Prologue:         In one of the greatest (and most challenging) sections of the Torah, we read of the dramatic Nisayon (test) of the Akaida. However, instead of ending the Parsha with the saving of Yitzchak, the torah tells us of the continued geneology of Nachor, Avraham’s brother. The Midrash asks; “What happened to Yitzchak?”  In response to this query, we  learn that he was sent by his father to the Yeshiva of Shem to study Torah. What is the lesson to be gleaned? And why end the section with Nachor’s children?

Rashi informs us that after the Akaida, Avraham was thinking and contemplating. What was he thinking about?

HaRav Menachem Genack Shlita would often remind us that Rav Soloveitchik ztl. used to say that Avraham was contemplating that which he had just experienced. Imagine waiting for a child for 100 years and almost losing him in an instant. Imagine then learning about your brother’s relatively stress-free efforts in life – in raising a family and making a name for himself. Sure, Avraham stopped and contemplated that – how could he not?

But, added Rav Genack, here is where things were different with Avraham: he realized that true destiny requires a Nisayon (test) from which one discovers his or her inner fortitude and resolve to persevere. Rav Levi Yitzchak of Berditchev used to note that for this reason the Imahot (matriarchs) were barren – in order to appreciate not only the rewards but the steps taken in order to achieve those rewards.

The Zichron Meir explains that for this reason Avraham sent Yitzchak to Yeshiva after the Akaida episode. Truth be told, we would have expected Avraham to take Yitzchak on vacation to recover and reconnect following the trip, trial and trauma of the Akaida. However, within the Akaida Avraham saw an opportunity for growth and destiny – a destiny whose base would be built on Torah and now was the perfect time to solidify that base. Hence, he sent his son, hot from the Akaida, straight to Yeshiva with an eye toward achieving true greatness – one that comes from a strong connection to Hashem.

*******

It’s contagious

*******

In a world of advanced medicine, the medicine of Chessed is often overlooked. One is often amazed by the tremendous health benefit that a simple visit from a friend can have on a sick person. Are there any concerns about visiting the sick when the patient has a contagious illness? Would there be an exemption from the Mitzva of Bikkur Cholim in that instance?

The Rema (Shut HaRama 20) was faced with an interesting dilemma whereby a certain lease was being challenged because the potential tenant’s wife had contracted a contagious illness that the landlord did not want on his property. Accordingly, he sought the permission of the Rema to nullify the lease. The Rema responded strongly against the landlord, noting, among other things, that Hashem protects the contagious and if he (the landlord) were to be correct, then there could never be a halacha of Bikkur Cholim. Accordingly, the Rema must hold that the rules of Bikkur Cholim must still apply even in the face of a contagious illness.

The position of the Rema is difficult. It is especially difficult when one considers that the same Rema felt that when an epidemic hits a city, one must move from the city (See Y.D. 116). How does one reconcile that comment with the aforementioned Teshuva?

Shut Maharil (3) notes that there is no contradiction. The comment of Rema is based upon the idea that Hashem is angry at that city. It has nothing to do with contagious health. Similarly, Rav chaim Palagi (Shut Nishmas Kol Chai, Choshen Mishpat, 49) forbade the exclusion of a doctor from Shul out of fear that he might infect the other members because the Gemara’s comment was only about God’s anger – not a statement about health.

But what about the argument that visiting a contagious patient is a violation of good, old fashioned pikuach Nefesh? Indeed, Shut Kinyan Torah (IV:116) notes that one may not come close to one with a truly contagious airborne disease for fear s/he too might become ill. Indeed, this idea of contagious patients might be behind the stories in the Talmud (Nedarim 39b) which detail certain Rabbis who did not visit the sick. Various Achronim note that these Rabbis feared contamination and thus, they did not visit their sick colleague. However, Rabbi Akiva made a differentiation between contagious illness that does not threaten human life and dangers that do. The former would still present Bikkur Cholim options within caution while the latter would not.

Shut Chamdas Tzvi (III:43) notes that a person with a contagious illness should inform others of his condition in order to withhold the spreading of the condition. He cites the Talmud (Moed Katan 5a) as a proof that this is so. Sefer Chassidim (673) forbids a leper from bathing together with a healthy person unless he informs the latter first. L’Halacha Rav Waldenberg concurs that a contagious person must inform his peers of his situation (Shut Tzitz Eliezer XIII:81).

Shabbat Shalom