[Par-reg.w] For Parshat Toldot - additional shiur
Menachem Leibtag
mleibtag at gmail.com
Thu Nov 12 17:30:01 EST 2015
************************************************************
THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
************************************************************
PARSHAT TOLDOT - shiur #2 / [Parshanut]
What mitzvot did the Avot keep? Rashi, commenting on a pasuk
in this week's Parsha, claims that the Avot kept the entire Torah
- even the Oral Law and later Rabbinic prohibitions. Many other
commentators disagree.
In Part One, we discuss this pasuk by delving into a little
'parshanut appreciation'. In Part Two, we'll use the Seforno's
pirush on this pasuk as a springboard to 'dive' into a discussion
of why water and 'wells' are so significant in life of the Avot.
INTRODUCTION
Early in this week's Parsha, we find a very familiar pasuk
(it's the last pasuk of "rishon"):
"ekev asher shama Avraham b'koli..." (see 26:5)
As we shall soon see, this pasuk is simply a 'gold mine' for
a student of "parshanut" [commentary]. To understand why, we
begin our shiur by taking a quick look at this pasuk and its
context.
Recall that during a time of famine, God had instructed
Yitzchak to stay in Eretz Canaan (rather than leaving to Egypt
/ see 26:1-5). At that time, God also affirmed His promise that
Yitzchak would be the 'chosen son of Avraham ["bechira"], and
then concluded His remarks with an brief explanation for why
Avraham was chosen:
"... EKEV asher shama Avraham b'koli... - because Avraham
listened to Me, and he kept MISHMARTI, MITZVOTEI, CHUKOTEI,
v'TORATEI." (26:5)
When reading this pasuk, the obvious question arises: What
is the precise meaning of each of these words that describes the
variety of ways that Avraham listened to God?:
a) SHAMA B'KOLI
b) MISHMERETI
c) MITZVAH
d) CHUKAH
e) TORAH
As we should expect, each of the classical commentators
contemplates this question, but to our surprise, each commentator
presents a very different answer. Hence, an analysis of the
various commentaries to this pasuk will provide us with an
excellent opportunity for an insight into the exegetical approach
of each commentator.
As usual, before we turn to the commentaries, let's first
consider what we should expect to find.
THREE APPROACHES
To identify the meaning of these five words (in the above
pasuk), one can take one of three basic approaches:
1) One to one correspondence - 'word'
This is the simplest approach. We simply assume that each of
these words relates to a specific act of Avraham Avinu. To
determine what each word means, we look for that specific
word within the story of Avraham in Chumash.
2) One to correspondence - 'concept'
This is a similar approach, but instead of looking for the
specific word in the life of Avraham, we first define the
concept behind that word based on its usage elsewhere in all
of Chumash. Based on that understanding of the word, we
then look for an act of Avraham Avinu that fits within the
category of that concept.
3) Generalization
In this approach, we don't expect that each word necessarily
relates to a specific act. Instead, we understand this
pasuk as a general description of Avraham's entire way of
life.
WOULDN'T IT BE NICE...
Ideally, if we found an example of each one of these words
in the Torah's description of Avraham's life from Parshat Lech
L'cha through Chaya Sarah, then the first approach would work
best.
However, a comprehensive search only finds specific examples
for the first three of these words, i.e. "shama b'kol",
"mishmeret", and "mitzvah"]; but not for the last two words:
"chukah" and "torah".
Hence, to explain this pasuk, we must either employ one of
the other approaches for these last two words; or once we are
changing approaches, employ that approach for the entire pasuk.
With this background, we'll present the "parshanim" in what
we venture to call 'logical' order: from 'textual' pshat -> to
'thematic' pshat -> to 'drash'.
Let's give it a try.
RASHBAM - 'simple' pshat
Rashbam presents what we refer to as 'simple' pshat. As we
explained above, his approach will be to search for each word
within the Torah's presentation of the story Avraham Avinu.
For the first three words, Rashbam is quite 'successful', for
we find a precise example for each word:
a) SHAMA B'KOL - at the Akeyda
"...EKEV asher shamata b'koli" (see 22:18)
b) MISHMERET - to perform BRIT MILAH
"v'ata et briti TISHMOR... himol kol zachar" (see 17:9)
c) MITZVAH - The BRIT MILAH of Yitzchak on the EIGHTH day
"And Avraham circumcised Yitzchak his son when he was
eight days old - ka'asher TZIVAH OTO ELOKIM" (see 21:4)
However, for the last two words - CHUKAH & TORAH he is less
successful, for there is no 'exact match'. Therefore, Rashbam
employs a more general definition for "chukah" and "torah",
understanding that they refer to all of the 'ethical' mitzvot
that Avraham most certainly have kept. Even though God did not
command these mitzvot explicitly, it is quite implicit from
Chumash that God expected Avraham (and all mankind) to act in an
ethical manner (see Breishit 18:18-19!).
Let's quote the Rashbam, noting how he defined this as "ikar
pshuto shel mikra":
"CHUKOTEI V'TORATEI: According to IKAR PSHUTO [simple
pshat], all of the 'obvious mitzvot' [i.e. ethical laws]
like stealing, adultery, coveting, justice, and welcoming
guests; these applied BEFORE Matan Torah, but were renewed
and expounded in the covenant [of Matan Torah]." (Rashbam)
[This last line in Rashbam is most likely based on
Shmot 24:7 in relation to ethical mitzvot in Parshat
Mishpatim and the second half of the Ten Commandments/
see TSC shiur on Parshat Mishpatim.]
Note how Rashbam understands CHUKIM & TORAH as general
categories for the ethical mitzvot, without providing a more
precise definition. However, because according to 'pshat' CHUKIM
& TORAH must include specific mitzvot that AVRAHAM himself had
kept - Rashbam is 'forced' into this more general definition.
[Note however that each of his examples of ethical mitzvot
actually relates to a specific event in the life of Avraham:
stealing - "asher GAZLU avdei Avimelech (see 21:25!!)
adultery & coveting / Pharaoh & Avimelech taking Sarah
justice - w/ Melech Sdom & Shalem, after war of 5 kings
welcoming guests - the 3 angels & story of Lot & Sdom!]
CHIZKUNI - even 'better' than Rashbam
As we noted above, in his attempt to find a specific example
for each word, Rashbam is only '3' for '5'. However, Chizkuni
doesn't give up so quickly, and attempts to identify '5' for '5'!
After quoting the same first three examples as Rashbam,
Chizkuni also finds specific examples for CHOK & TORAH as well,
but to do so, he must employ some 'textual' assistance from Sefer
Tehilim. In other words, he will identify a commandment that
Avraham Avinu fulfills, that is later referred to as either a
CHOK or TORAH in Sefer Tehillim. Let's take a look:
d) CHUKAH = BRIT MILAH for all future generations
At Brit Milah, Avraham is commanded:
"v'hayta briti b'vsarchem l'BRIT OLAM" (see 17:13)
And in relation to that same mitzvah, we find a pasuk
in Tehilim: "zachar l'OLAM BRITO... asher karat et
Avraham... v'yamideha l'Yaakov l'CHOK, l'Yisrael BRIT
OLAM..." (see 105:8-10 /or "hoydu" in Psukei d'zimrah!)
e) TORAH = Avraham's original ALIYA to Israel
God commands Avraham: "lech l'cha..." (see 12:1-3)
And once again, we find a pasuk in Tehilim where God's
instruction to take a certain path is referred to as
"hor'a'ah": "askilcha v'ORECHA b'derech zu TAYLECH"
(see Tehilim 32:8)
This attempt by Chizkuni to identify a specific example for
each word is simply ingenious, however he himself admits that he
is 'stretching' pshat a bit too much. Therefore, he concludes his
pirush by suggesting that a more simple "pshat" for "mitzvotei
chukotei v'toratei" would be to include the seven laws given to
the children of Noach, which Avraham himself also kept.
[How these seven mitzvot break down according to these three
categories of "mitzvot", "chukim", and "torot" will be
discussed by Radak & Ramban.]
IBN EZRA - a different brand of "pshat"
Ibn Ezra, himself a strict follower of "pshat", takes a very
different approach. Unlike Rashbam & Chizkuni's, he makes no
attempt to find a specific example to match each of the five
words. Most likely, because we don't find '5' for '5', we must
change the entire approach for all five words. Ibn Ezra follows
the generalization approach, explaining that MISHMERETI is a
general category that includes all of the three sub-categories
of MITZVOTEI CHUKOTEI v'TORATEI; and they themselves can also be
understood as general categories (that he will explain their
nature later on in his pirush of Chumash).
In closing, Ibn Ezra 'admits' that it may be possible to
identify a specific example in Avrahram's life for each of these
sub-categories:
c) MITZVAH = "Lech L'cha..." i.e. Avraham's ALIYA
d) CHUKAH = Avraham's 'way of life' ('engraved' in his heart)
e) TORAH = Fulfilling the mitzvah of Brit MILAH
Note that Ibn Ezra makes no attempt to find a 'textual'
example for each word in this pasuk, only 'thematic' examples
instead, based on the concept behind the word! This is quite
typical of his approach to "pshat", always considering the
'bigger picture'.
RADAK - 'widening the pool'
Radak's approach is quite similar to Ibn Ezra's, for he also
understands each of these words as general categories. However,
Ibn Ezra seems to limit his examples to those mitzvot that
Avraham himself was commanded, while Radak 'widens the pool' by
including ALL of the mitzvot of Bnei Noach (assuming that Avraham
was commanded to keep them). Then, within this pool of mitzvot,
Radak differentiates between "mitzvot", and "chukim" etc. based
on the definition of these categories later on in Chumash (e.g.
"mitzvotei" refers to the "mitzvot sichliyot" [the laws that man
can arrive at using his own intellect - like stealing and killing
etc.].
RASHI - The Midrashic approach
Next, read Rashi, noting how he employs the second approach,
but in a very special way. Not only does Rashi define the
concepts from later on in Chumash, he claims that these words
refer to the very same mitzvot that these words refer to later
on in Chumash. Therefore, Rashi implies from this that Avraham
kept the entire Torah (even though it had not been given yet)!
Therefore, Rashi categorizes these different words based on
their definition later on in Chumash, and cites an example for
each word from the entire spectrum of Halacha, from the Written
Law, to the Oral Law, and even to later Rabbinic ordinations.
a) SHAMA B'KOL - when I tested him (at the Akeyda/ see 22:18)
b) MISHMERET - Rabbinic laws that protect the Torah laws
c) MITZVAH - the 'logical' and ethical laws of the Torah
d) CHUKOT - the Torah laws that have no apparent reason
e) TOROT - the Oral law, and "halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai
[Rashi can explain in this manner, for he maintains
that the Avot kept the entire Torah.]
One could suggest a reason in "pshat" why Rashi prefers this
more "midrash" type approach. The fact remains that we find in
this pasuk specific categories of mitzvot that are never
mentioned in Sefer Breishit (such as CHUKIM & TOROT). On the
other hand, these categories ARE found after Matan Torah! This
problem in pshat - that "chukim" & "torot" are mentioned, even
though there are no examples of them in Sefer Breishit - allows
Rashi to assume that these two words must refer to mitzvot that
Chumash itself later describes as "chukim' & "torot" after Matan
Torah. [See Yomah 67b & 28b.]
[This is typical of Rashi's approach. He will often quote a
Midrash that itself is based on a solution to a problem that
arises in pshat.]
RAMBAN
As usual, Ramban begins his pirush by taking issue with
Rashi. Realizing that Rashi's interpretation implies that the
Avot kept the entire Torah, Raban begins by questioning this very
assumption. After all, if the Avot kept the entire Torah, how did
Yaakov marry two sisters, and erect a MATZEYVA, etc.?
Ramban first attempts to 'patch' Rashi's interpretation, by
explaining that when Chazal say that the Avot kept the entire
Torah, they refer merely to the fact that the Avot kept SHABBAT.
[This is based on another Midrashic statement that the mitzvah
of Shabbat is equal in value to keeping all the mitzvot of the
Torah.]
Hence, Avraham kept the mitzvah of shabbat as well as the
seven mitzvot of Bnei Noach. From this 'pool' of Avraham's
mitzvot, Ramban goes on to explain how each word in the pasuk
relates to a category of mitzvot within this pool.
Note that Ramban also follows the second approach,
understanding each word as a concept from Chumash. He simply
identifies them from a wider pool of examples including the seven
Noachide laws, and not only from God's special commandments to
Avraham Avinu.
[Afterward, Ramban returns to Rashi's Midrashic
interpretation [adding his usual dose of 'zionism']. He
resolves the original problem that he raised, explaining the
Avot's obligation to follow the ('future') laws of the Torah
applied ONLY in Eretz Yisrael.]
Ramban concludes his pirush employing once again the second
approach, but this time bringing examples only from Avraham's own
life. As God is speaking to Yitzchak, explaining to him why his
father was chosen, it would make more sense that each word would
relate to Avraham's special 'way of life' or to a specific event
during his lifetime, i.e.:
b) MISHMERETI - Preaching and teaching his belief in God
[including "likro b'shem Hashem"].
c) MITZVOTEI - every specific commandment by God
e.g. "Lech L'cha", the Akeyda, sending Hagar away...
d) CHUKOTEI - acting in God's way, being merciful & just
e) TOROTEI - actual mitzvot, e.g. Brit Milah & Noachide laws
Note how Ramban's approach is most comprehensive, attempting
to tackle pshat, while taking serious consideration of the
Midrash, and looking for overall thematic significance.
SEFORNO
We conclude with Seforno, as his approach is quite unique,
and it also will serve as an introduction to Part Two.
Seforno, like Ramban & Radak, understands these words as
general categories relating to the "seven mitzvot of Bnei Noach".
However, Seforno adds that not only did Avraham keep these laws,
he also taught them to others. God is not proud of Avraham for
any specific mitzvah, but rather praises him for his daily 'way
of life'! Why does Seforno take this approach?
Seforno, unlike the other commentators thus far, takes into
consideration the primary theme of Sefer Breishit, and the local
context of this pasuk, i.e. the story that follows! Let's explain
how.
Note how our pasuk (i.e. 26:5) does not conclude a 'parshia';
rather, it introduces a set of stories in which Yitzchak must
deal with Avimelech (see 26:6-33/ note how 26:1-33 is all ONE
'parshia', thus implying a thematic connection between all of its
psukim).
Seforno understands that this pasuk serves as a bit of
"musar" [rebuke/ or at least encouragement] to Yitzchak. God
explains to Yitzchak that being blessed with the "bechira" is a
two-way street. After Avraham was chosen, he spent his entire
life preaching and teaching God's laws - calling out in God's
Name, and setting a personal example by pursuing "tzedek
u'mishpat". [See also Ramban & Seforno on 12:8!]
However, up until this point in Chumash, Yitzchak himself had
note yet done so. However, God now expects that he should take
an example from his father.
In this manner, Seforno explains why Yitzchak suffered so
much strife with Avimelech and his servants in the story that
follows (i.e. the arguments at "esek" & "sitnah"). However, later
in this same 'parshia', we find that Yitzchak himself finally
"calls out in God's Name" (see 26:25-29). From that time on,
Yitzchak becomes successful, and develops a positive relationship
with his neighbors. God is finally with him, but only after he
finally fulfills his responsibility.
As usual, Seforno's pirush is the most thematically
significant, focusing both on overall thematic "pshat" as well
as the "musar" that we can learn from.
With this in mind, we continue in Part Two with a discussion
of that confrontation between Yitzchak & Avimelech.
===========
PART TWO - WHAT'S IN A WELL
INTRODUCTION
Before we begin, a short explanation of the difference
between a "bor" (pit or cistern) and "be'er" (well) which will
help us understand the story of Yitzchak and the Plishtim.
There are two basic methods of water storage in ancient
times:
I. THE "BOR"
The most simple method was to dig a "bor" - a cistern -
into the bedrock to collect the rain water as it falls (or
flows in from the surrounding hills). To increase its
efficiency, the "bor" must be covered with "sid" [plaster]
to stop the water from seeping out.
II. THE "BE"ER:
A "be'er" (a well) is quite different, for instead of
collecting rainwater (from above), it taps the underground
water table (from below). To reach that level [better known
as an aquifer] one must dig a hole into the ground to reach
it. Once opened, the well will supply water as long as water
remains in the aquifer. [The aquifer receives its water from
accumulative rainfall which seeps through the ground until
it reaches a non-porous rock level.]
So what does any of this have to do with Torah?
AN ANCIENT 'WATER FIGHT'
This background explains the quarrel between Yitzchak and the
Plishtim over the "be'erot" (see 26:17-26). Since ancient times
there have always been disputes concerning the rights to the
underground water table. For example, Avraham dug wells and thus
staked his claim to their water supply. After his death, the
Plishtim plugged those wells and opened their own tap to that
same water supply (see 26:18). Yitzchak attempted to re-open the
same wells that his father had dug. Upon doing so, the Plishtim
protested claiming that the water belonged to them (26:20-21).
[See Ramban 26:17-18!]
[Btw, this argument continues until this very day. According
to the Oslo accords, a special committee is set up to reach
an agreement over conflicting claims to the rights to the
valuable water table which stretches under most of Yehuda &
Shomron.]
Instead of fighting, Yitzchak tries again and again until he
finally opens a well that no one else has a claim to - naming it
"Rechovot" (see 26:22).
So why does the Torah discuss such mundane issues?
PEACE & THE MIKDASH
Ramban on 26:20-22 asks this very same question! He claims
that if we follow only the "pshat" of these stories, they appear
to carry very little significance. Instead, Ramban claims that
this story represents FUTURE events of Am Yisrael's history in
regard to the first, second, and third Temples. ["maase Avot
siman l'banim/ see Ramban inside.]
One could suggest that the story that follows provides
additional support for Ramban's approach.
Note that immediately after this incident, Yitzchak ascends
to Be'er Sheva, God appears unto him, and once again promises him
that he will continue the blessing of Avraham (see 26:23-24), but
again for the 'sake of Avraham'. In response to this "hitgalut",
Yitzchak builds a MIZBAYACH and CALLS OUT in God's Name (compare
with similar act by Avraham in 12:8, 13:4 at Bet-el and 21:33 at
Be'er Sheva).
Recall our explanation in Parshat Lech L'cha how 'calling
out' in God's Name' reflected the ultimate purpose for God's
choice of Avraham Avinu [note "ba'avur Avraham avdi" in 26:24!].
Now, for the first time, Yitzchak himself accomplishes this goal
in a manner very similar to Avraham Avinu.
What took Yitzchak so long to act in a manner similar to
Avraham? As we mentioned above, Seforno explains that once
Yitzchak 'called out in God's Name', the Plishtim no longer
quarreled with him (see Seforno on 26:25). In fact, immediately
after Yitzchak builds his mizbayach, another well is dug without
a quarrel (26:25), and afterward Avimelech himself offers to
enter a covenant with Yitzchak, thus ending all future quarrels.
According to Seforno, by fulfilling his divine purpose,
Yitzchak reached a level of 'peace and security' with his
neighbors. This Seforno implies that the first two disputes began
because Yitzchak had not done so earlier! [See also Seforno 26:5]
There remains however a small problem with Seforno's pirush.
The first time Yitzchak achieves peace is when he digs the well
of RECHOVOT - which took place BEFORE he calls out in God's Name.
According to Seforno, must we understand this 'pre-mature'
success simply an act of God's "chessed" that Yitzchak did not
really deserve?!
WHAT COMES FIRST?
One could suggest a slightly different reason why Yitzchak
did not 'call out in God's Name' until after digging his third
well. Recall, that even before the incidents with the wells the
Plishtim and Yitzchak did not get along so well. [See 26:6-14,
especially 26:14 - they became jealous of Yitzchak and his
wealth.]
Because the first two wells led to serious disputes, under
those conditions, Yitzchak was not able to 'call out in God's
Name', for most likely - no one would listen! It is only after
Yitzchak digs a third well, and this time without any dispute
with his neighbors, does he ascend to Be'er Sheva to build a
mizbayach and follow his father's legacy of 'calling out in God's
Name' to those who surround him.
We can infer from these events that before Am Yisrael can
fulfill its ultimate goal of building a Mikdash open for all
mankind, it must first attain a certain level of stability and
normalized relations with its neighbors. This 'prerequisite' can
be inferred as well from the Torah's commandment to build the Bet
Ha'mikdash as described in Sefer Devarim:
"... and you shall cross the Jordan and settle the land...
and He will grant you safety from your enemies and you will
live in security, THEN you shall bring everything I command
you to HA'MAKOM ASHER YIVCHAR HASHEM - the place that God
will choose to establish His NAME [i.e. the Bet ha'Mikdash]"
(See Devarim 12:8-11)
This prerequisite is actually quite logical. If one of the
purposes of the Mikdash is to provide a vehicle by which all
nations can find God (see I Melachim 8:41-43!), then it should
only be built once we achieve the status of a nation that other
nations look up to. [See also Devarim 4:5-8!]
[Of course, Bnei Yisrael need to have a MISHKAN - for their
own connection with God - immediately after Matan Torah.
However, the move from a Mishkan to a Mikdash only takes
place once Am Yisrael is ready to fulfill that role.]
In the history of Bayit Rishon [the first Temple], this is
exactly the sequence of events. From the time of Yehoshua until
King David, there is only a Mishkan, for during this time period,
Am Yisrael never achieved peace with their enemies, nor did they
establish a prosperous state that other nations could look up to.
Only in the time of David did Am Yisrael reach this level of
prosperity, peace, and security - and this is exactly when David
ha'melech asks to build the Mikdash. God answers that indeed
there is an improvement, but Am Yisrael must wait one more
generation until a fuller level of peace and stability is reached
- only once Shlomo becomes king and both internal and external
peace is achieved. [Read carefully II Shmuel 7:1-15, especially
7:1-2 - "acharei asher haniyach Hashem m'kol oyveyhem m'saviv".]
[The popular reason given for why David could not build the
Temple - because he had 'blood on his hands'- is not found
in Sefer Shmuel, rather in Divrei Ha'yamim in David's
conversation with Shlomo - but this is a topic for a later
shiur. That reason also reflects a certain lack of stability
in David's time, due to both the civil wars and external
wars. See I Divrei Ha'yamim 17:1-20, & 22:2-15!]
In summary, we have shown how the sequence of events between
Yitzchak and the neighboring Plishtim may not only 'predict' what
will happen in Am Yisrael's history, but can also serve as guide
for us to understand how to prioritize our goals.
shabbat shalom
menachem
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg.w/attachments/20151112/35a6d72c/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: toldotAvot.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 38176 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg.w/attachments/20151112/35a6d72c/attachment-0001.pdf>
More information about the Par-reg.w
mailing list