[Par-reg] Parshat Toldot - What Mtizvot did the Avot Keep
Menachem Leibtag
tsc at bezeqint.net
Wed Nov 26 15:34:21 EST 2008
This week's TSC shiurim are dedicated
in memory of Chana Friedman :
(Chana bat Yaakov u'Devorah) A"H
on her 13th yahrzeit"
Two shiurim follow, and both are attached in pdf format
*************************************************************
THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
*************************************************************
for PARSHAT TOLDOT - WHAT MITZVOT DID THE AVOT KEEP?
What mitzvot did the Avot keep?
There are those who claim that the Avot kept the entire Torah - even
the Oral Law and later Rabbinic prohibitions! Yet many students, when
hearing this opinion, find it difficult to accept.
In the following shiur, we analyze the pasuk that forms the source for
this opinion in an attempt to better understand the debate among the
commentators in regard to its interpretation. Our study will also provide
us with a rare insight into how the great commentators understood the lives
of our forefathers.
INTRODUCTION
Early on in Parshat Toldot, the Torah tells us of a famine in Eretz
Canaan that caused Yitzchak to consider moving temporarily to Egypt.
However, God intervened - instructing Yitzchak to stay in Eretz Canaan,
while re-affirming His promise to Avraham that Yitzchak would be the 'chosen
son' (see 26:1-5).
We begin our shiur by taking special note of God's concluding remarks to
Yitzchak at that time, as they form the basis of our discussion:
"ekev asher shama Avraham b'koli va'yishmor..."
[because Avraham listened to Me and kept:]]
"MISHMARTI, MITZVOTEI, CHUKOTEI, v'TORATEI."
(see 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 obeyed God?
a) SHAMA B'KOLI
b) VA'YISHMOR MISHMARTI
c) MITZVOTEI
d) CHUKOTEI
e) TOROTEI
As we should expect, each of the classical commentators contemplates
this question, but to our surprise, each commentator presents a very
different answer.
However, before we begin our study of those 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 to define the meaning of each
word:
1) Look for that same word in the story of Avraham's life -
In other words, we must conduct a 'word search' for each of these phrases in
the Torah's account of the life of Avraham (from Parshat Lech L'cha thru
Chaya Sarah). If we find the same word, then that must be what this pasuk
refers to. [If we don't we'll need to 'improvise'.]
[as will do Rashbam & Chizkuni]
2) Look for the same word later on in Chumash -
In other words, we must search the entire Torah to find the various
categories of laws that each word refers to, and assume that what it refers
to later on in Chumash is what it refers to as well in the life of Avraham
Avinu in Sefer Breishit.
[Rashi, Ramban (l'fi Chazal)]
3) Look for the concept behind that word or phrase.
In other words, based on the meaning of each word in the Hebrew language
(and in Chumash), we identify the concept of what each word relates to.
Then we search the Torah's story of the life of Avraham Avinu to find and
event relating to that concept.
[Ibn Ezra, Ramban (l'fi ha'pshat), Radak, Seforno]
WOULDN'T IT BE NICE...
Ideally, if we found an example of each one of these phrases 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 finds specific examples for only
some of these words, causing most of the "parshanim" [commentators] to
employ a different approach.
We'll discuss their various interpretations and approaches according to
the order we suggested in our introduction.
RASHBAM
Rashbam follows our first approach, as he obviously begins by
searching for each specific word within the Torah's presentation of the
story Avraham Avinu.
For the first three words, Rashbam is quite 'successful', as he
quotes a precise example for each word:
a) SHAMA B'KOLI - at the Akeyda, as the Torah states:
"...ekev asher shamata b'koli" (see 22:18)
b) MISHMARETI - to perform the mitzvah of brit milah.
quoting from Parshat Lech L'cha:
"v'ata et briti TISHMOR... himol kol zachar" (see 17:9)
c) MITZVOTEI - brit Milah on the EIGHTH day
as it states at the circumcision ceremony for Yitzchak:
"And Avraham circumcised Yitzchak his son when he was eight days old -
ka'asher TZIVAH oto ha'Elokim" (see 21:4)
However, for the last two words - CHUKOTEI & TORATEI he is less
successful, for there is no 'exact match'. Therefore, Rashbam defaults to a
more general definition for "chukotei v''torotei", understanding that they
refer to all of the 'ethical' mitzvot that Avraham most certainly had 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!).
Note how Rashbam defines 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 we kept BEFORE Matan Torah, but were
renewed and expounded in the covenant [of Matan Torah]." (see Rashbam 26:5)
Even though Rashbam understands "chukotei v''torotei" as general
categories, he does bring several examples of these ethical mitzvot that are
found in specific events in Avraham's life that are described in Sefer
Breishit:
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 the words CHOK & TORAH as well, but to do
so, he must employ some 'textual' assistance from Sefer Tehilim. What
Chizkuni does is simply ingenious, as he turns to Sefer Tehillim, to find
references to the life of Avraham Avinu where we find a word similar to
"chok" and "torah".
CHUKOTEI - refers once again to BRIT MILAH, but this time for all
future generations as well, as it says in Tehilim:
"zachar l'olam brito... asher karat et Avraham... v'yamideha l'Yaakov
l'CHOK, l'Yisrael BRIT OLAM..."
(see Tehillim 105:8-10 /or "hodu" in Psukei d'zimrah!)
Hence, the word "chukotei" in Breishit 26:5 relates to God's
commandment to Avraham a Brit Milah: "v'hayta briti b'vsarchem l'BRIT OLAM"
(see 17:13)
Similarly:
TORATEI - refers to Avraham Avinu's original 'aliya' to Israel for
it states in Tehillim:
"askilcha v'ORECHA b'derech zu TAYLECH"
(see Tehilim 32:8)
Here we find the word "hora'ah" - which implies an instruction - in
the same pasuk that describes 'walking in the path of God' (similar to God's
command to Avraham: of "lech l'cha..." (see 12:1-3)
This attempt by Chizkuni to identify a specific example for each
word is beautiful, however he himself admits that it may be '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.]
RASHI - a similar, but opposite approach
Rashi employs a different approach (the second approach mentioned in
our introduction), claiming that whatever these words refer to later on in
Chumash, are precisely what Avraham kept in his own life time. [See Rashi
inside.]
Note how 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/ 22:18)
b) MISHMARTI - Rabbinic laws that protect the Torah laws
c) MITZVOTEI - the 'logical' and ethical laws of the Torah
d) CHUKOTEI - the Torah laws that have no apparent reason
e) TOROTEI - the Oral law, and "halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai
Hence, according to Rashi, Avraham Avinu kept the entire Torah (even
though it had not been given yet), or in essence, Avraham kept the same
mitzvot that Rashi kept!
RAMBAN (according to Chazal)
As usual, Ramban begins his commentary by taking issue with Rashi's
interpretation - that the Avot kept all of the mitzvot.
Ramban 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 attempts to 'patch' Rashi's interpretation, by explaining
Chazal's statement that the Avot kept the entire Torah from a different
angle. Ramban claims that this Midrash refers to the fact that the Avot
kept SHABBAT, 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 and brit milah. From this 'pool' of mitzvot that
Avraham kept, Ramban explains how each word in 26:5 may relate to a specific
category within the 7 Noachide laws:
MISHMARTI - extensions of "arayot" /forbidden marriages
MITZVOTEI - not to steal or kill
CHUKOTEI - "eiver min ha'chay" - a limb from a live animal
TOROTEI - "dinim" establishing civil laws & no idol worship
[Afterward, Ramban returns to his original questions on Rashi's Midrashic
interpretation [adding a bit of 'zionism'], explaining the Avot's
obligation to follow the ('future') laws of the Torah applied ONLY in Eretz
Yisrael.]
RAMBAN - al derech ha'pshat
Ramban concludes his commentary by suggesting a totally different
interpretation that he introduces as "al derech ha'pshat" - [following the
way of the simple meaning of the text].
In this approach (which will follow the third approach that we discussed
in our introduction), Ramban simply follows the simple meaning of each word
in Hebrew, and applies those concepts to events in the life of Avraham
Avinu.
MISHMARTI
Most interesting is Rabman's understanding of "mishmarti". This
word stems from the Hebrew word "li'shmor" - to guard. [A "shomer" is a
watchman or body-guard.] Hence, Ramban explains that "vayishmor mishmarti"
relates to how Avraham 'guarded' or 'protected' God, and that was by both
preaching and teaching monotheism, and by publicly arguing against those who
preached belief in other gods.
But where in Chumash does it say that Avraham did so?
Ramban explains that this is precisely the meaning of the phrase
"va'yikra b'shem Hashem" in relation to Avraham Avinu (see Breishit 12:8,
13:4 and 21:33].
[Note how Ramban's explanation of "va'yishmor mishmarti" reflects in many
ways Ramban's own life experiences, as he too 'stood God's guard' by
publicly arguing against those he attacked Judaism!]
MITZVOTEI - according to Ramban, implies a direct commandment, and
hence refers to when God commanded Avraham to move to Canaan ("lech l'cha"
/see 12:1-3); to offer his son (at the Akeyda/ see 22:1-2) , and to 'listen
to his wife' - i.e. to send away Hagar (see 21:12).
CHUKOTEI - Ramban explains, refers to how Avraham 'followed the
ways of God' - being merciful & just, and doing acts of "tzedek u'mishpat"
(social justice). This interpretation, obviously based on Breishit 18:19,
is rather amazing, for most everyone thinks that a "chok" in the Bible
defines a law that 'doesn't make sense' (see Rashi on 26:5) - and here
Ramban applies it to the laws that make the most sense!
At the conclusion of our shiur, we'll return to explain why.
TOROTEI - Here, Ramban follows the popular understanding of the word
"torah" as referring to God's eternal laws, and hence during the time period
of Avraham, it must refer to the actual 'mitzvos' that he kept, such as brit
milah & the seven 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 - and consistent with his thematic
understanding of Sefer Breishit.
IBN EZRA - short and sweet
Ibn Ezra, as we would expect, also follows the third approach,
looking for the simple meaning of each word, and applying it to Avraham's
own life.
Ibn Ezra begins by understanding MISHMERETI as a general category that
includes all of the three sub-categories that follow - MITZVOTEI CHUKOTEI
v'TORATEI.
[That solves one definition.]
Then he suggests examples for what those three words may refer to (based
on the meaning of each word in Hebrew):
MITZVOTEI = "lech l'cha..." i.e. Avraham's ALIYA
CHUKOTEI = following God's way of life'
('engraved' in his heart)
TOROTEI = by fulfilling the mitzvah of brit milah.
Note how these last three definitions are essentially identical to
Ramban's interpretation "al derech ha'pshat". [The truth is, Ibn Ezra lived
before Ramban, and we should have brought his opinion first.]
Note as well how Ibn Ezra makes no attempt to find a 'textual'
parallel for each word in this pasuk. Instead, he follows the concept
behind the word!
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.].
SEFORNO
We conclude with Seforno, as his approach adds an extra dimension to
our understanding of the thematic significance of this pasuk.
First of all, Seforno, like Ramban & Radak, follows the third approach -
and explains how these phrases relate to concepts (or general categories)
that include the "seven mitzvot of Bnei Noach". Secondly, Seforno adds an
'extra touch' to Ramban's understanding of "mishmarti", agreeing that it
implies to 'watching God's guard', but providing us with a different example
of how Avraham accomplished this:
"He kept God's 'special guard' which was to do kindness, as the verse in
Tehillim states: ' All the ways of God are kindness and truth (25:10); and
to teach the proper way for those who had gone astray - and this he did when
he 'called out in God's Name', and kept as well mitzvotei, chukotei,
b'torotei - that God commanded Bnei Noach - and [Avraham] also beautifully
taught them and kept them - as a shining example for others to follow
[k'mofet l'rabim]"
(see Seforno on 26:5)
Note how Seforno. like Ramban, also relates "mishmarti" to how
Avraham 'called out in God's Name' - yet suggests a significantly different
interpretation. Ramban understood how this was accomplished by what he said
['verbally'] - i.e. by publicly defending God. In contrast, Seforno
explains that this was accomplished by what Avraham's did, i.e. by his
actions and the example he set for others.
Note how Seforno attempts to thematically connect the very reason
for why God chose Avraham Avinu ("or la'goyim" / see Yeshayhau 42:5-6) - to
Avraham's own way of life.
[Note how Seforno takes into consideration the primary theme of Sefer
Breishit, as he attempts to understand each pasukl!]
Finally, Seforno adds an additional dimension, for he continues his
commentary by explaining how this statement relates to the events that
follow in chapter 26.
Note how our pasuk (i.e. 26:5) does not conclude a 'parshia'; rather, it
introduces a set of stories in which Yitzchak 'runs into trouble' with the
Plishtim and Avimelech (see 26:6-33).
Therefore, Seforno concludes that this pasuk serves as a bit of "musar"
[rebuke/ or at least encouragement] to Yitzchak, as God explains to Yitzchak
that so far he was chosen because he was Avraham's son. Nonetheless, God
now reminds Yitzchak that Avraham was a man of action, and 'earned' his
special status through his deeds - 'hinting' that Yitzchak should also begin
to be a bit more pro-active. If Avraham spent his time by preaching and
teaching God's laws - calling out in God's Name, and setting a personal
example by pursuing "tzedek u'mishpat", God now expects no less from
Yitzchak.
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. Ultimately, God is finally with Yitzchak,
but only after he fulfills his responsibilities.
CHUKIM THAT MAKE SENSE!
To conclude our study, it is important to note how Ibn Ezra, Ramban,
and Rashbam all explained the word "chukotei" - as referring to God's 'way
of life' - implying being a just an upright person, and acting with kindness
to others.
The reason why is rather simple. The word "chok" in Hebrew implies
something set that doesn't change - like statutes (or technically speaking
something 'engraved'). In this sense, the laws of nature are referred to as
"chukim" - for they don't change (see Yirmiyahu 33:25).
Therefore, when God mentions "chukotei" - they refer to His [God's]
'way of life' - as His ways are to be kind and to uphold justice. In this
manner, Avraham emulated God by acting in His ways - and thus setting an
example for others to follow.
The fact that so many commentators emphasize this point as a key
element in Avraham's own life, reflects their understanding that being kind,
just, and upright must be a core value in Judiasm.
Even though there may be a controversy concerning which specific
mitzvot the Avot kept (be it 613 or 7, or 8 or 9 etc.) - everyone agrees
that their greatness lied in their 'way of life' - their moral behavior,
social justice, and their dedication towards 'making a Name for God', thus
setting a model for others to learn from.
Certainly - a model that we ourselves must follow.
.
shabbat shalom
menachem
*************************************************************
THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
*************************************************************
PARSHAT TOLDOT - shiur #2
"MA'ASE AVOT- 'SIMAN' LA'BANIM"
In Parshat Toldot, we find a very lengthy story about the
wells that Yitzchak dug (see chapter 26). As this is one of
the few stories where we find details about his life, we
should expect that story to be thematically important. To
find its significance, we begin our shiur with 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.
INTRODUCTION
In ancient times, there were two basic methods of water
storage - the "bor" and the "be'er":
I. THE "BOR"
The simplest manner to store rain water was to dig a pit or
'cistern' into the bedrock. In Hebrew, this cistern is known
as a "bor". 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 the heavens), it taps the
underground water table [better known as an aquifer]. The
aquifer receives its water from accumulative rainfall, which
seeps through the ground until it reaches a non-porous rock
level. To reach the aquifer, one must dig a hole into the
ground. Once opened, the well will supply water as long as
water remains in the aquifer.
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 time
immemorial there have always been disputes concerning the
rights to the underground water table, similar to the one that
takes place in this week's Parsha.
During his life time, Avraham dug many wells, thus staking
his claim to their water supply. After his death, the Plishtim
plugged those wells, but then dug different wells to gain
access to the very same aquifer (see 26:18), thus staking
their claim to that water supply.
Years later, Yitzchak wants to re-open the same wells that
his father had dug, thus claiming his water back. Upon doing
so, the Plishtim protest, claiming that the water belongs to
them (see 26:20-21). [See also Ramban on 26:17-18!]
Instead of fighting, Yitzchak tries again and again to re-
open his father's wells, until he finally opens a well that no
one else claims - and hence 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 foreshadows future events ["maase Avot
siman la'banim"] that will take place in Jewish History -
relating to the first, second, and third Temples.
In that commentary, Ramban suggests that the first two
wells (that concluded with strife) reflect the First and
Second Temples as they were ultimately destroyed, while the
third well (that concluded in peace) reflects our aspirations
for the Third Temple (that will never be destroyed).
To support Rabman's interpretation that these wells are
'Temple related, we examine the events that take place in
chapter 26 in light of our thematic study thus far of Sefer
Breishit.
Review 26:23-24, noting how immediately after these three
'well incidents', Yitzchak ascends to Be'er Sheva. There, God
appears unto him, confirming his "bechira" (the blessing of
Avraham), but reminds him once again that it is for the 'sake
of Avraham'. In response to this "hitgalut" [revelation],
Yitzchak builds a MIZBAYACH and CALLS OUT in God's Name.
The fact that Yitzchak 'calls out in God's Name' at this
time should not surprise us, as once again he is following in
his father's footsteps. Recall how Avraham had done precisely
the same thing three times - twice at Bet-el (see 12:8 & 13:4)
and once at Be'er Sheva (see 21:33). But why does he 'call
out in God's Name specifically at this time? [And why didn't
he do so earlier?]
As Ramban himself explained in Parshat Lech L'cha (see
12:8), by 'calling out in God's Name', Avraham preached the
existence of God to the neighboring people - thus 'making a
Name for God'. This in itself also foreshadowed Jewish
History, for the very purpose of God's choice of Avraham Avinu
- was to bring His Name to all mankind.
So what took Yitzchak so long to act in a manner similar
to Avraham? Seforno suggests that Yitzchak was actually
punished for not doing so earlier! In his commentary to
Breishit 26:5, he explains that Yitzchak's troubles with the
Plishtim were caused because he was not actively 'calling out
in God's Name'. It was only after he did so in Beer Sheva
that he became successful. In fact, immediately after
Yitzchak builds his mizbayach, another well is dug without a
quarrel (see 26:25 and Seforno), and afterward Avimelech
himself offers to enter a covenant with Yitzchak, thus ending
all future quarrels.
There remains however a small problem with Seforno's
interpretation, for Yitzchak had already achieved peace after
digging the third well - at Rechovot - which took place BEFORE
he calls out in God's Name in Beer Sheva. According to
Seforno, it is not clear why he achieved this success
'prematurely'.
WHAT COMES FIRST?
One could suggest a slightly different reason for why
Yitzchak did not 'call out in God's Name' until after digging
his third well. Recall that even before these incidents with
the wells the Plishtim and Yitzchak did not get along so well.
[See 26:6-14, especially 26:14.] It seems that they had
always been quite jealous of Yitzchak and his wealth.
The backdrop, together with the serious disputes of the
first two wells can provide us with a different reason for why
Yitzchak had not 'called out in God's Name'. The reason why
is simple - for there was no one would listen! If your
neighbors don't like you, they won't be interested in your
opinions.
It is only after peace is achieved - i.e. after digging the
third well, that Yitzchak feels the time is finally ripe to
ascend to Be'er Sheva to build a mizbayach and follow his
father's legacy of 'calling out in God's Name'.
In other words, Yitzchak's troubles were not caused by the
fact that he didn't call out in God's Name, rather - it was
because he encountered so many troubles - he was unable to do
so!
If our understanding is correct, then 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 concerning when 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, for if a
primary purpose 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 transition 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 (see II Shmuel 7:1-3 and note the phrase "acharei
asher haniyach Hashem m'kol oyveyhem m'saviv".).
Despite that request, God agrees with David that there has
indeed been a tremendous improvement, but nevertheless Am
Yisrael must wait one more generation until an even higher
level of peace and stability is reached before the Mikdash can
be built - i.e. only after Shlomo becomes king and both
internal and external peace is achieved. [Read carefully II
Shmuel 7:1-15.]
[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 future
shiur. See I Divrei Ha'yamim 17:1-20, & 22:2-15!]
In this sense, this sequence of events between Yitzchak
and the neighboring Plishtim may not only 'foreshadow' what
will happen in the future, but more significantly, it can
serve as guide to help us understand how we should prioritize
our goals and aspirations.
shabbat shalom,
menachem
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: toldot2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 38177 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20081126/1f4d6abd/attachment-0002.pdf
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: toldot3.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 23767 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20081126/1f4d6abd/attachment-0003.pdf
More information about the Par-reg
mailing list