<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2995" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>*************************************************************<BR>
THE TANACH STUDY CENTER
[http://www.tanach.org]<BR>
In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag<BR> Shiurim in
Chumash & Navi by Menachem
Leibtag<BR>*************************************************************</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> PARSHAT CHAYEI SARAH - 3 mini
shiurim</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>SHIUR #1 - "HASHEM ELOKEI
HA-SHAMAYIM"<BR> How should one describe
God?<BR> In Parshat Chayei Sarah, we find that Avraham
Avinu<BR>appears to contradict himself in this regard. First
he<BR>describes Hashem as “the God of the Heavens and the God of the<BR>Earth”
(see 24:3), and then only four psukim later he<BR>describes Him as just “the God
of the Heavens” (see 24:7).<BR> This apparent
contradiction caught the attention of many<BR>commentators, and hence provides
us with an excellent<BR>opportunity to take a quick peek into their world
of<BR>’parshanut’.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> To better appreciate the
various answers that they<BR>provide to the above question, we must first review
the<BR>context of these two psukim.<BR> In chapter 24,
Avraham Avinu is sending his servant to<BR>his 'home-town' of Charan in search
of a wife for his son<BR>Yitzchak.<BR> [Most likely, 'his servant' refers
to Eliezer, even though<BR> his name is never mentioned (even once) in
this entire<BR> parshia! In our shiur, we rely on this
assumption.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> To guarantee that Eliezer
will faithfully fulfill that<BR>mission, Avraham makes his servant take an oath
in the Name<BR>of:<BR> “Hashem, the God of the Heavens, and the God of the
Earth<BR> (see 24:1-4).<BR> <BR> However, two psukim later,
when Avraham must allay Eliezer's<BR>worry that the wife he finds for Yitzchak
may prefer to stay<BR>in Charan (see 24:5-6) - he promises his servant
that:<BR> “Hashem the God of the Heavens, who had taken him
[Avraham]<BR> from his homeland...” will send an 'angel' to assist
him<BR> (see 24:7).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> The classical commentators
are troubled by two problems.<BR>First of all, Avraham's description of God as
“Hashem, the God<BR>of the Heavens AND the God of the Earth” (24:3) seems to
imply<BR>that there may be multiple gods, i.e. one of the heavens AND<BR>one of
the earth! Why couldn't Avraham simply have stated<BR>“Hashem, the God of
'heaven and earth”, just like the first<BR>pasuk of Breishit
implies.<BR> Secondly, they are bothered by the question
mentioned in<BR>our introduction, i.e.: Why does Avraham ‘shorten’ his
second<BR>description of God to simply “the God of the Heavens”,
without<BR>mentioning 'the earth' at all?<BR> In our
shiur, we will discuss how the commentators deal<BR>with these two
questions.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>HEAVENS 'and' EARTH<BR> In
relation to the first question, most all of the<BR>commentators share one basic
approach, i.e. Avraham's peculiar<BR>statement of ‘the God of the Heavens AND
the God of the Earth’<BR>- relates directly to his current
predicament.<BR> As we will see, each commentator will
consider one of the<BR>following points:<BR>[A] Avraham's is talking to
his servant;<BR> [who may have a over-simplistic understanding of
God]<BR>[B] He is administering an oath at this time;<BR>[C] He is
searching for a wife for his son; and<BR>[D] He is sending his servant to his
home-town of Charan.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>A. RADAK - 'Helping his servant
understand'<BR> Radak offers a 'philosophical'
explanation of Avraham's<BR>statement to Eliezer. He claims that Avraham
may be worried<BR>that his servant - even though he surely believes in
the<BR>existence of 'the God of the heavens' - may not believe that<BR>God’s
Providence extends over mundane matters down on earth as<BR>well.
Therefore, Avraham emphasizes this point in his opening<BR>statement, that he is
not only the God overseeing what happens<BR>in the Heavens, but He also oversees
what happens on earth.<BR> However, when Avraham later
explains to Eliezer how God<BR>had earlier spoken to him (see 24:7), it is
sufficient for<BR>Avraham to mention only ’Elokei Ha-shamayim’ - the God of
the<BR>Heavens.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>B. SFORNO - 'Scare
tactics'<BR> Seforno explains that Avraham must impress
upon his<BR>servant the severity of this oath. To assure that his
servant<BR>will keep this oath, he reminds him that God controls not only<BR>the
matters of the ’earth’ - and hence his fate in 'this<BR>world' - but also the
matters of ’heaven’, which implies his<BR>fate in the 'world to come' (i.e.
after death). By this<BR>statement, Avraham warns his servant that should
he break this<BR>oath, he could expect not only a punishment in this world,
but<BR>also in the world to come!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>C. IBN EZRA - ’Finding one's
beshert’<BR> Ibn Ezra relates to the fact the Avraham is
sending his<BR>servant on a mission to find a wife. Even though finding
a<BR>spouse may appear to Eliezer as a mundane event taking place<BR>on 'earth’,
Avraham must convince Eliezer that this marriage<BR>has been decided upon in the
'heavens'. This commentary may<BR>actually be based on the Gemara in Moed
Katan 18b ("Amar<BR>Shmuel..." - in the middle of the daf), that on each day
a<BR>’bat-kol’ proclaims that the daughter of 'ploni' will be<BR>married to the
'ploni'.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>D. RAMBAN - "Eretz
Yisrael"<BR> Finally, Ramban offers a very 'zionistic'
explanation.<BR>Unlike the other commentators who understand ’aretz’
as<BR>referring to the 'earth', i.e. to events taking place on earth<BR>or in
this world, Ramban understands ’aretz’ as referring to<BR>the 'land of
Israel'. Because his servant is now leaving<BR>Eretz Yisrael (but must
bring Yitzchak's future wife back to<BR>this land), Avraham adds the phrase
’Elokei ha-aretz’ to the<BR>standard phrase of ’Elokei ha-shamayim’ in his
description of<BR>God at this time.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>ELOKEI HA-SHAMAYIM<BR>
Rashi does not deal directly with our first question.<BR>However, he does answer
our second question (i.e. why Avraham<BR>only mentions ’Elokei ha-shamayim’ in
24:7); and while doing<BR>so, he provides a solution for the first question as
well.<BR> Rashi, based on a Midrash of R. Pinchas in
Breishit Rabba<BR>59:8, differentiates between Man’s perception of God
BEFORE<BR>Avraham was chosen (as reflected in 24:7), and Man’s<BR>perception of
God now (in 24:3).<BR> When God had first commanded Avraham to leave his
homeland<BR>(see 24:7), no one on earth recognized God; therefore His<BR>Kingdom
was only in Heaven. However, once Avraham came to the<BR>Land and began to
proclaim His Name to the public (see<BR>Breishit 12:8 and Ramban on that pasuk),
His Kingdom is now<BR>known 'on earth' as well. Therefore, when Avraham
now sends<BR>Eliezer on his mission, God can be referred to as both
’Elokei<BR>ha-shamayim’ AND ’Elokei ha-aretz’.<BR> Note
that Rashi's explanation is definitely not the<BR>'simple pshat' of these
psukim. Clearly, the interpretations<BR>offered by the other commentators
provide a more 'local'<BR>explanation for the specific use of this phrase.
Nonetheless,<BR>this Midrash definitely reflects one of the primary themes
of<BR>Sefer Breishit (as discussed at length in our shiur on Parshat<BR>Lech
Lecha), and hence may reflect the ’pshat’ of the Sefer,<BR>rather than the
’pshat’ of the pasuk.<BR> [Here we find a beautiful example of the art of
Midrash,<BR> taking the opportunity of an apparent problem in the
’pshat’<BR> of a pasuk to deliver an important message concerning
the<BR> entire Sefer.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> In conclusion, it is
important to note a common<BR>denominator to all the interpretations presented
above. We<BR>find that - when referring to God - it is not necessary
to<BR>always refer to Him by the same Name. Instead, we refer to<BR>God in
the context of our relationship with Him.<BR> For example, in the Ten
Commandments, we speak of God as<BR>Hashem, Kel KANA (see Shmot 20:2-4), and
when Moshe receives<BR>the Second Luchot he speaks of God as "Hashem, Kel RACHUM
ve-<BR>CHANUN" (see Shmot 34:6-8). In other words, the appellation<BR>that
we use for God relates to the specific situation we
are<BR>in.<BR> The best example is from daily tefilla,
when we begin by<BR>describing God as "Hashem, Elokeinu ve-Elokei avoteinu";
then<BR>in each of the 19 ’brachot’ that follow, we bless God based on<BR>one of
various attributes in on our relationship with Him.<BR>Next time you ’daven’,
take note!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>================================================</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>SHIUR #2 - AVRAHAM AVINU & 'REAL'
ESTATE</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> The beginning of this
week's Parsha is well known for its<BR>detailed description of the bargaining
between Avraham and<BR>Efron. Some claim that Efron's intention all along
was to<BR>attain the highest price (see 23:16), explaining that his<BR>generous
opening offer (to give Avraham the land gratis - see<BR>23:5-6) was nothing more
than a ploy. But if this assumption<BR>were correct, why would Sefer
Breishit find it necessary to<BR>discuss this event in such minute
detail?<BR> If, on the other hand, we assume that the
stories of<BR>Sefer Breishit help develop its theme of ’bechira’,
then<BR>perhaps we should view this narrative from the perspective of<BR>that
theme. Let's give it a try.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>TWO PERCEPTIONS<BR> To
better appreciate what's going on, let's examine both<BR>sides of the bargaining
table - Bnei Chet and Avraham:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>1) Bnei Chet's
perception:<BR> Efron and his people [Bnei Chet] reign
sovereign in<BR>Chevron and the surrounding region. As their families
had<BR>been living in those hills for generations, they have every<BR>reason to
think that they would continue to do so for future<BR>generations as well.
In their eyes, Avraham is simply a<BR>'wandering Jew', posing no threat
whatsoever to their<BR>sovereignty.<BR> Recall as well that Avraham had
lived in Mesopotamia until<BR>age 75, and, ever since his migration to Cannan he
spent much<BR>of his time traveling - to and from cities - such as
Shechem,<BR>Bet-El, Chevron, and Beer Sheva. Having never
established<BR>permanent residence, Avraham represents no challenge to
the<BR>sovereign government of the Chittim.<BR>
Furthermore, Avraham constantly 'called out in the Name<BR>of God' wherever he
went. His teaching had earned him such a<BR>widespread reputation that
Bnei Chet refer to him as "nasi<BR>Elokim ata betocheinu" - you are a prince a
God in our midst<BR>(see 23:6). As his career sent him constantly 'on the
road',<BR>Bnei Chet had no reason to believe that Avraham's offspring<BR>would
one day return to attempt to gain sovereignty over
their<BR>land.<BR> Therefore, there is no need to doubt
the sincerity of<BR>their original offer to grant Avraham [at no charge]
any<BR>burial plot he desires (see 23:5-7). Even in our own time,<BR>many
societies express their appreciation for individuals who<BR>preach morality and
dedicate their entire life to God by<BR>offering various benefits [what we call
a 'clergy discount'].<BR> Their generous offer simply
reflects their sympathetic<BR>understanding of Avraham's difficult situation - a
wandering<BR>'man of God' who needs a place to bury his wife. For
Bnei<BR>Chet, this entire incident was of little significance -<BR>Avraham posed
no threat to their future or permanent control<BR>of the land.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>2) Avraham Avinu's
perception:<BR> In contrast, Avraham Avinu perceived his
situation in an<BR>entirely different light. His wife's death and the need
for a<BR>burial site awakened his realization that aside from a
Divine<BR>Promise, he had no real 'hold' in the land. For him,
the<BR>purchase of a family burial plot constituted the first step<BR>towards a
permanent attachment to the land. He wants to<BR>ensure that his children
and grandchildren will return to this<BR>site and feel a true connection to the
land.<BR> Therefore, Avraham insists on paying the full
price, as<BR>he has no interest at this time for 'handouts' or presents.<BR>He
wants it known that this burial plot and its surrounding<BR>field belong to his
family. Therefore, not only does Avraham<BR>insist on paying full price,
he also demands that it be<BR>purchased in the presence of all the community
leaders ("le-<BR>chol baei sha’ar iro" / read 23:16-20 carefully). In
Avraham<BR>Avinu's eyes, this is a momentous occasion - he has now<BR>purchased
his first ’achuza’ [inheritance] in ’Eretz Canaan’<BR>(note
23:19-20!).<BR>======</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>FOR FURTHER IYUN:<BR> In
the above shiur, we discussed how the purchase of<BR>’ma’arat ha-machpela’ may
relate to Avraham Avinu's special<BR>connection to the land, as promised to him
by God. To further<BR>appreciate this connection, review 23:16-20 and
compare them<BR>to 17:7-8. Note especially ’achuza’ and ’Eretz Canaan’,
and<BR>relate this to our shiur on ’brit mila’. Note as well 25:9-<BR>10,
49:29-30 & 50:13!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>==================================================</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>SHIUR #3 "ZERA
VA-ARETZ"<BR> - A PROMISE,
COVENANT, AND OATH</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Just prior to sending his
servant in search of a wife for<BR>his son, Avraham briefly reviews the various
stages of his<BR>’bechira’:<BR> "Hashem Elokei ha-shamayim asher lekachani
mI-BEIT AVI u-<BR> ME’ERETZ MOLADETI ve-asher DIBER li, ve-asher NISHBA
li<BR> leimor - le-ZAR’ACHA ETeiN et ha-ARETZ ha-zot..."
(24:7)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> In the following
mini-shiur we attempt to explain the<BR>meaning of each phrase in this
pasuk.<BR> Recall from Parshat Lech Lecha that Hashem
had made three<BR>promises (see 12:1-3, 12:7, 13:15) and two covenants
(see<BR>15:18, 17:8) concerning the future of Avraham's offspring in<BR>the
Promised Land. In each of these promises, the key words<BR>repeated over
and over again were "era’ [offspring] and<BR>’aretz’ [the Promised Land/
e.g. "le-zar’acha etein et ha-<BR>aretz ha-zot"].<BR> In
Avraham's opening statement to his servant, we find an<BR>obvious parallel to
the beginning of Parshat Lech Lecha, as:<BR> "Asher
lekachani mi-BEIT AVI uMe'ERETZ MOLADETI"<BR>clearly echoes God's opening
command of:<BR> "Lech Lecha me-artzecha, u-mMOLADETECHA u-miBEIT
AVICHA."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> However, the continuation
of this statement: "e-'asher<BR>DIBER li, ve-asher NISHBA li leimor ..." raises
a question<BR>concerning the precise OATH (’nishba’) to which
Avraham<BR>refers.<BR> This question sparked a
controversy among the<BR>commentators. Rashi explains that this oath was
made at Brit<BR>Bein Ha-betarim, while Radak contends that it refers to
the<BR>Akeida.<BR> The reason for this controversy is
quite simple. The term<BR>’shvu'a’ - oath - appears only once throughout all of
God's<BR>promises to Avraham - specifically in God's ’hitgalut’ to<BR>Avraham
after the Akeida:<BR> "bi nishbati ne’um Hashem, ki ..."
(see 22:16)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Thus, Radak cites the
Akeida as the source for "nishba<BR>li." Rashi, however, rejects this
contention, presumably<BR>because nowhere at the Akeida does God say anything
similar to<BR>"le-zar’acha etein et ha-aretz ha-zot." Rashi therefore
cites<BR>as the source of God's oath Brit Bein Ha-betarim, which<BR>includes
this very promise:<BR> "ba-yom ha-hu karat Hashem [note Shem Havaya, as
above in<BR> 24:7] et Avram brit leimor: le-zar’acha natati et
ha-aretz<BR> ha-zot..." (15:18).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Even though the actual
word ’shvu’a’ is never mentioned<BR>at Brit Bein Ha-Betarim, God's establishment
of a covenant<BR>with Avraham may itself constitute a guarantee equivalent to
a<BR>promise accompanied by an oath.<BR> In truth, a
closer look at the psukim relating to the<BR>Akeida may reveal that BOTH Rashi
and Radak are correct: God<BR>had stated:<BR> "By myself I SWEAR
["bi nishba’ti"], the Lord declares:<BR> Because you have done this and
have not withheld your son...<BR> I will bestow My blessing upon you
["barech avarechecha"]<BR> and make your descendants as numerous as the
stars of the<BR> heaven ["ke-kochvei ha-shamayim"] ... and your
descendants<BR> will CONQUER the gates of their enemies ["ve-YIRASH
zar’acha<BR> et sha'ar oyvav"]...(15:17).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Considering this context -
i.e. the aftermath of the<BR>Akeida - we can well understand why this oath
focuses<BR>primarily on Avraham's descendants ‘"zera’), who will evolve<BR>from
Yitzchak. Hence, the promise regarding the Land emerges<BR>as less
dominant a theme in God's vow in contrast to the<BR>promise of ’zera’.<BR>
Nonetheless, this oath does contain several expressions<BR>taken directly from
God's earlier promises to Avraham<BR>concerning the ’aretz’, especially Brit
Bein Ha-betarim. The<BR>following table highlights the literary parallel between
God's<BR>promise at the Akeida and previous promises to Avraham:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>
<DIV><BR>AKEIDA (22:17) PREVIOUS
PROMISES<BR>============== ================<BR>ki
barech va-
avarechecha<BR>avarechecha ve-heye
bracha<BR>
(First Promise -
12:2)<BR>
<BR>ve-harbeh arbeh habet na ha-<BR>et zar’acha ke-
shamayma u-re'eh et<BR>kochevei ha-
ha-kochavim...<BR>shamayim
ko yhiyeh
zar’echa<BR>
(Brit Bein Ha- Betarim - 15:5)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Ve-yirash lo yirashcha
zeh<BR>zar’acha et ki im asher yetzeh
mi-<BR>sha’ar oyvav mey'echa,hu
yirashecha<BR>
(Brit Bein Ha'Btarim -
15:4)<BR>
<BR>Ve-hitbarchu be- Ve-nivrchu becha<BR>zar’acha
kol kol mishpechot<BR>goyei
ha-aretz
ha-adama<BR>(15:18)
(First Promise - 12:3)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> This parallel demonstrates that God's oath after
the<BR>Akeida reaffirms His previous promises and covenants.<BR>
Furthermore, Avraham's statement of "ve-asher nishba li<BR>leimor le-zar'acha
etein et ha-aretz ha-zot," can be<BR>understood as his own understanding of
God's promise BOTH in<BR>Brit Bein Ha-Betarim (shitat Rashi) AND the Akeida
(shitat ha-<BR>Radak), as one essentially complements the
other.<BR> This interpretation also explains the
redundancy in<BR>Avraham's statement: "asher DIBER li ve-'asher NISHBA
li":<BR> * "asher DIBER li" -<BR> most
probably refers to Brit Bein Ha-Betarim, which<BR>begins with "haya DVAR Hashem
el
Avram..."<BR>
(15:1, see also 15:4);<BR> * while "asher NISHBA
li"<BR> refers the oath of the Akeida (22:16).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>THE OATH<BR> Why is an oath necessary in ADDITION
to God's original<BR>promise and covenant? Furthermore, why does God make
this<BR>oath only after the Akeida?<BR> The answer to
these questions relates to the nature of<BR>the original promise and covenant,
as explained in the last<BR>three shiurim.<BR> Recall
that in reaction to the events of Migdal Bavel<BR>(mankind's development into an
anthropocentric society), God<BR>chose Avraham Avinu IN ORDER THAT his offspring
become a<BR>special nation that would lead all nations toward a<BR>theocentric
existence [our shiur on Noach]. Three promises<BR>and two covenants
guaranteed Avraham Avinu a special Land<BR>(’aretz’) to allow his offspring
(’zera’) to fulfill its<BR>destiny [our shiur on Lech Lecha]. This goal is
to be<BR>achieved by this special nation's embodiment of the values
of<BR>’tzedek u-mishpat’ [our shiur on Parshat
Vayera].<BR> One could suggest that in recognition of
Avraham Avinu's<BR>display of complete faith in, and dedication to, God,
as<BR>reflected specifically in the story of the Akeida, God<BR>elevates the
status of His original promise from a ’brit’<BR>[covenant] to a ’shvu’a’
[oath].<BR> But what's the real difference between a
covenant and an<BR>oath?<BR> A covenantal arrangement is
almost by definition<BR>bilateral; for it allows for one side to break his
agreement<BR>should the other party break his. At the Akeida, God
takes<BR>His obligation one step further for an oath reflects a<BR>unilateral
commitment, binding regardless of what the other<BR>side does.<BR> God now
swears that even should Am Yisrael break their side<BR>of the covenant, He will
never break His original promise.<BR>Although His nation may sin and
consequently be punished, they<BR>will forever remain His
people.<BR> Herein may lie the primary significance of
the Akeida, as<BR>it relates to the developing theme of Sefer Breishit. As
the<BR>story of Avraham Avinu nears its conclusion, God brings
His<BR>relationship with Bnei Yisrael to the level where He will<BR>never
abandon us.<BR> The Akeida, the greatest example of
’mesirut nefesh’,<BR>symbolizes an indispensable prerequisite for Am
Yisrael's<BR>development into God's special nation - their willingness
to<BR>dedicate their entire life to the service of God. The site of<BR>the
Akeida, Har Ha-Moriya, later becomes the site of the Bet<BR>Ha-mikdash (see II
Chronicles 3:1), the most prominent symbol<BR>of that relationship.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
shabbat
shalom,<BR>
menachem</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>