Looking deeper into this last explanation from Rashi and the Midrash, what is the relevance of these לֵיצָנֵי הַדּוֹר – cynics and scoffers of the generation? Who are they and why do they suddenly show up? Our Parsha discusses Yitzchak at the time his children are born, when he’s already 60 years old. These scoffers were already making the same allegations 60 years ago, when he was born! Why is this issue only brought up now, 60 years later? Why wasn’t this addressed when Hakadosh Baruch Hu remembered Sarah and when Yitzchak was born? Why do Chazal only now say, "Wait, wait, let me clarify the issue from 60 years ago, that Sarah conceived from Avimelech." Why did it take 60 years?
Rabbotai, I want to understand what's going on here. The scoffers say, "Sarah conceived from Avimelech," and so Hakadosh Baruch Hu changes nature to prove them wrong? Does Hakadosh Baruch Hu act according to the allegations of such cynics and scoffers? Does Hakadosh Baruch Hu need to alter the appearance of Yitzchak to resemble Avraham, in order to silence these despicable people? If this only happened once, I wouldn't bother trying to understand what lies behind it; but it happened again!
The Midrash (Tanchuma, Toldot 6) says there is no generation without its cynics, and it provides an example from sefer Shmuel Alef (25). David HaMelech’s servants were guarding Naval’s sheep, and David told them to go to Naval for food if they needed it. When they went and asked for food, Naval responded:
וַיַּעַן נָבָל אֶת־עַבְדֵי דָוִד וַיֹּאמֶר מִי דָוִד וּמִי בֶן־יִשַׁי הַיּוֹם רַבּוּ עֲבָדִים הַמִּתְפָּרְצִים אִישׁ מִפְּנֵי אֲדֹנָיו׃
Naval answered David’s servants, “Who is David? Who is the son of Yishai? There are many slaves nowadays who run away from their masters.
The rebellious Naval did not acknowledge David, and his statement, in simple terms, refers to rebels against Shaul HaMelech. More deeply, it refers to imposters and frauds, people claiming to belong to the Davidic lineage. Immediately, David prepared to go and destroy Naval. But Avigail, Naval's wife, heard, as one of her young men forewarned her. She quickly prepared gifts and set off to deliver them to David; but she did not tell her husband. After ten days, Hakadosh Baruch Hu struck Naval, and he died. The Gemara (Rosh Hashana 18a) explains that Hakadosh Baruch Hu waited ten days for Naval to repent, but when he didn’t, He caused his death. Immediately, David sent messengers to Avigail and offered to take her as his wife. After she was brought to him, he waited three months to see if she was pregnant from Naval or not. After three months, he had relations with her, and she became pregnant. The cynics and scoffers of the generation began to say: "She is pregnant from Naval!" They sought to disqualify her son from continuing the royal lineage of David. So, what did Hakadosh Baruch Hu do? He ordered the angel in charge of the formation of embryos to fashion that embryo in the likeness of its father – David HaMelech – so that everyone would be forced to acknowledge that David was the father. We learn this from the name of the child, כִּלְאָב, like father, indicating that everyone who saw him knew that David HaMelech was his father.
From here, we see that Hakadosh Baruch Hu sometimes intervenes when the cynics and scoffers speak. When they say something, He even changes nature. The first time this happens is with Yitzchak Avinu, and the second time with David HaMelech. The question is, what is the deeper significance of these Divine interventions?
The question is even greater, as the Midrash (Bereishit Rabbah 8:8) explains that when Moshe Rabbeinu was writing the Torah, he would write about each day. When he reached the words נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם בְּצַלְמֵנוּ כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ – Let us make man in our image as our likeness, and saw the plural verb נַעֲשֶׂה, Moshe jumped up and said, "Ribbono Shel Olam, why are You giving an opening for the cynics and heretics? They will point to this word as evidence of multiple creators!" Hakadosh Baruch Hu responded, "Write it, and those who want to err will err." Hakadosh Baruch Hu told Moshe that He was going to create man, and that from that man would come both the great and the small, teaching the lesson that the greater must consult with the lesser.
A person once told me that whenever he is about to do something, he consults with two people: his barber and a taxi driver. I asked him why specifically them, and he responded that they’re the experts in everything because they interact with at least 100 people daily, gaining insights that no one else has. In a similar vein, Hakadosh Baruch Hu says the greater should consult the smaller. And, if the cynics and scoffers twist the words to say something incorrect, He is not concerned; Hakadosh Baruch Hu's design will remain, and those who wish to make mistakes will do so. What He wanted was for people to understand that the greater must consult the smaller, and nothing in the plan changed despite what cynics might say.
As we see from these examples, sometimes Hakadosh Baruch Hu intervenes, and sometimes He does not. Rav Yerucham of Mir asks the question: Why in the case of Avraham and Yitzchak, and the case of David and Kilav, did Hakadosh Baruch Hu see fit to intervene when the scoffers spoke? He doesn't provide a direct answer but references two Pesukim from sefer Mishlei (26:4-5):
אַל־תַּעַן כְּסִיל כְּאִוַּלְתּוֹ פֶּן־תִּשְׁוֶה־לוֹ גַם־אָתָּה׃ עֲנֵה כְסִיל כְּאִוַלְתּוֹ פֶּן־יִהְיֶה חָכָם בְּעֵינָיו׃
Do not answer a fool in accord with his folly, else you will become like him. Answer a fool in accord with his folly, else he will think himself wise.
Rav Yerucham concludes that sometimes one responds to a fool, and sometimes one does not. However, he does not explain why the approach varies.
A further explanation is offered in a sefer seeking to explain these words of his. It describes a situation where students ask questions during a shiur. The rebbe will sometimes answer even seemingly irrelevant questions if there is potential to connect with the student. But if the question is entirely off-topic, the teacher ignores it and does not respond. For example, if someone says, "1 + 1 = 3," the teacher might engage to explain the error. But if the person instead proclaims "1 + 1 = Suitcase," there's no point in even responding because there's no logical basis for dialogue. Yet, when it comes to cynics, this explanation emphasizes the necessity of responding. Why is it that cynics, specifically, must be addressed? This remains unanswered in Rav Yerucham's teaching.
