One idea than can help us in our Avodat Hashem is appreciating the significance of each and every thought and action of ours -- "dikduk hadin" (the exactitude of the Divine judgment). This applies both for good and for bad. Every minute of learning has an impact on the upper realms, as well as for each person's individual judgment, and perhaps also for Klal Yisrael's. We will provide three examples of "dikduk hadin" based on the recent parshiot hashavua.

Avraham's hachnasat orchim (hospitality) needs no elaboration. The Gemara comments (Bava Metzia 86b): "Everything that Avraham did for the angels by himself -- G-d did for his descendents by Himself. Everything that Avraham did through an agent -- G-d did for his descendents through an agent." Avraham himself tended to preparing the meat and bringing the butter and milk, and so, too, G-d gave the slav (quails) and manna directly from heaven. Avraham had the water brought by others, though, so it, too, was given to Yisrael through the agency of Moshe and the rock.

This highlights the significance of a positive act. Just because Avraham ran to give meat and butter to three guests, Bnei Yisrael merited the miraculous slav and manna for an entire generation! [Some explain that because of Avraham's dedication, Moshe and Aharon were born, in whose merit these miracles were granted.] Yet, despite the greatness of this act and its impact for generations, there is an element of criticism, in that the water was only brought by others.

Rashi on the Chumash quotes this Gemara, with a slight variation. Whereas the Gemara quotes the pasuk in Beshalach, "You shall strike the rock and water will come forth from it and the people will drink" (Shemot 17:6), Rashi quotes the pasuk in Chukat, "Then Moshe raised him arm and struck the rock with his staff twice" (Bamidbar 20:11). Why did Rashi not quote the pasuk of the Gemara? Rav Chavel explains that in Parshat Beshalach there was a reason to do the miracle specifically with the staff -- to show that it could also bring about good, and not only punish. Therefore Rashi quoted the pasuk in Chukat, where there was no need for the miracle to be performed through any intermediary.

There is another aspect, though. Moshe did not enter Eretz Yisrael so that the Temple could be destroyed and serve as an atonement for Yisrael. Nonetheless, the fact that Moshe was sentenced not to enter Israel clearly contains an element of punishment for Am Yisrael. Therefore Rashi preferred this pasuk to show the ultimate negative result of Avraham's "inattention." Notwithstanding, the sin was also brought about in part through the first episode. Moshe mistakenly equated the two cases, since he was commanded to take the staff the second time, just as he had been commanded the first time, where he was supposed to strike the rock. Thus, the fact that G-d gave Bnei Yisrael the water through an agent -- Moshe -- caused the sin. What was behind all this? That Avraham did not bring the water himself!

We must add that presumably it was in the guests' best interest to have someone else bring the water, not to delay the preparations of the meat and bread. Yet, Chazal point out the repercussions! Perhaps the reason is because bringing water was the first step taken, so Avraham should have tended to this himself. Note the great exactitude of the din! It is not an issue of doing right or wrong, but rather the judgment is a direct result of the action. One who puts his hand in fire gets burned, not because he did something wrong, but because a burn is the direct result of a fire. So too, here, the reward and punishment are direct results of the action.

This point takes on even greater significance in light of the Rambam's view of Parshat Vayeira. The simple understanding of the beginning of the parsha is that first G-d appeared to Avraham, and then Avraham saw the angels and asked G-d to wait while he tended to the guests. Yet, it never says why G-d appeared to him, and when Avraham returned to Him. Rashi explains that G-d merely came to visit Avraham who was recuperating from his brit milah. Yet, he never explains when Avraham went back to the Divine visit. Furthermore, when did the angels materialize into the form of people?

The Rambam's opinion (Moreh Nevuchim II:42) is that the entire story didn't occur in reality, but it was all a vision! Moreover, the Rambam writes that whenever Tanach mentions seeing an angel, such as Yaakov's fight with the angel, it means in a vision. Then why did Yaakov limp afterwards? The Abarbanel writes that often dreams, and certainly prophetic visions, can leave physiological impacts on people. Similarly, Hoshea is told to marry a prostitute, have children with her, and then divorce her, and Yechezkel is told to lie on his side for many days. The Rambam asserts that it cannot be that G-d would command the prophets to act absurdly, but rather this all occurred in a prophetic vision. Ibn Kaspi writes the same about the story of Yonah.

Now, if we combine the Rambam with the Gemara above, there was no actual act at all -- not with the meat and not with the water. Furthermore, can a person control the content of his prophecy? And yet, see the result! It must be that a person receives a prophecy according to his thoughts, and Avraham gave greater precedence to serving the food than to bringing the water.

Another example of this principle can be found in the story of Eliezer's mission to get a wife for Yitzchak. Eliezer recounts to Lavan and Betuel, "I said to my master, 'Perhaps ("ulai") the woman will not follow me?'" (Bereishit 24:39) Rashi notes that "ulai" is written without a "vav," as if it said "alai" (=to me). Eliezer had a daughter and hoped that Avraham would turn to him. Avraham responded, "My son is blessed, and you are cursed (i.e., a slave, descendent of Canaan), and cursed does not stick with blessed."

There is slight technical problem. Why is "ulai" written this way only in Eliezer's repetition of the story and not in the original narrative? Some explain Eliezer needed to hint to this issue now in case Lavan was questioning -- if Yitzchak was so great, why would Eliezer not take him for his own daughter? Alternatively, the Baalei Mussar point out delicateness of negiah (self interest), that Eliezer could not conceal his secret desire when talking.

The Midrash Rabbah, though, does in fact relate this dialogue of Eliezer and Avraham on earlier pasuk. The Midrash states (Bereishit Rabbah 59:8):

"Canaan with scales of deceit in his hand, who loves to cheat." (Hoshea 12:8)

"Canaan" -- this is Eliezer.

"with scales of deceit in his hand" -- he sat and weighed his daughter whether she was worthy or not.

"who loves to cheat" -- to cheat the beloved of the world, Yitzchak.

[Eliezer] said, "Perhaps she will not agree, and I will give him my daughter?

[Avraham] said to him, "You are cursed, and my son is blessed, and cursed does not stick to blessed."

According to this, the hint in Eliezer's words is not based on the written form of "ulai," but rather difference between "ulai" and "pen" (=lest) The Gra points out that "ulai" always indicates a desired possibility, while "pen" indicates an undesired one.

On the other hand, there is another Midrash, found shortly afterwards. When Eliezer hears that the young maiden is from Avraham's family, he says, "Baruch Hashem Elokai adoni Avraham" -- "Blessed is Hashem, G-d of my master Avraham." [Incidentally, the Rokeach says that we derive the text of brachot from Eliezer.] Lavan similarly says to him, "Bo bruch Hashem" -- "Come, O blessed of Hashem!" The Midrash says that Lavan thought that Eliezer was Avraham since he looked so much like him. (Perhaps that is why he cleared his house of idols.) And because he served Avraham so faithfully -- he left status of "cursed" to that of "blessed."

This Midrash contradicts the one earlier, in which Avraham tells Eliezer that he is "cursed!" In general, there is no need to resolve contradictory midrashim, yet perhaps we can provide a resolution. It is very interesting to note the Torah's usage of the terms "eved" (servant) and "ish" (man) in describing Eliezer. At first he is always called "eved;" as he succeeds in his mission he is called "ish;" then he goes back to being called "eved." In fact, at the beginning of the story he is introduced by the dual title, "avdo zkan beito" -- "[Avraham's] servant, the elder of his household." It could be that in fact Eliezer was an "eved," and despite the fact that he was viewed by Lavan as an "ish," he still considered himself merely an "eved." [Chazal, in fact, praise Eliezer for opening his words with the declaration, "A servant of Avraham am I." Maran Rosh Hayeshiva zt"l would explain that it is not only a good idea to be open about one's deficits, but if one is willing to state he weakness and confront it, it no longer is a degradation, but turns into an attribute.]

The message here is that Eliezer's status of "baruch" or "arur" depends on his thoughts. The Gemara comments that Eliezer is one of four who entered Gan Eden alive. One time he sinned and thought that he is an "ish" -- when hoped that perhaps his daughter was fit for Yitzchak -- and Avraham responded to him: You're only an "ish" so long as you know that you're an "eved." If you start to think that you're an "ish" -- then you are "arur!"

Finally, in the Haftorah of Parshat Chayei Sarah, we read the story of David and Avishag, which is followed by the story of Adoniah's rebellion. Chazal explain that this came about because David disgraced Shaul's royal clothes. The Malbim explains that Adoniah could marry Avishag (and she was not considered his stepmother), since David didn't marry her. Yet, she was still considered the "utensil" of the king, which is only permitted to his successor. Adoniah knew that he was not meant to be the king, but wanted Avishag so much so that desired to be king. David disgraced the monarchy, represented by the royal garments, and so, too, Adoniah rebelled because he wanted David's "garment."

Now, how did Shaul not take note of "David and his men" -- 600 bitter and wild people -- who were hiding in the cave? When they saw David cut the corner of Shaul's cloak, they urged him on to kill Shaul. David refuses, says "chalila li," and silences them. David didn't want to kill Shaul even though he was pursuing him ("rodef"), and perhaps David was actually the anointed king! Moreover, Shaul could have easily discovered David and killed him, and even so David refused to strike him down. Yet, because David cut the corner of Shaul's garment -- he was punished. The Divine judgment doesn't view just the overall picture, but rather each and every aspect is noted and paid in kind.

"Know what is above you: an observant eye (ayin roah) ..." -- One has to be careful even with tiny things, since even what seems small to us is great in the eyes of the Divine judgment!