These divrei Torah were adapted from the hashkafa portion of Rabbi Yissocher Frand’s Commuter Chavrusah Series on the weekly portion: #1356 – The Kallah Whose Bridal Veil Was So Thick The Witnesses Couldn’t See Who She Was. Good Shabbos

Parshas Chayei Sarah begins with the selling of a burial plot to Avraham Avinu. Avraham goes to the Bnei Cheis and wants to buy what is today known as the Ma’aras Hamachpeila. The owner of this property was Efron the Chiti. Efron initially claimed that he was willing to give the field to Avraham for free. Avraham said that he wants to pay for it. Efron responded, “What is the matter of a four hundred silver-shekel field between you and me?” This was apparently a very high price for the field that he initially offered to give to Avraham for free. The narration ends by stating that Avraham paid the price mentioned by Efron – four hundred silver shekels, with the type of coins that were readily exchanged (over la’socher).

If we carefully look at this pasuk (where Efron suddenly raises the price of the plot of land from zero to four hundred silver shekels), we notice that the word Efron is first spelled “malei” (full – including the letter vov). Then when we look at the words “Avraham paid to Efron,” the name Efron is spelled “chaser” (lacking – without the vov). Sometimes the Torah does spell the same word with a vov and also without a vov. However, it is exceedingly rare for the Torah to use two different spellings of the same word in one pasuk!

The Medrash Rabbah comments on this anomaly and references a pasuk in Mishlei: “One overeager for wealth has an evil eye; he does not know what may befall him.” (Mishlei 28:22). The Medrash calls Efron a man who became all excited by the possibility of making a ton of money, however, he failed to realize that this windfall would cause something to be deducted from him (i.e., the extra vov in his name).

Now it is quite likely that Efron does not care how his name is spelled in the Torah. Obviously, this is not supposed to be a lesson for Efron, but rather for us. So, what is the lesson? The Alter from Kelm once said a schmooze, which he preceded by relating an incident that actually occurred. (It is alleged that the incident happened with Rav Yonoson Eibshitz, although there is some controversy about whether it happened to him or to another famous personage.)

The incident involved a debate that took place between the “wise men of the world” and this famous Jewish personage. The wise men were of the opinion that with enough training, an animal could be trained to be just like a human being and could change its entire nature. The Rabbi denied the claim, insisting that an animal remains an animal, and no matter how intelligent the animal is, a dog remains a dog and a horse remains a horse.

The wise men of the world took a cat and trained it to walk on its hind legs and carry a tray with its paws. Ultimately, they trained the cat to become a proficient waiter. They arranged a large banquet in which the cat would perform like a waiter and serve all the guests. The Rabbi was invited to the banquet to defend his position that an animal’s nature cannot be changed. He took his snuff container with him, as he typically did. While he wasn’t looking, a little mouse jumped into his snuff container.

They were at this banquet. The cat was doing its thing – carrying a little tray of wine and serving the people. The wise men said to the Rabbi, “Nu! You see!” The Rabbi pondered how to respond and while doing so, he took out his snuff container to smell a whiff of the aroma. Suddenly, the mouse jumped out and started running around. As soon as the cat saw the mouse running, the cat did what cats do. The cat dropped the tray and ran after the mouse to catch it. The Rabbi told the wise men, “My point has been proven.”

How did the Alter from Kelm apply this story? He said as follows: Efron can dress up as the nicest and most respectable fellow in the world. He can talk the talk of generosity and magnanimity. “For sure, I will give you this land for free.” However, this is all an act. That was not the real Efron. Efron was characterized – as are many people – by the attribute mentioned in the previously cited pasuk in Mishlei: “nivhal la’hon” (overeager for wealth). When he realized that he could make money, the act ended and the true Efron came out. The true Efron was a person who lusted money. That is why the same pasuk also contains the “full Efron” (with the vov), the civilized and generous person, to emphasize that he is not the real Efron.

Ironically, Efron is not the only character in this week’s parsha who we see was afflicted by lust for money. There is another such fellow in this parsha who suffered from the same disease.

There is an old debate of “nurture versus nature.” What dominates the development of a human personality, the way the person was raised or the way the person was born? However, sometimes we see that it is neither nurture nor nature. Parshas Chayei Sarah contains siblings – a brother and a sister – who are diametrically different in their personalities. Lavan Ha’arami wants to wipe out Klal Yisrael. His sister is our Matriarch, Rivka. How do we define the difference between these two siblings, who are polar opposites of one another?

The central point of Lavan’s nature was also about this lust for money. When Eliezer first came, Lavan ran towards him. Rashi explains why he was running: “When he saw the ten loaded camels that Eliezer brought, he assumed this fellow must be rich!” Later on, when Yaakov came, Lavan also ran out to him. He figured, if even the slave from this household was so rich, how much wealthier must be the offspring! Rashi explains that Lavan hugged Yaakov, because when he didn’t see any jewelry on his person, he thought it might be hidden in his chest or even his mouth! In short, when Lavan sensed wealth, that became his entire interest and focus. That is why he eventually cheated Yaakov Avinu left and right for all the years of Yaakov’s servitude to him.

The Ari z”l writes that Lavan has three gilgulim (soul transmigrations) in this world, alluded to by the three letters of his name (Lamed Beis Nun). The three gilgulim were Lavan, Bilaam, and Naval Hakarmeli. Bilaam had this exact same lust from money. When Balak wanted to hire him, his response was “If Balak gives me his full warehouse of silver and gold…” (Bamidbar 22:18). The third iteration of Lavan was the infamous Naval Hakarmeli, about whom the Tanach comments “Naval was his name and naval (despicable) was he.” (Shmuel I 25:25) He too, as described there, was extremely tight with his money. The common denominator that runs through Lavan, through Bilaam, and through Naval was this lust for money, with which so many people are afflicted.

Lavan was a taker. Rivka was the polar opposite. Rivka was a giver. Even though a case could be made that she shouldn’t have given water to Eliezer (and his camels), she does so graciously. Eliezer was standing by the well. He could have easily taken a drink for himself. It was chutzpah on his part to ask for this young girl to draw the water for him. But that was Rivka.

This was a tale of two siblings: One was the ultimate taker and one was the ultimate giver. Lavan’s neshama ends up as Bilaam and then Naval Hakarmeli. Rivka becomes Rivka Imeinu.

Transcribed by David Twersky; Jerusalem [email protected]

Edited by Dovid Hoffman; Baltimore, MD [email protected]

This week’s write-up is adapted from the hashkafa portion of Rabbi Yissochar Frand’s Commuter Chavrusah Series on the weekly Torah portion. A listing of the halachic portions for Parshas Chayei Sarah is provided below:

• # 030 – The Shadchan in Halacha
• # 072 – Superstition in Halacha
• # 121 – The Jewish Cemetery
• # 168 – The Laws and Customs of the Hesped
• # 214 – Pilegesh: An Alternative to Marriage?
• # 258 – Intrusion on Another’s Shidduch
• # 304 – The “Mazik” of a Child: Is He Responsible?
• # 348 – Determining the Salary of the Shadchan
• # 392 – Purchasing a Burial Plot
• # 436 – Daughters: Shidduchim & Parental Wishes
• # 480 – Calling Off an Engagement
• # 524 – The Badekin
• # 568 – Feeding Your Animals
• # 612 – Dating Etiquette
• # 656 – Getting Paid for Mitzvos
• # 700 – More Mincha Insight
• # 744 – Turning 20: A Scary Birthday
• # 788 – Be Careful What You Ask For
• # 832 – Burying a Man Next to A Woman – Is This a Problem?
• # 876 – Kavanah in the First Bracha of Sh’monei Esrei
• # 920 – Shidduchim – Check Out the Brothers
• # 963 – Taking a Niftar to Eretz Yisroel: When Does Aveilus Begin…?
• #1007 – The Obligation to Marry Off Children: How Far Must You Go?
• #1051 – Fulfilling P’ru U’revu — With Boys or Girls
• #1094 – Oops! I Already Davened Mincha
• #1137 – I’ll Buy Your Esrog/Tefillin & Make You An Offer You Can’t Refuse
• #1180 – Shadchan Shailos
• #1224 – I Know She is Holding by Getting Engaged to Someone Else, But…
• #1268 – Should Rabbis Be Paid For Performing Weddings?
• #1312 – Lying About Someone’s Age When It Comes To Shidduchim
• #1356 – The Kallah Whose Bridal Veil Was So Thick The Witnesses Couldn’t See Who She Was
• #1400 – Shadchanus: Who Gets Paid? Person Who Had Idea or Person Who Made It Happen?
• #1444 – Father-in-Law and Son-in-Law With the Same Name? and Other Marriage Shailos
• #1488 – Visiting a sick person who has Corona or Other Contagious Diseases
• #1532 – Looking into a Shidduch – How Important is Family?
• (2022) – Breaking A Shidduch / Engagement

A complete catalogue can be ordered from the Yad Yechiel Institute, PO Box 511, Owings Mills MD 21117-0511. Call (410) 358-0416 or e-mail [email protected] or visit http://www.yadyechiel.org/ for further information.