Parashath Lech Lëcha (Genesis XII,1-XVII,27) 11/4/11

A.

With our parasha, the focus of the Torah narrows further: Having begun with creation of the universe, the first parasha narrowed to focus on the Earth and its affairs; last week’s parasha dealt with the first two millennia of human development. Now, with our parasha, it narrows to the family of the patriarch Avraham, from whom the ethnic basis of the holy, Torah-nation would spring.

It is 2023 since the completion of the Creation, and Avram, not yet known as Avraham, has arrived in the Holy Land with his family and followers from Haran in the midst of a war of conquest, as Rashi reminds us: "והכנעני אז בארץ". הי' הולך וכובש את ארץ ישראל מזרעו של שם שבחלקו של שם נפלה כשחחלק נח את הארץ לבניו וגו' (“...‘And the Këna‘ani was then in the land’ [XII, 7], carrying out the conquest of Eretz Yisra’él from the descendants of Shem, for it fell to the portion of Shem when Noah divided the Earth amongst his sons....”).

As a direct result of the Canaanite conquest, famine grips the land (ibid., 10), and Avram seeks refuge in Egypt. On Avram’s return to the Holy Land from his Egyptian sojourn, we read: וילך למסעיו מנגב ועד בית א-ל עד המקום אשר הי' שם אהלו בתחלה בין בית א-ל ובין העי (“And he went on his journeys [lë-massa‘av] from the Negev to Béyth É-l, to the place where his tent had been at first, between Béyth É-l and ha-‘Ai”; XIII, 3). Rashi here follows the midrash בראשית רבה פמ"א סי' ג', ועיי' מתנות כהונה שם): כשחזר ממצרים לארץ כנען הי' הולך ולן באכסניות שלן בהם בהליכתו למצרים כו' בחזרתו פרע הקפותיו (“When he returned from Egypt to Eretz Këna‘an and went and stayed in the places where he had stayed on his way to Egypt... On his return, he repaid his debts....”).

More surprising than Hazal’s mention of the seemingly mundane fact that Avram repaid his debts, is that Rashi felt it necessary to mention it. Of course Avram paid his debts; had he not done so, he would have been guilty of theft, and would have been not a tzaddiq, but rather a rasha‘. Why, then, did Rashi feel it necessary to cite this particular, apparently self-evident midrash?

B.

The Maskil lë-David seems to have been bothered by this as well. He asks why our verse reads that Avram went lë-massa‘av; if the apparent, simple meaning is to translate it as I have above, “on his journeys”, one would rather expect to read bë-massa‘av. Hence, reasons the Maskil lë-David, the purpose of the return trip, revisiting all the places where he had rested previously, was lë-massa‘av, “for” his journeys, i.e. in order to take care of something which was related to the first trip; אם כן העקר חסר (“if so, the main point is lacking [from the verse]”). In short, the Maskil lë-David seems to say, the larger hiddush is not that he repaid his debts; it is that he had debts to repay.

Consider for a moment: Avram arrives in the Holy Land to find it desolate, laid waste by warfare, starving; having just undertaken the long, arduous journey from Haran, he needed to replenish provisions, and can hardly have had much; yet, he somehow managed to persuade perfect strangers, and not only strangers, but the famously tight-fisted Këna‘anim, o make him loans as he made his way to Egypt. What assurance did they have that he would repay his bills? What collateral could he possibly have left with them, that they should trust him? How did they know that he would, in fact, return the way he had come?

C.

A possible answer to this question suggests itself in the comparison of two other midrashim.

The first midrash reads: "לא תענה" קיים אברהם שהעיד לכל באי עולם שאתה רבון כל המעשים. אף הוא קיים "לא תחמוד", "מחוט ועד שרוך נעל" (“Avraham observed ‘you will not bear false witness” [lo’ tha‘ane], for he proclaimed to all mortals that You are Master of all the actions [Ribbon kol ha-ma‘asim]. He also observed ‘you will not covet’ [lo’ thahmod] [when he said], ‘neither a string nor a shoelace’ [Genesis XIV, 23]”; ילקוט שמעוני, פרשת יתרו רמז רע"ו).

Since Hazal tell us that Avraham observed the entire Torah voluntarily before it was commanded to his descendants (יומא כ"ח:, ויקרא רבה פ"ב סי' ט'), it is unsurprising that he kept these two specific commandments. What is odd is that these two are singled out here, as though they are linked in some way.

The Bë’ér Moshe offers in explanation: זוהי גדלותו של אברהם שהורה לדורות כו' שהרי כל קניניו של האדם אינם שלו כלל ועיקר אלא כולם שייכים אליו ית' בהיותו רבון כל המעשים ולפיכך "לא תענה" ו"לא תחמוד" קשורים זה בזה ויסוד קיונם בעולם הי' אברהם אבינו ראש המאמינים (“This is the greatness of Avraham, who instructed the generations... that all of a man’s possession are fundamentally not his at all; rather they belong to Him, in that He is Master of all the actions [Ribbon kol ha-ma‘asim], and therefore lo’ tha‘ane and lo’ thahmod are connected one to the other, and the foundation of their observance in the world is out father Avraham, the chief of the believers”; פרשתנו, מאמר שביעי).

This sublime principle was also proclaimed by King David: לד' הארץ ומלאה תבל ויושבי בה (“The Earth and its fullness is Ha-Shem’s, the globe and its inhabitants”; Psalms XXIV, 2). But the implications of this concept are liable to misinterpretation. It does not mean, for instance, that there is no such thing as private property, because “everything belongs to G-d”; rather, it means that the distribution of the world’s wealth amongst its inhabitants is at G-d’s discretion; as we so recently proclaimed on Rosh ha-Shana and reiterated on Yom Kippur, amongst the things subject to annual decision and adjustment are מי ייעני ומי ייעשיר, “who will be impoverished and who will be enriched.” It is given us to have some influence on our own situations, through prayer and merit, but the final decision is G-d’s, and it is for us to respect it.

Which brings us to our second midrash, cited by Rashi in his comment on Genesis XXIV, 10, that Avraham’s livestock was readily recognisable שהיו יוצאין זמומים מפני הגזל שלא ירעו בשדות אחרים (“for they would go out muzzled against robbery, that they not graze in the fields of others”; בראשית רבה פנ"ט סי' "ד, מתנות כהונה שם). From this we learn two things: First, that the “robbery” against which the animals were muzzled consisted of their seeking forage on other people’s property; second, that such a precaution was rare, sufficiently so to render Avraham’s animals instantly recognizable.

The practice was all the more remarkable because, Hazal tell us, he had nothing at all to fear, since בהמתן של צדיקים אין הקב"ה מביא תקלה על ידן (“The Holy One, Blessed is He, does not bring about a calamity through the livestock of tzaddiqim”; חולין ז.); hence, the precaution was unnecessary in the case of Avraham’s animals, if not anyone else’s. So why did he take it?

It seems to me that his purpose was dictated by his well-known proclamation that ultimately everything belongs to G-d. Having done his best to convince people that this was so, he now felt the need to demonstrate its correct interpretation, that legitimately acquired private property must be respected, that its misappropriation is a violation of the Divine Will, in that He had decided to bestow His property on whomever held the field in question. Such testimony through demonstrated example was surely primâ facie evidence of Avraham’s yashruth, his honesty and straightforwardness, for which he gained world-wide renown and respect; as Hazal tell us: שלשה כתרים הן כתר תורה וכתר כהונה וכתר מלכות וכתר שם טוב עולה על גביהן (“There are three crowns: The crown of Torah, the crown of këhunna, and the crown of kingship; and the crown of a good name rises above them”; אבות פ"ד מי"ז).

That is why perfect strangers trusted him, and were willing to lend him money.

D.

Avraham’s sterling example tells us precisely how it is that a holy nation is to conduct its business affairs, and it is an example which has stood by sincerely religious people down through the millennia and centuries, sometimes with amazing and unexpected additional ramifications.

I remember a truly remarkable story I was once told by Rabbi Yisra’él ‘Azri’él Feldman ז"ל. Rabbi Feldman was a native of a small town in Poland, in the vicinity of Warsaw. When he was a boy, in the 1920’s, the saintly Hafétz Hayyim came through his town, and Rabbi Feldman’s father, one of the prominent citizens of the community, pushed his forward to meet the tzaddiq. On being asked if he was learning gëmara, the youngster recited a piece of Bava Qama to the tzaddiq’s obvious delight, and received a bëracha: That he would live to have children, and would never have to touch a gun.

The rather unusual wording of the blessing caused considerable surprise amongst the men who heard it at the time. Its true meaning only became clear after the German invasion of Poland, in 1939, when the young Rabbi Feldman, late secretary of one of the rabbinical courts in Warsaw, managed to escape the Warsaw ghetto and, after several hair-raising incidents, managed to join a band of Communist partisans.

The atheistic Communists of course held religion and religious people in contempt, but this particular band had a problem: None of them trusted any of the others with their slender, and strictly rationed food supply, a source of constant suspicion and discord. But whatever else they thought of rabbis and religion, they knew beyond a doubt that they were honest; therefore, they placed the young rabbi in charge of the rations, and he survived the war as the commissary for a band of Communist.

Survived to marry and have children, without having had to touch a gun, thanks to Avraham’s example.

Parshath Lech Lëcha (Genesis XII,1-XVII,27) 10/15/10

A.

With our parasha, the Torah’s focus shifts and narrows to concentrate on what will be its subject for the rest of Genesis, the line of descent beginning with Avram, later Avraham, which would form the ethnic basis on which the nation of Israel would be founded at the foot of Mt Sinai.

As our parasha opens, G-d issues the instruction which would set that process in motion: לך לך מארצך וממולדתך ומארץ אביך אל הארץ אשר אראך (“Go for yourself from your land and from your birthplace and from your father’s house to the land which I shall show you”).

Consider this command for a moment and it begins to seem a bit strange. Last week, we read: תרח הוליד את אברם את נחור ואת הרן כו' וימת הרן על פני תרח אביו בארץ מולדתו באור כשדים: ויקח אברם ונחור להם נשים כו' וכו' ויצאו אתם מאור כשדים ללכת ארצה כנען ויבאו עד חרן וישבו שם: (“Terah sired Avram, Nahor, and Haran.... And Haran died before his father in the land of his birth, in Ur Kasdim. And Avram and Nahor took wives for themselves.... And they departed with them from Ur Kasdim to go to the land of Këna‘an, and they came to Haran and settled there....”; XI, 27-31).

It appears from the above that Avram, together with his father, his brother, their wives and Lot, Haran’s son, had already left “his land and his birthplace”; at least, the Torah provides us with no reason to believe that he had not been born in the same place as his brother, Haran, who so tragically died during his father’s lifetime. Since, as our parasha informs us (XII, 4), Avram was seventy-five years old when he left Haran to follow where G-d would lead, it is arguable that Haran had become his land, through some process of naturalization, but since the Torah tells us that the family Terah arrived in Haran on the way to Këna‘an and elected to stay there, it is beyond dispute that it was not his moledeth, his “birthplace.”

It therefore appears that G-d’s instruction is deeper than it appears at a casual reading. What did He mean?

B.

It is interesting to ask what this place Ur Kasdim was, and where it was located.
In the 1920’s, a team of archaeologists under the leadership of C. Leonard Woolley unearthed a site in central Iraq, which they identified as Ur. If that was indeed the name of the place, its inhabitants were singularly unimaginative, as ur, in the Sumerian language which they spoke, simply means “city”. Ur Kasdim, presumably, means “City of Kasdim”. What, then, is or are Kasdim?

Conventionally, Kasdim is interpreted as a gentilic plural (cf. Onqëlos’ rendering, Kasda’ei) meaning “Chaldaeans” (Akkadian Haldū, Greek Chaldaíoi). This is problematic not only because Akkadian h never corresponds to Hebrew kaf, and the correspondence of l to s makes no sense, but also because the Chaldaean occupation of Mesopotamia was contemporary with the divided kingdom of Israel, many centuries after Avram.

The root kaf-sin-dalet has no use in the Holy Language other than here, and as a name (cf. XXII, 21). It does, however, resemble Akkadian kaššadum, “conqueror” (Akkadian was also spoken in ancient Mesopotamia), appropriately in the genitive case. If this surmise is correct, Ur Kasdim could mean “City of the Conqueror,” in a mixture of Sumerian and Akkadian; Nahor’s son Kesed, then, was named “Conqueror.” But in the verse’s actual wording, Haran died bë-eretz moladëto bë-Ur Kasdim. “Ur Kasdim” seems to be a country, an eretz, not a city (if it were, the phrase would read bë-‘ir moladëto).

To understand what comes next, we assert some basic historical facts. As can be shown by simple calculations, the Mabbul of last week’s parasha occurred in the year 1656 after the advent of the first man. The Haflaga, the great dispersal of mankind from Shin‘ar (i.e., Mesopotamia) -- which G-d forced by creating the original seventy languages underlying all modern speech save the Holy Language, thereby engineering chaos -- occurred 340 years later, in the year 1996. Avram was born near the end of that period, in 1948. Thus, at the time of Avram’s birth, humanity had spent a considerable amount of time, perhaps as much as three centuries, writhing under the baleful tyranny of Nimrod (עיי' מה שפירש ההעמק דבר על פי"א פס' א' "דברים אחדים" ). Over time, humanity had been induced by Nimrod and his party to forget the uniquely unitary Creator of all.

As Hazal tell us, Avram rediscovered G-d’s existence. His very outspoken views on the subject, Rashi summarizes, brought him before Nimrod, who styled himself a deity, והשליכו לכבשן האש והרן יושב ואומר אם אברם נוצח אני משלו ואם נמרוד נוצח אני משלו וכשניצל אברם אמרו לו משל מי אתה אמר להם משל אברם אני השליכוהו לכבשן האש ונשרף וזהו אור כשדים וגו' (“...and [Nimrod] caused [Avram] to be thrown into a fiery furnace. Haran [was] sitting and saying, 'If Avram wins, I’m on Avram’s side, and if Nimrod wins, I’m on Nimrod’s side,' and when Avram was saved, [Nimrod’s men] asked [Haran], One whose side are you? He said, 'On Avram’s side, asnd they threw him into the fiery furnace and he was burnt up'; and this is [what is meant by] Ur Kasdim....”; לכל המובא לעיל עיי' עירובין נ"ג., מדרש הגדול פר' נח י"א וכ"ח, תנא דבי אלי' זוטא כ"ה, ובראשית רבה סוף פל"ח). Avram, the tzaddiq, was protected by the merit of his rock-solid faith in G-d; the ambivalent Haran, willing to go with whoever “won,” had no such zëchuth, and hence did not survive the same trial.

Read in this way, ur kasdim may not be a place-name at all. Ur means “fire, light” in the Holy Language. If so, the first phrase in verse 28 exhibits the locative sense of the case prefix bë- (“in the land of his birth”), and the instrumental sense (“by means of the ur kasdim”) in the second. In verse 31, then, the ablative prefix mi-/mé- can be construed to mean “because of,” as it often does, i.e., “and they left because of the ur kasdim.” The “conqueror” would be Nimrod. If it is a place-name, it signifies the furnace’s location.

C.

This line of reasoning leads us to consider two more questions. The first is posed by Ramban: Why, he asks, does the Torah first sing the praises of Noah, as we saw last week, before telling us that he was a prophet (since he merited direct communication with G-d), whilst in Avram’s case it tells us nothing of his tzidqiyuth, but launches immediately into ויאמר ד' אל אברם, “And Ha-Shem said to Avram....”?

A possible answer, based on the foregoing, suggests itself: Avram’s tzidqiyuth was already well-known and demonstrated, since he had miraculously survived Nimrod’s furnace. But such an answer is vaguely unsatisfactory, not least because the written Torah chooses to conceal the fact in allusion, leaving its explicit telling to Oral Torah sources.

The second question is raised by the Birkath Tov: If Terah et al originally set out for the Holy Land, as we read in XI, 31, why ever did they stop in Haran? Still more, why did they remain so long that Terah died there, and Avram waited for G-d’s command before continuing to their original destination?

The rebbe answers: ונראה דהנה בארץ ישראל נאמר "ארץ הכנעני והחתי והאמרי והפרזי" וגו' ומבואר בשם הבעש"ט ז"ל דהם נגד ז' מדות הקדושים דהיו הם ההפכיים דכנעני הוא בחינת חסד כו' ונאמר במרגלים "ארץ אוכלת יושבי' וכל העם אשר ראינו בתוכה אנשי מדות" כו' הכונה דמי שמתעכב שם אוכלת אותו מקלקלת אותו וזה שאמרו שהם אנשי מדות רעות כו' ובארץ ישראל אין יכולים להיות אם לא נטהרו במדות כמ"ש "ולא תקיא הארץ אתכם בטמאכם אותה כאשר קאה את הגוי אשר לפניכם" שאינה מקבלת אשר לא מטוהרים וגו' (“And it appears that concerning Eretz Yisra’él it is said, ‘Land of the Këna‘ani and the Hitti and the Emori and the Përizzi....’ [Exodus III, 17], and it is explained in the name of the Ba‘al Shém Tov that [the seven Canaaanite nations] are opposed to the seven holy middoth, their opposites [such that] Këna‘ani is [the opposite of] hesed [‘kindness’], etc. ... And it is said about the Spies, ‘a land devouring its inhabitants, and every nation which we saw in it were men of middoth’ [Numbers XIII, 32]... The intent being that anyone who tarries there, [the land] consumes him, ruins him, and what [the spies] said was that they were men of bad middoth.... One cannot exist in Eretz Yisra’él if one has not been purified in middoth, as it is written, ‘and the land should not vomit you out when you defile it, as it vomited out the nation which was before you’ [Leviticus XVIII, 28], for it will not accept those who are not purified....”).

Eretz Yisra’él was, and is, the proper abode of Shem and his descendants, allotted to them by Noah (cf. Rashi to XII, 6 and XIV, 18]; nonetheless, Terah and Nahor, presumably, did not measure up to the challenge, and even Avram, who did embody the seven virtues in pure form, hesitated until ordered by G-d to leave behind Haran, and his birthright, the household of his father – in short, to take on the burden which is required of a gér tzedeq -- and take the next step in the evolution of the goy gadol, the “great nation” which G-d promised would stem from him as a result (XII, 2).

The Maharal mi-Prag answers Ramban’s question, why does the Torah not explicitly mention Avram’s tzidquth before recording that G-d spoke to him: כי אברהם הי' ראש יחוסינו ובו הי' הבחירה אשר בחר הש"י בישראל כדכתיב "אתה האלקים אשר בחרת באברהם" וגו' ואם כתב בתחלה צדקות אברהם הי' עולה על דעת אדם בשביל צדקות אברהם בחר בו ובזרעו אחריו והי' אהבה תלוי' בדבר כו' ועכשיו שבניו אינם צדיקים בטלה האהבה, אבל עתה שלא הקדים לומר צדקות אברהם כו' שבחר באברהם ובזרעו מצד עצמם ולא בשביל דבר שהי' אפשר לומר שכאשר בטל הדבר בטלה האהבה וגו' (“...for Avraham is the beginning of our lineage, and the choice which Ha-Shem made of Israel fell upon him, as it is written: ‘You are the G-d who chose Avraham....’ [Nëhemiah IX, 7], and if He had written at the start Avraham’s tzidquth it would enter people’s minds that it was because of tzidquth that He chose him and his seed after him, and this would be love dependent on something... and now that his sons are not such tzaddiqim the love is nullified. But now that [G-d] did not talk first of Avraham’s tzidquth... for He chose Avraham and his seed for themselves, not because of anything about which it would be possible to say that when the thing is not so, the love is [likewise] nullified....”; נצח ישראל פ"ה מי"ז).

D.

This establishes a vital yësod, a foundational principle: G-d’s covenant with Israel, established, as we learn later in the parasha, even before Israel came into being (XV, 7-21) is eternal, depends neither on our merits nor on those of our ancestors, and will never be abrogated. As the Birkath Tov reminds us, this does not mean that those merits are irrelevant, especially with regard to our possession and settlement of the Holy Land, ארץ אשר ד' אלקיך דרש אתה תמיד עיני ד' אלקיך בה וגו' (“A land which Ha-Shem your G-d seeks out; the eyes of Ha-Shem your G-d are always upon it....”; Deuteronomy XI, 12).

With regard to the Holy Land’s intolerance of those with unrefined middoth, the parasha also reminds us that G-d’s timescale is not ours. Avram was told, concerning הגוי אשר לפניכם, “the nation which was before [Israel]”, ודור רביעי ישובו הנה כי לא שלם עון האמרי עד הנה, “And a fourth generation will return here [from Egyptian exile], for the iniquity of the Emori is not complete until then” (XV, 16).

Parshath Lech Lëcha (Genesis XII,1-XVII,27) 10/30/09

A.

In our parasha, Avram returns from Egypt to find that the Canaanites have largely consolidated their hold on the Holy Land (only one city of the bënei Shém, Shalém, continued to hold out against them; cf. Rashi to XII, 5 and XIV, 18). In addition, a coalition of four powerful foreign potentates has launched an invasion of the country.

The proximate cause of the war is alleged to have been the revolt of five cities, Sëdom, ‘Amora, Adma, Tzëvoyim, and Tzo‘ar, against one of the kings, Këdorla‘omer of ‘Eilam. However, the Torah places Amrafel (whom the Talmud [עירובין נ"ג.] identifies with Nimrod) at the head of the list, revealing the expedition’s real purpose, to hunt down Avram, who had been at the center of the resistance to Nimrod’s bid to dominate mankind after the Mabbul (עיי' העמק דבר על י"ד א').

The midrash (בראשית רבה פמ"ב סי' ב') takes this concept a bit farther, and tells us that this war and Avram’s involuntary involvement in it presages subsequent Jewish history, in that each of the four kings represents one of the four exiles which the Jewish people were destined to endure.

Ramban explains the correspondences as follows:

Amrafel, king of Shin‘ar, he tells us, represents Nëvuchadnetzar and the Babylonian Empire, not only because the city of Bavel was located in the alluvial plain of Shin‘ar, but also because of a prophetic statement of Daniel, who told Nëvuchadnetzar אנת הוא רישא די דהבא, “you are the head of gold” (Daniel II, 38), i.e., the first to despoil Israel.

Aryoch, king of Ellasar he identifies with the Medio-Persian Empire, asserting that Ellasar was a city either in Media or Persia (אבל עיי' בראשית רבה שם סי' ז' שפירשו ז"ל שם אחרת).

Këdorla‘omer king of ‘Eilam he identifies with Alexander and the Hellenistic Greeks, asserting that Alexander’s decisive victory over the Persians was in Elamite territory, ומשם נתפשט מלכותו כשנצח דריוש (“and from there, his kingdom spread when he defeated Daryavesh [the last Persian king]; ועיי' עבודה זרה י. שתחלת מלכותם היתה בעילם)”.

Finally, Tid‘al, king of Goyim he identifies with the Roman exile, both because the Romans ruled over many other nations, and because their culture (“western civilization”) has spread throughout the world, and largely informs most of the countries in which Israel has been and continues to be exiled.

Ramban sees in Avraham’s victory over the four kings a sign that ובסוף יתגברו בניו עליהם ויפלו כולם בידם וישיבו כל שבותם ורכושם (“in the end [Avraham’s] sons will overcome them and they will all fall into [Israel’s] hand and return their captives and property”).

B.

The issue of Jewish wealth and the nations of the world brings into sharp relief another incident at the end of the campaign.

Whilst the kings were fleeing with Avram’s forces in hot pursuit, Avram and the king of Sëdom contemplated the freed captives and the pile of booty abandoned by the invaders. ויאמר מלך סדום אל אברם תן לי את הנפש והרכש קח לך (“And the king of Sëdom said to Avram, 'Give me the people [i.e., the captives from the five cities] and the property take for yourself”; XIV, 21), in this way intending to settle up with Avram for the successful rescue effort.

Avram responded: הרימתי ידי אל ד' א-ל עליון קנה שמים וארץ: אם מחוט ועד שרוך נעל ואם אקח מכל אשר לך ולא תאמר אני השרתי את אברם (“I raised my hand to Ha-Shem the most high G-d, owner of heavens and earth. If from a thread to a shoe-strap, and if I would take [anything] from what is yours, that you not say, 'I enriched Avram'”; ibid., 22-23).

As Rashi notes, Avram’s reason for turning down the king’s offer was שהקב"ה הבטיחני לעשרני שנא' "ואברכך" וגו' (“because the Holy One. Blessed is He, promised me that He would enrich me, as it is said, ‘and I shall bless you’ [XII, 2]”). Assured of G-d’s promise, Avram felt no need of the king’s generosity.

But how did he know that the king of Sëdom would not be the agency through which he would receive G-d’s blessing?

C.

The Maharal considers this question in two different venues, and offer two different answers.

The first, in his Gur Aryeh on our verse, focuses on Rashi’s quotation of G-d’s promised blessing. A Divine blessing, he tells us, is never conferred upon the blessed through pain and suffering. The king of Sëdom was not really any better or more generous than his justly infamous subjects; the only reason that he felt compelled to offer Avram a reward was that he had been captured by the invaders, and probably anticipated an unpleasant fate as a rebel against Këdorla‘o-mer. Thus, the offer was grudging, not due to any generous impulse on his part, and Avram understood that G-d’s blessing would not come to him by way of such path. Even so, Avram did not prevent his men and their allies from profiting from the offer, since they had risked their lives and were entitled to compensation: בלעדי רק אשר אכלו הנערים וחלק האנשים אשר הלכו אתי ענר אשכל וממרא הם יקחו את חלקם (“Aside from me, only what the young men consumed and the portion of the men who went along with me, ‘Aner Eshkol and Mamré’, they will take their part”; v. 24).

This, then, leads into the Maharal’s second point. Avram, he tells us, was justly renowned for his histappëquth, his self-sufficiency, שלא הי' רוצה שיקבל דבר אף כי הי' ראוי לו לקבל כאשר הציל המלכים כו' לא רצה בממון אחר כלל והי' די לו בשלו (“for he did not wish to receive anything, even if he deserved to receive it, as when he rescued the kings... He did not wish another’s money at all, and what he had was enough for him”; נתיבות עולם ח" ב, נתיב העושר פ"א). Histappëquth, in other words, is an exemplary middath chasiduth, a quality associated with great tzaddiqim, certainly to be striven for, but not necessarily to be expected of others.

Indeed, the Talmud remarks that in the merit of his unexampled personal histappëquth in this matter, the Torah rewards us, his descendants, with the mitzvoth of tzitzith (the “threads” which he mentions) and tëfillin (the leather “shoe-strap”; חולין פ"ט.).

The metaphor’s symbolism is clear, but it may be asked why Avram used this specific metaphor (rather than, say, “from a button to a thimble”)? What do these two mitzvoth truly signify?

D.

The Ha‘améq Davar takes note of Avram’s sterling quality, and calls our attention to two midrashim in order to address the question.

The first is: "אחות לנו קטנה ושדים אין לה" וגו' זה אברהם שאיחה את כל באי עולם (“’We have a little sister [achoth]who has no breasts....’; [Song of Songs VIII, 8], this [refers to] Avraham, who connected / stitched together [icha] all mortals”; בראשית רבה פל"ט סי' א', מתנת כהונה שם). The pun between achoth, sister, and the infinitive form of icha (also achoth) underlies the dërasha.

The second midrash is: עיקר שכינה בתחתונים היתה. כיון שחטא אדה"ר נסתלקה שכינה לרקיע כו' עמד אברהם והורידה וגו' (“The main location of the Divine Presence [Shëchina] was in the lower worlds. When the first man sinned, the Shëchina departed for the heavens... Avraham stood and brought it back down....”; שם פי"ט סי' י"ג ועיין כל הדרשה היטב עד הסוף).

The Ha‘améq Davar explains: נמצא תכלית שלימות הבריאה הי' שיהיו התחתונים מחוברים שו"א בהשגחתם ע"פ המעשים אלא שנקרע ע"פ החטא ובא א"א ותפר את הקרע וממילא איחה בזה את כל העולם כדאיתא ביבמות דס"ג אפי' כל משפחות אין מתברכות אלא בשביל ישראל כו' והנה מה שהגיע מפלת המלכים ע"י א"א הי' ע"י שני דברים האחד ע"י רובי צדקותיו שזכה להיות מאחה את הקרע ושנית ע"י שהעיר צדק ורדף אחריהם כו' ועל שני דברים הללו אמר שאונו מבקש שכר מבעל הגמול ית' לא על החוט שתפר את הקרע ולא על שרוך נעל שרדף אחריהם וגו' (“The goal of the perfection of Creation seems to have been that the lower realms be connected, heaven and earth, under [human] supervision according to overt actions, but it was torn asunder by the sin. Avraham came and sewed up the tear, and so connected the entire world, as is found in Yëvamoth 63: 'Even all the families [of man] are blessed only because of Israel....' That the downfall of the [invading] kings occurred through Avraham was due to two things, the first because of his righteous deeds, that he merited to be the one who repaired the tear, and the second because he called attention to justice and pursued them... and concerning these two things, he said that he did not seek a reward from the Author of grace, neither for the 'thread' with which he repaired the tear, nor for the 'shoe-strap,' in that he pursued them....”).

So the first part of Avram’s statement to the king of Sëdom recapitulates his oath to G-d. The ruling passion of Avram’s life, born of his love for G-d, was the re-establishment of the sundered connection. In his merit, his heirs, Israel, have the mitzva of tzitzith, reminding them of the “overt actions,” the mitzvoth, necessary to maintain it, and of tëfillin, through which each Jewish man dedicates his heart, mind, and hand to its maintenance.

Parshath Lech L’cha (Genesis XII,1-XVII,27)

A.

Avraham, Divinely directed to leave his home in Charan, arrives in the Holy Land only to find it under siege and in a state of famine (cf. XII, 6, Rashi ad loc. and v. 10). He therefore elects to take refuge in Egypt, were there is no famine. However, the Egyptian reputation for unbridled hedonism has already become known; so, as he and his entourage approach the Egyptian border, he turn to his wife and said: הנה נא ידעתי כי אשה יפת מראה את (“Behold, now I know that you are a woman of beautiful appearance”; ibid., v. 11).

Indeed, Sara was a legendary beauty. The Talmud lists her as the first of the four most beautiful women of history (the other three being Rachav, Avigayil, and Esther; מגילה ט"ו: ), and the Midrash Tanchuma asserts: כל הנשים בפני שרה כקוף בפני אדם (“All the [other] women were to Sara as an ape is to a human being”).

So it is with some surprise that we read Rashi’s comment on the above verse: עד עכשיו לא הכיר בה מתוך צניעות שביניהם ועכשיו הכיר בה ע"י מעשה (“Until now, he had recognized [it] in her because of the modesty between them, and now he recognized [it] in her through an action”).

Now, the Talmud brings down the halacha that אסור לאדם שיקדש את נאשנ עד שיראנה (“It is forbidden that man should marry a woman until he sees her”; קידושין מ"א. ומובא להלכה ברמב"ם הל' נישואין פ"ב ה"א ובשו"ע אה"ע סי' ק"כ סעיף א' וסי' ק"מ סעיף א' ). In light of the well-established principle that אברהם קיים את כל התורה כולב אפילו עירובי תבשילין (“Avraham kept the entire Torah, even [such rabbinic enactments as] 'eiruvei tavshilin”; יומא כ"ח: ובמדרשים), how did this particular halacha manage to evade his attention?

B.

Rabbi Yissachar Baer Eilenberg, in his Tzeida la-Derech, asks our question, and answers it by quoting his rebbe, the great Rabbi Mordechai Joffe, Ba‘al ha-Levush: דהא דאסור לישא אשה עד שיראנה שאין בה מום ולא תתבזה עליו וזה עשה אסרהם ודאי ראה אותה קודם שנשאה שלא יהא בה מום אבל לא נתן לב להתבונן ברוב יפי' עד עכשיו (“that the fact is that it is forbidden to marry a woman until he sees that there is no blemish/defect [mum] in her about which she would be ashamed, and this Avraham did; he certainly saw her before he married her, that there would be no mum in her, but he did not pay attention to contemplate here great beauty until now”).

Yet, if Sara were indeed the singular beauty implied by the Talmud and the midrash cited supra, then surely she had a reputation of which he had to have been aware; הדרא קושיא אדוכתה, our question returns: How was it that he was unaware of her beauty until this particular moment?

C.

A possible answer is suggested by the Tzeida la-Derech, who goes on to examine Rashi’s language. He notes that Rashi does not say that Avraham in his great modesty had never looked at his wife (as the Ba‘al ha-Levush had pointed out); rather, he says lo hikkir bah, he did not recognisze her beauty for what it was until now. Only now, as the result of a ma‘aseh, of overt action on Avraham’s part, did he come indeed to recognize it (אבל עיי' רבינו בחיי על הענין שכתב אחרת, ופרש שהמעשה הי' של שרה).

In fact, says the Tzeida la-Derech, the entire question can be made to go away. Avraham, he suggests, had had not need at all to examine Sara in order to determine that she had no mum; as the midrash and Talmudic passage cited above testify, she already had a reputation as a great beauty. He could take it for given on the basis of what others said that she was, indeed beautiful (he finds some support for this in another Talmudic quotation, which asserts that Yiska [cf. Genesis XI, 29] was a nickname for Sara, שהכל סוכין ביפי' [“for everybody was staring at -- sochin -- her beauty”]; סנהדרין ס"ט:).

But with all due respect to the Tzeida la-Derech, it strikes me that, if this was indeed so, then Avraham did know beforehand that Sara was beautiful in appearance, and had not “just now” come to the realization of it. Once again, it appears, we have a difficulty with Rashi.

D.

It seems to me that the implication of what Rashi writes concerning the “great modesty” between them is not that Avraham never looked at his wife. To the contrary, as the Ba‘al ha-Levush said, we can presume that he did so in order to assure himself that she had no mum, had a good idea of what Sara looked like, and had a normal married life with her, as we would expect.
What I think Rashi means, though, is that Avraham did not look at any other women. In other words, Sara was a beauty, to be sure, but he had no basis to assume that she was at all unusual in that respect. Perhaps every other woman was just as beautiful. His exemplary modesty prevented him from verifying the matter.

Until now. Presented with the challenge of the Egyptians’ well deserved reputation for hedonism and licentiousness and the casual brutality which this entailed, and about to enter their country, Avraham for the first time felt compelled to look around him at the Canaanite women (the ma‘aseh, the overt act, to which Rashi alludes; אבל ע"ע רבינו בחיי עה"פ המפרש את הענין אחרת, ושבעים פנים לתורה), in order to see how realistic or probable the threat implied to his safety might be. It was then that he saw, in the words of the midrash, that all the women were to her “as an ape to a human being,” and for the first time, really appreciated how exceptionally beautiful her appearance really was.

This is also implicit in the words Avraham said to Sara.

The alert reader with a living sense of the Hebrew language will note that I have translated the verb yada‘ti in line with Rashi’s comment, as a present tense, even though most people would read the sentence as though it were in the past tense, “I knew,” or “I have known.” This verse is an object lesson as to why the proper designation for this grammatical form is “perfective” rather than “past” (were we to translate it, e.g., “I have known that you are a woman of beautiful appearance,” as suggested, Rashi’s comment would make no sense at all).

So what does the “perfective” form mean? It indicates an action or state which is complete, such that no further development is necessary, or possible (hence, it is most often likely to be translated into a temporally based language such as English as a past tense). What Avraham was telling Sara was, “I now know with perfect certitude that you are a woman of beautiful appearance” (her inner beauty, of course, had been plain to him for a long time), because, only now had he had a reason to make the comparison, and therefore exerted himself, made a ma‘aseh, in order to make it. Such, then, is the lesson for us all to be learnt from the exemplary modesty of our father Avraham.

Parshath Lech L’cha (Genesis XII,1-XVII,27) 10/19/07

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.