A.
In this week’s parasha, Avram (whom we met at the end of last week’s parasha) is ordered by G-d to move to the Holy Land. Accordingly, he packs his bags, and brings with him an entire entourage: His wife, Sarai, Lot, son of his brother Haran, and כל הנפש אשר עשו בחרן, i.e. all of the converts to monotheism whom Avram and his wife had influenced in Charan (XII, 5).
After arriving in Canaan, however, there was a falling-out between Avram and his nephew: ויהי ריב בין רעי מקנה אברם ובין רעי מקנה לוט כו' ויאמר אברם אל לוט אל נא תהי מריבה ביני ובינך ובין רעי ובין רעיך כי אנשים אחים אנחנו (“And there was a dispute between Avram’s shepherds and Lot’s shepherds.... And Avram said to Lot, 'Let there not be a quarrel between me and you and between my shepherds and your shepherds, for we are brotherly men;'” XIII, 7-8).
Rashi explains the source of the dispute: לפי שהיו רועיו של לוט רשעים ומרעים בהמתם בשדות אחרים והיו רועי אברם מוכיחים אותם על הגזל והם אומרים נתנה הארץ לאברם ולו אין יורש ולוט יורשו ואין זה גזל (“Because Lot’s shepherds were evil, and used to pasture their animals in others’ fields, and Avram’s shepherds would rebuke them over the theft, and they would say, 'The land was given to Avram, who has no heir; [therefore] Lot is his heir, and this is not theft....'”).
Rashi also explains Avram’s reference to אנשים אחים, provisionally translated “brotherly men,” as meaning: קרובים. ומדרש אגדה דומין בקלסתר פנים (“Relatives; and the midrashic meaning is: similar in facial features”). A number of Acharonim are bothered by Rashi’s second remark. A typical example is the Maskil l’David, who writes: בשלמא אם אתה אומר פירושו קרובים, אתי שפיר דקרובים בעי שיהא שלום ביניהם טפי מסתם אדם, אבל דומים בקלסתר פנים, איזו קורבה איכא בזה? (“It makes sense if you say that the interpretation is ‘relatives,’ since it is certainly so that relatives need that peace reign between them more than any people at random; but what closeness is there between people who happen to resemble one another?”).
He goes on to suggest: דרצה לומר דכיון דאנו דומין יראוך הבריות בקלקלתך ויחשבו שאני הגזלן (“that [Avram] wished to say that since we resemble one another, people will see you misbehaving and think that I am the thief!”). In other words, that Avram was concerned for his own good name, when Lot would be confronted by angry Canaanite farmers over the deeds of his shepherds.
The point is undoubtedly true, but it appears to me to miss the point: If we read Avram’s actual words, he seems to be saying that the reason there should be no dispute between them is that they resembled each other, not that he is afraid that the Canaanites will mistake Lot for him.
Why is simple physical resemblance any greater a cause for making peace between two people than anything else?
B.
If we turn to Genesis XXV, 19, we read: אלה תולדת יצחק בן אברהם אברהם הוליד את יצחק (“These are the generations of Yitzchaq ben Avraham, Avraham sired Yitzchaq”). Rashi comments that the last clause in the verse is necessary לפי שליצני הדור אומרים, מאבימלך נתעברה שרה, שהרי כמה שנים שהתה עם אברהם ולא נתעברה הימנו. מה עשה הקב"ה? צר קלסתר פניו של יצחק דומה לאברהם והעידו הכל אברהם הוליד את יצחק (“because the scoffers [leitzanim] of the generation would say, Sara became pregnant from Avimelech [cf. Genesis XX, 1-18]; how many years did she spend with Avraham and not become pregnant from him? What did the Holy One, Blessed is He, do? He made Yitzchaq’s features like Avraham’s, and everybody testified that Avraham sired Yitzchaq”).
But this raises a serious question in light of two passages from the Talmud.
First, the Talmud records that Yiska bath Haran, mentioned in Genesis XI,29, was, in fact, Sara (גיטין י"ד., ע"ע רש"י עה"פ). Since Haran was also Lot’s father (ibid., v. 27), this means that Lot was simultaneously Avraham’s brother-in-law, as well as his nephew.
Now, elsewhere in the Talmud we learn: רוב בנים דומין לאחי האם (“Most sons resemble their mother’s brothers”; בבא בתרא ק"י.). If so, we can reasonably ask: What good did it do that G-d made Yitzchaq look like Avraham? If Yiska was Sara, and Lot was her brother, then the leitzanim could ascribe Yitzchaq’s appearance to that of Lot, and still say that Avimelech was his father! So what was acomplished?
C.
There exists some midrashic evidence that these leitzanim to whom Rashi refers were not necessarily intimately familiar with Avraham’s affairs. Thus, for instance, the Midrash Tanchuma records that these leitzanim attributed Sara’s pregnancy either to Pharaoh [cf. XII, 10-18] or to Avimelech. Now, since Avraham and Sara had stayed in Egypt when he was 75 years old, and Yitzchaq was born when he was 100 years old, this was either the longest pregnancy in history, or they had no precise idea of when Avraham and Sara were in any particular place. All that they knew was vaguely that they had been in Egypt at some point, and in Palesheth (Avimelech’s country).
This suggests that they probably also did not know that Yiska was Sara. Since XI, 29 tells us that Haran was generally known as הרן אבי יסכה ואבי מלכה (“Haran, father of Yiska and Milka”), the fact that Yiska and Sara were the same person was probably not generally known. These leitzanim were simply the sort of nasty, malicious people who spread vicious rumours for fun. This being so, most people, on seeing Yitzchaq’s resemblance to Avraham, would take it as evidence of paternity, and, not knowing Sara’s relationship to Lot, would not connect it with him.
Now, let us reconsider Rashi’s comment. It seems to me that what Avram was saying to Lot was: If we did not look so much alike, it would not matter much that your shepherds behave irresponsibly. Sooner or later, I shall have a son, and everyone will know that he is my heir and not you, and the claim that everything in the land ultimatrely belongs to you would then evaporate. However, since you look so much like me, you could claim that any resemblance on my son’s part to me is because you are my brother-in-law, and that Avimelech (pr someone else) was the father, which would mean that he is not my son and therefore not my heir. For that reason, I don’t want there to be any bad blood between us: Pick the part of the land which you wish to inhabit, and I’ll move elsewhere, so that we are not in dispute.
Hence, Avraham proposed that they make peace by separating because they were אנשים אחים -- דומין בקלסתר פניהם.
D.
If this is true, it provides us with a useful insight into the character of Lot. Plainly, Avram had no illusions about his nephew and brother-in-law.
Lot chose to move to the then-fertile valley of Siddim, site of the cities of Sdom and Amora, justly infamous for their cruelty and crooked trading practices. Doubtless, the people of Sdom were happy to have a member of the illustrious family of Avram living amongst them who was not exactly like his strait-laced uncle and brother-in-law. In fact, we learn that they appointed Lot their judge (cf. XX, 1, רש"י שם ע"פ ב"ר, וע"ע ת"י שם). Clearly, they felt they had little to fear from his judgment.
This is not to say that Lot was evil. The midrash cited supra is careful to say that רועיו של לוט רשעים, “Lot’s shepherds were resha’îm,” not Lot himself. Indeed, we see from the rest of the account in Genesis XX that he tried to live up to Avram’s ideal of hospitality, and subsequently to protect his angelic guests from his truly depraved neighbours.
Rather, Lot’s problem was that he was weak, vacillating, easily swayed, and disinclined to confront wrong-doing when he saw it. He was not, as Avram famously was, an Îvri, someone capable of standing on one side (êver) whilst the whole world stands on the other (cf. XIV, 13, ב"ר פמ"ב סי' י"ג). For this reason alone, he was no heir of Avram’s, and despite Avram’s obvious affection for his nephew, rescuing him when he is captured by Kedorlaomer during his sack of Sdom, Lot could not be a part of the family which which would ultimately bring about the evolution of the ממלכת כהנים וגוי קדוש (cf. Exodus XIX, 6), Klal Yisra’él.
No comments:
Post a Comment