[Par-lite] for Parshat 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20101021/1b88ddaf/attachment-0003.htm 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: vayera2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 35756 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20101021/1b88ddaf/attachment-0003.pdf