[Par-lite] Vayera - additional shiurim

[Menachem Leibtag]

********************************************************
*****
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
********************************************************
*****

             PARSHAT  VA'YERA  - additional shiurim

     In Part Two of this week's shiur, we present a six
short
'mini-shiurim' that discuss the Akeyda and misc. topics
in the
Parasha.

PART I -  THE AKEYDA  -- A CONFLICT BETWEEN IDEALS
     In the story of the Akeyda (Breishit chapter 22),
we find
a conflict between two ideals. From the perspective of
'natural morality', there is probably nothing more
detestable
to man's natural instinct that killing his own son, even
more
so his only son.  On the other hand, from the
perspective of
man's relationship with God, there is nothing more
compelling
than the diligent fulfillment of a divine command.
     In an ideal world, these two ideals should never
conflict, for how could God command man to perform an
act that
is immoral?  However, in the real world, individuals
often
face situations where they are torn between his
'conscience'
and his 'religion'. How should one act in such
situations?
     One could suggest a resolution of this dilemma
based on
the special manner by which the Torah tells the story of
the
Akeyda (chapter 22). On the one hand, God ["b'shem
Elokim"]
commands Avraham to offer his only son Yitzchak.
Avraham, a
devout servant of God, diligently follows God's command,
even
though this must have been one of the most difficult
moments
of his life. In this manner, God tests Avraham's faith
(see
22:1). However, it is impossible that God could truly
make
such a demand. Therefore, at the last minute, He sends a
"malach" [b'shem Havaya/ see 22:11] to stop him.
     Was Avraham correct in his behavior? Should he have
not
questioned God's command, just as he had questioned
God's
decision to destroy Sedom?
     There is no easy answer to this question. In fact,
hundreds of articles and commentaries have been written
that
deal with this question, and even though they are all
based on
the same narrative, many of them reach very different
conclusion - and for a very simple reason! The story of
the
Akeyda does not provide us with enough details to arrive
at a
concrete conclusion.
     One could suggest that this Biblical ambiguity may
be
deliberate, for the Torah's intention may be that we do
not
resolve this conflict, rather we must ponder it.  In
fact, it
is rather amazing how one very short but dramatic
narrative
(about ten psukim) has sparked hundreds of philosophical
debates over centuries. [This is the beauty of the
Bible.]
     In other words, it is important that we are
internally
torn by this conflict, and make every effort to resolve
it,
while recognizing that ultimately a divine command could
not
be immoral.
     This conflict becomes more acute when we face a
situation
when is not so clear precisely what God's command is,
and when
it is not so clear what is considered moral or immoral.
When
those situations arise, not only must we ponder, we must
also
pray that God send a "malach" to help guide us in the
proper
direction.
    =======

PART TWO - YIRAT ELOKIM & 'NATURAL MORALITY'
     Undoubtedly, the climax of the Akeyda takes place
in
22:12, when God's angel tells Avraham not to harm his
child.
However, this pasuk includes a very interesting phrase -
"ki
ya'rey Elokim ata...", which may relate directly to our
above
discussion.  To explain how, let's first take a careful
look
at that pasuk:
  "And he [God's angel] said: Do not harm the boy -
don't do
  anything to him, for now I know - KI ya'rey Elokim ata
-
  'that' you fear Elokim, and you have not withheld your
only
  son from Me"
    [See 22:12 / Note in the various English
translations and
    commentaries the unclarity whether this "malach" is
    talking on behalf of himself or if it's a direct
comment
    from God.]

     According to the 'simplest' understanding of this
pasuk,
the word "ki" should be translated 'that'.  In other
words,
Avraham's readiness to sacrifice his own son [the final
clause
of this pasuk] proved to God that Avraham was indeed a
"ya'rey
Elokim" [the middle clause]. The use of God's Name -
Elokim -
also appears to make sense, for it was "shem Elokim" in
22:1
that first commanded Avraham to offer his son.
     However, there is a small problem with this
interpretation. First of all, this suggests that before
the
Akeyda, God had doubted if Avraham was a "ya'rey
Elokim"; yet
there doesn't seem to be any reason for this doubt.
[Unless
one explains that this test was due to God's anger to
the
covenant that Avraham had just made with Avimelech, see
this
amazing ('right wing') Rashbam on 22:1!]
     Furthermore, this phrase "yirat Elokim" is found
several
other times in Chumash, but with a very different
meaning. The
best example is found in Parshat Va'yera itself, in the
story
when Avimelech takes Avraham's wife Sarah (see 20:1-18).
Recall the reason that Avraham tells Avimelech,
explaining why
he had to lie about Sarah's true identity, and note the
phrase
"yirat Elokim":
  "And Avraham said: for I had assumed that there was no
YIRAT
  ELOKIM in this place, and they would kill me in order
to
  take my wife" (see 20:11)

     Obviously, Avraham did not expect that Avimelech
and his
people were 'Jewish', i.e. God had never spoken to them,
nor
had He  given them any commandments.  Clearly, when
Avraham
mentions YIRAT ELOKIM, he must be referring to the basic
'moral behavior' expected of any just society.  As can
be
proven from the story of the Flood, this 'natural
morality'
(i.e. not to kill or steal etc. /see the last five of
the Ten
Commandments!) does not require a divine command.
Rather it
is God's expectation from mankind.
  [Why nonetheless God decided to include them in the
Ten
  Commandments is a very interesting topic, but not for
now.
  However, I do suggest that you note the conclusion of
  Rashbam's interpretation to Breishit 26:5 in this
regard.]

     Another example is found in the story of Yosef and
his
brothers; when Yosef, pretending to be an Egyptian,
explains
to his brothers why he will not leave them all in jail.
After
first jailing them, he changes his mind after three
days,
allowing them to go home to bring back their brother so
that
they can prove their innocence.  Note how Yosef
introduces
this 'change of mind' by saying: "et ha'Elokim ani
ya'rey"
(see 42:18 and its context!).
     But Yosef says this to his brothers pretending to
be an
Egyptian! Surely he wouldn't 'blow his cover' by hinting
to
the fact that he is Jewish. Clearly, here as well, the
phrase
"yirat Elokim" relates to a concept of 'natural
morality'.
Yosef, acting as an important Egyptian official, wants
to
impress upon his brothers that he is acting in a just
manner.
     The following other examples also include this
phrase,
and each one also relates to some standard of 'moral'
behavior:
      Shmot 1:21 - re: the midwives killing the male
babies
      Shmot 18:21 - re: Yitro's advice re: the appt. of
judges
      Devarim 25:18 - re: the sin of the Amalek. ]
          [Please review these before continuing.]

     Based on these examples, it seems that the phrase
"yirat
Elokim" in Chumash refers exclusively to some type of
'moral'
behavior. If so, then we would expect it to carry a
similar
meaning in the pasuk that we are discussing (i.e.
Breishit
22:12, the key pasuk of the Akeyda).
     However, it would be difficult to explain our pasuk
at
the Akeyda in this manner, for Avraham did what appears
to be
exactly the opposite, i.e. he followed a divine command
that
contradicts 'natural morality' (see discussion in Part
One,
above).
     Why would the fact that Avraham is willing to
sacrifice
his son make him a "ya'rey Elokim" - in the Biblical
sense of
this phrase?

     The simplest answer would be to say that this
instance is
an exception, because the Akeyda began with a direct
command,
given by Elokim, that Avraham take his son (see 22:1).
     However, one could suggest a rather daring
interpretation
that would be consistent with the meaning of "yirat
Elokim"
elsewhere in Sefer Breishit. To do so, we must
reconsider our
translation of the Hebrew word "ki" in 22:12, i.e. in
"ata
yadati, KI yarey Elokim ata, v'lo cha'sachta et bincha
et
yechidecha
 mi'meni".
     Instead of translating "ki" as 'that', one could
use an
alternate meaning of "ki" = 'even though'!  [As in Shmot
34:9
- "ki am keshe oref hu", and Shmot 13:17 "ki karov hu" -
see
Ibn Ezra on that pasuk for other examples.]
  If so, then this pasuk would be emphasizing precisely
the
point that we discussed in Part One, i.e. - EVEN THOUGH
Avraham was a "ya'rey Elokim", he overcame his 'moral
conscience' in order to follow a divine command. Thus,
we
could translate the pasuk as follows:
  "And he [God's angel] said: Do not harm the boy -
don't do
  anything to him, for now I know - KI ya'rey Elokim ata
-
  EVEN THOUGH you are a YAREY ELOKIM,  you did not
withhold
  your only son from Me."

     Specifically because Avraham was a man of such a
high
moral nature, this test was most difficult for him.
Nevertheless, his commitment to follow a divine command
prevailed!
     In reward, God now promises Avraham with an 'oath'
(see
22:16) that he shall never break His covenant with them
(even
should Bnei Yisrael sin), as explained by Ramban and
Radak on
22:16, and as we will now discuss in Part Three.

PART THREE  - THE OATH
     At the conclusion of the Akeyda, God affirms His
promise
to Avraham Avinu one more time concerning the future of
his
offspring (see 22:15-19).  Note however, that the when
God
first explains why He is making this oath in 22:16, He
explains specifically because "lo chasachta et bincha" -
that
Avraham did not hold back his son - and NOT because he
was a
"yarey Elokim".  This provides additional support to our
discussion in Part Two (above).
     In this oath (see 22:16-19), we find the repetition
of
themes from Brit Bein ha'btarim such as "kochvei
ha'shayamyim"
and "yerusha", as well as a repetition of God's original
blessing to Avraham from the beginning of Lech L'cha.
     It is interesting to note that this blessing
relates (as
does "brit bein ha'btarim") to our relationship with God
as a
Nation, and our future conquest of the land of Israel
("v'yirash zaracha et shaar oyvav" - your offspring will
conquer the gates of its enemies/ see 22:17).  It is
specifically in this context that Bnei Yisrael will
later face
this moral conflict as discussed in Part I.
     However, the most special aspect of this blessing
is the
"shvuah" - the oath that God makes that He will indeed
fulfill
this promise. See Ramban & Radak on 22:16, noting their
explanation how this oath takes God's commitment to His
covenant one step higher. Now, no matter how unfaithful
Bnei
Yisrael may be in the future, even though God will have
the
right to punish them, He will never break His covenant
with
them and they will always remain His special nation.
     With this in mind, it is interesting to note that
the
story in Chumash that precedes the Akeyda also relates
to a
covenant and an oath (see 21:22-34).  Recall how
Avimelech
approaches Avraham to enter into a covenant, while
Avraham
insists that Avimelech must remain honest in relation to
the
wells that his servants had stolen.
     At the conclusion of that agreement, as Avraham now
gains
the respect of the local sovereign power, we find once
again
how Avraham 'call out in God's Name'.  Foreshadowing the
time
period of David and Shlomo, Avraham is now in a position
where
he can successfully represent God before the other
nations of
the world.
     That setting provides a signficant backdrop for
Avraham
Avinu's ultimate test at the Akeyda.
====
MISC TOPICS -
     [Relating once again to Sdom vs. Avraham Avinu]
PART FOUR - YEDA & YI'UD
     In the shiur we sent out yesterday, we discussed
the
importance of 18:18-19, showing how God's goal for the
nation
of Avraham would come true through the establishment of
a
society characterized by "tzedaka u'mishpat".
     Recall how that pasuk began with "ki y'DAATIV",
which
implies to KNOW, but the key word carried a deeper
meaning
throughout the entire narrative of Lot being saved from
Sdom.
[Note also the use of the word "rah" (and "tov") as well
as
"l'daat" in 19:7-9. This may (and should) point to a
thematic
connection between the events in Sdom and the story of
Adam in
Gan Eden where we find the "etz ha'DAAT TOV v'RAH. Note
also
how God is described by "shem Ha'vayah" in both
stories.]
     In relation to the translation of the pasuk itself
- "Ki
YeDA'ATIV lema'an asher yetzaveh et banav... ve-shamru
derekh
Hashem la'assot TZEDAKA u-MISHPAT....." (18:19), in our
shiur
we translated "yeda'ativ" as "I have singled him out."
The
term literally translates as, "I have 'known him.' This
meaning, however, seems out of place in this context. If
it
simply means that God 'knows' that Bnei Yisrael will do
"tzedek u-mishpat," how does Hashem 'know' this?  What
guarantee is there that Avraham's children will keep
this
mitzvah more than anyone else?  Is there no bechira
chofshit -
freedom of choice to do good or bad?
  (Further troubling is the usage of the construction
  "yeda'ativ," rather than the expected, "yeda'ati" -
see
  mefarshim al atar.)
In answer to this question, Rav Yoel bin Nun explained
in a
shiur several years ago that the word "yeda'ativ" should
be
understood not as 'yeda' - to know - but rather as
"ye'ud"
(switching the last two letters as in keves-kesev;
salma-simla). Ye'ud (a similar shoresh) means
designation,
being singled out for a specific purpose, a raison
d'etre, a
destiny.  Thus, "yeda'ativ" here should be read not as,
"God
knows..." but rather, "God set them aside for the
purpose...
(that they keep tzedaka and mishpat)."  The point is not
that
God KNOWS that bnei Avraham will do tzedaka & mishpat,
but
that God chose Avraham in ORDER that his children will
do
tzedaka & mishpat!

====
PART FIVE - TOLDOT TERACH
     Parshat Va'yera informs us not only of the birth of
Yitzchak, but also of several other grandchildren and
great-
grandchildren of Terach, such as the twelve children of
Nachor, and the two children/grandchildren of Lot.
[See
19:30-38, 22:20-24.]
      These stories form an integral part of Sefer
Breishit
for technically speaking, Parshat Va'yera is still under
the
title of TOLDOT TERACH (see 11:27 with TOLDOT SHEM (see
11:10
and our shiur on Parshat Noach).
  [It is interesting to note when considering 11:26-32
that we
  find a 'header' - "ayleh toldot Terach," but we never
find
  the expression: "ayleh toldot Avraham" throughout
Sefer
  Breishit, even though we do find "ayleh toldot
Yitzchak
  (25:19), and "ayleh toldot Yaakov" (37:2). This may
relate
  to Avram's name change, so there can't be TOLDOT AVRAM
when
  he is first introduced, since AVRAM as AVRAM never has
  children from Sarah! This may also explain the need
for the
  additional phrase "Avraham holid et Yizchak" in
25:19!]

     Furthermore, many (female) descendants of Terach
later
'weave' their way back into the family of Avraham Avinu,
such
as Rivka, Nachor's granddaughter, and her brother
Lavan's
daughters Rachel & Leah. [See also part five below in
regard
to Ruth from Moab.]
  [Recall that Terach was the first 'zionist', i.e. it
was his
  idea to attempt aliyah to eretz Canaan (even though he
never
  made it). It may have been in that zchut!]
[Note also the number (and type) of wives and children
born to
Nachor (in 22:20-24)! Which of the Avot does this bring
to
mind? [8 + 4 !]
     Who else in Sefer Breishit has twelve children  [8
+ 4] ?
=====

PART SIX /  'MITZAR' - A sad but fitting ending
     As Lot escapes from Sdom, a somewhat peculiar
conversation ensues between him and the angel concerning
the
city of TZOAR. What is it all about?
     For those of you who don't remember, here's a quick
recap:
     After taking Lot out of Sdom, the "malachim"
instruct Lot
to run away 'up to the mountain' ["he'hara hi'malet"
/see
19:17]. Lot defers, claiming that 'up in the mountain'
poses
potential danger. He requests that instead the angels
spare
one city, which will serve as a "MITZAR," a small place
of
refuge. The Torah then informs us that this is why the
city is
named TZOAR (see 19:17-22).
     Why do we need to hear about all this?
     To appreciate this story, we must return to the
first
reference to Sedom in Chumash. When Avraham and Lot
decide
that the time had come to part ways, Lot decides to move
to
the KIKAR HA'YARDEN (the region of Sdom), rather than
the
mountain range of Canaan, where Avraham resided.
     Recall from our shiur on Parshat Lech L'cha that
Lot's
choice reflected his preference of the 'good-life' in
KIKAR
HA'YARDEN (where the abundant water supply alleviated
the need
to rely upon God's provision of water) over Avraham's
lifestyle in the MOUNTAINS (where one depends upon
rainfall
for his water supply).
     Let's take a closer look at the key pasuk of that
narrative. [I recommend you read this pasuk in the
original
Hebrew to note its key phrases. Pay particular attention
to
the word "kol"]:
  "And Lot lifted his eyes, and he saw KOL KIKAR
HA'YARDEN -
  the ENTIRE Jordan River Valley - that it was FULL of
  water... like God's Garden, like the land of Egypt, UP
UNTIL
  TZOAR." (13:10)

     The final phrase of this pasuk - BO'ACHA TZOAR -
appears
superfluous. Why must we know the exact spot where the
KIKAR
ends?
     When we consider the origin of the city's name -
TZOAR -
from the story of Lot's flight from Sdom, this short
phrase
takes on a whole new meaning. The Torah appears to be
taking a
cynical 'jibe' at Lot. He wanted EVERYTHING - "et KOL
Kikar
Ha'Yarden" [see also 13:11: "And Lot chose for himself
KOL
KIKAR HA'YARDEN..."], and thus chose to settle in Sdom.
But
when it's all over, Lot finds himself begging the
"malachim"
for a small hideaway - a MITZAR (the city to be named
TZOAR).
Lot wants EVERYTHING - KOL Kikar ha'Yarden - and ends up
with
'next to nothing' - BO'ACHA TZOAR!    [Thanks to Danny
Berlin
- ish Karmei Tzur - for this insight.]
     With this background we can better understand Lot's
conversation with the "malachim" when he flees from
Sdom. Note
their original instruction to Lot:
  "And it came to pass when they had brought them out
[of
  Sdom], they told him: Escape for your life, do not
look
  behind you, do not stay behind B'KOL HA'KIKAR. Rather,
run
  away to the MOUNTAIN, lest you be consumed." (19:17)

     Once again, the Torah establishes a direct CONTRAST
between KIKAR HA'YARDEN and the MOUNTAIN. Lot is
commanded to
return to the MOUNTAIN - to the area of Avraham, from
where he
never have left in the first place. Lot, however,
refuses to
return. He knows that if he returns to the mountain, he
will
not be able to 'survive' living in the shadow of Avraham
Avinu. He will no longer be the righteous among the
wicked,
but rather the wicked among the righteous. He therefore
begs
them for a refuge:
  "And Lot begged them - please no. Behold if I have
found
  favor in your eyes...I cannot run away to the
MOUNTAIN, lest
  some evil will take me and I die. [Rather,] there is a
city
  nearby [at the edge of Kikar ha'Yarden] and it is
MITZAR - a
  little one. Let me escape there and my SOUL will
  live...[They concede to Lot's request,] and that city
was
  therefore named TZOAR. Then the sun rose over the land
and
  Lot arrived in TZOAR..."  (see 19:18-24)

     Finally, after Sdom and the other cities of the
KIKAR are
destroyed, Lot changes his mind. He decides to leave
TZOAR and
settle with his daughters in the MOUNTAINS (see
19:25-30).
However, instead of reuniting with Avraham, they HIDE
AWAY in
a CAVE. The rest is history - i.e. the history of AMON &
MOAV,
whose descendants have not even the common decency to
offer
bread & water to Am Yisrael (their kinsman) as they pass
Moav
on their way from Egypt to Eretz Canaan (see Devarim
23:4-5).
It's no coincidence that they never learn the lesson of
"hachnasat orchim" - welcoming guests. Sdom was
destroyed, but
unfortunately, its 'legacy' continued.
     One spark of good does, however, come forth from
Moav.
Ruth the Moabite joins the tribe of Judah - through an
act of
"chessed" (see Megillat Rut) - and she becomes the
great-
grandmother of David ben Yishai, the king of Israel.
Predictably, Sefer Shmuel summarizes his reign as
follows:
  "And David reigned over all of Israel, and David
performed
  MISHPAT and TZEDAKA for his entire nation."
               (see Shmuel 8:15)
    [Recall that David had earlier hidden out in a CAVE
in
    the area of the Dead Sea (Ein Gedi), where he
performed
    an act of "chessed" by not injuring Shaul - see I
Shmuel
    24:1-15; note especially 24:12-15! See also
Yirmiyahu
    22:1-5!]

     Malchut David constitutes the "tikun" for the
descendants
of Lot: his kingdom was characterized by the performance
of
TZEDAKA & MISHPAT - the antithesis of Sdom.

                    shabbat shalom
                    menachem

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: vayera2.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 54784 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20071025/93206d0d/attachment-0001.doc