[Par-reg] For Parshat Toldot - shiurim #2 & #3
Menachem Leibtag
tsc at bezeqint.net
Wed Nov 18 07:38:24 EST 2009
This week's TSC shiurim are dedicated in memory of:
Chana Friedman (Chana bat Yaakov u'Devorah) A"H
on her 14th yahrzeit
**********************************************************
***
THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
**********************************************************
***
PARSHAT TOLDOT - additional shiur
- 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://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20091118/cae49d45/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://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20091118/cae49d45/attachment-0003.pdf
More information about the Par-reg
mailing list