Bereishis

The Torah tells us that Sarah achieved total human perfection in both body and soul. Her soul at 100 was as pure as at 20 years old (exempt from the Heavenly Court’s punishment), and her body at 20 was as aesthetically perfect as a 7 year old girl. Indeed, Chazal teach that Sarah was among the four most beautiful women ever created (Megillah 15) and in comparison to her, all the other women looked like apes (Baba Basra 58.)! The question arises: Why is Sarah’s beauty likened to a young girl, when in reality a mature woman is more attractive? In addition, Sarah is also referred to as “Yiska”, i.e. to observe - since all gazed upon her beauty (Megillah 14). The implication of the word “all” is that even the righteous gazed upon her. How can we accept such an outrageous contention? Lastly, we are told (Breishis 12:11) that upon descending to Egypt, Avraham “discovered” Sarah’s beauty and took appropriate action. This seems to contradict what Chazal have taught - “It is prohibited to marry a woman until one observes her beauty (Kiddushin 41.)? Allow me to suggest the following:

It is well known that the only way for a man to control his “yetzer hara” (i.e. physical urges) is through the spiritual and intellectual discipline of Torah study (Kiddushin 30.). How then do women who are exempt from Torah study (Yoreh De’ah 246:6) acquire dominion over their yetzer hara? The Gaon of Vilna tells us in his “Letter of the Gr’a” (Aram Tzova edition) that the quality of tznius, i.e. modesty, gives a woman the ability to control her yetzer hara. Sarah was extolled as an exceedingly modest woman (see Rashi, Vayeira 18:9 “In the tent”). One can therefore suggest, that since one’s face -“panim” is a reflection of one’s “penim” i.e. inner qualities - Sara’s heightened inner tznius transformed her formidable physical beauty into the pure and innocent beauty of a child. The Chazon Ish zt”l held that a young girl before puberty may daven with her father in the men’s section, for her beauty does not inspire the yetzer hara. This was the unusual quality of Sarah’s beauty, that it did not tempt others but was an objective beauty, like that of a small child. We can therefore suggest that even the righteous were permitted to gaze at her - for there was never the slightest possibility of inciting the yetzer hara. Avraham’s belated discovery of Sarah’s beauty can also be understood to mean, that in the decadent and loose Egyptian society, the possibility existed that even Sarah’s beauty could inspire sin.

This novel description of Sarah’s innocent beauty casts an edifying light on the following enigmatic Midrash. “Rabbi Akiva was lecturing and his audience began to doze off. In an attempt to wake them up, he shared with them the following idea - How did Esther merit to reign over 127 provinces? Because she was the descendant of Sarah, who lived 127 years (Breishis Rabbah 58).” It would seem that Achashveirosh had experienced first-hand the difficulties of living with a queen that inspired temptation. This culminated in Achashveirosh’s insistence that Vashti appear at his party indecently exposed, precipitating her execution. This dramatic event caused Achashveirosh to look for a queen whose beauty would be appropriate for royalty, but at the same time, would not present him with the same temptations and challenges. Esther merited to exude this innocent and non-threatening beauty because she had the inner quality of tznius that she had inherited from Sarah Imeinu. May we all merit to project our inner qualities onto our outer appearance, bringing only honor to Hashem and His people.

This week's Parsha juxtaposes two ostensibly unrelated subjects: the demise of Sarah and the marriage of Yitzchak and Rivkah. What connection do these disparate concepts have? Furthermore, the Gemara in Kiddushin derives the capacity of money to effect kiddushin (the initial stage of marriage), from a parallel between the word "keicha", written both in reference to kiddushin and the purchase of the field of Ephron, the cave of Machpelah where Sarah was buried. Again, the Torah highlights a connection between burial and marriage. Finally, when Rashi explains the grammar of the word "vatiskas" ("and she covered herself"), referring to Rivkah's 'badekin' upon seeing Yitzchak, he says the following: "This is in the third person feminine singular 'hispael', similar to the word 'vatikavair' - 'and she was buried'". Once again, we see a parallel between these two monumental life cycle events. I would like to suggest the following unifying theme.

In Rav Menashe Ben Yisroel's magnum opus, "Nishmas Chaim" (section 4, Chapter 21), he reveals the following insight about Avraham's influence on society's moral and spiritual values. "Until the advent of Avraham Avinu, the entire world believed that upon death, the soul ceased to exist, similar to that of the lowly animal. Avraham revealed that the soul is a 'piece of the Divine' and is eternal and everlasting. When Avraham sojourned in Egypt, he taught them this concept of the 'perpetuation of the soul', and thus, Egypt became very sensitive to the respect of their deceased Pharaohs - embalming and mummifying their remains. This is alluded to in the Torah (Bereishis 12:5) 'The souls that he (Avraham) made in Charan' - literally, teaching them about the G-dly, eternal properties of the soul. At the conclusion of the Parsha, Avraham sends away the concubine-children with spiritual gifts (i.e. the understanding of the essence of the soul) to the Far East. The Hindu Brahmans are actually descendants of Abraham, who inherited many aspects of his understanding of the soul."

We can now understand the two major elements of Parshas Chayei Sarah. The reason the Torah is extremely particular in carefully describing Sarah's burial is because it was Avraham's teaching of the "perpetuation of the soul" that necessitated honoring the deceased. One who negates the eternity of the soul will treat human remains with disdain and contempt, similar to an animal carcass. How appropriate is the choice of words that Avraham uses - "If it is your soul (i.e. desire) to bury my dead", for only with the appreciation of the eternity of the soul, are we inspired to extend honor to man's human remains.

The concept of "shidduchim", engagement, and marriage is also founded on the appreciation and understanding of the soul. Our Rabbis teach (Sota 2a), "Forty days before conception, a heavenly voice declares 'The daughter of Ploney to Ploney'". Marriage is the unification of two halves of a soul. Thus, the appropriate time for declaring a match is when the souls are designated for their respective bodies. We can now understand the wording of Eliezer's question to Avraham, "Should I return your son there (to Charan, if she doesn't want to come to Canaan)?" The language "return" is ostensibly inappropriate because Yitzchak never was in Charan!! However, if Rivkah is Yitzchak's soul-mate, then the word "return" is apropos, for Rivkah's presence is tantamount to Yitzchak's presence, as she is his other half (Sifsei Tzaddik, Rav Pinchas Menachem Elazar of Pilatz).

Perhaps this is why there is a hesped (verbal bereavement) at a funeral, and concerning a marriage, we are taught, "We are rewarded for making a chassan and kallah happy with our words (Berachos 6b)". Since the Targum translates "a living soul" as a "speaking soul" (Bereishis 2,7), thus, these two life cycle events, predicated on the soul, must incorporate speech, which is the manifestation of the soul.

It is also interesting to note that the Ran in Shabbos 12a explains the word shidduch to mean peace and equanimity, as the Targum translates (Shoftim 5:31) "And the land was quiet", "Ushiduchas arah". Another word for rest and equanimity, is nofesh, relating to nefesh i.e. soul. Only when two souls find their appropriate match (shidduch), do they find peace, equanimity, and nofesh. When a husband and wife appreciate that their marriage is but a return to their original state as one soul, they are better equipped to handle the ubiquitous stresses of married life..

May we merit to properly value the soul, inspiring us to higher levels of "kavod bein ish v'isha" and "kavod hameis".

The Torah makes a point of mentioning that Yitzchok loved Rivka only after he married her. “She became his wife and he loved her” (Bereishis 24:67). Yaakov, on the other hand, loved Rochel immediately even before their marriage, as the posuk says, “Yaakov loved Rochel" (29:18). How do we account for these different emotional reactions?
The answer lies in an insight of the Chasam Sofer zt’l. The Torah depicts the ideal wife as an “eizer knegdo” (2:18). Rashi comments that if the couple merits, the wife is an “eizer” i.e. a help, if not she is “knegdo” i.e. antagonistic to him. The Chasam Sofer however, explains that “eizer knegdo” means, that for a wife to be a true assistant, it is best for her character to be the diametric opposite of her husband. The synergy created by each partner’s unique and divergent style assures a system of checks and balances and minimizes the tendency of living a myopic and one-sided existence. The marriage of Avrohom Aveinu reflected the Torah’s ideal concept of marriage. Although Avrohom was the personification of Chessed, his wife Soroh possessed the diametrically opposite character of “gevurah” strict justice. Our Rabbis tell us that Soroh was critical of some of the guests Avrohom entertained. However, with Avrohom’s “chessed” and Soroh’s “gevurah” they created a perfectly balanced home reflecting sensible hospitality. Rivka’s personality was similar to Avrohom, as the Parsha clearly depicts her selfless acts of chesed toward Eliezer and his entourage. Rivka was therefore the ideal wife for Yitzchok whose character was strict justice, similar to that of his mother, Soroh. Now we can understand Yitzchok’s lack of spontaneous love. Yitzchok was naturally comfortable with a woman like his mother, one that was tempered with the character of strict justice, similar to his own personality. However, once Yitzchok married Rivka and experienced the benefits of ”eizer knegdo” (the complementary effect of living with someone with a different approach) he appreciated her and began to love her. Yaakov, on the other hand, was “tiferes” an amalgamation of “chessed” and “gevurah” and was immediately compatible with both Rochel and Leah.

HaGaon Rav Moshe Feinstein zt’l explains the distinction between the melachah of tying on Shabbos and the melacha of sewing on Shabbos. “Tying” is the fastening of two items that remain individually identified even when tied together. “Sewing” is the unification of two pieces into one body where the identities of the individual pieces become submerged. At a wedding we wish the couple that their relationship should be a permanent knot, a “kesher shel kayama”. The comparison of the relationship between the choson and kallah to a knot is very apropos. As Reb Moshe explains, tied items remain individually identified even when tied together. So too, the unique personality and approach of both the choson and kallah should never be suppressed, but should be overtly manifested, engendering the ideal complementary relationship.