Chayei Sarah - Greed Built into the DNA

During the discussion between Avraham and Ephron over the purchase of the burial plot for Sarah, there is an interesting issue one of the verses.

 וַיִּשְׁמַע אַבְרָהָם אֶל עֶפְרוֹן וַיִּשְׁקֹל אַבְרָהָם לְעֶפְרֹן אֶת הַכֶּסֶף אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר בְּאָזְנֵי בְנֵי חֵת אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת שֶׁקֶל כֶּסֶף עֹבֵר לַסֹּחֵר
בראשית כג:טז

Here, unlike all the other mentions of Ephron, in one instance the name Ephron appears without one letter, the letter Vav.

Says the Baal HaTurim, this instance of the name Ephron appears with out the letter 'Vav' (אפרן). This word has the Gematria (numerical equivalent) of the word "רע עין" - at a value of 400 (Reish is 200, Eyin 70x2, Yud 10, Nun 50), which means stinginess or greedy. And so the 400 [of  his greediness] comes in counter to the 400 silver pieces that Avraham paid Ephron in order purchase to the Maharat HaMachpelah (Cave of the Double), the seminal resting place of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs.

Was Ephron a slippery character?
Is the missing Vav hinting at deeper, more profound flaws?
Why Vav? What is the significance of the absence of this letter?

A Fair Price?
Rashi notes on this verse that the name Ephron "is spelled without a “vav,” because he promised much but did not do even a little [i.e., he promised the cave as a gift but took a great deal of money for it]" This is illustrated in the pasuk that appears earlier.

"No, my lord, listen to me. I have given you the field, and the cave that is in it, I have given it to you. Before the eyes of the sons of my people, I have given it to you; bury your dead."

Breisheit 23:11

In one verse, Ephron emphasizes the gift that he is offering Avraham, with 3 consecutive mentions of giving. Yet, the attractive offer goes from a gift to a high price in just a few verses.

And Ephron replied to Abraham, saying to him, "My lord, listen to me; a [piece of] land worth four hundred shekels of silver, what is it between me and you? Bury your dead."

Breisheit 23:14-15

The 'gift' quickly appreciates and becomes a mere 400 sheckels of silver. Like a smooth salesman, Ephron tries to get his client to take possession of the product, belittling the money issues, and pushing them off to be dealt with later.

Says the Ramban, that it appears that Ephron tried to exact a value for this property that was far inflated from the market price. And the Ramban brings the Gemarah:

...the wicked promise much and do not perform even little. Whence do we know? — From Ephron. At first it is written, "The land is worth four hundred shekels of silver;" but subsequently, "And Abraham hearkened unto Ephron; and Abraham weighed to Ephron the silver, which he had named in the audience of the sons of Heth, four hundred shekels of silver, current money with the merchant"; indicating that he refused to accept anything but centenaria, (Centenarius = 100 manehs; a maneh = 100 zuz = 25 shekels.) for there is a place where shekels are called centenaria. (Hence he gave him 400 centenaria, instead of ordinary shekels as he demanded at first: this is deduced from the phrase ‘current money with the merchant’, implying that it was recognised everywhere as a shekel)

Baba Metzia 87A (Soncino Translation)

At this exchange rate, the 400 centenaria comes to 10,000 sheckels.
Rav Aryeh Kaplan in The Living Torah further expands on the underhanded nature of  this deal.

Considering land values at the time this was highly excessive. Thus, for example, King Omri paid only 6000 sheckels for the entire territory of Samaria. (Kings I 16:25)

The Power of the Letter Vav
Says the Kli Yakar, expanding on the words of the Baal HaTurim, the Talmud in Baba Batra addresses the significance of the absence of the letter Vav.

R. Isaac also said: He who gives a small coin to a poor man obtains six blessings, and he who addresses to him words of comfort obtains eleven blessings.

Baba Batra 9B (Soncino Translation)

Continuing on this foundation, the Kli Yakar naturally concludes that anyone, then, that does not give even a 'prutah' to the poor is not deserving of the six blessings. Hence Ephron's name is missing the letter Vav, which has the value of six. This is indicative of his true nature, one who is stingy, penny-pinching, and greedy.

The Kli Yakar shows us that we also learn about the fate of those entrenched in miserly characteristics.

R. Joshua b. Levi also said: We give the cup of blessing for the recital of the Grace after meals only to one who is of a generous disposition, as it is said: He who has a generous eye [a good eye] will be blessed, for he gave of his bread to the poor (Mishle 22:9), read not ‘will be blessed’ but rather 'shall say the Blessing'.

Sotah 38B

That is to say, the person who was not generous, and did not give to the poor is of a Bad Eye, or as the Baal HaTurim described an "רע עין".  Where do we see the six blessings in this discussion in Sotah?

We must look at the verse quoted in its source to understand the point here.

טוֹב-עַיִן, הוּא יְבֹרָךְ:    כִּי-נָתַן מִלַּחְמוֹ לַדָּלמשלי כב ט

The word  'will be blessed' is written as "יְבֹרָךְ" - without a Vav. The Talmud explains to pronounce this as if it as has a Vav, as "יְבֹורָךְ". Says the Kli Yakar, both the written and pronounced approach fit together, since one who is generous to others is ultimately blessed himself. Likewise the opposite holds true.

4 Bad Events Connected to 400
The Kli Yakar finds further basis to connect more bad events to the amount of 400 - the amount paid for burial cave, and numerical value of bad eye  "רע עין" , miserliness.

1. The episode with Ephron
2. The sale of Joseph down to Egypt, set in motion the eventual enslavement of the Jewish people - a circumstance that was destined to last for ... 400 years (Breisheit 15:13).
3. Yaacov returns to Canaan and faces his brother Esau in what he fears could be the final confrontation. Yaacov's messengers scout out Esau's group and report that Esau approaches with ... 400 men (Breisheit 32:7)
4. Naval, the wealthy man living in the Carmel, that the Tanach describes as "the man was hard, and of evil deeds; and he was a Calebite." (Shmuel A 25:5) And David approached him with ... 400 men.

Learning the Traits of Generosity
So we see sources and examples validating the power of 6, and the importance of its absence. The 'six' or the Vav plays a major role here and provides great insight into one's true nature.  From this one unassuming, slim letter we learn that our lives should go down a path of showing generosity to others.

We also learn the contra to this. That should we lack the Vav in our lives, not only do we not merit the six special blessings but we bring upon ourselves the power of the Bad Eye - the power of 400.

Chayei Sarah - Making An Effort for a Mitzvah

In the Parshah Chayei Sarah, The Kedushat Levi comments on the pasuk: "The servant ran toward her. 'If you would, let me sip a little water from your jug,' he said." (Breisheit 24:17). The author is stirred to comment on this episode, based on the servant, Eliezer's, actions. What attracted caught his eye in the young girl, Rivka, that excited him to specifically run toward. her?

First we should take a step back and look at what instigated Eliezer to run. Take a look at the previous pasuk:  "The girl was extremely good-looking, [and] she was a virgin untouched by any man. The girl went down, filled her jug, and then came up again." (Breisheit 24:16).

From a simple observation of this pasuk, besides the emphasis of her attractiveness and appearance, there doesn't seem to be an indication of something that would drive Eliezer to run straight toward Rivka. The Kedushat Levi addresses the question of Eliezer's behavior by noting the commentary of Rashi. Rashi elucidates the situation by bringing the midrashic text from Breisheit Rabbah on pasusk 24:17: "[he ran] since he saw the water rise to her."

The Kedushat Levi expands on this by noting the commentary of the Ramban on this pasuk: "according to Rashi, since he saw the water rise to her. And in Breisheit Rabbah (60,5) 'filled her jug, and came up again,' all of the women go down and fill up from the well, and this is because they saw the water immediately rise up, and Hakodesh Baruch Hu said to her that this is a good sign for sons.
It appears that it was precise in the language used: 'filled her jug, and came up again,' rather than saying 'and she drew water and it was filled.' A miracle occurred in the first instance (pasuk 24:16) and after when she brought water for the camels (pasuk 24:19 When he had finished drinking she said, let me draw water for your camels, so they can drink their fill.') it is written 'ותשאב' meaning 'and she drew the water'.
And thus further on (in pasuk 24:45 I had not yet finished speaking to myself when Rivka suddenly came out carrying her jug on her shoulder. When she went down to the well and drew water. I said to her, 'Please give me a drink'), he uses the language of 'drew water' for they (Rivka's family) may not believe him.

So we see from the Ramban's clarification of the issue that a miracle occurred when Rivka went to get water from the well. It was such an impressive miracle that not only did he come running to her, assured by the heavenly sign he saw, but also concealed the details of these events when repeating the events to her family out of concern for how his miraculous observations would be taken.

The motivation for Eliezer's actions is the undeniable miracle he witnessed, reassuring him without doubt that he had found the woman for which he had been purposed with finding.

The essence of the Kedushat Levi's question goes further and deeper than accounting for why Eliezer ran to Rivka. The Kedushat Levi asks on the language of the pasukim themselves. Why when in pasuk 24:16 does it say that she 'filled her jug' while in pasuk 24:19 does it say 'let me draw water for your camels'? What changed? What is the difference in circumstance from when she initially went to the well, to when she went back to get water for the camels.

Kedushat Levi notes that Chazal, in b'seiata dshmayah, say in Mesechet Psachim (114:Bet): Mitzvot need intent (kavanah).

Let's look at the discussion in Psachim. "They brought before him, he dips in the hazeret before he comes to parperet ha-pat. They brought before him matzah and hazeret and haroset and two cooked dishes, even though the haroset is not an obligation. Rabbi Eliezer bar Zadok says, It is an obligation. And in the Temple they would bring before him the body of the korban pesah."

The Talmud continues with the following discussion.
"Resh Lakish said: This proves that mitzvot require intention, [for] since he does not eat it the stage when hazaret are compulsory, he eats it with [the blessing,] ‘boray pri ha-adamah,’ and perhaps he did not intend [to fulfil the obligation of] hazaret; therefore he must dip it again with the express intent of [eating] hazeret. For if you should think [that] mitzvot do not require intention, then why two dippings: surely he has [already] dipped it once?"

The sugya continues to examine whether intention is required. But for the Kedushat Levi, the outcome of this discussion is not pertinent to the pasukim in Chayei Sarah.

The Kedushat Levi explains: Mitzvot need intention. And the main issue with mitzvot is the thought put in when performing the mitzvah in satisfying the will of the creator. And so with this mind, in the first instance (pasuk 24:16) when Rivka's intention was to draw water for herself, the water (miraculously) rose up to her so as not to trouble her since her own intention was only to draw water for her own needs. However in the second instance (pasuk 24:19) when her intention was to perform an act of loving kindness (gmilut chesed) to give water to the camels of Eliezer, the servant of Avraham, the water did not rise (by itself) to her.

The Kedushat Levi concludes with: When a person does a mitzvah it is more important to carry out the action, so that the action itself, is done with intention of doing the mitzvah. In other words, when doing mitzvot it is meritorious to put forth effort and invest in doing mitzvot, not to rely on miracles.

Psachim 114B
But whence [does this food]? Perhaps after a mitzvot do not require intention, and as to what you argue, why two dippings, [the answer is,] that there may be a distinction for [the sake of] the children. And should you say, if so, we should be informed about other vegetables: If we were informed about other vegetables I would say: Only where other vegetables [are eaten first] do we require two dippings, but lettuce alone6 does not require two dippings: hence he informs us that even lettuce [alone] requires two dippings, so that there may be a distinction [shown] therewith for the children. Moreover, it was taught: If he ate them [the bitter herbs] while demai, he has discharged [his duty]; if he ate them without intention, he has discharged [his duty]; if he ate them, in half quantities, he has discharged [his duty], providing that he does not wait between one eating and the next more than is required for the eating of half [a loaf]? -it is [dependent on] Tannaim. For it was taught, R. Jose said: Though he has [already] dipped the lettuce [hazereth], it is a religious requirement to bring lettuce and haroseth and two dishes before him. Yet still, whence [does this food]: perhaps R. Jose holds [that] mitzvot do not require intention and the reason that we require two dippings is that there may be a distinction [shown] for the children?- If so, what is the ‘mitzvah?’