[Par-reg] for Parshat Vayera - additonal shiurim

Wed Oct 31 19:44:27 EDT 2012

*********************************************
****************

     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER
[http://www.tanach.org]

          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag

     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem
Leibtag

*********************************************
****************

             PARSHAT  VA'YERA  - additional
shiurim

     In Part Two of this week's shiur, we
present a six short

'mini-shiurim' that discuss the Akeyda and
misc. topics in the

Parasha.

PART I -  THE AKEYDA  -- A CONFLICT BETWEEN
IDEALS

     In the story of the Akeyda (Breishit
chapter 22), we find

a conflict between two ideals. From the
perspective of

'natural morality', there is probably nothing
more detestable

to man's natural instinct that killing his
own son, even more

so his only son.  On the other hand, from the
perspective of

man's relationship with God, there is nothing
more compelling

than the diligent fulfillment of a divine
command.

     In an ideal world, these two ideals
should never

conflict, for how could God command man to
perform an act that

is immoral?  However, in the real world,
individuals often

face situations where they are torn between
his 'conscience'

and his 'religion'. How should one act in
such situations?

     One could suggest a resolution of this
dilemma based on

the special manner by which the Torah tells
the story of the

Akeyda (chapter 22). On the one hand, God
["b'shem Elokim"]

commands Avraham to offer his only son
Yitzchak. Avraham, a

devout servant of God, diligently follows
God's command, even

though this must have been one of the most
difficult moments

of his life. In this manner, God tests
Avraham's faith (see

22:1). However, it is impossible that God
could truly make

such a demand. Therefore, at the last minute,
He sends a

"malach" [b'shem Havaya/ see 22:11] to stop
him.

     Was Avraham correct in his behavior?
Should he have not

questioned God's command, just as he had
questioned God's

decision to destroy Sedom?

     There is no easy answer to this
question. In fact,

hundreds of articles and commentaries have
been written that

deal with this question, and even though they
are all based on

the same narrative, many of them reach very
different

conclusion - and for a very simple reason!
The story of the

Akeyda does not provide us with enough
details to arrive at a

concrete conclusion.

     One could suggest that this Biblical
ambiguity may be

deliberate, for the Torah's intention may be
that we do not

resolve this conflict, rather we must ponder
it.  In fact, it

is rather amazing how one very short but
dramatic narrative

(about ten psukim) has sparked hundreds of
philosophical

debates over centuries. [This is the beauty
of the Bible.]

     In other words, it is important that we
are internally

torn by this conflict, and make every effort
to resolve it,

while recognizing that ultimately a divine
command could not

be immoral.

     This conflict becomes more acute when we
face a situation

when is not so clear precisely what God's
command is, and when

it is not so clear what is considered moral
or immoral.  When

those situations arise, not only must we
ponder, we must also

pray that God send a "malach" to help guide
us in the proper

direction.

    =======

PART TWO - YIRAT ELOKIM & 'NATURAL MORALITY'

     Undoubtedly, the climax of the Akeyda
takes place in

22:12, when God's angel tells Avraham not to
harm his child.

However, this pasuk includes a very
interesting phrase - "ki

ya'rey Elokim ata...", which may relate
directly to our above

discussion.  To explain how, let's first take
a careful look

at that pasuk:

  "And he [God's angel] said: Do not harm the
boy - don't do

  anything to him, for now I know - KI ya'rey
Elokim ata -

  'that' you fear Elokim, and you have not
withheld your only

  son from Me"

    [See 22:12 / Note in the various English
translations and

    commentaries the unclarity whether this
"malach" is

    talking on behalf of himself or if it's a
direct comment

    from God.]

     According to the 'simplest'
understanding of this pasuk,

the word "ki" should be translated 'that'.
In other words,

Avraham's readiness to sacrifice his own son
[the final clause

of this pasuk] proved to God that Avraham was
indeed a "ya'rey

Elokim" [the middle clause]. The use of God's
Name - Elokim -

also appears to make sense, for it was "shem
Elokim" in 22:1

that first commanded Avraham to offer his
son.

     However, there is a small problem with
this

interpretation. First of all, this suggests
that before the

Akeyda, God had doubted if Avraham was a
"ya'rey Elokim"; yet

there doesn't seem to be any reason for this
doubt.  [Unless

one explains that this test was due to God's
anger to the

covenant that Avraham had just made with
Avimelech, see this

amazing ('right wing') Rashbam on 22:1!]

     Furthermore, this phrase "yirat Elokim"
is found several

other times in Chumash, but with a very
different meaning. The

best example is found in Parshat Va'yera
itself, in the story

when Avimelech takes Avraham's wife Sarah
(see 20:1-18).

Recall the reason that Avraham tells
Avimelech, explaining why

he had to lie about Sarah's true identity,
and note the phrase

"yirat Elokim":

  "And Avraham said: for I had assumed that
there was no YIRAT

  ELOKIM in this place, and they would kill
me in order to

  take my wife" (see 20:11)

     Obviously, Avraham did not expect that
Avimelech and his

people were 'Jewish', i.e. God had never
spoken to them, nor

had He  given them any commandments.
Clearly, when Avraham

mentions YIRAT ELOKIM, he must be referring
to the basic

'moral behavior' expected of any just
society.  As can be

proven from the story of the Flood, this
'natural morality'

(i.e. not to kill or steal etc. /see the last
five of the Ten

Commandments!) does not require a divine
command.  Rather it

is God's expectation from mankind.

  [Why nonetheless God decided to include
them in the Ten

  Commandments is a very interesting topic,
but not for now.

  However, I do suggest that you note the
conclusion of

  Rashbam's interpretation to Breishit 26:5
in this regard.]

     Another example is found in the story of
Yosef and his

brothers; when Yosef, pretending to be an
Egyptian, explains

to his brothers why he will not leave them
all in jail.  After

first jailing them, he changes his mind after
three days,

allowing them to go home to bring back their
brother so that

they can prove their innocence.  Note how
Yosef introduces

this 'change of mind' by saying: "et
ha'Elokim ani ya'rey"

(see 42:18 and its context!).

    But Yosef says this to his brothers
pretending to be an

Egyptian! Surely he wouldn't 'blow his cover'
by hinting to

the fact that he is Jewish. Clearly, here as
well, the phrase

"yirat Elokim" relates to a concept of
'natural morality'.

Yosef, acting as an important Egyptian
official, wants to

impress upon his brothers that he is acting
in a just manner.

     The following other examples also
include this phrase,

and each one also relates to some standard of
'moral'

behavior:

      Shmot 1:21 - re: the midwives killing
the male babies

      Shmot 18:21 - re: Yitro's advice re:
the appt. of judges

      Devarim 25:18 - re: the sin of the
Amalek. ]

          [Please review these before
continuing.]

     Based on these examples, it seems that
the phrase "yirat

Elokim" in Chumash refers exclusively to some
type of 'moral'

behavior. If so, then we would expect it to
carry a similar

meaning in the pasuk that we are discussing
(i.e. Breishit

22:12, the key pasuk of the Akeyda).

     However, it would be difficult to
explain our pasuk at

the Akeyda in this manner, for Avraham did
what appears to be

exactly the opposite, i.e. he followed a
divine command that

contradicts 'natural morality' (see
discussion in Part One,

above).

     Why would the fact that Avraham is
willing to sacrifice

his son make him a "ya'rey Elokim" - in the
Biblical sense of

this phrase?

     The simplest answer would be to say that
this instance is

an exception, because the Akeyda began with a
direct command,

given by Elokim, that Avraham take his son
(see 22:1).

     However, one could suggest a rather
daring interpretation

that would be consistent with the meaning of
"yirat Elokim"

elsewhere in Sefer Breishit. To do so, we
must reconsider our

translation of the Hebrew word "ki" in 22:12,
i.e. in "ata

yadati, KI yarey Elokim ata, v'lo cha'sachta
et bincha et

yechidecha

mi'meni".

     Instead of translating "ki" as 'that',
one could use an

alternate meaning of "ki" = 'even though'!
[As in Shmot 34:9

- "ki am keshe oref hu", and Shmot 13:17 "ki
karov hu" - see

Ibn Ezra on that pasuk for other examples.]

  If so, then this pasuk would be emphasizing
precisely the

point that we discussed in Part One, i.e. -
EVEN THOUGH

Avraham was a "ya'rey Elokim", he overcame
his 'moral

conscience' in order to follow a divine
command. Thus, we

could translate the pasuk as follows:

  "And he [God's angel] said: Do not harm the
boy - don't do

  anything to him, for now I know - KI ya'rey
Elokim ata -

  EVEN THOUGH you are a YAREY ELOKIM,  you
did not withhold

  your only son from Me."

     Specifically because Avraham was a man
of such a high

moral nature, this test was most difficult
for him.

Nevertheless, his commitment to follow a
divine command

prevailed!

     In reward, God now promises Avraham with
an 'oath' (see

22:16) that he shall never break His covenant
with them (even

should Bnei Yisrael sin), as explained by
Ramban and Radak on

22:16, and as we will now discuss in Part
Three.

PART THREE  - THE OATH

     At the conclusion of the Akeyda, God
affirms His promise

to Avraham Avinu one more time concerning the
future of his

offspring (see 22:15-19).  Note however, that
the when God

first explains why He is making this oath in
22:16, He

explains specifically because "lo chasachta
et bincha" - that

Avraham did not hold back his son - and NOT
because he was a

"yarey Elokim".  This provides additional
support to our

discussion in Part Two (above).

     In this oath (see 22:16-19), we find the
repetition of

themes from Brit Bein ha'btarim such as
"kochvei ha'shayamyim"

and "yerusha", as well as a repetition of
God's original

blessing to Avraham from the beginning of
Lech L'cha.

     It is interesting to note that this
blessing relates (as

does "brit bein ha'btarim") to our
relationship with God as a

Nation, and our future conquest of the land
of Israel

("v'yirash zaracha et shaar oyvav" - your
offspring will

conquer the gates of its enemies/ see 22:17).
It is

specifically in this context that Bnei
Yisrael will later face

this moral conflict as discussed in Part I.

     However, the most special aspect of this
blessing is the

"shvuah" - the oath that God makes that He
will indeed fulfill

this promise. See Ramban & Radak on 22:16,
noting their

explanation how this oath takes God's
commitment to His

covenant one step higher. Now, no matter how
unfaithful Bnei

Yisrael may be in the future, even though God
will have the

right to punish them, He will never break His
covenant with

them and they will always remain His special
nation.

     With this in mind, it is interesting to
note that the

story in Chumash that precedes the Akeyda
also relates to a

covenant and an oath (see 21:22-34).  Recall
how Avimelech

approaches Avraham to enter into a covenant,
while Avraham

insists that Avimelech must remain honest in
relation to the

wells that his servants had stolen.

     At the conclusion of that agreement, as
Avraham now gains

the respect of the local sovereign power, we
find once again

how Avraham 'call out in God's Name'.
Foreshadowing the time

period of David and Shlomo, Avraham is now in
a position where

he can successfully represent God before the
other nations of

the world.

     That setting provides a signficant
backdrop for Avraham

Avinu's ultimate test at the Akeyda.

====

MISC TOPICS -

     [Relating once again to Sdom vs. Avraham
Avinu]

PART FOUR - YEDA & YI'UD

     In the shiur we sent out yesterday, we
discussed the

importance of 18:18-19, showing how God's
goal for the nation

of Avraham would come true through the
establishment of a

society characterized by "tzedaka u'mishpat".

     Recall how that pasuk began with "ki
y'DAATIV", which

implies to KNOW, but the key word carried a
deeper meaning

throughout the entire narrative of Lot being
saved from Sdom.

[Note also the use of the word "rah" (and
"tov") as well as

"l'daat" in 19:7-9. This may (and should)
point to a thematic

connection between the events in Sdom and the
story of Adam in

Gan Eden where we find the "etz ha'DAAT TOV
v'RAH. Note also

how God is described by "shem Ha'vayah" in
both stories.]

     In relation to the translation of the
pasuk itself - "Ki

YeDA'ATIV lema'an asher yetzaveh et banav...
ve-shamru derekh

Hashem la'assot TZEDAKA u-MISHPAT....."
(18:19), in our shiur

we translated "yeda'ativ" as "I have singled
him out." The

term literally translates as, "I have 'known
him.' This

meaning, however, seems out of place in this
context. If it

simply means that God 'knows' that Bnei
Yisrael will do

"tzedek u-mishpat," how does Hashem 'know'
this?  What

guarantee is there that Avraham's children
will keep this

mitzvah more than anyone else?  Is there no
bechira chofshit -

freedom of choice to do good or bad?

  (Further troubling is the usage of the
construction

  "yeda'ativ," rather than the expected,
"yeda'ati" - see

  mefarshim al atar.)

In answer to this question, Rav Yoel bin Nun
explained in a

shiur several years ago that the word
"yeda'ativ" should be

understood not as 'yeda' - to know - but
rather as "ye'ud"

(switching the last two letters as in
keves-kesev;

salma-simla). Ye'ud (a similar shoresh) means
designation,

being singled out for a specific purpose, a
raison d'etre, a

destiny.  Thus, "yeda'ativ" here should be
read not as, "God

knows..." but rather, "God set them aside for
the purpose...

(that they keep tzedaka and mishpat)."  The
point is not that

God KNOWS that bnei Avraham will do tzedaka &
mishpat, but

that God chose Avraham in ORDER that his
children will do

tzedaka & mishpat!

====

PART FIVE - TOLDOT TERACH

     Parshat Va'yera informs us not only of
the birth of

Yitzchak, but also of several other
grandchildren and great-

grandchildren of Terach, such as the twelve
children of

Nachor, and the two children/grandchildren of
Lot.   [See

19:30-38, 22:20-24.]

      These stories form an integral part of
Sefer Breishit

for technically speaking, Parshat Va'yera is
still under the

title of TOLDOT TERACH (see 11:27 with TOLDOT
SHEM (see 11:10

and our shiur on Parshat Noach).

  [It is interesting to note when considering
11:26-32 that we

  find a 'header' - "ayleh toldot Terach,"
but we never find

  the expression: "ayleh toldot Avraham"
throughout Sefer

  Breishit, even though we do find "ayleh
toldot Yitzchak

  (25:19), and "ayleh toldot Yaakov" (37:2).
This may relate

  to Avram's name change, so there can't be
TOLDOT AVRAM when

  he is first introduced, since AVRAM as
AVRAM never has

  children from Sarah! This may also explain
the need for the

  additional phrase "Avraham holid et
Yizchak" in 25:19!]

     Furthermore, many (female) descendants
of Terach later

'weave' their way back into the family of
Avraham Avinu, such

as Rivka, Nachor's granddaughter, and her
brother Lavan's

daughters Rachel & Leah. [See also part five
below in regard

to Ruth from Moab.]

  [Recall that Terach was the first
'zionist', i.e. it was his

  idea to attempt aliyah to eretz Canaan
(even though he never

  made it). It may have been in that zchut!]

[Note also the number (and type) of wives and
children born to

Nachor (in 22:20-24)! Which of the Avot does
this bring to

mind? [8 + 4 !]

     Who else in Sefer Breishit has twelve
children  [8 + 4] ?

=====

PART SIX /  'MITZAR' - A sad but fitting
ending

     As Lot escapes from Sdom, a somewhat
peculiar

conversation ensues between him and the angel
concerning the

city of TZOAR. What is it all about?

     For those of you who don't remember,
here's a quick

recap:

     After taking Lot out of Sdom, the
"malachim" instruct Lot

to run away 'up to the mountain' ["he'hara
hi'malet" /see

19:17]. Lot defers, claiming that 'up in the
mountain' poses

potential danger. He requests that instead
the angels spare

one city, which will serve as a "MITZAR," a
small place of

refuge. The Torah then informs us that this
is why the city is

named TZOAR (see 19:17-22).

     Why do we need to hear about all this?

     To appreciate this story, we must return
to the first

reference to Sedom in Chumash. When Avraham
and Lot decide

that the time had come to part ways, Lot
decides to move to

the KIKAR HA'YARDEN (the region of Sdom),
rather than the

mountain range of Canaan, where Avraham
resided.

     Recall from our shiur on Parshat Lech
L'cha that Lot's

choice reflected his preference of the
'good-life' in KIKAR

HA'YARDEN (where the abundant water supply
alleviated the need

to rely upon God's provision of water) over
Avraham's

lifestyle in the MOUNTAINS (where one depends
upon rainfall

for his water supply).

    Let's take a closer look at the key pasuk
of that

narrative. [I recommend you read this pasuk
in the original

Hebrew to note its key phrases. Pay
particular attention to

the word "kol"]:

  "And Lot lifted his eyes, and he saw KOL
KIKAR HA'YARDEN -

  the ENTIRE Jordan River Valley - that it
was FULL of

  water... like God's Garden, like the land
of Egypt, UP UNTIL

  TZOAR." (13:10)

     The final phrase of this pasuk - BO'ACHA
TZOAR - appears

superfluous. Why must we know the exact spot
where the KIKAR

ends?

     When we consider the origin of the
city's name - TZOAR -

from the story of Lot's flight from Sdom,
this short phrase

takes on a whole new meaning. The Torah
appears to be taking a

cynical 'jibe' at Lot. He wanted EVERYTHING -
"et KOL Kikar

Ha'Yarden" [see also 13:11: "And Lot chose
for himself KOL

KIKAR HA'YARDEN..."], and thus chose to
settle in Sdom. But

when it's all over, Lot finds himself begging
the "malachim"

for a small hideaway - a MITZAR (the city to
be named TZOAR).

Lot wants EVERYTHING - KOL Kikar ha'Yarden -
and ends up with

'next to nothing' - BO'ACHA TZOAR!    [Thanks
to Danny Berlin

- ish Karmei Tzur - for this insight.]

     With this background we can better
understand Lot's

conversation with the "malachim" when he
flees from Sdom. Note

their original instruction to Lot:

  "And it came to pass when they had brought
them out [of

  Sdom], they told him: Escape for your life,
do not look

  behind you, do not stay behind B'KOL
HA'KIKAR. Rather, run

  away to the MOUNTAIN, lest you be
consumed." (19:17)

     Once again, the Torah establishes a
direct CONTRAST

between KIKAR HA'YARDEN and the MOUNTAIN. Lot
is commanded to

return to the MOUNTAIN - to the area of
Avraham, from where he

never have left in the first place. Lot,
however, refuses to

return. He knows that if he returns to the
mountain, he will

not be able to 'survive' living in the shadow
of Avraham

Avinu. He will no longer be the righteous
among the wicked,

but rather the wicked among the righteous. He
therefore begs

them for a refuge:

  "And Lot begged them - please no. Behold if
I have found

  favor in your eyes...I cannot run away to
the MOUNTAIN, lest

  some evil will take me and I die. [Rather,]
there is a city

  nearby [at the edge of Kikar ha'Yarden] and
it is MITZAR - a

  little one. Let me escape there and my SOUL
will

  live...[They concede to Lot's request,] and
that city was

  therefore named TZOAR. Then the sun rose
over the land and

  Lot arrived in TZOAR..."  (see 19:18-24)

     Finally, after Sdom and the other cities
of the KIKAR are

destroyed, Lot changes his mind. He decides
to leave TZOAR and

settle with his daughters in the MOUNTAINS
(see 19:25-30).

However, instead of reuniting with Avraham,
they HIDE AWAY in

a CAVE. The rest is history - i.e. the
history of AMON & MOAV,

whose descendants have not even the common
decency to offer

bread & water to Am Yisrael (their kinsman)
as they pass Moav

on their way from Egypt to Eretz Canaan (see
Devarim 23:4-5).

It's no coincidence that they never learn the
lesson of

"hachnasat orchim" - welcoming guests. Sdom
was destroyed, but

unfortunately, its 'legacy' continued.

     One spark of good does, however, come
forth from Moav.

Ruth the Moabite joins the tribe of Judah -
through an act of

"chessed" (see Megillat Rut) - and she
becomes the great-

grandmother of David ben Yishai, the king of
Israel.

Predictably, Sefer Shmuel summarizes his
reign as follows:

  "And David reigned over all of Israel, and
David performed

  MISHPAT and TZEDAKA for his entire nation."

               (see Shmuel 8:15)

    [Recall that David had earlier hidden out
in a CAVE in

    the area of the Dead Sea (Ein Gedi),
where he performed

    an act of "chessed" by not injuring Shaul
- see I Shmuel

    24:1-15; note especially 24:12-15! See
also Yirmiyahu

    22:1-5!]

     Malchut David constitutes the "tikun"
for the descendants

of Lot: his kingdom was characterized by the
performance of

TZEDAKA & MISHPAT - the antithesis of Sdom.

                    shabbat shalom

                    menachem

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20121031/b4518177/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: vayera2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 35756 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20121031/b4518177/attachment-0001.pdf>