Genesis 24:1 – And Abraham was old, advanced in days, and the Lord blessed Abraham with everything.

Gemora: Baba Basra 16b – Rabbi Meir explained the meaning of “everything” as meaning that he did not have a daughter. Rabbi Yehudah explained it as meaning that he did have a daughter. Others explain that her name was “Everything”.

Torah Temimah Colloquial Translation on Note #6:

It appears that the disagreement between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehudah is the same as the disagreement between Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish that appears in this section of the gemora. Rabbi Yochanan states that when a daughter is born, abundance [רביה] is multiplied in the world. Resh Lakish states that when a daughter is born strife [מריבה] is multiplied in the world. (Note a relevant explanation in Bereshis Chapter 6, Verse 1.) Thus, Rabbi Meir would be of the same opinion as Resh Lakish and Rabbi Yehudah would be of the same opinion as Rabbi Yochanan.

There is an opportunity to explain more fully this aggadah. Actually, the commentators have already written much on this issue. Further, the purpose of this book is not to explain at length aggadah.

Also, there is to note that Rabbi Meir is being internally consistent with his other stated opinions. Rabbi Meir established the daily prayer [said by men each morning] “Blessed are You, God, Lord of the Universe, who has not made me a woman”. This is as explained in Gemora Menachos 42b. It is possible to say that Rabbi Meir had this opinion because he did not hold women to be of high value because of the dictum that their thinking was “light”. This is as explained in Gemora Avodah Zarah 18b [where it recounts the fact that Rabbi Meir fled to Babylonia due to his shame regarding the incident with Beruria, his wife.] Additionally, [Rabbi Meir’s low opinion of women] was due to the fact that he, himself, stumbled through a particular woman as is explained in the book “Seder haDorot”

For this reason, [I] relied on the accurate text reading in Menachos stating the opinion of Rabbi Meir and not Rabbi Yehudah as is shown by the commentary Mesoras HaShas.

Editor’s Note: In this note it seems amazing that the Torah Temimah attributes Rabbi Meir’s low estimation of women as stemming from the fact that Rabbi Meir himself stumbled in a sin relating to women.

Genesis 14:23 – Neither from a thread to a shoe strap, nor will I take from whatever is yours, that you should not say, ‘I have made Abram wealthy.’

Gemora Sotah 4b: Rava derived from this verse that as a reward for not taking neither a thread nor a shoe strap Abraham children merited two mitzvot as rewards. For not taking a thread, they merited the blue thread of the tzitzit. For not taking a shoe strap, they merited the straps of tefillin.

Torah Temimah Colloquial Translation on Note #19:

Rashi explains that the reward was due to the fact that Abraham totally avoided [even a hint of] theft. At first glance, this explanation does not seem to make sense.  How can this be called a great act by Abraham in just avoiding theft? Also, it is difficult to understand what type of theft is involved here. Lawfully, Avraham was entitled to the spoils of the war. This is in accordance with the general principal that ‘he who saves something from an idol worshipper or from robbers, it is his to keep’. Therefore, it seems that one must say that Abraham refused to take any spoils of the war in order to sanctify God’s name. That being the case, then it would be necessary to return all property, no matter what the circumstances. This is also in accordance with Choshen Mishpat Section 267 – ‘in a place where there is an opportunity to sanctify God’s name, one must return lost property to an idol worshipper even if he has already despaired of ever finding the lost object’. Since Abraham, in this situation, wanted to sanctify God’s name, he was obligated by law to return the spoils of war. This was the action that deserved the reward: since he wanted to sanctify God’s name, he caused an obligation upon himself that could have been avoided.

[The above explanation satisfies and fulfills the comments of Rashi.]

Were it not for Rashi’s comments, it would be possible to explain the merit of Abraham in a different manner, as follows. Abraham won this war in a supernatural means with only 318 soldiers, or as some say with only one soldier – Eliezer.  Additionally, as is explained on verse 15, an angel and the stars of the night fought on his behalf. All these point to the fact that Abraham’s victory was a miraculous one. As it notes in Gemora Taanit 24a, it is forbidden to materially benefit from miracles. This then would explain why Abraham merited a reward. From the fact that Abraham refused to benefit from the spoils of the war shows that he attributed the victory not to his own strength and power of his hand, but rather he attributed the victory as a miracle of God. That was why he declined to benefit from the spoils of the war, because one is forbidden to benefit materially from a miracle.

[By the way], note that Rashi and the Rambam disagree on one particular in the law of tzitzit. Rashi’s opinion is that two of the four threads should be blue. The Rambam’s opinion is that only one of the four threads should be blue. Behold, even though one can’t bring clear halachic proofs from aggadic stories, nevertheless, the simple meaning of the phrase ‘Abraham merited the thread of blue’ shines forth supporting the view of the Rambam. This supports the view that, by law, there should only be one thread of blue in the tzitzit.

Regarding Rashi’s view that there are two threads of blue, perhaps Rashi also realized the implication of the phrasing in the verse and the midrash. That would explain why Rashi noted that the thread in the verse alluded, in general, to the commandment of tzitzit. For the Rambam, however, the phraseology is more forcefully specific.

Note also that in the Yalkut and in the Tanchuma this braita is phrased slightly differently: the shoe strap is associated with the shoe of the halitzah ceremony rather than with the strap of tefillin. Perhaps this version of the braita is this way because the author did not feel that a ‘shoe strap’ in the verse aligned well with the ‘strap of tefillin’. (Their only common feature is that they are both made of leather.) On the other hand, the author of our version quoted above did not feel it appropriate to associate the reward with the shoe of halitzah since the shoe of halitzah is essentially used as a punishment. That being the case, it would be unusual to associate that with the idea of something that was given as a reward.

Editor’s Note: I chose this note because of the idea mentioned in the initial section. Since Abraham wanted to sanctify God’s name, he did not accepted even lawful gains from the war. The Torah Temimah notes that we too, if we want to sanctify God’s name, should not act in the strict accordance with the law but rather go beyond the letter of the law.

Deuteronomy 26:3 – And you shall come to the Cohen who will be [serving] in those days, and say to him, “I declare this day to the Lord, your God, that I have come to the land which the Lord swore to our forefathers to give us.”

Gemora Kiddushin (66b) [The verse does not make sense to say “come to the Cohen in your day…”] is it possible to go to a Cohen from a different era? Rather, this verse is hinting at the law regarding a Cohen who was kosher and then invalidated. Thus we learn that a Cohen who is the son of a divorcee or a chalutzah and performed the service in the temple, the service is still valid.

Torah Temimah Colloquial Translation on Note #16:

Even if before he performed the service it was known that he was a son of a divorcee or a chalutzah, his service is still valid. See a similar comment in Parshat Shoftim [about going to a judge who will be ‘in your days’.]

Also see the comment in Parshat וזאת הברכה on a further explanation of the Cohen who is the son of a divorcee.

Editor’s Note: this short note serves only to point out another source for the ruling regarding the Cohen who is the son of a divorces. One extra detail that the Torah Temimah adds here is “even though it was known ahead of time, that he was the son of a divorcee”, nevertheless his service [if already done] is still valid. See this further note: http://temimahblog.com/2016/09/29/parshat-%D7%95%D7%96%D7%90%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%9B%D7%94-devarim-3311-in-what-way-is-the-cohen-invalid/

Deuteronomy 33:11 –May the Lord bless His army (chelo) and favorably accept the work of his hands;

Gemora Kiddushin (66b) A Cohen who is the son of a divorcee or a chalutzah (root = ch’l’tz) who performed the [temple] service anyway, the service is still valid. From whence do we know this? Abuha d’Shmuel says it is understood from the verse “May the Lord bless His army”….even the profane (root = ch’l) amongst them will be accepted.

Torah Temimah Colloquial Translation on Note #35:

It is not clear how a connection can be made between the word “profane” (root=ch’l) and the word “his army” (chelo). It apparently seems astonishing. It appears perhaps that our sages were carefully analyzing the word “army” as indicating strength and force, specifically relating to human strength. This is shown in Proverbs 31:3, “do not give your strength to women”.

Yet here in this verse, Moshe is blessing his descendants saying that God should accept the work of their hands. The word “accept” implies some prior imperfection or blemish perhaps because of some sin. A Cohen who is the son of a divorcee or a chalutzah, even though he was born [conceived] through sin, the linkage to his forefathers is not lost because of this sin. He is still the son of a Cohen, and the sin that happened is in the past.

Therefore, for these reasons, it is apparent that even the work [offering] of this invalidated Cohen, the son of a divorcee or a chalutzah is still accepted. It is clear that such a Cohen who performed the service in the temple, the service is kosher. Even though from a personal point of view, he is invalid; nevertheless he is still a Cohen and a descendant of Cohanim. This shows that the phraseology in our verse is exactly perfect. “God should bless His ‘chelo’”, even the imperfect ones.

It is also certainly clear that this law applies only after the fact. For example, in the middle of his performing the service, it becomes known that he is a son of a divorcee or a chalutzah. However, if it were known ahead of time, it would not be appropriate to have such a Cohen perform the service because it would not be appropriate for the honor of the temple.

Editor’s Note: it is amazing that the rabbis derive the meaning of this verse to be “God should bless is ritually invalid ones” rather than the simple meaning of “God should bless his army”. The Torah Temimah is merely explaining this gemora in more detail.

Deuteronomy 26:3 – And you shall come to the kohen who will be [serving] in those days, and say to him, “I declare this day to the Lord, your God, that I have come to the land which the Lord swore to our forefathers to give us.”

Bikurim Chapter 1:4 – A convert brings the first fruits but he does say [the text associated with bringing the first fruits] because the phrase: “the land that you promised to our forefathers…” does not apply to him.

Torah Temimah Colloquial Translation on Note #16:

There are some Rishonim [rabbis of the early period] who did not follow the opinion of this Mishna. Rather they ruled that a convert would bring the first fruits and would say the accompanying prayer. They ruled this way because Abraham [to whom the land was promised] was the father of [all the nations of] the world. The ruling follows the verse in Genesis 17:5, “and you shall become the father of a multitude of nations.” The rabbis of the Gemora learn from this verse “in the past you were the father of the nation of Aram, now you shall be the father of the whole world.”

This ruling of the early rabbis follows the opinion of the Jerusalem Talmud in Mesechet Bikurim Chapter 1:4 where it states: “It was taught in the name of Rabbi Yehuda that a convert brings the first fruits and recites the accompanying text. What is the reason for this? Because of the verse ‘and you shall become the father of a multitude of nations.’” The Gemora there concludes: “Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levy states that the halacha is according to Rabbi Yehuda. There was a [court] case about this issue before Rabbi Abahu and he decided the case according to Rabbi Yehuda”.

Note that Tosafot in [Babylonian Talmud] Baba Basra 81a: states that there was a disagreement between Rabbi Yehuda (a different on that the one mentioned above) and Rabbenu Tam.  Rabbi Yehuda held like the conclusion of the Jerusalem Talmud that the convert should bring and recite. Rabbenu Tam stated that the opinion should be according to the general Mishna.

The Rambam in Chapter 4, Halacha 3 of Bikurim rules that a convert should bring and should recite.  Behold Rabbenu Tam does not explicitly disagree with Rabbi Yehuda [in the Tosafot cited above] rather he only states that the opinion is according to a general Mishna. Additionally, regarding citing the [loosely associated] biblical verse as proof, he would state that we don’t learn halacha from homilies.

There are halachic implications [from this issue] that apply to our time. In the blessing after eating a meal is a convert allowed to say the phrase “our God and God of our forefathers” or the phrase “on the land that you gave to our forefathers”? Thus according to the above cited Tosafot comment,  Rabbenu Tam would not let a convert pray the blessing after meals. He would rely on the above cited Mishna to rule that when he (the convert) is praying alone he should instead use the phrase “God of the forefathers of Israel”. When the convert is in synagogue he would say the phrase “God of your forefathers”. All of this would explicitly not be according to the opinion of the Jerusalem Talmud cited above nor would it be according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda nor the final conclusion in the Jerusalem Talmud.

It appears, on the other hand, that one can bring a proof that we do [in fact] follow the conclusion of the Jerusalem Talmud. The proof comes from the fact that we rule that during Passover a convert does bring the Passover offering [exactly] as a [native] Jewish person would. This is stated explicitly in the verse in Numbers 9:14 – “And if someone from outside will have entered to be with you, he has to make the Passover offering…One law shall there be for you, both for the one who comes from outside and for the native born of the land.”

Similarly, behold, in our time apparently a convert is equally obligated in all the laws of Passover as a Jew. The Gemora Pesachim 116b states that whoever has not said these three words has not fulfilled the obligations of Passover: “pesach”, “matzah” and “marror”. “Pesach because our forefathers ate it when God jumped [pasach] over the houses of our forefathers.” Similar teachings are for “matzah” and “marror”. Behold, it is clearly, explicitly stated that a convert can [and should] say the phrase “our forefathers” just as a [native] Jewish person would. This is shown by the text above without which he would not be said to have fulfilled the obligations. We do not find any place in the Talmud or the Braitot or in the legal rulings of the early rabbis that a convert would recite the Passover haggada with any textural differences.

Behold, from here we see the proof that we do not follow the opinion of the above quoted Mishna; rather we follow the opinion of the conclusion of the Jerusalem Talmud.

With all that is stated above, it still requires further study how a convert could say the phrase [regarding the first fruits] “the land that you have given us” since converts do not inherit a portion in the land. This is also shown by the Sifri where it explicitly excludes women and servants and they also do not inherit a portion in the land. It would be a forced explanation to say that the phrase would apply to a convert who has purchased a plot of land from a Jewish person or who married a Jewish woman who owned a plot of the land (and she died and her son inherited it, and the son too died and now he has inherited it.)   The text of the Gemora and the halachic decisors does not lean towards this explanation. Further in a circumstance such as this, also women and servants would also bring first fruits and recite. Perhaps you could say that the case applies to a woman or a slave who received a gift of land on the condition that her husband (or the slave’s owner) has no control over it. Nevertheless, the fact is that we hold that women and servants do not recite the phrase “who has given to us”.

It appears that to resolve this question from the Sifri, one must answer that this is according to the teaching that is associated with the verse in Numbers 10:29 “Moshe said to Hovev the son of Re’uel, we are traveling to the place where God said regarding it: ‘I will give it to you’”. Note that the Gemora teaches there that it was given to Jews and not to non-Jews. If that is the case, then how does one fulfill the verse in Yechezkel 47:23 – “And it shall be in the tribe with which the stranger sojourns, there you shall give his inheritance, says the Lord God.” [Our sages say] that this verse refers to giving converts a plot of land in Israel for burial. Thus it is explained there that this is the reason why also converts are also able to say the phrase “the land which you gave to us.” Check out the Sifri at length. Here also, through this we rule that convert can say the phrase “the land which you gave to us.”

Perhaps we can also explain it according to what it states in Midrash Rabba Kohelet on the verse: “All rivers lead to the sea.” There it states that in the future, the converts will receive their portion in the land. There it explains a reason for this. According to this, then, it is appropriate and fitting for a convert to use the phrase “the land that you have given to us” based on the fact that it will be given in the future.

Editor’s Note: It seems clear to me that the Torah Temimah’s wanted to prove that the convert in our time and in previous times prays the same text that a native Jew prays. This is based on the fact that, as it says in the Jerusalem Talmud, that Abraham is the father of the whole world. The Torah Temimah then goes on to explain that an apparent conflicting opinion in the Sifri is actually not a dire objection.