us the total of the years of Sarah, Avraham and Yishmael. At the beginning of the sidrah^[1]: “And the life of Sarah was one hundred years and twenty years and seven years”; and at the end of the sidrah: “And these are the days of the years of the life of Avraham… one hundred years and seventy years and five years”^[2], “And these are the years of the life of Yishmael, one hundred years and thirty years and seven years”^[3].

Here we find something remarkable in Rashi’s commentary on the Torah. Although in all three the word “year” (shanah, shanim) appears with the hundreds, with the tens and with the units alike, Rashi explains each of them differently:

On the years of Sarah he explains: “Therefore ‘year’ is written with each sum, to tell you that each one is expounded on its own,” and from this one learns: “At one hundred she was like at twenty with regard to sin… and at twenty like at seven with regard to beauty.”

On Avraham Rashi says: “At one hundred like at seventy, and at seventy like at five, without sin.” This means (simply) that one learns from it (not two matters, as with Sarah, where “each one is expounded on its own” — without sin, and beauty — but) only one matter and quality^[4]: that even at one hundred Avraham was (like at seventy, and at seventy) like at five, “without sin.”

And regarding Yishmael Rashi does not explain at all why “‘year’ is written with each sum”^[5]!

The commentators on Rashi^[6] discuss at great length how to resolve these differences in Rashi. But apart from the various difficulties in each of the answers (and this is not the place to elaborate), a general question arises here (as has been discussed many times):

Since the matter is not at all simple, to the point that each commentator explains it differently — Rashi, who explains the verses (also) for a “five-year-old [beginning] Scripture”^[7], should have made his explanation clear, in a way that would leave no doubt about his intent.

We must therefore say that Rashi’s intent is clearly understood from the words he says in his commentary, and there is no need to add anything to them.

2. The explanation:

Rashi says (regarding Sarah): “Therefore ‘year’ is written with each sum, to tell you that each one is expounded on its own: at one hundred etc.” — that is, from the fact^[8] that “‘year’ is written with each sum” it is proven “that each one is expounded on its own… with regard to sin… with regard to beauty.” It is therefore self-understood that afterwards, regarding Avraham, where “‘year’ is written with each sum” as well, each sum must also be “expounded on its own,” and two matters are learned^[9].

Consequently, when Rashi says regarding Avraham, “At one hundred like at seventy,” he means (not merely the beginning of the derivation, one single derivation whose conclusion is “at seventy like at five, without sin,” but an addition — one more,) a separate derivation^[10]. And the reason Rashi does not spell out what the lesson of “at one hundred like at seventy” consists of, is that the novelty and point of Avraham being “at one hundred like at seventy” is stated explicitly in a verse:

When the A-lmighty told Avraham that he would have a son from Sarah, the verse says^[11]: “And he said in his heart, ‘Will [a child] be born to one who is a hundred years old…?’” It was a wonder to him that he could have a child at the age of a hundred years; as Rashi explains there^[12], “In the days of Avraham the years had already become fewer, and weakness had come into the world… for their generations hastened to beget at sixty and at seventy”^[13].

Accordingly it is simply understood what “at one hundred like at seventy” was in Avraham Avinu. Although at that time (because of the “weakness in the world”) the age for having children extended only until “seventy,” this weakness did not apply to Avraham^[*13] (as we see, he fathered Yishmael at eighty-six^[14]), so that even at “one hundred” he remained “like at seventy”^[*14].

[Accordingly Rashi’s comment on “Will a child be born to one who is a hundred years old” is better appreciated and understood: (not that this is a wonder — how can he have a child at a hundred — but) a “wonder that affirms”: “He said in his heart: Has such a kindness been done for anyone, as the Holy One, blessed be He, does for me?”]

With Sarah, however, since “it had ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women”^[15], it was naturally impossible for her to give birth to children^[16] (and in her case there had to be a miracle^[17] — “Is anything too wondrous for G‑d?”^[18] — for Yitzchak to be born to her). [Sarah, though, thought that Avraham too could not have children^[19]: “And Sarah laughed… ‘After I have withered… and my master is old’”^[20].]

This also answers a great question: why does Rashi not pause over the fact that children were born to Avraham (the sons of Keturah^[21]) more than forty years after the birth of Yitzchak^[22], with no mention that this birth came about through a miracle^[17]?

Because this is already accounted for in the words “at one hundred like at seventy”: in Avraham there was no weakness that limited having children to seventy^[23]; “weakness” had no hold on him^[*23]. Consequently he had children at one hundred and also much later. This is like the quality of “without sin”: although the wording is “at seventy like at five, without sin,” it does not mean that afterwards, heaven forbid, it was otherwise, but that he remained without sin all the days of his life^[24].

3. This difference between Avraham and Sarah will also resolve a difference between Rashi’s comments:

On the verse^[25] “Sarah has nursed children,” Rashi explains: “On the day of the feast the noblewomen brought their children with them, and she nursed them, for they had been saying, ‘Sarah did not give birth; rather, she brought a foundling from the street.’”

On the verse (at the beginning of Parshas Toldos^[26]) “Avraham begot Yitzchak,” Rashi says: “Because the scoffers of the generation were saying, ‘Sarah conceived from Avimelech’… What did the Holy One, blessed be He, do? He formed etc., and all testified that Avraham begot Yitzchak.”

We need to understand: regarding Sarah, Rashi says that the noblewomen^[27] (women of standing) said “Sarah did not give birth,” whereas regarding Avraham he explains that it was “the scoffers of the generation [who] were saying, ‘Sarah conceived from Avimelech’”^[28]. Why?

Another point is not understood. “Sarah has nursed children” only establishes that “Sarah gave birth” (and the child is not a “foundling”); it is no proof that he is Avraham’s child. The noblewomen could still have said (like the scoffers of the generation) that “Sarah conceived from Avimelech”^[29], knowing that Avraham was an old man of a hundred years?

The question is stronger still. In the Gemara^[30] the two matters are brought in one continuous passage: “‘Sarah has nursed children’… all the nations of the world were murmuring… that they had brought a foundling from the street… Avraham Avinu went and invited all the great men of the generation, and Sarah Imeinu invited their wives… and she nursed all of them. And still they were murmuring and saying: If Sarah, at ninety, can give birth, can Avraham, at a hundred, beget? Immediately the features of Yitzchak’s face were changed etc.”

Based on the above, this is resolved. For the noblewomen, the novelty and wonder was from the outset only regarding Sarah, since for her, “it had ceased etc.,” it was impossible to have children. With Avraham, however, seeing that he had fathered Yishmael at eighty-six, it was no longer a wonder to them that he could have a child at a hundred as well.

Therefore among people of standing in general it was likewise no wonder that “Avraham begot Yitzchak.” Only the “scoffers of the generation” — to whom it does not matter how a thing truly is, and who only seek an opportunity for scoffing etc. — only they said (and with scoffing) “Sarah conceived from Avimelech.”

The A-lmighty, however, wished to forestall even the scoffers of the generation, and therefore “He formed the features of Yitzchak’s face to resemble Avraham, and all (even the scoffers of the generation) testified that Avraham begot Yitzchak.”

4. The reason Rashi does not explain regarding Yishmael “at one hundred like at thirty, and at thirty like at seven” (although there too “‘year’ is written with each sum”) is that this is self-understood from Rashi’s explanation in the same passage regarding Avraham: at one hundred like at thirty — without weakness^[31]; and at thirty like at seven — with regard to sin (the verse thereby tells us that his doing teshuvah^[32] had already been from the age of thirty on^[33]).

Accordingly, however, we must understand another comment of Rashi:

On “And these are the years of the life of Yishmael…”^[3] Rashi says: “Why were Yishmael’s years counted? In order to trace through them the years of Yaakov” (as Rashi immediately goes on to explain: “From Yishmael’s years we learn that Yaakov served in the house of Ever for fourteen years”). That is, in stating the number of Yishmael’s years the verse does not intend to say (or to hint at) something about Yishmael himself; rather, it is “in order to trace through them the years of Yaakov.”

Also, according to this explanation of Rashi, it is not at all understood: why is “year” written with each sum?

This compels us to say, in Rashi’s explanation, that “why is ‘year’ etc. written” is not a question to begin with (after the explanation regarding Avraham, as above). The question is rather “why were Yishmael’s years counted” at all — for the “five-year-old [beginning] Scripture” sees that the Torah relates only matters that have relevance, and not even about Chanoch and Mesushelach^[34], the tzaddikim^[35], [is this told].

Rashi answers that it is because of Yaakov Avinu.

According to this, however, it is understood that in adding “‘year’ with each sum” as well, the verse does not intend (merely) to compare Yishmael’s years to one another (“at one hundred like at thirty etc.”) — which would be only a novelty and (additional) quality in Yishmael — since the verse as a whole is not concerned with Yishmael himself, but with Yaakov.

And as for the fact that the verse nevertheless says, regarding Yishmael (too), “‘year’ with each sum” — separating each “sum” of years on its own, which, as above, hints at a quality and achievement that Yishmael had in each of the periods (one hundred, thirty, seven) —

this is (not in order to compare Yishmael’s years to one another, that he had these qualities etc., but) “in order to trace through them… Yaakov”^[36]: to let us know the distinction of Yaakov (his qualities^[37]). What the Torah hints at here regarding Yishmael (his qualities) is “to trace through them… Yaakov” — so that we know that Yaakov’s years are years of distinction: these very qualities are present in Yaakov in an entirely different manner.

5. The explanation:

The change that took place in Yishmael at “one hundred” is that he had already become a baal teshuvah. As Rashi says in his commentary^[38], Yishmael did teshuvah during Avraham’s lifetime, and Yishmael was eighty-nine years old^[39] at the time of Avraham’s passing^[40].

And Rashi forestalls the error: although he was a baal teshuvah, to the point that the verse says of him “and he expired”^[41] (an expression used only of tzaddikim^[42]), this is of no consequence compared with the righteousness of Yaakov.

The quality of “thirty” is — before the time of weakness at sixty and seventy — “thirty for strength” (in the language of the Mishnah^[43]). As even a five-year-old can see, at the age of thirty a person’s strength is at its peak. And Yishmael, being moreover one whose “hand is against all”^[44], was clearly a mighty man at the age of thirty.

Nonetheless, Yishmael’s strength too is of no consequence compared with the strength of Yaakov. As Rashi explains on the verse^[45] “And he rolled the stone off the mouth of the well”: “like one who removes the stopper from the mouth of a flask, to let you know that his strength was great”^[46] — even though Yaakov was then, according to Rashi^[47], seventy-seven years old.

The special matter of a “seven-year-old” is understood from Rashi’s comment cited above regarding Avraham, “at seventy like at five, without sin”: being a minor, he is “without sin.”

One might have thought that in this detail there is no room to distinguish between Yishmael and Yaakov: in the matter of minors being “without sin” they are seemingly both equal.

The Torah tells us that in this too^[48] Yishmael is of no consequence compared with Yaakov, because the very being of Yaakov is different from that of Yishmael, “the son of the maidservant”^[49]. Consequently, whatever matter is being spoken of — in every single detail — Yaakov is entirely different from, and higher than, Yishmael^[50].

And therefore, “Yishmael’s years were not counted” (including the qualities hinted at in the three times “year”)… “(but) in order to trace through them the years of Yaakov.”

(From a talk of the night following Shabbos Parshas Chayei Sarah, 5740)

Key Lesson

Rashi explains the extra word “year” differently for Sarah, Avraham and Yishmael, and each difference is precise. Avraham was not subject to the weakness of his generation: at a hundred he was like a man of seventy, able to have children, just as he remained without sin all his life. Even where Yishmael had real qualities — teshuvah, strength, the innocence of youth — the Torah mentions them only to show how much higher Yaakov stood in each of them. A Jew’s qualities are not the same as another’s even when they look alike: they come from an entirely different essence.