Parshat Vayera

Shtikel Gevaldik Vort In this weeks parsha we read of the destruction of Sedom and Gemorrah. According to Chazal, Avraham prayed that the five cities would be saved. Yet only due to Lot’s prayers is one of the cities saved. Why is it that the prayer of Lot, someone who is not regarded as a righteous person, has the merit to save a city over Avraham Avinu? I heard a wonderful answer from Rabbi Miller in the name of Rav Pinkus. We have two types of Tefillah. There is tefillah by Moshe Rabbenu, where he prays on behalf of the whole nation. Then there is prayer as we see in Tehillim, ‘tefillah le’ani ki ya’atof, the prayer of a poor person praying for his own situation. Although, Avraham was a tremendous tzaddik, you can’t compare that to the prayer of someone for their own situation. We see time and time again, unfortunately, the intensity of someone praying amidst the despair in which they may exist. That unique tefillah has the power to leave an affect much greater then some Gadol Hador praying on your behalf.

Riddle of the Week New- Which prominent Jewish holiday can be found on a New York Subway map ?
Old – In what situation would two people in the same place be obligated to make the same Kiddush on different nights? Answer: The Halacha is that if someone got lost in the desert and lost track of Shabbat, he would begin counting 7 days and keep shababt on the 7th day. If two independent travelers got lost in the desert and happen to meet each other in the middle, they would be keeping Shabbat on separate days. (shabbat 69a)

Sheila with no Teshuva Should it be considered haughty to write a zemer for Shabbat with one's name as the acrostic? Or is it a form of safeguarding its authenticity?

Famous (yet not so well known) Machloket L'shem Shomayim In trying to understand the sequence of events in this week’s parsha, there is a famous machloket between the Ramban and the Rambam on how one should view angels and prophecy. According to the Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim (2:42) the story with the three angels is not like Rashi who says that they came down in the disguise of people but rather it was all a vision, a dream. The whole account that took place was not a reality but a way of God giving prophecy to Avraham. The Ramban asks many important questions and finds Rambam’s theory problematic. If the Rambam is correct, then how does one explain the story of Yaakov fighting with the angel, and the angels coming to save Lot? What is the need of Sarah kneading dough and Avraham running to make a cow if they were all in a vision but not a reality? Ramban therefore explains that anytime an angel speaks to man, it is in a vision but that is only if they don’t appear as human beings. The stories with Yaakov, Lot, Avraham, were all accounts of real angels interacting with these figures, there were just disguised as humans. Also the Ramban points out that speaking to an angel has nothing to with prophecy and the two can be divided. He proves this with the story of Hagar meeting an angel in the dessert.

Mi Anachnu u’meh Chayenu?? Elazar Rokeach was born in Mayence in 1176. He was a student of Rabbi Yehuda He-hasid, and a brilliant kabbalist and Talmudist. He was part of the Rabbanim who enacted Takanot Shum, (Speyers, Worms, Maynce). While studying one night, the crusaders entered his house and murdered his wife and three children. Besides for his creation of new kabalistic ideas, his ethical writings are far more impressive. To name but some of the books that he authored: Hakrokeach – a guide to ethics and halacha. Shaarei Chayim – unity of God. Moreh Chachamim – confession of sin. He wrote a commentary on Masechet Shekalim and is referred to in the Shita Mekubetzet. Elazar Rokeach passed on to the next world in 1238.

Mekomot Shel Yehudim http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojsqJh5sUgM&mode=related&search a nice video clip.

Mah Zeh Davar Sheyesh lo Matirin – Something that is prohibited now but will become permitted over time. For example, an egg that is laid on Yom Tov will become permitted only the following day. There is a question whether Chametz is considered part of this category since after pesach it is allowed again. There are halachik ramifications ie whether or not it could be nulfilled in a mixture. There is also a famous machloket between rashi (beitzah 3b) and the Ran (Nedarim 42).

Shut of the Week
In Teshuvot Harashba 441, he was asked if one can fulfill the mitzvah of Megilah if it was stolen. He answers that yes, one could since it is different then a stolen lulav and more comparable to a stolen shofar. What is this difference? The lulav itself is being used for the mitzvah therefore since it was stolen it isn’t allowed. Shofar and Megillah however, although they were stolen, you didn’t still the blast of the shofar or the reading of the Megillah. One may think that one fulfills his obligation by reading from the actual writing of the megillah and hence should be compared to Lulav. The Rashba points out that this is a mistaken notion.