[Par-reg] For chaya sara - shiur 2
Menachem Leibtag
tsc at bezeqint.net
Thu Nov 8 21:26:30 EST 2012
*********************************************
****************
THE TANACH STUDY CENTER
[http://www.tanach.org]
In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem
Leibtag
*********************************************
****************
PARSHAT CHAYEI SARAH - 3 mini shiurim
SHIUR #1 - "HASHEM ELOKEI HA-SHAMAYIM"
How should one describe God?
In Parshat Chayei Sarah, we find that
Avraham Avinu
appears to contradict himself in this regard.
First he
describes Hashem as “the God of the Heavens
and the God of the
Earth” (see 24:3), and then only four psukim
later he
describes Him as just “the God of the
Heavens” (see 24:7).
This apparent contradiction caught the
attention of many
commentators, and hence provides us with an
excellent
opportunity to take a quick peek into their
world of
’parshanut’.
To better appreciate the various answers
that they
provide to the above question, we must first
review the
context of these two psukim.
In chapter 24, Avraham Avinu is sending
his servant to
his 'home-town' of Charan in search of a wife
for his son
Yitzchak.
[Most likely, 'his servant' refers to
Eliezer, even though
his name is never mentioned (even once) in
this entire
parshia! In our shiur, we rely on this
assumption.]
To guarantee that Eliezer will
faithfully fulfill that
mission, Avraham makes his servant take an
oath in the Name
of:
“Hashem, the God of the Heavens, and the
God of the Earth
(see 24:1-4).
However, two psukim later, when Avraham
must allay Eliezer's
worry that the wife he finds for Yitzchak may
prefer to stay
in Charan (see 24:5-6) - he promises his
servant that:
“Hashem the God of the Heavens, who had
taken him [Avraham]
from his homeland...” will send an 'angel'
to assist him
(see 24:7).
The classical commentators are troubled
by two problems.
First of all, Avraham's description of God as
“Hashem, the God
of the Heavens AND the God of the Earth”
(24:3) seems to imply
that there may be multiple gods, i.e. one of
the heavens AND
one of the earth! Why couldn't Avraham
simply have stated
“Hashem, the God of 'heaven and earth”, just
like the first
pasuk of Breishit implies.
Secondly, they are bothered by the
question mentioned in
our introduction, i.e.: Why does Avraham
‘shorten’ his second
description of God to simply “the God of the
Heavens”, without
mentioning 'the earth' at all?
In our shiur, we will discuss how the
commentators deal
with these two questions.
HEAVENS 'and' EARTH
In relation to the first question, most
all of the
commentators share one basic approach, i.e.
Avraham's peculiar
statement of ‘the God of the Heavens AND the
God of the Earth’
- relates directly to his current
predicament.
As we will see, each commentator will
consider one of the
following points:
[A] Avraham's is talking to his servant;
[who may have a over-simplistic
understanding of God]
[B] He is administering an oath at this
time;
[C] He is searching for a wife for his son;
and
[D] He is sending his servant to his
home-town of Charan.
A. RADAK - 'Helping his servant understand'
Radak offers a 'philosophical'
explanation of Avraham's
statement to Eliezer. He claims that Avraham
may be worried
that his servant - even though he surely
believes in the
existence of 'the God of the heavens' - may
not believe that
God’s Providence extends over mundane matters
down on earth as
well. Therefore, Avraham emphasizes this
point in his opening
statement, that he is not only the God
overseeing what happens
in the Heavens, but He also oversees what
happens on earth.
However, when Avraham later explains to
Eliezer how God
had earlier spoken to him (see 24:7), it is
sufficient for
Avraham to mention only ’Elokei Ha-shamayim’
- the God of the
Heavens.
B. SFORNO - 'Scare tactics'
Seforno explains that Avraham must
impress upon his
servant the severity of this oath. To assure
that his servant
will keep this oath, he reminds him that God
controls not only
the matters of the ’earth’ - and hence his
fate in 'this
world' - but also the matters of ’heaven’,
which implies his
fate in the 'world to come' (i.e. after
death). By this
statement, Avraham warns his servant that
should he break this
oath, he could expect not only a punishment
in this world, but
also in the world to come!
C. IBN EZRA - ’Finding one's beshert’
Ibn Ezra relates to the fact the Avraham
is sending his
servant on a mission to find a wife. Even
though finding a
spouse may appear to Eliezer as a mundane
event taking place
on 'earth’, Avraham must convince Eliezer
that this marriage
has been decided upon in the 'heavens'. This
commentary may
actually be based on the Gemara in Moed Katan
18b ("Amar
Shmuel..." - in the middle of the daf), that
on each day a
’bat-kol’ proclaims that the daughter of
'ploni' will be
married to the 'ploni'.
D. RAMBAN - "Eretz Yisrael"
Finally, Ramban offers a very
'zionistic' explanation.
Unlike the other commentators who understand
’aretz’ as
referring to the 'earth', i.e. to events
taking place on earth
or in this world, Ramban understands ’aretz’
as referring to
the 'land of Israel'. Because his servant is
now leaving
Eretz Yisrael (but must bring Yitzchak's
future wife back to
this land), Avraham adds the phrase ’Elokei
ha-aretz’ to the
standard phrase of ’Elokei ha-shamayim’ in
his description of
God at this time.
ELOKEI HA-SHAMAYIM
Rashi does not deal directly with our
first question.
However, he does answer our second question
(i.e. why Avraham
only mentions ’Elokei ha-shamayim’ in 24:7);
and while doing
so, he provides a solution for the first
question as well.
Rashi, based on a Midrash of R. Pinchas
in Breishit Rabba
59:8, differentiates between Man’s perception
of God BEFORE
Avraham was chosen (as reflected in 24:7),
and Man’s
perception of God now (in 24:3).
When God had first commanded Avraham to
leave his homeland
(see 24:7), no one on earth recognized God;
therefore His
Kingdom was only in Heaven. However, once
Avraham came to the
Land and began to proclaim His Name to the
public (see
Breishit 12:8 and Ramban on that pasuk), His
Kingdom is now
known 'on earth' as well. Therefore, when
Avraham now sends
Eliezer on his mission, God can be referred
to as both ’Elokei
ha-shamayim’ AND ’Elokei ha-aretz’.
Note that Rashi's explanation is
definitely not the
'simple pshat' of these psukim. Clearly, the
interpretations
offered by the other commentators provide a
more 'local'
explanation for the specific use of this
phrase. Nonetheless,
this Midrash definitely reflects one of the
primary themes of
Sefer Breishit (as discussed at length in our
shiur on Parshat
Lech Lecha), and hence may reflect the
’pshat’ of the Sefer,
rather than the ’pshat’ of the pasuk.
[Here we find a beautiful example of the
art of Midrash,
taking the opportunity of an apparent
problem in the ’pshat’
of a pasuk to deliver an important message
concerning the
entire Sefer.]
In conclusion, it is important to note a
common
denominator to all the interpretations
presented above. We
find that - when referring to God - it is not
necessary to
always refer to Him by the same Name.
Instead, we refer to
God in the context of our relationship with
Him.
For example, in the Ten Commandments, we
speak of God as
Hashem, Kel KANA (see Shmot 20:2-4), and when
Moshe receives
the Second Luchot he speaks of God as
"Hashem, Kel RACHUM ve-
CHANUN" (see Shmot 34:6-8). In other words,
the appellation
that we use for God relates to the specific
situation we are
in.
The best example is from daily tefilla,
when we begin by
describing God as "Hashem, Elokeinu ve-Elokei
avoteinu"; then
in each of the 19 ’brachot’ that follow, we
bless God based on
one of various attributes in on our
relationship with Him.
Next time you ’daven’, take note!
=============================================
===
SHIUR #2 - AVRAHAM AVINU & 'REAL' ESTATE
The beginning of this week's Parsha is
well known for its
detailed description of the bargaining
between Avraham and
Efron. Some claim that Efron's intention all
along was to
attain the highest price (see 23:16),
explaining that his
generous opening offer (to give Avraham the
land gratis - see
23:5-6) was nothing more than a ploy. But if
this assumption
were correct, why would Sefer Breishit find
it necessary to
discuss this event in such minute detail?
If, on the other hand, we assume that
the stories of
Sefer Breishit help develop its theme of
’bechira’, then
perhaps we should view this narrative from
the perspective of
that theme. Let's give it a try.
TWO PERCEPTIONS
To better appreciate what's going on,
let's examine both
sides of the bargaining table - Bnei Chet and
Avraham:
1) Bnei Chet's perception:
Efron and his people [Bnei Chet] reign
sovereign in
Chevron and the surrounding region. As their
families had
been living in those hills for generations,
they have every
reason to think that they would continue to
do so for future
generations as well. In their eyes, Avraham
is simply a
'wandering Jew', posing no threat whatsoever
to their
sovereignty.
Recall as well that Avraham had lived in
Mesopotamia until
age 75, and, ever since his migration to
Cannan he spent much
of his time traveling - to and from cities -
such as Shechem,
Bet-El, Chevron, and Beer Sheva. Having
never established
permanent residence, Avraham represents no
challenge to the
sovereign government of the Chittim.
Furthermore, Avraham constantly 'called
out in the Name
of God' wherever he went. His teaching had
earned him such a
widespread reputation that Bnei Chet refer to
him as "nasi
Elokim ata betocheinu" - you are a prince a
God in our midst
(see 23:6). As his career sent him
constantly 'on the road',
Bnei Chet had no reason to believe that
Avraham's offspring
would one day return to attempt to gain
sovereignty over their
land.
Therefore, there is no need to doubt the
sincerity of
their original offer to grant Avraham [at no
charge] any
burial plot he desires (see 23:5-7). Even in
our own time,
many societies express their appreciation for
individuals who
preach morality and dedicate their entire
life to God by
offering various benefits [what we call a
'clergy discount'].
Their generous offer simply reflects
their sympathetic
understanding of Avraham's difficult
situation - a wandering
'man of God' who needs a place to bury his
wife. For Bnei
Chet, this entire incident was of little
significance -
Avraham posed no threat to their future or
permanent control
of the land.
2) Avraham Avinu's perception:
In contrast, Avraham Avinu perceived his
situation in an
entirely different light. His wife's death
and the need for a
burial site awakened his realization that
aside from a Divine
Promise, he had no real 'hold' in the land.
For him, the
purchase of a family burial plot constituted
the first step
towards a permanent attachment to the land.
He wants to
ensure that his children and grandchildren
will return to this
site and feel a true connection to the land.
Therefore, Avraham insists on paying the
full price, as
he has no interest at this time for
'handouts' or presents.
He wants it known that this burial plot and
its surrounding
field belong to his family. Therefore, not
only does Avraham
insist on paying full price, he also demands
that it be
purchased in the presence of all the
community leaders ("le-
chol baei sha’ar iro" / read 23:16-20
carefully). In Avraham
Avinu's eyes, this is a momentous occasion -
he has now
purchased his first ’achuza’ [inheritance] in
’Eretz Canaan’
(note 23:19-20!).
======
FOR FURTHER IYUN:
In the above shiur, we discussed how the
purchase of
’ma’arat ha-machpela’ may relate to Avraham
Avinu's special
connection to the land, as promised to him by
God. To further
appreciate this connection, review 23:16-20
and compare them
to 17:7-8. Note especially ’achuza’ and
’Eretz Canaan’, and
relate this to our shiur on ’brit mila’.
Note as well 25:9-
10, 49:29-30 & 50:13!
=============================================
=====
SHIUR #3 "ZERA VA-ARETZ"
- A PROMISE, COVENANT, AND OATH
Just prior to sending his servant in
search of a wife for
his son, Avraham briefly reviews the various
stages of his
’bechira’:
"Hashem Elokei ha-shamayim asher lekachani
mI-BEIT AVI u-
ME’ERETZ MOLADETI ve-asher DIBER li,
ve-asher NISHBA li
leimor - le-ZAR’ACHA ETeiN et ha-ARETZ
ha-zot..." (24:7)
In the following mini-shiur we attempt
to explain the
meaning of each phrase in this pasuk.
Recall from Parshat Lech Lecha that
Hashem had made three
promises (see 12:1-3, 12:7, 13:15) and two
covenants (see
15:18, 17:8) concerning the future of
Avraham's offspring in
the Promised Land. In each of these
promises, the key words
repeated over and over again were "era’
[offspring] and
’aretz’ [the Promised Land/ e.g.
"le-zar’acha etein et ha-
aretz ha-zot"].
In Avraham's opening statement to his
servant, we find an
obvious parallel to the beginning of Parshat
Lech Lecha, as:
"Asher lekachani mi-BEIT AVI ußMe'ERETZ
MOLADETI"
clearly echoes God's opening command of:
"Lech Lecha me-artzecha, u-mMOLADETECHA
u-miBEIT AVICHA."
However, the continuation of this
statement: "e-'asher
DIBER li, ve-asher NISHBA li leimor ..."
raises a question
concerning the precise OATH (’nishba’) to
which Avraham
refers.
This question sparked a controversy
among the
commentators. Rashi explains that this oath
was made at Brit
Bein Ha-betarim, while Radak contends that it
refers to the
Akeida.
The reason for this controversy is quite
simple. The term
’shvu'a’ - oath - appears only once
throughout all of God's
promises to Avraham - specifically in God's
’hitgalut’ to
Avraham after the Akeida:
"bi nishbati ne’um Hashem, ki ..." (see
22:16)
Thus, Radak cites the Akeida as the
source for "nishba
li." Rashi, however, rejects this
contention, presumably
because nowhere at the Akeida does God say
anything similar to
"le-zar’acha etein et ha-aretz ha-zot."
Rashi therefore cites
as the source of God's oath Brit Bein
Ha-betarim, which
includes this very promise:
"ba-yom ha-hu karat Hashem [note Shem
Havaya, as above in
24:7] et Avram brit leimor: le-zar’acha
natati et ha-aretz
ha-zot..." (15:18).
Even though the actual word ’shvu’a’ is
never mentioned
at Brit Bein Ha-Betarim, God's establishment
of a covenant
with Avraham may itself constitute a
guarantee equivalent to a
promise accompanied by an oath.
In truth, a closer look at the psukim
relating to the
Akeida may reveal that BOTH Rashi and Radak
are correct: God
had stated:
"By myself I SWEAR ["bi nishba’ti"], the
Lord declares:
Because you have done this and have not
withheld your son...
I will bestow My blessing upon you ["barech
avarechecha"]
and make your descendants as numerous as
the stars of the
heaven ["ke-kochvei ha-shamayim"] ... and
your descendants
will CONQUER the gates of their enemies
["ve-YIRASH zar’acha
et sha'ar oyvav"]...(15:17).
Considering this context - i.e. the
aftermath of the
Akeida - we can well understand why this oath
focuses
primarily on Avraham's descendants ‘"zera’),
who will evolve
from Yitzchak. Hence, the promise regarding
the Land emerges
as less dominant a theme in God's vow in
contrast to the
promise of ’zera’.
Nonetheless, this oath does contain several
expressions
taken directly from God's earlier promises to
Avraham
concerning the ’aretz’, especially Brit Bein
Ha-betarim. The
following table highlights the literary
parallel between God's
promise at the Akeida and previous promises
to Avraham:
AKEIDA (22:17) PREVIOUS PROMISES
============== ================
ki barech va- avarechecha
avarechecha ve-heye bracha
(First Promise - 12:2)
ve-harbeh arbeh habet na ha-
et zar’acha ke- shamayma u-re'eh et
kochevei ha- ha-kochavim...
shamayim ko yhiyeh zar’echa
(Brit Bein Ha- Betarim -
15:5)
Ve-yirash lo yirashcha zeh
zar’acha et ki im asher yetzeh mi-
sha’ar oyvav mey'echa,hu yirashecha
(Brit Bein Ha'Btarim -
15:4)
Ve-hitbarchu be- Ve-nivrchu becha
zar’acha kol kol mishpechot
goyei ha-aretz ha-adama
(15:18) (First Promise - 12:3)
This parallel demonstrates that God's
oath after the
Akeida reaffirms His previous promises and
covenants.
Furthermore, Avraham's statement of
"ve-asher nishba li
leimor le-zar'acha etein et ha-aretz ha-zot,"
can be
understood as his own understanding of God's
promise BOTH in
Brit Bein Ha-Betarim (shitat Rashi) AND the
Akeida (shitat ha-
Radak), as one essentially complements the
other.
This interpretation also explains the
redundancy in
Avraham's statement: "asher DIBER li
ve-'asher NISHBA li":
* "asher DIBER li" -
most probably refers to Brit Bein
Ha-Betarim, which
begins with "haya DVAR Hashem el Avram..."
(15:1, see also
15:4);
* while "asher NISHBA li"
refers the oath of the Akeida (22:16).
THE OATH
Why is an oath necessary in ADDITION to
God's original
promise and covenant? Furthermore, why does
God make this
oath only after the Akeida?
The answer to these questions relates to
the nature of
the original promise and covenant, as
explained in the last
three shiurim.
Recall that in reaction to the events of
Migdal Bavel
(mankind's development into an
anthropocentric society), God
chose Avraham Avinu IN ORDER THAT his
offspring become a
special nation that would lead all nations
toward a
theocentric existence [our shiur on Noach].
Three promises
and two covenants guaranteed Avraham Avinu a
special Land
(’aretz’) to allow his offspring (’zera’) to
fulfill its
destiny [our shiur on Lech Lecha]. This goal
is to be
achieved by this special nation's embodiment
of the values of
’tzedek u-mishpat’ [our shiur on Parshat
Vayera].
One could suggest that in recognition of
Avraham Avinu's
display of complete faith in, and dedication
to, God, as
reflected specifically in the story of the
Akeida, God
elevates the status of His original promise
from a ’brit’
[covenant] to a ’shvu’a’ [oath].
But what's the real difference between a
covenant and an
oath?
A covenantal arrangement is almost by
definition
bilateral; for it allows for one side to
break his agreement
should the other party break his. At the
Akeida, God takes
His obligation one step further for an oath
reflects a
unilateral commitment, binding regardless of
what the other
side does.
God now swears that even should Am Yisrael
break their side
of the covenant, He will never break His
original promise.
Although His nation may sin and consequently
be punished, they
will forever remain His people.
Herein may lie the primary significance
of the Akeida, as
it relates to the developing theme of Sefer
Breishit. As the
story of Avraham Avinu nears its conclusion,
God brings His
relationship with Bnei Yisrael to the level
where He will
never abandon us.
The Akeida, the greatest example of
’mesirut nefesh’,
symbolizes an indispensable prerequisite for
Am Yisrael's
development into God's special nation - their
willingness to
dedicate their entire life to the service of
God. The site of
the Akeida, Har Ha-Moriya, later becomes the
site of the Bet
Ha-mikdash (see II Chronicles 3:1), the most
prominent symbol
of that relationship.
shabbat shalom,
menachem
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20121108/060173fb/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: chaya2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 46222 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20121108/060173fb/attachment-0001.pdf>
More information about the Par-reg
mailing list