Let's learn a shtikel gemara and we will see wonders from Toras Hashem.
Rav Chiya bar Abba was the Chumash or Mishna teacher of the son of Resh Lakish. Rav Chiya's son passed away and Resh Lakish came to console him. Resh Lakish told R' Yehuda bar Nachmani to rise and say something. We pick up from there....
He [then] said to him: Rise [and] say something with regard to the comforters of the mourners.
He spoke and said: Our brethren, bestowers of lovingkindnesses, sons of bestowers of lovingkindnesses, who hold fast to the covenant of Avraham our father [for it is said, כי ידעתיו למען אשר יצוה את בניו וכו' ושמרו דרך השם לעשות צדקה ומשפט - For I have known him, to the end that he may command his children, to guard the path of Hashem to perform acts of kindness etc.], our brethren, may the Lord of recompense pay you your reward.
On the words "covenant of Avraham our father" Rashi writes that the bris is גמילות חסדים that Avraham Avinu performed when he hosted guests as it says ויטע אשל בבאר שבע - he planted an eshel in Be'er Sheva and eshel is an acronym for א'כילה ש'תיה ל'וויה eating, drinking and accompanying the guests. Why does Rashi not quote the pasuk we have in our text of the gemara כי ידעתיו למען אשר יצוה וכו' ושמרו דרך השם לעשות צדקה ומשפט "For I have known him, to the end that he may command his children, to guard the path of Hashem and perform acts of kindness". In our text it is in parentheses which means that maybe it shouldn't be there but it also appears in the gemara Yevamos [עט] proving that we are people of chesed. So why does Rashi use a different pasuk?
We need to travel over to Bava Metzia Land [ל]:
For R. Joseph learnt: "And you shall show them" this
refers to their house of life; "the way" — that means the practice of loving deeds;" they must walk" — to visiting the sick;
PS - אשר יצוה [part of the pasuk that we have been discussing as referring to the bris of chesed] is bi-gmatria ברית! [Baal Haturim]
The Master said: ‘they must walk — this refers to visiting the sick.’ But that is the practice of loving deeds [which the Braisa already mentioned]! — That is necessary only in respect of בן גילו one's affinity [that even in such an instance he must visit him]. For a Master said: A man's affinity takes away a sixtieth of his illness: yet even so, he must visit him. ‘Therein to burial.’ But that [too] is identical with the practice of loving deeds? — That is necessary only in respect of an old man for whom it is undignified.
I have an idea!!:-) Why does the gemara not just answer the first question [we already know that one must visit the sick because it is subsumed under the category of loving deeds] with the same answer it gave to the second question, namely that the chiddush is that there is still an obligation even if the visitor is an old man and it is undignified for him to visit someone younger than him? In fact, the gemara in Nedarim teaches that an older person must visit a younger person.
The Rambam writes in Hilchos Avel [14/1] that the mitzva of visiting the sick and consoling mourners are both subsumed under the general biblical category of ואהבת לרעך כמוך and are also specific rabbinic mitzvos.
His source is probably the sugya we learned in Bava Metzia. The gemara is teaching that even in an instance where the general biblical mitzva is not strong enough to obligate one, the rabbinic mitzva does have that power. So the gemara first asks that we already know biblically that one must the sick because of ואהבת so why do we need a special drasha and answers that if one is בן גילו he would not be obligated biblically but rabbinically. Then the gemara asks the same question about burial. It too, is included on the mitzva of ואהבת, so why do we need a special drasha? The gemara answers that we need a special drasha for the rabbinic mitzva of burying the dead if it is concerning an old man for whom it is undignified to perform such an act.
Now we understand why the gemara didn't answer the first question as it did the second. Only after the gemara first answered that we need a special drasha to teach that even בן גילו is obligated, we see that what would normally absolve a person of his general biblical obligation to perform acts of loving kindness is not strong enough to absolve him of his specific rabbinic obligation. Once the gemara gives that answer we know that in a case of an old man visiting a young man there is still a rabbinic mitzva. However, before the answer of בן גילו we didn't know that in a case where he is not biblically obligated he would still be obligated rabbinically.
We must now ask why the Rambam chose the pasuk of ואהבת when talking about visiting the sick and burying the dead and not the mitzva of והלכת בדרכיו - walking in the path of Hashem, which includes acts of kindness?
The answer is that there is a fundamental difference between the two psukim. ואהבת לרעך כמוך is a מצוה בין אדם לחבירו while והלכת בדרכיו is a mitzva בין אדם למקום. The Rambam was talking about the בין אדם לחבירו aspect so he chose the pasuk of ואהבת. [See the Rambam in the next halacha which clearly bears out this thesis].
The Rambam in the first perek of hilchos deyos says that from the pasuk ושמרו דרך השם - they will guard the path of Hashem, that one must walk in the ways of Hashem and adopt his middos, meaning והלכת בדרכיו.
Now we understand beautifully why Rashi didn't choose to quote the pasuk of ושמרו דרך השם in Ksubos [ח] as the gemara in Yevamos [עט] did. The gemara in Ksubos is talking about the בין אדם לחבירו aspect of chesed. As such, it is appropriate to employ the pasuk of ויטע אשל as Rashi does. This pasuk refers to the great acts of בין אדם לחבירו performed by Avraham. He fed and accompanied his guests. The gemara in Yevamos says that a sign of a Jew is that he is a גומל חסד. This is learned from the pasuk of כי ידעתיו וכו' ושמרו דרך השם which refers the בין אדם למקום aspect of being a kind person.
We conclude with a medrash that teaches that Avraham Avinu ran to do chesed as the blood was dripping from his milah. This explains Rashi who calls the חסד of Avraham a "bris". Where is the bris of chesed? Here the bris of milah is combined with the bris of chesed. Chazal say that the cakes baked for the visitors were matzos. So just as yetzias mitzrayim is connected to bris mila - בדמייך חיי, in the merit of the blood of milah we were redeemed, so it is connected to the bris of chesed as we see by the bringing of matzos to the guests. Indeed only people with a bris milah may eat the korban pesach - כל ערל לא יאכל בו. Pesach night when we invite guests [כל דכפין ייתי וייכול] to eat matza as Avraham did and eat the korban pesach only by merit of our bris milah, the two brisos of chesed and milah come together as one.
Pil-ei Pil-ei Pla-ot!!
עפ"י פחד יצחק פסח מאמר יח
PS - אשר יצוה [part of the pasuk that we have been discussing as referring to the bris of chesed] is bi-gmatria ברית! [Baal Haturim]
For those who want MORE I send you to the following addresses for more sweets....
עיין עוד בענין נשגב זה בספר וזאת ליעקב [הגרש"י בורנשטיין שליט"א] פרשת וירא עמ' קלד, ואתה ברחמיך הרבים על הלכות תשובה [הג"ר גינזבורג שליט"א] עמ' לז, לקט שיחות מוסר [הגרי"א שר זצ"ל] עמ' סד, מי זהב [הרה"ג ר' פנחס גולדווסר שליט"א] עמ' צד, מרבה ישיבה [הרה"ג ר' י"ד המניק שליט"א] עמ' צה, משאת כפי [הג"ר דוד קאהן שליט"א] עמ' קב
וראיתי הקושיא שהעמדנו בפתח דברינו בספר של אחד מגדולי דורנו שליט"א שנשאר בקושיא ולא העיר בכל הנ"ל. אשרינו מה טוב חלקינו שהוספנו אורות אלו לעולם בשפה המדוברת.
