Pinchas Polonsky
Evolving Personalities And Ideas
Contemporary Torah Commentary
Following the Teaching of Rabbi Yehuda Leon Ashkenazi (Manitou) and Rabbi Uri Amos Cherki
VOL. 1-a. GENESIS
Part A. Bereshit – Chayei Sarah
Translated from the Russian
by Betzalel (Todd) Shandelman
Orot Yerushalaim
2020
ISBN 978-1-949900-20-0
© Copyright 2020 Orot Yerushalaim / P. Polonsky •
© English translation of the Torah by the Jewish Publication Society, New JPS Translation, 1985. With sincere gratitude for the permission to use
No part of this book may be reproduced in any form without written permission from copyright holder
Electronic version of the "Bible Dynamics" in English and other languages, as well as other books and materials from Pinchas Polonsky can be found at https://www.pinchaspolonsky.org/en/
We will greatly appreciate your feedback, reviews, and any assistance in book distribution and its ideas. Please contact the author at ppolonsky@gmail.com
OROT YERUSHALAIM
POB 95164,
Tel. +1-617-332-0864 ▪ orot.yerushalaim.usa@gmail.com
My very special expression of gratitude goes first to Rabbi Uri-Amos
Cherki, one of modern
Next, I wish to thank everyone who helped in creating this book at all its various stages, and especially Mikhail Fridman, without whose support this English translation could never have come to fruition, and Betzalel (Todd) Shandelman, the translator of the book, for his wonderful work.
I also wish to express my gratitude to Rabbi Yeshayahu Hollander for his deep dive into Bible Dynamics and insightful comments that resulted in some very important edits of this text.
I have been privileged to benefit from the invaluable advice and support
of all the following individuals: Leonid and Irina Margulis, Alexander and
Yulia Shlyankevich, Svetlana Rousakovski, Masha Yaglom, Yuri Livshets, Grigory
Yashgur, E. Ya., Galina Zolotusky, Alexander Levchenko, Michael Sherman and
Yulia Yaglom, Boris and Anna Gulko, Michael Leypounskiy,
My heartfelt thanks are also due to all who participated with me in my work on the original Russian edition of this book:
Elena Gitel, Alexander Merman, Oleg Evdokimenko, Mikhail Simonov, Eugene Birger, Nechama Simanovich, Nathan Brusovani, Lea Ashurov z"l, Nelly Kemmel z"l, Avshalom Donskoy, Alexander Astakhov, Alexander Yurovsky, Alexey Shumai, Alina Pozin, Alon Lembritsky, Anna Tkatch, Baruch and Rina Yusin, Boris Shapiro, Vadim Akopyan, Dmitry Akopyan, Valentin Leshchinsky, Valeriy Khaiznikov, Victor Prokopenko, Galina Bleikh, Gershon and Natalia Levitsky , Dmitry Radyshevsky, Eugene Bulgarelli, Elena Rimon, Joseph Shrago, Lea Lubomirskaya, Lily Tsinkovskaya, Marina and Alexander Podelko, Marina and Alexander Sapir, Marina and Mikhail Magrilov, Marina Matlin, Maria Kopylova, Mark Zelikman, Meir Gross, Menashe Elyashiv, Miriam and Levy Kitrossky, Mikhail Weisberg, Mikhail Golosovsky, Mikhail Zeleny, Michael Zule, Michael Goldblat, Natalia Bartenev, Natalia Zwibel, Olga Rivka Umansky, Sonya Kofman, Shlomo Gendelman, Eli Samoilovich, Ella Byshevskaya.
Pinchas Polonsky
The Midrash notes that “every generation has its expounders,” and new commentaries to the Torah are needed in every generation. Our own times likewise call for new approaches to understanding the Torah. The Bible Dynamics commentary, based on the kabbalistic ideas of Rabbi Y. L. Ashkenazi (Manitou), seeks to provide such a new understanding.
The need for new commentaries arises as cultures and societies constantly change and evolve, and are forced to confront new problems. Naturally, the previous commentaries retain their importance, but they are no longer sufficient. New approaches are paramount for preserving the relevance of the Torah for successive generations.
Our own generation is undergoing especially rapid and radical changes in all areas of Jewish life. The following deserve special mention.
• The creation of the State of Israel and the return of the Jewish people to their land have occasioned a dramatic shift in the Jewish worldview. Life in exile demanded from the Jewish people, and from Judaism, an approach that focused on self-preservation, and consistently strived for isolation and conservation. But contemporary Israeli life, in an independent state on equal footing with other nations, places different demands on the Jewish people, and orients them instead toward extroversion: development and advancement, universalism, shared human values, and a need and desire to influence world history and global culture.
• The interest of
the peoples of the world in Judaism has increased tremendously in our time.
While the Jews were in exile and subjected to persecution, other nations showed
little interest in Jewish culture and tradition, because “a poor man’s wisdom
is scorned” (Ecclesiastes 9:16). The larger world’s ever increasing interest in
Judaism today is due in large measure to
• Jewish psychological and cultural integration into the Western world has brought the secular Jewish reader and the non-Jewish reader closer together than ever before. A significant segment of the Jewish people is already so far removed from tradition that it views it from the outside looking in. While those Jews still feel a sentimental attachment to Judaism, overwhelmingly they are already a part of the non-Jewish world, culturally speaking, and can move closer to Judaism only as a part of that larger world.
All these changes create new questions, and new aspects and meanings in the Torah are thus revealed.
The contemporary reader might be a free-thinking traditional Jew or a Jew entirely removed from tradition, or he might be not even Jewish at all, but undertakes reading the Torah simply because it is an important component of humanity’s rich spiritual heritage. The key features and needs of contemporary readers can be summarized as follows:
1. The Torah commentators of the past addressed themselves primarily to observant Jews who lived within the tradition. Contemporary readers are different, and they view the Torah text differently. Most readers today live in a far more open world, which gives them an “external” perspective, in the psychological or even the physical sense. Their view of the Torah too is thus a view “from the outside”.
2. The traditional Jewish reader of the past was mainly interested in observing the commandments. It was important for him to understand precisely how the commandments and their details, with which he was already largely familiar, related to the Torah text. A contemporary student of the Torah, on the other hand, is very likely more interested in ideas that will promote his personal development. Rather than viewing the Torah primarily as a source of commandments and laws, the contemporary reader will more typically be seeking values and ideals.
3. For the traditional Jewish reader the Torah was the ultimate legacy. There was never any question of which tradition he should choose; it was only a matter of deepening his knowledge of a text that he took for granted as his very own. For the modern reader, however, the Torah is only one of many spiritual sources with which it must compete. Any Torah commentary today must take this competitive challenge into account.
4. It seems most relevant today to read the Torah as an engaging narrative of uniquely human characters and personalities, each with his or her own challenges and doubts, and having many aspects of greatness to be sure, but shortcomings and flaws as well. Any meaningful reading of the Torah must thus include the dynamics of development – the evolution of people, ideas, and concepts. Commentators of previous ages saw the leading characters of the Torah as a source of lessons and teachings exclusively, and not as personalities per se. In passing from one book of the Torah to the next, those commentators also typically disregarded any transition in the development of ideas and concepts, perceiving the entire Torah instead as a single monolithic, instantaneous event.
* * *
The modern reader’s needs are rather difficult to address. One notable attempt toward developing a new understanding of the Torah was made in the mid-twentieth century by Yehuda Leon Ashkenazi (Manitou), a prominent rabbi and Kabbalist, who through his innovative ideas and concepts formulated a new approach to understanding the text of the Torah and its narratives.
Yehuda
During the
Second World War Ashkenazi fought in the French resistance. He moved to
Teaching mainly in French throughout his life, Ashkenazi exerted a far-reaching influence on French-speaking Jewry. He wrote very little, focusing mostly on lecturing and teaching, with the result that relatively few of his teachings have appeared in other languages, nor even in Hebrew until only very recently. In the English-speaking world (not to mention other languages) Ashkenazi and his ideas are virtually unknown even to this day.
The Bible Dynamics commentary is based primarily on the lectures of Ashkenazi’s devoted disciple Rabbi Uri Cherki. (But it also includes a number of the author’s original ideas and additions.)
Rabbi Uri Cherki is among the most prominent modern Israeli proponents of the ideas of Rabbi Yehuda Leon Ashkenazi-Manitou. The school that Rabbi Cherki has founded presents Rabbi Ashkenazi’s approach in a systematic way, through a series of Torah lectures that have never before been published in written form.
The ideas that Rabbi Ashkenazi reveals allow us to see the Patriarchs as dynamic personalities who evolved and changed throughout their lives. He teaches us to ask questions like the following: How did Abraham and Isaac, Jacob and Moses evolve in the course of the Torah’s narratives? How did their views and ideas change over time? How and why do the ideas of Leviticus and Numbers differ from those of Genesis and Exodus? And why are the Torah’s commandments, and the development of the Jewish nation, presented differently in the book of Deuteronomy as compared with the earlier books of the Torah?
In former times such questions were deemed unacceptable. Instead, the questions were usually posed along the following lines: What is great about Abraham? What example does he set for us, and what is he trying to teach us? How can we reconcile the apparent contradictions between the book of Deuteronomy and the Torah’s previous books?
On the other hand, certain questions were never raised. For example: How did Abraham himself change in the course of his life story, and how did he himself understand it? How are we to understand that Deuteronomy has its own unique approach to presenting the commandments? Such questions, for a very long time considered too privileged for the public consciousness, could be discussed only by a narrow coterie of kabbalistic sages.
Even today the members of certain religious circles, upon hearing that the Patriarchs developed as personalities, or that Moses saw the commandments variously in different periods of his personal development, are moved to protest, because they see this viewpoint as portraying the Patriarchs as imperfect, and not “as they must be.” After all, if a person is said to have developed, that can only mean that at first there was something that he failed to understand, and only later came to understand. How can we say such things about the Patriarchs, or about Moses? Who are we to judge them? Against their greatness we are all but insignificant; how dare we evaluate their development? Nor can the eternal commandments, given from Heaven, ever develop or change!
People accustomed to this mode of thinking believe that dynamics and development testify ipso facto to imperfection, and they therefore deem it unacceptable to speak of the Patriarchs and the commandments in such terms. Such a view of development, however, is the vestige of a medieval mindset, in which any ideal must be completely static, and all truly great things must remain ever constant and unchanging.
To the new-age thinking, however, the value of dynamics and development is, on the contrary, quite obvious. When a person fails to develop or advance, this is seen today as an essential shortcoming, even if that person is one of the “greats”. Under this revised approach, the dynamics and development that a person undergoes speak only in his favor, and make him so much greater in our eyes. We sense not only the pragmatic, but also the spiritual and religious value of such personal dynamics. And as concerns the commandments, it seems reasonable and natural that God would reveal different facets of the commandments to the Jewish people in different periods. The particular emphasis in a given era would depend on the Jewish people’s stage of development at that time.
These are just some of the the teachings of the Kabbalah that were once transmitted only to select individuals, but today can finally be made public, to become a part of our general consciousness.
* * *
All of a human life is a dialogue between man and God. The participants in this dialogue are individuals, nations, and humankind as a whole. The Almighty wants every human being, and every society, regardless of size, to become more perfect, and to that end He constantly confronts us with new tasks and new problems.
As we manage to cope with each succeeding task, God gives us yet another and another, thus continually advancing us to successively higher levels. When, as sometimes happens, we are not able to cope with a given task, God gives us an easier one, and after we solve it, He returns us to the original, more difficult problem. As we continue solving each subsequent problem in a long series of tasks, humanity gradually improves, and man advances closer and closer to God.
Our ability to understand the Patriarchs as dynamically developing personalities is an essential element of this process. It is our hope that this book will succeed in serving that purpose.
* * *
We begin this commentary with the fourth chapter of Genesis, the story of Cain and Abel.
The numbered chapters likewise begin with chapter 4. We plan to publish our commentary on the first three chapters of Genesis in the next edition of this book.
א וְהָ֣אָדָ֔ם יָדַ֖ע אֶת־חַוָּ֣ה אִשְׁתּ֑וֹ וַתַּ֨הַר֙ וַתֵּ֣לֶד אֶת־קַ֔יִן וַתֹּ֕אמֶר קָנִ֥יתִי אִ֖ישׁ אֶת־יֽי׃
[1] Now the man knew his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have gained a male child with the help of the Lord”.
[1] Now the man knew his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain ◊ With reference to birth, the words “knew” and “conceived” are seemingly superfluous, as they add nothing to the meaning of the story. But this only means that they must be understood at a deeper level – indicating certain stages in Adam and Eve’s personal development. That is, these terms indicate that Adam and Eve changed significantly and developed not only through the birth of their child, but even earlier, at the time of sexual knowledge and conception. And the same is true of humans in general.
And bore Cain, saying, “I have gained a male child with the help of the Lord” ◊ The word kaniti is more literally translated as “I have acquired”. The name Cain is grammatically related to (indeed, it derives from) kaniti. Cain’s essence is that he is a “person who acquires”. He longs to “acquire the world” and transform it, which is why he chooses, as we will soon see, to engage in agriculture. By no means should these longings be seen as something negative; on the contrary, this desire fully corresponds to the Divine command to “fill the earth and master it” (1:28). However, it is also not without its problems, and Cain must subsequently grapple with those.
“I have gained a male child with the help of the Lord” ◊ The words “the help of” are an interpolation by the translator. They do not appear in the original Hebrew, which translates literally as, “I have gained a male child with the Lord”.
Thus, there are two related but different senses to Eve’s message. First, as per the English interpolation just noted: “I have gained a male child with (i.e., through) the help of the Lord”. And second, “I have acquired this male child and, with him, I have acquired the Lord too”. That is, she has acquired a new level of Godliness. Besides getting a son with the birth of Cain, Eve had also acquired the status of a parent, that is, a creator.
God is fundamentally both Giver and Creator – He created man and gave him life. Initially, then, a person who receives the gift of life from God has been created and is a receiver, but he not does not yet himself create or give. This chasm that initially separates a person from God is a very significant human problem. But we remedy that situation by creating children in our own image and likeness, just as God does (1:26, 9:3), which provides us with a path for getting closer to God by exercising our ability not only to receive, but also to give. And above all – to give life.
Of course, bearing a child is not the only way to become a creator. One can get closer to God also through other creative acts and positive actions. But giving birth to a child is one of the most important ways of achieving that.
From this perspective, Cain is at the center of the world, because through him Adam and Eve became parents and creators, and drew closer to the Lord. Therefore, the Torah does not say (as it typically would) “she gave birth to a son and called him Cain.” Rather, it is written, “she gave birth to Cain”; that is, to “acquisition” – she gave birth to her own new status.
ב וַתֹּ֣סֶף לָלֶ֔דֶת אֶת־אָחִ֖יו אֶת־הָ֑בֶל וַֽיְהִי־הֶ֨בֶל֙ רֹ֣עֵה צֹ֔אן וְקַ֕יִן הָיָ֖ה עֹבֵ֥ד אֲדָמָֽה׃
[2] She then bore his brother Abel. Abel became a keeper of sheep, and Cain became a tiller of the soil.
[2] She then bore his brother Abel ◊ The literal meaning of the Hebrew is, “she continued to give birth – to his brother Abel”. The idea of “continued” underscores that this second birth was not completely independent from the first and was on par with it, but only secondary in relation to it. Nor does the Torah state here, as it states previously with Cain, that “Adam knew Eve and she conceived”. Those details are not significant for the birth of Abel, because they are not a new stage in the development of Adam and Eve.
His brother Abel ◊ If the essence of Cain is to be a son, to “acquire the world” and change Adam and Eve’s status by making them parents, then the essence of Abel is to be a brother, that is, an adjunct and complement in some sense to Cain’s existence. (There would have been no need to state the obvious, that Abel was Cain’s brother, unless the Torah wished to make a particular point about this brotherhood.)
The birth of Abel does not affect Adam and Eve’s status, for they are already parents. But it radically changes Cain’s status and creates a new reality for him: he ceases to be an only son, and becomes a brother. Abel’s assigned task is to correct Cain, to unseat him from his central position, and to create for him and for the world the concept of brotherhood. Thus Cain is transformed from “only son” into “son and brother”, who must now take into account the existence of “the other”, and the need to share with him.
This “downgrade” is a major problem for every firstborn who must face it. As is well known, if a brother or sister is born in a situation where the first and (until now) only child has already realized his central place in the family – when he is, say, between three and five years old – a serious crisis can ensue. The firstborn, who suddenly discovers that someone else is now laying claim to his place, experiences severe frustration that can engender envy and even hatred. The parents’ joyful statement about the imminent appearance in their home of a brother or sister brings about as much joy to the first child as if a husband were to tell his wife, “I love you so very much, my dear! Oh, and by the way, I will soon be marrying a second wife”.
Cain failed this test of brotherhood; the consequences of that have remained a heavy burden on the entire subsequent history of mankind, even up until our own days. Conflicts between firstborns and their younger brothers are an oft-recurring theme throughout this entire Book of Genesis, finding their resolution only in the Book of Exodus, in the relationship of Moses and Aaron.
Abel ◊ In Hebrew, hevel. This is the word used to refer to the warm wisp of vapor that leaves the mouth in the frosty air of winter and then disappears immediately. The same word also symbolizes utter futility and insignificance, as it is written in the famous opening verse of the Book of Ecclesiastes, “Vanity of vanities, all is vanity”. Thus, the two brothers are antipodes. If Cain represents acquisition, stability, and solidity, then Abel is airiness, transience, ephemeralness.
However, all this ephemeralness refers only to Abel himself in isolation. In his relationship with Cain, it becomes something completely different. Abel is the “hot steam” that boils, transforms, and corrects. His calling is to correct Cain, to append a cipher (‘0’) to Cain’s unit (‘1’). Cain was to become the foundation of civilization’s development, and Abel was charged with pointing out Cain’s errors, in order to correct and improve him.
The birth of a younger brother performing this role is a terrible ordeal for any firstborn child.
Abel became a keeper of sheep, and Cain became a tiller of the soil ◊ When Adam was expelled from the Garden of Eden, he was told that thenceforth, “by the sweat of your brow shall you get bread to eat” (3:19). Cain assumes this task – surely a very noble and worthy act.
However, for all the importance of farming, it also carries the danger that the farmer will become so mired in his own tract of land that he will not even notice the world around him. Notice that oved adamah (“tiller of soil”) here can also be read as eved adamah, “a slave of the land”. (This is because the Torah here spells oved defectively; that is, without the letter vav that would more typically provide the o vowel sound.)
No one politely pleads with the earth to yield its bounty; rather, the earth is ordered, slave-like, to do so. But it is a truism that when a person keeps slaves, he himself also lives within a paradigm of slavery. The entire life of a farmer who works the earth consists of giving “orders.” Thus, a farmer’s profession harbors for him the danger that he will himself acquire a slave mentality. Enter Abel, who has been given to Cain for just that purpose – to serve as a counterbalance to Cain’s position, by showing him that there are also other possibilities in life.
Abel became a keeper of sheep ◊ Abel is the “vapor man”, a luftmensch. He therefore chooses a profession that will not tie him down to any particular place. A shepherd’s work requires constant peregrinations. He is free to observe the world around him and analyze it. He observes nature and the heavens, and is not enslaved by a tract of earth.
Sheep cannot be completely and physically controlled. While a shepherd does give orders to his sheep, he must also cajole and persuade his sheep, in order to nurture the necessary behaviors he wishes to see in them. Abel is thus by nature an educator, called upon to educate Cain as well. This is the primary task of Abel’s life, but in pursuing it he will suffer catastrophic failure.
The confrontation between farmers and herdsmen that was so prevalent in the ancient world was not only economic or military in nature, but also ideological. This confrontation can be seen in many chapters of the Torah – for example, the conflict between Joseph and his brothers (37:5), and the hatred of the Egyptian farmers for the Jewish cattlemen (43:32, 46:34).
The farmer
and the herdsman have completely different views of the world. Since farming
brings incomparably higher profits, only on the basis of farming are civilizations
built – the great ancient civilizations of
The farmer looks down, for he is absorbed in his plot of land. A man of narrow hereditary space, he is born and dies in the very house in which his ancestors lived. His family has lived in their little village for centuries, and it is all they know.
As was especially true in antiquity, the farmer often needs the significant organizational power of the state. For example, no single village using only its own resources and influence could possibly build the irrigation channels it needs. The agricultural civilizations of antiquity were therefore formed as extensive empires.
But the cattle breeder is a man of freedom and space, which means that he has a different level of consciousness. He is poorer than the farmer, but he is not limited to his tract of land. He gazes at the heavens, and at the world around him. He travels about, meets many different kinds of people, and sees a variety of lifestyles. This way, his horizons are incomparably broader. Because herders are spiritually stronger than farmers, pastoral peoples, as history demonstrates, have captured agricultural societies and ruled them as kings, but not vice versa.
At the same time, his not having his own land obviously indicates that the herdsman lacks rootedness, and that his position is always in flux. In a certain sense, a homeless people that has no land can never be a real nation.
The
correction and synthesis of these conflicting priorities can be found in Jewish
agriculture in the
(1) After settling in the
(2) Irrigation in the
(3) The Priests and the Levites who performed the service in the
In the Torah’s story about Cain and Abel, the problematic nature of farming and rootedness is at the heart of the conflict. Abel was faced with the task of raising Cain to a new level of awareness by teaching him to look up, and not only down.
The relationship of a person to his land should not be one of ownership (even though the essence of “Cain the acquirer” is that sense of ownership), but, rather, a relationship of cooperation between man as “tenant farmer” and God, Who is the true owner of the land. Abel’s task is to prevent people from becoming ossified in materialism, by imbuing their lives with an element of changeability and movement, and encouraging communication not only with the earth but with the heavens as well.
Because Cain and Abel could not successfully cope with this problem, it fell to all of humanity to seek and find a solution. This process continues up until today.
ג וַֽיְהִ֖י מִקֵּ֣ץ יָמִ֑ים וַיָּבֵ֨א קַ֜יִן מִפְּרִ֧י הָֽאֲדָמָ֛ה מִנְחָ֖ה לַֽיֽי׃ ד וְהֶ֨בֶל הֵבִ֥יא גַם־ה֛וּא מִבְּכֹר֥וֹת צֹאנ֖וֹ וּמֵֽחֶלְבֵהֶ֑ן וַיִּ֣שַׁע י֔י אֶל־הֶ֖בֶל וְאֶל־מִנְחָתֽוֹ׃ ה וְאֶל־קַ֥יִן וְאֶל־מִנְחָת֖וֹ לֹ֣א שָׁעָ֑ה …
[3] In the course of time, Cain brought an offering to the Lord from the fruit of the soil.
[4] And Abel, for his part, brought the choicest of the firstlings of his flock. The Lord paid heed to Abel and his offering.
[5] But to Cain and his offering He paid no heed …
[3] In the course of time ◊ Literally, “It happened at the end of [a certain number of] days”. This indicates the end of a well-defined period in the cycle of life. Mankind (in the person of Cain and Abel), having passed its initial stage of mere physical development, now ponders the spiritual foundations of its existence.
As a rule, in the text of the Torah and Tanakh, the expression “at the end of days” is understood to refer to the onset of the Messianic era (see Rashi, Gen. 49:1). Here, however, it means the end of the agricultural cycle – the harvest period. But for Cain, this time is in fact quite consistent with the concept of the Messianic era, because it is marked by success in the most important activity of his life – possessing and developing the earth.
Cain brought an offering to the Lord from the fruit of the soil ◊ Only after his life had been properly organized did Cain bring a gift to the Almighty. He brought not the first fruits but the last, the remainder.
Cain’s action per se is very significant and entirely positive. After all, an offering to God is the basis for the correct positioning of human life on earth. On the other hand, Cain’s offering entails an error that requires correction. One should make an offering to God not from remnants but from the first fruits, as an acknowledgement that the ability to create new life is itself a gift from the Almighty, and that only thanks to Him has the crop grown.
In Jewish tradition, what remains at the end of the harvest also becomes a gift – but to the poor, so that they too can enjoy some of the agricultural wealth that has been attained.
Cain, believing that one should be kind and share with everyone – even with God – thus puts God on equal footing with the poor. And because of this fundamental error, his gift cannot be accepted.
[4] And Abel, for his part, brought ◊ The literal translation is, “And Abel – he too brought...” Abel brought his gift only as a supplement to Cain’s. Until Cain brought his gift – that is, until humanity realized the need to connect with the Almighty – it was impossible to begin correction, to improve that connection and correct the details.
And Abel, for his part, brought the choicest of the firstlings of his flock ◊ By his example, Abel taught Cain the two requirements for presenting a gift to the Almighty: The gift must be from the first fruits, and it must be from the best.
As the firstborn child, Cain’s attitude toward God as “indigent” is rooted in his egocentric ideas, in which the rest of the world is consigned to the periphery.
On the contrary, Abel is fundamentally a “brother”; that is, in his perception of the world there is always ab initio someone else who has primacy. It is therefore natural for Abel to place God before himself.
The Lord paid heed to Abel and his offering ◊ God confirmed the correctness of Abel’s approach, endorsing not only the offering itself, but also its motives.
[5] But to Cain and his offering He paid no heed ◊ God told Cain that he must work on himself and learn from Abel. Cain, however, had difficulty learning from his younger brother.
It would be wrong to consider Abel “good” and Cain “bad”. Cain is the primary character of the two actors in this drama, because only his descendants will be preserved in mankind. Abel is not a a self-sufficient figure, for nothing will remain of him in the future – he has no heirs. Abel cannot build humanity on his own, but he does have the potential to correct Cain.
ה … וַיִּ֤חַר לְקַ֨יִן֙ מְאֹ֔ד וַֽיִּפְּל֖וּ פָּנָֽיו׃ ו וַיֹּ֥אמֶר י֖י אֶל־קָ֑יִן לָ֚מָּה חָ֣רָה לָ֔ךְ וְלָ֖מָּה נָֽפְל֥וּ פָנֶֽיךָ׃ ז הֲל֤וֹא אִם־תֵּיטִיב֙ שְׂאֵ֔ת וְאִם֙ לֹ֣א תֵיטִ֔יב לַפֶּ֖תַח חַטָּ֣את רֹבֵ֑ץ וְאֵלֶ֨יךָ֙ תְּשׁ֣וּקָת֔וֹ וְאַתָּ֖ה תִּמְשָׁל־בּֽוֹ׃
[5] … Cain was much distressed and his face fell.
[6] And the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you distressed, and why is your face fallen?
[7] Surely, if you do right, there is uplift. But if you do not do right sin couches at the door; its urge is toward you, yet you can be its master”.
[5] … Cain was much distressed and his face fell: Instead of thinking about the causes of the incident and ways to remedy the situation, Cain is overwhelmed with disappointment and hopelessness.
A person’s lot in life is determined, to a very great extent, by maintaining a constructive attitude toward his mistakes, wishing to understand and correct them without blaming others, and not falling into despondency.
[6] And the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you distressed” ◊ God tells Cain that his reaction is wrong. If he improves, he will be forgiven. But even if he cannot improve, he can still dominate sin rather than succumbing to it. The world is not deterministic; mistakes do not close the path to their correction. God wants Cain to feel confidence in his strengths and capabilities. If Cain improves, he can surpass Abel, and reach an even higher level than him.
ח וַיֹּ֥אמֶר קַ֖יִן אֶל־הֶ֣בֶל אָחִ֑יו וַֽיְהִי֙ בִּֽהְיוֹתָ֣ם בַּשָּׂדֶ֔ה וַיָּ֥קָם קַ֛יִן אֶל־הֶ֥בֶל אָחִ֖יו וַיַּֽהַרְגֵֽהוּ׃
[8] Cain said to his brother Abel … and when they were in the field, Cain set upon his brother Abel and killed him.
[8] Cain said to his brother Abel ◊ Cain makes a decisive step towards correction. He turns to Abel and offers to engage with him in dialogue. He overcomes his feeling of resentment and attempts constructive communication with Abel. He wants to improve. God has told Cain that he must change, and Cain is indeed trying to change! Moreover, Cain turns to Abel as one does to a brother, acknowledging the brotherhood status that Abel had imposed on him simply by virtue of his birth, and which itself was the source of many of Cain’s problems. This is a serious spiritual advancement for Cain.
Cain said to his brother Abel … ◊ Here, squarely in the middle of a verse, the story breaks off. The cantillation symbols indicate a strong break, best expressed in translation by an ellipsis or sometimes a series of dashes. The Torah declines to reveal what Cain actually said, or Abel’s answer.
The Midrash
supplements the Torah’s narrative with different versions of their dialogue (a
quarrel over property, or the
Abel does not answer Cain, because he sees in Cain not a person with whom one can engage in dialogue, but someone that he must influence and educate. Abel arrogantly believes that it is enough to show Cain his own example of a proper and successful sacrifice. He will not belittle himself by engaging in “small talk”, nor does he try to understand his brother, who wants to discuss his problems with Abel. So Cain kills Abel. If one is called upon to be a teacher and one considers himself a shepherd and a leader, but does not engage in fellowship nor see in his fellow man an actual person, then he is an unworthy shepherd.
And when they were in the field ◊ The field is the workplace where both Cain and Abel had to realize themselves. It is precisely Abel’s failure to realize his pedagogical potential that leads to tragedy. Abel, whose calling is to be a teacher, refuses to take responsibility for this role, and he therefore dies.
Cain set upon his brother Abel ◊ The emphasis here on “his brother” indicates that Abel is rebelling against the whole idea of brotherhood. Cain cannot bear the humiliation of being considered a mere object of education, which is how Abel regards Cain, and this is the reason that Abel will not engage with him dialogue. And so Cain rebels, destroying the very brotherhood with Abel that he had already acknowledged.
And killed him ◊ The final break in their brotherly relations is expressed through murder.
Of course, none of the above rationalizations can justify Cain’s actions. He is deemed a criminal and subjected to commensurate punishment. But neither does Cain’s crime absolve Abel of his guilt. Having resolved to be a teacher, Abel must bear responsibility for the unsuccessful results of his teaching.
ט וַיֹּ֤אמֶר יי֙ אֶל־קַ֔יִן אֵ֖י הֶ֣בֶל אָחִ֑יךָ וַיֹּ֨אמֶר֙ לֹ֣א יָדַ֔עְתִּי הֲשֹׁמֵ֥ר אָחִ֖י אָנֹֽכִי׃ י וַיֹּ֖אמֶר מֶ֣ה עָשִׂ֑יתָ ק֚וֹל דְּמֵ֣י אָחִ֔יךָ צֹֽעֲקִ֥ים אֵלַ֖י מִן־הָֽאֲדָמָֽה׃ יא וְעַתָּ֖ה אָר֣וּר אָ֑תָּה מִן־הָֽאֲדָמָה֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר פָּֽצְתָ֣ה אֶת־פִּ֔יהָ לָקַ֛חַת אֶת־דְּמֵ֥י אָחִ֖יךָ מִיָּדֶֽךָ׃ יב כִּ֤י תַֽעֲבֹד֙ אֶת־הָ֣אֲדָמָ֔ה לֹֽא־תֹסֵ֥ף תֵּת־כֹּחָ֖הּ לָ֑ךְ נָ֥ע וָנָ֖ד תִּֽהְיֶ֥ה בָאָֽרֶץ׃
[9] The Lord said to Cain, “Where is your brother Abel?” And he said, “I do not know. Am I my brother’s keeper?”
[10] Then He said, “What have you done? Hark, your brother’s blood cries out to Me from the ground!
[11] Therefore, you shall be more cursed than the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand.
[12] If you till the soil, it shall no longer yield its strength to you. You shall become a ceaseless wanderer on earth”.
[9] Where is your brother Abel? ◊ More precisely, “What has happened to your brother Abel?” This question is the clear echo of God’s question to Adam (3:9): “Where are you?” But whereas there God demands of Adam only to answer for himself, here Cain is being asked to answer for his brother as well. At first a person is responsible only for himself, but as he grows up over time he must bear responsibility for his fellow human beings; that is, for others besides himself.
And he said, “I do not know” ◊ Cain never tries to deceive God or to cover up the murder. His answer would be better translated as “I do not want to know”, that is, I want to know neither Abel, nor his brotherhood. Cain’s “I do not know” reinforces the connection of this story to the sin of Adam and Eve, who ate from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. But if Adam in the Garden of Eden at least wants to know (although he approaches this desire very incorrectly), Cain actually refuses to know. A teacher’s failings discourage the student from wanting to participate at all in the process of learning.
Am I my brother’s keeper? ◊ Cain’s answer, “I do not know”, would have sufficed to answer God’s question. By adding “Am I my brother’s keeper?” (addressing a question that God has not even asked), Cain shows that it is the brotherhood relationship that is critical for him. “I turned to Abel as my brother, but he had no interest in responding to me. I see no reason to try to preserve something that Abel himself rejected.”
[10] Your brother’s blood cries out to Me from the ground … which opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand ◊ In deciding to be a farmer, Cain took responsibility for the land, but he did not want to take responsibility for his brother, Abel. Therefore, everything that happened to Abel in his life is now absorbed by the earth.
[12] It shall no longer yield its strength to you ◊ It is no longer possible for you to engage in agriculture. You must find yourself a different occupation.
You shall become a ceaseless wanderer on earth ◊ Having killed Abel, Cain must now wander, wearing the shoes, so to speak, of his dead brother and gradually adjusting to them, as he recreates within himself the counterbalance of which he has by his own misdeed deprived himself.
יג וַיֹּ֥אמֶר קַ֖יִן אֶל־י֑י גָּד֥וֹל עֲוֺנִ֖י מִנְּשֹֽׂא׃ יד הֵן֩ גֵּרַ֨שְׁתָּ אֹתִ֜י הַיּ֗וֹם מֵעַל֙ פְּנֵ֣י הָֽאֲדָמָ֔ה וּמִפָּנֶ֖יךָ אֶסָּתֵ֑ר וְהָיִ֜יתִי נָ֤ע וָנָד֙ בָּאָ֔רֶץ וְהָיָ֥ה כָל־מֹֽצְאִ֖י יַֽהַרְגֵֽנִי׃ טו וַיֹּ֧אמֶר ל֣וֹ י֗י לָכֵן֙ כָּל־הֹרֵ֣ג קַ֔יִן שִׁבְעָתַ֖יִם יֻקָּ֑ם וַיָּ֨שֶׂם י֤י לְקַ֨יִן֙ א֔וֹת לְבִלְתִּ֥י הַכּוֹת־אֹת֖וֹ כָּל־מֹֽצְאֽוֹ׃
[13] Cain said to the Lord, “My punishment is too great to bear!
[14] Since You have banished me this day from the soil, and I must avoid Your presence and become a restless wanderer on earth – anyone who meets me may kill me!”
[15] The Lord said to him, “I promise, if anyone kills Cain, sevenfold vengeance shall be taken on him.” And the Lord put a mark on Cain, lest anyone who met him should kill him.
[13] My punishment is too great to bear! ◊ We see no remorse yet. Cain seems not the least concerned about having murdered Abel, and does not admit of any wrongdoing. He only complains about the severity of the punishment. “I have been charged with exorbitant guilt (punishment) that is more than I can bear.”
[14] Since You have banished me this day from the soil, and I must avoid Your … anyone who meets me may kill me! ◊ Cain’s orientation is to the land and to ownership of land. In his perception, a person who has no land of his own is insignificant – he is nobody, and has no right to exist. Cain therefore sees exile as a punishment so severe that he cannot bear it.
Cain believes that a vagabond is of no importance to the Almighty, and is invisible in God’s presence. Thus, in his own estimation he is outside the law, and anyone can kill him with impunity. Cain’s attitude towards Abel is based on the same erroneous view of the “worthlessness of the wanderer.” But now that he experiences the fate of a wanderer, he must adjust his outlook.
[15] And the Lord put a mark on Cain, lest anyone who met him should kill him ◊ This “mark of Cain” is by no means the mark of a villain, but only a mark of protection. On the contrary, God acknowledges Cain’s complaint as well-founded, and gives him a distinguishing, protective symbol.
The word used here for the mark that God gave Cain is ot, usually translated as “sign”. But everywhere in the Torah that the word ot is used, it is not just an ordinary sign, but an indicator of the Divine presence. And in the current context too, God is giving Cain clear evidence that he has a mission, and it is therefore forbidden to kill him. This sign allows Cain (as well as his family and other people closest to him) to understand that being a wanderer who has no land of his own is not the same as being a non-person; on the contrary, such a person can be the carrier of a highly critical mission. The mark Cain receives from God is thus a part of his re-education.
Overall, this re-education was quite successful. An important part of Cain’s heritage has been preserved in humankind. Noah’s wife was a descendant of Cain, which means that Noah’s three sons – and thus all of humanity – carry within them a piece of Cain.
טז וַיֵּ֥צֵא קַ֖יִן מִלִּפְנֵ֣י י֑י וַיֵּ֥שֶׁב בְּאֶֽרֶץ־נ֖וֹד קִדְמַת־עֵֽדֶן׃ יז וַיֵּ֤דַע קַ֨יִן֙ אֶת־אִשְׁתּ֔וֹ וַתַּ֖הַר וַתֵּ֣לֶד אֶת־חֲנ֑וֹךְ וַֽיְהִי֙ בֹּ֣נֶה עִ֔יר וַיִּקְרָא֙ שֵׁ֣ם הָעִ֔יר כְּשֵׁ֖ם בְּנ֥וֹ חֲנֽוֹךְ׃ יח וַיִּוָּלֵ֤ד לַֽחֲנוֹךְ֙ אֶת־עִירָ֔ד וְעִירָ֕ד יָלַ֖ד אֶת־מְחֽוּיָאֵ֑ל וּמְחִיָּיאֵ֗ל יָלַד֙ אֶת־מְת֣וּשָׁאֵ֔ל וּמְתֽוּשָׁאֵ֖ל יָלַ֥ד אֶת־לָֽמֶךְ׃ יט וַיִּֽקַּֽח־ל֥וֹ לֶ֖מֶךְ שְׁתֵּ֣י נָשִׁ֑ים שֵׁ֤ם הָֽאַחַת֙ עָדָ֔ה וְשֵׁ֥ם הַשֵּׁנִ֖ית צִלָּֽה׃ כ וַתֵּ֥לֶד עָדָ֖ה אֶת־יָבָ֑ל ה֣וּא הָיָ֔ה אֲבִ֕י יֹשֵׁ֥ב אֹ֖הֶל וּמִקְנֶֽה׃ כא וְשֵׁ֥ם אָחִ֖יו יוּבָ֑ל ה֣וּא הָיָ֔ה אֲבִ֕י כָּל־תֹּפֵ֥שׂ כִּנּ֖וֹר וְעוּגָֽב׃ כב וְצִלָּ֣ה גַם־הִ֗וא יָֽלְדָה֙ אֶת־תּ֣וּבַל קַ֔יִן לֹטֵ֕שׁ כָּל־חֹרֵ֥שׁ נְחֹ֖שֶׁת וּבַרְזֶ֑ל וַֽאֲח֥וֹת תּֽוּבַל־קַ֖יִן נַֽעֲמָֽה׃ כג וַיֹּ֨אמֶר לֶ֜מֶךְ לְנָשָׁ֗יו עָדָ֤ה וְצִלָּה֙ שְׁמַ֣עַן קוֹלִ֔י נְשֵׁ֣י לֶ֔מֶךְ הַאְזֵ֖נָּה אִמְרָתִ֑י כִּ֣י אִ֤ישׁ הָרַ֨גְתִּי֙ לְפִצְעִ֔י וְיֶ֖לֶד לְחַבֻּֽרָתִֽי׃ כד כִּ֥י שִׁבְעָתַ֖יִם יֻקַּם־קָ֑יִן וְלֶ֖מֶךְ שִׁבְעִ֥ים וְשִׁבְעָֽה׃
[16] Cain left the presence of the Lord and settled
in the
[17] Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. And he then founded a city, and named the city after his son Enoch.
[18] To Enoch was born Irad, and Irad begot Mehujael, and Mehujael begot Methusael, and Methusael begot Lamech.
[19] Lamech took to himself two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other was Zillah.
[20] Adah bore Jabal; he was the ancestor of those who dwell in tents and amidst herds.
[21] And the name of his brother was Jubal; he was the ancestor of all who play the lyre and the pipe.
[22] As for Zillah, she bore Tubal-cain, who forged all implements of copper and iron. And the sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah.
[23] And Lamech said to his wives, “Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; o wives of Lamech, give ear to my speech. I have slain a man for wounding me, and a lad for bruising me.
[24] If Cain is avenged sevenfold, then Lamech seventy-sevenfold”.
[16] Cain left the presence of the Lord ◊ He accepted upon himself his Divine punishment, and assumed the fate of the wanderer Abel, the brother whom he had killed.
And settled in the
East of
[17] Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch ◊ “Knowing” and conceiving, and not only birth, are mentioned here again, because Cain and his family have now moved on to a new stage of how they understand life.
And bore Enoch ◊ In Hebrew, “Chanoch” originates from chinnuch, which means “education” or “renewal.” Although the first educational process under the leadership of Abel proved unsuccessful and led to murder, Cain learns to give life to others by becoming a father. That experience is a part of the process of Cain’s correction. Assimilating within himself some of Abel’s characteristics, Cain now realizes the importance of education.
And he then founded a city, and named the city after his son Enoch ◊ Having forfeited the opportunity to practice agriculture, Cain creates a city – a completely new form of social organization –in which innovation, not land, is the central reality. This corresponds also to the meaning of the term chinnuch.
[18] To Enoch was born Irad … Mehujael … Methusael … Lamech ... [20] Adah bore Jabal; he was the ancestor of those who dwell in tents and amidst herds. … Jubal; he was the ancestor of all who play the lyre and the pipe. [22] …Tubal-cain, who forged all implements of copper and iron ◊ After several generations of city life, the explosive development of the civilization of Cain’s descendants begins – in technology, economics, military affairs, and culture.
[20] … Jabal; he was the ancestor of those who dwell in tents and amidst herds. [21] … Jubal; he was the ancestor of all who play the lyre and the pipe ◊ We see that Cain’s descendants bear names phonetically similar to Abel’s, and also that they embrace the shepherding professions characteristic of Abel. This demonstrates that the civilization of Cain’s descendants was rooted in some of Abel’s ideas.
The Torah speaks here not just of simple shepherds, but of “the ancestor of those who dwell in tents and amidst herds.” This suggests industrial organization of livestock. Likewise, the Torah speaks here not just of simple musicians, but of “the ancestor of all who play the lyre and the pipe.” In other words, this is about the music industry. But at the same time, nothing is said about cultivating the land. This is a purely urban civilization that is wealthy and technologically advanced, and has developed within itself certain features of the murdered Abel.
[22] And the sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah. ◊ Literally, “pleasant.” It is a very positive name, and highlights the most positive aspects of the civilization of Cain’s descendants. The Midrash considers her Noah’s wife, which means that humanity will continue to reproduce and develop, synthesizing the descendants of Seth and the descendants of Cain (through Noah and his wife, respectively). This tells us that Cain has found correction and improvement in his descendants.
[19] Lamech took for himself two wives ◊ The fact that the Torah even mentions this tells us that Lamech was unusual in this regard. Ever since Adam and Eve, monogamous marriage was the accepted, dominant practice.
[23] And Lamech said to his wives, “Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; o wives of Lamech, give ear to my speech. I have slain a man for wounding me, and a lad for bruising me. [24] If Cain is avenged sevenfold, then Lamech seventy-sevenfold” ◊ The meaning of this “Song of Lamech” is quite unclear. The Midrash believes that Lamech here boasts of the murders committed by his ancestor Cain and Lamech’s son Tubal-cain. The civilization of the descendants of Cain, although it flourishes materially, also has a discernible spiritual crisis.
כה וַיֵּ֨דַע אָדָ֥ם עוֹד֙ אֶת־אִשְׁתּ֔וֹ וַתֵּ֣לֶד בֵּ֔ן וַתִּקְרָ֥א אֶת־שְׁמ֖וֹ שֵׁ֑ת כִּ֣י שָֽׁת־לִ֤י אֱלֹהִים֙ זֶ֣רַע אַחֵ֔ר תַּ֣חַת הֶ֔בֶל כִּ֥י הֲרָג֖וֹ קָֽיִן׃ כו וּלְשֵׁ֤ת גַּם־הוּא֙ יֻלַּד־בֵּ֔ן וַיִּקְרָ֥א אֶת־שְׁמ֖וֹ אֱנ֑וֹשׁ אָ֣ז הוּחַ֔ל לִקְרֹ֖א בְּשֵׁ֥ם יֽי׃
[25] Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and named him Seth, which means “God has provided me with another offspring in place of Abel,” for Cain had killed him.
[26] And to Seth, in turn, a son was born, and he named him Enosh. It was then that men began to invoke the Lord by name.
[25] Adam knew his wife again ◊ The birth of a new son, Seth, requires Adam to know his wife Eve on a new, enhanced level.
Seth ◊ Literally, “stability.” Another offspring in place of Abel, for Cain had killed him. Seth must perform the function of Abel, which is become a counterweight to Cain, but he must do it correctly. Abel was too ephemeral, too “airy.” A more stable Seth must become his replacement.
She bore a son and named him Seth ◊ About Cain the Torah (4:1) did not say, “she bore a son and named him Cain,” but, more directly, “she gave birth to Cain.” In other words, that birth, the very fact of bearing a child for the first time, was itself an “acquisition” for Eve – a change in her status.
And then (4:2) Abel was born, but only as “his brother Abel” – his calling is to serve as opposition to Cain.
Only Seth is born as a son, ben, which is closely related to the verb boneh (livnot, “to build”), for it is on him that the primary construction of further civilization rests.
[26] And to Seth, in turn, a son was born ◊ The further construction of civilization proceeds through the birth of sons, through generational change.
And he named him Enosh ◊ The name means, literally, “human” – precisely in the sense of human rather than Divine (but also “human” as opposed to animal).
Enosh also means “mortal.” Adam sensed that he was above all the creation of the Almighty’s hands, while Seth senses that he is the progenitor of the new human race, taking the place of Abel and Cain. Only at the level of Enosh does Seth’s awareness of himself as a mortal become a leading factor.
It was then that men began to invoke the Lord by name ◊ A person who is keenly aware that he is mortal and finite requires support from God, who is immortal and infinite. He then begins to “invoke the Lord’s name” when naming objects that he sees in the world around him. (He identifies those wordly objects with God.)
Although this suggests a deeply religious feeling, it also – as the Midrash tells us – marks the onset of idolatrous practices among mankind. Spiritual parameters play a central role in Seth’s civilization – unlike Cain’s civilization, which was thoroughly pragmatic.
א זֶ֣ה סֵ֔פֶר תּֽוֹלְדֹ֖ת אָדָ֑ם בְּי֗וֹם בְּרֹ֤א אֱלֹהִים֙ אָדָ֔ם בִּדְמ֥וּת אֱלֹהִ֖ים עָשָׂ֥ה אֹתֽוֹ׃ ב זָכָ֥ר וּנְקֵבָ֖ה בְּרָאָ֑ם וַיְבָ֣רֶךְ אֹתָ֗ם וַיִּקְרָ֤א אֶת־שְׁמָם֙ אָדָ֔ם בְּי֖וֹם הִבָּֽרְאָֽם׃ ג וַיְחִ֣י אָדָ֗ם שְׁלֹשִׁ֤ים וּמְאַת֙ שָׁנָ֔ה וַיּ֥וֹלֶד בִּדְמוּת֖וֹ כְּצַלְמ֑וֹ וַיִּקְרָ֥א אֶת־שְׁמ֖וֹ שֵֽׁת׃ ד וַיִּֽהְי֣וּ יְמֵֽי־אָדָ֗ם אַֽחֲרֵי֙ הֽוֹלִיד֣וֹ אֶת־שֵׁ֔ת שְׁמֹנֶ֥ה מֵאֹ֖ת שָׁנָ֑ה וַיּ֥וֹלֶד בָּנִ֖ים וּבָנֽוֹת׃ ה וַיִּֽהְי֞וּ כָּל־יְמֵ֤י אָדָם֙ אֲשֶׁר־חַ֔י תְּשַׁ֤ע מֵאוֹת֙ שָׁנָ֔ה וּשְׁלֹשִׁ֖ים שָׁנָ֑ה וַיָּמֹֽת׃ ו וַֽיְחִי־שֵׁ֕ת חָמֵ֥שׁ שָׁנִ֖ים וּמְאַ֣ת שָׁנָ֑ה וַיּ֖וֹלֶד אֶת־אֱנֽוֹשׁ׃ ז וַֽיְחִי־שֵׁ֗ת אַֽחֲרֵי֙ הֽוֹלִיד֣וֹ אֶת־אֱנ֔וֹשׁ שֶׁ֣בַע שָׁנִ֔ים וּשְׁמֹנֶ֥ה מֵא֖וֹת שָׁנָ֑ה וַיּ֥וֹלֶד בָּנִ֖ים וּבָנֽוֹת׃ ח וַיִּֽהְיוּ֙ כָּל־יְמֵי־שֵׁ֔ת שְׁתֵּ֤ים עֶשְׂרֵה֙ שָׁנָ֔ה וּתְשַׁ֥ע מֵא֖וֹת שָׁנָ֑ה וַיָּמֹֽת׃ ט וַיְחִ֥י אֱנ֖וֹשׁ תִּשְׁעִ֣ים שָׁנָ֑ה וַיּ֖וֹלֶד אֶת־קֵינָֽן׃ י וַיְחִ֣י אֱנ֗וֹשׁ אַֽחֲרֵי֙ הֽוֹלִיד֣וֹ אֶת־קֵינָ֔ן חֲמֵ֤שׁ עֶשְׂרֵה֙ שָׁנָ֔ה וּשְׁמֹנֶ֥ה מֵא֖וֹת שָׁנָ֑ה וַיּ֥וֹלֶד בָּנִ֖ים וּבָנֽוֹת׃ יא וַיִּֽהְיוּ֙ כָּל־יְמֵ֣י אֱנ֔וֹשׁ חָמֵ֣שׁ שָׁנִ֔ים וּתְשַׁ֥ע מֵא֖וֹת שָׁנָ֑ה וַיָּמֹֽת׃ יב וַיְחִ֥י קֵינָ֖ן שִׁבְעִ֣ים שָׁנָ֑ה וַיּ֖וֹלֶד אֶת־מַֽהֲלַלְאֵֽל׃ יג וַיְחִ֣י קֵינָ֗ן אַֽחֲרֵי֙ הֽוֹלִיד֣וֹ אֶת־מַֽהֲלַלְאֵ֔ל אַרְבָּעִ֣ים שָׁנָ֔ה וּשְׁמֹנֶ֥ה מֵא֖וֹת שָׁנָ֑ה וַיּ֥וֹלֶד בָּנִ֖ים וּבָנֽוֹת׃ יד וַיִּֽהְיוּ֙ כָּל־יְמֵ֣י קֵינָ֔ן עֶ֣שֶׂר שָׁנִ֔ים וּתְשַׁ֥ע מֵא֖וֹת שָׁנָ֑ה וַיָּמֹֽת׃ טו וַיְחִ֣י מַֽהֲלַלְאֵ֔ל חָמֵ֥שׁ שָׁנִ֖ים וְשִׁשִּׁ֣ים שָׁנָ֑ה וַיּ֖וֹלֶד אֶת־יָֽרֶד׃ טז וַיְחִ֣י מַֽהֲלַלְאֵ֗ל אַֽחֲרֵי֙ הֽוֹלִיד֣וֹ אֶת־יֶ֔רֶד שְׁלֹשִׁ֣ים שָׁנָ֔ה וּשְׁמֹנֶ֥ה מֵא֖וֹת שָׁנָ֑ה וַיּ֥וֹלֶד בָּנִ֖ים וּבָנֽוֹת׃ יז וַיִּֽהְיוּ֙ כָּל־יְמֵ֣י מַֽהֲלַלְאֵ֔ל חָמֵ֤שׁ וְתִשְׁעִים֙ שָׁנָ֔ה וּשְׁמֹנֶ֥ה מֵא֖וֹת שָׁנָ֑ה וַיָּמֹֽת׃ יח וַֽיְחִי־יֶ֕רֶד שְׁתַּ֧יִם וְשִׁשִּׁ֛ים שָׁנָ֖ה וּמְאַ֣ת שָׁנָ֑ה וַיּ֖וֹלֶד אֶת־חֲנֽוֹךְ׃ יט וַֽיְחִי־יֶ֗רֶד אַֽחֲרֵי֙ הֽוֹלִיד֣וֹ אֶת־חֲנ֔וֹךְ שְׁמֹנֶ֥ה מֵא֖וֹת שָׁנָ֑ה וַיּ֥וֹלֶד בָּנִ֖ים וּבָנֽוֹת׃ כ וַיִּֽהְיוּ֙ כָּל־יְמֵי־יֶ֔רֶד שְׁתַּ֤יִם וְשִׁשִּׁים֙ שָׁנָ֔ה וּתְשַׁ֥ע מֵא֖וֹת שָׁנָ֑ה וַיָּמֹֽת׃ כא וַיְחִ֣י חֲנ֔וֹךְ חָמֵ֥שׁ וְשִׁשִּׁ֖ים שָׁנָ֑ה וַיּ֖וֹלֶד אֶת־מְתוּשָֽׁלַח׃ כב וַיִּתְהַלֵּ֨ךְ חֲנ֜וֹךְ אֶת־הָֽאֱלֹהִ֗ים אַֽחֲרֵי֙ הֽוֹלִיד֣וֹ אֶת־מְתוּשֶׁ֔לַח שְׁלֹ֥שׁ מֵא֖וֹת שָׁנָ֑ה וַיּ֥וֹלֶד בָּנִ֖ים וּבָנֽוֹת׃ כג וַיְהִ֖י כָּל־יְמֵ֣י חֲנ֑וֹךְ חָמֵ֤שׁ וְשִׁשִּׁים֙ שָׁנָ֔ה וּשְׁלֹ֥שׁ מֵא֖וֹת שָׁנָֽה׃ כד וַיִּתְהַלֵּ֥ךְ חֲנ֖וֹךְ אֶת־הָֽאֱלֹהִ֑ים וְאֵינֶ֕נּוּ כִּֽי־לָקַ֥ח אֹת֖וֹ אֱלֹהִֽים׃ כה וַיְחִ֣י מְתוּשֶׁ֔לַח שֶׁ֧בַע וּשְׁמֹנִ֛ים שָׁנָ֖ה וּמְאַ֣ת שָׁנָ֑ה וַיּ֖וֹלֶד אֶת־לָֽמֶךְ׃ כו וַיְחִ֣י מְתוּשֶׁ֗לַח אַֽחֲרֵי֙ הֽוֹלִיד֣וֹ אֶת־לֶ֔מֶךְ שְׁתַּ֤יִם וּשְׁמוֹנִים֙ שָׁנָ֔ה וּשְׁבַ֥ע מֵא֖וֹת שָׁנָ֑ה וַיּ֥וֹלֶד בָּנִ֖ים וּבָנֽוֹת׃ כז וַיִּֽהְיוּ֙ כָּל־יְמֵ֣י מְתוּשֶׁ֔לַח תֵּ֤שַׁע וְשִׁשִּׁים֙ שָׁנָ֔ה וּתְשַׁ֥ע מֵא֖וֹת שָׁנָ֑ה וַיָּמֹֽת׃ כח וַֽיְחִי־לֶ֕מֶךְ שְׁתַּ֧יִם וּשְׁמֹנִ֛ים שָׁנָ֖ה וּמְאַ֣ת שָׁנָ֑ה וַיּ֖וֹלֶד בֵּֽן׃ כט וַיִּקְרָ֧א אֶת־שְׁמ֛וֹ נֹ֖חַ לֵאמֹ֑ר זֶ֠֞ה יְנַֽחֲמֵ֤נוּ מִֽמַּעֲשֵׂ֨נוּ֙ וּמֵֽעִצְּב֣וֹן יָדֵ֔ינוּ מִן־הָ֣אֲדָמָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר אֵֽרְרָ֖הּ יֽי׃ ל וַֽיְחִי־לֶ֗מֶךְ אַֽחֲרֵי֙ הֽוֹלִיד֣וֹ אֶת־נֹ֔חַ חָמֵ֤שׁ וְתִשְׁעִים֙ שָׁנָ֔ה וַֽחֲמֵ֥שׁ מֵאֹ֖ת שָׁנָ֑ה וַיּ֥וֹלֶד בָּנִ֖ים וּבָנֽוֹת׃ לא וַֽיְהִי֙ כָּל־יְמֵי־לֶ֔מֶךְ שֶׁ֤בַע וְשִׁבְעִים֙ שָׁנָ֔ה וּשְׁבַ֥ע מֵא֖וֹת שָׁנָ֑ה וַיָּמֹֽת׃ לב וַֽיְהִי־נֹ֕חַ בֶּן־חֲמֵ֥שׁ מֵא֖וֹת שָׁנָ֑ה וַיּ֣וֹלֶד נֹ֔חַ אֶת־שֵׁ֖ם אֶת־חָ֥ם וְאֶת־יָֽפֶת׃
[1] This is the record of Adam’s line. When God created man, He made him in the likeness of God;
[2] Male and female He created them. And when they
were created, He blessed them and called them
[3] When Adam had lived 130 years, he begot a son in his likeness after his image, and he named him Seth.
[4] After the birth of Seth, Adam lived 800 years and begot sons and daughters.
[5] All the days that Adam lived came to 930 years; then he died.
[6] When Seth had lived 105 years, he begot Enosh.
[7] After the birth of Enosh, Seth lived 807 years and begot sons and daughters.
[8] All the days of Seth came to 912 years; then he died.
[9] When Enosh had lived 90 years, he begot Kenan.
[10] After the birth of Kenan, Enosh lived 815 years and begot sons and daughters.
[11] All the days of Enosh came to 905 years; then he died.
[12] When Kenan had lived 70 years, he begot Mahalalel.
[13] After the birth of Mahalalel, Kenan lived 840 years and begot sons and daughters. [14] All the days of Kenan came to 910 years; then he died.
[15] When Mahalalel had lived 65 years, he begot Jared.
[16] After the birth of Jared, Mahalalel lived 830 years and begot sons and daughters.
[17] All the days of Mahalalel came to 895 years; then he died.
[18] When Jared had lived 162 years, he begot Enoch.
[19] After the birth of Enoch, Jared lived 800 years and begot sons and daughters.
[20] All the days of Jared came to 962 years; then he died.
[21] When Enoch had lived 65 years, he begot Methuselah.
[22] After the birth of Methuselah, Enoch walked with God 300 years; and he begot sons and daughters.
[23] All the days of Enoch came to 365 years.
[24] Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, for God took him.
[25] When Methuselah had lived 187 years, he begot Lamech.
[26] After the birth of Lamech, Methuselah lived 782 years and begot sons and daughters.
[27] All the days of Methuselah came to 969 years; then he died.
[28] When Lamech had lived 182 years, he begot a son.
[29] And he named him Noah, saying, “This one will provide us relief from our work and from the toil of our hands, out of the very soil which the Lord placed under a curse”.
[30] After the birth of Noah, Lamech lived 595 years and begot sons and daughters.
[31] All the days of Lamech came to 777 years; then he died.
[32] When Noah had lived 500 years, Noah begot Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
[1] This is the record of Adam’s line ◊ Literally “This is the book of the generations of Adam”. There is an obvious parallel here to the verse, “Such is the story (literally “generations”) of heaven and earth when they were created” (2:4), which introduced the history of the development of the world immediately after the Creation. Likewise, here begins a new characterization of the history of mankind.
Record ◊ The Hebrew word is toledot, “generations”, one of the most important concepts in the Torah. It can refer either to a given person’s origin (his ancestry) or to his posterity – his descendants as well as his accomplishments. The concept of toledot positions man as a link in the chain of generations, orienting him to be responsible not only for himself, but also for the entire chain –the segment of the chain that he has inherited, and also the part that he has produced (or will produce).
The record of Adam’s line ◊ Unlike in nature, where the birth of new generations is the central concept, for mankind reflection is equally important – thinking about one’s chosen path, and comparing the present to the past as a means of evaluating progress. Therefore, what is most significant for any individual is not just the creation of his line, but the “record” of that line.
The Talmud, in discussing the question of “which is the most important verse in the Torah?”, suggests two candidates: “Love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.” (Leviticus 19:18), and our verse here, “This is the record of Adam’s line.” The development of civilization as a result of the change of generations is an essential element of the Torah’s Divine teachings, for only through this process can a person advance spiritually and come closer to God.
[2] Male and female He created them … He blessed them and called them Man ◊ “He called them”; that is, them both and not just one of them. Only through their union do a man and a woman become fully human.
[1] This is the record of Adam’s line … He made him in the likeness of God … Adam begot a son in His likeness after His image, and he named him Seth ◊ The starting point for Seth’s civilization (unlike the descendants of Cain’s civilization) is man’s likeness to God as an idea to be transmitted to subsequent generations – the idea of perceiving the world as “the record of the birth of mankind, who were created in God’s likeness.”
[9] When Enosh had lived 90 years, he begot Kenan ◊ The name “Kenan” is very similar to “Cain” (in the Hebrew, only the last letter of “Cain” needs to be repeated to form “Kenan”). Namely, Kenan carries some of Cain’s features. A convergence is taking place here: Cain’s civilization assimilates some of Abel’s features, and Seth’s civilization incorporates the positive elements of Cain’s culture.
[24] Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, for God took him ◊ The most essential value of Seth’s civilization is its communication with God.
[28] When Lamech had lived 182 years, he begot a son. [29] And he named him Noah, saying, “This one will provide us relief from our work and from the toil of our hands, out of the very soil which the Lord placed under a curse” ◊ This verse clearly connects the name Noah with the idea of nachem, “to comfort.” This concept is critical to understanding the entire story of the Flood, which begins very soon.
But the connection between Noah and nachem is only partial (only the first two of the three letters of the root nachem appear in “Noah”). Had Lamech meant to emphasize this connection, he should probably have named his son “Nechamah” (consolation) or “Menachem” (consoler). But the name “Noah” carries the additional meaning of “lightness” or “simplicity.” This idea is crucial for understanding the story of the Flood, and for “providing relief from the toil of our hands upon the soil which the Lord has cursed.” We shall discuss this in more detail below.
א וַֽיְהִי֙ כִּֽי־הֵחֵ֣ל הָֽאָדָ֔ם לָרֹ֖ב עַל־פְּנֵ֣י הָֽאֲדָמָ֑ה וּבָנ֖וֹת יֻלְּד֥וּ לָהֶֽם׃ ב וַיִּרְא֤וּ בְנֵי־הָֽאֱלֹהִים֙ אֶת־בְּנ֣וֹת הָֽאָדָ֔ם כִּ֥י טֹבֹ֖ת הֵ֑נָּה וַיִּקְח֤וּ לָהֶם֙ נָשִׁ֔ים מִכֹּ֖ל אֲשֶׁ֥ר בָּחָֽרוּ׃ ג וַיֹּ֣אמֶר י֗י לֹֽא־יָד֨וֹן רוּחִ֤י בָֽאָדָם֙ לְעֹלָ֔ם בְּשַׁגַּ֖ם ה֣וּא בָשָׂ֑ר וְהָי֣וּ יָמָ֔יו מֵאָ֥ה וְעֶשְׂרִ֖ים שָׁנָֽה׃ ד הַנְּפִלִ֞ים הָי֣וּ בָאָרֶץ֮ בַּיָּמִ֣ים הָהֵם֒ וְגַ֣ם אַֽחֲרֵי־כֵ֗ן אֲשֶׁ֨ר יָבֹ֜אוּ בְּנֵ֤י הָֽאֱלֹהִים֙ אֶל־בְּנ֣וֹת הָֽאָדָ֔ם וְיָֽלְד֖וּ לָהֶ֑ם הֵ֧מָּה הַגִּבֹּרִ֛ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר מֵֽעוֹלָ֖ם אַנְשֵׁ֥י הַשֵּֽׁם׃ ה וַיַּ֣רְא י֔י כִּ֥י רַבָּ֛ה רָעַ֥ת הָֽאָדָ֖ם בָּאָ֑רֶץ וְכָל־יֵ֨צֶר֙ מַחְשְׁבֹ֣ת לִבּ֔וֹ רַ֥ק רַ֖ע כָּל־הַיּֽוֹם׃ ו וַיִּנָּ֣חֶם י֔י כִּֽי־עָשָׂ֥ה אֶת־הָֽאָדָ֖ם בָּאָ֑רֶץ וַיִּתְעַצֵּ֖ב אֶל־לִבּֽוֹ׃ ז וַיֹּ֣אמֶר י֗י אֶמְחֶ֨ה אֶת־הָֽאָדָ֤ם אֲשֶׁר־בָּרָ֨אתִי֙ מֵעַל֙ פְּנֵ֣י הָֽאֲדָמָ֔ה מֵֽאָדָם֙ עַד־בְּהֵמָ֔ה עַד־רֶ֖מֶשׂ וְעַד־ע֣וֹף הַשָּׁמָ֑יִם כִּ֥י נִחַ֖מְתִּי כִּ֥י עֲשִׂיתִֽם׃ ח וְנֹ֕חַ מָ֥צָא חֵ֖ן בְּעֵינֵ֥י יֽי׃
[1] When men began to increase on earth and daughters were born to them,
[2] The sons of the powerful saw how beautiful the daughters of men were and took wives from among those that pleased them.
[3] The Lord said, “My breath shall not abide in man forever, since he too is flesh; let the days allowed him be one hundred and twenty years.”
[4] It was then, and later too, that the Nephilim appeared on earth – when the sons of the powerful cohabited with the daughters of men, who bore them offspring. They were the heroes of old, the men of renown.
[5] The Lord saw how great man’s wickedness was on earth, and how every plan devised by his mind was nothing but evil all the time.
[6] And the Lord regretted that He had made man on earth, and His heart was saddened.
[7] The Lord said, “I will blot out from the earth the men whom I created – men together with beasts, creeping things, and birds of the sky; for I regret that I made them”.
[8] But Noah found favor with the Lord.
[1] When men began to increase on earth ◊ As the result of its numerical increase, mankind is moving away from the family structure and moving on to organization of society on a larger scale.
And daughters were born to them ◊ Needless to say, daughters had been born all along. What is meant is that some of those daughters now acquired a new and special social status, which led also to attendant social conflicts concerning them.
[2] The sons of the powerful saw how beautiful the daughters of men were and took wives from among those that pleased them ◊ This verse speaks of the moral crisis leading up to the Flood, but its exact interpretation is unclear, and there are several ways of understanding it.
In the original Hebrew of the text, “sons of the powerful” is benei ha-elohim, “sons of Elohim.” Since the word elohim can refer either to God or to humans of elevated social status (such as rulers or judges; see Exodus 4:16, 7:1, 21:6), just who were these “sons of elohim”? Whose sons were they, actually?
Several interpretations of the term “sons of elohim” have been suggested, as follows:
I. The benei ha-elohim are the “sons of distinguished, noble people,” and the benot ha-adam, the “daughters of men” whom they married are girls from the common people. The crime of the sons of the nobility was that they took daughters “from among those that pleased them”, that is, by force, without seeking the consent of the girls themselves.
II. These benei ha-elohim, “the sons of God,” were the descendants of Seth. They are called “the sons of God” because the understanding of the Divine among mankind was preserved in Seth’s descendants. In this case the benot ha-adam, “daughters of men,” are daughters of the descendants of Cain, and the crime of Seth’s sons is that they were so attracted to the girls’ physical beauty (they “saw how beautiful the daughters of men were”) that they allowed their children to intermarry with Cain’s descendants. The result was that the children born from these unions adopted Cain’s culture, and were educated in improper elements of human behavior. Thus there no longer remained any hope for the salvation of mankind.
III. The Midrash suggests a third interpretation. The “sons of God” are angels who descended to earth as emissaries of the Almighty. But instead of fulfilling the task that God had assigned to them, those angels took to marrying human women. (It is important to understand that such Midrashim are not to be taken literally.)
[3] The Lord said, “My breath shall not abide in man forever, since he too is flesh; let the days allowed him be one hundred and twenty years” ◊ These words can be understood in two ways: (a) God is setting a limit on human life expectancy. Henceforth no human can live longer than 120 years. Or (b) God is establishing an interval of 120 years for humanity to repent and correct itself. If they fail to do so, they will then be destroyed by the Flood.
[4] It was then, and later too, that the Nephilim appeared on earth–when the sons of the powerful cohabited with the daughters of men, who bore them offspring. They were the heroes of old, the men of renown ◊ After God set a limit of 120 years for mankind, the Torah further tells us about the birth of these “giants,” but it is not clear from the text whether this was a positive circumstance or a negative one.
Grammatically, the word Nephilim can be understood in two ways:
I. As “giants,” or “greats,” referring to Shem, Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah. (Since their mother Naamah came from Cain’s descendants, this marriage was also a situation of “the divine beings cohabited with the daughters of men.”) Until Noah’s three sons grew up and became independent, the Flood could not happen, because there would have been no one from whom to recreate humankind anew. God therefore allocated 120 years for their birth and maturation.
II. As “the fallen” − who themselves fell and also caused the world’s downfall, because the world disintegrates when high-ranking officials neglect their duties and oppress ordinary people.
[5] The Lord saw how great was man’s wickedness on earth, and how every plan devised by his mind was nothing but evil all the time. [6] And the Lord regretted that He had made man on earth, and His heart was saddened. [7] The Lord said, “I will blot out from the earth the men whom I created – men together with beasts, creeping things, and birds of the sky; for I regret that I made them” ◊ God has now finally made His decision concerning the Flood.
The word nachem, “to regret,” used twice in this passage, is the very same word as nachem, “to console,” used by Lamech above (5:29) in naming his son Noah. We will have more to say about this concept a little later.
[8] But Noah found favor with the Lord ◊ “Noah found favor” means that on his actual merits alone Noah did not deserve to be spared in the flood.
Noah is the second weekly portion of the Torah, and also the second portion having a thoroughly universal (i.e., not specifically Jewish) character. It presents a view of humanity as consisting of nations, and not merely individuals. Although toledot, “posterity” (see 5:1), is the first significant word of this portion, the name of the portion is “Noah,” not “Toledot.” This is because each of the Torah’s weekly portions takes its name not from its first word, or even its first significant word, but from one of its first several words that best represents the entire weekly portion.
After providing a general overview of the story of the Flood with only minimal remarks, we will then try to gain a better understanding by delving more deeply into the story.
ט אֵ֚לֶּה תּֽוֹלְדֹ֣ת נֹ֔חַ נֹ֗חַ אִ֥ישׁ צַדִּ֛יק תָּמִ֥ים הָיָ֖ה בְּדֹֽרֹתָ֑יו אֶת־הָֽאֱלֹהִ֖ים הִֽתְהַלֶּךְ־נֹֽחַ׃ י וַיּ֥וֹלֶד נֹ֖חַ שְׁלֹשָׁ֣ה בָנִ֑ים אֶת־שֵׁ֖ם אֶת־חָ֥ם וְאֶת־יָֽפֶת׃ יא וַתִּשָּׁחֵ֥ת הָאָ֖רֶץ לִפְנֵ֣י הָֽאֱלֹהִ֑ים וַתִּמָּלֵ֥א הָאָ֖רֶץ חָמָֽס׃ יב וַיַּ֧רְא אֱלֹהִ֛ים אֶת־הָאָ֖רֶץ וְהִנֵּ֣ה נִשְׁחָ֑תָה כִּֽי־הִשְׁחִ֧ית כָּל־בָּשָׂ֛ר אֶת־דַּרְכּ֖וֹ עַל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃ יג וַיֹּ֨אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֜ים לְנֹ֗חַ קֵ֤ץ כָּל־בָּשָׂר֙ בָּ֣א לְפָנַ֔י כִּֽי־מָלְאָ֥ה הָאָ֛רֶץ חָמָ֖ס מִפְּנֵיהֶ֑ם וְהִנְנִ֥י מַשְׁחִיתָ֖ם אֶת־הָאָֽרֶץ׃ יד עֲשֵׂ֤ה לְךָ֙ תֵּבַ֣ת עֲצֵי־גֹ֔פֶר קִנִּ֖ים תַּֽעֲשֶׂ֣ה אֶת־הַתֵּבָ֑ה וְכָֽפַרְתָּ֥ אֹתָ֛הּ מִבַּ֥יִת וּמִח֖וּץ בַּכֹּֽפֶר׃ טו וְזֶ֕ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר תַּֽעֲשֶׂ֖ה אֹתָ֑הּ שְׁלֹ֧שׁ מֵא֣וֹת אַמָּ֗ה אֹ֚רֶךְ הַתֵּבָ֔ה חֲמִשִּׁ֤ים אַמָּה֙ רָחְבָּ֔הּ וּשְׁלֹשִׁ֥ים אַמָּ֖ה קֽוֹמָתָֽהּ׃ טז צֹ֣הַר ׀ תַּֽעֲשֶׂ֣ה לַתֵּבָ֗ה וְאֶל־אַמָּה֙ תְּכַלֶּ֣נָּה מִלְמַ֔עְלָה וּפֶ֥תַח הַתֵּבָ֖ה בְּצִדָּ֣הּ תָּשִׂ֑ים תַּחְתִּיִּ֛ם שְׁנִיִּ֥ם וּשְׁלִשִׁ֖ים תַּֽעֲשֶֽׂהָ׃ יז וַֽאֲנִ֗י הִנְנִי֩ מֵבִ֨יא אֶת־הַמַּבּ֥וּל מַ֨יִם֙ עַל־הָאָ֔רֶץ לְשַׁחֵ֣ת כָּל־בָּשָׂ֗ר אֲשֶׁר־בּוֹ֙ ר֣וּחַ חַיִּ֔ים מִתַּ֖חַת הַשָּׁמָ֑יִם כֹּ֥ל אֲשֶׁר־בָּאָ֖רֶץ יִגְוָֽע׃ יח וַהֲקִֽמֹתִ֥י אֶת־בְּרִיתִ֖י אִתָּ֑ךְ וּבָאתָ֙ אֶל־הַתֵּבָ֔ה אַתָּ֕ה וּבָנֶ֛יךָ וְאִשְׁתְּךָ֥ וּנְשֵֽׁי־בָנֶ֖יךָ אִתָּֽךְ׃ יט וּמִכָּל־הָ֠חַי מִֽכָּל־בָּשָׂ֞ר שְׁנַ֧יִם מִכֹּ֛ל תָּבִ֥יא אֶל־הַתֵּבָ֖ה לְהַֽחֲיֹ֣ת אִתָּ֑ךְ זָכָ֥ר וּנְקֵבָ֖ה יִֽהְיֽוּ׃ כ מֵֽהָע֣וֹף לְמִינֵ֗הוּ וּמִן־הַבְּהֵמָה֙ לְמִינָ֔הּ מִכֹּ֛ל רֶ֥מֶשׂ הָֽאֲדָמָ֖ה לְמִינֵ֑הוּ שְׁנַ֧יִם מִכֹּ֛ל יָבֹ֥אוּ אֵלֶ֖יךָ לְהַֽחֲיֽוֹת׃ כא וְאַתָּ֣ה קַח־לְךָ֗ מִכָּל־מַֽאֲכָל֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר יֵֽאָכֵ֔ל וְאָֽסַפְתָּ֖ אֵלֶ֑יךָ וְהָיָ֥ה לְךָ֛ וְלָהֶ֖ם לְאָכְלָֽה׃ כב וַיַּ֖עַשׂ נֹ֑חַ כְּ֠כֹל אֲשֶׁ֨ר צִוָּ֥ה אֹת֛וֹ אֱלֹהִ֖ים כֵּ֥ן עָשָֽׂה׃
[9] This is the line of Noah. Noah was a righteous man; he was blameless in his age; Noah walked with God.
[10] Noah begot three sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
[11] The earth became corrupt before God; the earth was filled with lawlessness.
[12] When God saw how corrupt the earth was, for all flesh had corrupted its ways on earth,
[13] God said to Noah, “I have decided to put an end to all flesh, for the earth is filled with lawlessness because of them: I am about to destroy them with the earth.
[14] Make yourself an ark of gopher wood; make it an ark with compartments, and cover it inside and out with pitch.
[15] This is how you shall make it: the length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, its width fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits.
[16] Make an opening for daylight in the ark, and terminate it within a cubit of the top. Put the entrance to the ark in its side; make it with bottom, second, and third decks.
[17] “For My part, I am about to bring the Flood-waters upon the earth – to destroy all flesh under the sky in which there is breath of life; everything on earth shall perish.
[18] But I will establish My covenant with you, and you shall enter the ark, with your sons, your wife, and your sons’ wives.
[19] And of all that lives, of all flesh, you shall take two of each into the ark to keep alive with you; they shall be male and female.
[20] From birds of every kind, cattle of every kind, every kind of creeping thing on earth, two of each shall come to you to stay alive.
[21] For your part, take of everything that is eaten and store it away, to serve as food for you and for them”.
[22] Noah did so; just as God commanded him, so he did.
[9] This is the line of Noah. Noah was a righteous man ◊ After the word toledot, “offspring,” a list of descendants would usually appear. Noah, above all, “gave birth to” his own righteousness. This can be understood both in a positive sense, in that he was “a very righteous person,” and as a criticism: Noah was focused on himself and on his own righteousness. Other people were not important to him.
He was blameless in his age ◊ This is a limiting characteristic. Yes, Noah was blameless, but only within his own age.
Noah walked with God ◊ This turn of phrase can be understood two ways:
(1) Noah walked with God, but not with people. He cared about his own righteousness, not about his fellow humans.
(2) Noah walked with God – with God, rather
than before God; that is, he did what he was told,
but made no effort to “walk before (i.e., ahead of)
God” as Abraham did (17:1, see commentary there). Abraham takes issue with God
and argues with Him about the destruction of the city of
[10] Noah begot three
sons ◊ Shem, Ham, and Japheth ◊ From the perspective of the Torah three
races will be born from those three sons: the Japhetic peoples of the white
race inhabiting Europe; the Semites of the yellow race inhabiting Asia; and the
Hamites of the black race inhabiting
[11] The earth became corrupt before God; the earth was filled with lawlessness. [12] When God saw how corrupt the earth was, for all flesh had corrupted its ways on earth, [13] God said to Noah, “I have decided to put an end to all flesh, for the earth is filled with lawlessness because of them.” ◊ Here several times the Torah identifies the two primary sins that led to the Flood: corruption (“all flesh had corrupted its ways on earth” in relation to the Almighty) and evildoing (perversion of every man’s behavior toward his fellow man). We will examine this issue in greater detail below.
[17] I am about to bring the Flood – waters upon the earth ◊ Adding the words “waters upon the earth” is necessary in order to indicate that the essential meaning of the Flood was not in the flood itself, but in “obliterating the final structure.” Later we will cover this point in greater detail.
[18] And you shall enter the ark, with your sons, your wife, and your sons’ wives ◊ The men and the women are mentioned separately. In the ark they remain apart, for intimacy is forbidden to them.
[22] Noah did so; just as God commanded him, so he did ◊ Noah executes orders precisely. He asks no questions, and does not object.
א וַיֹּ֤אמֶר יי֙ לְנֹ֔חַ בֹּֽא־אַתָּ֥ה וְכָל־בֵּֽיתְךָ֖ אֶל־הַתֵּבָ֑ה כִּֽי־אֹתְךָ֥ רָאִ֛יתִי צַדִּ֥יק לְפָנַ֖י בַּדּ֥וֹר הַזֶּֽה׃ ב מִכֹּ֣ל ׀ הַבְּהֵמָ֣ה הַטְּהוֹרָ֗ה תִּֽקַּח־לְךָ֛ שִׁבְעָ֥ה שִׁבְעָ֖ה אִ֣ישׁ וְאִשְׁתּ֑וֹ וּמִן־הַבְּהֵמָ֡ה אֲ֠שֶׁר לֹ֣א טְהֹרָ֥ה הִ֛וא שְׁנַ֖יִם אִ֥ישׁ וְאִשְׁתּֽוֹ׃ ג גַּ֣ם מֵע֧וֹף הַשָּׁמַ֛יִם שִׁבְעָ֥ה שִׁבְעָ֖ה זָכָ֣ר וּנְקֵבָ֑ה לְחַיּ֥וֹת זֶ֖רַע עַל־פְּנֵ֥י כָל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃ ד כִּי֩ לְיָמִ֨ים ע֜וֹד שִׁבְעָ֗ה אָֽנֹכִי֙ מַמְטִ֣יר עַל־הָאָ֔רֶץ אַרְבָּעִ֣ים י֔וֹם וְאַרְבָּעִ֖ים לָ֑יְלָה וּמָחִ֗יתִי אֶֽת־כָּל־הַיְקוּם֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר עָשִׂ֔יתִי מֵעַ֖ל פְּנֵ֥י הָֽאֲדָמָֽה׃ ה וַיַּ֖עַשׂ נֹ֑חַ כְּכֹ֥ל אֲשֶׁר־צִוָּ֖הוּ יֽי׃ ו וְנֹ֕חַ בֶּן־שֵׁ֥שׁ מֵא֖וֹת שָׁנָ֑ה וְהַמַּבּ֣וּל הָיָ֔ה מַ֖יִם עַל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃ ז וַיָּ֣בֹא נֹ֗חַ וּ֠בָנָיו וְאִשְׁתּ֧וֹ וּנְשֵֽׁי־בָנָ֛יו אִתּ֖וֹ אֶל־הַתֵּבָ֑ה מִפְּנֵ֖י מֵ֥י הַמַּבּֽוּל׃ ח מִן־הַבְּהֵמָה֙ הַטְּהוֹרָ֔ה וּמִ֨ן־הַבְּהֵמָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר אֵינֶ֖נָּה טְהֹרָ֑ה וּמִ֨ן־הָע֔וֹף וְכֹ֥ל אֲשֶׁר־רֹמֵ֖שׂ עַל־הָֽאֲדָמָֽה׃ ט שְׁנַ֨יִם שְׁנַ֜יִם בָּ֧אוּ אֶל־נֹ֛חַ אֶל־הַתֵּבָ֖ה זָכָ֣ר וּנְקֵבָ֑ה כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֛ר צִוָּ֥ה אֱלֹהִ֖ים אֶת־נֹֽחַ׃ י וַיְהִ֖י לְשִׁבְעַ֣ת הַיָּמִ֑ים וּמֵ֣י הַמַּבּ֔וּל הָי֖וּ עַל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃ יא בִּשְׁנַ֨ת שֵׁשׁ־מֵא֤וֹת שָׁנָה֙ לְחַיֵּי־נֹ֔חַ בַּחֹ֨דֶשׁ֙ הַשֵּׁנִ֔י בְּשִׁבְעָֽה־עָשָׂ֥ר י֖וֹם לַחֹ֑דֶשׁ בַּיּ֣וֹם הַזֶּ֗ה נִבְקְעוּ֙ כָּֽל־מַעְיְנֹת֙ תְּה֣וֹם רַבָּ֔ה וַֽאֲרֻבֹּ֥ת הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם נִפְתָּֽחוּ׃ יב וַיְהִ֥י הַגֶּ֖שֶׁם עַל־הָאָ֑רֶץ אַרְבָּעִ֣ים י֔וֹם וְאַרְבָּעִ֖ים לָֽיְלָה׃ יג בְּעֶ֨צֶם הַיּ֤וֹם הַזֶּה֙ בָּ֣א נֹ֔חַ וְשֵׁם־וְחָ֥ם וָיֶ֖פֶת בְּנֵי־נֹ֑חַ וְאֵ֣שֶׁת נֹ֗חַ וּשְׁלֹ֧שֶׁת נְשֵֽׁי־בָנָ֛יו אִתָּ֖ם אֶל־הַתֵּבָֽה׃ יד הֵ֜מָּה וְכָל־הַֽחַיָּ֣ה לְמִינָ֗הּ וְכָל־הַבְּהֵמָה֙ לְמִינָ֔הּ וְכָל־הָרֶ֛מֶשׂ הָֽרֹמֵ֥שׂ עַל־הָאָ֖רֶץ לְמִינֵ֑הוּ וְכָל־הָע֣וֹף לְמִינֵ֔הוּ כֹּ֖ל צִפּ֥וֹר כָּל־כָּנָֽף׃ טו וַיָּבֹ֥אוּ אֶל־נֹ֖חַ אֶל־הַתֵּבָ֑ה שְׁנַ֤יִם שְׁנַ֨יִם֙ מִכָּל־הַבָּשָׂ֔ר אֲשֶׁר־בּ֖וֹ ר֥וּחַ חַיִּֽים׃ טז וְהַבָּאִ֗ים זָכָ֨ר וּנְקֵבָ֤ה מִכָּל־בָּשָׂר֙ בָּ֔אוּ כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֛ר צִוָּ֥ה אֹת֖וֹ אֱלֹהִ֑ים וַיִּסְגֹּ֥ר י֖י בַּֽעֲדֽוֹ׃ יז וַיְהִ֧י הַמַּבּ֛וּל אַרְבָּעִ֥ים י֖וֹם עַל־הָאָ֑רֶץ וַיִּרְבּ֣וּ הַמַּ֗יִם וַיִּשְׂאוּ֙ אֶת־הַתֵּבָ֔ה וַתָּ֖רָם מֵעַ֥ל הָאָֽרֶץ׃ יח וַיִּגְבְּר֥וּ הַמַּ֛יִם וַיִּרְבּ֥וּ מְאֹ֖ד עַל־הָאָ֑רֶץ וַתֵּ֥לֶךְ הַתֵּבָ֖ה עַל־פְּנֵ֥י הַמָּֽיִם׃ יט וְהַמַּ֗יִם גָּ֥בְר֛וּ מְאֹ֥ד מְאֹ֖ד עַל־הָאָ֑רֶץ וַיְכֻסּ֗וּ כָּל־הֶֽהָרִים֙ הַגְּבֹהִ֔ים אֲשֶׁר־תַּ֖חַת כָּל־הַשָּׁמָֽיִם׃ כ חֲמֵ֨שׁ עֶשְׂרֵ֤ה אַמָּה֙ מִלְמַ֔עְלָה גָּֽבְר֖וּ הַמָּ֑יִם וַיְכֻסּ֖וּ הֶֽהָרִֽים׃ כא וַיִּגְוַ֞ע כָּל־בָּשָׂ֣ר ׀ הָֽרֹמֵ֣שׂ עַל־הָאָ֗רֶץ בָּע֤וֹף וּבַבְּהֵמָה֙ וּבַ֣חַיָּ֔ה וּבְכָל־הַשֶּׁ֖רֶץ הַשֹּׁרֵ֣ץ עַל־הָאָ֑רֶץ וְכֹ֖ל הָֽאָדָֽם׃ כב כֹּ֡ל אֲשֶׁר֩ נִשְׁמַת־ר֨וּחַ חַיִּ֜ים בְּאַפָּ֗יו מִכֹּ֛ל אֲשֶׁ֥ר בֶּחָֽרָבָ֖ה מֵֽתוּ׃ כג וַיִּ֜מַח אֶֽת־כָּל־הַיְק֣וּם ׀ אֲשֶׁ֣ר ׀ עַל־פְּנֵ֣י הָֽאֲדָמָ֗ה מֵֽאָדָ֤ם עַד־בְּהֵמָה֙ עַד־רֶ֨מֶשׂ֙ וְעַד־ע֣וֹף הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם וַיִּמָּח֖וּ מִן־הָאָ֑רֶץ וַיִּשָּׁ֧אֶר אַךְ־נֹ֛חַ וַֽאֲשֶׁ֥ר אִתּ֖וֹ בַּתֵּבָֽה׃ כד וַיִּגְבְּר֥וּ הַמַּ֖יִם עַל־הָאָ֑רֶץ חֲמִשִּׁ֥ים וּמְאַ֖ת יֽוֹם׃
[1] Then the Lord said to Noah, “Go into the ark, with all your household, for you alone have I found righteous before Me in this generation.
[2] Of every clean animal you shall take seven pairs, males and their mates, and of every animal that is not clean, two, a male and its mate;
[3] Of the birds of the sky also, seven pairs, male and female, to keep seed alive upon all the earth.
[4] For in seven days’ time I will make it rain upon the earth, forty days and forty nights, and I will blot out from the earth all existence that I created”.
[5] And Noah did just as the Lord commanded him.
[6] Noah was six hundred years old when the Flood came, waters upon the earth.
[7] Noah, with his sons, his wife, and his sons’ wives, went into the ark because of the waters of the Flood.
[8] Of the clean animals, of the animals that are not clean, of the birds, and of everything that creeps on the ground,
[9] Two of each, male and female, came to Noah into the ark, as God had commanded Noah.
[10] And on the seventh day the waters of the Flood came upon the earth.
[11] In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst apart, and the floodgates of the sky broke open.
[12] The rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.
[13] That same day Noah and Noah’s sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, went into the ark, with Noah’s wife and the three wives of his sons.
[14] They and all beasts of every kind, all cattle of every kind, all creatures of every kind that creep on the earth, and all birds of every kind, every bird, every winged thing.
[15] They came to Noah into the ark, two each of all flesh in which there was breath of life.
[16] Thus they that entered comprised male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him. And the Lord shut him in.
[17] The Flood continued forty days on the earth, and the waters increased and raised the ark so that it rose above the earth.
[18] The waters swelled and increased greatly upon the earth, and the ark drifted upon the waters.
[19] When the waters had swelled much more upon the earth, all the highest mountains everywhere under the sky were covered.
[20] Fifteen cubits higher did the waters swell, as the mountains were covered.
[21] And all flesh that stirred on earth perished – birds, cattle, beasts, and all the things that swarmed upon the earth, and all mankind.
[22] All in whose nostrils was the merest breath of life, all that was on dry land, died.
[23] All existence on earth was blotted out – man, cattle, creeping things, and birds of the sky; they were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.
[24] And when the waters had swelled on the earth one hundred and fifty days.
[2] Of every clean animal you shall take seven pairs … and of every animal that is not clean, two … [3] Of the birds of the sky also, seven pairs … [4] For in seven days’ time I will make it rain upon the earth ◊ Some of the clean cattle will be needed later for making a sacrifice (8:20), which is why Noah must take more than just the two needed for future reproduction.
(The number “seven” is chosen, quite possibly, as realizing the instruction, “For in seven days’ time I will make it rain upon the earth.” Also, the number seven in Judaism very often represents nature, as opposed to the number eight, which symbolizes that which is beyond nature. The two sevens here could be an allusion to the fact that in the course of the Flood, the world – indeed, nature itself – will undergo a radical change.)
Thus, the concept of clean and unclean animals relates here to the opportunity for the Jewish people – as the priests of mankind (Exod. 19:6) – to bring sacrifices in the future. Exactly the same criteria of “cleanness” determine the fitness of the various categories of animals to be used for food (see Lev. 11:8).
[5] And Noah did just
as the Lord commanded him … [16] And the Lord shut
him in ◊ Noah follows orders precisely, but he so lacks
self-sufficiency, and is so helpless, that he cannot even close the entrance to
the
[7] Noah, with his sons, his wife, and his sons’ wives, went into the ark ◊ The men separately and the women separately.
[23] All existence on earth was blotted out … And when the waters had swelled on the earth one hundred and fifty days … ◊ Even after all the people and animals outside the ark were already dead, the water continued to rise. Thus, the significance of the Flood was not only in the death of the evildoers.
Only Noah was left ◊ The word ach, “only,” is superfluous, adding nothing to the story. The Midrash understands it as a “reduction” – i.e., a limiting qualifier: “Noah was just barely alive,” for he, too, almost died. We shall consider this Midrash in more detail below.
א וַיִּזְכֹּ֤ר אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶת־נֹ֔חַ וְאֵ֤ת כָּל־הַֽחַיָּה֙ וְאֶת־כָּל־הַבְּהֵמָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר אִתּ֖וֹ בַּתֵּבָ֑ה וַיַּֽעֲבֵ֨ר אֱלֹהִ֥ים ר֨וּחַ֙ עַל־הָאָ֔רֶץ וַיָּשֹׁ֖כּוּ הַמָּֽיִם׃ ב וַיִּסָּֽכְרוּ֙ מַעְיְנֹ֣ת תְּה֔וֹם וַֽאֲרֻבֹּ֖ת הַשָּׁמָ֑יִם וַיִּכָּלֵ֥א הַגֶּ֖שֶׁם מִן־הַשָּׁמָֽיִם׃ ג וַיָּשֻׁ֧בוּ הַמַּ֛יִם מֵעַ֥ל הָאָ֖רֶץ הָל֣וֹךְ וָשׁ֑וֹב וַיַּחְסְר֣וּ הַמַּ֔יִם מִקְצֵ֕ה חֲמִשִּׁ֥ים וּמְאַ֖ת יֽוֹם׃ ד וַתָּ֤נַח הַתֵּבָה֙ בַּחֹ֣דֶשׁ הַשְּׁבִיעִ֔י בְּשִׁבְעָֽה־עָשָׂ֥ר י֖וֹם לַחֹ֑דֶשׁ עַ֖ל הָרֵ֥י אֲרָרָֽט׃ ה וְהַמַּ֗יִם הָיוּ֙ הָל֣וֹךְ וְחָס֔וֹר עַ֖ד הַחֹ֣דֶשׁ הָֽעֲשִׂירִ֑י בָּֽעֲשִׂירִי֙ בְּאֶחָ֣ד לַחֹ֔דֶשׁ נִרְא֖וּ רָאשֵׁ֥י הֶֽהָרִֽים׃ ו וַיְהִ֕י מִקֵּ֖ץ אַרְבָּעִ֣ים י֑וֹם וַיִּפְתַּ֣ח נֹ֔חַ אֶת־חַלּ֥וֹן הַתֵּבָ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר עָשָֽׂה׃ ז וַיְשַׁלַּ֖ח אֶת־הָֽעֹרֵ֑ב וַיֵּצֵ֤א יָצוֹא֙ וָשׁ֔וֹב עַד־יְבֹ֥שֶׁת הַמַּ֖יִם מֵעַ֥ל הָאָֽרֶץ׃ ח וַיְשַׁלַּ֥ח אֶת־הַיּוֹנָ֖ה מֵֽאִתּ֑וֹ לִרְאוֹת֙ הֲקַ֣לּוּ הַמַּ֔יִם מֵעַ֖ל פְּנֵ֥י הָֽאֲדָמָֽה׃ ט וְלֹֽא־מָצְאָה֩ הַיּוֹנָ֨ה מָנ֜וֹחַ לְכַף־רַגְלָ֗הּ וַתָּ֤שָׁב אֵלָיו֙ אֶל־הַתֵּבָ֔ה כִּי־מַ֖יִם עַל־פְּנֵ֣י כָל־הָאָ֑רֶץ וַיִּשְׁלַ֤ח יָדוֹ֙ וַיִּקָּחֶ֔הָ וַיָּבֵ֥א אֹתָ֛הּ אֵלָ֖יו אֶל־הַתֵּבָֽה׃ י וַיָּ֣חֶל ע֔וֹד שִׁבְעַ֥ת יָמִ֖ים אֲחֵרִ֑ים וַיֹּ֛סֶף שַׁלַּ֥ח אֶת־הַיּוֹנָ֖ה מִן־הַתֵּבָֽה׃ יא וַתָּבֹ֨א אֵלָ֤יו הַיּוֹנָה֙ לְעֵ֣ת עֶ֔רֶב וְהִנֵּ֥ה עֲלֵה־זַ֖יִת טָרָ֣ף בְּפִ֑יהָ וַיֵּ֣דַע נֹ֔חַ כִּי־קַ֥לּוּ הַמַּ֖יִם מֵעַ֥ל הָאָֽרֶץ׃ יב וַיִּיָּ֣חֶל ע֔וֹד שִׁבְעַ֥ת יָמִ֖ים אֲחֵרִ֑ים וַיְשַׁלַּח֙ אֶת־הַיּוֹנָ֔ה וְלֹֽא־יָסְפָ֥ה שׁוּב־אֵלָ֖יו עֽוֹד׃ יג וַ֠יְהִי בְּאַחַ֨ת וְשֵׁשׁ־מֵא֜וֹת שָׁנָ֗ה בָּֽרִאשׁוֹן֙ בְּאֶחָ֣ד לַחֹ֔דֶשׁ חָֽרְב֥וּ הַמַּ֖יִם מֵעַ֣ל הָאָ֑רֶץ וַיָּ֤סַר נֹ֨חַ֙ אֶת־מִכְסֵ֣ה הַתֵּבָ֔ה וַיַּ֕רְא וְהִנֵּ֥ה חָֽרְב֖וּ פְּנֵ֥י הָֽאֲדָמָֽה׃ יד וּבַחֹ֨דֶשׁ֙ הַשֵּׁנִ֔י בְּשִׁבְעָ֧ה וְעֶשְׂרִ֛ים י֖וֹם לַחֹ֑דֶשׁ יָֽבְשָׁ֖ה הָאָֽרֶץ׃ טו וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר אֱלֹהִ֖ים אֶל־נֹ֥חַ לֵאמֹֽר׃ טז צֵ֖א מִן־הַתֵּבָ֑ה אַתָּ֕ה וְאִשְׁתְּךָ֛ וּבָנֶ֥יךָ וּנְשֵֽׁי־בָנֶ֖יךָ אִתָּֽךְ׃ יז כָּל־הַֽחַיָּ֨ה אֲשֶֽׁר־אִתְּךָ֜ מִכָּל־בָּשָׂ֗ר בָּע֧וֹף וּבַבְּהֵמָ֛ה וּבְכָל־הָרֶ֛מֶשׂ הָֽרֹמֵ֥שׂ עַל־הָאָ֖רֶץ הוצא (הַיְצֵ֣א) אִתָּ֑ךְ וְשָֽׁרְצ֣וּ בָאָ֔רֶץ וּפָר֥וּ וְרָב֖וּ עַל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃ יח וַיֵּ֖צֵא־נֹ֑חַ וּבָנָ֛יו וְאִשְׁתּ֥וֹ וּנְשֵֽׁי־בָנָ֖יו אִתּֽוֹ׃ יט כָּל־הַֽחַיָּ֗ה כָּל־הָרֶ֨מֶשׂ֙ וְכָל־הָע֔וֹף כֹּ֖ל רוֹמֵ֣שׂ עַל־הָאָ֑רֶץ לְמִשְׁפְּחֹ֣תֵיהֶ֔ם יָֽצְא֖וּ מִן־הַתֵּבָֽה׃ כ וַיִּ֥בֶן נֹ֛חַ מִזְבֵּ֖חַ לַֽי֑י וַיִּקַּ֞ח מִכֹּ֣ל ׀ הַבְּהֵמָ֣ה הַטְּהֹרָ֗ה וּמִכֹּל֙ הָע֣וֹף הַטָּה֔וֹר וַיַּ֥עַל עֹלֹ֖ת בַּמִּזְבֵּֽחַ׃ כא וַיָּ֣רַח יי֮ אֶת־רֵ֣יחַ הַנִּיחֹחַ֒ וַיֹּ֨אמֶר י֜י אֶל־לִבּ֗וֹ לֹֽא־אֹ֠סִף לְקַלֵּ֨ל ע֤וֹד אֶת־הָֽאֲדָמָה֙ בַּֽעֲב֣וּר הָֽאָדָ֔ם כִּ֠י יֵ֣צֶר לֵ֧ב הָֽאָדָ֛ם רַ֖ע מִנְּעֻרָ֑יו וְלֹֽא־אֹסִ֥ף ע֛וֹד לְהַכּ֥וֹת אֶת־כָּל־חַ֖י כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֥ר עָשִֽׂיתִי׃ כב עֹ֖ד כָּל־יְמֵ֣י הָאָ֑רֶץ זֶ֡רַע וְ֠קָצִיר וְקֹ֨ר וָחֹ֜ם וְקַ֧יִץ וָחֹ֛רֶף וְי֥וֹם וָלַ֖יְלָה לֹ֥א יִשְׁבֹּֽתוּ׃
[1] God remembered Noah and all the beasts and all the cattle that were with him in the ark, and God caused a wind to blow across the earth, and the waters subsided.
[2] The fountains of the deep and the floodgates of the sky were stopped up, and the rain from the sky was held back;
[3] The waters then receded steadily from the earth. At the end of one hundred and fifty days the waters diminished,
[4] So that in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.
[5] The waters went on diminishing until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first of the month, the tops of the mountains became visible.
[6] At the end of forty days, Noah opened the window of the ark that he had made
[7] And sent out the raven; it went to and fro until the waters had dried up from the earth.
[8] Then he sent out the dove to see whether the waters had decreased from the surface of the ground.
[9] But the dove could not find a resting place for its foot, and returned to him to the ark, for there was water over all the earth. So putting out his hand, he took it into the ark with him.
[10] He waited another seven days, and again sent out the dove from the ark.
[11] The dove came back to him toward evening, and there in its bill was a plucked-off olive leaf! Then Noah knew that the waters had decreased on the earth.
[12] He waited still another seven days and sent the dove forth; and it did not return to him any more.
[13] In the six hundred and first year, in the first month, on the first of the month, the waters began to dry from the earth; and when Noah removed the covering of the ark, he saw that the surface of the ground was drying.
[14] And in the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, the earth was dry.
[15] God spoke to Noah, saying,
[16] “Come out of the ark, together with your wife, your sons, and your sons’ wives.
[17] Bring out with you every living thing of all flesh that is with you: birds, animals, and everything that creeps on earth; and let them swarm on the earth and be fertile and increase on earth.”
[18] So Noah came out, together with his sons, his wife, and his sons’ wives.
[19] Every animal, every creeping thing, and every bird, everything that stirs on earth came out of the ark by families.
[20] Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and, taking of every clean animal and of every clean bird, he offered burnt offerings on the altar.
[21] The Lord smelled the pleasing odor, and the Lord said to Himself: “Never again will I doom the earth because of man, since the devisings of man’s mind are evil from his youth; nor will I ever again destroy every living being, as I have done.
[22] So long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night shall not cease.”
[6] At the end of forty days, Noah opened the window of the ark that he had made ◊ Noah himself opens the window; he does not wait for God to do it for him. After spending months in the ark, Noah gradually becomes self-sufficient.
[15] God spoke to Noah, saying, [16] “Come out of the ark, together with your wife, your sons, and your sons’ wives ◊ Husbands and wives leave the ark together. That is, intimacy and childbearing are now again permitted.
[18] So Noah came out, together with his sons, his wife, and his sons’ wives ◊ But even so, Noah and his family at first do not accept that permission. The men and the women leave the ark separately.
[21] And the Lord said to Himself: “Never again will I doom the earth because of man, since the devisings of man’s mind are evil from his youth ◊ At the beginning of the Flood story, this tendency of man to evil (6:5) is the basis for his destruction. But here, on the contrary, it serves as the basis for forgiveness. Later we will discuss this issue in more detail.
א וַיְבָ֣רֶךְ אֱלֹהִ֔ים אֶת־נֹ֖חַ וְאֶת־בָּנָ֑יו וַיֹּ֧אמֶר לָהֶ֛ם פְּר֥וּ וּרְב֖וּ וּמִלְא֥וּ אֶת־הָאָֽרֶץ׃ ב וּמוֹרַֽאֲכֶ֤ם וְחִתְּכֶם֙ יִֽהְיֶ֔ה עַ֚ל כָּל־חַיַּ֣ת הָאָ֔רֶץ וְעַ֖ל כָּל־ע֣וֹף הַשָּׁמָ֑יִם בְּכֹל֩ אֲשֶׁ֨ר תִּרְמֹ֧שׂ הָֽאֲדָמָ֛ה וּֽבְכָל־דְּגֵ֥י הַיָּ֖ם בְּיֶדְכֶ֥ם נִתָּֽנוּ׃ ג כָּל־רֶ֨מֶשׂ֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר הוּא־חַ֔י לָכֶ֥ם יִֽהְיֶ֖ה לְאָכְלָ֑ה כְּיֶ֣רֶק עֵ֔שֶׂב נָתַ֥תִּי לָכֶ֖ם אֶת־כֹּֽל׃ ד אַךְ־בָּשָׂ֕ר בְּנַפְשׁ֥וֹ דָמ֖וֹ לֹ֥א תֹאכֵֽלוּ׃ ה וְאַ֨ךְ אֶת־דִּמְכֶ֤ם לְנַפְשֹֽׁתֵיכֶם֙ אֶדְרֹ֔שׁ מִיַּ֥ד כָּל־חַיָּ֖ה אֶדְרְשֶׁ֑נּוּ וּמִיַּ֣ד הָֽאָדָ֗ם מִיַּד֙ אִ֣ישׁ אָחִ֔יו אֶדְרֹ֖שׁ אֶת־נֶ֥פֶשׁ הָֽאָדָֽם׃ ו שֹׁפֵךְ֙ דַּ֣ם הָֽאָדָ֔ם בָּֽאָדָ֖ם דָּמ֣וֹ יִשָּׁפֵ֑ךְ כִּ֚י בְּצֶ֣לֶם אֱלֹהִ֔ים עָשָׂ֖ה אֶת־הָֽאָדָֽם׃ ז וְאַתֶּ֖ם פְּר֣וּ וּרְב֑וּ שִׁרְצ֥וּ בָאָ֖רֶץ וּרְבוּ־בָֽהּ׃ ח וַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶל־נֹ֔חַ וְאֶל־בָּנָ֥יו אִתּ֖וֹ לֵאמֹֽר׃ ט וַֽאֲנִ֕י הִנְנִ֥י מֵקִ֛ים אֶת־בְּרִיתִ֖י אִתְּכֶ֑ם וְאֶֽת־זַרְעֲכֶ֖ם אַֽחֲרֵיכֶֽם׃ י וְאֵ֨ת כָּל־נֶ֤פֶשׁ הַֽחַיָּה֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר אִתְּכֶ֔ם בָּע֧וֹף בַּבְּהֵמָ֛ה וּֽבְכָל־חַיַּ֥ת הָאָ֖רֶץ אִתְּכֶ֑ם מִכֹּל֙ יֹֽצְאֵ֣י הַתֵּבָ֔ה לְכֹ֖ל חַיַּ֥ת הָאָֽרֶץ׃ יא וַהֲקִֽמֹתִ֤י אֶת־בְּרִיתִי֙ אִתְּכֶ֔ם וְלֹֽא־יִכָּרֵ֧ת כָּל־בָּשָׂ֛ר ע֖וֹד מִמֵּ֣י הַמַּבּ֑וּל וְלֹֽא־יִהְיֶ֥ה ע֛וֹד מַבּ֖וּל לְשַׁחֵ֥ת הָאָֽרֶץ׃ יב וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֗ים זֹ֤את אֽוֹת־הַבְּרִית֙ אֲשֶׁר־אֲנִ֣י נֹתֵ֗ן בֵּינִי֙ וּבֵ֣ינֵיכֶ֔ם וּבֵ֛ין כָּל־נֶ֥פֶשׁ חַיָּ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אִתְּכֶ֑ם לְדֹרֹ֖ת עוֹלָֽם׃ יג אֶת־קַשְׁתִּ֕י נָתַ֖תִּי בֶּֽעָנָ֑ן וְהָֽיְתָה֙ לְא֣וֹת בְּרִ֔ית בֵּינִ֖י וּבֵ֥ין הָאָֽרֶץ׃ יד וְהָיָ֕ה בְּעַֽנְנִ֥י עָנָ֖ן עַל־הָאָ֑רֶץ וְנִרְאֲתָ֥ה הַקֶּ֖שֶׁת בֶּֽעָנָֽן׃ טו וְזָֽכַרְתִּ֣י אֶת־בְּרִיתִ֗י אֲשֶׁ֤ר בֵּינִי֙ וּבֵ֣ינֵיכֶ֔ם וּבֵ֛ין כָּל־נֶ֥פֶשׁ חַיָּ֖ה בְּכָל־בָּשָׂ֑ר וְלֹֽא־יִֽהְיֶ֨ה ע֤וֹד הַמַּ֨יִם֙ לְמַבּ֔וּל לְשַׁחֵ֖ת כָּל־בָּשָֽׂר׃ טז וְהָֽיְתָ֥ה הַקֶּ֖שֶׁת בֶּֽעָנָ֑ן וּרְאִיתִ֗יהָ לִזְכֹּר֙ בְּרִ֣ית עוֹלָ֔ם בֵּ֣ין אֱלֹהִ֔ים וּבֵין֙ כָּל־נֶ֣פֶשׁ חַיָּ֔ה בְּכָל־בָּשָׂ֖ר אֲשֶׁ֥ר עַל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃ יז וַיֹּ֥אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֖ים אֶל־נֹ֑חַ זֹ֤את אֽוֹת־הַבְּרִית֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר הֲקִמֹ֔תִי בֵּינִ֕י וּבֵ֥ין כָּל־בָּשָׂ֖ר אֲשֶׁ֥ר עַל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃
[1] God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them, “Be fertile and increase, and fill the earth.
[2] The fear and the dread of you shall be upon all the beasts of the earth and upon all the birds of the sky – everything with which the earth is astir – and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hand.
[3] Every creature that lives shall be yours to eat; as with the green grasses, I give you all these.
[4] You must not, however, eat flesh with its life-blood in it.
[5] But for your own life-blood I will require a reckoning: I will require it of every beast; of man, too, will I require a reckoning for human life, of every man for that of his fellow man!
[6] Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in His image did God make man.
[7] Be fertile, then, and increase; abound on the earth and increase on it.”
[8] And God said to Noah and to his sons with him,
[9] “I now establish My covenant with you and your offspring to come,
[10] And with every living thing that is with you – birds, cattle, and every wild beast as well – all that have come out of the ark, every living thing on earth.
[11] I will maintain My covenant with you: never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of a flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.”
[12] God further said, “This is the sign that I set for the covenant between Me and you, and every living creature with you, for all ages to come.
[13] I have set My bow in the clouds, and it shall serve as a sign of the covenant between Me and the earth.
[14] When I bring clouds over the earth, and the bow appears in the clouds,
[15] I will remember My covenant between Me and you and every living creature among all flesh, so that the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh.
[16] When the bow is in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures, all flesh that is on earth.”
[17] “That,” God said to Noah, “shall be the sign of the covenant that I have established between Me and all flesh that is on earth.”
[1] God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them, “Be fertile and increase, and fill the earth ◊ After the Flood, Noah and his family are afraid to have children. God therefore repeats His command to “be fruitful and multiply” (see 1:28).
[3] Every creature that lives shall be yours to eat; as with the green grasses, I give you all these ◊ Prior to the Flood humans were allowed to eat only plants. Now they are allowed to eat animals as well, but there are some limitations.
[4] You must not, however, eat flesh with its life-blood in it ◊ The prohibition of eating any part of an animal that is still alive is universal, and applies to all of humanity. (In this verse and the next, the word “blood” means “life.”)
יח וַיִּֽהְי֣וּ בְנֵי־נֹ֗חַ הַיֹּֽצְאִים֙ מִן־הַתֵּבָ֔ה שֵׁ֖ם וְחָ֣ם וָיָ֑פֶת וְחָ֕ם ה֖וּא אֲבִ֥י כְנָֽעַן׃ יט שְׁלֹשָׁ֥ה אֵ֖לֶּה בְּנֵי־נֹ֑חַ וּמֵאֵ֖לֶּה נָֽפְצָ֥ה כָל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃ כ וַיָּ֥חֶל נֹ֖חַ אִ֣ישׁ הָֽאֲדָמָ֑ה וַיִּטַּ֖ע כָּֽרֶם׃ כא וַיֵּ֥שְׁתְּ מִן־הַיַּ֖יִן וַיִּשְׁכָּ֑ר וַיִּתְגַּ֖ל בְּת֥וֹךְ אָֽהֳלֹֽה׃ כב וַיַּ֗רְא חָ֚ם אֲבִ֣י כְנַ֔עַן אֵ֖ת עֶרְוַ֣ת אָבִ֑יו וַיַּגֵּ֥ד לִשְׁנֵֽי־אֶחָ֖יו בַּחֽוּץ׃ כג וַיִּקַּח֩ שֵׁ֨ם וָיֶ֜פֶת אֶת־הַשִּׂמְלָ֗ה וַיָּשִׂ֨ימוּ֙ עַל־שְׁכֶ֣ם שְׁנֵיהֶ֔ם וַיֵּֽלְכוּ֙ אֲחֹ֣רַנִּ֔ית וַיְכַסּ֕וּ אֵ֖ת עֶרְוַ֣ת אֲבִיהֶ֑ם וּפְנֵיהֶם֙ אֲחֹ֣רַנִּ֔ית וְעֶרְוַ֥ת אֲבִיהֶ֖ם לֹ֥א רָאֽוּ׃ כד וַיִּ֥יקֶץ נֹ֖חַ מִיֵּינ֑וֹ וַיֵּ֕דַע אֵ֛ת אֲשֶׁר־עָ֥שָׂה ל֖וֹ בְּנ֥וֹ הַקָּטָֽן׃ כה וַיֹּ֖אמֶר אָר֣וּר כְּנָ֑עַן עֶ֥בֶד עֲבָדִ֖ים יִֽהְיֶ֥ה לְאֶחָֽיו׃ כו וַיֹּ֕אמֶר בָּר֥וּךְ י֖י אֱלֹ֣הֵי שֵׁ֑ם וִיהִ֥י כְנַ֖עַן עֶ֥בֶד לָֽמוֹ׃ כז יַ֤פְתְּ אֱלֹהִים֙ לְיֶ֔פֶת וְיִשְׁכֹּ֖ן בְּאָֽהֳלֵי־שֵׁ֑ם וִיהִ֥י כְנַ֖עַן עֶ֥בֶד לָֽמוֹ׃ כח וַֽיְחִי־נֹ֖חַ אַחַ֣ר הַמַּבּ֑וּל שְׁלֹ֤שׁ מֵאוֹת֙ שָׁנָ֔ה וַֽחֲמִשִּׁ֖ים שָׁנָֽה׃ כט וַיִּֽהְיוּ֙ כָּל־יְמֵי־נֹ֔חַ תְּשַׁ֤ע מֵאוֹת֙ שָׁנָ֔ה וַֽחֲמִשִּׁ֖ים שָׁנָ֑ה וַיָּמֹֽת׃
[18] The sons of Noah who came out of the ark were
Shem, Ham, and Japheth – Ham being the father of
[19] These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the whole world branched out.
[20] Noah, the tiller of the soil, was the first to plant a vineyard.
[21] He drank of the wine and became drunk, and he uncovered himself within his tent.
[22] Ham, the father of
[23] But Shem and Japheth took a cloth, placed it against both their backs and, walking backward, they covered their father’s nakedness; their faces were turned the other way, so that they did not see their father’s nakedness.
[24] When Noah woke up from his wine and learned what his youngest son had done to him,
[25] He said, “Cursed be
[26] And he said, “Blessed be the Lord, the God of
Shem; let
[27] May God enlarge Japheth, and let him dwell in
the tents of Shem; and let
[28] Noah lived after the Flood 350 years.
[29] And all the days of Noah came to 950 years; then he died.
[20] Noah, the tiller of the soil, was the first to plant a vineyard ◊ Literally, “Noah, the man of the earth, began.” After the Flood, Noah restores man’s collaboration with the earth. He becomes the “man of the earth” who deals with the real problems of the world around him.
Noah … was the first to plant a vineyard ◊ Not only a vineyard is meant. Noah essentially restores agriculture in its entirety. The emphasis on grapes (wine) here indicates that Noah is not prepared to be satisfied with only the minimum requirements of life. His attitude is one of taking joy in life. And this is a positive thing.
[21] He … became drunk, and he uncovered himself within his tent ◊ However, too quick a transition to the positive can have exactly the opposite effect. The transition from detachment from the outside world (typical of Noah before the Flood) to engagement with the world (Noah after the Flood) happens too quickly, without proper preparation on Noah’s part, and this brings Noah to crisis and collapse. Noah himself can no longer rectify the situation – only his children can accomplish that.
[22] Ham, the father
of
[26] And he said,
“Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem; let
The basis of the civilization of the Japhetic peoples is the concept of “expansiveness” – the expansion of territory and space, science and art, and aesthetics.
Among the
descendants of Japheth, the above blessings manifest most prominently in the
Greeks, and among the descendants of Shem – in the people of
What is the meaning of the Flood? Why did it happen? And how did the world change as a result of the Flood?
The simple explanation – that people began to behave badly and God decided to punish and destroy them – is clearly not sufficient. Evil itself was not destroyed; even after the Flood the world is full of evil. Moreover, if it was simply a matter of God punishing the evildoers, then what He did was just too cruel – destroying all of mankind, the good and the bad, without distinction. Moreover, isn’t it God Himself Who creates people such as they are – good or bad? Where is Divine justice and mercy?
Note that from a religious point of view, we should not ignore our intuitive human sense of justice, to instead take the position that whatever God has decided is ipso facto just – by definition. On the contrary, Judaism views the intuitive human sense of justice as one of the manifestations of the image of God in man. Our need to seek and find justice in historical processes – that is, in God’s actions – is a fundamental religious sense. It is wrong to suppress that feeling.
Very often the source of the conflict between our conscience and the sacred texts is not that our moral sense is leading us astray (although that does in fact happen quite often). Rather, the source of the conflict is that we misunderstand the Torah. In order to advance in our understanding, we must not be afraid to pose difficult questions, and to delve into the themes of the Torah in search of the answers to those questions.
After the Flood, the evil inclination in man did not disappear, nor did it seem to have even changed at all.
The causes of the Flood are described in the Torah as follows: “The Lord saw how great was man’s wickedness on earth, and how every plan devised by his mind was nothing but evil all the time. And the Lord regretted that He had made man on earth, and His heart was saddened. The Lord said, ‘I will blot out from the earth the men whom I created – men together with beasts, creeping things, and birds of the sky; for I regret that I made them.’ But Noah found favor with the Lord” (6:5-8).
The above passage serves as a preface to the story of the Flood. People are mired in evil, and the thoughts entertained by the human heart are categorically “evil all the time.” Humanity must therefore be destroyed.
But even after the Flood the situation has still not changed much: “The Lord smelled the pleasing odor, and the Lord said to Himself: ‘Never again will I doom the earth because of man, since the devisings of man’s mind are evil from his youth; nor will I ever again destroy every living being, as I have done. So long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night shall not cease’” (8:21-22).
Thus, from the same premise – man’s inclination to evil – opposite conclusions are drawn. Before the Flood, man’s inclination to evil requires that he be destroyed. But after the Flood a completely different conclusion is drawn, namely, that because man is prone to evil, he must be allowed to live. How can we explain this 180-degree about-face? And was man after the Flood really the same as he had been before?
The Torah uses a rather strange expression to describe God’s decision to bring the Flood: “And the Lord regretted that he had made man on earth” (6:6). Do these words mean that God was disappointed in the human race, and He therefore decided to destroy them? Did God not know from the outset that things would turn out that way, or at least that they might? Applying to God the concept of regret seems strange to begin with. Nonetheless, the given passage (“The Lord regretted that he had made man”) is a key to understanding the causes of the Flood.
Noah is the main character in the story of the Flood. The prophet Isaiah (54:9) calls the Flood the “waters of Noah,” which emphasizes his central role, and even his personal responsibility for what happened in the Flood.
Who was Noah?
The name “Noah” literally translates as “easy,” or “convenient.” But the Torah explains the name somewhat differently. “When Lamech had lived 182 years, he begot a son. And he named him Noah, saying, ‘This one will console us (yenahamenu) from our work and from the toil of our hands, out of the very soil which the Lord placed under a curse’” (5:28-29). Thus, Lamech derived the name “Noah” from the Hebrew root nachem, translated here as “(to) console.” Accordingly, Noah’s task is to “console humankind that suffers from their toil upon the earth that the Lord has cursed.” And that consolation was in fact realized when after the Flood God said: “Never again will I doom the earth because of man” (8:21).
Why did God curse the earth, and what was the nature of that curse?
Adam in the Garden of Eden was at such a level that with his knowledge and will he could directly control the Universe. After being expelled, he lost that initial level, but not entirely: his spiritual parameters remained directly connected to the outside world. Humans could no longer directly control the Universe with their spirituality, but the influence of that spirituality on the earth’s produce remained. And since humanity did not behave adequately, this influence was expressed not in a blessing, but in a curse.
As God expelled Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden, He said the following words: “Cursed be the ground because of you” (3:17). When you work the land hoping to reap its produce, it will sprout for you only thorns and thistles.
Then, after Cain killed his brother Abel, the curse of the land further intensified: “Therefore, you shall be more cursed than the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. If you till the soil, it shall no longer yield its strength to you. You shall become a ceaseless wanderer on earth” (4:11-12).
But humanity continued to behave badly, with tensions in the relationship between man and the earth becoming critical.
The curse, then, is found in the ability of the land to punish a person for his crimes by producing “thistles and thorns” instead of a bountiful harvest. In other words, the earth then was morally sensitive, reacting to the moral level in man. A farmer in that era, to be successful, needed not only to understand the principles of agronomy – above all, he had to be a worthy human being.
That the earth would react so acutely to the level of human righteousness was not per se a bad thing. On the contrary, there was an increased level of opportunity – but that meant equally the ability to achieve blessings and the possibility of losing benefits. And since human behavior continued to spiral downward, those possibilities went in the direction of a “curse upon the earth.”
The whole story about the Flood is built around the concept of nechamah, “consolation,” but the meaning of this concept requires further clarification. The expression nichum avelim, “consoling the mourners,” can serve as one example of the use of this concept. When a person’s close relative dies, friends and relatives come to comfort him. The purpose of this consolation is not to help the mourner to avoid confronting the reality of death, to distract him from his grief, or to make him forget about the dead. On the contrary, according to Jewish tradition, consoling a mourner means, above all, just to sit with the mourner in silence. Because for a mourner, being consoled means being reconciled to the reality of death. Consoling a mourner reconciles him with reality. And nechamah, as a general term, means being reconciled to some difficult reality.
Now we can better understand what Lamech meant when he spoke of consolation “from our work and from the toil of our hands, out of the very soil which the Lord placed under a curse” (5:29). “Consolation”, as we have just said, means to be reconciled with reality. Lamech is hoping that Noah will be able to reconcile God with the low moral level of man. By effecting this reconciliation, Noah will make our work easier, and will make life on earth easier, that is, it will make our lives more noach. “We are imperfect, so do not demand too much from us. Let the power of our influence on the earth be limited – otherwise the curse will only increase, and it will soon become impossible for anyone to live.”
In other words, had the Almighty not intervened, had He not sent the Flood to change the world, then this world would have collapsed on its own. The Flood was therefore not just an act of punishment, but an act of mercy. This is emphasized in the verse: “The Lord saw how great was man’s wickedness on earth… And the Lord said, “I will blot out from the earth the men whom I created” (6:5). Here “the Lord” is expressed in Hebrew using God’s four-letter name, the Tetragrammaton. The entire Flood story refers to God only as the “Lord”; that is, the Tetragrammaton is used throughout – which, as we have mentioned previously, is the Divine Name of mercy rather than of judgment. Divine Mercy intervened in the Flood story for the preservation of the Universe, so that man would not be allowed to destroy it.
We can now better understand the verse which speaks of the causes of the Flood: “And the Lord regretted that He had made man on earth, and His heart was saddened.” (6:6). Since vayinnachem, “regretted,” derives from the same Hebrew root as nechamah, “consolation,” we can translate this verse as, “And the Lord was consoled, being reconciled with the fact that He made man on earth.”
God was reconciled to the fact that man could not cope with the immense power given to him, and that it is impossible to demand of him an immediately high level of morality. The situation therefore required God’s intervention and correction: weakening man’s connection with the earth, and reducing his level of influence on the world. God needed to be reconciled to the fact that man exists on earth such as he is. And therefore His heart was saddened.
The reason for that grief is not only that God had to destroy a whole generation of people, but – first and foremost – that it was necessary to reduce man’s level by depriving him of the ability to exert direct spiritual influence on the world around him, and by making the earth immune to the level of human righteousness. This restriction becomes yet another concealment of the Divine Countenance, and yet another level of exile that would follow immediately after Adam’s expulsion from the Garden. Ground level gets lower, and the Divine Presence (Sheñhinah) is further removed from our lower world and ascends to higher worlds.
When Adam was still in the Garden of Eden, the Divine Presence was “below,” i.e., it was obvious. With the expulsion from the Garden, the Divine Presence “rose upward.” And with the Flood, it rose yet higher, becoming even less tangible in the lower world. God became even more hidden from the world, and it was difficult for God, as it were, to make peace with that concealment. And exactly the same way, in the verse, “The Lord said, ‘I will blot out from the earth the men whom I created … for I regret that I made them’” (6:7), the word nichamti, “regretted,” “repented,” which one? has the meaning, “I am consoled and have made peace with their being that way, because I created them.”
God regretted and repented – in the sense that He reconciled with man’s weaknesses.
Let us stop to examine once more the problem of saying that God repents, or changes His mind.
On the one hand, we find in Scripture (I Sam. 15:29) a statement that seems diametrically opposed to any such idea. “The Glory of Israel does not deceive or change His mind (repent), for He is not human that He should change His mind.” Theologically, the application of this concept to the Omniscient God, who knows the future in advance, is indeed problematic. But on the other hand, the Torah says of God many times that He changed His mind (i.e., His decision. Note in passing, that God’s repentance is explicitly discussed in the Book of Samuel (I Sam. 15:11), immediately before Samuel says of God that He does not repent. Thus, underscoring that “God does not repent” is a problem belonging to Samuel himself, and not regarding how we understand God).
How are we to reconcile this apparent contradiction? The answer, it seems, is that the Divine does not neatly fit into the formal structure of Boolean logic. Moreover, in our perception of God there inevitably are aspects that are logically incompatible. For the Divine is infinite, while our understanding – our every thought and concept – is finite and limited. No intellectual system is capable of embracing Divinity in its entirety; there will always be details that do not fit into any given scheme, and even logically contradict it.
Theology may try to resolve this contradiction by saying that God does
not actually change His mind; it only appears so to us. In the story of the
Golden Calf, for example (Exodus 32:14), after Moses prays for
The same explanation could probably be applied to virtually every instance where the Torah says that “God changed His mind.” However, theology’s smoothing over of the rough edges in this manner does not solve the original problem, because the question of why the Torah would say here that “God changed His mind” nonetheless remains, in spite of all the difficulties that such a statement entails.
The most plausible answer is that the Torah is written to serve, first and foremost, not as a philosophical treatise about God, but as a set of lessons for teaching us proper behavior in life. When the Torah says that “God changed His mind,” it wants to teach us that in orienting our thinking to man’s likeness to God, we can change our point of view in the course of life, just as God does. We should not consider our own change of position as a weakness, because, on the contrary, it indicates flexibility and a willingness to change. Since the world that God created is dynamic and always changing, any approach to the world would be inadequate if it did not give us the option to “change one’s mind.”
Thus, the Flood changed the system of relations between man and the world, and corrected and facilitated the future life of mankind. But that generation of people had to be destroyed, because they were incorrigible. God chose Noah to create a new line of humans, who would have limited possibilities to influence the world, but also would not have sufficient power to destroy the Universe.
In the generations from Adam to Noah, the world had collapsed and gone to ruin because the earth was responding to man’s spiritual level. The Flood was the only way to reverse this trend.
יא וַתִּשָּׁחֵ֥ת הָאָ֖רֶץ לִפְנֵ֣י הָֽאֱלֹהִ֑ים וַתִּמָּלֵ֥א הָאָ֖רֶץ חָמָֽס׃ יב וַיַּ֧רְא אֱלֹהִ֛ים אֶת־הָאָ֖רֶץ וְהִנֵּ֣ה נִשְׁחָ֑תָה כִּֽי־הִשְׁחִ֧ית כָּל־בָּשָׂ֛ר אֶת־דַּרְכּ֖וֹ עַל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃ יג וַיֹּ֨אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֜ים לְנֹ֗חַ קֵ֤ץ כָּל־בָּשָׂר֙ בָּ֣א לְפָנַ֔י כִּֽי־מָלְאָ֥ה הָאָ֛רֶץ חָמָ֖ס מִפְּנֵיהֶ֑ם וְהִנְנִ֥י מַשְׁחִיתָ֖ם אֶת־הָאָֽרֶץ׃
[11] The earth became corrupt before God; the earth was filled with lawlessness.
[12] When God saw how corrupt the earth was, for all flesh had corrupted its ways on earth,
[13] God said to Noah, “I have decided to put an end to all flesh, for the earth is filled with lawlessness because of them: I am about to destroy them with the earth.
The whole passage is built around two key words: shachat – “depravity” or “perversion,” and chamas – “robbery” or “evildoing.” These words are repeated here in various derivative grammatical forms, forming the axis of the story.
Shachat is a crime against the Almighty: idolatry, sexual perversion, murder, and the like. Shachat (like chamas) means, first and foremost, such crimes that are considered the norm in a given society. The Midrash says: “Where there is shachat, all – both the ungodly and the righteous – are subject to destruction.” As a reaction to humans “corrupting their ways,” the punishment itself likewise “corrupts its ways,” that is, confusion comes to the world and punishment no longer distinguishes between the righteous and the ungodly. All are destroyed.
The reason that the righteous are punished along with the wicked in this way is that as a general rule, the righteous are judged not merely by their own by personal righteousness, but by the degree of their influence on society. Unlike the evildoer, who is required by God, to correct himself before anything else, a righteous person is expected to correct the world around him. The righteous are given greater spiritual powers, and are therefore responsible for others in their circle. In this sense, Noah was hardly a person of exalted stature.
Chamas, “evildoing,” means “crimes that are not viewed as crimes”; that is, situations of human behavior that is obviously criminal, and yet the given society does not perceive such actions as crimes. The Midrash cites various examples. These include continuously robbing people of small sums that the court will not deal with, and thus no one is ever held to account for the crime; “sale” by coercion – forcing something totally useless on the buyer, and taking his money “in payment for the goods”; or vice versa, when something valuable is taken by force from the “seller” and only token “compensation” is paid.
When people are abused but society considers it just business as usual, this is chamas. Such a society must die, because their deeds are not recognized as crimes, and therefore the impulse to repent never arises. That is why the crime of chamas has such terrible consequences.
An example
of chamas can be seen in the story of
Even in evil
societies there were righteous individuals: Lot in
And so, says the Midrash, Noah too deserved death, and was spared only by God’s mercy. “But Noah found favor with the Lord” (6:8). Noah was saved only because he found favor with God, and not because he deserved to be saved as a matter of strict justice. Noah did not himself effect salvation – he was only the object of salvation, because he was indispensable for the next stage of human development.
ט אֵ֚לֶּה תּֽוֹלְדֹ֣ת נֹ֔חַ נֹ֗חַ אִ֥ישׁ צַדִּ֛יק תָּמִ֥ים הָיָ֖ה בְּדֹֽרֹתָ֑יו אֶת־הָֽאֱלֹהִ֖ים הִֽתְהַלֶּךְ־נֹֽחַ׃
[9] This is the line of Noah. – Noah was a righteous man; he was blameless in his age; Noah walked with God.
When we compare Noah to other righteous men in the Torah, we see a huge difference. We are told repeatedly about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses that they have “merit” – a huge legacy of righteousness that continues to exert positive influence on us today, even after almost four thousand years. But with Noah the situation is different. He was saved not on his own merits, but only because the Almighty condescended to spare him. Noah deserved to die in the Flood, and was saved only by God’s grace.
As we have already noted, Abraham walked “before (that is, ahead of) God” (17:1, see commentary). But Noah only “walked with God,” alongside Him.
Noah “walked with God” – as a child walks alongside the parent, veering neither to the right nor to the left. The Midrash notes that Noah refused to communicate with the evildoers of his generation. Indeed, he fulfilled the letter of the law, but no more than that. Noah was concerned only with his own personal righteousness. He was not engaged in correcting the outside world.
Jewish tradition calls this kind of person “a righteous man in a fur coat” (in Yiddish, tsaddik im peltz). Instead of building a fire to warm himself and everyone else – as Abraham did when he carried the idea of God to humanity – a tsaddik im peltz dons a fur coat, thus warming only himself. The “righteous man in a fur coat” is by no means an egoist – he will of course not refuse anyone who appeals to him for help, although on his own initiative he shows little zeal for the sake of others. But the Torah expects such self-sacrifice from those who have been given the distinction of being considered righteous.
When God
tells Noah to build the
That kind of passivity is the approach of the “righteous man in a fur coat”. It is the sin of the righteous.
Abraham behaves differently. When God informs Abraham of His intentions
to destroy
Abraham argues with God, but Noah passively and docilely accepts everything God tells him. Abraham therefore walks “before God,” but Noah is only “with God.” By demanding the Almighty to show mercy, Abraham actively brings salvation to the world; he is himself the initiator and the cause of salvation. But Noah does nothing but obey. Noah is therefore only the “object” of salvation.
Of course, God is just and all His decisions are just. But He has also given us morally sensitive souls for the very purpose of arguing with God when we feel that the issues warrant it. When a person argues persuasively, God changes his decision, because when man steps up to argue, that itself shows that change has already taken place in the world. We see an example of this in God’s dialogue with Moses in the incident of the Golden Calf (Exodus 32:14). This is the only way that God can raise us, as human beings, to ever higher levels of personal development – by encouraging and requiring us to debate, disagree, and discuss.
Noah’s
Thus, Noah’s ark was no ordinary ship, but a floating three-story pyramid. The Midrash describes the ark as a completely autonomous structure. The lower level was where foodstuffs were kept, and animal waste was stored. The animals inhabited the middle level, and the upper level is where Noah and his family lived.
Clearly, the purpose of the ark was not only to save Noah and the animals. God commanded Noah to build that huge floating hulk as a last attempt to save all of humanity from annihilation.
God informed Noah of the upcoming flood 120 years in advance. “The Lord said, “My breath shall not abide in man forever, since he too is flesh; let the days allowed him be one hundred and twenty years” (6:3). He then immediately ordered Noah to begin building the ark. For all those 120 years Noah was engaged in a highly unusual job, during which time he also had to answer questions from perplexed citizens about the future flood that would destroy humanity because it was leading an unseemly life.
Noah’s actions created conflict and placed him at the center of public debate. Thus, the purpose of constructing the ark was not only to rescue Noah; rather (and even more so), it was an attempt to reeducate the people. God charged Noah with going out to the people, and making efforts to reform humanity.
The futility of that attempt was not a foregone conclusion by any means. Quite the contrary, the attempt was fraught with hope that the people would listen to Noah and try to improve, and then there would have been no need for a flood. According to the Midrash, the Almighty had predetermined that a very great abundance of water would pour down on the earth that year. The only question was, would it be waters of blessing and Torah wisdom (for the Torah is compared to water), or would it be flood waters that would purge and destroy? The answer depended only on what mankind would choose – righteousness or evil.
כג וַיִּ֜מַח אֶֽת־כָּל־הַיְק֣וּם ׀ אֲשֶׁ֣ר ׀ עַל־פְּנֵ֣י הָֽאֲדָמָ֗ה מֵֽאָדָ֤ם עַד־בְּהֵמָה֙ עַד־רֶ֨מֶשׂ֙ וְעַד־ע֣וֹף הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם וַיִּמָּח֖וּ מִן־הָאָ֑רֶץ וַיִּשָּׁ֧אֶר אַךְ־נֹ֛חַ וַֽאֲשֶׁ֥ר אִתּ֖וֹ בַּתֵּבָֽה׃ כד וַיִּגְבְּר֥וּ הַמַּ֖יִם עַל־הָאָ֑רֶץ חֲמִשִּׁ֥ים וּמְאַ֖ת יֽוֹם׃
[23] All existence on earth was blotted out–man, cattle, creeping things, and birds of the sky; they were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.
[24] And when the waters had swelled on the earth one hundred and fifty days,
In addition to the many decades Noah spent constructing the ark, the time that the ark continued to sail on the floodwaters also served the same purpose of reeducating Noah. An hour would have been quite sufficient for the Flood to destroy all living things on earth, but the flood lasted much, much longer – almost a year. Why, after all life outside the ark had already been destroyed, did Noah have to sail the waves for almost another whole year? And what was Noah doing in the ark all that time?
We have already noted that the word “ah,” “only,” used in verse 23 can also mean “hardly,” or “barely,” The verse can thus be translated differently: “Noah just barely remained alive with others who were in the ark.” Noah himself was barely alive, and could easily have died.
The Midrash explains that Noah and his family spent an entire year in the ark tending to the needs of the animals. They ran up and down the levels of the ark, carrying food to the animals and cleaning up behind them. Noah delayed on one occasion and was late in feeding the lion, whereupon the lion became incensed and mauled Noah almost to the point of death.
Thus, the ark was for Noah not only a refuge from the Flood, but a place of correction resembling a forced-labor camp. For Noah, a righteous man preoccupied exclusively with himself, the primary aspect of the correction was the lesson of taking responsibility for the entire world (which at that time was the ark). When Noah learned this lesson, after living in the ark for a full year, the Flood ended.
יח וַהֲקִֽמֹתִ֥י אֶת־בְּרִיתִ֖י אִתָּ֑ךְ וּבָאתָ֙ אֶל־הַתֵּבָ֔ה אַתָּ֕ה וּבָנֶ֛יךָ וְאִשְׁתְּךָ֥ וּנְשֵֽׁי־בָנֶ֖יךָ אִתָּֽךְ׃
(6:18) But I will establish My covenant with you, and you shall enter the ark, with your sons, your wife, and your sons’ wives.
יג בְּעֶ֨צֶם הַיּ֤וֹם הַזֶּה֙ בָּ֣א נֹ֔חַ וְשֵׁם־וְחָ֥ם וָיֶ֖פֶת בְּנֵי־נֹ֑חַ וְאֵ֣שֶׁת נֹ֗חַ וּשְׁלֹ֧שֶׁת נְשֵֽׁי־בָנָ֛יו אִתָּ֖ם אֶל־הַתֵּבָֽה׃
(7:13) That same day Noah and Noah’s sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, went into the ark, with Noah’s wife and the three wives of his sons –
טז צֵ֖א מִן־הַתֵּבָ֑ה אַתָּ֕ה וְאִשְׁתְּךָ֛ וּבָנֶ֥יךָ וּנְשֵֽׁי־בָנֶ֖יךָ אִתָּֽךְ׃
(8:16) “Come out of the ark, together with your wife, your sons, and your sons’ wives.
יח וַיֵּ֖צֵא־נֹ֑חַ וּבָנָ֛יו וְאִשְׁתּ֥וֹ וּנְשֵֽׁי־בָנָ֖יו אִתּֽוֹ׃
(8:18) So Noah came out, together with his sons, his wife, and his sons’ wives.
א וַיְבָ֣רֶךְ אֱלֹהִ֔ים אֶת־נֹ֖חַ וְאֶת־בָּנָ֑יו וַיֹּ֧אמֶר לָהֶ֛ם פְּר֥וּ וּרְב֖וּ וּמִלְא֥וּ אֶת־הָאָֽרֶץ׃
(9:1) God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them, “Be fertile and increase, and fill the earth.
The Flood was more than just water covering the earth. The flood suspended the normal functioning of the entire world, a hiatus that was necessary for transforming the world and for creating a whole new “breed” of man. This finds expression, specifically, in the cessation of married family life in the ark. We have already mentioned that men and women had to enter the ark separately (6:18). And as long as they were in the ark, the men lived separately from the women.
But when the
time came to leave the ark, the men and women were told to do so together
(8:16). Thus, intimate relations that had to be suspended during the Flood were
now once again permitted. However, although God instructed Noah and his family
to emerge from the ark in pairs, they were afraid of returning to normal family
life, and they therefore left the
Another aspect of the suspension of nature during the Flood is derived by the Midrash from the following verse: “So long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night shall not cease” (8:22). The Midrash explains that the normal cycles of time would never cease after the Flood, but during the Flood those cycles – summer and winter, day and night, and so on – were in fact suspended.
The normal rhythms of life were suspended even inside the ark, for as already mentioned, the women neither conceived nor gave birth inside the ark, just as summer and winter, night and day were suspended outside of it. Noah and his family were reeducated in the ark, and the nature of the earth was suspended and reorganized outside the ark.
Food was first stored on the ground floor, which is where Noah also dumped animal waste. He could not simply throw that waste off the ark, because the ark was an autonomous entity, completely separated from the outside world. The whole world was reduced to the size of an ark, so that Noah could learn to take care of others.
When the whole world found itself literally “in the same boat” with him, Noah was able to realize the importance of loving one’s neighbor. In the ark, Noah gained a new understanding of righteousness as responsibility for others. Only after that did the space of the ark expand back to the full size of the earth.
The verse preceding the end of the Flood says: “God remembered Noah and all the beasts and all the cattle that were with him in the ark” (8:1). What is the meaning of “God remembered”? Does God ever forget anything? Obviously not. But “remembered” means, simply, that the time had come for God to have Noah exit from the ark onto dry land, since Noah had now sufficiently corrected himself such that any new flood could be avoided.
כ וַיִּ֥בֶן נֹ֛חַ מִזְבֵּ֖חַ לַֽי֑י וַיִּקַּ֞ח מִכֹּ֣ל ׀ הַבְּהֵמָ֣ה הַטְּהֹרָ֗ה וּמִכֹּל֙ הָע֣וֹף הַטָּה֔וֹר וַיַּ֥עַל עֹלֹ֖ת בַּמִּזְבֵּֽחַ׃ כא וַיָּ֣רַח יי֮ אֶת־רֵ֣יחַ הַנִּיחֹחַ֒ וַיֹּ֨אמֶר י֜י אֶל־לִבּ֗וֹ לֹֽא־אֹ֠סִף לְקַלֵּ֨ל ע֤וֹד אֶת־הָֽאֲדָמָה֙ בַּֽעֲב֣וּר הָֽאָדָ֔ם כִּ֠י יֵ֣צֶר לֵ֧ב הָֽאָדָ֛ם רַ֖ע מִנְּעֻרָ֑יו וְלֹֽא־אֹסִ֥ף ע֛וֹד לְהַכּ֥וֹת אֶת־כָּל־חַ֖י כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֥ר עָשִֽׂיתִי׃
[20] Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and, taking of every clean animal and of every clean bird, he offered burnt offerings on the altar.
[21] The Lord smelled the pleasing odor, and the Lord said to Himself: “Never again will I doom the earth because of man, since the devisings of man’s mind are evil from his youth; nor will I ever again destroy every living being, as I have done.
After leaving the ark, Noah, before doing anything else, offered a sacrifice.
The Torah distinguishes between several different types of sacrifices. Here Noah’s sacrifice is “burnt offerings” that are entirely burned on the altar. This kind of sacrifice is brought as a sign of “replacing oneself,” a symbol of understanding that the person himself should have been sacrificed, rather than the animal, and that only the mercy of the Almighty allows him to continue to live.
Thus the burnt offering testifies that Noah was aware that his salvation was an act of Divine mercy. Noah understood that he was not saved on his own merits, nor as a reward for having executed divine orders. He is not saved because of something he did in the past, but for the sake of something that lay in the future – creating a new humanity, for whom life is impossible without concern for one’s fellow man. Now that Noah understands this, he can be allowed to leave the ark.
[21] The Lord smelled the pleasing odor ◊ God confirmed that Noah had reached the required level of understanding.
[21] Never again will I doom the earth ◊ The high level of connection with the earth that man previously had is no more. In Noah was realized (albeit in a completely different way than was originally expected) the prophetic prayer of his father Lamech: to comfort, simplify, and reconcile with the world. Noah realized his name by making the world more “simple and convenient.” But the price that had to be paid for this simplicity was the Flood.
Perhaps the lesson for us today is that we should not complain about life being too complicated. The desire to have an easier life can lead directly to a Flood or some other catastrophe.
יז וַֽאֲנִ֗י הִנְנִי֩ מֵבִ֨יא אֶת־הַמַּבּ֥וּל מַ֨יִם֙ עַל־הָאָ֔רֶץ לְשַׁחֵ֣ת כָּל־בָּשָׂ֗ר אֲשֶׁר־בּוֹ֙ ר֣וּחַ חַיִּ֔ים מִתַּ֖חַת הַשָּׁמָ֑יִם כֹּ֥ל אֲשֶׁר־בָּאָ֖רֶץ יִגְוָֽע׃
[17] “For My part, I am about to bring the Flood – waters upon the earth – to destroy all flesh under the sky in which there is breath of life; everything on earth shall perish.”
[17] I am about to bring the Flood-waters upon the earth ◊ After the word “Flood” there is an addition for the sake of refinement, “water on the earth.” This means that the mabbul, the Flood, is not the same as any other simple inundation of water. Water is only one of the parameters, and the Flood itself is something quite unique.
In Hebrew, mabbul is associated with the root beit-lamed, from which are derived, for example, the words balal and bilbel – “confuse” and “mix,” as well as the name Bavel, Babylon (“because there the Lord confounded the speech of the whole earth” – 11:9), and the verb bala – to decay.
What is the significance of the concept of decay? When a thing is new, it has both coarse and fine structure. Take clothing as an example. It has not only sleeves and pockets, but also finishing, details, and patterns. When clothing decays, it retains a coarse structure, but loses its subtleties and details, and becomes more “simple.” This loss of fine structure, which results in the intermingling of everything into one confused mass, is the general meaning of the bet-lamed root.
Thus, the mabbul, the Flood, is the destruction of the “fine structure” of the Universe. The fine structure of the earth means its susceptibility to the level of human righteousness. This is what was destroyed in the Flood. Inundation by water was only a means to realizing the Flood itself. Only the water was predetermined. But it then turned into death by causing drowning, because of the sins of the people.
Since the Flood destroyed man’s spiritual influence on the earth, God will have no need to destroy the world again, and He promises that there will be never be another flood. We can now understand the meaning of “Never again will I doom the earth because of man, since the devisings of man’s mind are evil from his youth” (8:21). Although man is still prone to evil even after the Flood, he no longer has such a formidable ability to influence the world. Because the “thin structure” of man’s interaction with the earth is no longer effective, the world cannot be completely destroyed, and a situation requiring almost total destruction of humanity is no longer possible.
יג אֶת־קַשְׁתִּ֕י נָתַ֖תִּי בֶּֽעָנָ֑ן וְהָֽיְתָה֙ לְא֣וֹת בְּרִ֔ית בֵּינִ֖י וּבֵ֥ין הָאָֽרֶץ׃ יד וְהָיָ֕ה בְּעַֽנְנִ֥י עָנָ֖ן עַל־הָאָ֑רֶץ וְנִרְאֲתָ֥ה הַקֶּ֖שֶׁת בֶּֽעָנָֽן׃ טו וְזָֽכַרְתִּ֣י אֶת־בְּרִיתִ֗י אֲשֶׁ֤ר בֵּינִי֙ וּבֵ֣ינֵיכֶ֔ם וּבֵ֛ין כָּל־נֶ֥פֶשׁ חַיָּ֖ה בְּכָל־בָּשָׂ֑ר וְלֹֽא־יִֽהְיֶ֨ה ע֤וֹד הַמַּ֨יִם֙ לְמַבּ֔וּל לְשַׁחֵ֖ת כָּל־בָּשָֽׂר׃ טז וְהָֽיְתָ֥ה הַקֶּ֖שֶׁת בֶּֽעָנָ֑ן וּרְאִיתִ֗יהָ לִזְכֹּר֙ בְּרִ֣ית עוֹלָ֔ם בֵּ֣ין אֱלֹהִ֔ים וּבֵין֙ כָּל־נֶ֣פֶשׁ חַיָּ֔ה בְּכָל־בָּשָׂ֖ר אֲשֶׁ֥ר עַל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃ יז וַיֹּ֥אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֖ים אֶל־נֹ֑חַ זֹ֤את אֽוֹת־הַבְּרִית֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר הֲקִמֹ֔תִי בֵּינִ֕י וּבֵ֥ין כָּל־בָּשָׂ֖ר אֲשֶׁ֥ר עַל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃
[13] I have set My bow in the clouds, and it shall serve as a sign of the covenant between Me and the earth.
[14] When I bring clouds over the earth, and the bow appears in the clouds,
[15] I will remember My covenant between Me and you and every living creature among all flesh, so that the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh.
[16] When the bow is in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures, all flesh that is on earth.
[17] “That,” God said to Noah, “shall be the sign of the covenant that I have established between Me and all flesh that is on earth.”
The rainbow in particular is chosen as a sign of the covenant, because its colors are the entire spectrum from red to indigo-violet. In Hebrew, adom, “red,” is associated with the word adamah, “earth,” which represents the lower levels of being, or materiality. The indigo-violet techelet, which is also associated with the word tachlit, “goal” (striving toward something higher), is the color of the sky, and also the color of the blue thread that must be woven as tassels on the corners of four-cornered garments (Num. 15:37 ff.), symbolizing the goal that leads a person to the Almighty (See Numbers 15:37 and commentaries there).
The rainbow extends from adom to techelet, from the low, material level to the high and spiritual, and thus symbolizes many facets of the new post-Flood humanity. It is as if the Almighty were saying: “I have reconciled with man’s imperfections. I have removed his special powers; now let him be multi-faceted. There are the evildoers and there are the righteous. For the sake of the righteous I must not destroy the evildoers. Humanity is now a multi-faceted, polychromatic community.”
An important question arises in this connection: Where was the rainbow before the Flood? Were rainbows perhaps not seen then at all? Or did they appear, but were simply not yet a symbol of God’s covenant? Although in Jewish tradition we find both approaches, most opinions agree that before the Flood rainbows did not exist.
The world before the Flood was, in a sense, black and white. Evil was then so powerful that every human being was either a villain or a righteous man. And Noah, who was righteous but only relatively speaking, was nonetheless in the world of all black and white considered completely pure. But at the same time, he was truly limited.
After the Flood, the world went from monochrome to color, and everything was far less unambiguous. The rainbow is a symbol of this diversity.
כ וַיָּ֥חֶל נֹ֖חַ אִ֣ישׁ הָֽאֲדָמָ֑ה וַיִּטַּ֖ע כָּֽרֶם׃ כא וַיֵּ֥שְׁתְּ מִן־הַיַּ֖יִן וַיִּשְׁכָּ֑ר וַיִּתְגַּ֖ל בְּת֥וֹךְ אָֽהֳלֹֽה׃ כב וַיַּ֗רְא חָ֚ם אֲבִ֣י כְנַ֔עַן אֵ֖ת עֶרְוַ֣ת אָבִ֑יו וַיַּגֵּ֥ד לִשְׁנֵֽי־אֶחָ֖יו בַּחֽוּץ׃ כג וַיִּקַּח֩ שֵׁ֨ם וָיֶ֜פֶת אֶת־הַשִּׂמְלָ֗ה וַיָּשִׂ֨ימוּ֙ עַל־שְׁכֶ֣ם שְׁנֵיהֶ֔ם וַיֵּֽלְכוּ֙ אֲחֹ֣רַנִּ֔ית וַיְכַסּ֕וּ אֵ֖ת עֶרְוַ֣ת אֲבִיהֶ֑ם וּפְנֵיהֶם֙ אֲחֹ֣רַנִּ֔ית וְעֶרְוַ֥ת אֲבִיהֶ֖ם לֹ֥א רָאֽוּ׃
[20] Noah, the tiller of the soil, was the first to plant a vineyard.
[21] He drank of the wine and became drunk, and he uncovered himself within his tent.
[22] Ham, the father of
[23] But Shem and Japheth took a cloth, placed it against both their backs and, walking backward, they covered their father’s nakedness; their faces were turned the other way, so that they did not see their father’s nakedness.
[20] Noah, the tiller of the soil, was the first to plant a vineyard ◊ Noah began with an action that what was fully permissible – we could even say it was a positively motivated action. He planted a vineyard, made wine, and drank. All of that is permissible. But then he quickly met his downfall, for his actions crossed the line into the unlawful.
The problem was that Noah could not hold his own in a multicolored world, where there is a sea of intermediate shades and everything is ambiguous. Noah could remain righteous only in the simplest possible world, where everything is unambiguously either black or white.
[23] But Shem and Japheth took a cloth, placed it against both their backs and, walking backward, covered their father’s nakedness; their faces were turned the other way, so that they did not see their father’s nakedness ◊ Shem and Japheth, unlike their father Noah, are people of a different, new world. What’s going on here? A son hears that his father lies naked in his tent. What should be done? It all seems simple enough: grab a cloth and go and cover him. Shem and Japheth, however, do not act “simply.” They give thought to the details and the consequences, they check their own behavior, and they therefore walk backwards, turning their faces away.
Noah’s sons understand that in a complex, ambiguous world it is very easy to gravitate from what is right to what is wrong. Thus, they personify a new kind of righteousness that has staying power in this new, more complex, multifaceted world.
According to
the Midrash, although the Flood affected the entire world, there was one place
that was untouched by the ravages of the Flood: the
This means
that the pre-Flood ability of the earth to respond to the spiritual state of
society has been preserved in the
If the
Jewish people – to whom alone the
א וְאֵ֨לֶּה֙ תּֽוֹלְדֹ֣ת בְּנֵי־נֹ֔חַ שֵׁ֖ם חָ֣ם וָיָ֑פֶת וַיִּוָּֽלְד֥וּ לָהֶ֛ם בָּנִ֖ים אַחַ֥ר הַמַּבּֽוּל׃ ב בְּנֵ֣י יֶ֔פֶת גֹּ֣מֶר וּמָג֔וֹג וּמָדַ֖י וְיָוָ֣ן וְתֻבָ֑ל וּמֶ֖שֶׁךְ וְתִירָֽס׃ ג וּבְנֵ֖י גֹּ֑מֶר אַשְׁכְּנַ֥ז וְרִיפַ֖ת וְתֹֽגַרְמָֽה׃ ד וּבְנֵ֥י יָוָ֖ן אֱלִישָׁ֣ה וְתַרְשִׁ֑ישׁ כִּתִּ֖ים וְדֹֽדָנִֽים׃ ה מֵ֠אֵלֶּה נִפְרְד֞וּ אִיֵּ֤י הַגּוֹיִם֙ בְּאַרְצֹתָ֔ם אִ֖ישׁ לִלְשֹׁנ֑וֹ לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָ֖ם בְּגֽוֹיֵהֶֽם׃
[1] These are the lines of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah: sons were born to them after the Flood.
[2] The descendants of Japheth: Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras.
[3] The descendants of Gomer: Ashkenaz, Riphath, and Togarmah.
[4] The descendants of Javan: Elishah and Tarshish, the Kittim and the Dodanim.
[5] From these the maritime nations branched out. [These are the descendants of Japheth] by their lands – each with its language – their clans and their nations.
[1] Sons were born to them after the Flood ◊ This is not mere chronological information (since we already know that before the Flood Noah’s sons had no children). Rather, it is an indication of the new, post-Flood character of the new humanity.
[5] By their lands –
each with its language – their clans and their nations ◊ The
dispersal of nations occurred immediately after the Flood, even before the
incident of the
ו וּבְנֵ֖י חָ֑ם כּ֥וּשׁ וּמִצְרַ֖יִם וּפ֥וּט וּכְנָֽעַן׃ ז וּבְנֵ֣י כ֔וּשׁ סְבָא֙ וַֽחֲוִילָ֔ה וְסַבְתָּ֥ה וְרַעְמָ֖ה וְסַבְתְּכָ֑א וּבְנֵ֥י רַעְמָ֖ה שְׁבָ֥א וּדְדָֽן׃ ח וְכ֖וּשׁ יָלַ֣ד אֶת־נִמְרֹ֑ד ה֣וּא הֵחֵ֔ל לִֽהְי֥וֹת גִּבֹּ֖ר בָּאָֽרֶץ׃ ט הֽוּא־הָיָ֥ה גִבֹּֽר־צַ֖יִד לִפְנֵ֣י י֑י עַל־כֵּן֙ יֵֽאָמַ֔ר כְּנִמְרֹ֛ד גִּבּ֥וֹר צַ֖יִד לִפְנֵ֥י יֽי׃ י וַתְּהִ֨י רֵאשִׁ֤ית מַמְלַכְתּוֹ֙ בָּבֶ֔ל וְאֶ֖רֶךְ וְאַכַּ֣ד וְכַלְנֵ֑ה בְּאֶ֖רֶץ שִׁנְעָֽר׃ יא מִן־הָאָ֥רֶץ הַהִ֖וא יָצָ֣א אַשּׁ֑וּר וַיִּ֨בֶן֙ אֶת־נִ֣ינְוֵ֔ה וְאֶת־רְחֹבֹ֥ת עִ֖יר וְאֶת־כָּֽלַח׃ יב וְֽאֶת־רֶ֔סֶן בֵּ֥ין נִֽינְוֵ֖ה וּבֵ֣ין כָּ֑לַח הִ֖וא הָעִ֥יר הַגְּדֹלָֽה׃ יג וּמִצְרַ֡יִם יָלַ֞ד אֶת־לוּדִ֧ים וְאֶת־עֲנָמִ֛ים וְאֶת־לְהָבִ֖ים וְאֶת־נַפְתֻּחִֽים׃ יד וְֽאֶת־פַּתְרֻסִ֞ים וְאֶת־כַּסְלֻחִ֗ים אֲשֶׁ֨ר יָֽצְא֥וּ מִשָּׁ֛ם פְּלִשְׁתִּ֖ים וְאֶת־כַּפְתֹּרִֽים׃ טו וּכְנַ֗עַן יָלַ֛ד אֶת־צִידֹ֥ן בְּכֹר֖וֹ וְאֶת־חֵֽת׃ טז וְאֶת־הַיְבוּסִי֙ וְאֶת־הָ֣אֱמֹרִ֔י וְאֵ֖ת הַגִּרְגָּשִֽׁי׃ יז וְאֶת־הַֽחִוִּ֥י וְאֶת־הַֽעַרְקִ֖י וְאֶת־הַסִּינִֽי׃ יח וְאֶת־הָֽאַרְוָדִ֥י וְאֶת־הַצְּמָרִ֖י וְאֶת־הַֽחֲמָתִ֑י וְאַחַ֣ר נָפֹ֔צוּ מִשְׁפְּח֖וֹת הַֽכְּנַעֲנִֽי׃ יט וַיְהִ֞י גְּב֤וּל הַֽכְּנַעֲנִי֙ מִצִּידֹ֔ן בֹּֽאֲכָ֥ה גְרָ֖רָה עַד־עַזָּ֑ה בֹּֽאֲכָ֞ה סְדֹ֧מָה וַֽעֲמֹרָ֛ה וְאַדְמָ֥ה וּצְבֹיִ֖ם עַד־לָֽשַׁע׃ כ אֵ֣לֶּה בְנֵי־חָ֔ם לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָ֖ם לִלְשֹֽׁנֹתָ֑ם בְּאַרְצֹתָ֖ם בְּגֽוֹיֵהֶֽם׃
[6] The descendants of Ham:
[7] The descendants of
[8]
[9] He was a mighty hunter by the grace of the Lord; hence the saying, “Like Nimrod a mighty hunter by the grace of the Lord”.
[10] The mainstays of his kingdom were
[11] From that land Asshur went forth and built
[12] and Resen between
[13] And Mizraim begot the Ludim, the Anamim, the Lehabim, the Naphtuhim,
[14] the Pathrusim, the Casluhim, and the Caphtorim, whence the Philistines came forth.
[15] Canaan begot
[16] and the Jebusites, the Amorites, the Girgashites,
[17] the Hivites, the Arkites, the Sinites,
[18] the Arvadites, the Zemarites, and the Hamathites. Afterward the clans of the Canaanites spread out.
[19] (The [original] Canaanite territory extended from
[20] These are the descendants of Ham, according to their clans and languages, by their lands and nations.
[8]
[9] He was a mighty hunter by the grace of the Lord ◊ Nimrod, at least in the beginning, saw his abilities as a gift from the Almighty. From this passage he does not appear to have “led a rebellion against God”, as the Midrash depicts him.
[10] The mainstays of
his kingdom were
In the
[11] From that land
Asshur went forth ◊ Not everyone was prepared to obey Nimrod in
כא וּלְשֵׁ֥ם יֻלַּ֖ד גַּם־ה֑וּא אֲבִי֙ כָּל־בְּנֵי־עֵ֔בֶר אֲחִ֖י יֶ֥פֶת הַגָּדֽוֹל׃ כב בְּנֵ֥י שֵׁ֖ם עֵילָ֣ם וְאַשּׁ֑וּר וְאַרְפַּכְשַׁ֖ד וְל֥וּד וַֽאֲרָֽם׃ כג וּבְנֵ֖י אֲרָ֑ם ע֥וּץ וְח֖וּל וְגֶ֥תֶר וָמַֽשׁ׃ כד וְאַרְפַּכְשַׁ֖ד יָלַ֣ד אֶת־שָׁ֑לַח וְשֶׁ֖לַח יָלַ֥ד אֶת־עֵֽבֶר׃ כה וּלְעֵ֥בֶר יֻלַּ֖ד שְׁנֵ֣י בָנִ֑ים שֵׁ֣ם הָֽאֶחָ֞ד פֶּ֗לֶג כִּ֤י בְיָמָיו֙ נִפְלְגָ֣ה הָאָ֔רֶץ וְשֵׁ֥ם אָחִ֖יו יָקְטָֽן׃ כו וְיָקְטָ֣ן יָלַ֔ד אֶת־אַלְמוֹדָ֖ד וְאֶת־שָׁ֑לֶף וְאֶת־חֲצַרְמָ֖וֶת וְאֶת־יָֽרַח׃ כז וְאֶת־הֲדוֹרָ֥ם וְאֶת־אוּזָ֖ל וְאֶת־דִּקְלָֽה׃ כח וְאֶת־עוֹבָ֥ל וְאֶת־אֲבִֽימָאֵ֖ל וְאֶת־שְׁבָֽא׃ כט וְאֶת־אוֹפִ֥ר וְאֶת־חֲוִילָ֖ה וְאֶת־יוֹבָ֑ב כָּל־אֵ֖לֶּה בְּנֵ֥י יָקְטָֽן׃ ל וַיְהִ֥י מֽוֹשָׁבָ֖ם מִמֵּשָׁ֑א בֹּֽאֲכָ֥ה סְפָ֖רָה הַ֥ר הַקֶּֽדֶם׃ לא אֵ֣לֶּה בְנֵי־שֵׁ֔ם לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָ֖ם לִלְשֹֽׁנֹתָ֑ם בְּאַרְצֹתָ֖ם לְגֽוֹיֵהֶֽם׃ לב אֵ֣לֶּה מִשְׁפְּחֹ֧ת בְּנֵי־נֹ֛חַ לְתֽוֹלְדֹתָ֖ם בְּגֽוֹיֵהֶ֑ם וּמֵאֵ֜לֶּה נִפְרְד֧וּ הַגּוֹיִ֛ם בָּאָ֖רֶץ אַחַ֥ר הַמַּבּֽוּל׃
[21] Sons were also born to Shem, ancestor of all the descendants of Eber and older brother of Japheth.
[22] The descendants of Shem:
[23] The descendants of
[24] Arpachshad begot Shelah, and Shelah begot Eber.
[25] Two sons were born to Eber: the name of the first was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided; and the name of his brother was Joktan.
[26] Joktan begot Almodad, Sheleph, Hazarmaveth, Jerah,
[27] Hadoram, Uzal, Diklah,
[28] Obal,
[29] Ophir, Havilah, and Jobab; all these were the descendants of Joktan.
[30] Their settlements extended from Mesha as far as Sephar, the hill country to the east.
[31] These are the descendants of Shem according to their clans and languages, by their lands, according to their nations.
[32] These are the groupings of Noah’s descendants, according to their origins, by their nations; and from these the nations branched out over the earth after the Flood.
[21] Sons were also born to Shem, ancestor of all the descendants of Eber ◊ Although Eber was only one of Shem’s great-grandchildren, his strong connection with Shem, which will become apparent in the history of Abraham’s family, is emphasized here.
[32] And from these the nations branched out over the earth after the Flood ◊ The Torah once again emphasizes that immediately after the Flood, even before the “mingling of tongues” at the Tower of Babel, there are different nations, each with its own language, and they are settled over the entire earth.
א וַיְהִ֥י כָל־הָאָ֖רֶץ שָׂפָ֣ה אֶחָ֑ת וּדְבָרִ֖ים אֲחָדִֽים׃ ב וַיְהִ֖י בְּנָסְעָ֣ם מִקֶּ֑דֶם וַֽיִּמְצְא֥וּ בִקְעָ֛ה בְּאֶ֥רֶץ שִׁנְעָ֖ר וַיֵּ֥שְׁבוּ שָֽׁם׃ ג וַיֹּֽאמְר֞וּ אִ֣ישׁ אֶל־רֵעֵ֗הוּ הָ֚בָה נִלְבְּנָ֣ה לְבֵנִ֔ים וְנִשְׂרְפָ֖ה לִשְׂרֵפָ֑ה וַתְּהִ֨י לָהֶ֤ם הַלְּבֵנָה֙ לְאָ֔בֶן וְהַ֣חֵמָ֔ר הָיָ֥ה לָהֶ֖ם לַחֹֽמֶר׃ ד וַיֹּֽאמְר֞וּ הָ֣בָה ׀ נִבְנֶה־לָּ֣נוּ עִ֗יר וּמִגְדָּל֙ וְרֹאשׁ֣וֹ בַשָּׁמַ֔יִם וְנַֽעֲשֶׂה־לָּ֖נוּ שֵׁ֑ם פֶּן־נָפ֖וּץ עַל־פְּנֵ֥י כָל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃
[1] Everyone on earth had the same language and the same words.
[2] And as they migrated from the east, they came
upon a valley in the
[3] They said to one another, “Come, let us make bricks and burn them hard” – Brick served them as stone, and bitumen served them as mortar.
[4] And they said, “Come, let us build us a city, and a tower with its top in the sky, to make a name for ourselves; else we shall be scattered all over the world.”
[1] Everyone on earth had the same language and the same words ◊ As noted earlier (10:5, 20, 32), the nations split apart immediately after the Flood, even before the building of the Tower. How, then, is that to be reconciled with the one language for all mentioned here? The answer is that the word “language” is being used in two different senses.
Hebrew has two different words for “language”: lashon, which also means “tongue” (the organ inside the mouth), and safah, which also means “lip.” The expression in chapter 10, “branched out each with its language,” uses the word lashon, but in “Everyone on earth had the same language” here in Chapter 11, the Hebrew word is safah.
Just as the
tongue is inside the human body, while the lips are outside, the two forms of
language represented by those same words are likewise not at all identical. Lashon, the “language for internal use,” is a system of
concepts for describing reality that is needed to formulate models of the
surrounding world, and which forms the basis of a functioning society. Each
nation had such an internal language specific to it that it used to describe
its affairs in terms of its own specific culture. But there was also a single
“external communication language,” safah, common to
all the nations of the earth, which they used for intercommunication. In the
aftermath of the incident of the
And the same words ◊ Literally, “and few words.” The existence of a common communication language, in addition to the independent, individual language of each nation and culture, is not per se a bad thing. The problem is only that such a language is poor, having only “few words.” Due to the poverty and the primitive nature of this common language, it was impossible to build anything except a rigid “vertical of power” and a simple command structure. It was impossible to express fine-grained thoughts in that language, nor could it be used to describe cultural subtleties or to establish genuine mutual understanding among nations; it served only as the language of government. In other words, the people had so perverted this means of communication that it no longer had any right to exist.
[3] They said to one another, “Come, let us make bricks and burn them hard.” – Brick served them as stone, and bitumen served them as mortar ◊ This monumental technological revolution, homogeneous bricks instead of a motley assortment of stones, was bound together with a new connecting element (tar is far more adhesive than clay) and led to drastically improved construction quality and human living conditions. These new achievements, however, were used for an entirely different purpose.
[4] And they said, “Come, let us build us a city, and a tower with its top in the sky, to make a name for ourselves; else we shall be scattered all over the world” ◊ The goal of building the tower was not to reach the heavens, which, although a feature of the project, was not its actual objective. That goal, as clearly stated, was different –namely, to prevent the break-up of mankind. After the departure of Assyria (10:11), whose example could easily have set a precedent, Nimrod is determined to strengthen his kingdom in order to prevent the departure of yet other nations. To accomplish this he needs to create a unifying idea: “To make a name for ourselves.” The construction of the great “city, and a tower with its top in the sky” became that idea; that is, it was envisioned as a project that would draw all nations into a shared undertaking and effect cohesion among the nations.
A tower with its top in the sky ◊ The goal had to be a colossal, but also unattainable one. Only such an enormous, unrealizable project could consistently maintain the intensity needed to ensure universal involvement in the process. Captivating a population with grandiose designs is far easier than directing them to solve practical tasks of much smaller scale.
ה וַיֵּ֣רֶד י֔י לִרְאֹ֥ת אֶת־הָעִ֖יר וְאֶת־הַמִּגְדָּ֑ל אֲשֶׁ֥ר בָּנ֖וּ בְּנֵ֥י הָֽאָדָֽם׃ ו וַיֹּ֣אמֶר י֗י הֵ֣ן עַ֤ם אֶחָד֙ וְשָׂפָ֤ה אַחַת֙ לְכֻלָּ֔ם וְזֶ֖ה הַֽחִלָּ֣ם לַֽעֲשׂ֑וֹת וְעַתָּה֙ לֹֽא־יִבָּצֵ֣ר מֵהֶ֔ם כֹּ֛ל אֲשֶׁ֥ר יָֽזְמ֖וּ לַֽעֲשֽׂוֹת׃ ז הָ֚בָה נֵֽרְדָ֔ה וְנָֽבְלָ֥ה שָׁ֖ם שְׂפָתָ֑ם אֲשֶׁר֙ לֹ֣א יִשְׁמְע֔וּ אִ֖ישׁ שְׂפַ֥ת רֵעֵֽהוּ׃ ח וַיָּ֨פֶץ י֥י אֹתָ֛ם מִשָּׁ֖ם עַל־פְּנֵ֣י כָל־הָאָ֑רֶץ וַֽיַּחְדְּל֖וּ לִבְנֹ֥ת הָעִֽיר׃ ט עַל־כֵּ֞ן קָרָ֤א שְׁמָהּ֙ בָּבֶ֔ל כִּי־שָׁ֛ם בָּלַ֥ל י֖י שְׂפַ֣ת כָּל־הָאָ֑רֶץ וּמִשָּׁם֙ הֱפִיצָ֣ם י֔י עַל־פְּנֵ֖י כָּל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃
[5] The Lord came down to look at the city and tower that man had built,
[6] and the Lord said, “If, as one people with one language for all, this is how they have begun to act, then nothing that they may propose to do will be out of their reach.
[7] Let us, then, go down and confound their speech there, so that they shall not understand one another’s speech.”
[8] Thus the Lord scattered them from there over the face of the whole earth; and they stopped building the city.
[9] That is why it was
called
[5] The Lord came down to look at the city and tower that man had built ◊ This descent can be understood as Divine judgment, but also as Divine revelation (cf., “And the Lord came down on Mouninai,” Exodus 19:20). By virtue of this descent the people attained such spiritual heights as would have been impossible through “the same language and few words” alone. Thus, it was that Divine revelation specifically that led to mutual miscomprehension, and consequently, to their abandonment of the primitive common command language, and to their ceasing construction of the Tower.
That approach, which understands God’s descent as mercy (revelation) rather than judgment, is indicated by the use in this entire passage of the Divine Name (“The Lord,” the Tetragrammaton), which is traditionally understood as expressing the attribute of mercy, as opposed to Elohim (“God”), which is associated with rigor and judgment.
[6] And the Lord said,
“If, as one people ◊ Above (10:32, and earlier, where the
Torah describes the division of nations after the Flood, which preceded the
account of the
With one language for all, this is how they have begun to act ◊ Having a common channel of communication, they began using it improperly.
Then nothing that they may propose to do will be out of their reach ◊ The unattainable was not the building of the “tower with its top in the sky”. (Reaching the sky is of course impossible, and the ancients were no more foolish than we are.) But building the tower was only a means toward implementing the plan, whose goal was to not “be scattered all over the world”; that is, to remain under a unified Babylonian power. That goal, with the endless building of the tower, was completely realizable.
Such unity wholly impedes the advancement and development of society. The task envisioned by God for humanity is in development and diversification, surely not in homogeneity. Development requires that different nations and cultures compete, rather than execute a common project. God therefore confounds their languages and drives off the nations in different directions.
Upon experiencing the Divine manifestation, a person can express his new, complex feelings and impressions only through lashon. Each nation has its own – a language that is rich, but incomprehensible to others. A poor common language is insufficient for describing the reality in which God is revealed. Each nation feels its own unique aspect of this revealed Divinity, which becomes for it more valuable than the common language and whatever importance it had previously acquired.
[7] So that they shall not understand one another’s speech ◊ In a technical sense the common language might not have completely disappeared, and they continued to understand each other’s words, but nonetheless could come to no true mutual understanding. The level reached by individual cultures so exceeded the ability of a limited common language to express it that intercommunication became almost impossible. The result was their complete disseverance.
[8] Thus the Lord scattered them from there over the face of the whole earth ◊ This scattering was actually a positive circumstance, for it laid the foundations for the further development and progress of humanity.
י אֵ֚לֶּה תּֽוֹלְדֹ֣ת שֵׁ֔ם שֵׁ֚ם בֶּן־מְאַ֣ת שָׁנָ֔ה וַיּ֖וֹלֶד אֶת־אַרְפַּכְשָׁ֑ד שְׁנָתַ֖יִם אַחַ֥ר הַמַּבּֽוּל׃ יא וַֽיְחִי־שֵׁ֗ם אַֽחֲרֵי֙ הֽוֹלִיד֣וֹ אֶת־אַרְפַּכְשָׁ֔ד חֲמֵ֥שׁ מֵא֖וֹת שָׁנָ֑ה וַיּ֥וֹלֶד בָּנִ֖ים וּבָנֽוֹת׃ יב וְאַרְפַּכְשַׁ֣ד חַ֔י חָמֵ֥שׁ וּשְׁלֹשִׁ֖ים שָׁנָ֑ה וַיּ֖וֹלֶד אֶת־שָֽׁלַח׃ יג וַיְחִ֣י אַרְפַּכְשַׁ֗ד אַֽחֲרֵי֙ הֽוֹלִיד֣וֹ אֶת־שֶׁ֔לַח שָׁלֹ֣שׁ שָׁנִ֔ים וְאַרְבַּ֥ע מֵא֖וֹת שָׁנָ֑ה וַיּ֥וֹלֶד בָּנִ֖ים וּבָנֽוֹת׃ יד וְשֶׁ֥לַח חַ֖י שְׁלֹשִׁ֣ים שָׁנָ֑ה וַיּ֖וֹלֶד אֶת־עֵֽבֶר׃ טו וַֽיְחִי־שֶׁ֗לַח אַֽחֲרֵי֙ הֽוֹלִיד֣וֹ אֶת־עֵ֔בֶר שָׁלֹ֣שׁ שָׁנִ֔ים וְאַרְבַּ֥ע מֵא֖וֹת שָׁנָ֑ה וַיּ֥וֹלֶד בָּנִ֖ים וּבָנֽוֹת׃ טז וַֽיְחִי־עֵ֕בֶר אַרְבַּ֥ע וּשְׁלֹשִׁ֖ים שָׁנָ֑ה וַיּ֖וֹלֶד אֶת־פָּֽלֶג׃ יז וַֽיְחִי־עֵ֗בֶר אַֽחֲרֵי֙ הֽוֹלִיד֣וֹ אֶת־פֶּ֔לֶג שְׁלֹשִׁ֣ים שָׁנָ֔ה וְאַרְבַּ֥ע מֵא֖וֹת שָׁנָ֑ה וַיּ֥וֹלֶד בָּנִ֖ים וּבָנֽוֹת׃ יח וַֽיְחִי־פֶ֖לֶג שְׁלֹשִׁ֣ים שָׁנָ֑ה וַיּ֖וֹלֶד אֶת־רְעֽוּ׃ יט וַֽיְחִי־פֶ֗לֶג אַֽחֲרֵי֙ הֽוֹלִיד֣וֹ אֶת־רְע֔וּ תֵּ֥שַׁע שָׁנִ֖ים וּמָאתַ֣יִם שָׁנָ֑ה וַיּ֥וֹלֶד בָּנִ֖ים וּבָנֽוֹת׃ כ וַיְחִ֣י רְע֔וּ שְׁתַּ֥יִם וּשְׁלֹשִׁ֖ים שָׁנָ֑ה וַיּ֖וֹלֶד אֶת־שְׂרֽוּג׃ כא וַיְחִ֣י רְע֗וּ אַֽחֲרֵי֙ הֽוֹלִיד֣וֹ אֶת־שְׂר֔וּג שֶׁ֥בַע שָׁנִ֖ים וּמָאתַ֣יִם שָׁנָ֑ה וַיּ֥וֹלֶד בָּנִ֖ים וּבָנֽוֹת׃ כב וַיְחִ֥י שְׂר֖וּג שְׁלֹשִׁ֣ים שָׁנָ֑ה וַיּ֖וֹלֶד אֶת־נָחֽוֹר׃ כג וַיְחִ֣י שְׂר֗וּג אַֽחֲרֵ֛י הֽוֹלִיד֥וֹ אֶת־נָח֖וֹר מָאתַ֣יִם שָׁנָ֑ה וַיּ֥וֹלֶד בָּנִ֖ים וּבָנֽוֹת׃ כד וַיְחִ֣י נָח֔וֹר תֵּ֥שַׁע וְעֶשְׂרִ֖ים שָׁנָ֑ה וַיּ֖וֹלֶד אֶת־תָּֽרַח׃ כה וַיְחִ֣י נָח֗וֹר אַֽחֲרֵי֙ הֽוֹלִיד֣וֹ אֶת־תֶּ֔רַח תְּשַֽׁע־עֶשְׂרֵ֥ה שָׁנָ֖ה וּמְאַ֣ת שָׁנָ֑ה וַיּ֥וֹלֶד בָּנִ֖ים וּבָנֽוֹת׃ כו וַֽיְחִי־תֶ֖רַח שִׁבְעִ֣ים שָׁנָ֑ה וַיּ֨וֹלֶד֙ אֶת־אַבְרָ֔ם אֶת־נָח֖וֹר וְאֶת־הָרָֽן׃ כז וְאֵ֨לֶּה֙ תּֽוֹלְדֹ֣ת תֶּ֔רַח תֶּ֚רַח הוֹלִ֣יד אֶת־אַבְרָ֔ם אֶת־נָח֖וֹר וְאֶת־הָרָ֑ן וְהָרָ֖ן הוֹלִ֥יד אֶת־לֽוֹט׃
[10] This is the line of Shem. Shem was 100 years old when he begot Arpachshad, two years after the Flood.
[11] After the birth of Arpachshad, Shem lived 500 years and begot sons and daughters.
[12] When Arpachshad had lived 35 years, he begot Shelah.
[13] After the birth of Shelah, Arpachshad lived 403 years and begot sons and daughters.
[14] When Shelah had lived 30 years, he begot Eber.
[15] After the birth of Eber, Shelah lived 403 years and begot sons and daughters.
[16] When Eber had lived 34 years, he begot Peleg.
[17] After the birth of Peleg, Eber lived 430 years and begot sons and daughters.
[18] When Peleg had lived 30 years, he begot Reu.
[19] After the birth of Reu, Peleg lived 209 years and begot sons and daughters.
[20] When Reu had lived 32 years, he begot Serug.
[21] After the birth of Serug, Reu lived 207 years and begot sons and daughters.
[22] When Serug had lived 30 years, he begot Nahor.
[23] After the birth of Nahor, Serug lived 200 years and begot sons and daughters.
[24] When Nahor had lived 29 years, he begot Terah.
[25] After the birth of Terah, Nahor lived 119 years and begot sons and daughters.
[26] When Terah had lived 70 years, he begot Abram,
Nahor, and
[27] Now this is the line of Terah: Terah begot
Abram, Nahor, and
Only a partial family tree is provided, the line from Shem to the family of Abraham, around which the story will continue to unfold.
But here we must return to Eber, about whom it was said above (10:21): “Shem, father of all the sons of Eber.” It is from Eber that the word ivri, “Hebrew,” is derived. We shall see later how important that Hebrew (in this case proto-Jewish) identity has itself become. Both Abraham and Joseph are called Hebrews (14:13, 41:12), while the entire country is called the “land of the Hebrews” (40:15). The Midrash explains that Noah, Shem, and Eber were “early monotheists” – “the first Patriarchs,” as it were – and Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob continued to advance their legacy.
The passage
“Eber had two sons, the name of one Peleg, because in his days the land was
divided” (10:25) is a reference to the story of the
Because the hopes of the “early monotheists” for the improvement of mankind were based on its unity and common language, the scattering of peoples that occurred was nothing less than a tragedy for Eber. After their division into nations, these lonely monotheists could have no influence, because the new reality was that it was necessary to be a people in order to influence others. Although their own attempts were fruitless, they bequeathed to us the word ivrim, “Hebrews,” which tells us that their heritage is very much alive. They were the teachers of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who were the progenitors of the “chosen people,” a people capable of improving other communities of humankind.
כח וַיָּ֣מָת הָרָ֔ן עַל־פְּנֵ֖י תֶּ֣רַח אָבִ֑יו בְּאֶ֥רֶץ מֽוֹלַדְתּ֖וֹ בְּא֥וּר כַּשְׂדִּֽים׃ כט וַיִּקַּ֨ח אַבְרָ֧ם וְנָח֛וֹר לָהֶ֖ם נָשִׁ֑ים שֵׁ֤ם אֵֽשֶׁת־אַבְרָם֙ שָׂרָ֔י וְשֵׁ֤ם אֵֽשֶׁת־נָחוֹר֙ מִלְכָּ֔ה בַּת־הָרָ֥ן אֲבִֽי־מִלְכָּ֖ה וַֽאֲבִ֥י יִסְכָּֽה׃ ל וַתְּהִ֥י שָׂרַ֖י עֲקָרָ֑ה אֵ֥ין לָ֖הּ וָלָֽד׃ לא וַיִּקַּ֨ח תֶּ֜רַח אֶת־אַבְרָ֣ם בְּנ֗וֹ וְאֶת־ל֤וֹט בֶּן־הָרָן֙ בֶּן־בְּנ֔וֹ וְאֵת֙ שָׂרַ֣י כַּלָּת֔וֹ אֵ֖שֶׁת אַבְרָ֣ם בְּנ֑וֹ וַיֵּֽצְא֨וּ אִתָּ֜ם מֵא֣וּר כַּשְׂדִּ֗ים לָלֶ֨כֶת֙ אַ֣רְצָה כְּנַ֔עַן וַיָּבֹ֥אוּ עַד־חָרָ֖ן וַיֵּ֥שְׁבוּ שָֽׁם׃ לב וַיִּֽהְי֣וּ יְמֵי־תֶ֔רַח חָמֵ֥שׁ שָׁנִ֖ים וּמָאתַ֣יִם שָׁנָ֑ה וַיָּ֥מָת תֶּ֖רַח בְּחָרָֽן׃
[28]
[29] Abram and Nahor took to themselves wives, the
name of Abram’s wife being Sarai and that of Nahor’s wife Milcah, the daughter
of
[30] Now Sarai was barren, she had no child.
[31] Terah took his son Abram, his grandson Lot the son of Haran, and his daughter-in-law Sarai, the wife of his son Abram, and they set out together from Ur of the Chaldeans for the land of Canaan; but when they had come as far as Haran, they settled there.
[32] The days of Terah came to 205 years; and Terah
died in
[28] Haran died in the lifetime of his father Terah, in his native land, Ur of the Chaldeans ◊ From the fact that Ur of the Chaldeans is mentioned as the place of birth of Haran, we can infer that Terah’s older children were not born there; that is, Terah’s family arrived in Ur of the Chaldeans somewhat earlier, and Terah himself was born in Charan (where Nahor continued to reside), or perhaps even in Canaan, the Land of the Hebrews (40:15). For that reason, he later wishes to return there.
[29] Abram and Nahor
took to themselves wives, the name of Abram’s wife being Sarai and that of
Nahor’s wife Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah and Iscah ◊ This mention of Iscah seems to have no
actual relevance to the story. The Midrash therefore identifies her with Sarah,
which would mean that Nahor and Abraham married nieces, the two daughters of
[30] Now Sarai was barren, she had no child ◊ The apparent redundancy here of “barren, she had no children” is apparently meant to tell us that Abraham and Sarah had made peace with being childless, seeing their continuation therefore in their disciples, and not in their descendants.
[31] Terah took his son Abram, his grandson Lot the son of Haran, and his daughter-in-law Sarai, the wife of his son Abram ◊ Nahor is not mentioned among those whom Terah took with him (probably because he continued to live in Charan). But Sarah is mentioned specifically, to tell us that she is an independent personality in her own right.
And they set out together from Ur of the Chaldeans for the land of Canaan; but when they had come as far as Haran, they settled there ◊ Thus, Terah had intentions to “go to the land of Canaan” even before Abraham received such instructions from God (12:1). We shall see very soon why this point is significant.
א וַיֹּ֤אמֶר יי֙ אֶל־אַבְרָ֔ם לֶךְ־לְךָ֛ מֵֽאַרְצְךָ֥ וּמִמּֽוֹלַדְתְּךָ֖ וּמִבֵּ֣ית אָבִ֑יךָ אֶל־הָאָ֖רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֥ר אַרְאֶֽךָּ׃ ב וְאֶֽעֶשְׂךָ֙ לְג֣וֹי גָּד֔וֹל וַאֲבָ֣רֶכְךָ֔ וַֽאֲגַדְּלָ֖ה שְׁמֶ֑ךָ וֶֽהְיֵ֖ה בְּרָכָֽה׃ ג וַאֲבָֽרְכָה֙ מְבָ֣רְכֶ֔יךָ וּמְקַלֶּלְךָ֖ אָאֹ֑ר וְנִבְרְכ֣וּ בְךָ֔ כֹּ֖ל מִשְׁפְּחֹ֥ת הָֽאֲדָמָֽה׃
[1] The Lord said to Abram, “Go forth from your native land and from your father’s house to the land that I will show you.
[2] I will make of you a great nation, And I will bless you; I will make your name great, And you shall be a blessing.
[3] I will bless those who bless you, And curse him that curses you; And all the families of the earth shall bless themselves by you.”
The story of Abraham begins with God urging him to undertake the creation of a people needed for the spiritual perfection of all mankind.
The reasons that God chose only Abraham for this mission are not explained in Scripture. The Midrash tells many stories about Abraham’s youth, his righteousness, and his merits, but these find no expression in the Torah text itself. This contrasts starkly with, for example, God’s choosing Noah for being “righteous and blameless” (7:9). The reason that God chose Abraham is concretely explained by the Torah much later (18:19), when God says, “For I have singled him out, that he may instruct his children and his posterity to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is just and right.”
Here we see several aspects of God’s choosing Abraham. Firstly, it is based on action (“doing what is just and right”), and not merely on “faith in God.” Secondly, God’s reason for choosing Abraham is not Abraham’s past merits, but the promise that his future holds (or, more precisely, that of his descendants). Abraham, like the Jewish people in general, is chosen for the objective he is charged to accomplish – that is, not as a reward for actions he has already performed, but for the sake of his potential, which will be revealed only in the future.
God wants to help mankind draw nearer to Him, to realize the “
The idea of favoring the future over the past, and believing that the cardinal events of our lives primarily occur not merely “for a reason” but “for the sake of a goal” permeates the entire Jewish perception of the world.
That idea
can be found, for example, in the following midrash about the exodus from
Indeed, in
some ways the Jews behaved in
Likewise, God has given the Jewish people today the opportunity to build and develop the State of Israel only for the sake of the future Jewish mission, not because of its past merits. The primary force that drives the Jewish people today, as in antiquity, is in the future, not in the past. It is rooted in projected purpose rather than historical causation.
The distinction between the materialistic (atheistic) and monotheistic religious views of the world is not limited to the questions of whether God exists or what He is. (Such questions are for the most part so complex and theoretically abstract that we are hard-pressed to consider any answer satisfactory.) In concrete, practical terms the difference between the religious and materialistic worldviews is that materialists view the world as driven by cause and effect (they reduce the entire movement of the universe to principles of physical causation), whereas a religious person sees the world teleologically, believing that the universe is moving, first and foremost, toward the fulfillment of its goals (although the presence of physical causes is of course also not denied). Because it is the Almighty Who has established these goals for the world, our dialogue with God becomes the fundamental substance of our lives.
This essential difference of approaches to how one sees the world is not just abstract theory, but is inextricably linked with our entire essence, the Jewish way of life.
Let us try to further elucidate this issue.
In everyday life, we explain the processes occurring all around us in two different ways: causally and teleologically. For example, in response to the question “Why is the car travelling down the road?” two answers are possible: a causal answer (the driver’s foot presses the gas pedal, fuel enters the engine, the wheels spin and push off the ground, and the car moves), and a teleological one (the car moves because the driver wants to go somewhere). That goal – the pursuit of the future – is the primary answer to our original question of why the car moves. For it is that goal that initiates the chain of physical causes, due to which the automobile begins to move.
At the same time, the driver’s wish to travel in one direction and not the other cannot be fully predicted, even if one knows all the material factors motivating him. Because that driver is a person and (unlike the car) he has freedom of choice, rather than being a slave to circumstances.
In ordinary life, if we want to perceive the world adequately, we use both types of explanations. When dealing with inanimate objects we can limit ourselves to causative explanations. But when we need to understand the behavior of living beings and, especially, human beings, then only teleological explanations will suffice (he has desires and motivations that cause him to act in a particular way).
The concept of purpose, and the concept of meaning that is inseparably connected with it as the highest goal, are extremely important for understanding human behavior. Personality cannot be reduced to causation, nor can a person live without that sense of meaning in everything that happens.
But if we consider more global, socio-historical processes in society and in the course of history generally (the entire universe as a whole), we must ask ourselves: Are there only “causes”, or does each of these historical processes have also a purpose and a meaning? The materialist and the religious person will disagree on this issue.
For a materialist, only causation drives the world as a whole. But a monotheistically religious person believes that the history of humankind in general, and our own lives in particular, have purpose and meaning.
Of course, neither the one nor the other viewpoint can be proved or scientifically substantiated; the choice between them is entirely our own.
On this issue note that the idolaters side with the materialists: they see in life only causes, even if those causes are of a “supernatural” quality, such as karma or rock. The concept of “purpose and meaning,” on the other hand, becomes relevant only when we believe that behind all phenomena in the world stands a monotheistic God, the Being who created all humans in His image and likeness, and with whom we are in constant dialogue.
Abraham’s belief in ethical monotheism consisted precisely in that – his sense of goal and meaning, which to him implied also his moral responsibility to realize his own potential and purpose. It was that faith that Abraham wanted to teach to all of humanity.
Abraham devoted his life to spread ethical monotheism among humankind. As we noted earlier, he was by no means the first to profess this religion, for Noah, Shem, and Eber were monotheists even before Abraham was. But Abraham was the first to actively disseminate this idea by initiating a process that continues to this day. Throughout his life, Abraham was active as an itinerant: “And he built there an altar to the Lord and invoked the Lord by name” (12:8, 13:4, 13:18, 14:22, 21:33). This thirst for proliferation is one of the aspects of chesed (acts of kindness) – the desire to give, as already mentioned (above §5.4).
Chesed is the cardinal principle fundamental to any creation, from the creation of the world to the creation of a people. Abraham, the progenitor of all Jews, therefore had to possess this quality in the extreme, as it pertains both to love of God (the spread of monotheism) and to the love of one’s fellow humans. Abraham, however, besides spreading the idea of performing acts of kindness, also perfected that very attribute of kindness that then became the foundation for the future life of the Jewish people. Abraham’s tests and difficulties were therefore related precisely to that attribute of kindness, as we shall discuss in detail below.
Let us define more clearly what was the nature of Abraham’s faith, and why it changed all of humankind.
In defining the faith of Abraham as ethical monotheism we often fail to comprehend what the term “monotheism” really means. Why is monotheism so important, and what real difference does it make if we believe in one God, or in several? Why did the adoption of monotheism and the rejection of “polytheism” so strongly influence the world that, practically speaking, it created Western civilization?
The misunderstanding relates firstly to the widespread misconception that the entire essence of monotheism is “faith in one God”. Of course, monotheism asserts that God is the one and the only. But that is only the beginning, and not even the primary essence of monotheism, nor is it the basis for the revolution that it created in the world.
In principle, the Supreme Power of any religious system is always the one and only, besides being also supreme. And even if there were several, the “all-inclusive, highest law of the universe” would have to dominate them all to preserve world balance and the unity of the laws of nature. The difference between monotheistic culture (represented in ancient times by Judaism alone, but today by all of Western civilization) and idolatrous, polytheistic culture (in ancient times all of humankind, and today the “Eastern religions” – Hinduism, Buddhism and Confucianism) is not in quantitative indicators, but in the nature of this Supreme Power. As understood by polytheism, that supreme power is “rock,” “universal law,” the “law of Heaven,” the “law of Karma,” and so on – that is, an impersonal power, a world law that dominates absolutely everything, but cannot be addressed, nor can one engage with it in dialogue. This force will not participate in dialogue; it dominates, and an individual is personally of no importance to it.
However, in the monotheistic Abrahamic religions, the supreme power is a personal God who created man in His own image and likeness. He is therefore not indifferent to mankind; on the contrary, He loves every human being, wants good for him, cares about him, and seeks to bring him closer to Himself. All the difficulties and problems in our lives are the tasks that God gives us so that by solving them we can advance both ourselves and the rest of the world. This approach leads a person to a completely different worldview, already enshrined in the linguistic apparatus of Western cultures. The very concept of a Supreme Power, that is, God, does not exist with a capital letter in the language of Eastern religions; there are only "gods" there.
It would therefore be more correct to characterize the clash of religions in world history not as monotheism against polytheism, but as personal-monotheistic religions against karmic religions.
Monotheism proclaims that God, having created man in His own image and likeness, endowed him with freedom of choice, diverse skills and abilities, and a mind and feelings, and that He still today engages with man in dialogue. God’s creating man “in his image and likeness” was necessary for that dialogue to be feasible, for, as we know, dialogue is possible only between like interlocutors. All our thoughts and actions are our words in dialogue with God, while everything that happens around us and everything that happens to us – the way the world responds to us – are God’s words addressed to us. Only such a personal monotheism allows you to feel how disparate phenomena occurring in the world have as their cause a single Being and are not random results of the interactions of dissimilar forces.
Ethical monotheism thus views the entire surrounding world as a zone of dialogue between man and God. In this dialogue God demands from each of us ethical, responsible behavior – responsibility before Him. (This feeling is varyingly called responsibility to conscience, to life, to one’s national history, or to humankind. But in practice all these are almost equivalent concepts. It is this global responsibility that forms the basis of all ethics.) In this dialogue, a person throughout his life attains for himself, and reveals for others, diverse manifestations of the Divine light.
The faith that Abraham preached was just such an ethical monotheism. He did not achieve it straightaway; rather, it took time, his own efforts, and Divine support and revelation. By the time he was seventy years old, however – the point where the book of Genesis begins its story of God’s choosing Abraham (12:1) – he was already imbued with that faith.
The spread of faith, however, is not enough to save humanity. Abraham had to create the Jewish people, because only a nation can improve other nations (that is, improve human existence at the social, and not only the individual level). The Torah now proceeds to tell of the trials that the Patriarchs experienced on their way to creating a people.
As mentioned earlier, in the course of the Torah’s narrative each of the Patriarchs (and his sefirah with him) must undergo the dynamics of his correction.
The term “dynamics of correction” means that the sefirah, like a diamond in the rough, must be properly cut if it is to serve its intended purpose. This “cutting” means trimming off any excess to yield the correct shape. For example, if chesed, as the desire to give, to share, to show mercy and grace, goes unchecked beyond all limits, the world will collapse. (As an example at the simplest social level, suppose that for the realization of mercy and grace we were to offer social benefits, sufficient to guarantee a good and easy life to all, free for the asking. An enormous number of people would then stop working, and civilization would perish.) Chesed must therefore be restricted. Abraham learned how to accomplish that, and the process of limiting chesed is Abraham’s personal dynamic. Abraham’s process of restricting his own chesed, and similar processes for Isaac and Jacob, are carried out with the help of nisayon, trials.
The tests of the Patriarchs did not consist in requiring them to exhibit always positive inclinations and never negative ones. We would consider that just a completely normal and common level of difficulty, whereas the Patriarchs were incomparably more advanced. The trials of the Patriarchs are situations in which each has to serve God while correcting himself by working against that positive attribute that was unique to him. The result is a “cut,” a proper restricting of the given attribute. Each of the Patriarchs initially resembles a rough diamond, which only after cutting – the removal of excess material – becomes a true jewel whose value and price steadily increase. For only a cut diamond can serve its intended purpose. Likewise, if we need a large stone of a desired shape and size to be incorporated into the foundation of a building, we will first need to find an even much larger, irregularly shaped stone, and only after its cutting will we have a large, smooth and even stone suitable for use in construction.
Abraham limits chesed by learning to act against chesed. Abraham is by nature the very embodiment of chesed, who longed to show favor to all. God demands that he act against chesed, but only so that Abraham would learn to restrict that attribute. Likewise, Isaac and Jacob in the course of their respective tests learn to limit the qualities inherent in them.
Applying the basic ideas of Kabbalah to an analysis of the lives of the Patriarchs is widespread in Western culture today. Through Hasidism especially, many of these ideas are elucidated in a multitude of books and other publications, thus entering the consciousness of a wide-ranging public. The teachings of Rabbi Y. L. Ashkenazi-Manitou, on which our approach is based, unveil an innovative method for tracing the “faceting” process through each actual event experienced by the Patriarchs as described in the Torah. Indeed, this allows us to achieve a completely new level of understanding.
Let us consider now in greater detail the sefirot tree” as it relates to the Patriarchs.
The sefirot tree (growing from top to bottom, from the higher worlds to our world – see the illustration in portion 5.6) begins with keter, the crown, corresponding to the concept of will. In Jewish thought the highest of all Divine attributes is the will of the Almighty (and not His wisdom, the sefirah that is choñhmah). Since every human being is built in the image and likeness of the Almighty, willful discretion – that is, freedom of choice – is the leading force, while wisdom manifests itself only as its consequence.
Below keter are choñhmah, binah, and da’at. Those three, which combine to form the concept of sechel, “intellect,” are the three highest (“inner,” hidden) sefirot. We refer to them also by their abbreviation ChaBaD.
Below them are the seven middot (attributes) of “quality” and “manifestation.” These attributes are lower (“external”), corresponding to the seven days of the Creation, and to the seven foundational personalities that shaped the image of the Jewish people.
Directly below ChaBaD are chesed, gevurah, and tiferet (abbreviated as ChaGaT). These are the emotional competencies of the soul.
As noted above, the attribute of chesed (belonging to the right, extroverted line in the structure of the sefirot) means the emotion of aspiring outward, reflected by mercy and grace. On the first day of Creation G-d created light, which seeks to spread outward, “giving itself to the world”; that is, it manifests the attribute of chesed at the level of inanimate nature. Similarly, the primary aspiration of Abraham, the first Patriarch, was to show mercy to everyone around him, both in the material realm, by accepting travelers and helping the poor, and in the spiritual realm, by spreading the teachings of how to approach God and achieve holiness. Thus, Abraham represents the attribute of chesed at the structural level of the Jewish people.
The second of the middot (belonging to the left, introverted line in the structure of the sefirot) is gevurah – strength, power – identical with din, “judgment”. This means striving for preservation, retention, rigidity, self-restraint, law, order, judgment, and justice. Isaac, the bearer of the attribute of gevurah within the structural framework of the Jewish people, devoted his life to preserving and maintaining the teachings of his father Abraham. Similarly, on the second day of the creation of the world, God created the firmament (sky), which holds water and demonstrates gevurah at the level of inanimate nature.
The third of the middot (it is found on the middle, harmonizing line) is tiferet, beauty or splendor. Tiferet is designed to maintain harmony between the attributes of chesed and gevurah, to determine when it is proper to give and to show mercy, and when to hold back, showing only the attribute of judgment.
The tiferet attribute is also called emet, truth. The leading motivation for Jacob’s actions and aspirations was not “spreading” (like Abraham’s) or “preserving” (like Isaac’s), but finding the balance of truth in a world so full of falsehood.
The attributes of the emotional series are the product (“descent downward”) of the corresponding attributes of the intellectual series. Chochmah is a “directing outward” at the intellectual level, and chesed, too, is a “directing outward,” but at the emotional level. Similarly, binah is an intellectual directing inward, and gevurah is an emotional directing inward.
On the middle line, da’at engenders tiferet: only through comprehension at the da’at level and incorporating the knowable can one understand whether to apply mercy or judgment.
Abraham, then, represents the attribute of chesed, the desire to give, to show mercy, to be good to all; and his nisayon (test) is the need, by Divine order, to act against his own nature, limiting the chesed within himself.
In the process of being tested, Abraham had to learn to excise from within himself “extraneous” chesed, the chesed of impurity, so that the remaining chesed of holiness” could become the foundation for building the Divine nation, the Jewish people.
The word nisayon means not only “testing,” but also “gaining experience.” Abraham, who is the expression of chesed, gained experience in its proper application. In addition, nisayon is lingustically related to the word nes, which has two meanings: “banner” (a military emblem held aloft on a pole, or other device of orientation) and “miracle” (that which runs counter to natural forces). In the Torah, therefore, nisayon refers to the acquisition of Divine experience, which occurs contrary to the natural course of events (a miracle) and serves as a reference point for the future (it “creates a banner”).
In ordinary life, applying one’s natural, positive qualities to serving God is of course the surest path, both for ordinary people and for the righteous. For the Patriarchs, however, the path to serving God was the one that went contrary to their natural positive inclinations. It was thus by virtue of the trials experienced by the Patriarchs that the Jewish people were formed (nes as “miracle” – the miracle of the creation of the Jewish people). These tests are described in the Torah so that subsequent generations can orient themselves by following the visual example set by the Patriarchs (carried as a banner for orientation). One of the foundations of Jewish tradition is thus the Talmudic principle that “the deeds of the ancestors serve as signals for their descendants”; that is, the narratives found in the Torah serve as examples for future generations.
Abraham is cleansed of “improper, excessive chesed (chesed de-tum’ah, “impure,” i.e, “excess chesed”) which is inherited instead by Ishmael, and “proper chesed” (chesed di-kedushah, “holy chesed”) passes as an inheritance to Isaac, and from there on to Jacob. Similarly, “proper gevurah” (gevurah di-kedushah, “holy gevurah”) is transmitted from Isaac to Jacob and to the Jewish people, while gevurah de-tum’ah, “impure gevurah, excess gevurah” goes to Esav.
To the story
of Abraham’s life as recorded in the Torah the Midrash adds several stories
about his youth in
(a) The story of the vanquishing of the sun and moon
Abraham had been hidden in a cave since birth. At the age of three years Abraham left the cave, and upon seeing the world for the first time, he began to reflect on who had created the earth, the sky, and Abraham himself. Enraptured by the sight of the sun, its light and warmth, he offered prayers to the sun that entire day. But when the sun set, and the moon appeared in the sky surrounded by countless stars, Abraham was struck by its beauty and thought, “This luminous body is obviously a deity!” All night he uttered hymns to the moon. But morning came, the moon departed in the west, and the sun reappeared in the east.
“No,” said Abraham, “I was wrong. There is Someone who rules over both the sun and the moon. I will direct my prayers to Him.”
(b) Abraham smashes the idols
Terah, Abraham’s father, was engaged in the manufacture of idols, which he then sold at the market. One day he instructed Abraham to mind the store.
A woman came and gave Abraham a bowl of flour as a gift to the idols. Abraham took a stick, smashed all the idols except one, the very largest, and placed the stick in its hand. Terah was dumbfounded upon his return.
“What is going on here? How did this happen? Who did this?”
“I will tell you,” Abraham answered, “and will conceal nothing. It was like this: A woman brought a bowl of flour and asked me to present it as an offering to the idols. I was about to give them the flour, but the idols argued among themselves about who should partake first. The largest idol rose up and smashed all the others.”
“Surely you mock me,” Terah shouted, “how could they possibly… ?”
“But what are you saying, father?! You would do well to ponder your own words.”
(c) The story of the fiery furnace
For having destroyed those idols, Abraham was brought to judgment by
Nimrod, king of
Said Nimrod: “Bow to the fire as a deity, and I will spare you.”
Abraham replied: “But water is more powerful than fire, because water extinguishes fire! Shouldn’t we bow instead to the water?”
“Very well. Then, bow to the water.”
“But clouds are more powerful than water, because clouds carry water! Shouldn’t we bow instead to the clouds?”
“Very well. Then, bow to the clouds.”
“But would it not be better to bow to the wind that disperses the clouds?”
“Then bow to the wind!”
“But doesn’t man overpower even the force of the wind?”
“That’s enough! I will force you to bow to the fire. … Throw him into the fire, and we shall see whether the God whom he worships can save him.”
Then they threw Abraham into the furnace, but the Almighty Himself came down and saved Abraham, and he emerged from the furnace unharmed.
When he saw
that Abraham had been saved,
The Jewish
people have three characteristic names:
These terms, although synonymous today, developed only over time, and originally had different meanings. The word ivrim, “Hebrews,” came first: it originally described a community much broader than the family of Abraham, namely, all the descendants of Eber.
(There is a widespread belief, based on the word “Hebrew” sharing a root with the word ma’avar, “transition,” that Abraham is called a Hebrew because he relocated from one side of the river (Euphrates) to the other. Or, alternately, that the term “Hebrew” derives from the idea that when the entire world is on the one side, Abraham and the Jewish people are on the other. It is important to understand, however, that this is a midrash (homiletic interpretation), whereas the literal meaning of the word “Hebrew” is simply a descendant of Eber).
The word “
The ethnonym ivri, “Hebrew,” first appears in the book of Genesis
as referring to Abraham (14:13), and then later in reference to Joseph, when
Potiphar’s wife, coming to accuse him of a grievous offense, tells the members
of her household: “He (my husband Potiphar) had to bring us a Hebrew to dally
with us!” (39:14). This shows that the meaning of that
ethnonym was clear to all the Egyptians present, even if they were not
personally familiar with the family of Abraham. Likewise, Pharaoh’s butler
says: “A Hebrew youth was there with us (in prison)” (41:12). At the luncheon Joseph
prepares for them, he seats his brothers, who do not yet recognize him,
separate from the Egyptians, which the Torah explains as follows: “For the
Egyptians could not dine with the Hebrews, since that would be abhorrent to the
Egyptians” (43:32). Joseph himself tells the cupbearer how he came to be a
slave with the following words: “I was kidnapped from the land of the Hebrews”
(40:15). We thus see that the ethnonym ivrim is used
in a much wider sense than the “descendants of Abraham.” Moreover,
All this
tells us that the descendants of Eber in ancient times ruled the
We shall see later that the descendants of Terah – the family of Nahor and his children – gradually assimilated among the Aramaeans and began to be called Aramaeans, after the name of the country where they took root. Thenceforth, only the family of Abraham were called “Hebrews.”
Note too that according to the chronology of the Torah, Eber was still alive during Abraham’s lifetime. Tradition states that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob studied with Noah, Shem, and Eber. The latter three, however, lived apart, in a “yeshiva,” so that others could come to study with them, but they did not themselves spread the teachings of monotheism.
Comparing the positions of Abraham and Eber, one can see that they
differed in two respects. First, unlike Eber, Abraham was an active (one might
even say militant) monotheist, The Midrash talks about how Abraham smashes
idols, but about Eber it says nothing of the kind. Although a monotheist, Eber
was apparently tolerant of idolatry. The Midrash describes Abraham as an
uncommonly hospitable host who received all wayfarers, including idolaters,
into his home. That is, he was a man of chesed. And
yet, although he was tolerant and accepting of all people, he was harsh and
intolerant towards idolatry, to the point of “smashing idols.” Secondly,
Abraham wanted to restore Eber’s teachings precisely in the country that was
the primary center of monotheism, the Land of the Hebrews, which is why he
sought to live in
Later, yet a third attribute, the most important one, came to distinguish Abraham from Eber. Namely, Abraham was the founder of a nation, albeit one that came into being only over time.
The concept of covenant occupies a prominent position in the book of Genesis, and indeed in all Jewish teachings. A covenant is an extraordinary connection with God, as opposed to that which occurs in the natural course of events. In a certain sense, God manifests Himself in our world in two opposite forms. On the one hand, all of nature and its natural laws are Divine creations and manifestations of God; in this respect the Almighty acts as the “God of nature.” And yet, He is also the “God of the Covenant,” which means that God establishes a special relationship with a person or people that transcends the natural course of events. In other words, that person or nation develops not as do all other persons and nations, but in an exceptional direction, while exerting a significant influence on the surrounding world.
We first
encounter this concept in the covenant that God makes with Noah, when the Flood
destroys all of humanity, but Noah and his family are chosen by God to alone
survive. When Noah leaves the
The Covenant
at Sinai is very different from previous covenants, for it is expressed through
God’s commandments. It begins with the proclamation of the Ten Commandments,
followed by the remaining laws of the Torah formulated in its 613 Commandments.
Unlike the Covenant at Sinai, the Covenant with the Patriarchs includes no
formal laws. Within its framework, even circumcision is not a duty, but only a
symbol of this covenant. In essence, it is a covenant respecting the Jewish
people and the
The Covenant of the Patriarchs is thus distinguished by two important characteristics. Firstly, there are no formalized commandments; these are instead replaced by ideals (mercy and justice primarily), which, while difficult to formalize, are the purpose for which the covenant is established. Secondly, the covenant is associated with the creation of a nation and a country for this people, as repeated several times in the Torah, in God’s address to the Patriarchs: “I will make a nation out of you and will give you this country as your dwelling place, and I shall be your God”.
Thus, the
people itself and its national life in the
א וַיֹּ֤אמֶר יי֙ אֶל־אַבְרָ֔ם לֶךְ־לְךָ֛ מֵֽאַרְצְךָ֥ וּמִמּֽוֹלַדְתְּךָ֖ וּמִבֵּ֣ית אָבִ֑יךָ אֶל־הָאָ֖רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֥ר אַרְאֶֽךָּ׃ ב וְאֶֽעֶשְׂךָ֙ לְג֣וֹי גָּד֔וֹל וַאֲבָ֣רֶכְךָ֔ וַֽאֲגַדְּלָ֖ה שְׁמֶ֑ךָ וֶֽהְיֵ֖ה בְּרָכָֽה׃ ג וַאֲבָֽרְכָה֙ מְבָ֣רְכֶ֔יךָ וּמְקַלֶּלְךָ֖ אָאֹ֑ר וְנִבְרְכ֣וּ בְךָ֔ כֹּ֖ל מִשְׁפְּחֹ֥ת הָֽאֲדָמָֽה׃
[1] The Lord said to Abram, “Go forth from your native land and from your father’s house to the land that I will show you.
[2] I will make of you a great nation,
And I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
And you shall be a blessing.
[3] I will bless those who bless you
And curse him that curses you;
And all the families of the earth
Shall bless themselves by you.”
[1] The Lord said to Abram ◊ Abram was en route to
Go forth from your native land and from your father’s house ◊ The text literally reads: “from your native land, from your birthplace, and from your father’s house.” He must dissolve his old ties on three levels: by leaving his family (his father’s house), his ideologically familiar community (his next closest of kin), and the social function that he had been performing in Charan. Without this break – not only with his negative past, but also with his positive past – Abram’s realization of his mission would not have been possible.
Go forth … to the land that I will show you ◊ Abram understood
straightaway that this meant
[2] I will make of you a great nation ◊ It is a nation, not merely a religious movement. Abram abandons the framework of his former world to create a new, unprecedented reality, the chosen people. It is at this moment that the Western “Abrahamic” monotheistic tradition is born.
I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you shall be a blessing ◊ Note here four characteristics of chosenness: the nation’s preeminence, its accomplishments, its renown, and its universal mission to all of humankind.
[3] I will bless those who bless you, and curse him that curses you ◊ Abram, and the Jewish people likewise, can neither bless nor curse persons of their own choosing. Contrast this with the diametrically opposite outlook of a similar phrase used in connection with the villain Balaam (Numbers 22:6; see Biblical Dynamics there). Rather, the nations and peoples of the world will themselves be blessed or cursed depending on how they relate to the Jewish people: They who bless the Jews bring upon themselves a blessing, and they who curse them bring upon themselves a curse.
And all the families of the earth shall bless themselves by you ◊ Here the term “families” is used (not “nations”), because the Jewish nation is charged with uniting humanity spiritually, and the cooperation between neighboring families is much tighter than among neighboring nations. In Zechariah too (14:17), the nations of the world are called “families of the earth,” a term that expresses the unity of humanity from the messianic perspective.
ד וַיֵּ֣לֶךְ אַבְרָ֗ם כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֨ר דִּבֶּ֤ר אֵלָיו֙ י֔י וַיֵּ֥לֶךְ אִתּ֖וֹ ל֑וֹט וְאַבְרָ֗ם בֶּן־חָמֵ֤שׁ שָׁנִים֙ וְשִׁבְעִ֣ים שָׁנָ֔ה בְּצֵאת֖וֹ מֵֽחָרָֽן׃ ה וַיִּקַּ֣ח אַבְרָם֩ אֶת־שָׂרַ֨י אִשְׁתּ֜וֹ וְאֶת־ל֣וֹט בֶּן־אָחִ֗יו וְאֶת־כָּל־רְכוּשָׁם֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר רָכָ֔שׁוּ וְאֶת־הַנֶּ֖פֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר־עָשׂ֣וּ בְחָרָ֑ן וַיֵּֽצְא֗וּ לָלֶ֨כֶת֙ אַ֣רְצָה כְּנַ֔עַן וַיָּבֹ֖אוּ אַ֥רְצָה כְּנָֽעַן׃
[4] Abram went forth as the Lord had commanded
him, and
[5] Abram took his wife Sarai and his brother’s
son Lot, and all the wealth that they had amassed, and the persons that they
had acquired in
[4] Abram went forth ◊ Surely Abram was inwardly prepared to fulfill the mission entrusted to him (had he not been ready, it is unlikely that God would have charged him with that mission). That readiness, however, by no means implies that it was an order that Abraham could take in stride. On the contrary, God’s command proved so radical that Abram was unable to immediately assimilate and accept it.
Abram went forth as the Lord had commanded him, and
To resolve
these inconsistencies, we must consider the verses in a broader context. As
noted earlier, the migration to Canaan was not initiated at all by Abram, since
verse 12:5 “... and they
set out for the
Thus, in
verse 12:5, Abram’s journey to
Verses 12:4 and 12:5, then, rather than merely contradicting each other,
present two opposing views of the same event. On the one hand, Abram follows
God’s instructions in every respect, but on the other hand, he initially has
his own plans and is not prepared to modify them: he journeys to
In other words, Abram had his own plans and, although he managed to incorporate them into his fulfillment of God’s order, he did not follow God’s instructions in every respect.
How and why did this come about?
The spiritual forefather of mankind was originally named Abram, not Abraham. Only at the end of the Lech Lecha portion is the Hebrew letter “heh” added to his name (in English this is represented by the h in “Abraham”).
The Midrash
explains the name Abram as Ab
Earlier we cited the Midrash that tells how Abram came to monotheism while still in Ur Kasdim, smashing idols and challenging King Nimrod. Abram is thus a dissident who from his youth opposes the official ideology and exhorts the population to renounce idolatry. Later, in Charan, he has a great many disciples. Seen from this perspective, Abram’s departure from Charan represents a typical Jewish dilemma: Should a Jew devote his life to advancing the morality and spirituality of the nations of the world by living among them or would he do better to tackle exclusively Jewish problems while living in the Jews’ own country?
The Midrash considers this dilemma Abram’s first test.
A Jew will consistently strive for universality, for interaction with all of humanity. A desire to bring a blessing upon all of humanity is quite natural for, and typical of, the Jewish national character. There is a temptation, however to equate universalism with cosmopolitanism – that is, the idea that for the sake of being truly worldly it is necessary to abandon all uniquely national interests. God’s instruction to Abram was precisely the opposite: “You must adhere to the national, by striving to create your own people, because it is through the national, and never through the abandonment of it, wherein the path to the universal lies.”
Upon comparing verses 12:4 and 12:5 we see that initially there are two different plans for advancing humankind towards monotheism: God’s plan and Abram’s plan. God’s plan is to create a nation out of Abram: “I will make of you a great nation”. Abram’s plan, however, originally presupposed creation of a religion of ethical monotheism that would reeducate humanity while transcending all nationality. Abram therefore takes his disciples with him, notwithstanding that God had not ordered him to do so.
We shall continue our coverage of this problem below, as part of our discussion of Abraham’s subsequent life crises.
Abraham’s primary quality was thus chesed. All his life he taught ethical monotheism to the people around him.
However, Abraham’s main contribution to the advancement of mankind is not merely that he cultivated enlightenment, but that he created the Jewish people, the “faceting” of chesed. As he underwent his tests, Abraham restricted his chesed, excising from within himself the extraneous components and leaving the legitimate core of chesed that would later serve as the basis for the soul of the Jewish nation.
Instead of the raw attribute of chesed – the unrestrained desire to give and show mercy – Abraham had to construct a more correct attribute of chesed, as he learned to give only when giving leads to good, because misplaced kindness can easily lead to evil. To this end, Abraham had to learn to act against his own nature, against chesed, against striving for universal grace.
From the point of view of chesed it seemed natural to Abraham that he should create a group of teachers for the sake of promoting his ideas. Such a group would be open to teaching all people. Promoting this same idea at the national level seems less proper, because a nation is by necessity always a restricted set: some belong to it simply by right of birth, while most others are excluded. Restricting kindness in that way seems inconsistent with the whole idea of chesed. God’s proposal to Abraham to become the founder of a nation, and not merely of a group of disciples, was therefore itself one of Abraham’s ordeals. The test here consisted not only in separating himself from his relatives and from his familiar environment, but also in transitioning to a national mindset, thereby restricting the influence of his ideas by reorienting himself away from all of humanity toward a single people.
Abraham, the
spiritual leader of the people of
Jewish tradition teaches an important principle: “The deeds of the ancestors serve as indicators for their descendants.” The actions of the Patriarchs are archetypes, models of what happens later to the Jewish people. If we view Abraham’s tests through the lens of past millennia, we see that his departure from Charan was a typically Jewish test. Jews quite often want to help all of humanity at once, but they must abandon that wish and deal instead with specifically Jewish problems.
To properly resolve such conflicts of conscience, we must realize that the transition from a cosmopolitan position to a national one is by no means a betrayal of universalism – on the contrary, it is a movement towards it. Universalism is achieved not through cosmopolitanism, but through properly oriented nationalism. The path to the universal does not lie in the abandonment of the national, but, on the contrary, through a thoroughly national orientation that is open to the world, but autonomous all the same.
Many Jews even today will see this position as far too harsh, but for Abraham it was yet much more difficult to accept the idea that universality is achieved not by spreading God’s teachings at once to all, but by first creating, from the very outset, an exceptional people. Appealing to all of humankind would become possible only much later, by following the path already blazed and trodden by the Jewish people. Only gradually did Abraham come to fully accept God’s plan.
In God’s command to Abraham, “Go forth to the land that I will show you, and I will make of you a great nation”, the key concept is the nation. As already noted, Abraham was not the first monotheist, for even before him the idea of the One God as the basis of morality – that is, the idea of ethical monotheism – was professed by Noah, Shem and Eber. But the idea of creating nothing less than an entire monotheistic people had never been conceived before. It appears in human history only from the moment that God chose Abraham to implement that plan.
The novelty and rarity of this approach lies in the fact that it establishes the goal of achieving holiness on both the individual and national levels. Holiness is not only for righteous individuals who are “immersed in spirituality,” but also for ordinary people who are involved in all aspects of material life within society. Holiness at the individual level was well-known even before then, for there certainly were exceptional, righteous personalities in every age who achieved holiness. But the idea of achieving holiness at the national level was all but unthinkable.
It should be noted that despite the progress of past millennia, pan-national holiness is still for many Jews even today something unusual, unattainable, and even downright difficult to conceive, while individual holiness, on the other hand, is a recognizable and commonplace phenomenon. But since “only like affects like,” for the improvement and spiritual advancement of mankind – that is, all the peoples of the world – the required level of holiness must be achieved by an entire nation. And truly, only then “all the families of the earth shall bless themselves by you” (12:3). That is, only when the Jewish people attains national holiness can holiness then be extended to all of humanity.
When one is trying to construct a doctrine, a religion, or a school of philosophy, what one absolutely must have are disciples; having actual children of one’s own is not really necessary. But when one is trying to build a nation, the situation is completely different – one needs descendants.
We see that no legacy remains of the entire coterie of Abraham’s students (who are mentioned in the Torah only in passing). Everything that humankind received from Abraham was transmitted through his son Isaac, and then through Isaac’s son Yaakov and his children.
Initially, however, Abraham did not realize this. Although he had no children, he did have pupils, and he hoped to disseminate his religious system with their help. The absence of children did not at first seem to Abraham a problem, because children are not indispensable for creating religious doctrine. Only later does Abraham come to understand the importance of progeny.
In fact, the entire Lech Lecha portion is about the conflict between these two enterprises: Abraham’s plan to create a religion, and God’s plan to create a people. By the end of that portion, Abraham finally abandons his own plan and fully transitions to realizing God’s plan exclusively.
ו וַיַּֽעֲבֹ֤ר אַבְרָם֙ בָּאָ֔רֶץ עַ֚ד מְק֣וֹם שְׁכֶ֔ם עַ֖ד אֵל֣וֹן מוֹרֶ֑ה וְהַֽכְּנַעֲנִ֖י אָ֥ז בָּאָֽרֶץ׃ ז וַיֵּרָ֤א יי֙ אֶל־אַבְרָ֔ם וַיֹּ֕אמֶר לְזַ֨רְעֲךָ֔ אֶתֵּ֖ן אֶת־הָאָ֣רֶץ הַזֹּ֑את וַיִּ֤בֶן שָׁם֙ מִזְבֵּ֔חַ לַֽי֖י הַנִּרְאֶ֥ה אֵלָֽיו׃
[6] Abram passed through the land as far as the site of Shechem, at the terebinth of Moreh. The Canaanites were then in the land.
[7] The Lord appeared to Abram and said, “I will assign this land to your heirs.” And he built an altar there to the Lord who had appeared to him.
I will assign this land ◊ The word zot, “this,” always refers to something visible, to which
you can point. In other words, from the place where Abraham was located, the
entire future
The Canaanites were then in the land ◊ Describing how Abraham came to that
Land, the Torah immediately informs us what kind of people were then in
possession of it. That is, the situation at the time of the described events is
contrasted with God’s promise, “I will assign this land to your heirs.” This
means that the matter of state authority at the national level in the
Abram passed through the land as far as the site of Shechem ◊ Not “as
far as Shechem,” but “as far as the site of Shechem.” When Abraham arrived
there the city of
I will assign this land to your heirs ◊ Here
Abraham receives yet another prophecy, more precisely delineating the area of his activity. Earlier, when God said
to Abraham, “... I will make of you a great nation” (12:2), Abraham might still
have imagined that his disciples would become the foundation of the new nation;
perhaps he even considered them his adopted children. Therefore, although
Abraham goes to
Abraham
apparently left his disciples, who then most likely founded the city of
Abraham’s origins were in
Some centuries later the Jewish people made history with the Exodus from
All of ancient Jewish history was in some sense a pendulum swinging to
and fro between
The
significance of
These four
prominent rivers symbolize the four primary orientations into which human
culture diffused beyond the single “river issues from
Because the
At the time of the Patriarchs the boundary of that zone of influence
passed through the
The
fundamental cultural difference between the ancient civilizations of
In contrast,
As we should
have expected, Jewish civilization, centered in the
Let us turn to a midrash which we cited above (§18.1) about the vanquishing of the sun and the moon. Abraham’s reasoning comes across as childish and naive. After first gazing at the sun and concluding that the sun is a deity, he then turns his sights toward the moon and arrives at the same conclusion about the moon. Finally, he reasons that there must be Someone ruling over both the sun and the moon. The entire episode seems so very primitive. The Midrash also informs us that Abraham had emerged from a cave. What kind of cave did Abraham emerge from? And why had he been living in a cave?
To understand this Midrash we must bear in mind that it did not originate at the time of the Patriarchs, but only much later – in the Talmudic era. It is thus not a record of the actual events of Abraham’s childhood, but a unique literary form through which the sages of the Talmud transmit to succeeding generations their understanding of the Torah. The cave of which the Midrash speaks here is Plato’s cave – a metaphor that describes life in this world as a kind of cavelike existence. The cave’s inhabitants see nothing more than shadows on the wall, which offer them only a faint impression of true life as it goes on outside the cave.
Abraham, upon emerging from that “cave” – that is, upon realizing the inadequacy of conventional perspectives – is searching for the true essence of the universe. What does he see? There is the sun and there is the moon. What is meant, of course, is not the physical sun and moon, but the world of ideas that surrounds Abraham: the Egyptian and Babylonian civilizations (the “sun” and “moon,” respectively). Abraham is equally fascinated by both civilizations, for he sees for himself in each something vital. He understands that he must assimilate and incorporate something from them within himself, but at the same time transcend them in order to rise to the Almighty, who rules both the “sun” and the “moon” – that is, both of those civilizations.
Abraham
therefore attempts to fashion his monotheistic abstraction so as to be
identified – to a certain extent, at least – with both
In its
accounts of the monotheists who preceded Abraham – Noah, Shem, and Eber –
Jewish tradition mentions no instance of conflict with their surrounding
society. They lived their lives privately, teaching their ideas only to those
who wished to hear them. Abraham, however, was a rebel, for he could not
reconcile with the idolatry that surrounded him. After his conflict with
Nimrod, Abraham leaves
The dynamics
of Abraham’s relationship with
Abraham then
descends to
The shared
capital that unites Shechem and
ח וַיַּעְתֵּ֨ק מִשָּׁ֜ם הָהָ֗רָה מִקֶּ֛דֶם לְבֵֽית־אֵ֖ל וַיֵּ֣ט אָֽהֳלֹ֑ה בֵּֽית־אֵ֤ל מִיָּם֙ וְהָעַ֣י מִקֶּ֔דֶם וַיִּֽבֶן־שָׁ֤ם מִזְבֵּ֨חַ֙ לַֽי֔י וַיִּקְרָ֖א בְּשֵׁ֥ם יֽי׃ ט וַיִּסַּ֣ע אַבְרָ֔ם הָל֥וֹךְ וְנָס֖וֹעַ הַנֶּֽגְבָּה׃ י וַיְהִ֥י רָעָ֖ב בָּאָ֑רֶץ וַיֵּ֨רֶד אַבְרָ֤ם מִצְרַ֨יְמָה֙ לָג֣וּר שָׁ֔ם כִּֽי־כָבֵ֥ד הָֽרָעָ֖ב בָּאָֽרֶץ׃
[8] From there he moved on to the hill country east of Bethel and pitched his tent, with Bethel on the west and Ai on the east; and he built there an altar to the Lord and invoked the Lord by name.
[9] Then Abram journeyed by stages toward the Negeb.
[10] There was a famine in the land, and Abram went
down to
[8] And [he] pitched his tent ◊ The use of the verb in the singular is understood to indicate that Abraham is no longer accompanied by his numerous students. There is no one with him now but his own family.
And invoked the Lord by name ◊ Having left his Babylonian disciples in Shechem, and being now disengaged of them, Abraham strengthens his connection to the land. If at Shechem he only built an altar, now he can also “invoke the Lord by name.”
[9] Then Abram
journeyed by stages toward the Negeb ◊ The Negeb is a triangular desert region in southern
[10] There was a famine
in the land ◊ Because Abraham was
already progressing toward
Abram went down to
יא וַיְהִ֕י כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֥ר הִקְרִ֖יב לָב֣וֹא מִצְרָ֑יְמָה וַיֹּ֨אמֶר֙ אֶל־שָׂרַ֣י אִשְׁתּ֔וֹ הִנֵּה־נָ֣א יָדַ֔עְתִּי כִּ֛י אִשָּׁ֥ה יְפַת־מַרְאֶ֖ה אָֽתְּ׃ יב וְהָיָ֗ה כִּֽי־יִרְא֤וּ אֹתָךְ֙ הַמִּצְרִ֔ים וְאָֽמְר֖וּ אִשְׁתּ֣וֹ זֹ֑את וְהָֽרְג֥וּ אֹתִ֖י וְאֹתָ֥ךְ יְחַיּֽוּ׃ יג אִמְרִי־נָ֖א אֲחֹ֣תִי אָ֑תְּ לְמַ֨עַן֙ יִֽיטַב־לִ֣י בַֽעֲבוּרֵ֔ךְ וְחָֽיְתָ֥ה נַפְשִׁ֖י בִּגְלָלֵֽךְ׃
[11] As he was about to enter
[12] If the Egyptians see you, and think, ‘She is his wife,’ they will kill me and let you live.
[13] Please say that you are my sister, that it may go well with me because of you, and that I may remain alive thanks to you”.
That Abraham would resort to calling Sarah his sister is very problematic. Some would attempt to rationalize that Abraham was a prophet and thus knew in advance that Sarah was not endangered. But this approach seems to us incorrect. If Abraham is all-knowing, then he faces no difficulty at all in arriving at any decision, nor is Abraham showing any development as a personality. And worse yet, we will derive no lesson whatsoever from any of his actions, since we are not all-knowing, and can therefore learn absolutely nothing from the story. The inevitable result of any such attempt to “whitewash” Abraham’s actions is that the Torah will lose its meaning as a source of guidance. Let us therefore avoid any such assumptions as we try to make sense of Abraham’s actions.
It should be
noted that a number of Jewish commentators have criticized Abraham quite
harshly for his handling of the situation. Nahmanides, for example, condemns
Abraham for claiming that Sarah was his sister, and for even descending to
Evidently,
Abraham’s appeal to Sarah to pose as his sister was based on the Code of
Hammurabi, king of
The Code of
Hammurabi specifically states that if a woman has a brother or father, no man
may marry her without asking and receiving their permission. If Abraham is
regarded as Sarah’s brother, then all parties, believing ipso
facto that she is available for marriage, will be answerable only to
Abraham for asking her hand in matrimony. And the Egyptians likewise will seek
him out and ask his permission to marry Sarah. Whereas, should the Egyptians
come to know that in fact he is Sarah’s husband, then Abraham, seen as nothing
more than an impassable hindrance to anyone who might wish to marry Sarah,
could very well be killed. Thus, Abraham declares that he is Sarah’s brother in
order to secure his own safety during their stay in
Apparently,
however, saving himself and his family from hunger is not Abraham’s sole
challenge. For we see that Abraham asks Sarah to pose as his sister not only in
order that he be spared from death, but also “that
it may go well with me because of you.” What exactly is Abraham hoping
to receive? And why is he in
By passing off Sarah as his sister, Abraham deceives an unwitting population, and quite possibly subjects Sarah to significant danger. All of this seems highly problematic from a moral point of view. In truth, however, there is profound meaning to be found here, all of which we shall discuss in greater detail below.
יד וַיְהִ֕י כְּב֥וֹא אַבְרָ֖ם מִצְרָ֑יְמָה וַיִּרְא֤וּ הַמִּצְרִים֙ אֶת־הָ֣אִשָּׁ֔ה כִּֽי־יָפָ֥ה הִ֖וא מְאֹֽד׃ טו וַיִּרְא֤וּ אֹתָהּ֙ שָׂרֵ֣י פַרְעֹ֔ה וַיְהַֽלְל֥וּ אֹתָ֖הּ אֶל־פַּרְעֹ֑ה וַתֻּקַּ֥ח הָֽאִשָּׁ֖ה בֵּ֥ית פַּרְעֹֽה׃ טז וּלְאַבְרָ֥ם הֵיטִ֖יב בַּֽעֲבוּרָ֑הּ וַֽיְהִי־ל֤וֹ צֹאן־וּבָקָר֙ וַֽחֲמֹרִ֔ים וַֽעֲבָדִים֙ וּשְׁפָחֹ֔ת וַֽאֲתֹנֹ֖ת וּגְמַלִּֽים׃ יז וַיְנַגַּ֨ע י֧י ׀ אֶת־פַּרְעֹ֛ה נְגָעִ֥ים גְּדֹלִ֖ים וְאֶת־בֵּית֑וֹ עַל־דְּבַ֥ר שָׂרַ֖י אֵ֥שֶׁת אַבְרָֽם׃ יח וַיִּקְרָ֤א פַרְעֹה֙ לְאַבְרָ֔ם וַיֹּ֕אמֶר מַה־זֹּ֖את עָשִׂ֣יתָ לִּ֑י לָ֚מָּה לֹֽא־הִגַּ֣דְתָּ לִּ֔י כִּ֥י אִשְׁתְּךָ֖ הִֽוא׃ יט לָמָ֤ה אָמַ֨רְתָּ֙ אֲחֹ֣תִי הִ֔וא וָֽאֶקַּ֥ח אֹתָ֛הּ לִ֖י לְאִשָּׁ֑ה וְעַתָּ֕ה הִנֵּ֥ה אִשְׁתְּךָ֖ קַ֥ח וָלֵֽךְ׃ כ וַיְצַ֥ו עָלָ֛יו פַּרְעֹ֖ה אֲנָשִׁ֑ים וַֽיְשַׁלְּח֥וּ אֹת֛וֹ וְאֶת־אִשְׁתּ֖וֹ וְאֶת־כָּל־אֲשֶׁר־לֽוֹ׃
[14] When Abram entered
[15] Pharaoh’s courtiers saw her and praised her to Pharaoh, and the woman was taken into Pharaoh’s palace.
[16] And because of her, it went well with Abram; he acquired sheep, oxen, asses, male and female slaves, she-asses, and camels.
[17] But the Lord afflicted Pharaoh and his household with mighty plagues on account of Sarai, the wife of Abram.
[18] Pharaoh sent for Abram and said, “What is this you have done to me! Why did you not tell me that she was your wife?
[19] Why did you say, ‘She is my sister,’ so that I took her as my wife? Now, here is your wife; take her and begone!”
[20] And Pharaoh put men in charge of him, and they sent him off with his wife and all that he possessed.
[15] Pharaoh’s courtiers saw her and praised her to Pharaoh, and the woman was taken into Pharaoh’s palace ◊ Sarah “was taken,” that is, Pharaoh did not seek permission from Sarah’s””brother.” This was a scenario that Abraham could not have foreseen.
[16] And because of
her, it went well with Abram; he acquired sheep, oxen, asses, male and female
slaves, she-asses, and camels ◊ Leaving behind the many disciples
who had accompanied him from Babylon to Shechem, Abraham and his family alone
go to Bethel, and then descend to Egypt. But Abraham now again, by the will of
And … it went well with Abram; he acquired sheep, oxen, asses, male and female slaves ◊ The slaves of Abraham were not slaves in the Greco-Roman sense (“talking instruments” having no rights); rather, they were his courtiers and entourage – individuals worthy of becoming his new students.
[19] Now, here is your wife; take her and begone ◊ Although Pharaoh reproaches Abraham, they part on good terms. Abraham remains a confederate to Pharaoh, and this will later prove particularly significant.
The Midrash adds that among the people whom Pharaoh gave to Abraham was Hagar, the daughter of Pharaoh. Abraham, everywhere “invoking the name of God,” was known as an outstanding personality. Pharaoh senses Abraham’s greatness and wants their families to intermarry. For just that reason, Pharaoh had first tried to marry Sarah, Abraham’s “sister,” but when this proved impossible, he gave his daughter Hagar to Abraham in marriage.
We need not understand this Midrash literally, of course. The intent is
that Hagar became an “exemplar” of Egyptian culture within Abraham’s family.
Abraham’s connection with Hagar was his connection with
א וַיַּעַל֩ אַבְרָ֨ם מִמִּצְרַ֜יִם ה֠וּא וְאִשְׁתּ֧וֹ וְכָל־אֲשֶׁר־ל֛וֹ וְל֥וֹט עִמּ֖וֹ הַנֶּֽגְבָּה׃ ב וְאַבְרָ֖ם כָּבֵ֣ד מְאֹ֑ד בַּמִּקְנֶ֕ה בַּכֶּ֖סֶף וּבַזָּהָֽב׃ ג וַיֵּ֨לֶךְ֙ לְמַסָּעָ֔יו מִנֶּ֖גֶב וְעַד־בֵּֽית־אֵ֑ל עַד־הַמָּק֗וֹם אֲשֶׁר־הָ֨יָה שָׁ֤ם אָֽהֳלֹה֙ בַּתְּחִלָּ֔ה בֵּ֥ין בֵּֽית־אֵ֖ל וּבֵ֥ין הָעָֽי׃ ד אֶל־מְקוֹם֙ הַמִּזְבֵּ֔חַ אֲשֶׁר־עָ֥שָׂה שָׁ֖ם בָּרִֽאשֹׁנָ֑ה וַיִּקְרָ֥א שָׁ֛ם אַבְרָ֖ם בְּשֵׁ֥ם יֽי׃ ה וְגַ֨ם־לְל֔וֹט הַֽהֹלֵ֖ךְ אֶת־אַבְרָ֑ם הָיָ֥ה צֹאן־וּבָקָ֖ר וְאֹֽהָלִֽים׃ ו וְלֹֽא־נָשָׂ֥א אֹתָ֛ם הָאָ֖רֶץ לָשֶׁ֣בֶת יַחְדָּ֑ו כִּֽי־הָיָ֤ה רְכוּשָׁם֙ רָ֔ב וְלֹ֥א יָֽכְל֖וּ לָשֶׁ֥בֶת יַחְדָּֽו׃ ז וַֽיְהִי־רִ֗יב בֵּ֚ין רֹעֵ֣י מִקְנֵֽה־אַבְרָ֔ם וּבֵ֖ין רֹעֵ֣י מִקְנֵה־ל֑וֹט וְהַֽכְּנַעֲנִי֙ וְהַפְּרִזִּ֔י אָ֖ז יֹשֵׁ֥ב בָּאָֽרֶץ׃ ח וַיֹּ֨אמֶר אַבְרָ֜ם אֶל־ל֗וֹט אַל־נָ֨א תְהִ֤י מְרִיבָה֙ בֵּינִ֣י וּבֵינֶ֔ךָ וּבֵ֥ין רֹעַ֖י וּבֵ֣ין רֹעֶ֑יךָ כִּֽי־אֲנָשִׁ֥ים אַחִ֖ים אֲנָֽחְנוּ׃ ט הֲלֹ֤א כָל־הָאָ֨רֶץ֙ לְפָנֶ֔יךָ הִפָּ֥רֶד נָ֖א מֵֽעָלָ֑י אִם־הַשְּׂמֹ֣אל וְאֵימִ֔נָה וְאִם־הַיָּמִ֖ין וְאַשְׂמְאִֽילָה׃ י וַיִּשָּׂא־ל֣וֹט אֶת־עֵינָ֗יו וַיַּרְא֙ אֶת־כָּל־כִּכַּ֣ר הַיַּרְדֵּ֔ן כִּ֥י כֻלָּ֖הּ מַשְׁקֶ֑ה לִפְנֵ֣י ׀ שַׁחֵ֣ת י֗י אֶת־סְדֹם֙ וְאֶת־עֲמֹרָ֔ה כְּגַן־יי֙ כְּאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרַ֔יִם בֹּֽאֲכָ֖ה צֹֽעַר׃ יא וַיִּבְחַר־ל֣וֹ ל֗וֹט אֵ֚ת כָּל־כִּכַּ֣ר הַיַּרְדֵּ֔ן וַיִּסַּ֥ע ל֖וֹט מִקֶּ֑דֶם וַיִּפָּ֣רְד֔וּ אִ֖ישׁ מֵעַ֥ל אָחִֽיו׃ יב אַבְרָ֖ם יָשַׁ֣ב בְּאֶֽרֶץ־כְּנָ֑עַן וְל֗וֹט יָשַׁב֙ בְּעָרֵ֣י הַכִּכָּ֔ר וַיֶּֽאֱהַ֖ל עַד־סְדֹֽם׃ יג וְאַנְשֵׁ֣י סְדֹ֔ם רָעִ֖ים וְחַטָּאִ֑ים לַֽי֖י מְאֹֽד׃
[1] From
[2] Now Abram was very rich in cattle, silver, and gold.
[3] And he proceeded by stages from the Negeb as
far as
[4] the site of the altar that he had built there at first; and there Abram invoked the Lord by name.
[5]
[6] so that the land could not support them staying together; for their possessions were so great that they could not remain together.
[7] And there was quarreling between the herdsmen
of Abram’s cattle and those of
[8] Abram said to
[9] Is not the whole land before you? Let us separate: if you go north, I will go south; and if you go south, I will go north”.
[10] Lot looked about him and saw how well watered was the whole plain of the Jordan, all of it – this was before the Lord had destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah – all the way to Zoar, like the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt.
[11] So Lot chose for himself the whole plain of
the
[12] Abram remained in the
[13] Now the inhabitants of
[1] From Egypt, Abram
went up into the Negeb, with his wife and all that he possessed, together with
Lot ◊ The entire Lech Lecha portion, as we have already noted, is a series of tests for Abraham, in which,
instead of practicing ordinary chesed – sharing his
teachings with any and all – he must narrow the target group through which his
legacy will pass to all of humanity. Abraham first withdrew from
(1, 2) From
(3, 4) And he proceeded by stages from the Negeb as far as Bethel, to
the place where his tent had been formerly, between Bethel and Ai, the site of
the altar that he had built there at first; and there Abram invoked the Lord by
name ◊ Upon returning from Egypt Abraham settled in
his former location, the region of Bethel and Baal-hazor mountain, where he
again invoked the name of the Lord by continuing to preach. But by this time he
had completely changed his entourage. After leaving in Shechem the disciples he
had brought from
[5] Lot, who went
with Abram ◊ “Going with
Abram” refers not merely to the movement of related parties in unison, but to
an actual ideological connection:
[6] The land could not
support them staying together; for their possessions were so great that they
could not remain together ◊ The earth was cramped for them not
because there was little room for cattle grazing. No matter how large or small
a common property might be, that size by itself will not interfere with joint
management. No, something else is the problem – the conflict between the
attitudes of Abraham and
[7] And there was quarreling between the herdsmen of Abram’s cattle and
those of Lot’s cattle:
The Canaanites and Perizzites were then dwelling in the land ◊ The Torah’s
remark about the Canaanites and Perizzites seems
superfluous here, for it tells us nothing informative and relevant to the
storyline. The Midrash therefore sees in these words the actual topic of the
dispute. Said
Abraham
might at first have seen
[8] Abram said to Lot, “Let there be no strife between you and me” ◊ Had Abraham undertaken to adjudicate
the dispute between the shepherds, he could easily have put
For we are kinsmen ◊ The Midrash
understands this not merely as a statement of fact (which would make it just a
restatement of the obvious), but also as a prediction for the future: Abraham
and
Abram said to
[11] So Lot chose for
himself the whole plain of the Jordan … [12] Abram remained in
the land of Canaan ◊ As noted earlier, the boundary
between two major zones of influence ran along this line: the Jordan Valley and
the lands east of it were under the influence of Babylon, while the central
mountainous terrain at the center of the country and the lands to the west were
the zone of Egyptian influence. (A steep and often impassable ascent up the
mountain from the
Abraham and
his Egyptian student-servants later moved to
[13] Now the inhabitants
of
The Torah
here underscores the contrast between Abraham and
Lot differs
from Abraham in two respects, of which one is clearly a flaw, and the second
probably even a virtue: [1] his righteousness is shaky, and his chesed often misdirected and “irrelevant”; but [2] he is predisposed to law and order
and to promoting constructive government, because he sees in Sodom a positive
core, and wishes to advance and improve it.
We noted
earlier that Abraham takes Lot with him on his way to the
However, this ban on conversion to Judaism applies only to Moabite and
Ammonite men, but not their women. Thus, the Moabitess Ruth and the Ammonitess
Naamah even became part of the royal Davidic dynasty after joining the Jewish
people. Ruth married Boaz, as described in detail in the biblical book of Ruth,
and their great-grandson was King David, whose son Solomon married Naamah.
Thus, the royal Davidic family and the mashiach (Messiah) of
Indeed,
there was something about Lot that was necessary for establishing the future
royal Jewish bloodline, and the shepherds were not completely mistaken in
considering
The royal house always needs exceptional chesed as compared with the nation as a whole, in order to compensate for its exceptional gevurah (power, strength). Among the nations, it is most often the kings who are particularly susceptible to this manifestation of gevurah – power and authority – because of their need to coerce, punish, and even execute offenders. Even in childhood the king’s children know that they wield enormous power over their country; this often corrupts even highly upright souls, and the royal race can thus easily undergo moral decay. If this clan is to not degenerate, it needs an additional measure of chesed as compared with ordinary people. The royal “spiritual genotype” must be infused with a desire to give to others that is stronger than their need to take for themselves. The royal Jewish dynasty, the House of David, received this chesed through Ruth, which was then reinforced through Naamah.
Consequently, the House of David has demonstrated uncommon resistance to corruption due to privilege and power, and that is a decisive factor for its special significance in Jewish history. Even in the Davidic dynasty there were villain kings, idolaters, and the like, of course, but overall it managed to uphold a generally honorable standard over the full course of its five-hundred-year reign. Among other clans to whom dominion devolves, even if their eminently righteous first representatives have been granted royal authority by virtue of actual merit, the children or grandchildren soon degrade and lose their spiritual greatness, with no hope of it being restored at any time thereafter.
This is what actually happened to the Hasmonean dynasty that the Maccabean family had founded. The first generation of Hasmoneans, who had raised a rebellion against the Greeks and occupied the royal throne, were thoroughly admirable individuals who were supported by the entire nation. Their descendants, however, forfeited that status due to power’s pernicious influence. They introduced corruption and injustice into the country, and waged completely unnecessary wars of conquest; thus the Hasmoneans’ former spiritual stature was lost. Due to the lofty character of the kingdom of the House of David, Jewish tradition reveres it as an ideal, and in their prayers thrice daily Jews ask God for its speedy restoration. The Hasmoneans, in contrast, are accorded no such honor.
יד וַֽי֞י אָמַ֣ר אֶל־אַבְרָ֗ם אַֽחֲרֵי֙ הִפָּֽרֶד־ל֣וֹט מֵֽעִמּ֔וֹ שָׂ֣א נָ֤א עֵינֶ֨יךָ֙ וּרְאֵ֔ה מִן־הַמָּק֖וֹם אֲשֶׁר־אַתָּ֣ה שָׁ֑ם צָפֹ֥נָה וָנֶ֖גְבָּה וָקֵ֥דְמָה וָיָֽמָּה׃ טו כִּ֧י אֶת־כָּל־הָאָ֛רֶץ אֲשֶׁר־אַתָּ֥ה רֹאֶ֖ה לְךָ֣ אֶתְּנֶ֑נָּה וּֽלְזַרְעֲךָ֖ עַד־עוֹלָֽם׃ טז וְשַׂמְתִּ֥י אֶֽת־זַרְעֲךָ֖ כַּֽעֲפַ֣ר הָאָ֑רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֣ר ׀ אִם־יוּכַ֣ל אִ֗ישׁ לִמְנוֹת֙ אֶת־עֲפַ֣ר הָאָ֔רֶץ גַּֽם־זַרְעֲךָ֖ יִמָּנֶֽה׃
[14] And the Lord said to Abram, after
[15] for I give all the land that you see to you and your offspring forever.
[16] I will make your offspring as the dust of the earth, so that if one can count the dust of the earth, then your offspring too can be counted.
[14] After
[15] All the land ◊ God’s promise emphasizes
the indivisibility of the land (indeed, the view from Baal-hazor, the mountain
where Abraham is located at this moment, takes in the entire
As already
noted, in the course of Abraham’s life God makes several consecutive covenants
with him. The first of those occurred in Charan, when God summoned Abraham for
a journey to the
This is typical of all the covenants God made with the Patriarchs. All those covenants speak of the creation of a populous nation and of their taking possession of the land. They also speak of direct communication with God, and the integration of the ideals of mercy and justice. But the commandments – as specific rules of behavior – will be given only at Sinai through Moses; they are never mentioned in the covenants that God makes with the Patriarchs.
Thus we see the primacy in Judaism of the nation, the land and that nation’s dominion over the land (to be realized through a political state), the Jewish people’s connection with God, and the ideals they are to uphold. Whereas the commandments and laws of the Torah are only a means to achieving them.
This new conception of daily life in the political state as being of primary spiritual importance runs counter to the historical direction that Judaism had followed in the Diaspora. Many religious leaders in the nineteenthth century therefore opposed Zionism, which, in their opinion, aimed to replace the spiritual elements in Judaism with earthly, territorial-national values. In response, one of the leaders of Zionism articulated his own approach as follows: “Every nation has as much sky above its head as it has land beneath its feet.”
יז ק֚וּם הִתְהַלֵּ֣ךְ בָּאָ֔רֶץ לְאָרְכָּ֖הּ וּלְרָחְבָּ֑הּ כִּ֥י לְךָ֖ אֶתְּנֶֽנָּה׃ יח וַיֶּֽאֱהַ֣ל אַבְרָ֗ם וַיָּבֹ֛א וַיֵּ֛שֶׁב בְּאֵֽלֹנֵ֥י מַמְרֵ֖א אֲשֶׁ֣ר בְּחֶבְר֑וֹן וַיִּֽבֶן־שָׁ֥ם מִזְבֵּ֖חַ לַֽיֽי׃
[17] Up, walk about the land, through its length and its breadth, for I give it to you”.
[18] And Abram moved his tent, and came to dwell at
the terebinths of Mamre, which are in
[17] Up, walk about the
land, through its length and its breadth, for I give it to you ◊ Abraham
was not to remain in one place, or even to remain generally in the central
region of the country. He had to himself move about the entire country, so that
his descendants could likewise take possession of it. This is an instance of
the principle, “the deeds of the ancestors are indicators for their
descendants.” What Jewish ancestors do will extend also to their descendants. Thus, for Abraham’s descendants to take
possession of the land in the future, Abraham must first travel around the
This is an
indicator for modern-day
[18] And Abram moved
his tent, and came to dwell at the terebinths of Mamre, which are in Hebron;
and he built an altar there to the Lord ◊ Both Hebron and Bethel are situated
on the “mountain” (the country’s central mountain ridge), but much further
south, closer to Sodom, where Lot settled. More importantly, however,
א וַיְהִ֗י בִּימֵי֙ אַמְרָפֶ֣ל מֶֽלֶךְ־שִׁנְעָ֔ר אַרְי֖וֹךְ מֶ֣לֶךְ אֶלָּסָ֑ר כְּדָרְלָעֹ֨מֶר֙ מֶ֣לֶךְ עֵילָ֔ם וְתִדְעָ֖ל מֶ֥לֶךְ גּוֹיִֽם׃ ב עָשׂ֣וּ מִלְחָמָ֗ה אֶת־בֶּ֨רַע֙ מֶ֣לֶךְ סְדֹ֔ם וְאֶת־בִּרְשַׁ֖ע מֶ֣לֶךְ עֲמֹרָ֑ה שִׁנְאָ֣ב ׀ מֶ֣לֶךְ אַדְמָ֗ה וְשֶׁמְאֵ֨בֶר֙ מֶ֣לֶךְ צְבֹיִ֔ים וּמֶ֥לֶךְ בֶּ֖לַע הִיא־צֹֽעַר׃ ג כָּל־אֵ֨לֶּה֙ חָֽבְר֔וּ אֶל־עֵ֖מֶק הַשִּׂדִּ֑ים ה֖וּא יָ֥ם הַמֶּֽלַח׃ ד שְׁתֵּ֤ים עֶשְׂרֵה֙ שָׁנָ֔ה עָֽבְד֖וּ אֶת־כְּדָרְלָעֹ֑מֶר וּשְׁלֹשׁ־עֶשְׂרֵ֥ה שָׁנָ֖ה מָרָֽדוּ׃ ה וּבְאַרְבַּע֩ עֶשְׂרֵ֨ה שָׁנָ֜ה בָּ֣א כְדָרְלָעֹ֗מֶר וְהַמְּלָכִים֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר אִתּ֔וֹ וַיַּכּ֤וּ אֶת־רְפָאִים֙ בְּעַשְׁתְּרֹ֣ת קַרְנַ֔יִם וְאֶת־הַזּוּזִ֖ים בְּהָ֑ם וְאֵת֙ הָֽאֵימִ֔ים בְּשָׁוֵ֖ה קִרְיָתָֽיִם׃ ו וְאֶת־הַֽחֹרִ֖י בְּהַרְרָ֣ם שֵׂעִ֑יר עַ֚ד אֵ֣יל פָּארָ֔ן אֲשֶׁ֖ר עַל־הַמִּדְבָּֽר׃ ז וַ֠יָּשֻׁבוּ וַיָּבֹ֜אוּ אֶל־עֵ֤ין מִשְׁפָּט֙ הִ֣וא קָדֵ֔שׁ וַיַּכּ֕וּ אֶֽת־כָּל־שְׂדֵ֖ה הָעֲמָֽלֵקִ֑י וְגַם֙ אֶת־הָ֣אֱמֹרִ֔י הַיֹּשֵׁ֖ב בְּחַֽצְצֹ֥ן תָּמָֽר׃ ח וַיֵּצֵ֨א מֶֽלֶךְ־סְדֹ֜ם וּמֶ֣לֶךְ עֲמֹרָ֗ה וּמֶ֤לֶךְ אַדְמָה֙ וּמֶ֣לֶךְ צְבֹיִ֔ים וּמֶ֥לֶךְ בֶּ֖לַע הִוא־צֹ֑עַר וַיַּֽעַרְכ֤וּ אִתָּם֙ מִלְחָמָ֔ה בְּעֵ֖מֶק הַשִּׂדִּֽים׃ ט אֵ֣ת כְּדָרְלָעֹ֜מֶר מֶ֣לֶךְ עֵילָ֗ם וְתִדְעָל֙ מֶ֣לֶךְ גּוֹיִ֔ם וְאַמְרָפֶל֙ מֶ֣לֶךְ שִׁנְעָ֔ר וְאַרְי֖וֹךְ מֶ֣לֶךְ אֶלָּסָ֑ר אַרְבָּעָ֥ה מְלָכִ֖ים אֶת־הַֽחֲמִשָּֽׁה׃ י וְעֵ֣מֶק הַשִּׂדִּ֗ים בֶּֽאֱרֹ֤ת בֶּֽאֱרֹת֙ חֵמָ֔ר וַיָּנֻ֛סוּ מֶֽלֶךְ־סְדֹ֥ם וַֽעֲמֹרָ֖ה וַיִּפְּלוּ־שָׁ֑מָּה וְהַנִּשְׁאָרִ֖ים הֶ֥רָה נָּֽסוּ׃ יא וַ֠יִּקְחוּ אֶת־כָּל־רְכֻ֨שׁ סְדֹ֧ם וַֽעֲמֹרָ֛ה וְאֶת־כָּל־אָכְלָ֖ם וַיֵּלֵֽכוּ׃ יב וַיִּקְח֨וּ אֶת־ל֧וֹט וְאֶת־רְכֻשׁ֛וֹ בֶּן־אֲחִ֥י אַבְרָ֖ם וַיֵּלֵ֑כוּ וְה֥וּא יֹשֵׁ֖ב בִּסְדֹֽם׃ יג וַיָּבֹא֙ הַפָּלִ֔יט וַיַּגֵּ֖ד לְאַבְרָ֣ם הָֽעִבְרִ֑י וְהוּא֩ שֹׁכֵ֨ן בְּאֵֽלֹנֵ֜י מַמְרֵ֣א הָֽאֱמֹרִ֗י אֲחִ֤י אֶשְׁכֹּל֙ וַֽאֲחִ֣י עָנֵ֔ר וְהֵ֖ם בַּֽעֲלֵ֥י בְרִית־אַבְרָֽם׃ יד וַיִּשְׁמַ֣ע אַבְרָ֔ם כִּ֥י נִשְׁבָּ֖ה אָחִ֑יו וַיָּ֨רֶק אֶת־חֲנִיכָ֜יו יְלִידֵ֣י בֵית֗וֹ שְׁמֹנָ֤ה עָשָׂר֙ וּשְׁלֹ֣שׁ מֵא֔וֹת וַיִּרְדֹּ֖ף עַד־דָּֽן׃ טו וַיֵּֽחָלֵ֨ק עֲלֵיהֶ֧ם ׀ לַ֛יְלָה ה֥וּא וַֽעֲבָדָ֖יו וַיַּכֵּ֑ם וַֽיִּרְדְּפֵם֙ עַד־חוֹבָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר מִשְּׂמֹ֖אל לְדַמָּֽשֶׂק׃ טז וַיָּ֕שֶׁב אֵ֖ת כָּל־הָֽרְכֻ֑שׁ וְגַם֩ אֶת־ל֨וֹט אָחִ֤יו וּרְכֻשׁוֹ֙ הֵשִׁ֔יב וְגַ֥ם אֶת־הַנָּשִׁ֖ים וְאֶת־הָעָֽם׃
[1] Now, when King Amraphel of
[2] made war on King Bera of Sodom, King Birsha of Gomorrah, King Shinab of Admah, King Shemeber of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela, which is Zoar,
[3] all the latter joined
forces at the
[4] Twelve years they served Chedorlaomer, and in the thirteenth year they rebelled.
[5] In the fourteenth year Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him came and defeated the Rephaim at Ashteroth-karnaim, the Zuzim at Ham, the Emim at Shaveh-kiriathaim,
[6] and the Horites in their hill country of Seir as far as El-paran, which is by the wilderness.
[7] On their way back they came to En-mishpat, which is Kadesh, and subdued all the territory of the Amalekites, and also the Amorites who dwelt in Hazazon-tamar.
[8] Then the king of
[9] King Chedorlaomer of
[10] Now the
[11] [The invaders] seized
all the wealth of
[12] They also took Lot, the son of Abram’s
brother, and his possessions, and departed; for he had settled in
[13] A fugitive brought the news to Abram the Hebrew, who was dwelling at the terebinths of Mamre the Amorite, kinsman of Eshkol and Aner, these being Abram’s allies.
[14] When Abram heard that his kinsman had been taken captive, he mustered his retainers, born into his household, numbering three hundred and eighteen, and went in pursuit as far as Dan.
[15] At night, he and his servants deployed against
them and defeated them; and he pursued them as far as Hobah, which is north of
[16] He brought back all the possessions; he also
brought back his kinsman
[1] Now, when King
Amraphel of
Abraham wished to avoid a very minor conflict, and in the end had to face an far more difficult one. This is common in such situations. One’s reluctance to undertake immediate, tough decisions today turns into the need to fight on a larger scale tomorrow.
[4] Twelve years they
served Chedorlaomer ◊ Without taking up a detailed historical identification of all
these kings, the geography of their kingdoms, and their battle stations, we
note generally that the coalition of Chedorlaomer consisted of the kings of
various regions of
And in the thirteenth year they rebelled ◊ The kings who submitted to
the Babylonians and then rebelled are the kings of the city-states located
around the
[5] In the fourteenth year Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him came and defeated the Rephaim at Ashteroth-karnaim, the Zuzim… ◊ In the course of suppressing the rebellion, the Babylonian kings wage their military campaign in the vicinity of the Dead Sea and Sodom, but they do not enter the highlands of the Land of Canaan where Abraham lives, because it is Egypt’s zone of influence.
[10] Now the
The “mountain” to which the survivors fled is the region of
We note in
passing that as a result of this war, all the nations living around the Jordan
River and the
[13] A fugitive brought
the news to Abram the Hebrew, who was dwelling at the terebinths of Mamre the
Amorite, kinsman of Eshkol and Aner, these being Abram’s allies ◊ We suddenly see Abraham in a completely unexpected light. It
turns out that he has political and military allies prepared to fight the Babylonians,
and this military alliance extends to
Brought the news to Abram the Hebrew ◊ This is the first instance in the Torah where the ethnonym ivri, “Hebrew,” is used. The emphasis placed here on Abraham’s ethnic origins shows that his actions are motivated by political considerations at the national level, and not only by familial ones.
However, as we see often throughout Jewish history, the main challenge of war is not in achieving the victory itself, but in putting the results of that victory to proper use.
יז וַיֵּצֵ֣א מֶֽלֶךְ־סְדֹם֮ לִקְרָאתוֹ֒ אַֽחֲרֵ֣י שׁוּב֗וֹ מֵֽהַכּוֹת֙ אֶת־כְּדָרְלָעֹ֔מֶר וְאֶת־הַמְּלָכִ֖ים אֲשֶׁ֣ר אִתּ֑וֹ אֶל־עֵ֣מֶק שָׁוֵ֔ה ה֖וּא עֵ֥מֶק הַמֶּֽלֶךְ׃ יח וּמַלְכִּי־צֶ֨דֶק֙ מֶ֣לֶךְ שָׁלֵ֔ם הוֹצִ֖יא לֶ֣חֶם וָיָ֑יִן וְה֥וּא כֹהֵ֖ן לְאֵ֥ל עֶלְיֽוֹן׃ יט וַֽיְבָרְכֵ֖הוּ וַיֹּאמַ֑ר בָּר֤וּךְ אַבְרָם֙ לְאֵ֣ל עֶלְי֔וֹן קֹנֵ֖ה שָׁמַ֥יִם וָאָֽרֶץ׃ כ וּבָרוּךְ֙ אֵ֣ל עֶלְי֔וֹן אֲשֶׁר־מִגֵּ֥ן צָרֶ֖יךָ בְּיָדֶ֑ךָ וַיִּתֶּן־ל֥וֹ מַֽעֲשֵׂ֖ר מִכֹּֽל׃ כא וַיֹּ֥אמֶר מֶֽלֶךְ־סְדֹ֖ם אֶל־אַבְרָ֑ם תֶּן־לִ֣י הַנֶּ֔פֶשׁ וְהָֽרְכֻ֖שׁ קַֽח־לָֽךְ׃ כב וַיֹּ֥אמֶר אַבְרָ֖ם אֶל־מֶ֣לֶךְ סְדֹ֑ם הֲרִמֹ֨תִי יָדִ֤י אֶל־יי֙ אֵ֣ל עֶלְי֔וֹן קֹנֵ֖ה שָׁמַ֥יִם וָאָֽרֶץ׃ כג אִם־מִחוּט֙ וְעַ֣ד שְׂרֽוֹךְ־נַ֔עַל וְאִם־אֶקַּ֖ח מִכָּל־אֲשֶׁר־לָ֑ךְ וְלֹ֣א תֹאמַ֔ר אֲנִ֖י הֶֽעֱשַׁ֥רְתִּי אֶת־אַבְרָֽם׃ כד בִּלְעָדַ֗י רַ֚ק אֲשֶׁ֣ר אָֽכְל֣וּ הַנְּעָרִ֔ים וְחֵ֨לֶק֙ הָֽאֲנָשִׁ֔ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר הָֽלְכ֖וּ אִתִּ֑י עָנֵר֙ אֶשְׁכֹּ֣ל וּמַמְרֵ֔א הֵ֖ם יִקְח֥וּ חֶלְקָֽם׃
[17] When he returned from defeating Chedorlaomer and the kings with
him, the king of
[18] And King Melchizedek of
[19] He blessed him, saying,
“Blessed be Abram of God Most High,
Creator of heaven and earth.
[20] And blessed be God Most High,
Who has delivered your foes into your hand”.
And [Abram] gave him a tenth of everything.
[21] Then the king of
[22] But Abram said to the king of
[23] I will not take so much as a thread or a sandal strap of what is yours; you shall not say, ‘It is I who made Abram rich.’
[24] For me, nothing but what my servants have used up; as for the share of the men who went with me–Aner, Eshkol, and Mamre–let them take their share”.
This story is often understood as demonstrating Abraham’s exemplary
generosity, that he was free of avarice and unwilling to receive any share of
[17] When he
returned from defeating Chedorlaomer and the kings with him, the king of
In the
[18] And King
Melchizedek of
[20] And [Abram] gave him a tenth of everything ◊ It would now seem that Abraham is very close to the fulfillment of the Divine promise of dominance over the land. But Abraham, who does not yet understand that he must create a people and, therefore, build a state, refuses this opportunity. Abraham has no desire to become a political ruler, who controls the lives of his subjects with his edicts. He still believes that his primary goal is to preach, to bring people closer to God and to a worthy life based solely on their own personal choices. He therefore does not accept that power, but of its own accord it devolves upon him all the same.
The Torah emphasizes that Melchizedek is “the priest of God Most High.” Had Abraham considered himself the progenitor of a nation, and thus a political leader, he would have declared himself the ruler of the land, and appointed Melchizedek as priest of the kingdom rather than giving Melchizedek “a tenth of everything.” But Abraham does nothing of the kind. He behaves not as a leader but as an individual, a private citizen who gives his priest a tenth of everything acquired.
[21] Then the king
of
[22] But Abram said
to the king of
Abraham
wishes to teach others a moral lesson: the rejection of dishonest money. Such
behavior on the part of an ordinary citizen would be highly admirable, but is
completely unbecoming and unacceptable for a king, a political leader, for whom
refusing to make demands on
אאַחַ֣רהַדְּבָרִ֣יםהָאֵ֗לֶּההָיָ֤הדְבַר־יי֙אֶל־אַבְרָ֔םבַּֽמַּחֲזֶ֖הלֵאמֹ֑ראַל־תִּירָ֣אאַבְרָ֗םאָֽנֹכִי֙מָגֵ֣ןלָ֔ךְשְׂכָֽרְךָ֖הַרְבֵּ֥המְאֹֽד׃
[1] Some time later, the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision. He said, “Fear not, Abram, I am a shield to you; Your reward shall be very great.”
After the war with the kings, the Torah moves on to the “Covenant Between the Severed Members.” This story begins with God addressing Abraham, which serves as a proper conclusion to the battle that Abraham had just fought.
[1] Some time later, the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision. He said, “Fear not, Abram…” ◊ When a person is in danger and goes to war, it is natural that he would be afraid and in need of support. But here God addresses Abraham after those frightful events, when Abraham has already returned from battle. What could Abraham have feared after the victory was already won?
Perhaps Abraham feared that now he had already completely received the reward that God had promised him. God therefore reassures him, “Your reward shall be very great”. Abraham might also have feared that the defeated kings could return to avenge their defeat. The Almighty therefore tells him, “I am a shield to you.”
The Midrash, however, offers a profound rationale for Abraham’s fear in the form of a moral problem: Abraham feared that he had killed some innocent soul in the war, for most likely there were good people among the enemy warriors who did not deserve to die. Besides such killings being a very bad thing in and of itself, to be guilty of such killings can cause a steep decline in one’s spiritual level.
From both a legal and a moral perspective it is of course neither possible nor necessary in military actions to determine the ethical position of each and every enemy soldier. In war one may kill indiscriminately, although there is surely nothing praiseworthy in that. Moreover, refraining entirely from going to war is also not an option. Those being attacked must defend themselves. But at the same time, any war is itself lamentable, and can inflict real spiritual damage on anyone who fights and kills. Abraham’s fears were thus not without foundation. But it is nevertheless important to note that the opposite behavior – refusing to go to war in the event of an attack on oneself or one’s loved ones, and adopting a position of submission and inappropriate pacifism in the face of aggression – will cause a person far worse moral and spiritual damage than waging war ever would.
Thus, Abraham feared not the revenge of his enemies, but his own spiritual degradation due to his having been forced to kill. With the words “Fear not,” God reassures Abram that this would not happen.
It must be emphasized that Abraham’s dread of any unjust killing of enemies would be entirely warranted for an individual in personal conflict with an enemy, but is absolutely unacceptable for a nation and a state.
War is a social reality. Although eliminating war from our world is of course a Jewish Messianic ideal, that ideal is still very far from reality, and its application without regard for reality would be a classic case of false messianism. Were a state to advance the argument that “enemy soldiers are also human beings, each most likely an honorable family man being forced to fight against his own conscience and principles,” then living in such a state would be impossible, for it would soon be destroyed along with its citizens. In other words, by showing mercy to distant strangers, that state will inflict cruelty upon its own citizens. To yield in a quarrel of individuals is indeed noble and sublime, but at the national level, when the issue is one of a state protecting its people, such capitulation would be nothing less than a crime.
Abraham
understands, of course, that he was correct to go to war in order to rescue
It should be noted that this is in a more general sense a very Jewish feeling. Today’s “Abrahams” in this regard are those Israelis who win victories, but at the same time are embarrassed by their victories. Some Jews are so afraid of their victories – and all “Israeli” victories – that they embrace anti-Zionism and dream of destroying Israel, or whatever it takes to disassociate from “military force” that seems immoral to them. Such a perverted mindset was of course alien to Abraham, who, when it became necessary, did not hesitate to go to war. But he nonetheless entertains just such concerns and doubts.
Another reason, perhaps, for Abraham’s apprehensions was the fact that his victory had dismantled his original plans. As discussed earlier, Abraham was acting within the framework of two competing designs: his own design, and God’s design for him. Abraham’s original intent was to establish universal belief in the One God, to create a cosmopolitan religious system embracing all of humanity. But God’s plan for Abraham is different: to produce from him a nation that will bring monotheism to the world.
Victory in
the war with the Babylonian kings has now demolished Abraham’s plan for the
spread of a religion that would embrace all of humanity, because Abraham was
now in a sharp conflict with half of humanity – with
ב וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אַבְרָ֗ם אֲדֹנָ֤י יְהוִה֙ מַה־תִּתֶּן־לִ֔י וְאָֽנֹכִ֖י הוֹלֵ֣ךְ עֲרִירִ֑י וּבֶן־מֶ֣שֶׁק בֵּיתִ֔י ה֖וּא דַּמֶּ֥שֶׂק אֱלִיעֶֽזֶר׃ ג וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אַבְרָ֔ם הֵ֣ן לִ֔י לֹ֥א נָתַ֖תָּה זָ֑רַע וְהִנֵּ֥ה בֶן־בֵּיתִ֖י יוֹרֵ֥שׁ אֹתִֽי׃
[2] But Abram said, “O Lord God, what can You give me, seeing that I shall die childless, and the one in charge of my household is Dammesek Eliezer!”
[3] Abram said further, “Since You have granted me no offspring, my steward will be my heir.”
[2] Seeing that I
shall die childless, and the one in charge of my household is Dammesek
Eliezer!” ◊ God’s words “your reward is great” highlight
the chasm between His promise to create a people from Abraham’s descendants and
the reality of Abraham’s childlessness, such that not even a relative will
inherit him, but only his domestic steward. (Abraham and his nephew
Abraham now for the first time perceives this discrepancy between the promise and the reality as an actual crisis, and so deeply that he himself raises the issue of the need for descendants. This dynamic evolution of Abraham’s views, from his original idea of training disciples to the idea of building a people from progeny, is a necessary step for ensuring that Abraham will in fact finally have those descendants.
[2] But Abram said ... [3] And Abram said ◊ Both these verses (2 and 3) begin with questions posed by Abraham, but with no intervening response from God. By not responding immediately to Abraham, God constrains him to more clearly formulate his question, with an emphasis on the connection between offspring and heritage, in order that Abraham will more clearly understand the problem. Only after Abraham has undergone this internal advancement will his destiny change.
ד וְהִנֵּ֨ה דְבַר־י֤י אֵלָיו֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר לֹ֥א יִֽירָשְׁךָ֖ זֶ֑ה כִּי־אִם֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר יֵצֵ֣א מִמֵּעֶ֔יךָ ה֖וּא יִֽירָשֶֽׁךָ׃ ה וַיּוֹצֵ֨א אֹת֜וֹ הַח֗וּצָה וַיֹּ֨אמֶר֙ הַבֶּט־נָ֣א הַשָּׁמַ֗יְמָה וּסְפֹר֙ הַכּ֣וֹכָבִ֔ים אִם־תּוּכַ֖ל לִסְפֹּ֣ר אֹתָ֑ם וַיֹּ֣אמֶר ל֔וֹ כֹּ֥ה יִֽהְיֶ֖ה זַרְעֶֽךָ׃
[4] The word of the Lord came to him in reply, “That one shall not be your heir; none but your very own issue shall be your heir”.
[5] He took him outside and said, “Look toward heaven and count the stars, if you are able to count them”. And He added, “So shall your offspring be”.
Thus,
Abraham’s critical personal advancement was that he abandoned his own plan and
accepted the Divine plan. Abraham’s disciples and his nephew
[5] He took him outside and said, “Look toward heaven and count the stars ◊ A simple understanding of this passage is that God took Abraham out of his tent in order to view the stars. However, the strict meaning of the Hebrew word habbet is to gaze down from above onto what is below. The Midrash therefore explains that Abraham, who was an expert in astrology – the “science” of those times – said to God: “After carefully researching my horoscope I know beyond all doubt that according to the stars (i.e., the natural course of events, the laws of nature) I cannot have a child.” God, in response, raised Abraham higher than the heavens, allowing him to look down on the stars from above. This way, God gave Abraham a super-natural view of the laws of the natural world. God told Abraham: “Your name will change (see 17:5), and your horoscope will also change accordingly”.
That “scientific” understanding of his own childlessness was perhaps one factor that drove Abraham toward his plan of creating a religion through a group of disciples. The plans that God was offering him were incomprehensible to Abraham, as if only miraculously feasible. God responds to Abraham by “taking him outside”, cautioning him that one must not give absolute credence to the laws of nature. “Yes, you have in fact calculated your horoscope accurately. But you will rise above those stars and above the laws of nature, and from there will you bring your son into the world. There is a force higher than the stars – Divine Providence – that can alter the course of events.”
This sense that the Jewish people does not – indeed cannot – possibly survive by the laws of nature alone, and that Jewish existence is the result of an ongoing miracle by which God’s people “rise above the stars,” has consistently accompanied the Jewish people throughout its very long history.
ו וְהֶֽאֱמִ֖ן בַּֽי֑י וַיַּחְשְׁבֶ֥הָ לּ֖וֹ צְדָקָֽה׃
[6] And because he put his trust in the Lord, He reckoned it to his merit.
Jewish tradition considers it incorrect to understand this verse as “salvation through faith”: Abraham believed, and God therefore saved him – because such an understanding does not fit the context.
First, it is clear that the issue here is not faith in the conventional sense – belief in the existence of God. Obviously, Abraham already had such faith long before this. Abraham had spoken with God many times and acted on His instructions. It is thus impossible to believe that only now Abraham suddenly “believed in God.”
The Hebrew verb “he’emin (from which “amen” is also derived) does not mean “he believed,” but, rather, “he trusted.” The idea is that Abraham relied on God for the realization of His promise that was contrary to the natural course of events. It is such trust in God (and not “faith” per se) that is a notable religious achievement.
The second problem in understanding this verse is that the translation of the word tzedakah as “righteousness” is highly ambiguous. The Hebrew word tzedakah has two different meanings: [1] righteousness, and [2] a display of mercy, or a gift. Thus, the turn of phrase of this verse can be understood as either “He considered it righteousness,” or “he considered it an act of mercy.”
At the same time – and this is the third problem in understanding this verse – it is not grammatically apparent from the text who was doing the considering, and for whom – God for Abraham, or Abraham for God. If the latter, the verse should be understood differently, as follows: Abraham trusted God (i.e., that his descendants would become an innumerable people) and considered this to be Divine mercy. That is, Abraham did not believe that he could receive such descendants strictly on his own merits.
Thus, this verse admits two parallel interpretations, and incorporates for us two separate lessons: [1] A person who evinces trust in God, by actively demonstrating his awareness that the Almighty will with time provide solutions even to those problems that today seem unsolvable, is credited with having performed an act of righteousness; [2] A person who receives some benefit from God should consider it a gift of God’s beneficence that greatly exceeds what he ought have received based on his merits alone.
This does not mean, of course, that our merits are irrelevant or unimportant to God, for the truth is quite the opposite. One of the reasons God has given us His many commandments is so that by keeping them we will increase our merits before Him. But at the same time, we must realize that the rewards we receive from God are not payment fully commensurate with our actual merits, but a manifestation of Divine grace.
But the idea of “salvation through faith” has no basis whatsoever in the Hebrew Bible.
ז וַיֹּ֖אמֶר אֵלָ֑יו אֲנִ֣י י֗י אֲשֶׁ֤ר הֽוֹצֵאתִ֨יךָ֙ מֵא֣וּר כַּשְׂדִּ֔ים לָ֧תֶת לְךָ֛ אֶת־הָאָ֥רֶץ הַזֹּ֖את לְרִשְׁתָּֽהּ׃ ח וַיֹּאמַ֑ר אֲדֹנָ֣י יְהוִ֔ה בַּמָּ֥ה אֵדַ֖ע כִּ֥י אִֽירָשֶֽׁנָּה׃
[7] Then He said to him, “I am the Lord who
brought you out from
[8] And he said, “O Lord God, how shall I know that I am to possess it?”
[7] I am the Lord who
brought you out from Ur of the Chaldeans to assign this land to you as a
possession ◊ The purpose of Abraham’s leaving Ur of the
Chaldeans is precisely to create a people from the descendants of Abraham, who
will then take possession of the land. The life of the Jewish people in the
[8] And he said, “O Lord God, how shall I know that I am to possess it?” Abraham suddenly shows a lack of trust and asks God for signs confirming the promise. But this is very strange. How is it that only a little earlier we were told that Abraham trusted in God that he would have descendants, but now he lacks trust and asks for confirmation that his descendants will possess the land and live on it?
The apparent reason for this change in Abraham’s reaction to God’s promise is that Divine mercy is enough for providing offspring, but an additional condition is necessary for the long-term possession of the land, namely, the specific behavior of those descendants. And for that, Divine mercy is simply not enough.
It is also possible that the very establishment of a state (“possessing the land”) represents a significant moral problem for Abraham. The state tends to degrade and decompose. As a rule, it would seem, living in one’s own country and possessing the land can easily lead to crisis. Not for naught does the Torah say later: “When you have begotten children and children’s children and are long established in the land, should you act wickedly and make for yourselves a sculptured image in any likeness, causing the Lord your God displeasure and vexation” (Deut. 4:25 ).
“Act wickedly” – as the result of living on one’s own land!? A country
overflowing with vital forces is nevertheless not itself a moral being; as soon
as a person takes root in his land, it can begin to eat away at his morality.
This greatly worries Abraham. As an example of this Abraham has, before his
very eyes, the Canaanites, who degenerated into one of the most depraved
nations precisely because of their stay in the
Abraham, as it were, says to God: “How wonderful that you will give me descendants, but what shall become of them in the future? Will my descendants be worthy of the gift that you wish to give them? What assurance do I have that the earth will not seize them and corrupt them? Is Your mercy toward them so very great that we can expect them to hold their own in this land?” Although Divine mercy is often given without sufficient merit, a person must nevertheless uphold a certain level of morality in order for that mercy to be granted.
The Midrash criticizes Abraham for not trusting in God’s word, and even attributes the four-hundred-year exile of his descendants to that flaw. Each of Abraham’s four words, ba-mah eda ki irashennah – “how shall I know that I am to possess it?” – corresponds to one hundred years of Egyptian exile.
It would be wrong to assume, however, that Abraham’s descendants were punished simply because he lacked trust in God. More likely, the reason for that lengthy exile is that Abraham’s question demonstrates an actual defect in those descendants themselves that they need to correct, namely, their own deficiency of bitachon, trust in the Almighty. The Jewish people needed one hundred years of correction for each of four degrees of deficiency represented by those four words.
God later responds to Abraham, mentioning (verse 17) “the smoking oven,” a reference to God’s opening words (verse 7) to Abraham: “I am the Lord who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldeans”; that is, it refers to that very Chaldean furnace (see 18:1(c)) from which Abraham emerged not only unharmed, but even hardened. God seems to say to Abraham: “By the strict laws of nature no one emerges from a fiery furnace unharmed. But you did, thus transcending natural law. And likewise, the four hundred years of Egyptian exile will be like a fiery furnace for your descendants, allowing them to develop supernatural qualities. Your fears are therefore unfounded. The Jewish people will successfully possess this land that I am giving you. No, the land will not enslave them, and as a nation they will even succeed at elevating the land.”
ט וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֵלָ֗יו קְחָ֥ה לִי֙ עֶגְלָ֣ה מְשֻׁלֶּ֔שֶׁת וְעֵ֥ז מְשֻׁלֶּ֖שֶׁת וְאַ֣יִל מְשֻׁלָּ֑שׁ וְתֹ֖ר וְגוֹזָֽל׃ י וַיִּֽקַּֽח־ל֣וֹ אֶת־כָּל־אֵ֗לֶּה וַיְבַתֵּ֤ר אֹתָם֙ בַּתָּ֔וֶךְ וַיִּתֵּ֥ן אִישׁ־בִּתְר֖וֹ לִקְרַ֣את רֵעֵ֑הוּ וְאֶת־הַצִּפֹּ֖ר לֹ֥א בָתָֽר׃ יא וַיֵּ֥רֶד הָעַ֖יִט עַל־הַפְּגָרִ֑ים וַיַּשֵּׁ֥ב אֹתָ֖ם אַבְרָֽם׃ יב וַיְהִ֤י הַשֶּׁ֨מֶשׁ֙ לָב֔וֹא וְתַרְדֵּמָ֖ה נָֽפְלָ֣ה עַל־אַבְרָ֑ם וְהִנֵּ֥ה אֵימָ֛ה חֲשֵׁכָ֥ה גְדֹלָ֖ה נֹפֶ֥לֶת עָלָֽיו׃ יג וַיֹּ֣אמֶר לְאַבְרָ֗ם יָדֹ֨עַ תֵּדַ֜ע כִּי־גֵ֣ר ׀ יִֽהְיֶ֣ה זַרְעֲךָ֗ בְּאֶ֨רֶץ֙ לֹ֣א לָהֶ֔ם וַֽעֲבָד֖וּם וְעִנּ֣וּ אֹתָ֑ם אַרְבַּ֥ע מֵא֖וֹת שָׁנָֽה׃ יד וְגַ֧ם אֶת־הַגּ֛וֹי אֲשֶׁ֥ר יַֽעֲבֹ֖דוּ דָּ֣ן אָנֹ֑כִי וְאַֽחֲרֵי־כֵ֥ן יֵֽצְא֖וּ בִּרְכֻ֥שׁ גָּדֽוֹל׃ טו וְאַתָּ֛ה תָּב֥וֹא אֶל־אֲבֹתֶ֖יךָ בְּשָׁל֑וֹם תִּקָּבֵ֖ר בְּשֵׂיבָ֥ה טוֹבָֽה׃ טז וְד֥וֹר רְבִיעִ֖י יָשׁ֣וּבוּ הֵ֑נָּה כִּ֧י לֹֽא־שָׁלֵ֛ם עֲוֺ֥ן הָֽאֱמֹרִ֖י עַד־הֵֽנָּה׃ יז וַיְהִ֤י הַשֶּׁ֨מֶשׁ֙ בָּ֔אָה וַֽעֲלָטָ֖ה הָיָ֑ה וְהִנֵּ֨ה תַנּ֤וּר עָשָׁן֙ וְלַפִּ֣יד אֵ֔שׁ אֲשֶׁ֣ר עָבַ֔ר בֵּ֖ין הַגְּזָרִ֥ים הָאֵֽלֶּה׃ יח בַּיּ֣וֹם הַה֗וּא כָּרַ֧ת י֛י אֶת־אַבְרָ֖ם בְּרִ֣ית לֵאמֹ֑ר לְזַרְעֲךָ֗ נָתַ֨תִּי֙ אֶת־הָאָ֣רֶץ הַזֹּ֔את מִנְּהַ֣ר מִצְרַ֔יִם עַד־הַנָּהָ֥ר הַגָּדֹ֖ל נְהַר־פְּרָֽת׃ יט אֶת־הַקֵּינִי֙ וְאֶת־הַקְּנִזִּ֔י וְאֵ֖ת הַקַּדְמֹנִֽי׃ כ וְאֶת־הַֽחִתִּ֥י וְאֶת־הַפְּרִזִּ֖י וְאֶת־הָֽרְפָאִֽים׃ כא וְאֶת־הָֽאֱמֹרִי֙ וְאֶת־הַֽכְּנַעֲנִ֔י וְאֶת־הַגִּרְגָּשִׁ֖י וְאֶת־הַיְבוּסִֽי׃
[9] He answered, “Bring Me a three-year-old heifer, a three-year-old she-goat, a three-year-old ram, a turtledove, and a young bird”.
[10] He brought Him all these and cut them in two, placing each half opposite the other; but he did not cut up the bird.
[11] Birds of prey came down upon the carcasses, and Abram drove them away.
[12] As the sun was about to set, a deep sleep fell upon Abram, and a great dark dread descended upon him.
[13] And He said to Abram, “Know well that your offspring shall be strangers in a land not theirs, and they shall be enslaved and oppressed four hundred years;
[14] but I will execute judgment on the nation they shall serve, and in the end they shall go free with great wealth.
[15] As for you,
You shall go to your fathers in peace;
You shall be buried at a ripe old age.
[16] And they shall return here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete”.
[17] When the sun set and it was very dark, there appeared a smoking oven, and a flaming torch which passed between those pieces.
[18] On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your
offspring I assign this land, from the
[19] the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites,
[20] the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim,
[21] the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites, and the Jebusites”.
[18] On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram ◊ This is the berit bein ha-betarim, the “Covenant Between the Severed Members” that God made with Abraham.
[13] And He said to Abram, “Know well that your offspring shall be strangers in a land not theirs, and they shall be enslaved and oppressed four hundred years … And they shall return here in the fourth generation ◊ God had already told Abraham earlier about the nation that would be created from his descendants, but gave him no explanation as to how this nation would further develop. Now God is inducting Abraham into the mechanism of this historical process. But the good news for Abraham, both personal and national, that “you shall be buried at a ripe old age … and in the end they shall go free with great wealth”, is integrally associated with suffering and persecution here: “Your offspring shall be strangers in a land not theirs, and they shall be enslaved and oppressed.”
[12] And a great dark dread descended upon him. ◊ The images of the “Covenant Between the Severed Members” embrace many long eras of Jewish history, illuminating them with meaning and purpose, and engendering an overwhelming feeling of trepidation in any person aware of his own smallness. Abraham, too, experiences this trepidation, and therefore can take in the Covenant only in a sleeping state. A waking consciousness cannot withstand the tension of a collision with the enormity of history.
Each element of this vision incorporates symbolism and prophecy. Here we will mention only a small selection of those.
[10] He brought Him
all these and cut them in two, placing each half opposite the other ◊ The first action here is
the bisection, albeit not complete, of the animals. This symbolizes that the
spiritual vitality of the world – the “river issuing from the Garden of Eden”
(2:10) – will be divided between different empires, first and foremost between
[11] Birds of prey came down upon the carcasses, and Abram drove them away ◊ The Jews (Abraham) remain in the middle, passing as it were between bisected civilizations, driving off the kites from their remains, and carrying out the task of uniting those civilizations, smelting them in a single furnace.
Humanity
after the
[17] There appeared a
smoking oven, and a flaming torch which passed between those pieces. ◊ Later in
the Torah (Deut. 4:20),
In addition
to the “smelting of the nations,” exile has a second function, realized not
only in
[9] He answered,
“Bring Me a three-year-old heifer, a three-year-old she-goat, a three-year-old
ram, a turtledove, and a young bird” ◊ In the four species of animals that
Abraham sacrifices here, tradition sees an indication of four Jewish exiles –
four kingdoms that will later rule over
The Talmud
says: “The Almighty gave three gifts to
The answer is that these gifts are so valuable precisely because they are acquired through suffering. Had they come without suffering, they would have been easily lost. Paying such a high price for those gifts is necessary for us to establish a truly integral connection with them.
[13] And they shall be enslaved and oppressed four hundred years; [14] but I will execute judgment on the nation they shall serve ◊ If the servitude and suffering of the descendants of Abraham was predetermined from Above, then why are the Egyptians to be blamed for oppressing the Jews, given that they were only fulfilling the Divine will, as it were? The Torah therefore states clearly that the oppressors will be judged. God grants each of us the freedom to choose. If evil comes into the world through someone, then that person will be held accountable for that.
[16] And they shall return here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete ◊ That is, the Canaanite nations were not at that time sufficiently guilty of their crimes to deserve expulsion quite yet.
This means that when later the expulsion of the Canaanites did occur, it was not because the Jews had become worthy of receiving the land, but because the moment had come when these peoples were so guilty that they truly deserved to be expelled.
The right of
the Jewish people to possess the
[18] From the
Thus, the concept of “from the Nile to the
In past epochs the realms of King David and King Solomon corresponded to those boundaries exactly. Those periods left an indelible impression on humanity’s collective memory, as evidenced in particular by the Psalms written in that era, and the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes. In later times, however, the entire “land of the ten nations” was never under Jewish dominion, but only the “territory of the seven peoples” as later indicated (Deut. 7:1).
Thus, the essence of the covenant that God made with Abraham is the promise that he would have descendants, and a land through which all the tribes of the earth would be blessed. Abraham assumes the role of being both the foundation and the model for the creation of that nation.
יח בַּיּ֣וֹם הַה֗וּא כָּרַ֧ת י֛י אֶת־אַבְרָ֖ם בְּרִ֣ית לֵאמֹ֑ר לְזַרְעֲךָ֗ נָתַ֨תִּי֙ אֶת־הָאָ֣רֶץ הַזֹּ֔את מִנְּהַ֣ר מִצְרַ֔יִם עַד־הַנָּהָ֥ר הַגָּדֹ֖ל נְהַר־פְּרָֽת׃
(15:18) On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your offspring I assign this land …”
א וְשָׂרַי֙ אֵ֣שֶׁת אַבְרָ֔ם לֹ֥א יָֽלְדָ֖ה ל֑וֹ וְלָ֛הּ שִׁפְחָ֥ה מִצְרִ֖ית וּשְׁמָ֥הּ הָגָֽר׃
(16:1) Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no children.
In the Torah
text these two verses appear in close succession, in order to emphasize the
discrepancy between God’s promise and Abraham’s reality. We have here an
instance of the often painful gap between the ideal, “true” state of affairs –
in this case, God’s promise to give the
When we feel justified in our expectations, but they have not come to fruition, disappointment and crisis often ensue. This type of discontinuity between the expected and the actual can be a source of extreme psychological distress, often leading the persons experiencing it to commit tragically serious mistakes.
In relation to time there are generally two types of sin: the sin of being too late, and the sin of being too early. The sin of the spies (Numbers 13) is an example of the former: they tried to persuade the Jewish people not to enter the land, although the time had come to do exactly that. But more often the sin is of the other type – being prematurely zealous, when the ideal state is already striving to come true, but the reality is not yet ready for it. An example of this type of sin is the sin of Adam and Eve, who prematurely tasted the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
Another example of sinning by “being too early” is the Jews’ sin of the
golden calf. While Moses was at the top of Mount Sinai, but had not yet
received the tablets, the people of
Note that the sin of “being too early,” although more common, is less severe than the sin of “being too late”. The sin of the golden calf was forgiven, but the sin of the spies was not; that entire generation died in the wilderness. To “not love” is a more grievous sin than to “love too much.” As the book of Proverbs says (10:12), “Love covers up all sins.”
Returning to our Torah portion, Sarah’s mistake is a sin of “being too early.”
The most serious problem of our lives is our lack of bitachon, our failing to trust in the Almighty. Fearing that a situation has no chance of improving without our impetuous intervention, we undertake improper actions, for which we ultimately pay a very steep price.
א וְשָׂרַי֙ אֵ֣שֶׁת אַבְרָ֔ם לֹ֥א יָֽלְדָ֖ה ל֑וֹ וְלָ֛הּ שִׁפְחָ֥ה מִצְרִ֖ית וּשְׁמָ֥הּ הָגָֽר׃
[1] Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no children. She had an Egyptian maidservant whose name was Hagar.
[1] An Egyptian maidservant ◊ We have already noted that the Torah’s concept of slave does not coincide with the Greek or Roman concepts of slave as “talking instrument” (by Aristotle’s definition). Rather, the “slave” of the Torah is a “patriarchal” slave who should sooner be called a servant – a junior member of the family, as it were. Jewish law required that a slave be given living conditions that were on par with those of his master, who was also prohibited from subjecting the slave to corporal punishment of any kind, overworking him, or endangering his life or limb. The slave was obliged to rest on Shabbat, and to sit at the Passover table with all other members of the family.
In the Torah, Eliezer, who was Abraham’s own servant, manages his household and chooses a wife for Abraham’s son Isaac. In other words, plain and simple, a slave is a disciple. Therefore, the fact that Hagar is called a slave does not put her in the position of a mute creature, but only means that she is subordinate to Sarah.
Whose name was Hagar: The Midrash tells us that Hagar was the daughter of Pharaoh. After seeing the miracles that God had
performed for Abraham, Pharaoh gave him his own daughter as a slave girl. We
need not understand this Midrash literally, of course, but it is important to
consider that Hagar has noble, even regal origins, and in the house of Abraham
she is a “representative” of
ב וַתֹּ֨אמֶר שָׂרַ֜י אֶל־אַבְרָ֗ם הִנֵּה־נָ֞א עֲצָרַ֤נִי יי֙ מִלֶּ֔דֶת בֹּא־נָא֙ אֶל־שִׁפְחָתִ֔י אוּלַ֥י אִבָּנֶ֖ה מִמֶּ֑נָּה וַיִּשְׁמַ֥ע אַבְרָ֖ם לְק֥וֹל שָׂרָֽי׃ ג וַתִּקַּ֞ח שָׂרַ֣י אֵֽשֶׁת־אַבְרָ֗ם אֶת־הָגָ֤ר הַמִּצְרִית֙ שִׁפְחָתָ֔הּ מִקֵּץ֙ עֶ֣שֶׂר שָׁנִ֔ים לְשֶׁ֥בֶת אַבְרָ֖ם בְּאֶ֣רֶץ כְּנָ֑עַן וַתִּתֵּ֥ן אֹתָ֛הּ לְאַבְרָ֥ם אִישָׁ֖הּ ל֥וֹ לְאִשָּֽׁה׃
[2] And Sarai said to Abram, “Look, the Lord has kept me from bearing. Consort with my maid; perhaps I shall have a son through her”. And Abram heeded Sarai’s request.
[3] So Sarai, Abram’s wife, took her maid, Hagar
the Egyptian–after Abram had dwelt in the
It has now been ten years since Abraham received the Divine promise that he will have descendants. After such a long interval has passed and the Divine promise is still not realized, a crisis arises.
Now desperate, Sarah resorts to extreme measures. Her confusion and lack of trust in God led to the birth of Ishmael, which becomes a serious complication for Isaac. To resolve this newer crisis, Sarah must again take steps that, although necessary, will lead to an even more dangerous global conflict in the future.
Sarah’s words, “perhaps I shall have a son through her,” demonstrate that she did not consider herself hopelessly barren, but only assumed that Abraham must first have children, and that once there were children in the family she too would give birth.
Or, possibly, Sarah hopes that as her reward for giving her maidservant to Abraham and adopting Hagar’s newborn child, she too will be blessed with children. (Infertility sometimes ceases after the adoption of children. The presence of children in a family can exert a positive psychological influence on a woman, and can in that way effect biological changes in her as well.) But after Sarah gives Hagar to Abraham, events take an entirely different turn from what Sarah was expecting.
God promised offspring to Abraham, but Sarah does not give birth. Which of them is to blame for this?
Later in the Torah we will see an indication that it is Abraham who is the cause of the infertility, because it is in him that the process of spiritual growth necessary for the birth of Isaac is not yet complete. This difference in the levels of Abraham and Sarah finds expression in the different manner in which their names change. From the wording “Your name shall be Abraham…” (17:5) we see that Abraham is given a genuinely new name, but about Sarah the wording is different: “...you shall not call her Sarai, but her name shall be Sarah…” (17:5). That is, her true name, which had not been apparent previously, is now being merely revealed. Abraham has changed along with his name change, and is now no longer deficient, whereas Sarah needs only what was hidden within her to be revealed; she herself does not need to change.
However, in the course of these events involving Hagar, Abraham and Sarah themselves have no awareness of all that, and Sarah, feeling inclined to blame herself rather than her husband, says: “Look, the Lord has kept me from bearing” (16:2). Believing that she herself is to blame, Sarah wishes to improve the situation so that Abraham will have at least some descendants. At that moment she lacks the attribute of bitachon, trust in God, and she does what she can: She gives Hagar to Abraham.
The reason for their childlessness was not Sarah’s infertility, but Abraham’s being still unready for the birth of a successor, being at that time still “Abram,” and not yet “Abraham.” The changes that are required for the birth of Isaac need to occur in his person. But Abraham, meanwhile, does not see this, notwithstanding that God has made His promise specifically to him. Therefore, not only does he consent to Sarah’s plan, but, as we shall soon see, he deems it even preferable that creating the future nation should happen through Hagar.
Other Jewish matriarchs were also childless at first, not only Sarah. Their delayed child-bearing was a part of the Divine plan – one of many indications that the people of Israel come into being not by the natural, uninterrupted flow of the birth cycle, but in the broken sequence of that reality, as something that stands above nature, having its own unique destiny.
We have
already noted that the legal environment in which the Patriarchs lived, and in
which the entire
According to the Code of Hammurabi, when a child is born to a man by his maidservant because of his wife’s childlessness, there are two possible variations of that child’s status. If the mistress remains childless, the maidservant’s child becomes the rightful heir. But if the mistress later gives birth to a child of her own, the man’s child from the maidservant loses all rights of inheritance.
In other words, the birth of Isaac will deprive Ishmael of Abraham’s entire inheritance; he will remain the simple son of a slave. It is precisely this that distinguishes the conflict between Ishmael and Isaac from that between Jacob and Esau, who were clearly both rightful heirs, the dispute being only as to who holds the right of the firstborn.
Therefore, Ishmael after the birth of Isaac tries to ignore him completely, as if he does not exist.
Associated with Hammurabi’s code is yet another important issue, around which there is a great deal of speculation. When archaeologists discovered the texts of the Code of Hammurabi in 1901, they found in it many parallels to the laws of the Torah. On that basis certain scholars wished to argue that the Torah is simply a restatement of the Code of Hammurabi. In response, certain Jewish “defenders of the Torah” took an emphatically opposite position, averring that there was no connection whatsoever between the Torah and Hammurabi’s code.
The fact is, however, that from the Jewish point of view it is only normal and natural – and even necessary! – that the foundations of ethics and proper legislation would have appeared in human society before the giving of the Torah.
It is an essential principle of Judaism that derech eretz – lit., “the way of the land,” or the basic humanly ethical principles – must precede the Torah. Or what amounts to the same thing: morality precedes holiness. Unless a level of universally moral and decent human behavior has been first achieved, no conditions can exist for advancing toward holiness.
This principle is usually understood at the individual level. If a person is morally depraved or dishonest, if he is a villain by ordinary human standards, no Torah study will avail to improve him.
One must first be a decent person, and then we can talk about advancing him towards holiness.
But this principle also has a historical aspect: in the history of the development of mankind, moral norms had to appear first, before any conception of holiness. Indeed, until derech eretz – a rudimentary but sufficient moral and legal standard – is achieved, any understanding of the Torah is in principle impossible. From this point of view it is natural that morality and justice would have appeared on a tangible human scale even before the arrival of the Patriarchs. And this was realized in the adoption, specifically, of Hammurabi’s Code, which raised society to a standard of law based on a sense of justice (and not, as before, merely on force). From that time onward it was already possible for the world to receive the Torah.
Drawing these parallels between the Torah and the laws of Hammurabi is not only natural, but even essential, to a person who intuitively understands fundamental ethical laws, derech eretz. Universal moral and legal norms are based not on God’s decrees but on the fact that it is one’s conscience that allows him to distinguish right from wrong.
It is not the Torah’s intent to reform villains, nor can it do so. The Torah is designed to help a person who wishes to travel the road of good to find that road and to understand its rules. Thus, morality is a prerequisite to holiness – both individually and historically.
The Torah, in principle, allows the practice of polygamy. Abraham and Jacob had several wives; the book of Samuel begins with the story of Elkanah (father of the prophet Samuel), who had two wives, Hannah and Peninah. And, of course, who can forget the great many wives that King David and King Solomon had.
In all these cases, however (with the exception of the kings), polygamy was a matter of necessity, not planning; the reason for it was, as a rule, the inability of a first wife to bear children. Thus, the guiding principle of the Torah regarding this matter is that polygamy is not encouraged, but it is permitted. The ideal marriage according to the Torah is monogamous, as symbolized by the marriage of Adam and Eve. However, if a woman did not have children, then it was proper for her husband to take a second wife, in order to fulfill God’s commandment (Gen. 1:28) of procreation.
(The situation of the kings was entirely different: for them it was important ex officio to have many wives. But this was driven by political exigencies that do not apply to an ordinary citizen.)
In Jewish
literature of the Talmudic era we find only isolated instances of polygamy. In
the tenth century CE Rabbi Gershom of
Feeling
hopeless, Sarah gives Abraham her maidservant as a “saving grace.” But it seems
that Abraham sees the situation differently. Although the Torah says (16:2),
“Abram heeded Sarai’s request,” meaning that Abram was not leading here, by all
indications this flow of events was thoroughly consistent with his own
sympathetic attitude toward
Recall that originally there were two plans through which monotheism, the religion of Abraham, could reach mankind: Abraham’s original plan to establish a universal, cosmopolitan religion, and God’s plan to create a monotheistic people. Although he had always inclined toward the universal approach, Abraham ultimately accepted God’s plan.
Abraham might have perceived a marriage of necessity to Hagar as a shift of plans favoring the universal direction: let my nation be a conduit for the ideas of monotheism, but one that is kindred to the Egyptians, the primary civilization of mankind, all of whom together would then be a “universal world people.” But if the future nation will descend from Abraham and Sarah, who are both ivrim (Hebrews), that nation will represent too narrow a national framework. Will such a people be able to influence all of humanity? If, however, this exceptional nation will be born of Jewish roots, but on Egyptian soil, and if Egyptian culture could be fertilized by Abraham’s ideas, then that nation would have greater chances of worldly success. Or so it seemed to Abraham.
Abraham will therefore feel an especial love for Ishmael, and, as we shall soon see, he will regard the birth of Isaac as a crisis situation.
ג וַתִּקַּ֞ח שָׂרַ֣י אֵֽשֶׁת־אַבְרָ֗ם אֶת־הָגָ֤ר הַמִּצְרִית֙ שִׁפְחָתָ֔הּ מִקֵּץ֙ עֶ֣שֶׂר שָׁנִ֔ים לְשֶׁ֥בֶת אַבְרָ֖ם בְּאֶ֣רֶץ כְּנָ֑עַן וַתִּתֵּ֥ן אֹתָ֛הּ לְאַבְרָ֥ם אִישָׁ֖הּ ל֥וֹ לְאִשָּֽׁה׃ ד וַיָּבֹ֥א אֶל־הָגָ֖ר וַתַּ֑הַר וַתֵּ֨רֶא֙ כִּ֣י הָרָ֔תָה וַתֵּקַ֥ל גְּבִרְתָּ֖הּ בְּעֵינֶֽיהָ׃ ה וַתֹּ֨אמֶר שָׂרַ֣י אֶל־אַבְרָם֮ חֲמָסִ֣י עָלֶיךָ֒ אָֽנֹכִ֗י נָתַ֤תִּי שִׁפְחָתִי֙ בְּחֵיקֶ֔ךָ וַתֵּ֨רֶא֙ כִּ֣י הָרָ֔תָה וָֽאֵקַ֖ל בְּעֵינֶ֑יהָ יִשְׁפֹּ֥ט י֖י בֵּינִ֥י וּבֵינֶֽיׄךָ׃ ו וַיֹּ֨אמֶר אַבְרָ֜ם אֶל־שָׂרַ֗י הִנֵּ֤ה שִׁפְחָתֵךְ֙ בְּיָדֵ֔ךְ עֲשִׂי־לָ֖הּ הַטּ֣וֹב בְּעֵינָ֑יִךְ וַתְּעַנֶּ֣הָ שָׂרַ֔י וַתִּבְרַ֖ח מִפָּנֶֽיהָ׃
[3] So Sarai, Abram’s wife, took her maid, Hagar
the Egyptian–after Abram had dwelt in the
[4] He cohabited with Hagar and she conceived; and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was lowered in her esteem.
[5] And Sarai said to Abram, “The wrong done me is your fault! I myself put my maid in your bosom; now that she sees that she is pregnant, I am lowered in her esteem. The Lord decide between you and me!”
[6] Abram said to Sarai, “Your maid is in your hands. Deal with her as you think right.” Then Sarai treated her harshly, and she ran away from her.
[3] So Sarai, Abram’s wife, took ◊ Sarah ever remains Abraham’s wife.
And gave her to her husband Abram as concubine ◊ The Hebrew word here is ishah, which means, simply, “wife.” Thus Hagar’s status increases dramatically. Sarah gives her to Abram not as a concubine, but as a wife. The difference between the relative standings of Sarah and Hagar now becomes less pronounced, and Hagar entertains the illusion that that difference has dissipated altogether.
[5] Now that she sees that she is pregnant, I am lowered in her esteem ◊ Having now conceived, Hagar concludes that her own merits outweigh Sarah’s merits – and she begins to behave inappropriately.
The Lord decide between you and me!” ◊ In such a situation as Sarah finds herself she petitions Abraham using legal terminology. Sarah in general manifests the attribute of judgment, gevurah within Abraham’s chesed. This quality of hers – to be an “internal attribute of judgment” – will make itself known much more clearly later, since without Abraham she cannot bear Isaac, who is “righteous in the attribute of the court.”
[6] Abram said to Sarai, “Your maid is in your hands. Deal with her as you think right.” ◊ Abraham again avoids making harsh legal decisions. Being the embodiment of chesed, he is not inclined to implement the attribute of the court. He therefore defers to Sarah, for whom the attribute of the court is natural.
But in fact this was a test that Abraham could not pass. He neglected his obligation, now that Hagar was his wife, to establish of his own accord Hagar’s subordinate status vis-à-vis Sarah. Abraham’s failure to apply the attribute of the court has led to an imbalance between the court and mercy, and has exacerbated the conflict.
Then Sarai treated her harshly ◊ The Hebrew va-te‘anneha sarai means, literally, “Sarai oppressed her.” The Midrash explains that Sarah burdened Hagar with a usual work regimen, disregarding her special needs as occasioned by her pregnancy (itself the source of Hagar’s supercilious attitude). That is, Sarah realized too harshly the attribute of the court. The Torah regards this behavior as “oppression” and condemns Sarah for acting so.
...וַתִּבְרַ֖ח מִפָּנֶֽיהָ׃ ז וַֽיִּמְצָאָ֞הּ מַלְאַ֧ךְ י֛י עַל־עֵ֥ין הַמַּ֖יִם בַּמִּדְבָּ֑ר עַל־הָעַ֖יִן בְּדֶ֥רֶךְ שֽׁוּר׃ ח וַיֹּאמַ֗ר הָגָ֞ר שִׁפְחַ֥ת שָׂרַ֛י אֵֽי־מִזֶּ֥ה בָ֖את וְאָ֣נָה תֵלֵ֑כִי וַתֹּ֕אמֶר מִפְּנֵי֙ שָׂרַ֣י גְּבִרְתִּ֔י אָֽנֹכִ֖י בֹּרַֽחַת׃
[6] … and she ran away from her.
[7] An angel of the Lord found her by a spring of water in the wilderness, the spring on the road to Shur,
[8] and said, “Hagar, slave of Sarai, where have you come from, and where are you going?” And she said, “I am running away from my mistress Sarai.”
[6] … and she ran away from her. [7] An angel of the Lord found her ◊ Superficially Hagar seems to flee simply to escape Sarah’s oppression. But actually she is seeking greater clarity in ascertaining her own status, and for that she is now deserving of Divine assistance.
[8] And said, “Hagar, slave of Sarai ... ◊ When Hagar can no longer bear the uncertainty of her position, God sends her a clarification. Simply through his manner of addressing Hagar, the angel restores her understanding of her subordinate status in relation to Sarah.
... Where have you come from, and where are you going?” ◊ The angel’s question to Hagar – which is actually the Almighty’s question – is reminiscent of God’s question to Adam: “Where are you?” (3:9) and to Cain: “Where is Abel, your brother?” (4:9). Throughout history God has continuously posed to humankind this essential question, whose purpose is to induce each of us to understand our place in the world.
God wants to help us to find the right path on our own. Rather than exerting pressure, He acts through allusions.
I am running away from my mistress Sarai ◊ Hagar takes the hint and acknowledges her slave status. By correcting her earlier mistakes she becomes worthy of the Divine blessing.
ז וַֽיִּמְצָאָ֞הּ מַלְאַ֧ךְ י֛י עַל־עֵ֥ין הַמַּ֖יִם בַּמִּדְבָּ֑ר עַל־הָעַ֖יִן בְּדֶ֥רֶךְ שֽׁוּר
[7] An angel of the Lord found her by a spring of water in the wilderness, the spring: God appears to Hagar not at home, but in the wilderness. In the future, likewise, the place of revelation for the descendants of Hagar and Ishmael is the desert.
The type of theology that develops in the desert completely subordinates man to the Divine; it is the theology of submission, or in Arabic, “Islam.” The desert is by no means a place of freedom; on the contrary, it is a place where one is keenly aware of his insignificance, a place where one feels abandoned and forgotten by all. Living in the wilderness, one is aware of the smallness of man and the greatness of God. Accordingly, Islam, the religion of the desert, emphasizes the predominance of Divine predestination, where there is practically no room for any freedom of choice.
This kind of experience – repression by God – occurred in Judaism when
the Torah was given in the wilderness at
At Sinai the Jews accepted the Torah through compulsion. We therefore had to “re-receive” the Torah in repeated renewals of our Covenant with God that have taken place throughout the full length of Jewish history, beginning with the covenant in the city of Shechem after the Jews crossed the Jordan River with Joshua into the Land of Israel, and continuing with the story of Purim, and even unto the present day.
As Islam continues to evolve, it might likewise have to pass through similar stages of development.
ט וַיֹּ֤אמֶר לָהּ֙ מַלְאַ֣ךְ י֔י שׁ֖וּבִי אֶל־גְּבִרְתֵּ֑ךְ וְהִתְעַנִּ֖י תַּ֥חַת יָדֶֽיהָ׃ י וַיֹּ֤אמֶר לָהּ֙ מַלְאַ֣ךְ י֔י הַרְבָּ֥ה אַרְבֶּ֖ה אֶת־זַרְעֵ֑ךְ וְלֹ֥א יִסָּפֵ֖ר מֵרֹֽב׃ יא וַיֹּ֤אמֶר לָהּ֙ מַלְאַ֣ךְ י֔י הִנָּ֥ךְ הָרָ֖ה וְיֹלַ֣דְתְּ בֵּ֑ן וְקָרָ֤את שְׁמוֹ֙ יִשְׁמָעֵ֔אל כִּֽי־שָׁמַ֥ע י֖י אֶל־עָנְיֵֽךְ׃ יב וְה֤וּא יִֽהְיֶה֙ פֶּ֣רֶא אָדָ֔ם יָד֣וֹ בַכֹּ֔ל וְיַ֥ד כֹּ֖ל בּ֑וֹ וְעַל־פְּנֵ֥י כָל־אֶחָ֖יו יִשְׁכֹּֽן׃ יג וַתִּקְרָ֤א שֵׁם־יי֙ הַדֹּבֵ֣ר אֵלֶ֔יהָ אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל רֳאִ֑י כִּ֣י אָֽמְרָ֗ה הֲגַ֥ם הֲלֹ֛ם רָאִ֖יתִי אַֽחֲרֵ֥י רֹאִֽי׃ יד עַל־כֵּן֙ קָרָ֣א לַבְּאֵ֔ר בְּאֵ֥ר לַחַ֖י רֹאִ֑י הִנֵּ֥ה בֵין־קָדֵ֖שׁ וּבֵ֥ין בָּֽרֶד׃ טו וַתֵּ֧לֶד הָגָ֛ר לְאַבְרָ֖ם בֵּ֑ן וַיִּקְרָ֨א אַבְרָ֧ם שֶׁם־בְּנ֛וֹ אֲשֶׁר־יָֽלְדָ֥ה הָגָ֖ר יִשְׁמָעֵֽאל׃ טז וְאַבְרָ֕ם בֶּן־שְׁמֹנִ֥ים שָׁנָ֖ה וְשֵׁ֣שׁ שָׁנִ֑ים בְּלֶֽדֶת־הָגָ֥ר אֶת־יִשְׁמָעֵ֖אל לְאַבְרָֽם׃
[9] And the angel of the Lord said to her, “Go back to your mistress, and submit to her harsh treatment.”
[10] And the angel of the Lord said to her,
“I will greatly increase your offspring,
And they shall be too many to count.”
[11] The angel of the Lord said to her further,
“Behold, you are with child
And shall bear a son;
You shall call him Ishmael,
For the Lord has paid heed to your suffering.
[12] He shall be a wild ass of a man;
His hand against everyone,
And everyone’s hand against him;
He shall dwell alongside of all his kinsmen.”
[13] And she called the Lord who spoke to her, “You Are El-roi”, by which she meant, “Have I not gone on seeing after He saw me!”
[14] Therefore the well was called Beer-lahai-roi; it is between Kadesh and Bered.
[15] Hagar bore a son to Abram, and Abram gave the son that Hagar bore him the name Ishmael.
[16] Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore Ishmael to Abram.
[9] Go back to your mistress: Recognition of Sarah’s superiority is a requisite for Hagar herself. So long as her self-determination is false, no blessing can be hers.
[11] Behold, you are with child and shall bear a son ◊ But when Hagar acknowledges her status as maidservant and corrects her behavior, she is blessed.
You shall call him Ishmael, for the Lord has paid heed to your suffering ◊ The role of Ishmael and his descendants, the Arabs, in world history is highly significant, and is also a feature of Abraham’s legacy. In relation to Sarah and the Jewish people, Hagar and Ishmael’s position is ambivalent. On the one hand, they have subordinate status, but on the other hand, they must not be oppressed. The very name Ishmael means “God hears,” that is, He hears the sufferings of Hagar and her descendants. Maintaining a balance between these two aspects is not easy, and in daily life we often see that some Jews emphasize much more the need for Ishmael’s subordination, while others put greater emphasis on the commandment to not oppress him. In truth, however, only by learning to integrate both of these principles can we expect to normalize our relations with the descendants of Hagar.
It should be noted that Jewish tradition generally sees Hagar in a positive light despite her conflict with Sarah, as a person of rather high spiritual attainments. At the end of portion Chayei Sarah the Torah relates how after the death of Sarah, Abraham took a wife named Keturah. The Talmud maintains that Keturah is Hagar; Hagar, who was expelled by Abraham (as we will read below), did not marry, but waited until Abraham called her back. Which indeed he did, after which Hagar bore yet more children to Abraham. At the same time, the change of name from Hagar to Keturah shows a change in her identity, and her ability to overcome her former complexes.
Hagar’s problem is that her spiritual potential allows her to rise to the level of one of the “spiritual leaders of the nations of the world,” but not to become a spiritual leader of the Jewish people. Among her descendants are people who can become the Righteous of the Nations, and fulfill an important spiritual function in the world, but they are not included among the chosen people.
[12] He shall be a wild ass of a man; he shall dwell alongside of all his kinsmen ◊ Although here it means “savage,” the strict meaning of the Hebrew word pere is “a wild ass that refuses to accept the yoke.” A yoke does in fact limit freedom, but mostly it represents the opportunity to work productively. Ishmael wants to be free, but he has a problem with doing constructive work.
His hand against everyone, and everyone’s hand against him ◊ The Hebrew literally translated is, “His hand in everyone, and everyone’s hand in him.” He needs all, and all need him. He will have no independent existence, but while he remains dependent, he too will have something that everyone needs.
Over the course of history this blessing apparently found fulfillment in the fact that, although the creative role of Islamic countries themselves in the development of civilization has been fairly minor, their “transmissional contribution” – in culture, commerce, and the like – has been nonetheless quite high. The constant danger that Islam poses to the West fulfills its historically mandated role of “threatening savage.”
[13] And she called the Lord who spoke to her, “You Are El-roi”, by which she meant, “Have I not gone on seeing after He saw me!” ◊ God says to Hagar: “I am listening” (16:11), as in “Come to me, I am ready for dialogue.” But Hagar says of God that He sees – he oversees everything and controls everything, no one can hide from Him. Here we have the essential conflict within Islam. The inability to engage in dialogue with God gives rise to the inability to engage in dialogue with people. And the yearning to obey God by blindly executing Divine orders, but not deliberating with Him, creates a mindset of issuing orders and dictating to other people, rather than entering into dialogue with them.
[16] Abram was
eighty-six years old when Hagar bore Ishmael to Abram ◊ Abraham
left
א וַיְהִ֣י אַבְרָ֔ם בֶּן־תִּשְׁעִ֥ים שָׁנָ֖ה וְתֵ֣שַׁע שָׁנִ֑ים וַיֵּרָ֨א י֜י אֶל־אַבְרָ֗ם וַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֵלָיו֙ אֲנִי־אֵ֣ל שַׁדַּ֔י הִתְהַלֵּ֥ךְ לְפָנַ֖י וֶֽהְיֵ֥ה תָמִֽים׃ ב וְאֶתְּנָ֥ה בְרִיתִ֖י בֵּינִ֣י וּבֵינֶ֑ךָ וְאַרְבֶּ֥ה אֽוֹתְךָ֖ בִּמְאֹ֥ד מְאֹֽד׃
[1] When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him, “I am El Shaddai. Walk in My ways and be blameless.
[2] I will establish My covenant between Me and you, and I will make you exceedingly numerous”.
[1] When Abram was ninety-nine years old ◊ Ishmael had now reached his thirteenth birthday, and Abraham must have realized that Ishmael was not capable of continuing his work.
[2] I will establish My covenant between Me and you ◊ This reorientation from Ishmael to Isaac is associated with the renewal of the covenant between God and Abraham.
Previously the covenant was simply a promise that Abraham would have offspring who would inherit the land. “On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, ‘To your offspring I assign this land ...’” (15:18). But that covenant now finds its completion in circumcision, a change of name, and Abraham’s spiritual advancement. The Torah therefore says “I will establish My covenant” using the future tense.
Walk in My ways and be blameless ◊ Here we hear echoes of the Torah’s description of Noah (Gen. 6:9), who “was blameless in his age and walked with God.” And yet, the formulation here is somewhat different. Jewish tradition compares and contrasts Abraham and Noah in the two kinds of righteousness they represent. Noah’s integrity is, temporally speaking, only local – “in his age” – while the integrity of Abraham is global – for all ages and all times.
The words hithalech lefanai (“walk in My ways”) translate literally as “walk before Me.” Noah walks “with God,” never departing from Him, and executing all His orders, namely, to build the ark and thus to survive the flood, while the rest of humankind perishes. Abraham, however, walks “before God,” that is to say, ahead of Him, sometimes even objecting and disagreeing with Him – as we will see, for example, when Abraham challenges God to spare the wicked city of Sodom for the sake of even just a few righteous individuals who might be living there.
Thus, Noah was “saved” while Abraham is himself a savior. While Noah is the forefather of humanity, Abraham is the teacher of nations. Noah is the “righteous man in a fur coat,” who counteracts the cold by donning a fur coat for his own warmth, but does nothing to help others who share the same predicament. By contrast, Abraham, forefather of the Jewish nation, kindles a fire to warm all of humanity.
ג וַיִּפֹּ֥ל אַבְרָ֖ם עַל־פָּנָ֑יו וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר אִתּ֛וֹ אֱלֹהִ֖ים לֵאמֹֽר׃ ד אֲנִ֕י הִנֵּ֥ה בְרִיתִ֖י אִתָּ֑ךְ וְהָיִ֕יתָ לְאַ֖ב הֲמ֥וֹן גּוֹיִֽם׃ ה וְלֹֽא־יִקָּרֵ֥א ע֛וֹד אֶת־שִׁמְךָ֖ אַבְרָ֑ם וְהָיָ֤ה שִׁמְךָ֙ אַבְרָהָ֔ם כִּ֛י אַב־הֲמ֥וֹן גּוֹיִ֖ם נְתַתִּֽיךָ׃ ו וְהִפְרֵתִ֤י אֹֽתְךָ֙ בִּמְאֹ֣ד מְאֹ֔ד וּנְתַתִּ֖יךָ לְגוֹיִ֑ם וּמְלָכִ֖ים מִמְּךָ֥ יֵצֵֽאוּ׃ ז וַהֲקִֽמֹתִ֨י אֶת־בְּרִיתִ֜י בֵּינִ֣י וּבֵינֶ֗ךָ וּבֵ֨ין זַרְעֲךָ֧ אַֽחֲרֶ֛יךָ לְדֹֽרֹתָ֖ם לִבְרִ֣ית עוֹלָ֑ם לִֽהְי֤וֹת לְךָ֙ לֵֽאלֹהִ֔ים וּֽלְזַרְעֲךָ֖ אַֽחֲרֶֽיךָ׃ ח וְנָֽתַתִּ֣י לְ֠ךָ וּלְזַרְעֲךָ֨ אַֽחֲרֶ֜יךָ אֵ֣ת ׀ אֶ֣רֶץ מְגֻרֶ֗יךָ אֵ֚ת כָּל־אֶ֣רֶץ כְּנַ֔עַן לַֽאֲחֻזַּ֖ת עוֹלָ֑ם וְהָיִ֥יתִי לָהֶ֖ם לֵֽאלֹהִֽים׃
[3] Abram threw himself on his face; and God spoke to him further,
[4] “As for Me, this is My covenant with you: You shall be the father of a multitude of nations.
[5] And you shall no longer be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I make you the father of a multitude of nations.
[6] I will make you exceedingly fertile, and make nations of you; and kings shall come forth from you.
[7] I will maintain My covenant between Me and you, and your offspring to come, as an everlasting covenant throughout the ages, to be God to you and to your offspring to come.
[8] I assign the land you sojourn in to you and
your offspring to come, all the
[3] Abram threw himself on his face ◊ Until Abraham is circumcised and receives his new name, he cannot remain standing when the Lord reveals Himself through the ineffable Divine four-letter name, the “Tetragrammaton,” which is always pronounced by Jews as “the Lord” and translated likewise. (It is the name used in 17:1.) God therefore conducts further dialogue with Abraham (see 17:3) at the level of Elohim, “God,” a term of a somewhat lower Divine status (as indicated by its additional carrying of profane meanings, e.g., false gods and human judges).
[5] And you shall no longer be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham ◊ Although the meaning of the name Abraham is clearly explained in these verses as av hamon goyim, “father of a multitude of nations,” the etymology of the name itself is not obvious. The Hebrew letter he that God added to the name “Abram” to make it “Abraham” is derived in the Midrash from the word hamon, “multitude.”
But the
expression av hamon goyim contains no letter resh that would correspond to that letter in the name Avraham (the “r” of the English transliteration “Abraham”).
One explanation for the unexpected letter resh in
“Abraham” is that it was carried over from the former name, “Abram,” ab
Others point out that there is an older Semitic root preserved in the ancient Arabic language, where the word for “multitude” is raham, notwithstanding that that root with its additional resh has not been preserved in Hebrew. “Abraham” could then mean, quite precisely, “father of the multitude.”
I make you the father of a multitude of nations ◊ Earlier in this book (Chapter 10) the Torah enumerated those “nations” in the ethnic sense of the word, as those who descended from each of the sons of Noah: Shem, Ham and Japheth. But the nations that will descend from Abraham will be “nations” in the religious sense, "members of the Abrahamic religions".
Those religions gradually spread to all mankind. Abraham is therefore the “father of a multitude of nations” not only in the sense that several ethnic groups will come from him, but also that his ideas and ideals will gradually spread to all of humanity.
[7] I will
maintain My covenant between Me and you, and your
offspring to come … to be God to you and to your offspring to come. [8] I assign the land you sojourn in ◊ As in all
the covenants that God made with the Patriarchs, three aspects stand out here:
creating a nation from Abraham’s descendants, giving them the
Thus, the
nationalist element is not fundamentally alien to Judaism, as some would have
it; on the contrary, it is the commandments of the Torah that should be
understood as a supplemental aspect of the process of forming a nation, rather
than an integral part of it. For this very reason, Rashi, in his commentary on
this passage, explains that “living outside the
The commandments are of course essential to normative Jewish life. We must bear in mind, however, that the primary content of the covenant – the part that will change all of humanity – is not the Torah commandments per se, but the national-political existence of the Jewish people.
ט וַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶל־אַבְרָהָ֔ם וְאַתָּ֖ה אֶת־בְּרִיתִ֣י תִשְׁמֹ֑ר אַתָּ֛ה וְזַרְעֲךָ֥ אַֽחֲרֶ֖יךָ לְדֹֽרֹתָֽם׃ י זֹ֣את בְּרִיתִ֞י אֲשֶׁ֣ר תִּשְׁמְר֗וּ בֵּינִי֙ וּבֵ֣ינֵיכֶ֔ם וּבֵ֥ין זַרְעֲךָ֖ אַֽחֲרֶ֑יךָ הִמּ֥וֹל לָכֶ֖ם כָּל־זָכָֽר׃ יא וּנְמַלְתֶּ֕ם אֵ֖ת בְּשַׂ֣ר עָרְלַתְכֶ֑ם וְהָיָה֙ לְא֣וֹת בְּרִ֔ית בֵּינִ֖י וּבֵֽינֵיכֶֽם׃ יב וּבֶן־שְׁמֹנַ֣ת יָמִ֗ים יִמּ֥וֹל לָכֶ֛ם כָּל־זָכָ֖ר לְדֹרֹֽתֵיכֶ֑ם יְלִ֣יד בָּ֔יִת וּמִקְנַת־כֶּ֨סֶף֙ מִכֹּ֣ל בֶּן־נֵכָ֔ר אֲשֶׁ֛ר לֹ֥א מִֽזַּרְעֲךָ֖ הֽוּא׃ יג הִמּ֧וֹל ׀ יִמּ֛וֹל יְלִ֥יד בֵּֽיתְךָ֖ וּמִקְנַ֣ת כַּסְפֶּ֑ךָ וְהָֽיְתָ֧ה בְרִיתִ֛י בִּבְשַׂרְכֶ֖ם לִבְרִ֥ית עוֹלָֽם׃ יד וְעָרֵ֣ל ׀ זָכָ֗ר אֲשֶׁ֤ר לֹֽא־יִמּוֹל֙ אֶת־בְּשַׂ֣ר עָרְלָת֔וֹ וְנִכְרְתָ֛ה הַנֶּ֥פֶשׁ הַהִ֖וא מֵֽעַמֶּ֑יהָ אֶת־בְּרִיתִ֖י הֵפַֽר׃
[9] God further said to Abraham, “As for you, you and your offspring to come throughout the ages shall keep My covenant.
[10] Such shall be the covenant between Me and you and your offspring to follow which you shall keep: every male among you shall be circumcised.
[11] You shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and that shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you.
[12] And throughout the generations, every male among you shall be circumcised at the age of eight days. As for the homeborn slave and the one bought from an outsider who is not of your offspring,
[13] they must be circumcised, homeborn, and purchased alike. Thus shall My covenant be marked in your flesh as an everlasting pact.
[14] And if any male who is uncircumcised fails to circumcise the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his kin; he has broken My covenant”.
[9] You and your offspring to come throughout the ages shall keep My covenant ◊ The Torah stresses here that although the descendants of Abraham will become “a multitude of nations,” the covenant will be made exclusively through the Jewish people.
[10] Such shall be the covenant … which you shall keep: every male among you shall be circumcised ◊ God’s covenant with Abraham considers circumcision not just one of many commandments, but a sign of the covenant – its visible expression.
The main idea that circumcision signifies is that “natural man” as he is born is by no means perfect. In this lies the critical difference between the Jewish and Greek worldviews. The Greeks considered “natural man” the embodiment of harmony and the measure of all things, and they therefore despised circumcision (as did the Romans), because they saw it as an assault on nature. When the Hellenistic Seleucid empire began to persecute the Jews (events that led up to the story of Hanukkah), the prohibition of circumcision was one of the main demands of the Greeks. Judaism, on the other hand, rejects the idea of “perfection by nature,” arguing that a person is perfect only in his potential, and that he has a long road of development to travel before he can hope to even approach such perfection.
The Greeks saw the natural world as perfectly complete. Judaism, in contrast, believes that when one becomes aware of nature’s lack of perfection, this is the point at which man’s union with the Divine, which transcends nature, can begin.
This is especially important in the context of human procreation, development, and advancement. And that is why circumcision is done on the organ of reproduction.
טו וַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶל־אַבְרָהָ֔ם שָׂרַ֣י אִשְׁתְּךָ֔ לֹֽא־תִקְרָ֥א אֶת־שְׁמָ֖הּ שָׂרָ֑י כִּ֥י שָׂרָ֖ה שְׁמָֽהּ׃ טז וּבֵֽרַכְתִּ֣י אֹתָ֔הּ וְגַ֨ם נָתַ֧תִּי מִמֶּ֛נָּה לְךָ֖ בֵּ֑ן וּבֵֽרַכְתִּ֨יהָ֙ וְהָֽיְתָ֣ה לְגוֹיִ֔ם מַלְכֵ֥י עַמִּ֖ים מִמֶּ֥נָּה יִֽהְיֽוּ׃
[15] And God said to Abraham, “As for your wife Sarai, you shall not call her Sarai, but her name shall be Sarah.
[16] I will bless her; indeed, I will give you a son by her. I will bless her so that she shall give rise to nations; rulers of peoples shall issue from her”.
[15] You shall not call her Sarai, but her name shall be Sarah ◊ Originally her name was Sarai, “my ruler,” but now she is simply “ruler,” that is, a world leader. Earlier the Torah says of Abraham (17:5), “And you shall no longer be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham.” That is, his name has been changed. For Sarah, however, we read in this verse as it would be literally translated: “But, rather, Sarah is her name.” That is, her name had always been Sarah, but only now is that name revealed. In other words, Sarah all along had been at a level suitable for bearing Isaac, but Abraham still needed to reach that level. When Abraham received from God the commandment of circumcision, it was an indicator that he had attained the required level.
[16] I will bless her; indeed, I will give you a son by her. I will bless her so that she shall give rise to nations; rulers of peoples shall issue from her.” ◊ There are two parts to this blessing. The first is that a son will be born, and the second is that nations and kings will come from him. Thus, Sarah’s son, besides being Abraham’s physical descendant, will also continue his father’s work.
I will bless her; indeed, I will give you a son by her ◊ Sarah will be blessed in that Abraham’s successor will come from her. Both of his parents must be ivrim, Hebrews, in order to facilitate God’s plan to create the chosen people on a profoundly “national” basis. This people must stand apart from other nations, since it is this separation that creates the prerequisites for the realization of a universal Jewish destiny.
The European humanist tradition maintains that nationalism is antithetical to universalism, because that tradition believes that any preservation of a distinct national identity isolates a nation from the rest of humanity. But the Torah’s position is quite the opposite: to become truly universal, you must first realize your uniquely national potential; only then can you offer something to the rest of the world. Thus, when Abraham undergoes circumcision, and focuses on his Jewish identity, God gives Abram and Sarai new names that emphasize their universal purpose.
Abraham’s ideas could not find their way to the rest of humanity until a unique people was created to transmit them.
Thus, the foundation of universalism is a proper nationalism, the realization of one’s own national specificity, rather than a cosmopolitanism that is the rejection of any national orientation.
יז וַיִּפֹּ֧ל אַבְרָהָ֛ם עַל־פָּנָ֖יו וַיִּצְחָ֑ק וַיֹּ֣אמֶר בְּלִבּ֗וֹ הַלְּבֶ֤ן מֵאָֽה־שָׁנָה֙ יִוָּלֵ֔ד וְאִ֨ם־שָׂרָ֔ה הֲבַת־תִּשְׁעִ֥ים שָׁנָ֖ה תֵּלֵֽד׃ יח וַיֹּ֥אמֶר אַבְרָהָ֖ם אֶל־הָֽאֱלֹהִ֑ים ל֥וּ יִשְׁמָעֵ֖אל יִֽחְיֶ֥ה לְפָנֶֽיךָ׃ יט וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֗ים אֲבָל֙ שָׂרָ֣ה אִשְׁתְּךָ֗ יֹלֶ֤דֶת לְךָ֙ בֵּ֔ן וְקָרָ֥אתָ אֶת־שְׁמ֖וֹ יִצְחָ֑ק וַהֲקִֽמֹתִ֨י אֶת־בְּרִיתִ֥י אִתּ֛וֹ לִבְרִ֥ית עוֹלָ֖ם לְזַרְע֥וֹ אַֽחֲרָֽיו׃ כ וּֽלְיִשְׁמָעֵאל֮ שְׁמַעְתִּיךָ֒ הִנֵּ֣ה ׀ בֵּרַ֣כְתִּי אֹת֗וֹ וְהִפְרֵיתִ֥י אֹת֛וֹ וְהִרְבֵּיתִ֥י אֹת֖וֹ בִּמְאֹ֣ד מְאֹ֑ד שְׁנֵים־עָשָׂ֤ר נְשִׂיאִם֙ יוֹלִ֔יד וּנְתַתִּ֖יו לְג֥וֹי גָּדֽוֹל׃ כא וְאֶת־בְּרִיתִ֖י אָקִ֣ים אֶת־יִצְחָ֑ק אֲשֶׁר֩ תֵּלֵ֨ד לְךָ֤ שָׂרָה֙ לַמּוֹעֵ֣ד הַזֶּ֔ה בַּשָּׁנָ֖ה הָֽאַחֶֽרֶת׃ כב וַיְכַ֖ל לְדַבֵּ֣ר אִתּ֑וֹ וַיַּ֣עַל אֱלֹהִ֔ים מֵעַ֖ל אַבְרָהָֽם׃
[17] Abraham threw himself on his face and laughed, as he said to himself, “Can a child be born to a man a hundred years old, or can Sarah bear a child at ninety?”
[18] And Abraham said to God, “O that Ishmael might live by Your favor!”
[19] God said, “Nevertheless, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall name him Isaac; and I will maintain My covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring to come.
[20] As for Ishmael, I have heeded you. I hereby bless him. I will make him fertile and exceedingly numerous. He shall be the father of twelve chieftains, and I will make of him a great nation.
[21] But My covenant I will maintain with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this season next year”.
[22] And when He was done speaking with him, God was gone from Abraham.
[17] And laughed ◊ Abraham’s laughter and his words that
follow demonstrate that although he perceives God’s words as a gift and a
miracle, the prospect of having a son born to Sarah is very problematic for
him. As mentioned earlier, Ishmael, the son of Hagar, representing the great
civilization of
[18] “O that Ishmael might live by Your favor!” ◊ Hearing from God that Sarah will give birth to a son, Abraham becomes confused. Does God really wish to return him to that narrowly ethnic plan, from which Abraham, thanks to Ishmael’s birth, thought he had been liberated? Abraham is still hoping that God will backtrack from His peculiar decision and settle instead on Ishmael.
Abraham
prefers Ishmael to Isaac for two reasons. Firstly, by marrying Hagar, Abraham
had sought to forge a connection with
[19] God said, “Nevertheless, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall name him Isaac; and I will maintain My covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring to come ◊ God is emphatic, as if to say: “No, it is Sarah – despite all of your objections.”
[20] As for Ishmael, I have heeded you … I will make him fertile and exceedingly numerous … [21] But My covenant I will maintain with Isaac ◊ Abraham’s preference for Ishmael led to a bifurcation of his legacy. The promise of “I will multiply your offspring” (16:10) is to be fulfilled in Ishmael, but the covenant and the promise of the land is to be fulfilled in Isaac. Although later both Isaac and Jacob will receive from God the promise of numerically abundant offspring, the quantitative ratio between the descendants of Isaac and the descendants of Ishmael as fundamentally given here favors Ishmael.
I will make of him a great nation ◊ When it comes to faith, the Arab people are “a great nation,” occupying a central place among the peoples of the world. Islam in the first centuries of its existence developed its philosophy of Abrahamic monotheism with a clarity and inner consistency that Jewish religious philosophers were able to develop only in subsequent centuries. The problem with Islam, however, is that its adherents’ faith does not sufficiently reflect on their interpersonal relationships. The fact remains that mere acceptance of the principle of the unity of God and submission to Him is not by itself enough. Real life must have as its foundations the unity of ideals and a system of commandments.
To achieve that, it is not enough to be a child of Abraham. One must be also the child of Sarah. The nation that Abraham created was chosen not only to disseminate the theological and philosophical ideas of the One God, but also to show mankind the path to God through “doing what is just and right” (18:19). Therefore, Ishmael himself is not able to create a civilization. He can only “camp alongside his kinsmen” (16:12), that is, serve as a counterweight and a regulating force that compensates for the defects of other Abrahamic religions.
[22] And when He was done speaking with him, God was gone from Abraham ◊ God interrupts the conversation and departs from Abraham, even putting some distance between them. It would seem that the Almighty is even angry with Abraham and says to him, as it were: “What I originally wished to give to your offspring from Sara will now be divided into two parts. Because you pleaded on Ishmael’s behalf, the blessing of becoming a numerous people will be his. But, needless to say, my covenant remains only with Isaac.” Later on, this division will make it very difficult for Isaac’s descendants to fulfill their mission.
כג וַיִּקַּ֨ח אַבְרָהָ֜ם אֶת־יִשְׁמָעֵ֣אל בְּנ֗וֹ וְאֵ֨ת כָּל־יְלִידֵ֤י בֵיתוֹ֙ וְאֵת֙ כָּל־מִקְנַ֣ת כַּסְפּ֔וֹ כָּל־זָכָ֕ר בְּאַנְשֵׁ֖י בֵּ֣ית אַבְרָהָ֑ם וַיָּ֜מָל אֶת־בְּשַׂ֣ר עָרְלָתָ֗ם בְּעֶ֨צֶם֙ הַיּ֣וֹם הַזֶּ֔ה כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֛ר דִּבֶּ֥ר אִתּ֖וֹ אֱלֹהִֽים׃ כד וְאַ֨בְרָהָ֔ם בֶּן־תִּשְׁעִ֥ים וָתֵ֖שַׁע שָׁנָ֑ה בְּהִמֹּל֖וֹ בְּשַׂ֥ר עָרְלָתֽוֹ׃ כה וְיִשְׁמָעֵ֣אל בְּנ֔וֹ בֶּן־שְׁלֹ֥שׁ עֶשְׂרֵ֖ה שָׁנָ֑ה בְּהִ֨מֹּל֔וֹ אֵ֖ת בְּשַׂ֥ר עָרְלָתֽוֹ׃ כו בְּעֶ֨צֶם֙ הַיּ֣וֹם הַזֶּ֔ה נִמּ֖וֹל אַבְרָהָ֑ם וְיִשְׁמָעֵ֖אל בְּנֽוֹ׃ כז וְכָל־אַנְשֵׁ֤י בֵיתוֹ֙ יְלִ֣יד בָּ֔יִת וּמִקְנַת־כֶּ֖סֶף מֵאֵ֣ת בֶּן־נֵכָ֑ר נִמֹּ֖לוּ אִתּֽוֹ׃
[23] Then Abraham took his son Ishmael, and all his homeborn slaves and all those he had bought, every male in Abraham’s household, and he circumcised the flesh of their foreskins on that very day, as God had spoken to him.
[24] Abraham was ninety-nine years old when he circumcised the flesh of his foreskin,
[25] and his son Ishmael was thirteen years old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.
[26] Thus Abraham and his son Ishmael were circumcised on that very day;
[27] and all his household, his homeborn slaves and those that had been bought from outsiders, were circumcised with him.
[24] Abraham was ninety-nine years old … [25] and his son Ishmael was thirteen years old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin ◊ The enumeration of their ages is superfluous here, given that they have already been reported above (17:1). Note, too, that the laws of circumcision require that that commandment be performed on the eighth day from birth (17:12). Thus, the Torah is emphasizing here that since neither Abraham nor Ishmael met this requirement; only Isaac is the first “authentic Jew from birth.”
As already noted, the weekly portions in the Book of Genesis are a series of pairs. Just as the Torah relates the opening history of mankind in two weekly portions, Bereshit and Noah, so the story of Abraham is told to us in two weekly portions: Lech Lecha and Vayera.
The Lech Lecha (“Go thee forth”) portion tells of Abraham’s “departure.” In addition to leaving not only his father’s house and his former life, Abraham also experiences a gradual shift from his original plan of creating a universal religion to accepting God’s plan of creating a unique, monotheistic nation as a strict prerequisite to spreading that universal idea to all of humanity.
In the
course of his travels through the
To continue Abraham’s teachings, it was necessary not only to know and understand what he taught, but also to have enormous creative potential. With Abraham, the creation of the nation and of Judaism has only just begun; thus, his successor must not merely duplicate Abraham’s accomplishments, but must continue to also blaze his own trail. Only a son born of both Abraham and Sarah could be a personality strong and bright enough to further Abraham’s work.
In the Lech Lecha portion Abraham undergoes the transition from his level of individual understanding to the level of national understanding; that is, from Abram to Abraham.
From this turning point, a new weekly portion of the Torah begins, the Vayera portion (“The Lord appeared to him”). In this portion, the Almighty reveals himself to Abraham as none other than the founder of a nation. The main event here is the birth of Isaac. Abraham, the epitome of righteousness – the attribute of chesed – has begun to realize (as difficult as this is for him) that his successor would be a person of completely different attitudes than himself, a righteous person of a different type – the attribute of gevurah. Abraham should have understood and accepted that chesed, rather than operating in isolation, requires integration with other attributes, primarily with gevurah.
The Lech Lecha portion tells of Abraham’s beginnings. Portion Vayera covers Abraham’s relationship with Isaac, because it is vital not only to have one’s own achievements, but also to find a successor to continue those accomplishments. This story begins with the prediction of the birth of Isaac, and ends with the akedat yitzchak, “the sacrificing of Isaac,” as the pinnacle of mutual understanding between Abraham and Isaac.
Isaac could be born only after Ishmael had grown up, because in the process of Ishmael’s birth and upbringing, a certain kelippah (“shell” or “husk”) was lifted from Abraham that had been hindering his development. (This is Ishmael’s “unclean chesed,” to be discussed below.) Abraham’s formation as ancestor of the Jewish people now begins. Only after his circumcision and the change of his name could Abraham become the progenitor of a nation.
א וַיֵּרָ֤א אֵלָיו֙ י֔י בְּאֵֽלֹנֵ֖י מַמְרֵ֑א וְה֛וּא יֹשֵׁ֥ב פֶּֽתַח־הָאֹ֖הֶל כְּחֹ֥ם הַיּֽוֹם׃
[1] The Lord appeared to him by the terebinths of Mamre; he was sitting at the entrance of the tent as the day grew hot.
[1] The Lord appeared to him ◊ God had already appeared to Abraham not long before (17:1), but Abraham during this time has changed much by circumcising himself and his family. Abraham therefore no longer “falls on his face” when meeting with the Almighty, but conducts direct dialogue with Him.
By the terebinths of Mamre ◊ This is the city of
The
structure of the Jewish nation, according to the sefirot tree, tends toward malchut, to David, and to the
Messiah, the descendant of David. In Abraham are only the beginnings of its
growth. Abraham settles in
As the day grew hot ◊ Afternoon is the time of the gevurah attribute, – reckoning and judgment – while dawn, the early morning, is the time of grace, chesed, the attribute of Abraham. Afternoon, gevurah, is the time of Isaac. (Night, as we shall see later, is tiferet – “adornment” or “splendor” – the time of Jacob.)
When light reappears in the morning, we perceive it as a Divine gift to the world after the darkness of the night. God restores every man’s soul to him after sleep, so that we can renew our lives each day. In shacharit, the daily morning prayer, a Jew rejoices that he is awake, having received anew the gift of life. All this is the attribute of chesed.
By the time afternoon arrives the sun is shining hot, and being exposed to it is difficult; this is the attribute of law and judgment. Accordingly, in minchah, the afternoon prayer, a person gives an account to God for the work he has accomplished so far that day. Thus he justifies his existence by accounting for his accomplishments in relation to the opportunities that he has been given. Such is the character of Isaac.
Abraham’s vision, which begins here in the afternoon, in the heat of the day, and not early in the morning, is itself an indicator of the coming birth of Isaac, the righteous exemplar of the attribute of judgment.
He was sitting at the entrance of the tent as the day grew hot ◊ At this time of day one would normally seek refuge inside his tent from the sweltering heat. Sitting at the tent’s entrance in such heat is unnatural. The Midrash explains that Abraham did so as an expression of his eagerness to invite travelers into his home.
ב וַיִּשָּׂ֤א עֵינָיו֙ וַיַּ֔רְא וְהִנֵּה֙ שְׁלֹשָׁ֣ה אֲנָשִׁ֔ים נִצָּבִ֖ים עָלָ֑יו וַיַּ֗רְא וַיָּ֤רָץ לִקְרָאתָם֙ מִפֶּ֣תַח הָאֹ֔הֶל וַיִּשְׁתַּ֖חוּ אָֽרְצָה׃ ג וַיֹּאמַ֑ר אֲדֹנָ֗י אִם־נָ֨א מָצָ֤אתִי חֵן֙ בְּעֵינֶ֔יךָ אַל־נָ֥א תַֽעֲבֹ֖ר מֵעַ֥ל עַבְדֶּֽךָ׃ ד יֻקַּֽח־נָ֣א מְעַט־מַ֔יִם וְרַֽחֲצ֖וּ רַגְלֵיכֶ֑ם וְהִֽשָּׁעֲנ֖וּ תַּ֥חַת הָעֵֽץ׃ ה וְאֶקְחָ֨ה פַת־לֶ֜חֶם וְסַֽעֲד֤וּ לִבְּכֶם֙ אַחַ֣ר תַּֽעֲבֹ֔רוּ כִּֽי־עַל־כֵּ֥ן עֲבַרְתֶּ֖ם עַֽל־עַבְדְּכֶ֑ם וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ כֵּ֥ן תַּֽעֲשֶׂ֖ה כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֥ר דִּבַּֽרְתָּ׃
[2] Looking up, he saw three men standing near him. and, bowing to the ground,
[3] he said, “My lords, if it please you, do not go on past your servant As soon as he saw them, he ran from the entrance of the tent to greet them.
[4] Let a little water be brought; bathe your feet and recline under the tree.
[5] And let me fetch a morsel of bread that you may refresh yourselves; then go on–seeing that you have come your servant’s way”. They replied, “Do as you have said”.
[2] Three men standing
near him ◊ Who were these three
“men” whom Abraham meets here? The story begins with the fact that “the Lord
appeared to him” (verse 1), but we do not find that God actually speaks to
Abraham here; the text cuts over immediately to the three “men.” Later, the
Torah says of Abraham’s visitors: “The men … looked down toward
Tradition provides several different ways of understanding this passage. They might have been three ordinary travelers, sent by God on a mission to Abraham. Or perhaps they were angels. Or perhaps it was the Almighty Himself, revealed to Abraham in a vision. In different periods, Jewish commentators emphasized those aspects of their understanding of this story that they felt were important for their generation.
For our generation today, the most significant interpretation is that of the Zohar, which says that the three men whom Abraham saw were images of the three Patriarchs. In other words, it is Abraham himself in the company of his son and grandson Isaac and Jacob. This means that Abraham recognized himself not only as a distinct personality representing the attribute of chesed independently of the other sefirot, but also as a link in the chain of generations, as part of the overall picture of the development of the nation in both the physical and spiritual senses. Abraham was coming to understand that the attribute of chesed cannot work in isolation; that it is impossible to improve humanity and the universe by love, kindness, and grace alone. Abraham now understood that he was himself only the first link in the chain of Patriarchs who would continue the work he had started. Understanding that his own sefirah must be complemented by those of Isaac and Jacob is a major advance for Abraham.
As soon as he saw them, he ran from the entrance of the tent to greet them ◊ Abraham saw his connection to the attributes of Isaac and Jacob, and willingly accepted that connection. The Hebrew word ratz (“he ran”) is related in Hebrew to the word ratzon, “desire,” which causes one to run after what is desired. Thus, Abraham is open to the idea of unification, for he now realizes that the founder of the nation must be not just a single Patriarch, but all three of them as a unit. Or, the same idea differently stated: All the attributes together and not only chesed must form the foundation of the Jewish people. This is Abraham’s “dynamic” – his enormous spiritual advancement.
Having achieved this understanding, Abraham is now prepared for the birth of Isaac. Being now circumcised, Abraham understands his “specialness,” but he has now advanced even further, realizing that he is only the first in a chain of multiple stages of development. Therefore, he can now father his son Isaac, a righteous man of a direction different from his own. Until he had passed through this stage of development Abraham could not give birth to Isaac; he could be the father of only Ishmael, who in a sense is merely a “weak copy” of early Abraham.
A person will normally consider his own ideas and views the most significant and valid. This is natural and necessary, for otherwise we would not be able to defend our ideas and views, and that would make it impossible for us to realize our mission in the world. On the other hand, however, it is dangerous for a person to become such a fanatical supporter of a certain idea that he believes it to be the sole panacea for all the world’s problems. And this is true even when the idea itself is not per se unwholesome. Take, for example, love, beauty and social justice. These values are vital for human existence. But if one begins to absolutize them, declaring that “only love will save the world,” or “only beauty will save the world,” or “only social justice will save the world,” this is evil, for it is only a destructive fanaticism.
A higher level of human awareness for that person would be to continue actively supporting that concept or idea, but at the same time to be capable of seeing it as only one component of the overall picture. It is essential to admit that your favorite idea must also have its spiritual antithesis, and that in the end this spiritual antithesis will only benefit it.
It would be wrong, of course, for me to renounce my own views; rather, I should argue and defend them. For who will do so for me if I will not? As Hillel said (Mishnah, Avot 1:14): “If I am not for myself, who will be for me?” It is vital, however, that I not consider my own particular direction the only valid one.
Fanaticism is thus not a characteristic of a person’s views, be they left or right, extreme or moderate. Fanaticism is a characteristic of one’s attitude toward other people when he neither sees, nor wants to see, anything except his own ideas. One who does not see the world around him cannot develop properly.
Any positive thing or idea can be legitimate, provided it remains in its proper place. If it attempts to overstep its boundaries without limit, then by definition it is out of place, and cannot possibly function properly. The Kabbalah calls such a myopic view an olam hanekudim, a “world of points”, where each sefirah (an attribute that is good and proper in itself) wants to absorb all the surrounding Divine light. Bursting from an excess of internal pressure, it explodes and shatters.
That is what the Kabbalah calls shevirat kelim, shattering of vessels. Any system that tries to suppress the opposing viewpoint will ipso facto lose its balance and inevitably collapse. The tikkun (correction) consists in finding the necessary balance. The effect of Abraham’s transition from total preoccupation with chesed to an understanding of the importance of harmonizing the attributes of all three “men” who appeared to him is to prevent any potential fanaticism, the most important step towards improving the world.
When we say that Ishmael is “a weak copy of early Abraham,” we mean that Ishmael, like Abraham, is also a person of chesed, but he incorrectly orients that chesed, which in Kabbalistic terminology is therefore called chesed de-tum’ah (“unclean chesed”). However, since Ishmael too is the embodiment of chesed, he in this sense resembles Abraham, who understands Ishmael even with all his faults. But Isaac, who is gevurah, neither resembles Abraham nor is comprehensible to him. This is one of the reasons that Abraham loves Ishmael more than he loves Isaac. Getting his inner self in touch with Isaac will be a difficult job for Abraham.
The way Jewish tradition sees this manifestation of Ishmael’s impure chesed can be discerned in the words of the Torah, “His hand against everyone, and everyone’s hand against him” (16:12), which indicates a lack of any sense of boundaries; it is this attitude towards one’s neighbor that turns that chesed into something “unclean.” Similarly, the Hebrew word metzachek that the Torah uses to describe Ishmael’s “mocking” Isaac (21:9) is understood by the Midrash as indicating a propensity for sexual aspirations without a sense of boundaries. The word metzachek, to mock or dally amorously, has clear sexual connotations in the Torah (see 26:9).
“Unclean chesed” inclines Ishmael to apply that chesed inwardly to himself: he tends to be all-permissive, which explains why the flip side of Middle Eastern hospitality is the mass murder of infidels. That is why the descendants of Ishmael, for the sake of balance, choose Islam, which typifies the opposite attribute, gevurah, with its minimalist monotheism and a very harshly restrictive system of religion.
As we shall have occasion to observe later, the descendants of Esau, whose attribute is gevurah, likewise feel the need to counter their natural inclinations, and they have therefore embraced Christianity, the religion of chesed and love.)
As previously noted, we can learn a great deal about a civilization from how it envisions paradise, because those images reflect the deepest aspirations of the people’s “collective soul.” Or, to paraphrase an oft-quoted maxim about the friends we choose: “Tell me what your paradise looks like, and I will tell you who you are”.
It is by no mere happenstance that in the minds of Ishmael’s descendants, paradise is the place where “every man will be attended by seventy-two virgins.” Such ideas demonstrate the inclination of the Arab soul and its inner desire for lewdness. Aware of this inclination, Islam introduces extremely tough “anti-debauchery” measures into everyday life as a means of self-preservation. Its women are thus required to cover themselves from head to toe, so that no man will possibly be seduced by them.
Abraham had to be cleansed of all this “unclean chesed” precisely in order that the Jewish people could then inherit chesed only in its purified form.
If we perceive Abraham’s three guests as angels, especially in light of
what the Torah says later, “The two angels arrived in
Here we see an expression of the Jewish understanding of an angel as the will of the Almighty that has assumed a certain bounded and finite form, in some sense separated from Him and descended into lower worlds. An angel according to this understanding is the materialized or “concentrated” will of God sent to the lower world for the fulfillment of a specific mission.
Such a manifestation of the will of the Almighty can be a one-time, ad hoc occurrence, or it can be an ongoing and permanent assignment, as when it takes the form of some law of nature.
From this point of view, it should be noted, all forces of evil are likewise angels. In particular, Satan, in the Jewish view, is one of the angels performing the functions entrusted to him by God; he is not by any means an autonomous “force that opposes God.” Satan’s job is to act as prosecutor, to accuse and challenge human beings with difficulties and trials. But these are all tasks assigned to him by God; Satan himself is not an “adversary of God” in any sense.
ו וַיְמַהֵ֧ר אַבְרָהָ֛ם הָאֹ֖הֱלָה אֶל־שָׂרָ֑ה וַיֹּ֗אמֶר מַֽהֲרִ֞י שְׁלֹ֤שׁ סְאִים֙ קֶ֣מַח סֹ֔לֶת ל֖וּשִׁי וַֽעֲשִׂ֥י עֻגֽוֹת׃ ז וְאֶל־הַבָּקָ֖ר רָ֣ץ אַבְרָהָ֑ם וַיִּקַּ֨ח בֶּן־בָּקָ֜ר רַ֤ךְ וָטוֹב֙ וַיִּתֵּ֣ן אֶל־הַנַּ֔עַר וַיְמַהֵ֖ר לַֽעֲשׂ֥וֹת אֹתֽוֹ׃ ח וַיִּקַּ֨ח חֶמְאָ֜ה וְחָלָ֗ב וּבֶן־הַבָּקָר֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר עָשָׂ֔ה וַיִּתֵּ֖ן לִפְנֵיהֶ֑ם וְהֽוּא־עֹמֵ֧ד עֲלֵיהֶ֛ם תַּ֥חַת הָעֵ֖ץ וַיֹּאכֵֽלוּ׃
[6] Abraham hastened into the tent to Sarah, and said, “Quick, three seahs of choice flour! Knead and make cakes!”
[7] Then Abraham ran to the herd, took a calf, tender and choice, and gave it to a servant-boy, who hastened to prepare it.
[8] He took curds and milk and the calf that had been prepared and set these before them; and he waited on them under the tree as they ate.
[6] Abraham hastened into the tent to Sarah, and said, “Quick…” ◊ Hospitality is nothing unusual for us today. But at that time the situation was different, and such conduct was not generally accepted at all. For Abraham, however, hospitality was a routine expression of his religiosity, and he sought to make it as widespread a practice as possible.
The essence of monotheism, as preached by Abraham, is love of God, expressed through love of one’s fellow man as the image of God on earth. The essential feature of monotheism is not that God is One, but that man is created in His image and likeness. Abraham, by receiving travelers and showing them love, actualizes his religious values.
As a relative and disciple of Abraham, Lot too is hospitable, but
[8] He took curds and milk and the calf that had been prepared and set these before them ◊ The righteous do much more than they promise, as the Talmud points out, citing Abraham here as an example. He promised only water and a piece of bread (18:5), but he gives meat and milk as well.
Curds and milk and the calf ◊ In the Patriarchal era the commandments of the Torah did not yet exist. Thus, there were no laws of kashrut (kosher and non-kosher food), such as the prohibition of eating an admixture of meat and dairy, or consuming both of those at the same meal.
The Midrash connects the story of the angels’ visit with Abraham’s
discovery of the
The lesson of this Midrash is not only the idea that hospitality will be rewarded, but also the fact that Adam is buried in the cave of Machpelah, the tomb of the Patriarchs, which means that the Jewish traditions of that cave hark back not only as far as Abraham, but even unto Adam; that is, to the very dawn of mankind. The Torah wishes to emphasize that Jewish traditions are universally relevant. The purpose of Jewish tradition is to bring the Divine light to all of humanity, and not only to the Jewish people.
ז וְאֶל־הַבָּקָ֖ר רָ֣ץ אַבְרָהָ֑ם וַיִּקַּ֨ח בֶּן־בָּקָ֜ר רַ֤ךְ וָטוֹב֙ וַיִּתֵּ֣ן אֶל־הַנַּ֔עַר וַיְמַהֵ֖ר לַֽעֲשׂ֥וֹת אֹתֽוֹ׃
[7] Then Abraham ran to the herd, took a calf, tender and choice, and gave it to a servant-boy, who hastened to prepare it.
[7] And gave it to a servant-boy ◊ Since the boy is not named, tradition seeks to identify him with one of the aforementioned characters, and claims that he was Ishmael. As we know, Ishmael was thirteen years old at that time, standing on the very threshold of adulthood, the age of responsible decision making. Abraham must wait until Ishmael becomes an adult for Isaac’s birth to happen, because accepting and acknowledging Isaac was to be a test for Ishmael.
The test that God places before Ishmael is to recognize his subsidiary position in the family hierarchy, and to acknowledge that Isaac is Abraham’s full heir in every sense, while he, Ishmael, is only a junior member of the family. Only by passing this test, by acknowledging the truth of that hierarchy, will Ishmael receive his portion of the inheritance, just as Hagar received her rightful reward only after recognizing Sarah’s primacy and her own slave status. Prior to that she was driven off, on account of her overinflated pretensions.
It is therefore vital that Ishmael learn all these lessons as early as possible, and all the better if he will do so while Isaac is still only “in the pipeline,” in order to condition himself in advance to what lies ahead. To undergo that kind of restructuring Ishmael must have reached the age of adulthood – thirteen years old. And then, being already capable of making responsible decisions, he can choose whether to agree or disagree with his new position in the family.
In the end, Ishmael could not pass this test and was driven away. But God did give him the opportunity initially to make that choice.
On the other hand, Abraham himself also needed to feel convinced that Ishmael was not a suitable heir to his legacy. In order for Ishmael to show his true self and for Abraham to understand this, Ishmael had to be an adult. Only then could his behavior convince Abraham that his other son Isaac was the son worthy of continuing his work.
ט וַיֹּֽאמְר֣וּ אֵׄלָ֔יׄוׄ אַיֵּ֖ה שָׂרָ֣ה אִשְׁתֶּ֑ךָ וַיֹּ֖אמֶר הִנֵּ֥ה בָאֹֽהֶל׃ י וַיֹּ֗אמֶר שׁ֣וֹב אָשׁ֤וּב אֵלֶ֨יךָ֙ כָּעֵ֣ת חַיָּ֔ה וְהִנֵּה־בֵ֖ן לְשָׂרָ֣ה אִשְׁתֶּ֑ךָ וְשָׂרָ֥ה שֹׁמַ֛עַת פֶּ֥תַח הָאֹ֖הֶל וְה֥וּא אַֽחֲרָֽיו׃ יא וְאַבְרָהָ֤ם וְשָׂרָה֙ זְקֵנִ֔ים בָּאִ֖ים בַּיָּמִ֑ים חָדַל֙ לִֽהְי֣וֹת לְשָׂרָ֔ה אֹ֖רַח כַּנָּשִֽׁים׃ יב וַתִּצְחַ֥ק שָׂרָ֖ה בְּקִרְבָּ֣הּ לֵאמֹ֑ר אַֽחֲרֵ֤י בְלֹתִי֙ הָֽיְתָה־לִּ֣י עֶדְנָ֔ה וַֽאדֹנִ֖י זָקֵֽן׃ יג וַיֹּ֥אמֶר י֖י אֶל־אַבְרָהָ֑ם לָ֣מָּה זֶּה֩ צָֽחֲקָ֨ה שָׂרָ֜ה לֵאמֹ֗ר הַאַ֥ף אֻמְנָ֛ם אֵלֵ֖ד וַֽאֲנִ֥י זָקַֽנְתִּי׃ יד הֲיִפָּלֵ֥א מֵֽי֖י דָּבָ֑ר לַמּוֹעֵ֞ד אָשׁ֥וּב אֵלֶ֛יךָ כָּעֵ֥ת חַיָּ֖ה וּלְשָׂרָ֥ה בֵֽן׃ טו וַתְּכַחֵ֨שׁ שָׂרָ֧ה ׀ לֵאמֹ֛ר לֹ֥א צָחַ֖קְתִּי כִּ֣י ׀ יָרֵ֑אָה וַיֹּ֥אמֶר ׀ לֹ֖א כִּ֥י צָחָֽקְתְּ׃
[9] They said to him, “Where is your wife Sarah?” And he replied, “There, in the tent”.
[10] Then one said, “I will return to you next year, and your wife Sarah shall have a son!” Sarah was listening at the entrance of the tent, which was behind him.
[11] Now Abraham and Sarah were old, advanced in years; Sarah had stopped having the periods of women.
[12] And Sarah laughed to herself, saying, “Now that I am withered, am I to have enjoyment–with my husband so old?”
[13] Then the Lord said to Abraham, “Why did Sarah laugh, saying, ‘Shall I in truth bear a child, old as I am?’
[14] Is anything too wondrous for the Lord? I will return to you at the time next year, and Sarah shall have a son”.
[15] Sarah lied, saying, “I did not laugh”, for she was frightened. But He replied, “You did laugh”.
At a superficial glance, here is what we see. Sarah demonstrates a lack of faith, not believing in any possibility of a miracle. God faults her for this, but she is unwilling to admit that her faith is deficient.
We should infer from this the importance of believing in the possibility of receiving miracles from the Almighty. Even if Sarah did not consider those guests to be angels, she nonetheless should have felt a desire to see their promises fulfilled, rather than deeming them impossible.
However, as we delve deeper into our analysis of this dialogue, we will see that it must be understood in an entirely different way.
[12] Am I to have enjoyment, with my husband so old? As ordinarily understood, Sarah’s words here refer to Abraham. Sarah is saying that bearing a child is not possible, because she and Abraham are both too old. When repeating Sarah’s words to Abraham, God paraphrases them “in order to keep the peace” (between husband and wife) – that is, so that Abraham will not feel offended on Sarah’s account. However, there are a number of problems with this interpretation.
First, if Sarah is too old to bear children, one good reason is sufficient, and adding words about Abraham’s old age makes no sense.
Secondly, forty years later, after Sarah dies, Abraham will marry Keturah, who will bear him many children (see 25:1). It is evident, then, that Abraham’s ability to have children is unimpaired.
But something else, too, is unclear. If the words “Sarah laughed to herself” mean that she laughed quietly, and not out loud, then why does God ask Abraham, “Why did Sarah laugh?” If Abraham had not even heard Sarah laughing, how would he be able to explain that laughter? But still more troublesome is God’s criticizing of Sarah to Abraham. Could anything constructive have been achieved by that?
Thus, the usual understanding of this passage is firstly inconsistent with the text and secondly depicts Abraham and Sarah’s dialogue with God as monstrously primitive, as only a series of petty reproaches and quibbles. This is in no way consistent with the true image of these personalities in the Torah.
Evidently, we must completely revise our understanding of Sarah’s words and God’s response, by suggesting that Sarah’s actual words were “and my Lord is old,” referring to God, and not “and my lord is old,” referring to Abraham. (There are no uppercase letters in Hebrew.)
In referring to God’s “old age,” Sarah means that He no longer interferes with the natural flow of events. “Old age” here means the cessation of variability, the loss of dynamism. And this understanding that Sarah has corresponds perfectly to God’s answer: Instead of addressing Abraham’s purported old age, God says: “Is anything too wondrous for the Lord?”
Moreover, if we understand Sarah to be speaking of God’s “old age,” her phrasing now becomes much more logical, as if to say: “I have myself already grown old, and God, too, no longer intervenes in the world. Everything that happens now follows the immutable laws of nature. Therefore I cannot give birth.”
With that understanding we can grasp the deeper essence of the problem. Sarah’s attribute in relation to Abraham is gevurah. And since the desire to observe laws, including the laws of nature, is the most important quality of gevurah, Sarah’s words very clearly express the essence of these attributes.
Recall that chesed is not just kindness, but the desire to change the status quo. And gevurah, likewise, is not just justice and law, but the desire to preserve and protect social order. Abraham is chesed, and Sarah, as a member of Abraham’s family, is “the gevurah that is within chesed.” When they act as a family, Sarah and Abraham together perform chesed, influencing others to have faith in the One God, to receive and care for travelers, and so on. But in her relationship with Abraham, Sarah’s attribute is gevurah within the family.
That is why the laws of nature seem inviolable to Sarah, and why it is difficult for her to accept that God would alter them according to His will. But the Almighty challenges her, saying that even His altering of the laws of nature is entirely within the realm of possibility.
[14] Is anything too wondrous for the Lord? ◊ Based on the above interpretation, the answer of God becomes clear. His objective is not to cavil and reproach, but to help Sarah in her spiritual advancement: He seeks to teach Sarah to entertain the possibility of miraculous changes in the world and in life.
Even so, while God addresses both Sarah and Abraham as one, He highlights His appeal to Abraham as an appeal to the attribute of chesed.
In response to Sarah’s position that “after God created the world and initiated its processes, he will never again alter its natural course,” the Almighty expresses his willingness to override the laws of even an already functioning world. With these words he challenges the concept of the universe to which Sarah has grown accustomed. It is this change in Sarah’s consciousness – that is to say, the dynamic development and refinement of the attribute of gevurah – that is God’s objective in speaking these words, and not merely to make Abraham aware of Sarah’s laughter. Sarah’s laughter here plays a very essential role.
What is the meaning of laughter in general? And what is its role within a religious worldview in particular?
We laugh when events or narratives develop unexpectedly, illogically, or unpredictably, but when at the same time we are given the opportunity to see more complex connections between events and phenomena than we had originally supposed. Thus, the essence of laughter is the joy we experience when, by transcending logic and being elevated above it, we manage to perceive a higher level of world harmony. This liberation from the shackles of logic can be found in the surprise punchline of a joke, in a logical paradox, or in the sudden unraveling of a problem that previously had seemed all but intractable.
When we manage to surmount the barriers created by our past limitations and our excessively primitive, logical understanding of how the world works, this is for us a source of great pleasure, and we express our joy with laughter. None of us really loves prescription and logical inevitability. We want to be free, to be liberated from the confines of predestination. Freedom, not compulsion, is a Divine quality, and laughter is a feeling of approaching God, who laughs too, of course. Of God’s laughter we read in the Psalms (2:4, 37:13, 104:26), and also quite often in the Talmud and Midrashim.
In other words, laughter is the joy we experience when we overpower gevurah. Laughter, then, is Sarah’s sefirah correction. And as for Isaac, who embodies gevurah, even his very name speaks of laughter. (“Isaac” means “he will laugh.”)
Gevurah, in its essence, always accepts life as it is. It is the belief that God has arranged everything in the best possible way, and that praying for change is therefore completely unnecessary and pointless. Therefore, Sarah cannot believe that God will intervene to change her life. Sarah’s main problem – her disbelief in miracles – arises not from a failure to believe in God’s omnipotence, but because she does not believe in the need for miracles. Thus, Sarah and Isaac, who both represent gevurah – rigidity, law, “correctness” – are tested in situations where the world develops illogically, unpredictably, and unexpectedly. As a person it is good to be “correct,” but being too correct is ridiculous, because the world itself is not entirely correct, which is what makes it so remarkable.
The subconscious joy of transcending logic – this is Sarah’s laughter, but it is at first only “internal.” That is, Sarah herself is not aware of it yet. In Sarah, the state of transcending nature is still in progress, and God, speaking clearly to her about her laughter (by calling on Sarah to acknowledge Him) helps her in this advancement. (Note that Abraham, who is chesed, does not have this problem; he laughs immediately and openly [Gen 17:17].)
Thus, Sarah’s laughter in this situation in no way indicates a disregard for the prophecy she has heard, but her sensing within herself the possibility of a breakthrough. At a conscious level, however, she does not yet believe it, because she knows that physiologically she cannot give birth. Therefore, she is herself unaware of her own subconscious joy – her laughter.
And that is why in all sincerity she denies it: “Sarah lied, saying, ‘I did not laugh,’ for she was frightened” (18:15). It would be too primitive, of course, to suggest that Sarah simply feared punishment or reprimand for laughing at the words of angels. No, there is something else at work here. Sarah is afraid to admit to herself that she had laughed, that she believes in any possibility of an illogical, abnormal procession of events. No less than anyone else, Sarah fears the total collapse of her perceived world order. And so she is afraid to acknowledge her own laugh.
(For a further discussion of Isaac’s laughter, see 36.11.)
As soon as the angel promises Sarah the birth of a son, the soul of Isaac begins to descend into the world. Sarah already feels Isaac being born inside her, but she still feels this only subconsciously, in her deepest essence. A new reality is already entering the world, even if it is not yet a physical one. Sarah already feels this reality, for her subconscious now acknowledges and accepts the unlikely eventuality of motherhood.
Sarah’s laughter expresses hope – the first step in accepting the possibility of the unexpected. Therefore, when Sarah is pessimistic about her old age and about the old age of her “master,” she laughs at this, but only subconsciously and in her own mind. God does not reproach Sarah for this, however; on the contrary, He explains to her that she needlessly fears her own laughter, because nothing is beyond the Lord’s capabilities, including that she can indeed give birth to a son.
God supports Sarah in her laughter and wants her to believe in a new opportunity, to not be afraid to laugh, and to recognize that all of this is nothing out of the ordinary. By virtue of all of that, she will achieve a new level of personal advancement. And that is why God ends the dialogue by telling Sarah, “No, you did laugh!”
In fact, the dialogue continues, but only later, when Sarah calls her son Yitzchak (“he will laugh”), saying that “everyone who hears will laugh with me” (21:6).
By calling her son “Isaac,” Sarah responds positively to God’s words. Besides coming to realize that her laughter was necessary, and that gevurah must be restricted, Sarah also invites others to join with her in her laughter. Only by accepting Sarah’s laughter as a positive response can we understand the meaning of the name Yitzchak. For if God had considered her laughter inappropriate and blamed her for it, surely she would not have named her son Yitzchak, “he will laugh.”
Just as Abraham’s development consists of limiting his own chesed, Sarah’s development consists of limiting her own gevurah. We will continue our discussion of this topic later, in the chapters dealing with Isaac himself.
טז וַיָּקֻ֤מוּ מִשָּׁם֙ הָֽאֲנָשִׁ֔ים וַיַּשְׁקִ֖פוּ עַל־פְּנֵ֣י סְדֹ֑ם וְאַ֨בְרָהָ֔ם הֹלֵ֥ךְ עִמָּ֖ם לְשַׁלְּחָֽם׃
[16] The men set out from there and looked down
toward
[16] The men …
looked down ◊ Lehashkif means “to look judgmentally” – in
this case, with the intention of judging
Abraham walking with them to see them off ◊ He accompanies gevurah, because he already feels a desire to follow the events unfolding in order to understand the attribute of judgment – how it is implemented, and how to deal with it properly. Abraham is not quite ready to fully accept the attribute of judgment, but he is already moving in that direction.
יז וַֽי֖י אָמָ֑ר הַֽמְכַסֶּ֤ה אֲנִי֙ מֵֽאַבְרָהָ֔ם אֲשֶׁ֖ר אֲנִ֥י עֹשֶֽׂה׃ יח וְאַ֨בְרָהָ֔ם הָי֧וֹ יִֽהְיֶ֛ה לְג֥וֹי גָּד֖וֹל וְעָצ֑וּם וְנִ֨בְרְכוּ־ב֔וֹ כֹּ֖ל גּוֹיֵ֥י הָאָֽרֶץ׃ יט כִּ֣י יְדַעְתִּ֗יו לְמַעַן֩ אֲשֶׁ֨ר יְצַוֶּ֜ה אֶת־בָּנָ֤יו וְאֶת־בֵּיתוֹ֙ אַֽחֲרָ֔יו וְשָֽׁמְרוּ֙ דֶּ֣רֶךְ י֔י לַֽעֲשׂ֥וֹת צְדָקָ֖ה וּמִשְׁפָּ֑ט לְמַ֗עַן הָבִ֤יא יי֙ עַל־אַבְרָהָ֔ם אֵ֥ת אֲשֶׁר־דִּבֶּ֖ר עָלָֽיו׃
[17] Now the Lord had said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do,
[18] since Abraham is to become a great and populous nation and all the nations of the earth are to bless themselves by him?
[19] For I have singled him out, that he may instruct his children and his posterity to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is just and right, in order that the Lord may bring about for Abraham what He has promised him.”
Why does God say that He cannot “hide” His plans from Abraham? In what
way do the Divine plans regarding
God could
have destroyed
יט כִּ֣י יְדַעְתִּ֗יו לְמַעַן֩ אֲשֶׁ֨ר יְצַוֶּ֜ה אֶת־בָּנָ֤יו וְאֶת־בֵּיתוֹ֙ אַֽחֲרָ֔יו וְשָֽׁמְרוּ֙ דֶּ֣רֶךְ י֔י לַֽעֲשׂ֥וֹת צְדָקָ֖ה וּמִשְׁפָּ֑ט לְמַ֗עַן הָבִ֤יא יי֙ עַל־אַבְרָהָ֔ם אֵ֥ת אֲשֶׁר־דִּבֶּ֖ר עָלָֽיו׃
[19] For I have singled him out, that he may instruct his children and his posterity to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is just and right ◊ In this verse, the Almighty explains His reason for choosing Abraham. Let us highlight several of its aspects.
We note first that God chose Abraham not as recompense for something he had already done in the past, but to achieve something new in the future. In other words, Abraham was chosen for mission, not merit. There are many worthy people in this world deserving of a reward, but Abraham’s chosenness is not a reward – it is the burden and the mission of the Jewish people in relation to the rest of humanity.
Secondly, Abraham is chosen “that he may instruct his children and his posterity.” As great as Abraham is, his household and descendants are even more important, because of the nation that they will become, and the direction in which that nation will develop.
Finally, “to keep the way of the Lord” is an incomparably broader concept than mere observance of the commandments. We have already explored the two stages of God’s covenant with the Jewish people:
(1) The covenant with Abraham and the other Patriarchs, and
(2) The covenant with Moses and the Jewish nation at Sinai.
Although Jewish tradition views these covenants as a single unit, they are nonetheless very different. God’s covenant with Abraham is “the way of the Lord” – the first stage in the development of Judaism, which determines its foundation and establishes its ideals and its general direction. But there are still no formalized commandments. It is only the second stage, the covenant through Moses at Sinai, that includes concrete commandments and instructions.
At the Patriarchs’ stage of development a system of commandments does
not yet exist. It appears only much later, soon after the Exodus from
[19] To keep the way of the Lord by doing what is just and right ◊ The “way of the Lord” is a combination of tzedakah and mishpat, mercy and justice. These correspond to the attributes of chesed and gevurah, benevolence and law.
The conflict between these ideals must be resolved not by choosing one to the detriment of the other, but by integrating the two. Effecting such a union is extremely difficult, but in Judaism it is the ideal. Moreover, there are no exact instructions for the realization of such a synthesis, nor can there be. Every person, in the multitude of different situations that constantly arise in life, must apply his own moral and religious intuition in order to achieve it.
It is important to note, that unlike the system of commandments, which cannot entertain contradictions (and, if they do occur, they must be resolved through legislative action), a system of ideals not only can, but inevitably will, entail contradictions and inconsistencies. We will give this issue more detailed coverage in its own portion.
The Midrash
describes
Consider
this example. The people of
The people
of
However, in order to create the appearance of being charitable, and to
avoid being disparaged in the eyes of neighboring cities, the Sodomites enacted
that every citizen would receive a bogus coin inscribed with his own name. Only
these coins and no others could be given to the poor. Thus, when a scrounger
begged for help in the
If one
person struck another in
And yet
another story: A traveler passing through
Any visitor
to
Thus, the
Midrash presents
כ וַיֹּ֣אמֶר י֔י זַֽעֲקַ֛ת סְדֹ֥ם וַֽעֲמֹרָ֖ה כִּי־רָ֑בָּה וְחַ֨טָּאתָ֔ם כִּ֥י כָֽבְדָ֖ה מְאֹֽד׃ כא אֵֽרְדָה־נָּ֣א וְאֶרְאֶ֔ה הַכְּצַֽעֲקָתָ֛הּ הַבָּ֥אָה אֵלַ֖י עָשׂ֣וּ ׀ כָּלָ֑ה וְאִם־לֹ֖א אֵדָֽעָה׃ כב וַיִּפְנ֤וּ מִשָּׁם֙ הָֽאֲנָשִׁ֔ים וַיֵּֽלְכ֖וּ סְדֹ֑מָה וְאַ֨בְרָהָ֔ם עוֹדֶ֥נּוּ עֹמֵ֖ד לִפְנֵ֥י יֽי׃
[20] Then the Lord said, “The outrage of
[21] I will go down to see whether they have acted altogether according to the outcry that has reached Me; if not, I will take note.”
[22] The men went on from there to
[20] Then the Lord
said, “The outrage of
[21] I will go down to
see ◊ God “goes down” to
[22] The men went on
from there to
[21] Whether they
have acted altogether according to the outcry that has reached Me ◊ An alternate
translation is, “If they have acted according to the outcry that has reached
Me, then this is their end.” In order to teach Abraham this lesson, and to move
him toward accepting the integration of mercy and justice, the Almighty puts
him in a situation where he must raise an immediate objection. To that end, God
tells Abraham that the final decision on
If not, I will take note ◊
Not by mere
chance had
This
situation is of course a test also for
Thus, all
are being tested here – Abraham, Lot, and the people of
We have
already noted the connection between the destruction of
As noted
earlier, the main sin of
For those same reasons the Sodomites outlawed all hospitality and mercy. Really now, if God has made a person poor, or sick and unable to afford treatment, then evidently this is the will of God; what right do we have to help such a person and interfere with the Divine will? Let every person earn his own living, support himself, heal himself, and take care of himself.
Note that although there is some element of truth in these arguments, they are on the whole quite appalling. We cannot know what God really wants for the poor – that they should remain poor, or that we should help them. Nor do we know whether God wants the sick to remain so, or rather to be cured, and He has just for that reason given the doctor the expertise and opportunity to heal.
If by his own choice a person does not wish to earn a living and to take care of himself, then, of course, outside help is of no benefit to him, and will only corrupt him. But on the other hand, a great many people find themselves in serious predicaments due only to external circumstances. Our help can allow them to get back on their feet.
Indeed, unbounded chesed corrupts and can even destroy the world. But unmitigated gevurah is even worse. If no one receives sustenance beyond what he himself earns, then the world – and any such society in particular – has no right to exist. For even our ability to earn our keep and feed ourselves is Divine chesed, and if we will not show mercy to our neighbor, then we ourselves deserve no mercy from God. No one can survive in a world that operates solely on the attribute of judgment.
Isaac, who is gevurah, exists only because he is the son of Abraham, who is chesed. Yes, a person must of course earn his own bread, but we must also help him in that undertaking. Better than giving him money outright, we should help him build for himself a means to a livelihood, so that our initial jumpstart will enable him eventually to provide for himself.
Gevurah – as the realization that a person must earn a living on his own – is a necessary quality. But it is needed precisely to emphasize God’s kindness and mercy, which are so great that God not only feeds us, but also gives us the opportunity to support ourselves and to thereby feel the dignity of being the sources of our own livelihood. This is the path of the unity of chesed and gevurah.
Gevurah is positive as an adjunct to chesed, but in isolation it only leads to death. Likewise, chesed that overruns its boundaries turns into debauchery; this is what led to the Flood. An overabundance of gevurah makes the very existence of human society impossible.
Thus, the
imminent birth of Isaac as a carrier of proper gevurah requires that
כג וַיִּגַּ֥שׁ אַבְרָהָ֖ם וַיֹּאמַ֑ר הַאַ֣ף תִּסְפֶּ֔ה צַדִּ֖יק עִם־רָשָֽׁע׃ כד אוּלַ֥י יֵ֛שׁ חֲמִשִּׁ֥ים צַדִּיקִ֖ם בְּת֣וֹךְ הָעִ֑יר הַאַ֤ף תִּסְפֶּה֙ וְלֹֽא־תִשָּׂ֣א לַמָּק֔וֹם לְמַ֛עַן חֲמִשִּׁ֥ים הַצַּדִּיקִ֖ם אֲשֶׁ֥ר בְּקִרְבָּֽהּ׃ כה חָלִ֨לָה לְּךָ֜ מֵֽעֲשֹׂ֣ת ׀ כַּדָּבָ֣ר הַזֶּ֗ה לְהָמִ֤ית צַדִּיק֙ עִם־רָשָׁ֔ע וְהָיָ֥ה כַצַּדִּ֖יק כָּֽרָשָׁ֑ע חָלִ֣לָה לָּ֔ךְ הֲשֹׁפֵט֙ כָּל־הָאָ֔רֶץ לֹ֥א יַֽעֲשֶׂ֖ה מִשְׁפָּֽט׃
[23] Abraham came forward and said, “Will You sweep away the innocent along with the guilty?
[24] What if there should be fifty innocent within the city; will You then wipe out the place and not forgive it for the sake of the innocent fifty who are in it?
[25] Far be it from You to do such a thing, to bring death upon the innocent as well as the guilty, so that innocent and guilty fare alike. Far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?”
[23] Abraham came forward and said ◊ When entering into a dispute with God, Abraham moves in closer to God, rather than distancing himself from Him. Discussion of the justice or injustice of the Almighty’s actions will be constructive if a person asks questions in order to strengthen his connection with God, and not as an excuse for breaking that connection. The latter is what happens when a person says: “How could God allow such a thing? I reject any notion of faith.”
Will You sweep away the innocent along with the
guilty? ◊
[25] Far be it from You to do such a thing … Far be it from You! ◊ The word chalilah is used twice here. It means “unacceptable” or “unworthy,” and is a very harsh term (as seen, for example, in the expression chillul ha-shem, desecration of God’s name). Such powerful words cannot be called a mere “plea for mercy”; Abraham is making a serious accusation here. And so we must understand: What makes Abraham so sure of himself, to believe that his own position is correct and good? How does he even dare speak out against what God has said and has decided to do? Is such behavior at all acceptable?
For many religious people any “disputation with God” is completely unimaginable, and the idea of challenging a Divine decision is nothing less than monstrous. It seems to them that since man’s relationship with God is built entirely on divine grace, and everything received from God is only a gift and an expression of His mercy, for no person on his own merits is deserving of anything at all – so given that, no argumentation is ever possible, because we know that we must “never look a gift horse in the mouth.”
The Jewish
concept is rather different, however. Judaism maintains that it is not only
possible, but even necessary, to argue with God.
Abraham and Moses argued with the Almighty; Jacob even received his second
name, “
The Jewish approach recognizes, of course, that “whatever God does is always for the best,” but it also legitimizes disagreeing with God and engaging in disputation with Him. Moreover, Judaism believes that the Almighty Himself encourages us to have just this type of relationship with Him. The Talmudic account of one such “dispute with God” ends with God remarking with a satisfied smile, “My children have defeated Me.”
Note that our relationship with our children and with other people will usually very closely parallel our approach to our relationship with God. For example, if we believe that all God does is give orders to people that they cannot possibly understand and are forbidden to debate, and that our only business is to be submissive and obedient, then we, too, will be inclined to give orders to others and dictate our will to them. And likewise, if we go on the premise that “God is love” and that God’s attitude toward mankind is exclusively one of unearned mercy, then the main thing that is expected from us as God’s children will be love and obedience, and submission will be the central value.
The Jewish approach, however, sees the world differently. Of course, God wants from us both love and compliance, and sometimes also submission. But above all and most importantly, He wants us to grow up. From God’s point of view, the objective of His engaging in dialogue with humans is not that we will agree with God and abandon our own position, but, rather, that we will become capable of engaging in dialogue and skilled at being opponents. In order to be able to argue and have the courage to disagree, an opponent must be independent and self-sufficient.
In the same way, in order to rise to the level of dialogue with the Almighty, and to the level of collaboration in running the world, we must not merely love and agree with Him. Rather, we must argue and defend our point of view sometimes, which requires that we be able to think critically. It is not by chance that the Jews, who since ancient times argued with the Almighty, became accustomed to thinking critically also about themselves and everyone else with whom they came in contact. The desire to debate and to disagree thus became characteristically national Jewish traits.
But how does Abraham justify arguing with God and telling him, “It is unacceptable for You to do such and such”? That is, what is the religious and moral foundation for the arguments he wishes to advance? Is God not the ultimate source of morality, kindness, and justice? How then does Abraham undertake to determine for himself what is right and proper and what is not, what is good and what is evil? If this is merely Abraham’s personal opinion, how can it possibly compete with God’s word?
Abraham’s justification for arguing with God, it would seem, is yet another form of Divinity – that Divinity that is within himself. To argue with Divinity, one must juxtapose it with yet another Divinity. And since man is created “in the image and likeness of God,” God is to us not just an “external” reality; He is also “within us.” In this sense, Adam, Abraham, and each of us possesses “godly” in us.
It is the Divine spark within us that allows us to disagree with God. In other words, it is a dispute between two kinds of Divinity: “transcendental Divinity,” the manifestation of God that addresses us from outside (for Abraham these are the words of God as revealed to him in a vision, but for us today it is the Divine tradition that has come down to us from Sinai), and immanent Divinity, the manifestation of the Divine spark in the ethical sensibility that is within each of us. The conflict between these two manifestations of Divinity: moral and ethical awareness, that is, immanent Divinity, and halachic teachings and traditions, which is transcendental Divinity, has been the most significant impetus for the development of Judaism in all ages of its existence.
Abraham’s fundamental position in his dispute with God is that strictly applying the attribute of judgment is impossible, because any such attempt will lead to injustice. And how can the Judge of all the land, Who Himself is that very attribute of justice, fail to do justice? That is, how can God allow innocent people to be punished?
Abraham does
not ask God to pardon the people of
Justice would require that the righteous be rewarded and the wicked punished. In this case, that could be accomplished by removing the righteous from the city, and then destroying the wicked. But Abraham completely ignores this option for saving the righteous. Instead he insists that for those fifty (or forty-five, forty, thirty, twenty, or ten) righteous individuals the entire city should be spared. In other words, Abraham’s goal is not merely to save the righteous and achieve justice. His goal is to save everyone, including the wicked. He wants chesed – universal grace, mercy – and he uses the presence of the righteous as an argument to save the wicked!
Nor does Abraham ask God to wait and see whether the wicked might repent. Had he wanted to wait for the repentance of the wicked, he would have said: “Do not destroy the city now, give them some time …” But Abraham takes a different position.
The Midrash puts into Abraham’s mouth the following words: “If it is Judgment that You want, then the world cannot exist (i.e., the world will be destroyed). If you want the world to continue to exist, then do not apply the attribute of judgment.” Seen this way, there is no place for the attribute of judgment in the world at all. For no matter how carefully the destruction of evil is carried out, something good will also perish in the process. Consequently, evil cannot not be destroyed.
Abraham represents here a position that is in fact quite far from the ethics of Judaism. He says to God as follows: “Because it is Your essence always to give, and You Yourself created people with the freedom to choose to be wicked, You must bear responsibility for what You have created, and You must not destroy them.”
Abraham is still absolutely unprepared for the idea of integrating mercy and justice. He still feels that the two are too different to allow their unification. Moreover, the establishment of justice would be an unworthy affair, because the righteous would perish with the sinners.
In our own time, people with such views oppose having any real battles with terrorist organizations, because of the possibility that innocent people will suffer. A balanced Jewish view (that of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) understands that any such approach is incorrect, and will lead to the destruction of the world. But Abraham, who is pure chesed, represents the Jewish path only in its incipient stages. In the future, that path will need to be supplemented and counterbalanced by Isaac and Jacob.
There is
another important motivation behind Abraham’s defense of
But even so,
Abraham has a very long history of relationships with
There is
another reason that Abraham intercedes on
At the
conclusion of the war of the kings, the king of
And now
The downfall
of
A righteous person is called to account not only for himself, but also for the people of his immediate circle.
There is a big difference between being “righteous” and being merely “not wicked.” A non-wicked person is simply someone who does not commit crimes. But being righteous is a completely different category. The job of the righteous is to improve and rehabilitate others. If others behave in an unworthy manner, it means that the righteous man is falling short of his own obligations.
However, teaching is only one aspect of the responsibility that a righteous person bears for his generation. Another aspect of the guilt of the righteous in the misfortunes of their generation is that the attribute of gevurah intensifies because of them, even if they have no actual intent that this should happen.
Rabbi Pinchas of Korets in his book Midrash Pinchas writes: “Why must the righteous in every generation pray for the entire generation? Because they are complicit in the calamities that befall other people.”
The mere
existence of a righteous person in the world is a condemnation of the wicked.
No one before Noah was described as being righteous. But as soon as Noah
appeared, a flood engulfed the earth. When the righteous Abraham arrives on the
scene, disaster strikes
כו וַיֹּ֣אמֶר י֔י אִם־אֶמְצָ֥א בִסְדֹ֛ם חֲמִשִּׁ֥ים צַדִּיקִ֖ם בְּת֣וֹךְ הָעִ֑יר וְנָשָׂ֥אתִי לְכָל־הַמָּק֖וֹם בַּֽעֲבוּרָֽם׃
[26] And the Lord answered, “If I find within the
city of
[26] I will forgive the whole place for their sake ◊ God unexpectedly acknowledges that Abraham is right, and says that He is willing to change His decision, but only subject to certain conditions.
Abraham asks God to save the entire city for the sake of any righteous persons who live there. It is not enough that the righteous will themselves be saved; their presence must save the whole city. The Almighty, responding to Abraham, generally agrees with this principle, but significantly refines it, emphasizing two important points as follows.
Fifty innocent ones ◊ First, the city cannot be saved by a single righteous person, but only by a community, a group. Indeed, if there are fifty righteous people in a city of villains, this means that the citizens on the whole are not all that wicked; for if they were truly wicked, they would have killed off the righteous. And this means that there is still hope that the city can be reformed. Moreover, even while the Almighty makes concessions to Abraham, in order for the city to be saved He requires the presence of at least ten righteous individuals, since this is the minimum number necessary to form a community.
If I find within the city of
After all, the idea that the righteous can save not only themselves, but the entire city, is predicated on the hope that the righteous will reform the wicked. And that is possible only if the righteous have been given the opportunity to influence the city. If there is no social stratum of righteous people, or if the inhabitants suppress or expel their righteous neighbors, then in a crisis situation there is no one who can save that city.
כז וַיַּ֥עַן אַבְרָהָ֖ם וַיֹּאמַ֑ר הִנֵּה־נָ֤א הוֹאַ֨לְתִּי֙ לְדַבֵּ֣ר אֶל־אֲדֹנָ֔י וְאָֽנֹכִ֖י עָפָ֥ר וָאֵֽפֶר׃ כח א֠וּלַי יַחְסְר֞וּן חֲמִשִּׁ֤ים הַצַּדִּיקִם֙ חֲמִשָּׁ֔ה הֲתַשְׁחִ֥ית בַּֽחֲמִשָּׁ֖ה אֶת־כָּל־הָעִ֑יר וַיֹּ֨אמֶר֙ לֹ֣א אַשְׁחִ֔ית אִם־אֶמְצָ֣א שָׁ֔ם אַרְבָּעִ֖ים וַֽחֲמִשָּֽׁה׃ כט וַיֹּ֨סֶף ע֜וֹד לְדַבֵּ֤ר אֵלָיו֙ וַיֹּאמַ֔ר אוּלַ֛י יִמָּֽצְא֥וּן שָׁ֖ם אַרְבָּעִ֑ים וַיֹּ֨אמֶר֙ לֹ֣א אֶֽעֱשֶׂ֔ה בַּֽעֲב֖וּר הָֽאַרְבָּעִֽים׃ ל וַ֠יֹּאמֶר אַל־נָ֞א יִ֤חַר לַֽאדֹנָי֙ וַֽאֲדַבֵּ֔רָה אוּלַ֛י יִמָּֽצְא֥וּן שָׁ֖ם שְׁלֹשִׁ֑ים וַיֹּ֨אמֶר֙ לֹ֣א אֶֽעֱשֶׂ֔ה אִם־אֶמְצָ֥א שָׁ֖ם שְׁלֹשִֽׁים׃ לא וַיֹּ֗אמֶר הִנֵּֽה־נָ֤א הוֹאַ֨לְתִּי֙ לְדַבֵּ֣ר אֶל־אֲדֹנָ֔י אוּלַ֛י יִמָּֽצְא֥וּן שָׁ֖ם עֶשְׂרִ֑ים וַיֹּ֨אמֶר֙ לֹ֣א אַשְׁחִ֔ית בַּֽעֲב֖וּר הָֽעֶשְׂרִֽים׃ לב וַ֠יֹּאמֶר אַל־נָ֞א יִ֤חַר לַֽאדֹנָי֙ וַֽאֲדַבְּרָ֣ה אַךְ־הַפַּ֔עַם אוּלַ֛י יִמָּֽצְא֥וּן שָׁ֖ם עֲשָׂרָ֑ה וַיֹּ֨אמֶר֙ לֹ֣א אַשְׁחִ֔ית בַּֽעֲב֖וּר הָֽעֲשָׂרָֽה׃ לג וַיֵּ֣לֶךְ י֔י כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֣ר כִּלָּ֔ה לְדַבֵּ֖ר אֶל־אַבְרָהָ֑ם וְאַבְרָהָ֖ם שָׁ֥ב לִמְקֹמֽוֹ׃
[27] Abraham spoke up, saying, “Here I venture to speak to my Lord, I who am but dust and ashes:
[28] What if the fifty innocent should lack five? Will You destroy the whole city for want of the five?” And He answered, “I will not destroy if I find forty-five there.”
[29] But he spoke to Him again, and said, “What if forty should be found there?” And He answered, “I will not do it, for the sake of the forty.”
[30] And he said, “Let not my Lord be angry if I go on: What if thirty should be found there?” And He answered, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.”
[31] And he said, “I venture again to speak to my Lord: What if twenty should be found there?” And He answered, “I will not destroy, for the sake of the twenty.”
[32] And he said, “Let not my Lord be angry if I speak but this last time: What if ten should be found there?” And He answered, “I will not destroy, for the sake of the ten.”
[33] When the Lord had finished speaking to Abraham, He departed; and Abraham returned to his place.
[27] Here I venture to speak to my Lord, I who am but dust and ashes … [30] Let not my Lord be angry ◊ Abraham maintains distance and reverence, but remains adamant.
[28] What if the fifty innocent should lack five?: Rather than asking God, “Why would you not have mercy on forty-five?”, Abraham formulates the question more pointedly: “Would you really destroy the whole city for the lack of a mere five righteous individuals?”
And He answered, “I will not destroy if I find forty-five there” ◊ Despite Abraham’s increasing demands, God continues to engage with him in dialogue, reinforcing his resolve to argue with God.
[33] When the Lord had
finished speaking to Abraham, He departed ◊ It is not Abraham who stops talking,
but God Who interrupts the conversation with Abraham and withdraws from him.
Like the conversation as a whole, this withdrawal should be understood as a
means employed by the Almighty to educate Abraham. To destroy
And Abraham returned to his place ◊ He now returned to the same place
where he had been earlier. Abraham did not agree with God’s position, for he
was not willing to recognize that there is a place in the world for the
attribute of strict judgment. Only later, by virtue of his dialogue with Isaac,
did Abraham grasp the meaning of the attribute of gevurah.
Thus, by inviting Abraham to debate the fate of
As a result of this lengthy process, although Abraham remains, as ever, a champion of chesed, he does gradually desist from his “chesed fanaticism” – an important stage in correcting the attribute of chesed in the soul of the Jewish people. In our own lives too, it is important that we support love and peace, but being fanatical about either of those is destructive.
א וַ֠יָּבֹאוּ שְׁנֵ֨י הַמַּלְאָכִ֤ים סְדֹ֨מָה֙ בָּעֶ֔רֶב וְל֖וֹט יֹשֵׁ֣ב בְּשַֽׁעַר־סְדֹ֑ם וַיַּרְא־לוֹט֙ וַיָּ֣קָם לִקְרָאתָ֔ם וַיִּשְׁתַּ֥חוּ אַפַּ֖יִם אָֽרְצָה׃
[1]The two angels arrived in
The fact that
[1] The two angels
arrived in
He rose to greet them and, bowing low
with his face to the ground ◊ Unlike
Abraham, who ran towards the angels,
Lot was sitting in the gate of
It seems
that after Abraham’s war with the kings,
The trial of
In a certain
sense, every
ב וַיֹּ֜אמֶר הִנֶּ֣ה נָּֽא־אֲדֹנַ֗י ס֣וּרוּ נָ֠א אֶל־בֵּ֨ית עַבְדְּכֶ֤ם וְלִ֨ינוּ֙ וְרַֽחֲצ֣וּ רַגְלֵיכֶ֔ם וְהִשְׁכַּמְתֶּ֖ם וַֽהֲלַכְתֶּ֣ם לְדַרְכְּכֶ֑ם וַיֹּֽאמְר֣וּ לֹּ֔א כִּ֥י בָֽרְח֖וֹב נָלִֽין׃ ג וַיִּפְצַר־בָּ֣ם מְאֹ֔ד וַיָּסֻ֣רוּ אֵלָ֔יו וַיָּבֹ֖אוּ אֶל־בֵּית֑וֹ וַיַּ֤עַשׂ לָהֶם֙ מִשְׁתֶּ֔ה וּמַצּ֥וֹת אָפָ֖ה וַיֹּאכֵֽלוּ׃
[2] He said, “Please, my lords, turn aside to your servant’s house to spend the night, and bathe your feet; then you may be on your way early”. But they said, “No, we will spend the night in the square”.
[3] But he urged them strongly, so they turned his way and entered his house. He prepared a feast for them and baked unleavened bread, and they ate.
[2] Turn aside to
your servant’s house to spend the night … [3] But he urged them strongly ◊ Lot, in violation of the laws of
When
We mentioned earlier that
ג וַיִּפְצַר־בָּ֣ם מְאֹ֔ד וַיָּסֻ֣רוּ אֵלָ֔יו וַיָּבֹ֖אוּ אֶל־בֵּית֑וֹ וַיַּ֤עַשׂ לָהֶם֙ מִשְׁתֶּ֔ה וּמַצּ֥וֹת אָפָ֖ה וַיֹּאכֵֽלוּ׃ ד טֶרֶם֮ יִשְׁכָּבוּ֒ וְאַנְשֵׁ֨י הָעִ֜יר אַנְשֵׁ֤י סְדֹם֙ נָסַ֣בּוּ עַל־הַבַּ֔יִת מִנַּ֖עַר וְעַד־זָקֵ֑ן כָּל־הָעָ֖ם מִקָּצֶֽה׃ ה וַיִּקְרְא֤וּ אֶל־לוֹט֙ וַיֹּ֣אמְרוּ ל֔וֹ אַיֵּ֧ה הָֽאֲנָשִׁ֛ים אֲשֶׁר־בָּ֥אוּ אֵלֶ֖יךָ הַלָּ֑יְלָה הֽוֹצִיאֵ֣ם אֵלֵ֔ינוּ וְנֵֽדְעָ֖ה אֹתָֽם׃ ו וַיֵּצֵ֧א אֲלֵהֶ֛ם ל֖וֹט הַפֶּ֑תְחָה וְהַדֶּ֖לֶת סָגַ֥ר אַֽחֲרָֽיו׃ ז וַיֹּאמַ֑ר אַל־נָ֥א אַחַ֖י תָּרֵֽעוּ׃ ח הִנֵּה־נָ֨א לִ֜י שְׁתֵּ֣י בָנ֗וֹת אֲשֶׁ֤ר לֹֽא־יָדְעוּ֙ אִ֔ישׁ אוֹצִֽיאָה־נָּ֤א אֶתְהֶן֙ אֲלֵיכֶ֔ם וַֽעֲשׂ֣וּ לָהֶ֔ן כַּטּ֖וֹב בְּעֵֽינֵיכֶ֑ם רַ֠ק לָֽאֲנָשִׁ֤ים הָאֵל֙ אַל־תַּֽעֲשׂ֣וּ דָבָ֔ר כִּֽי־עַל־כֵּ֥ן בָּ֖אוּ בְּצֵ֥ל קֹֽרָתִֽי׃ ט וַיֹּֽאמְר֣וּ ׀ גֶּשׁ־הָ֗לְאָה וַיֹּֽאמְרוּ֙ הָֽאֶחָ֤ד בָּֽא־לָגוּר֙ וַיִּשְׁפֹּ֣ט שָׁפ֔וֹט עַתָּ֕ה נָרַ֥ע לְךָ֖ מֵהֶ֑ם וַיִּפְצְר֨וּ בָאִ֤ישׁ בְּלוֹט֙ מְאֹ֔ד וַֽיִּגְּשׁ֖וּ לִשְׁבֹּ֥ר הַדָּֽלֶת׃ י וַיִּשְׁלְח֤וּ הָֽאֲנָשִׁים֙ אֶת־יָדָ֔ם וַיָּבִ֧יאוּ אֶת־ל֛וֹט אֲלֵיהֶ֖ם הַבָּ֑יְתָה וְאֶת־הַדֶּ֖לֶת סָגָֽרוּ׃ יא וְֽאֶת־הָאֲנָשִׁ֞ים אֲשֶׁר־פֶּ֣תַח הַבַּ֗יִת הִכּוּ֙ בַּסַּנְוֵרִ֔ים מִקָּטֹ֖ן וְעַד־גָּד֑וֹל וַיִּלְא֖וּ לִמְצֹ֥א הַפָּֽתַח׃
[4] They had not yet lain down, when the
townspeople, the men of
[5] And they shouted to
[6] So
[7] and said, “I beg you, my friends, do not commit such a wrong.
[8] Look, I have two daughters who have not known a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you please; but do not do anything to these men, since they have come under the shelter of my roof”.
[9] But they said, “Stand back! The fellow”, they
said, “came here as an alien, and already he acts the ruler! Now we will deal
worse with you than with them”. And they pressed hard against the person of
[10] But the men stretched out their hands and
pulled
[11] And the people who were at the entrance of the house, young and old, they struck with blinding light, so that they were helpless to find the entrance.
[4] They had not yet
lain down ◊ The Midrash tells us that
The townspeople, the men of
[7] My friends, do not
commit such a wrong ◊ The word that
[8] Look, I have two
daughters who have not known a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you may
do to them as you please ◊ There are two possible explanations for
It should be
noted that by declaring its society ideal,
Having lived
so long in
We noted
above that
In fact, the
Midrash depicts
The people
of
It is a
truism that the essence of any false messianic doctrine is, precisely, the
absolutization of one solitary feature of messianism, to the exclusion of all
other features.
The Sodomites
claimed that their society represented the pinnacle of human development –
which is just another way of telling us that their objective was to improve the
world. But that is absurd and offensive. Hence the Sodomite ban on giving alms:
any need for charity can only mean that the world is not doing well, and this
is an insult to Sodomite sensibilities. The prophet Ezekiel (16:49) describes
Who could be
begging for alms in a society of such abundance? Only aliens, strangers.
Selfishness in
That the
reality of our world includes the element of
Acting
through chesed alone, it is impossible to reform
A little later the angel addresses
The path of
the Messiah is always – ab initio and by its very
nature – “on the edge”, through events that are, from a moral point of view,
“borderline”. (E.g., Lot’s daughters who bore children from their own father,
the story of
The Mashiach
ascends from below – morally and geographically.
יב וַיֹּֽאמְר֨וּ הָֽאֲנָשִׁ֜ים אֶל־ל֗וֹט עֹ֚ד מִֽי־לְךָ֣ פֹ֔ה חָתָן֙ וּבָנֶ֣יךָ וּבְנֹתֶ֔יךָ וְכֹ֥ל אֲשֶׁר־לְךָ֖ בָּעִ֑יר הוֹצֵ֖א מִן־הַמָּקֽוֹם׃ יג כִּֽי־מַשְׁחִתִ֣ים אֲנַ֔חְנוּ אֶת־הַמָּק֖וֹם הַזֶּ֑ה כִּֽי־גָדְלָ֤ה צַֽעֲקָתָם֙ אֶת־פְּנֵ֣י י֔י וַיְשַׁלְּחֵ֥נוּ י֖י לְשַֽׁחֲתָֽהּ׃ יד וַיֵּצֵ֨א ל֜וֹט וַיְדַבֵּ֣ר ׀ אֶל־חֲתָנָ֣יו ׀ לֹֽקְחֵ֣י בְנֹתָ֗יו וַיֹּ֨אמֶר֙ ק֤וּמוּ צְּאוּ֙ מִן־הַמָּק֣וֹם הַזֶּ֔ה כִּֽי־מַשְׁחִ֥ית י֖י אֶת־הָעִ֑יר וַיְהִ֥י כִמְצַחֵ֖ק בְּעֵינֵ֥י חֲתָנָֽיו׃ טו וּכְמוֹ֙ הַשַּׁ֣חַר עָלָ֔ה וַיָּאִ֥יצוּ הַמַּלְאָכִ֖ים בְּל֣וֹט לֵאמֹ֑ר קוּם֩ קַ֨ח אֶֽת־אִשְׁתְּךָ֜ וְאֶת־שְׁתֵּ֤י בְנֹתֶ֨יךָ֙ הַנִּמְצָאֹ֔ת פֶּן־תִּסָּפֶ֖ה בַּֽעֲוֺ֥ן הָעִֽיר׃ טז וַֽיִּתְמַהְמָ֓הּ ׀ וַיַּֽחֲזִ֨יקוּ הָֽאֲנָשִׁ֜ים בְּיָד֣וֹ וּבְיַד־אִשְׁתּ֗וֹ וּבְיַד֙ שְׁתֵּ֣י בְנֹתָ֔יו בְּחֶמְלַ֥ת י֖י עָלָ֑יו וַיֹּֽצִאֻ֥הוּ וַיַּנִּחֻ֖הוּ מִח֥וּץ לָעִֽיר׃
[12] Then the men said to
[13] For we are about to destroy this place; because the outcry against them before the Lord has become so great that the Lord has sent us to destroy it.”
[14] So
[15] As dawn broke, the angels urged
[16] Still he delayed. So the men seized his hand, and the hands of his wife and his two daughters–in the Lord‘s mercy on him–and brought him out and left him outside the city.
We have here three processes occurring in
parallel. On the one hand, the city is destroyed. On the other hand, all
righteous people (even if only potentially righteous) are saved, namely,
[12] Then the men said
to
[14] So Lot went out
and spoke to his sons-in-law, who had married his daughters ◊ Besides the two unmarried daughters who lived with him,
But he seemed to his sons-in-law as one who jests ◊ They thought he was joking, and they laughed at his words. It’s amusing to them,
because it never enters their mind to imagine how anything untoward could
happen in such a magnificent place. But the Torah mention this laughter not
just tangentially, for it is actually an echo of a different laughter – God’s
laughing over
Laughter is an integral part of the geulah, the Messianic redemption,
because the Messianic process never proceeds as originally expected. This
laughter intensifies, becoming one with the Divine laughter, as described in
the Talmud (Avodah Zarah 3b): “There is no complete laughter before the Holy
One Blessed be He, except on the Day of the Redemption.” When Lot leaves
[15] As dawn broke ◊ Night is the time of
preparation for Exodus. But the actual exit from
Lest you be swept away because of the iniquity of the city ◊ If you do
not separate yourself from
The angels urged Lot on … [16] Still he delayed ◊
[16] So the men seized his hand, and the hands of his wife and his two daughters–in the Lord‘s mercy on him – and brought him out ◊ While the night drags on, Lot can still linger in Sodom. But once dawn has broken (that is, the geulah has begun), anyone who delays in participating in the Exodus is in serious danger of perishing.
In the Lord‘s mercy on him ◊ Lot was not himself deserving of salvation; he was taken out of Sodom only because the future David otherwise could not have been born.
And left him outside the city ◊ Encouraging him to move forward on his own.
יז וַיְהִי֩ כְהֽוֹצִיאָ֨ם אֹתָ֜ם הַח֗וּצָה וַיֹּ֨אמֶר֙ הִמָּלֵ֣ט עַל־נַפְשֶׁ֔ךָ אַל־תַּבִּ֣יט אַֽחֲרֶ֔יךָ וְאַֽל־תַּעֲמֹ֖ד בְּכָל־הַכִּכָּ֑ר הָהָ֥רָה הִמָּלֵ֖ט פֶּן־תִּסָּפֶֽה׃ יח וַיֹּ֥אמֶר ל֖וֹט אֲלֵהֶ֑ם אַל־נָ֖א אֲדֹנָֽי׃ יט הִנֵּה־נָ֠א מָצָ֨א עַבְדְּךָ֣ חֵן֮ בְּעֵינֶיךָ֒ וַתַּגְדֵּ֣ל חַסְדְּךָ֗ אֲשֶׁ֤ר עָשִׂ֨יתָ֙ עִמָּדִ֔י לְהַֽחֲי֖וֹת אֶת־נַפְשִׁ֑י וְאָֽנֹכִ֗י לֹ֤א אוּכַל֙ לְהִמָּלֵ֣ט הָהָ֔רָה פֶּן־תִּדְבָּקַ֥נִי הָֽרָעָ֖ה וָמַֽתִּי׃ כ הִנֵּה־נָ֠א הָעִ֨יר הַזֹּ֧את קְרֹבָ֛ה לָנ֥וּס שָׁ֖מָּה וְהִ֣וא מִצְעָ֑ר אִמָּֽלְטָ֨ה נָּ֜א שָׁ֗מָּה הֲלֹ֥א מִצְעָ֛ר הִ֖וא וּתְחִ֥י נַפְשִֽׁי׃ כא וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֵלָ֔יו הִנֵּה֙ נָשָׂ֣אתִי פָנֶ֔יךָ גַּ֖ם לַדָּבָ֣ר הַזֶּ֑ה לְבִלְתִּ֛י הָפְכִּ֥י אֶת־הָעִ֖יר אֲשֶׁ֥ר דִּבַּֽרְתָּ׃ כב מַהֵר֙ הִמָּלֵ֣ט שָׁ֔מָּה כִּ֣י לֹ֤א אוּכַל֙ לַֽעֲשׂ֣וֹת דָּבָ֔ר עַד־בֹּֽאֲךָ֖ שָׁ֑מָּה עַל־כֵּ֛ן קָרָ֥א שֵׁם־הָעִ֖יר צֽוֹעַר׃ כג הַשֶּׁ֖מֶשׁ יָצָ֣א עַל־הָאָ֑רֶץ וְל֖וֹט בָּ֥א צֹֽעֲרָה׃ כד וַֽי֗י הִמְטִ֧יר עַל־סְדֹ֛ם וְעַל־עֲמֹרָ֖ה גָּפְרִ֣ית וָאֵ֑שׁ מֵאֵ֥ת י֖י מִן־הַשָּׁמָֽיִם׃ כה וַֽיַּהֲפֹךְ֙ אֶת־הֶֽעָרִ֣ים הָאֵ֔ל וְאֵ֖ת כָּל־הַכִּכָּ֑ר וְאֵת֙ כָּל־יֹֽשְׁבֵ֣י הֶֽעָרִ֔ים וְצֶ֖מַח הָֽאֲדָמָֽה׃ כו וַתַּבֵּ֥ט אִשְׁתּ֖וֹ מֵאַֽחֲרָ֑יו וַתְּהִ֖י נְצִ֥יב מֶֽלַח׃
[17] When they had brought them outside, one said, “Flee for your life! Do not look behind you, nor stop anywhere in the Plain; flee to the hills, lest you be swept away.”
[18] But
[19] You have been so gracious to your servant, and have already shown me so much kindness in order to save my life; but I cannot flee to the hills, lest the disaster overtake me and I die.
[20] Look, that town there is near enough to flee to; it is such a little place! Let me flee there–it is such a little place–and let my life be saved.”
[21] He replied, “Very well, I will grant you this favor too, and I will not annihilate the town of which you have spoken.
[22] Hurry, flee there, for I cannot do anything until you arrive there.” Hence the town came to be called Zoar.
[23] As the sun rose upon the earth and
[24] the Lord rained upon
[25] He annihilated those cities and the entire Plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities and the vegetation of the ground.
[26]
[17] One said,
“Flee for your life!” ◊ The angels remove
This is a test for
Flee to the hills, lest you be swept away ◊ The more literal translation is “Flee
to the mountain, lest you be swept away.”
[19] I cannot flee to
the hills, lest the disaster overtake me and I die ◊ Aware of his own
moral deficiency, Lot wants to avoid living in close proximity to Abraham, for
although he is righteous against the backdrop of Sodom, compared to Abraham he
can be considered wicked. Abraham’s moral achievements are
[20] Look, that town
there is near enough to flee to; it is such a little place! ◊ Lot seeks to find a place
for himself apart from both
Let me flee there–it is such a little place–and let my life be saved ◊ Lot believes that although he could not influence Sodom in all its
enormity, he will be able to influence tiny Zoar, and he asks for this chance.
[26] Lot’s wife looked back, and she thereupon turned into a pillar of salt ◊ A man who is half righteous and half wicked has no right to watch the death of the wicked from the sidelines, pretending that he has nothing to do with them. For it is indeed quite possible that he too is deserving of that same punishment, but is saved by God’s grace alone. Therefore, if such a weakly righteous person gazes upon the punishment of the wicked, he too will perish with them. Only one who is completely righteous can observe the death of the wicked without bringing harm upon himself.
By looking back, Lot’s wife demonstrates that her connection to
כז וַיַּשְׁכֵּ֥ם אַבְרָהָ֖ם בַּבֹּ֑קֶר אֶ֨ל־הַמָּק֔וֹם אֲשֶׁר־עָ֥מַד שָׁ֖ם אֶת־פְּנֵ֥י יֽי׃ כח וַיַּשְׁקֵ֗ף עַל־פְּנֵ֤י סְדֹם֙ וַֽעֲמֹרָ֔ה וְעַֽל־כָּל־פְּנֵ֖י אֶ֣רֶץ הַכִּכָּ֑ר וַיַּ֗רְא וְהִנֵּ֤ה עָלָה֙ קִיטֹ֣ר הָאָ֔רֶץ כְּקִיטֹ֖ר הַכִּבְשָֽׁן׃ כט וַיְהִ֗י בְּשַׁחֵ֤ת אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶת־עָרֵ֣י הַכִּכָּ֔ר וַיִּזְכֹּ֥ר אֱלֹהִ֖ים אֶת־אַבְרָהָ֑ם וַיְשַׁלַּ֤ח אֶת־לוֹט֙ מִתּ֣וֹךְ הַֽהֲפֵכָ֔ה בַּֽהֲפֹךְ֙ אֶת־הֶ֣עָרִ֔ים אֲשֶׁר־יָשַׁ֥ב בָּהֵ֖ן לֽוֹט׃
[27] Next morning, Abraham hurried to the place where he had stood before the Lord,
[28] and, looking down
toward
[29] Thus it was that, when God destroyed the
cities of the Plain and annihilated the cities where Lot dwelt, God was mindful
of Abraham and removed
[29] God was
mindful of Abraham and removed Lot from the midst of the upheaval ◊ The Torah reiterates that
[27] Next morning ◊ Morning is related to the attribute of chesed, which is typical of Abraham.
To the place where he had stood before the Lord ◊ It is the place where he argued with God about the fate of
[28] And, looking down
toward
Smoke of the land rising like the smoke of a kiln ◊ A kiln is a place where everything is burned and completely
destroyed. After Lot’s departure from
And therefore, a little later we will learn that Abraham has left
ל וַיַּעַל֩ ל֨וֹט מִצּ֜וֹעַר וַיֵּ֣שֶׁב בָּהָ֗ר וּשְׁתֵּ֤י בְנֹתָיו֙ עִמּ֔וֹ כִּ֥י יָרֵ֖א לָשֶׁ֣בֶת בְּצ֑וֹעַר וַיֵּ֨שֶׁב֙ בַּמְּעָרָ֔ה ה֖וּא וּשְׁתֵּ֥י בְנֹתָֽיו׃ לא וַתֹּ֧אמֶר הַבְּכִירָ֛ה אֶל־הַצְּעִירָ֖ה אָבִ֣ינוּ זָקֵ֑ן וְאִ֨ישׁ אֵ֤ין בָּאָ֨רֶץ֙ לָב֣וֹא עָלֵ֔ינוּ כְּדֶ֖רֶךְ כָּל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃
[30]
[31] And the older one said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to consort with us in the way of all the world.
[30] Lot went up from Zoar ◊ Zoar escaped destruction, but the catastrophe itself so affected Lot that he decided to distance himself from anything related to Sodom, even if only indirectly.
And settled in the hill country ◊ Not on the mountain nor at the foot of
the mountain, but midway up the mountain and inside of it, in a cave isolated
from the rest of humanity. Between the mountain peak –
Abraham – and the lowest point on earth –
And he … lived in a cave ◊ The Hebrew word va-yeshev normally carries some connotation of permanence. Here, too,
[31] Our father is old ◊ We therefore cannot expect him to solve the problem of creating posterity. We must ourselves take that initiative.
There is not a man on earth ◊ It is very strange that they would
think that.
To consort with us ◊ The literal translation is, “There is no man on earth to come onto us.” This, too, is an oddly constructed phrase. When referring to intimate relations the Torah will usually say lavo el, a man “entering unto” a woman, but here it uses a different expression, lavo ‘al, “coming onto” (or “upon”). This expression is found only once more in the Torah, in Deuteronomy (25:5), in the discussion of levirate marriage: “When brothers dwell together and one of them dies and leaves no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be married to a stranger, outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall unite with her (yavo ‘aleha): he shall take her as his wife.” The preposition ‘al is usually understood here as implying an addition. That is, in addition to the deceased husband, her levir shall cohabit with her and take her as his wife.
Lot’s
daughters would adopt the terminology of levirate marriage only if they saw
themselves as “widows” of the “deceased”
Since their
father is “old,”
Had
We have
noted that in the course of his long stay in
A true
ideological Sodomite is not just a criminal, a greedy and heartless resident of
that city, but one who considers the positive component of the Sodomite ideology a prototype of the
future – who believes, despite the destruction of the city, in its potential
messianism.
At first
glance, this of course seems monstrous. From a more conventional point of view,
however, what
Paradoxically,
the daughters of Lot want to perform a chesed for
לב לְכָ֨ה נַשְׁקֶ֧ה אֶת־אָבִ֛ינוּ יַ֖יִן וְנִשְׁכְּבָ֣ה עִמּ֑וֹ וּנְחַיֶּ֥ה מֵֽאָבִ֖ינוּ זָֽרַע׃ לג וַתַּשְׁקֶ֧יןָ אֶת־אֲבִיהֶ֛ן יַ֖יִן בַּלַּ֣יְלָה ה֑וּא וַתָּבֹ֤א הַבְּכִירָה֙ וַתִּשְׁכַּ֣ב אֶת־אָבִ֔יהָ וְלֹֽא־יָדַ֥ע בְּשִׁכְבָ֖הּ וּבְקוּׄמָֽהּ׃ לד וַֽיְהִי֙ מִֽמָּחֳרָ֔ת וַתֹּ֤אמֶר הַבְּכִירָה֙ אֶל־הַצְּעִירָ֔ה הֵן־שָׁכַ֥בְתִּי אֶ֖מֶשׁ אֶת־אָבִ֑י נַשְׁקֶ֨נּוּ יַ֜יִן גַּם־הַלַּ֗יְלָה וּבֹ֨אִי֙ שִׁכְבִ֣י עִמּ֔וֹ וּנְחַיֶּ֥ה מֵֽאָבִ֖ינוּ זָֽרַע׃ לה וַתַּשְׁקֶ֜יןָ גַּ֣ם בַּלַּ֧יְלָה הַה֛וּא אֶת־אֲבִיהֶ֖ן יָ֑יִן וַתָּ֤קָם הַצְּעִירָה֙ וַתִּשְׁכַּ֣ב עִמּ֔וֹ וְלֹֽא־יָדַ֥ע בְּשִׁכְבָ֖הּ וּבְקֻמָֽהּ׃
[32] Come, let us make our father drink wine, and let us lie with him, that we may maintain life through our father.”
[33] That night they made their father drink wine, and the older one went in and lay with her father; he did not know when she lay down or when she rose.
[34] The next day the older one said to the younger, “See, I lay with Father last night; let us make him drink wine tonight also, and you go and lie with him, that we may maintain life through our father.”
[35] That night also they made their father drink wine, and the younger one went and lay with him; he did not know when she lay down or when she rose.
[32] Let us make our
father drink wine ◊ Wine is an essential component for
implementing this plan.
The Midrash
says something truly astonishing: that the wine that
Once again
we are confronted with the principle that the Messianic process often seems
aberrant, not “as things are meant to be,” and always takes place on the very
edge of what is acceptable. If Lot could have behaved properly, then this
“borderline of what is acceptable” would have passed not through him, but
through Zoar (whose inhabitants were also “Sodomites” to a certain extent,
because of their close proximity to
לו וַֽתַּהֲרֶ֛יןָ שְׁתֵּ֥י בְנֽוֹת־ל֖וֹט מֵֽאֲבִיהֶֽן׃ לז וַתֵּ֤לֶד הַבְּכִירָה֙ בֵּ֔ן וַתִּקְרָ֥א שְׁמ֖וֹ מוֹאָ֑ב ה֥וּא אֲבִֽי־מוֹאָ֖ב עַד־הַיּֽוֹם׃ לח וְהַצְּעִירָ֤ה גַם־הִוא֙ יָ֣לְדָה בֵּ֔ן וַתִּקְרָ֥א שְׁמ֖וֹ בֶּן־עַמִּ֑י ה֛וּא אֲבִ֥י בְנֵֽי־עַמּ֖וֹן עַד־הַיּֽוֹם׃
[36] Thus the two daughters of
[37] The older one bore a son and named him
[38] And the younger also bore a son, and she called him Ben-ammi; he is the father of the Ammonites of today.
[37] The older one bore
a son and named him
[38] And the younger also bore a son, and she called him Ben-ammi ◊ Lot’s younger daughter is more bashful. Having conceived and given birth not by her own independent decision, but at the direction of her older sister, she gives her son the neutral name “Ben-Ammi,” “the son of my people.”
Subsequently,
Lot’s daughters’ descendants settled near Canaan:
He is the father of the Ammonites of today ◊ The Midrash takes the position that the merit of the elder sister was greater than that of the younger, because the elder initiated the connection with their father and was not ashamed to do so. In the merit of that, her descendant, Ruth the Moabite, David’s great-grandmother, will be first to have a role in the creation of the Jewish kingdom. Only later will the younger sister’s descendant, Naamah the Ammonite, become Solomon’s wife.
Thus, our
sages deemed this act a credit to the daughters of
The peculiarities of their origin made the Moabites and Ammonites two
“anomalous” nations that straddle the boundary between the righteousness of Abraham
and the wickedness of
It is noble to strive for the preservation of one’s native lineage.
We already know that chesed, like any other
spiritual attribute, can be “clean” or “unclean,” and its excess can lead to
evil. It is unlikely that
Lot’s daughters performed a chesed on behalf
of a city that was the very antithesis of chesed;
thus they combined the qualities of Abraham with the qualities of
In the end, the Ammonites and the Moabites gravitated toward the Sodomite direction; they failed to bestow elementary mercy on the Jewish people as they passed through the wilderness. Because the Sodomite instinct prevailed in them, the Torah says: “No Ammonite or Moabite shall be admitted into the congregation of the Lord; none of their descendants, even in the tenth generation, shall ever be admitted into the congregation of the Lord, because they did not meet you with food and water on your journey after you left Egypt” (Deut. 23:4-5).
But what is so terrible about this “not meeting with bread and water”?
There were other nations who even actively fought the Jews, but accepting
proselytes from among them was not forbidden. It is obvious that the Egyptians
treated the Jews incomparably worse than the Ammonites and the Moabites did,
but an Egyptian could become Jewish by undergoing giyyur (conversion).
Although the Ammonites and the Moabites did not initiate wars, the crime
of these nations is that they showed absolute indifference, and just for that
reason they are forever deprived of the opportunity to join the Jewish
community. Such a harsh punishment was imposed on Ammon and
However, the women of these nations, unlike the men, are permitted to join the Jewish people by undergoing conversion. The ban does not apply to them, because going forth to meet wayfarers is incumbent upon men, but inappropriate for women. The Ammonite and Moabite women were thus not guilty of the sin of being inhospitable and indifferent to the Jewish nation, and are therefore given the opportunity to join the Jewish people. Moreover, some of the women among them demonstrate even super-chesed, and participate in the birth of the Messianic dynasty.
א וַיִּסַּ֨ע מִשָּׁ֤ם אַבְרָהָם֙ אַ֣רְצָה הַנֶּ֔גֶב וַיֵּ֥שֶׁב בֵּין־קָדֵ֖שׁ וּבֵ֣ין שׁ֑וּר וַיָּ֖גָר בִּגְרָֽר׃
[1] Abraham journeyed from there to the region of the Negeb and settled between Kadesh and Shur. While he was sojourning in Gerar,
[1] Abraham journeyed from there ◊ Abraham is not moving toward any desired goal by doing so; his only objective here is to leave Hebron in order to distance himself from Sodom and from Lot.
Lot’s departure from
Apparently,
it was not yet time to bring this spark to the Jewish people. Some things
require a lengthy cleansing process before they can be united with holiness.
Any premature attempt to make that happen can mean the loss of those things and
also of the holiness itself. Therefore, Abraham had to withdraw from
He was sojourning in Gerar ◊ We have
already mentioned (19:28) the reason given by the Midrash for Abraham’s
departure from
However, we can also view this from the opposite direction.
Abraham’s departure from
ב וַיֹּ֧אמֶר אַבְרָהָ֛ם אֶל־שָׂרָ֥ה אִשְׁתּ֖וֹ אֲחֹ֣תִי הִ֑וא וַיִּשְׁלַ֗ח אֲבִימֶ֨לֶךְ֙ מֶ֣לֶךְ גְּרָ֔ר וַיִּקַּ֖ח אֶת־שָׂרָֽה׃
[2] Abraham said of Sarah his wife, “She is my sister.” So King Abimelech of Gerar had Sarah brought to him.
What had happened in
A simple
explanation of Abraham’s actions – that just as had happened in
The apparent
answer is that Abraham had once again left all his disciples behind, and had
gone to Gerar alone with his family. Recall that much earlier, near the
beginning of his journey, Abraham had brought his Babylonian disciples into the
land and settled them in Shechem, only to leave them there and depart for
So Abraham is now alone and again confronts a difficult situation regarding Sarah. But this time, as we shall soon see, Abraham is already able to manifest the attribute of gevurah. It is for him a difficult challenge, but gradually he is learning this attribute – he is learning to act more severely.
However, when Abraham calls Sarah his sister, there is now an additional aspect that is apparent. Subconsciously, Abraham even now does not feel completely that Sarah is his wife, the future mother of his children. Even now he seems to consider her more as his “comrade-in-arms” for spreading monotheism among the surrounding population. Abraham does not yet have any deep-rooted sense that Sarah’s purpose, rather than helping him to educate disciples, is to produce a nation from him. It therefore feels natural to him to call Sarah his sister. Abraham will now receive a lesson that continuing to treat Sarah as a sister is unacceptable.
Abraham needed to understand at long last, through the incident of Abimelech, that Sarah was his true wife. Only then could Isaac be born.
ג וַיָּבֹ֧א אֱלֹהִ֛ים אֶל־אֲבִימֶ֖לֶךְ בַּֽחֲל֣וֹם הַלָּ֑יְלָה וַיֹּ֣אמֶר ל֗וֹ הִנְּךָ֥ מֵת֙ עַל־הָֽאִשָּׁ֣ה אֲשֶׁר־לָקַ֔חְתָּ וְהִ֖וא בְּעֻ֥לַת בָּֽעַל׃ ד וַֽאֲבִימֶ֕לֶךְ לֹ֥א קָרַ֖ב אֵלֶ֑יהָ וַיֹּאמַ֕ר אֲדֹנָ֕י הֲג֥וֹי גַּם־צַדִּ֖יק תַּֽהֲרֹֽג׃ ה הֲלֹ֨א ה֤וּא אָֽמַר־לִי֙ אֲחֹ֣תִי הִ֔וא וְהִֽיא־גַם־הִ֥וא אָֽמְרָ֖ה אָחִ֣י ה֑וּא בְּתָם־לְבָבִ֛י וּבְנִקְיֹ֥ן כַּפַּ֖י עָשִׂ֥יתִי זֹֽאת׃ ו וַיֹּאמֶר֩ אֵלָ֨יו הָֽאֱלֹהִ֜ים בַּֽחֲלֹ֗ם גַּ֣ם אָֽנֹכִ֤י יָדַ֨עְתִּי֙ כִּ֤י בְתָם־לְבָֽבְךָ֙ עָשִׂ֣יתָ זֹּ֔את וָֽאֶחְשֹׂ֧ךְ גַּם־אָֽנֹכִ֛י אֽוֹתְךָ֖ מֵֽחֲטוֹ־לִ֑י עַל־כֵּ֥ן לֹֽא־נְתַתִּ֖יךָ לִנְגֹּ֥עַ אֵלֶֽיהָ׃
[3] But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night and said to him, “You are to die because of the woman that you have taken, for she is a married woman.”
[4] Now Abimelech had not approached her. He said, “O Lord, will You slay people even though innocent?
[5] He himself said to me, ‘She is my sister!’ And she also said, ‘He is my brother.’ When I did this, my heart was blameless and my hands were clean.”
[6] And God said to him in the dream, “I knew that you did this with a blameless heart, and so I kept you from sinning against Me. That was why I did not let you touch her.
[5] He himself said to me, ‘She is my sister!’ ◊ Abimelech emphasizes that he is innocent in the strict sense. He feels confident that he has broken no laws, nor tried to expropriate anyone’s wife. Nevertheless, the Sages say that he deserved to die not for violating the prohibition of adultery, but for violating universal moral standards. The general principle is that the nations of the world are punished when they violate the obligations that they have themselves assumed.
From Abraham’s answer below (verse 11) we understand that he called Sarah his sister as a protection from the danger he was facing. When upon arriving as an unknown in that place Abraham is questioned about the woman who is with him, it is only natural that he would feel endangered. (This mode of questioning, as used here in Gerar, is further elaborated later in the Torah, in the similar incident of Isaac and Rebecca [26:7 ff.]). The sin committed in making such inquiries is the sin of violating universal moral norms. Abimelech, being a king, is responsible for sanctioning an atmosphere of danger that would force guests visiting his city to lie.
“When I did this, my heart was blameless and my hands were clean.” [6] And God said to him in the dream, “I knew that you did this with a blameless heart” ◊ God acknowledges that Abimelech had done it “with a blameless heart” – but not “with cleanliness of hands.”
[6] “So I kept you from sinning against Me. That was why I did not let you touch her” ◊ God protected Abimelech from a worse crime. But he is nonetheless responsible for the atmosphere in Gerar, and therefore cannot be considered innocent.
ז וְעַתָּ֗ה הָשֵׁ֤ב אֵֽשֶׁת־הָאִישׁ֙ כִּֽי־נָבִ֣יא ה֔וּא וְיִתְפַּלֵּ֥ל בַּֽעַדְךָ֖ וֶֽחְיֵ֑ה וְאִם־אֵֽינְךָ֣ מֵשִׁ֔יב דַּ֚ע כִּי־מ֣וֹת תָּמ֔וּת אַתָּ֖ה וְכָל־אֲשֶׁר־לָֽךְ׃
[7] Therefore, restore the man’s wife–since he is a prophet, he will intercede for you–to save your life. If you fail to restore her, know that you shall die, you and all that are yours.”
[7] Since he is a prophet, he will intercede for you ◊ In this verse the words “prophet” and “pray” appear for the first time in the Torah. Whenever prayer is further mentioned in the Tanakh, it is often associated with prophets. In ancient times there was an inextricable link between prayer and prophecy. The ability to pray was one of the functions of a prophet.
This concept is unfamiliar to us, because today anyone can pray. In ancient times, however, people doubted their own ability to turn directly to God. They sensed such a vast abyss, such an enormous distance, between themselves and God, that they had no idea how to bridge that gap.
Within the context of religious education it is usual and customary to hear that prayer is a completely natural thing. It is taken for granted that every person has a path for turning to God. But we see that in the Torah this is absolutely not the case.
In the Shulchan Aruch, the Code of Jewish Law, we read: “A person who prays must understand in his heart the meaning of the words that his mouth utters, and must imagine that he is standing before the Shechinah, the very presence of God. He must drive away all distracting thoughts so that the meaning he puts into the words will be worthy of prayer. Certainly, if he were speaking before a king of flesh and blood, he would arrange his words and give them meaning, so as not to err or falter; how much more so should he behave accordingly before the King of Kings, Who probes all our thoughts. So did the pious do long ago. After secluding themselves, they would concentrate on the meaning of their prayers to such an extent that they were liberated from materiality, and approached the level of prophecy.”
Thus we see that in order to pray, a person must approach the degree of prophecy.
In ancient times it was believed that only prophets could pray; that in order to turn to God, one first needs God to turn to him, and until that happens, one has no right to pray.
The essence of that approach is that when turning to God, it is critical not only to perceive with whom you are engaging in dialogue, but also to find the right words and the proper form of address. This is because one of the most important problems of prayer is that, in a certain sense, it borders on magic. Doesn’t God Himself know what we need? Does He really need us to tell Him that? And, more generally, how can a person believe that he is able to influence God?
It is precisely to avoid confusing prayer with magic that prayer requires a prophet. For he understands the relationship between the human and the Divine.
There is an episode in the book of Samuel (I Sam. 12) where the prophet Samuel attempts to admonish the people and appeals to the Lord. It is mid-summer, and rain begins to fall. (Rain during the harvest season endangers the entire crop.) When the people ask Samuel to beseech God for the rain to stop, Samuel replies: “Have no fear, God loves you, and I, too, will not stop praying for you.” Samuel concludes his prayer, and the rain stops. But through all of this it never occurs to any of the people that they should themselves pray; they only ask the prophet to do so on their behalf.
The example of the famous prayer of Hannah, mother of the prophet
Samuel, is also interesting in this regard. Jewish tradition counts Hannah
among the Prophets, and her prayer (I Sam. 2) is a prime example of
prayer-prophecy. But the high priest Eli, who sees Hannah whispering silently
to herself as she enters the
As concerns our liturgy, it was established by the Men of the Great Assembly in the era when prophecy was still extant. The last of the prophets, aware that all prophecy would soon cease, felt that the people were in very serious danger of losing their sense of direct connection with God. The Men of the Great Assembly therefore established the liturgy and the proper order of our prayers, by compiling a text that incorporated the entire scope of prophetic experience. That formulation of prayer, which in some measure reduced the distance between man and God, was something only a prophet would be able to do.
Only after the last prophets had composed a fixed prayer text could praying become a universal practice. Various guidelines for prayer also exist, indicating how one can achieve that state of mind that brings a person closer to the level of prophecy.
It is
important to note that praying and bringing a sacrifice are completely
different religious experiences. Prayer, by its very nature, can even be seen
as the opposite of sacrifice. Sacrifice, which is designed to preserve the
existing order of the world, is an expression of gratitude to God for what is. The purpose of prayer, on the other hand, is to effect
change in the world. A person prays because he wants to improve the world: to
heal the sick, to render aid to the poor, to resurrect the ruins of
While the
Only after
the destruction of the Second Temple did prayer assume the additional role of
replacing sacrifice – in a sense it became itself a sacrifice, and incorporated
both of those functions. The Sages accomplished this by precisely establishing
the order of the prayers and the proper times of day for reciting them, which
paralleled those of the sacrificial service in the
The prophets
said of the
ח וַיַּשְׁכֵּ֨ם אֲבִימֶ֜לֶךְ בַּבֹּ֗קֶר וַיִּקְרָא֙ לְכָל־עֲבָדָ֔יו וַיְדַבֵּ֛ר אֶת־כָּל־הַדְּבָרִ֥ים הָאֵ֖לֶּה בְּאָזְנֵיהֶ֑ם וַיִּֽירְא֥וּ הָֽאֲנָשִׁ֖ים מְאֹֽד׃ ט וַיִּקְרָ֨א אֲבִימֶ֜לֶךְ לְאַבְרָהָ֗ם וַיֹּ֨אמֶר ל֜וֹ מֶֽה־עָשִׂ֤יתָ לָּ֨נוּ֙ וּמֶֽה־חָטָ֣אתִי לָ֔ךְ כִּֽי־הֵבֵ֧אתָ עָלַ֛י וְעַל־מַמְלַכְתִּ֖י חֲטָאָ֣ה גְדֹלָ֑ה מַֽעֲשִׂים֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר לֹא־יֵֽעָשׂ֔וּ עָשִׂ֖יתָ עִמָּדִֽי׃ י וַיֹּ֥אמֶר אֲבִימֶ֖לֶךְ אֶל־אַבְרָהָ֑ם מָ֣ה רָאִ֔יתָ כִּ֥י עָשִׂ֖יתָ אֶת־הַדָּבָ֥ר הַזֶּֽה׃ יא וַיֹּ֨אמֶר֙ אַבְרָהָ֔ם כִּ֣י אָמַ֗רְתִּי רַ֚ק אֵין־יִרְאַ֣ת אֱלֹהִ֔ים בַּמָּק֖וֹם הַזֶּ֑ה וַֽהֲרָג֖וּנִי עַל־דְּבַ֥ר אִשְׁתִּֽי׃ יב וְגַם־אָמְנָ֗ה אֲחֹתִ֤י בַת־אָבִי֙ הִ֔וא אַ֖ךְ לֹ֣א בַת־אִמִּ֑י וַתְּהִי־לִ֖י לְאִשָּֽׁה׃ יג וַיְהִ֞י כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֧ר הִתְע֣וּ אֹתִ֗י אֱלֹהִים֮ מִבֵּ֣ית אָבִי֒ וָֽאֹמַ֣ר לָ֔הּ זֶ֣ה חַסְדֵּ֔ךְ אֲשֶׁ֥ר תַּֽעֲשִׂ֖י עִמָּדִ֑י אֶ֤ל כָּל־הַמָּקוֹם֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר נָב֣וֹא שָׁ֔מָּה אִמְרִי־לִ֖י אָחִ֥י הֽוּא׃ יד וַיִּקַּ֨ח אֲבִימֶ֜לֶךְ צֹ֣אן וּבָקָ֗ר וַֽעֲבָדִים֙ וּשְׁפָחֹ֔ת וַיִּתֵּ֖ן לְאַבְרָהָ֑ם וַיָּ֣שֶׁב ל֔וֹ אֵ֖ת שָׂרָ֥ה אִשְׁתּֽוֹ׃ טו וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֲבִימֶ֔לֶךְ הִנֵּ֥ה אַרְצִ֖י לְפָנֶ֑יךָ בַּטּ֥וֹב בְּעֵינֶ֖יךָ שֵֽׁב׃ טז וּלְשָׂרָ֣ה אָמַ֗ר הִנֵּ֨ה נָתַ֜תִּי אֶ֤לֶף כֶּ֨סֶף֙ לְאָחִ֔יךְ הִנֵּ֤ה הוּא־לָךְ֙ כְּס֣וּת עֵינַ֔יִם לְכֹ֖ל אֲשֶׁ֣ר אִתָּ֑ךְ וְאֵ֥ת כֹּ֖ל וְנֹכָֽחַת׃ יז וַיִּתְפַּלֵּ֥ל אַבְרָהָ֖ם אֶל־הָֽאֱלֹהִ֑ים וַיִּרְפָּ֨א אֱלֹהִ֜ים אֶת־אֲבִימֶ֧לֶךְ וְאֶת־אִשְׁתּ֛וֹ וְאַמְהֹתָ֖יו וַיֵּלֵֽדוּ׃ יח כִּֽי־עָצֹ֤ר עָצַר֙ י֔י בְּעַ֥ד כָּל־רֶ֖חֶם לְבֵ֣ית אֲבִימֶ֑לֶךְ עַל־דְּבַ֥ר שָׂרָ֖ה אֵ֥שֶׁת אַבְרָהָֽם׃
[8] Early next morning, Abimelech called his servants and told them all that had happened; and the men were greatly frightened.
[9] Then Abimelech summoned Abraham and said to him, “What have you done to us? What wrong have I done that you should bring so great a guilt upon me and my kingdom? You have done to me things that ought not to be done.”
[10] “What, then,” Abimelech demanded of Abraham, “was your purpose in doing this thing?”
[11] “I thought,” said Abraham, “surely there is no fear of God in this place, and they will kill me because of my wife.
[12] And besides, she is in truth my sister, my father’s daughter though not my mother’s; and she became my wife.
[13] So when God made me wander from my father’s house, I said to her, ‘Let this be the kindness that you shall do me: whatever place we come to, say there of me: He is my brother.’”
[14] Abimelech took sheep and oxen, and male and female slaves, and gave them to Abraham; and he restored his wife Sarah to him.
[15] And Abimelech said, “Here, my land is before you; settle wherever you please.”
[16] And to Sarah he said, “I herewith give your brother a thousand pieces of silver; this will serve you as vindication before all who are with you, and you are cleared before everyone.”
[17]Abraham then prayed to God, and God healed Abimelech and his wife and his slave girls, so that they bore children;
[18] for the Lord had closed fast every womb of the household of Abimelech because of Sarah, the wife of Abraham.
[9] Then Abimelech summoned Abraham and said to him … [10] Abimelech demanded of Abraham ◊ At first Abraham does not answer Abimelech. He seems to be feel uncomfortable in the given situation, and Abimelech needs to ask a second time.
[11] “I thought … surely there is no fear of God in this place, and they will kill me because of my wife ◊ Abraham explains that the general atmosphere in the kingdom compelled him to deception. Rather than justifying himself, he accuses Abimelech of improper behavior. Thus, Abraham has begun, if only in small measure, to use the attribute of judgment; this is essential for the birth of Isaac.
[12] And besides, she is in truth my sister ◊ We see that Abraham did actually regard Sarah as a sister, that he was deficient in regarding Sarah as his wife. But now that he has offered Abimelech this rationale, Abraham can no longer maintain that kind of attitude towards Sarah. And this, too, is a critical aspect of Abraham’s advancement to the level that the birth of Isaac requires.
My father’s daughter though not my mother’s ◊ Abraham now also clarifies an important detail of his relationship with Sarah, of which we had no knowledge previously. It turns out that Terah, Abraham’s father, had two wives, one of which bore him Abraham and Nahor, and the other – Haran, whose children are Lot, Milcah (the wife of Nahor), and Iscah, which is another name for Sarah, the wife of Abraham. Thus, Abraham and Nahor both married their nieces – but they were half-nieces, actually – from Terah’s second wife.
Terah’s
second wife carries a special “gene,” apparently, that Abraham lacks, but that
Sarah and Lot share, whence it passes through Ammon and
Perhaps it was because of this quality that Sarah possessed, but Abraham lacked, that he kept his distance from her. And partly because he lacked this quality, Abraham in the course of his journey with Sarah asks her to pose as his sister. This was, on the one hand, Abraham’s means of protecting himself in the face of a threat, and on the other hand, a subconscious assumption on his part that there might be another wife for him who would give him descendants. When God commanded Abraham to create a Jewish nation, Abraham was completely incredulous that this was to be realized through Sarah.
So long as
Abraham still perceives Sarah as his sister, she cannot bear him a son, and the
blame for Sarah’s failure to conceive and bear a child lies only with Abraham.
In
[14] Abimelech took sheep and oxen, and male and female slaves, and gave them to Abraham ◊ The considerable value of these gifts underscores Abimelech’s respect for Sarah, which within the social system of those times was an indicator of Sarah’s total vindication.
[16] And to Sarah he said, “… This will serve you as vindication before all who are with you, and you are cleared before everyone” ◊ Sarah is “vindicated before all” not only in the sense that she has received the recognition of Abimelech, but also because Abraham now finally understands her importance to him as a wife. Previously, Sarah struggled constantly just to maintain her rightful position. In her attempt to establish a family, she gave Hagar to Abraham, quarreled with Abraham, and then drove Hagar away. But now that she has finally been vindicated and her status was acknowledged, the family can progress to the next stage of its development. This highly essential advancement in Abraham’s relationship with Sarah came about as a result of the incident with Abimelech.
Moreover,
Abraham for yet a third time (as previously in Charan and in
[17] Abraham then prayed to God, and God healed Abimelech and his wife and his slave girls, so that they bore children ◊ The community that raised a hand to Abraham was made barren, and were healed of that affliction only after Abraham prayed on their behalf.
א וַֽי֛י פָּקַ֥ד אֶת־שָׂרָ֖ה כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֣ר אָמָ֑ר וַיַּ֧עַשׂ י֛י לְשָׂרָ֖ה כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֥ר דִּבֵּֽר׃ ב וַתַּהַר֩ וַתֵּ֨לֶד שָׂרָ֧ה לְאַבְרָהָ֛ם בֵּ֖ן לִזְקֻנָ֑יו לַמּוֹעֵ֕ד אֲשֶׁר־דִּבֶּ֥ר אֹת֖וֹ אֱלֹהִֽים׃ ג וַיִּקְרָ֨א אַבְרָהָ֜ם אֶֽת־שֶׁם־בְּנ֧וֹ הַנּֽוֹלַד־ל֛וֹ אֲשֶׁר־יָֽלְדָה־לּ֥וֹ שָׂרָ֖ה יִצְחָֽק׃ ד וַיָּ֤מָל אַבְרָהָם֙ אֶת־יִצְחָ֣ק בְּנ֔וֹ בֶּן־שְׁמֹנַ֖ת יָמִ֑ים כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֛ר צִוָּ֥ה אֹת֖וֹ אֱלֹהִֽים׃ ה וְאַבְרָהָ֖ם בֶּן־מְאַ֣ת שָׁנָ֑ה בְּהִוָּ֣לֶד ל֔וֹ אֵ֖ת יִצְחָ֥ק בְּנֽוֹ׃
[1] The Lord took note of Sarah as He had promised, and the Lord did for Sarah as He had spoken.
[2] Sarah conceived and bore a son to Abraham in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken.
[3] Abraham gave his newborn son, whom Sarah had borne him, the name of Isaac.
[4] And when his son Isaac was eight days old, Abraham circumcised him, as God had commanded him.
[5] Now Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him.
[1] The Lord took note of Sarah as He had promised, and the Lord did for Sarah as He had spoken. [2] Sarah conceived and bore a son ◊ God’s two actions, “took note” and “did” correspond to Sarah’s two events, “conceived” and “bore a son.” Here we see two levels of change in Sarah – with respect to Abraham, and with respect to their child.
[4] And when his son Isaac was eight days old, Abraham circumcised him, as God had commanded him ◊ Isaac is the first child ever circumcised at the appointed time, on the eighth day following birth. Because Isaac is already from birth the beneficiary of God’s Covenant, he is to some extent superior to even his father Abraham..
While this is a major advantage, it is also creates a problem. When a self-made man who has endured an arduous personal journey achieves a Covenant with God through his own efforts exclusively, that is for him a major accomplishment. But when a person is born into the Covenant, there is no achievement to speak of. It is therefore always challenging for “the righteous, the son of the righteous” even merely to hold on to his past achievements, not to mention further augmenting them with new ones.
Isaac solves this problem by faceting – cutting and shaping – the attribute of gevurah. As we shall see below, this process of faceting is closely associated with laughter and in particular with the name “Isaac” which means, “he will laugh.”
ו וַתֹּ֣אמֶר שָׂרָ֔ה צְחֹ֕ק עָ֥שָׂה לִ֖י אֱלֹהִ֑ים כָּל־הַשֹּׁמֵ֖עַ יִֽצְחַק־לִֽי׃ ז וַתֹּ֗אמֶר מִ֤י מִלֵּל֙ לְאַבְרָהָ֔ם הֵינִ֥יקָה בָנִ֖ים שָׂרָ֑ה כִּֽי־יָלַ֥דְתִּי בֵ֖ן לִזְקֻנָֽיו׃ ח וַיִּגְדַּ֥ל הַיֶּ֖לֶד וַיִּגָּמַ֑ל וַיַּ֤עַשׂ אַבְרָהָם֙ מִשְׁתֶּ֣ה גָד֔וֹל בְּי֖וֹם הִגָּמֵ֥ל אֶת־יִצְחָֽק׃
[6] Sarah said, “God has brought me laughter; everyone who hears will laugh with me.”
[7] And she added, “Who would have said to Abraham
That Sarah would suckle children!
Yet I have borne a son in his old age.”
[8] The child grew up and was weaned, and Abraham held a great feast on the day that Isaac was weaned.
[6] God has brought me laughter; everyone who hears will laugh with me ◊ Anyone hearing what has happened to Sarah will laugh for joy, upon realizing that miraculous interventions do occur in our lives.
At this stage Sarah is no longer ashamed of laughing, for she now understands that even before, there was nothing improper about her laughter.
Sarah represents the attribute of gevurah within Abraham; a miracle is therefore for her an occasion for laughter. Her individual advancement is that she now believes in miracles – that is, she has learned to laugh.
Isaac too is associated with laughter. His most important task is the preservation of tradition (which is likewise the attribute of gevurah). Thus, he teaches us to laugh at ourselves, at our own excessive correctness, and even at our customs and traditions. Such laughter overcomes the “excessive attribute of gevurah.”
Yes, we must laugh at our own solemn religious beliefs, because all our ideas about the universe are correct only to a point; in the strict sense they cannot be absolutely true. Even in the field of Torah our perception is always imprecise, and always involves some minor transgressions, at least. No idea or belief should ever be treated with fanatical seriousness. If you cannot laugh at your ideas and beliefs, your own dogmatic pedantry can easily be your undoing.
ט וַתֵּ֨רֶא שָׂרָ֜ה אֶֽת־בֶּן־הָגָ֧ר הַמִּצְרִ֛ית אֲשֶׁר־יָֽלְדָ֥ה לְאַבְרָהָ֖ם מְצַחֵֽק׃ י וַתֹּ֨אמֶר֙ לְאַבְרָהָ֔ם גָּרֵ֛שׁ הָֽאָמָ֥ה הַזֹּ֖את וְאֶת־בְּנָ֑הּ כִּ֣י לֹ֤א יִירַשׁ֙ בֶּן־הָֽאָמָ֣ה הַזֹּ֔את עִם־בְּנִ֖י עִם־יִצְחָֽק׃
[9] Sarah saw the son whom Hagar the Egyptian had borne to Abraham playing.
[10] She said to Abraham, “Cast out that slave-woman and her son, for the son of that slave shall not share in the inheritance with my son Isaac.”
And yet, when it comes to laughter, things are not quite that simple. Abraham’s laughter, Sarah’s laughter, and God’s laughter (“God has brought me laughter”) are all constructive. But when it comes to Ishmael, his laugh is deemed so destructive that Ishmael is driven out of the house because of it. Here is where we must begin to distinguish between proper and improper laughter.
As we have noted, to laugh means to overcome the attribute of gevurah, to go beyond the limits of the law, beyond the norm and the boundaries of correctness. (The Hebrew word tzechok, laughter, can be interpreted as tzei chok – “go beyond the law.”) This means a situation where a person sees events unfolding in a manner completely unexpected and contrary to reason, but he sees in this “not quite right” a higher level of harmony and beauty, a greater meaning and spirituality than if everything had happened in the ordinary way. The joy of triumph over the usual order of things is expressed through laughter.
But at the same time, going beyond the limits of the norm and of correctness is problematic. You can rise above the norm, but you might also fall below it. It is critical that we learn to distinguish the laughter of a righteous man rising above the law from the laughter of a villain falling below the law.
Proper laughter arises from one’s ability to see that harmony of the world that stands above simple logic. Those who know how to laugh at themselves – Abraham, Sarah and Isaac – can laugh at the world, and their laughter is constructive. (Note in particular that in “Jewish jokes” it is the Jews who are laughing at themselves. This is essential for Jewish survival.) An improper laugh is a mocking laugh that seeks to destroy someone or something. It is the laughter of people who are not able to laugh at themselves. Such is Ishmael’s laugh.
That laughter is destructive for him and also for those in his company. Ishmael must therefore be expelled.
[9] Playing ◊ The more literal translation would be “mocking.” Ishmael’s derisive action is indicated by the verb metzachek in the present tense, as we shall now explain.
Through Isaac the world learns to distinguish between proper and improper laughter, because Isaac is associated not only with laughter in general, but with future-oriented laughter specifically. The name “Isaac” means “he will laugh,” with the future tense indicating hope for the future, as if to say: “Laugh we will! Don’t be discouraged, everything will turn out fine.”
Mocking laughter, on the other hand, is all in the present tense, because its essence is ridiculing unrealized hopes. Since the present is always imperfect, hope for the future is the source of everything good. The destruction of that hope is therefore the source of evil.
The Midrash notes that the verb metzachek, to “jeer” or “revel boisterously,” has a connotation of adultery (39:17), of idolatry (Ex. 32:60), and of murder (II Sam. 2:14). Thus, this word serves as an indicator of the kinds of dangers that emanated from Ishmael, and explains why Sarah decided to deal with him so harshly.
[10] Cast out that slave-woman and her son ◊ Sarah attributes Ishmael’s behavior, his ridiculing Isaac, to his being “the son of a maidservant.” A penchant for mocking others is one of the features of a slave mentality.
Cast out … her son ◊ Ishmael (Islam), as a lunar civilization, lives largely in an illusory world. The only way to correct Ishmael’s laughter that mocks Isaac is to expel him from his family, giving him the opportunity to face reality independently, without the presence of Isaac.
Sarah therefore wishes to expel Ishmael, for this was the only way to rehabilitate him, and to protect Isaac from his influence.
Ishmael could not remain in Abraham’s family, but this was not a foregone conclusion from the outset. The birth of Isaac did not per se require the expulsion of Ishmael.
Had Ishmael been able to comprehend his own status – which was not the highest, but also far from the lowest – he would have understood his intermediate position within the family hierarchy and correctly structured his behavior. In that case, the story would then have been quite different. Hagar, too, is an example of this. When she acknowledged her place in the family and her status as maidservant of Sarah, then besides continuing to live in the house of Abraham, she also received a unique Divine blessing. But as soon as Hagar ceased to acknowledge Sarah as her mistress, she was immediately expelled.
And so it is with Ishmael. By acknowledging Isaac’s superiority, he can have a normal life. But if he cannot do so, he must be expelled from the family. In fact, Ishmael is banished because he is psychologically incapable of occupying a place where he will be constructive, and consequently he becomes a destructive force.
Destructiveness, in essence, means nothing more than the “inability to occupy one’s proper place.” Such a place does not necessarily have to be the boss’s chair – not every person can and should lead. If an unworthy individual seeks to occupy a leading position, that attempt will end in failure, and will also prevent him from occupying even the place that is right for him.
Your true place in life is the place where you bring positive development to the world. You will derive pleasure from living in that place, and others will treat you with respect as well, because you are changing the world for the better.
In this situation Ishmael could not receive his share of Abraham’s legacy – not because the others in his circle did not allow it, but because of his own inability to realize his true mission. Sarah does not wish to deprive Ishmael of his share, but she feels that since Ishmael is unable to inherit his share while living together with Isaac, he must be expelled.
This conflict between Ishmael and Isaac arose because Ishmael, who was born first, is now being displaced by Isaac, thus depriving Ishmael of his status as Abraham’s heir. Had Ishmael been younger than Isaac, there would have been no conflict. What, then, is the meaning of Ishmael’s “premature” birth? What is the spiritual justification for this conflict?
On the one hand, Ishmael became the firstborn as the result of Sarah’s mistake. Having lost hope of giving birth to a son of her own, she gave her maidservant Hagar to Abraham to bear him a son. On the other hand, however, Abraham acquired some highly essential experience in the process of expelling Ishmael; namely, Abraham now understood that God’s chosen people could not be created from origins in Egyptian civilization.
Abraham had to abandon the Egyptian scenario of his own volition, for a person can completely reject a certain path only by personally feeling and understanding its unsuitability. It was, in a sense, “a mistake that had to be made.” Or, to use Kabbalistic terminology: there was a kelippah, an “unclean shell,” associated with the birth and upbringing of Ishmael, from which Abraham needed to be liberated in order for Isaac to be born.
Likewise, it was necessary psychologically for Sarah to follow the path of error when she gave Hagar to Abraham, for only in this way could she overcome her excess gevurah.
There are mistakes in life that we must make, because those mistakes teach us important lessons. Although the historical price that we pay for those mistakes can be quite steep, we cannot avoid making them.
יא וַיֵּ֧רַע הַדָּבָ֛ר מְאֹ֖ד בְּעֵינֵ֣י אַבְרָהָ֑ם עַ֖ל אוֹדֹ֥ת בְּנֽוֹ׃ יב וַיֹּ֨אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֜ים אֶל־אַבְרָהָ֗ם אַל־יֵרַ֤ע בְּעֵינֶ֨יךָ֙ עַל־הַנַּ֣עַר וְעַל־אֲמָתֶ֔ךָ כֹּל֩ אֲשֶׁ֨ר תֹּאמַ֥ר אֵלֶ֛יךָ שָׂרָ֖ה שְׁמַ֣ע בְּקֹלָ֑הּ כִּ֣י בְיִצְחָ֔ק יִקָּרֵ֥א לְךָ֖ זָֽרַע׃ יג וְגַ֥ם אֶת־בֶּן־הָֽאָמָ֖ה לְג֣וֹי אֲשִׂימֶ֑נּוּ כִּ֥י זַרְעֲךָ֖ הֽוּא׃
[11] The matter distressed Abraham greatly, for it concerned a son of his.
[12] But God said to Abraham, “Do not be distressed over the boy or your slave; whatever Sarah tells you, do as she says, for it is through Isaac that offspring shall be continued for you.
[13] As for the son of the slave-woman, I will make a nation of him, too, for he is your seed.”
[12] Whatever Sarah tells you, do as she says, for it is through Isaac that offspring shall be continued for you ◊ God not only supports Sarah’s position on this issue, but also commands Abraham to obey her completely. An enormous change in the hierarchy of Abraham’s family is about to occur, because the first stage – Abraham’s own advancement – has already taken place. At the second stage of Abraham’s family life, the important thing is for him to build his relationship with Isaac, and on that issue Sarah’s opinion is the most decisive.
It is through Isaac that offspring shall be continued for you ◊ Sarah insists on expelling Ishmael, because otherwise they cannot properly raise Isaac. Given that Isaac and the survival of the Jewish people are at issue, all other considerations are secondary.
Sarah’s role is paramount in the family, for her position corrects the errors in Abraham’s worldview. As the father of a multitude of nations (17:3), Abraham strives for universality and cosmopolitanism. He loves Ishmael because Ishmael too is his son. But Sarah redirects Abraham from these more general considerations to the specific task at hand, creating the Jewish nation. Sarah is the force that keeps Abraham focused on the primary objective, putting everything else aside, at least for now.
[13] As for the son of the slave-woman, I will make a nation of him, too, for he is your seed ◊ Although God confirms Ishmael’s significant role in history, that role can be realized only after Isaac’s potential is realized. (In particular, we see this in the fact that the Arabs – the descendants of Ishmael – forgot Abraham’s monotheism until Muhammad brought them back to it, relying as he did on the Jewish, not the Arab, tradition.) Isaac’s education must therefore be made the priority.
יד וַיַּשְׁכֵּ֣ם אַבְרָהָ֣ם ׀ בַּבֹּ֡קֶר וַיִּֽקַּֽח־לֶחֶם֩ וְחֵ֨מַת מַ֜יִם וַיִּתֵּ֣ן אֶל־הָ֠גָר שָׂ֧ם עַל־שִׁכְמָ֛הּ וְאֶת־הַיֶּ֖לֶד וַֽיְשַׁלְּחֶ֑הָ וַתֵּ֣לֶךְ וַתֵּ֔תַע בְּמִדְבַּ֖ר בְּאֵ֥ר שָֽׁבַע׃ טו וַיִּכְל֥וּ הַמַּ֖יִם מִן־הַחֵ֑מֶת וַתַּשְׁלֵ֣ךְ אֶת־הַיֶּ֔לֶד תַּ֖חַת אַחַ֥ד הַשִּׂיחִֽם׃ טז וַתֵּלֶךְ֩ וַתֵּ֨שֶׁב לָ֜הּ מִנֶּ֗גֶד הַרְחֵק֙ כִּמְטַֽחֲוֵ֣י קֶ֔שֶׁת כִּ֣י אָֽמְרָ֔ה אַל־אֶרְאֶ֖ה בְּמ֣וֹת הַיָּ֑לֶד וַתֵּ֣שֶׁב מִנֶּ֔גֶד וַתִּשָּׂ֥א אֶת־קֹלָ֖הּ וַתֵּֽבְךְּ׃ יז וַיִּשְׁמַ֣ע אֱלֹהִים֮ אֶת־ק֣וֹל הַנַּעַר֒ וַיִּקְרָא֩ מַלְאַ֨ךְ אֱלֹהִ֤ים ׀ אֶל־הָגָר֙ מִן־הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם וַיֹּ֥אמֶר לָ֖הּ מַה־לָּ֣ךְ הָגָ֑ר אַל־תִּ֣ירְאִ֔י כִּֽי־שָׁמַ֧ע אֱלֹהִ֛ים אֶל־ק֥וֹל הַנַּ֖עַר בַּֽאֲשֶׁ֥ר הוּא־שָֽׁם׃ יח ק֚וּמִי שְׂאִ֣י אֶת־הַנַּ֔עַר וְהַֽחֲזִ֥יקִי אֶת־יָדֵ֖ךְ בּ֑וֹ כִּֽי־לְג֥וֹי גָּד֖וֹל אֲשִׂימֶֽנּוּ׃ יט וַיִּפְקַ֤ח אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶת־עֵינֶ֔יהָ וַתֵּ֖רֶא בְּאֵ֣ר מָ֑יִם וַתֵּ֜לֶךְ וַתְּמַלֵּ֤א אֶת־הַחֵ֨מֶת֙ מַ֔יִם וַתַּ֖שְׁקְ אֶת־הַנָּֽעַר׃ כ וַיְהִ֧י אֱלֹהִ֛ים אֶת־הַנַּ֖עַר וַיִּגְדָּ֑ל וַיֵּ֨שֶׁב֙ בַּמִּדְבָּ֔ר וַיְהִ֖י רֹבֶ֥ה קַשָּֽׁת׃ כא וַיֵּ֖שֶׁב בְּמִדְבַּ֣ר פָּארָ֑ן וַתִּֽקַּֽח־ל֥וֹ אִמּ֛וֹ אִשָּׁ֖ה מֵאֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרָֽיִם׃
[14] Early next morning Abraham took some bread and a skin of water, and gave them to Hagar. He placed them over her shoulder, together with the child, and sent her away. And she wandered about in the wilderness of Beer-sheba.
[15] When the water was gone from the skin, she left the child under one of the bushes,
[16] and went and sat down at a distance, a bowshot away; for she thought, “Let me not look on as the child dies.” And sitting thus afar, she burst into tears.
[17] God heard the cry of the boy, and an angel of God called to Hagar from heaven and said to her, “What troubles you, Hagar? Fear not, for God has heeded the cry of the boy where he is.
[18] Come, lift up the boy and hold him by the hand, for I will make a great nation of him.”
[19] Then God opened her eyes and she saw a well of water. She went and filled the skin with water, and let the boy drink.
[20] God was with the boy and he grew up; he dwelt in the wilderness and became a bowman.
[21] He lived in the wilderness of Paran; and his
mother got a wife for him from the
[14] In the wilderness
of Beer-sheba ◊ After solving his problems with Abimelech, Abraham
apparently left Gerar and moved to the
And she wandered about ◊ She was wandering and lost, not only physically, but also spiritually and psychologically.
And she wandered about in the wilderness of Beer-sheba ◊ After leaving Abraham’s house, Hagar decided to go south, to return to
[15] When the water was gone from the skin, she left the child under one of the bushes ◊ Sensing the loss of the life-giving water she had carried from Abraham’s house, Hagar despaired of any solution and abandoned the child.
[16] And sitting thus afar, she burst into tears.. ... [17] God heard the cry of the boy ◊ God heard the boy’s cry, not Hagar’s cry. Hagar cannot help Ishmael, but he can help himself. Ishmael was banished because of his own bad behavior, but when he turns to God, the Almighty hears him.
[17] For God has heeded the cry of the boy where he is ◊ The literal translation is, “God has heeded the boy’s voice.” Ishmael “voiced” his admission that he was wrong. The level “where he was” then sufficed for him to be saved.
[19] Then God opened
her eyes and she saw a well of water ◊ Hagar was dying not for lack of a
well. There was in fact a well, but she did not see it – because she was
“wandering” in the desert, moving towards
Fundamentally, Hagar is psychologically dependent. Being torn away from Abraham’s house is for her nothing less than a catastrophe. Ishmael, however, has the opposite character. He can learn to see the world correctly only by being expelled and left alone in the wilderness with his reality. Only when he has no one else to blame for his problems (as he could do in Abraham’s home) does he begin to perceive the actual state of affairs. Thanks to Ishmael’s despair, which forces him to seek help from God, salvation comes also to Hagar. She sees the well, and they both survive.
[20] God was with the boy and he grew up; he dwelt in the wilderness ◊ After settling in the desert, apart from Isaac, Ishmael finds himself and takes his true place in life – and only then does he receive Divine support. In such a setting Ishmael can understand the family hierarchy and acknowledge his subordinate position in relation to Isaac. For someone who has acquired self-knowledge, this is not a problem. Later, at Abraham’s funeral, we will see that Ishmael will be standing next to Isaac, but as a subordinate to him (25:9). In other words, if Ishmael is reined in tightly, there will be no issues with him; otherwise, he begins to lay claim to what is not his, and he destroys the world.
[21] He lived in the
wilderness of Paran; and his mother got a wife for him from the
כב וַֽיְהִי֙ בָּעֵ֣ת הַהִ֔וא וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֲבִימֶ֗לֶךְ וּפִיכֹל֙ שַׂר־צְבָא֔וֹ אֶל־אַבְרָהָ֖ם לֵאמֹ֑ר אֱלֹהִ֣ים עִמְּךָ֔ בְּכֹ֥ל אֲשֶׁר־אַתָּ֖ה עֹשֶֽׂה׃ כג וְעַתָּ֗ה הִשָּׁ֨בְעָה לִּ֤י בֵֽאלֹהִים֙ הֵ֔נָּה אִם־תִּשְׁקֹ֣ר לִ֔י וּלְנִינִ֖י וּלְנֶכְדִּ֑י כַּחֶ֜סֶד אֲשֶׁר־עָשִׂ֤יתִי עִמְּךָ֙ תַּֽעֲשֶׂ֣ה עִמָּדִ֔י וְעִם־הָאָ֖רֶץ אֲשֶׁר־גַּ֥רְתָּה בָּֽהּ׃
[22] At that time Abimelech and Phicol, chief of his troops, said to Abraham, “God is with you in everything that you do.
[23] Therefore swear to me here by God that you will not deal falsely with me or with my kith and kin, but will deal with me and with the land in which you have sojourned as loyally as I have dealt with you”.”
[22] At that time Abimelech and Phicol, chief of his troops, said to Abraham, “God is with you in everything that you do” ◊ Abraham settled in Beersheba, on the edge of the desert – within the boundaries of Abimelech’s dominion, but far removed from the capital. He now receives recognition as a “righteous man living apart.” Abimelech notices Abraham’s extraordinary success and recognizes that the reason for this success is God’s support. That is, Abimelech recognizes Abraham as a spiritual authority. Therefore, Abimelech, accompanied by his military leader Phicol, pays Abraham a state visit as a sign of respect.
[23] Therefore swear to me here by God that you will not deal falsely with me or with my kith and kin ◊ Because Abimelech perceives Abraham as a strategic threat, he wants to make an alliance with him that will extend also to his descendants.
As loyally as I have dealt with you ◊ Abimelech exaggerates his own merits.
You … will deal with me and with the land in which you have sojourned as loyally ◊ While at the same time, he refers to Abraham using the verb gar, “to live as a stranger, without rights.” Abraham, however, ignores these inconsistencies and the fact that God had promised to give him the entire land, and agrees to conclude the alliance.
Because Abraham had no right to promise any part of the country to Abimelech, the Midrash views this story as a sin on Abraham’s part, and believes that this was one of the reasons behind the Akedah (the Sacrifice of Isaac). However, the intent here is not to draw a connection between these events in terms of sin and punishment; rather it is a matter of shortcomings and their correction.
Abimelech, a king and politician, sees the situation more clearly than Abraham does. Because he sees Abraham’s immense potential, and understands that in the future his descendants will rule over the land, Abimelech wants to receive guarantees from Abraham concerning their children and grandchildren. For Abraham, however, this aspect is less significant, because he has not yet himself created a nation. It is more important to him to be a teacher to the people and to disseminate his views. Although he knows that his descendants will become a nation, he does not yet feel it deeply enough. Only the Akedah that still lies just ahead will force Abraham to modify his approach.
Abraham accepts Abimelech’s offer to grant him the status of a respected religious leader within his political territory. (“Abraham planted a tamarisk at Beer-sheba, and invoked there the name of the Lord, the Everlasting God” [verse 33].) The Philistines of that period were noted for their accomplishments in maritime trade and economic and technological development. (Later, in the Book of Samuel, we learn that the Philistines already had iron, while the Israelites were still using weapons of bronze.) Abraham therefore sees in his alliance with the Philistine state an opportunity to influence the world.
Abraham
seems to prefer life under Abimelech over his troublesome military-political
independence in
If we distill from Abraham’s teachings the pure “Abrahamic” line – universal love, chesed, grace, cosmopolitanism, universalism, rejection of political aspirations, correction without coercion, and striving for an alliance with Egypt (the leading civilization of the day) – that is, if we separate Abraham from Isaac and Jacob, we get something that is very far from Judaism.
Likewise, if we distill from Isaac the pure “Isaacian” line – gevurah, self-isolation, severity, readiness for self-sacrifice, acceptance of the world as it is with no desire to “improve” it, and strict adherence to the received heritage – we will not be true to Judaism also.
It is precisely the synthesis of all three Patriarchs – Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob – that produced Judaism as it is known and practiced.
כד וַיֹּ֨אמֶר֙ אַבְרָהָ֔ם אָֽנֹכִ֖י אִשָּׁבֵֽעַ׃ כה וְהוֹכִ֥חַ אַבְרָהָ֖ם אֶת־אֲבִימֶ֑לֶךְ עַל־אֹדוֹת֙ בְּאֵ֣ר הַמַּ֔יִם אֲשֶׁ֥ר גָּֽזְל֖וּ עַבְדֵ֥י אֲבִימֶֽלֶךְ׃ כו וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֲבִימֶ֔לֶךְ לֹ֣א יָדַ֔עְתִּי מִ֥י עָשָׂ֖ה אֶת־הַדָּבָ֣ר הַזֶּ֑ה וְגַם־אַתָּ֞ה לֹֽא־הִגַּ֣דְתָּ לִּ֗י וְגַ֧ם אָֽנֹכִ֛י לֹ֥א שָׁמַ֖עְתִּי בִּלְתִּ֥י הַיּֽוֹם׃ כז וַיִּקַּ֤ח אַבְרָהָם֙ צֹ֣אן וּבָקָ֔ר וַיִּתֵּ֖ן לַֽאֲבִימֶ֑לֶךְ וַיִּכְרְת֥וּ שְׁנֵיהֶ֖ם בְּרִֽית׃ כח וַיַּצֵּ֣ב אַבְרָהָ֗ם אֶת־שֶׁ֛בַע כִּבְשֹׂ֥ת הַצֹּ֖אן לְבַדְּהֶֽן׃
[24] And Abraham said, “I swear it.”
[25] Then Abraham reproached Abimelech for the well of water which the servants of Abimelech had seized.
[26] But Abimelech said, “I do not know who did this; you did not tell me, nor have I heard of it until today.”
[27] Abraham took sheep and oxen and gave them to Abimelech, and the two of them made a pact.
[28] Abraham then set seven ewes of the flock by themselves,
[25] Then Abraham reproached Abimelech ◊ Even after concluding the alliance, Abraham cannot fail to notice that there are still unresolved issues between himself and Abimelech.
For the well of water which the servants of Abimelech had seized: Only after the fact does the discrepancy come to light between Abimelech’s claim of “dealing loyally” with Abraham, and Abimelech’s slaves having seized Abraham’s well.
[26] But Abimelech said, “I do not know who did this; you did not tell me, nor have I heard of it until today” ◊ Rather than responding to the issue itself, Abimelech simply denies having any knowledge of the whole affair. But he promises to make good on everything… And all Abraham can do is to rely on that promise.
This is yet
another lesson for Abraham – to not demonstrate infinite chesed, but instead to demand, at very least, that which belongs to him by right. He
therefore now undertakes at least to protect his well in
כט וַיֹּ֥אמֶר אֲבִימֶ֖לֶךְ אֶל־אַבְרָהָ֑ם מָ֣ה הֵ֗נָּה שֶׁ֤בַע כְּבָשֹׂת֙ הָאֵ֔לֶּה אֲשֶׁ֥ר הִצַּ֖בְתָּ לְבַדָּֽנָה׃ ל וַיֹּ֕אמֶר כִּ֚י אֶת־שֶׁ֣בַע כְּבָשֹׂ֔ת תִּקַּ֖ח מִיָּדִ֑י בַּֽעֲבוּר֙ תִּֽהְיֶה־לִּ֣י לְעֵדָ֔ה כִּ֥י חָפַ֖רְתִּי אֶת־הַבְּאֵ֥ר הַזֹּֽאת׃ לא עַל־כֵּ֗ן קָרָ֛א לַמָּק֥וֹם הַה֖וּא בְּאֵ֣ר שָׁ֑בַע כִּ֛י שָׁ֥ם נִשְׁבְּע֖וּ שְׁנֵיהֶֽם׃ לב וַיִּכְרְת֥וּ בְרִ֖ית בִּבְאֵ֣ר שָׁ֑בַע וַיָּ֣קָם אֲבִימֶ֗לֶךְ וּפִיכֹל֙ שַׂר־צְבָא֔וֹ וַיָּשֻׁ֖בוּ אֶל־אֶ֥רֶץ פְּלִשְׁתִּֽים׃ לג וַיִּטַּ֥ע אֶ֖שֶׁל בִּבְאֵ֣ר שָׁ֑בַע וַיִּ֨קְרָא־שָׁ֔ם בְּשֵׁ֥ם י֖י אֵ֥ל עוֹלָֽם׃ לד וַיָּ֧גָר אַבְרָהָ֛ם בְּאֶ֥רֶץ פְּלִשְׁתִּ֖ים יָמִ֥ים רַבִּֽים׃
[29] and Abimelech said to Abraham, “What mean these seven ewes which you have set apart?”
[30] He replied, “You are to accept these seven ewes from me as proof that I dug this well.”
[31] Hence that place was called Beer-sheba, for there the two of them swore an oath.
[32] When they had concluded the pact at Beer-sheba, Abimelech and Phicol, chief of his troops, departed and returned to the land of the Philistines.
[33] [Abraham] planted a tamarisk at Beer-sheba, and invoked there the name of the Lord, the Everlasting God.
[34] And Abraham resided in the land of the Philistines a long time.
[30] “You are to
accept these seven … [31] Hence that place
was called Beer-sheba, for there the two of them swore an oath ◊ The word sheva means “seven” and
also “oath.” The name
[33] He planted a tamarisk at Beer-sheba, and invoked there the name of the Lord, the Everlasting God ◊ Thus, the alliance between the political authority and the spiritual leader is now concluded, and Abraham has complete freedom to disseminate his ideas.
[34] And Abraham resided in the land of the Philistines a long time ◊ That is, he felt no desire to move from there to any other place. Abraham was quite satisfied with his status of spiritual leader while living in a remote area of the Philistine territory, under the rule of Abimelech.
After
finally reaching the apex of his personal development, Abraham now needs to build
his connection with Isaac. This connection is important not only for Abraham,
but also for Isaac himself, and for this reason it must wait for Isaac to grow
up. Abraham lives all this time in
The number seven is associated with the seven days of Creation, and always indicates the seven middot – the seven lower sefirot. In this case, these seven sefirot are born from the “well of the seven” –their source, according to the scheme of the sefirot, is the attribute of binah (understanding). Binah is a structure of rigidity and logic, but it is a “hidden” sefirah that found its position on the sefirot tree even before the Seven Days of Creation.
In Jewish
tradition, what happened on
The story of Akedat Yitzchak is psychologically a very difficult one for us. Many see its meaning in glorifying the greatness of Abraham: God told him to sacrifice his son, and he proceeded to carry out the order, showing no mercy for his son. Such an interpretation cannot be called “wrong,” but it is far from sufficient. It emphasizes Abraham’s obedience, yet obedience is not at all his characteristic quality, and besides, this is not the main point of the story of Akedah.
Others see the meaning of the Akedah to be the lesson that the Almighty does not want human sacrifice. Of course, this is true, but it is again insufficient for understanding the details of this complex story.
Following the approach of Biblical Dynamics, in which the Patriarchs are viewed as personalities who undergo constant dynamic development, the very question of the meaning of this story must be phrased differently: How did Abraham evolve as a person during these events and due to them?
With this approach, the Akedah, “the binding,” is viewed as a process of establishing contact with, and the proper relationship between, chesed-Abraham and gevurah-Isaac.
The Akedah is the last story of this Va-yera’ portion. The portion began with Abraham receiving the news of the future birth of Isaac, and ends (in the Akedah) with Abraham establishing a dialogue with Isaac. Thus, the Va-yera’ portion as a whole is devoted to the transition from “Abraham only” to the system of “Abraham plus his son Isaac,” which makes possible the future creation of the Jewish people.
In Hebrew, the word ben, “son,” is closely related to the verb b‑n‑h, forming the basis for livnot, “to build”. A person’s future, his family line, and his occupation are all built through his son – and he fully becomes what he is meant to be only upon realizing his relationship with his son. Only by building a relationship with Isaac – gevurah – will Abraham be able to complete the purification and creation of the attribute of chesed.
א וַיְהִ֗י אַחַר֙ הַדְּבָרִ֣ים הָאֵ֔לֶּה וְהָ֣אֱלֹהִ֔ים נִסָּ֖ה אֶת־אַבְרָהָ֑ם וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֵלָ֔יו אַבְרָהָ֖ם וַיֹּ֥אמֶר הִנֵּֽנִי׃
[1] Some time afterward, God put Abraham to the test. He said to him, “Abraham,” and he answered, “Here I am.”
[1] Some time afterward ◊ In the Torah text, this phrase that introduces the Akedah is expressed as ahar ha-devarim ha-eleh, “after these events.” The first thing the Torah wants us to know about the Akedah is that it must be understood in the context of, and in connection with, the events that led up to it. Jewish tradition offers two possibilities for understanding this connection.
The first of these interprets the story of the Akedah as a response to the immediately preceding event – the making of an alliance between Abraham and Abimelech. In response to the misplaced benevolence that Abraham bestowed on Abimelech, God judges Abraham, as if to say, “I have given you a son to inherit and possess the land. If you don’t need that land, then give me back your son.”
Davar – whence the plural, devarim – in ahar ha-devarim ha-eleh (“after these events”) can mean “event” or “deed,” but at least as often means “word.”
The second approach therefore interprets the given phrase not as “after these events,” but as “after these utterances” (i.e., of Ishmael). The Torah itself reports not a single dialogue between Ishmael and Isaac, but the Midrash puts into Ishmael’s mouth the following words spoken to Isaac: “You were circumcised at infancy, when others made that choice for you. Whereas I, unlike you, could have refused to be circumcised, but I nevertheless consented. Therefore, my sacrifice, and thus my merit, are both greater than yours.”
Isaac, however, instead of explaining to Ishmael that being circumcised entails no sacrifice to begin with, answers Ishmael hotly: “Well, I, as it happens, would gladly make an even far greater sacrifice than you did. You sacrificed only a single body part. But I, if God should so command me, would gladly offer my entire self as a sacrifice upon the altar!”
Once Isaac had spoken these words (which he, of course, should never have done), God followed through by holding Isaac literally to his pledge.
This story cautions us against an excess of “enthusiastic fanaticism,” and the impropriety of speaking too freely of one’s readiness to die for one’s ideals.
There is, however, a third approach, which makes no attempt to connect the Akedah with any specific event that preceded it. “After these events” can also mean that the Akedah situation developed simply because “Abraham resided in the land of the Philistines a long time” (21:34).
God put Abraham to the test ◊ It is here that the Torah first introduces the concept of a test, or trial. We have already noted earlier that nisayonactually means not “testing,” but rather “experience” – the purpose of a test is to “gain experience.” The trials of the Patriarchs in the Torah are always intended to help them overcome their base inclinations; nisayonis can thus be thought of as the education through the acquisition of experience in the process of solving complex problems that run contrary to the nature of the individual being tested.
Moreover, the word nisayonis also phonetically related to the root naso, “to lift” or “to elevate.” Thus, the phrase can be translated as “God elevated Abraham.” God elevated Abraham by giving him a new dimension of understanding.
God put Abraham to the test ◊ Why does the Torah not mention that God tested Isaac too? After all, Isaac, now already an adult, went to the sacrifice voluntarily and fully aware of what was supposed to happen. Was it not Isaac’s test as well?
The reason is that Abraham, whose essence is chesed, had to go against his nature and against his deep-seated inclinations during these events. He was being asked not to give, but to take away – an incredibly difficult assignment for Abraham, because it threatened to demolish his entire value system.
Within Isaac’s coordinate system – as for the attribute of gevurah which he represents – as difficult as it is to sacrifice oneself, doing so is not an unbearable challenge. It is for him not an ordeal, but only an experience, albeit a highly challenging one. Gevurah is the desire for everything to happen according to the laws of justice. If that attribute senses that it is guilty of any wrongdoing, it wants to bear the punishment for that.
In a sense, then, gevurah has “a penchant for self-flagellation.” Therefore, as Isaac sees it, since he has not lived up to his ideal, sacrificing himself is not unreasonable. It is as though he says, “Since I have been found deficient, I have only myself to blame, and perhaps I do therefore actually deserve to die.” Surely Isaac wants to live, but, above all, he wants justice to be served. If gevurah, which is the attribute of judgment, requires you to die, then you must die.
Since everything is created imperfectly, everyone and everything will always be guilty if measured by an ideal standard. This is one of the key problems of gevurah, which judges the world with standards that are in reality unattainable. A person completely immersed in gevurah may even begin to hate the whole world (and himself too) for its shortcomings. Therefore, it is very important to limit gevurah, which is what the Akedah accomplished.
And he answered, “Here I am” ◊ Abraham’s answer, hineni, means not only “here I am”, but “I am all at attention.” This expression plays a crucial role in the story of Akedah: it is found again in Abraham’s response to Isaac (22:7) and in Abraham’s response to God (22:11). This phrase expresses readiness to answer a question with every ounce of one’s being. If Abraham will not reveal his soul, and will offer any lesser response, creating a connection of any kind between himself and Isaac will be impossible.
ב וַיֹּ֡אמֶר קַח־נָ֠א אֶת־בִּנְךָ֨ אֶת־יְחִֽידְךָ֤ אֲשֶׁר־אָהַ֨בְתָּ֙ אֶת־יִצְחָ֔ק וְלֶ֨ךְ־לְךָ֔ אֶל־אֶ֖רֶץ הַמֹּֽרִיָּ֑ה וְהַֽעֲלֵ֤הוּ שָׁם֙ לְעֹלָ֔ה עַ֚ל אַחַ֣ד הֶֽהָרִ֔ים אֲשֶׁ֖ר אֹמַ֥ר אֵלֶֽיךָ׃
[2] And He said, “Take your son, your favored one, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the heights that I will point out to you.”
[2] Take your son ◊ The Hebrew includes the word na, usually translated as “please” – please take your son. God does not command, but only requests, and Abraham must decide for himself whether to comply. Otherwise it would not be a test.
Your son, your favored one, whom you love, Isaac ◊ The Midrash explains this elaborate enumeration not as God’s monologue, but as a dialogue between Him and Abraham. To the command, “take your son,” Abraham replies, “But I have two sons: Isaac and Ishmael.” God specifies, “Your favored one” – literally, “your one and only.” Abraham responds, “But each one is his mother’s one and only.” God specifies, “Whom you love.” Abraham answers, “But I love both.” Only then God finally specifies unequivocally, “Isaac.”
God does not express immediately what he wants, because Abraham must first continue to advance through graded stages of understanding and recognition that his only heir is Isaac.
We recall that ever since the birth of Isaac there has been an ongoing dispute between Sarah and Abraham over who is Abraham’s true son. God repeatedly points out to Abraham that that son is Isaac; while Ishmael, the son of a maidservant, is “seed” but not a “son.” “Seed” inherits some of the qualities of his father, and may even receive his blessing, but cannot be the successor to his father’s life work.
But now that Abraham has, as it were, already accepted this relationship between his children, the situation is suddenly reversed.
In the course of the Akedah, Abraham changes his attitude towards Isaac as his heir, which evolves from recognition due to pressure from Above to recognition by his own choice. In order for this transition to take place, God must first release Abraham from the decision that he made under pressure regarding Isaac as his heir.
This spiritual mechanism is known in the Kabbalah by the term nesirah, “sawing.” A classic example of sawing is the creation of Eve from Adam. Initially there was the dual Adam, in which both male and female attributes were combined back-to-back. God separated the “edge” (rib) from him and rebuilt it into a woman, after which Adam and Eve, as independent entities, could already be connected independently and by their own choice, “face to face.”
So long as the two are “connected back-to-back,” perforce, by the fact of kinship, they are unable to see each other as distinct personalities. Parents in general are a familiar example of this. Because their child is inseparable from themselves, they cannot fully acknowledge it as a distinct entity. A child cannot reveal himself as a fully-fledged, independent personality in his communication with his parents; this can happen only after the child marries, and has a face-to-face relationship with his spouse. And Adam likewise, in order to be united “face-to-face” with Eve, needed first to break his back-to-back connection with her. This is nesirah, “sawing.”
Abraham, forced to accept Isaac as his heir, was united with the idea of such an inheritance as a “back-to-back” relationship. God forcibly instructed Abraham that no one but Isaac was suitable for this role. Abraham then acknowledged the Divine order, but such a violent communication is incomplete, and for the continuation of the development of a nation it is necessary to unite hesed and gevurah with an absolute connection. For this to happen, that hesed must first be “faceted” and limited, so that it becomes proper hesed. (It is in this that all of Abraham’s prior personal advancement consists.) And this purified hesed must then be united with gevurah.
For the emergence of an absolute connection between hesed and gevurah, Abraham and Isaac must build their connection as between two independent personalities. For that to happen, Abraham must first get past his acceptance of the idea that Isaac is his heir under “pressure from above,” by freely embracing that idea on his own. This is the meaning of the story of Akedat Yitzchak: God puts Abraham in a situation where the question of inheritance, for all its apparent certainty, suddenly becomes incomprehensible and ambiguous.
...וְלֶ֨ךְ־לְךָ֔ אֶל־אֶ֖רֶץ הַמֹּֽרִיָּ֑ה וְהַֽעֲלֵ֤הוּ שָׁם֙ לְעֹלָ֔ה עַ֚ל אַחַ֣ד הֶֽהָרִ֔ים אֲשֶׁ֖ר אֹמַ֥ר אֵלֶֽיךָ׃
[2] … and go to the
[2] And go ◊ The Hebrew is lech lecha, the very same expression with which God addressed Abraham at the very beginning of his journey (12:1). This can hardly be accidental. It means that we have here the continuation of movement previously begun. But we struggle to understand how we can possibly reconcile the words there (12:2), “I will make of you a great nation,” spoken at that original lech lecha, with God’s order here to sacrifice Isaac. These two moments seem incompatible, and this contradiction sets the tone for the entire event.
On one of the heights ◊ There is uncertainty in both of these lech lecha instances. In the initial lech lecha God tells Abraham, “Go forth ... to the land that I will show you” (12:1), and here, “Offer him there … on one of the heights that I will point out to you.” In both cases the destination is left unspecified. This uncertainty is materially connected with the turning points in Abraham’s life to which the two verses refer. Uncertainty is itself an integral component of any task that God commands us to perform, and is also a necessary condition for our own advancement.
God told
Abraham, “Take your son, your favored one, whom you love, Isaac.” Isaac’s
status as Abraham’s only true heir would appear to be fully defined here. Even
earlier, from the very beginning of his arrival in the land, God repeatedly
made it clear to Abraham that no one but Isaac could be his successor – neither
But now, when Abraham has already agreed to all that, the entire situation is turned on its head. God suddenly orders that Isaac be sacrificed, and Abraham again finds himself in a state of utter confusion. But all this is necessary, because the confusion of feelings and situational ambiguity provide the required impetus for further advancement.
To the
The meaning
of many geographical names in the Torah becomes clear only after the fact. For
example, we have seen that when Abimelech comes to Abraham, who lives in
Offer him there as a burnt offering ◊ The expression le-ha’alot olah, “to bring as a burnt offering” is also ambiguous. God’s command to Abraham, translated very literally, means, “take him up there in ascension”. In the end, this ascension was in fact realized – not in the sense of a sacrifice or burnt offering, however, but only in the senses of ascending the mountain and personal advancement. The true meaning of God’s words was revealed only after the fact, after Abraham undertook to act according to his initial (and at that moment quite correct!) understanding of these words as a command to sacrifice Isaac as a burnt offering. Initially, Abraham could not possibly have understood God’s words otherwise, for their true meaning emerged only later, when Abraham was already in the process of carrying out the necessary actions as he initially understood them.
It is
important to note that not only in antiquity (Abraham lived ca. the 20th
century BCE), but even many centuries later, sacrificing one’s children was by
no means a rare event among the nations of the world. Among the ancient
populations of Canaan and
The Torah, however, categorically prohibits any human sacrifice, which is also one of the lessons of the Akedat Yitzchak. Even if “ideally” – that is, from the Divine point of view – a person must be sacrificed, in reality that is totally unacceptable. A man must not become a lamb; rather, he must be replaced by a lamb.
ג וַיַּשְׁכֵּ֨ם אַבְרָהָ֜ם בַּבֹּ֗קֶר וַֽיַּחֲבֹשׁ֙ אֶת־חֲמֹר֔וֹ וַיִּקַּ֞ח אֶת־שְׁנֵ֤י נְעָרָיו֙ אִתּ֔וֹ וְאֵ֖ת יִצְחָ֣ק בְּנ֑וֹ וַיְבַקַּע֙ עֲצֵ֣י עֹלָ֔ה וַיָּ֣קָם וַיֵּ֔לֶךְ אֶל־הַמָּק֖וֹם אֲשֶׁר־אָֽמַר־ל֥וֹ הָֽאֱלֹהִֽים׃
[3] So early next morning, Abraham saddled his ass and took with him two of his servants and his son Isaac. He split the wood for the burnt offering, and he set out for the place of which God had told him.
[3] So early next morning ◊ This is the time of hesed, when God is ready to render additional mercy to the world that has just awakened. Abraham hopes for Divine hesed – and sets off to find out who will be his heir.
And took with him two of his servants and his son Isaac ◊ The Hebrew is ne’arav, “his youths.” Since the Torah specifically indicates that Abraham took with him two “youths,” they cannot be considered mere servants. There is an indication here of something more substantial. The Midrash argues that these two youths were Ishmael and Eliezer, because the matter of who would become Abraham’s rightful heir had now once again been called entirely into question. Note that the term na’ar, “youth,” can also mean a “subordinate,” and is not necessarily related to age. It is therefore possible that “his youths” refers to Eliezer and Ishmael.
And so, we have three people walking along the road with Abraham: Isaac, Ishmael and Eliezer. All three are adherents of monotheism, “sons of the Covenant” (meaning the commandment of circumcision), and all three are Abraham’s disciples and his potential heirs. Isaac is about to be sacrificed. But what will happen beyond that is unclear, with all options equally viable.
Should
Abraham’s heir be his son Isaac, in whom the realization of Abraham’s teachings
will happen through a nation? Or will that heir be Abraham’s disciple Eliezer,
who represents “teachings having no nationalist component”? Or will it perhaps
be Ishmael, in whom there is a nationalist element, except that it is
integrated with
ד בַּיּ֣וֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁ֗י וַיִּשָּׂ֨א אַבְרָהָ֧ם אֶת־עֵינָ֛יו וַיַּ֥רְא אֶת־הַמָּק֖וֹם מֵֽרָחֹֽק׃
[4] On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place from afar.
[4] On the third day ◊ For three days Abraham proceeds with the knowledge that he must sacrifice his son. Abraham is given these three days in order to ponder the situation and to rethink his entire life.
It is difficult for Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac, not because the sacrifice of children was something unthinkable (for as we have already noted, it was then quite common), but because he himself had grappled precisely with that issue all his life. He taught the world chesed – that people must be shown mercy, and surely not be deprived of their lives by our own hands. For Abraham to sacrifice his son was a violation of every one of his teachings and aims.
Abraham was not being asked to carry out God’s order in a frenzy of religious ecstasy, without having time to give it the least thought. Because sacrificing a child is not a decision that anyone can make lightly, when children were sacrificed in ancient cults, their parents were often made to ingest a potion specially designed to induce a trance. But Abraham, on the contrary, had to do nothing but walk for three consecutive days, in order to eliminate any possible trace whatsoever of religious ecstasy. This waiting period forced him to contend with the full depth of the crisis in the matter of his posterity.
Abraham looked up and saw the place from afar ◊ Only after three days of careful deliberation, and after consciously confirming in
his own mind that he was ready to follow God’s command, could Abraham see
When under the pressure of a conflict situation our stress intensifies to a sufficiently high degree, only then do we begin to see also the “place” where the conflict will be resolved.
ה וַיֹּ֨אמֶר אַבְרָהָ֜ם אֶל־נְעָרָ֗יו שְׁבוּ־לָכֶ֥ם פֹּה֙ עִֽם־הַחֲמ֔וֹר וַֽאֲנִ֣י וְהַנַּ֔עַר נֵֽלְכָ֖ה עַד־כֹּ֑ה וְנִֽשְׁתַּחֲוֶ֖ה וְנָשׁ֥וּבָה אֲלֵיכֶֽם׃
[5] Then Abraham said to his servants, “You stay here with the ass. The boy and I will go up there; we will worship and we will return to you.”
[5] Stay here with the ass ◊ Nothing prevented Abraham from proceeding to the mountaintop in the company of all of his companions. But having “seen the place from afar” and now feeling the need to come to a decision, Abraham performs an action of utmost importance: he chooses Isaac and separates him from Ishmael and Eliezer.
The boy and I will go up there ◊ Until now, Isaac had been forced upon Abraham as his heir. But now that God has again made the problem of posterity an open question, Abraham, after giving it his full concentration during three days of travel, is already making his own independent choice.
When Abraham
himself, with no immediate direction from God, singles out Isaac and
understands that he must proceed with him, leaving the others in place, this is
a critical personal advancement for Abraham. Only after making this independent
decision can his dialogue with Isaac begin. The Torah
does not tell us of any earlier conversations between Abraham and Isaac, while
they lived together in
Abraham also instructs Ishmael and Eliezer to “stay here with the ass.” The word hamor, “donkey,” has a common root with homer, “materiality.” (Similarly, the meaning of the well-known concept of “the Messiah riding a white donkey” is that spirituality, which the Messiah symbolizes, is advancing on a foundation of materiality. But, moreover, it is white, that is, purified – materiality that is not something alien to spirituality and interfering with it, but materiality that serves as a basis for spirituality.) Ishmael and Eliezer are equated to an ass not in any “animal” sense, but in the fact that they remain entirely in this purely material world.
The Midrash
tells how Abraham, after “seeing the place from afar,” asked his companions
what they saw on the mountain. Only Isaac answered that he (like Abraham
himself) saw the image of the
With his instruction to sacrifice Isaac, God removed Isaac from the status of Abraham’s posterity, “sawing” the connection between them. And now when Abraham separates Isaac from the others, not under pressure but by his own choice, he connects with Isaac “face to face,” replacing their former “back-to-back” connection. He realizes that he has no option for the sacrifice except Isaac. From that moment, Abraham proceeds with Isaac not by force of circumstances but freely and deliberately – although he still does not know what will happen next.
We will worship and we will return to you ◊ Abraham tells the youths, “we will worship and we will return,” both in the plural – that is, he has hopes for a positive outcome, even if he does not know exactly how that will happen. In any event, Ishmael and Eliezer are no longer his fellow travelers, and he understands that to continue God’s teachings, he and Isaac must be together.
The words “we will worship and we will return to you” also express a non-trivial and essential concept in Judaism concerning the connection between mystical experience and its surrounding reality.
Actually, “we will worship” is expressed in the original Hebrew as nishtachave, “we will bow.” Grammatically this is a very problematic word. It is difficult to understand it as a reflexive verbal form of binyan hishtaf’el, in which the letter shin is auxiliary and not part of the root. (This rare binyan is not among the seven binyanim common in modern Hebrew. Other examples of words in such binyanim: shiñhtuv, “rewriting;” shiñhzur, “renovation;” shiñhpul, “excavation;” shidrug, “leveling”). In this case, the root of the word nishtañhave is chet-vav-hey, recalling the name of Chavah (Eve), “the mother of all living things” (3:20). Thus, nishtañhave, “we shall worship,” means “let us return to the source of all life.”
Note that what is meant is not bowing in the modern sense of the word, but submission by prostrating oneself. This form of greeting was adopted with respect to God and also to flesh-and-blood kings; it expresses self-deprecation and complete self-denial. As it relates to the sefirot, such submission is “dissolution in Divinity;” when a person ceases to be himself and becomes “naught,” thereby achieving unity with Divinity.
Here we see the difference between Jewish mysticism and the mysticism of other nations. Among non-Jewish mystics, the idea is widespread that the goal of man is to merge completely with God, to cease being a separate entity, and to dissolve in Divinity. But the Jewish mystical ideal is different: the feeling of dissolution in Divinity is vitally important, but following that one must come back to himself. The main feature of this process is not even the dissolution, but the return to one’s original self afterwards.
Nonetheless, one must not return empty-handed, but must bring a particle of the mystical experience back to this world.
In saying “we will worship and we will return to you,” Abraham expresses the idea that after worship and total dissolution in the Divine, it is possible to return to earthly life. This is a highly unconventional religious outlook.
Judaism is a religion of life in this world, not a religion of death that is realized in the afterlife. The Torah says: “I have put before you life and death ... choose life” (Deut. 30:19). The Akedah is telling us that death did not happen, and life was renewed.
We find an expression of this same idea later, during the Temple period, when on Yom Kippur the High Priest would enter the Holy of Holies with a rope tied around his leg. The usual explanation is that this rope was a precaution: Since no one but the High Priest is allowed to enter the Holy of Holies, in the event that the High Priest should suddenly die there, the rope could be used to pull him back out. But as this was highly unlikely to happen, the custom has a simpler and more natural explanation.
Rather, the purpose of the rope was to remind the High Priest that he had to exit the Holy of Holies after completing his task there; otherwise he might have been tempted to stay there forever. The Holy of Holies is a place so sublime, and affords such a pure feeling of unity with God, that it is conceivable that the High Priest might not have wanted to return from there at all. But remaining in the Holy of Holies would be highly improper behavior on his part, and he therefore needed to be reminded that he had entered the Holy of Holies only as our agent, to bring out something from there back to our ordinary world.
The rope is for “pulling out” the High Priest, as it were – to restrain him from succumbing to the desire to “remain in Heaven” (that is, to escape death). After the exit of the High Priest from the Holy of Holies, that is, at the end of Yom Kippur, the people would arrange a feast on his behalf – to celebrate that he had yet again returned from that other world safe and sound.
Such is Judaism’s approach to the world. Since in this ordinary world there is no obvious and direct contact with God, to accomplish that it is sometimes necessary to enter the so-called “higher realms,” which means severing to some extent one’s connection with this lower world. But we cannot completely break away from this world; we must return to it eventually. One can enter those “higher realms” only in order to bring something down from there, but not for the sake of the ascent itself.
ו וַיִּקַּ֨ח אַבְרָהָ֜ם אֶת־עֲצֵ֣י הָֽעֹלָ֗ה וַיָּ֨שֶׂם֙ עַל־יִצְחָ֣ק בְּנ֔וֹ וַיִּקַּ֣ח בְּיָד֔וֹ אֶת־הָאֵ֖שׁ וְאֶת־הַֽמַּאֲכֶ֑לֶת וַיֵּֽלְכ֥וּ שְׁנֵיהֶ֖ם יַחְדָּֽו׃
[6] Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and put it on his son Isaac. He himself took the firestone and the knife; and the two walked off together.
[6] And put it on his son Isaac ◊ Here, for the first time, Abraham views Isaac as “his son.”
And the two walked off together ◊ Until now they were far from each other. Initially, Abraham had done everything himself: “Abraham saddled his ass, … he split the wood, … and he set out for the place of which God had told him” – all in the singular. There was still no dialogue between him and Isaac at that stage. Abraham was in a state of confusion. Not knowing who would succeed him, he therefore did everything himself.
But now Abraham approaches Isaac. He transfers the wood to him, and leaves the donkey (as a symbol of materiality) below. “The two walked off together” indicates that now, for the first time, there is true unity between Abraham and Isaac. This has come about because Abraham has now made his choice.
ז וַיֹּ֨אמֶר יִצְחָ֜ק אֶל־אַבְרָהָ֤ם אָבִיו֙ וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אָבִ֔י וַיֹּ֖אמֶר הִנֶּ֣נִּֽי בְנִ֑י...
[7] Then Isaac said to his father Abraham, “Father!” And he answered, “Yes, my son.” …
When Abraham and Isaac come together by choice, when they are joined face to face, a dialogue begins between them. This is the most important moment of the Akedah.
[7] Isaac said to his father Abraham, “Father!” ◊ Isaac is not merely addressing Abraham to get his attention. The Torah would have no need to inform us of that. Rather, it means that Isaac is now aware of Abraham as his father, and is acknowledging that.
Gevurah, the attribute of Isaac, now addresses chesed, the attribute of Abraham, and says that he is aware of chesed as his “father” and its foundation. Gevurah tells chesed that it does not absolutize itself, that it is only secondary, and that it is only a product of chesed. The goal is not to realize justice, nor the attribute of the court and the law, for these do not per se constitute value. On the contrary, the goal is kindness and grace. Justice and the law are only auxiliary (albeit necessary) tools for a more complete realization of chesed.
Isaac recognizes that all his qualities come from Abraham, and he therefore subordinates himself to his father’s aspirations. This correction of gevurah is a most important aspect of the Akeidah story.
Chesed is a complete, semantic attribute with the well-defined goal of bestowing kindness on all, so long as it remains possible and so long as there is no conflict with other counteracting sefirot. In all events, chesed always remains the principal consideration.
The situation with gevurah, however, is different. Gevurah is a compelling desire for equity and correctness. But if gevurah decides that this desire outweighs all other considerations, then the result is universal collapse. To make achieving justice one’s only goal, to the exclusion of all else, is a huge mistake.
Moreover, according to the Kabbalah, evil is born precisely from the absolutization of the attribute of gevurah. Separating gevurah from chesed is a source of evil, because evil takes root in the world as the result of a desire for excessively harsh application of law, judgment, and order. Everything in the world is imperfect, and therefore, when the attribute of judgment is excessively applied, the entire universe will be blamed and found guilty, and cannot continue to exist. Therefore, gevurah must be a subordinate attribute, not an all-compelling one.
And he answered, “Yes, my son” ◊ The Hebrew is, hineni beni, “Here I am, my son.” Seeing that Isaac (gevurah) has realized his subordination, Abraham (chesed) says to him: Hineni, “Here I am.” (It is the second hineni in this story.) Abraham is addressing these words not only to Isaac, but also to God. Abraham acknowledges that Isaac is his son. Until now, only the Torah itself speaks of Isaac as Abraham’s son. Abraham had referred only to Ishmael, but not to Isaac, as “my son.”
Chesed, too, admits that it is not absolute, that it needs gevurah for proper self-actualization. This means establishing contact, a face-to-face connection, when each has come to an understanding that he needs the other, and also feels a desire to engage in dialogue with him. Each of the two ideals alone represents only one side of life; for full realization the two ideals must be united.
...וַיֹּ֗אמֶר הִנֵּ֤ה הָאֵשׁ֙ וְהָ֣עֵצִ֔ים וְאַיֵּ֥ה הַשֶּׂ֖ה לְעֹלָֽה׃ ח וַיֹּ֨אמֶר֙ אַבְרָהָ֔ם אֱלֹהִ֞ים יִרְאֶה־לּ֥וֹ הַשֶּׂ֛ה לְעֹלָ֖ה בְּנִ֑י וַיֵּֽלְכ֥וּ שְׁנֵיהֶ֖ם יַחְדָּֽו׃
[7] … And he said, “Here are the firestone and the wood; but where is the sheep for the burnt offering?”
[8] And Abraham said, “God will see to the sheep for His burnt offering, my son”. And the two of them walked on together.
[7] Where is the sheep for the burnt offering? ◊ Isaac, the attribute of gevurah, strives to ensure that everything is just right. Seeing fire and firewood, he therefore asks where the lamb is, and wants to hear in response how the problem can be corrected.
God will see ◊ Abraham (chesed) tells Isaac (gevurah) that to this question – which is completely legitimate from the point of view of logic – there is no real answer. By saying, “God will see,” Abraham wants to convey to Isaac that gevurah should not demand absolute correctness from the world. In life, the most important things are revealed unexpectedly and illogically, because life is immeasurably more complex than any mere correctness, and does not fit into a formal scheme. Thus, Abraham’s choice of words is intended not to appease Isaac, but to change his worldview.
And the two of them walked on together ◊ Isaac’s gevurah is already less severe. He is ready to accept the world as it is, even if it still seems to him illogical and wrong.
God will see ◊ The Midrash connects the word yir’eh, “will
see,” with yir’ah, “fear” or “awe,” from which the
name of
But besides discernment, Moriah contains the idea of trepidation, yir’ah. It is not the fear of suffering injury, but the desire to comply with one’s assigned task and Divine mission. It is this striving and sense of responsibility that helps to us to achieve the harmonization of chesed and gevurah.
The essence of trepidation is awareness of distance, a sense of distance from God. Here is manifest the connection between “vision” and “trembling.” In order to see, you have to move back some distance. Similarly, trembling also requires remoteness – awareness of one’s finiteness and smallness compared with Divinity’s infinitude. Once you see things in this light, you begin to understand that your attribute is only one of many, and is therefore in itself incomplete. On this basis it is now possible to unite it with other attributes.
Thus, Moriah is both a “mountain of discretion” and a “mountain of trepidation.” Uniting chesed and gevurah is possible only if there is awe in relation to God, and at the same time, only when it happens by the Almighty’s discretion.
The integration of seemingly incompatible attributes is possible only as part of a larger effort to solve the Divine task that God “sees” for us – because only in the course of making this decision do you truly understand that you need your fellow man, and that he complements you just as you complement him. The unification of chesed and gevurah then happens not by diminishing one attribute at the expense of another, but through compromise, and through awareness of the need for both in the face of the Divine task.
And the two of them walked on together ◊ This phrase appears twice here, in close succession. First, Abraham and Isaac walk together in a mostly physical sense – separating themselves from Ishmael and Eliezer, and understanding that only they are the Jewish nation. But now they also “walk on together” spiritually, having come to understand that they complement each other and can only achieve completion through a genuine union.
ט וַיָּבֹ֗אוּ אֶֽל־הַמָּקוֹם֮ אֲשֶׁ֣ר אָֽמַר־ל֣וֹ הָֽאֱלֹהִים֒ וַיִּ֨בֶן שָׁ֤ם אַבְרָהָם֙ אֶת־הַמִּזְבֵּ֔חַ וַֽיַּעֲרֹ֖ךְ אֶת־הָֽעֵצִ֑ים וַֽיַּעֲקֹד֙ אֶת־יִצְחָ֣ק בְּנ֔וֹ וַיָּ֤שֶׂם אֹתוֹ֙ עַל־הַמִּזְבֵּ֔חַ מִמַּ֖עַל לָֽעֵצִֽים׃
[9] They arrived at the place of which God had told him. Abraham built an altar there; he laid out the wood; he bound his son Isaac; he laid him on the altar, on top of the wood.
[9] He bound his son Isaac ◊ Akeidah, “binding,” is what gevurah, the attribute of judgment, requires. Gevurah should be bound, made dependent on and subjected to chesed. It should not be completely eliminated, however. In no way should gevurah ever be destroyed. Isaac must therefore be bound, but not sacrificed.
י וַיִּשְׁלַ֤ח אַבְרָהָם֙ אֶת־יָד֔וֹ וַיִּקַּ֖ח אֶת־הַֽמַּאֲכֶ֑לֶת לִשְׁחֹ֖ט אֶת־בְּנֽוֹ׃ יא וַיִּקְרָ֨א אֵלָ֜יו מַלְאַ֤ךְ יי֙ מִן־הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם וַיֹּ֖אמֶר אַבְרָהָ֣ם ׀ אַבְרָהָ֑ם וַיֹּ֖אמֶר הִנֵּֽנִי׃
[10] And Abraham picked up the knife to slay his son.
[11] Then an angel of the Lord called to him from heaven: “Abraham! Abraham!” And he answered, “Here I am.”
[10] Abraham! Abraham! ◊ With this special form of address at this moment, Abraham receives a new, doubled name. He now has three names: “Abram,” “Abraham,” and “Abraham-Abraham,” which means that he has risen to new heights.
Only seven times in all of Tanach do we find the duplication of a name. But in three of those instances the duplication is merely “mechanical” – the same name appears at the end of one phrase and also at the beginning of the next, thus creating an apparent duplication of the given name. Noah’s name is so repeated: “This is the line of Noah – Noah was a righteous man” (6:9), as is Shem’s (11:10) and Terah’s (11:27).
Each of these instances only “hints” at a double name; there is no true name duplication in these. The Kabbalah views these three cases of “mechanical name doubling” as preparation for the emergence of the true double names that Abraham and then Jacob (46:2), Moses (Exodus 3:4) and Shmuel (I Sam. 3:10) will have. That is, Noah, Shem and Terah are in some sense a preparation for the birth of Abraham, Jacob, Moses, and Samuel.
The doubling of a person’s name indicates unity of nefesh and neshamah. These two terms are both most often translated as “soul,” but they are not identical. The nefesh is the lower, “outer” side of the soul, what a person is today, while neshamah is a person’s inner essence, what he aspires to be and the level he is capable of reaching. Thus, one’s neshamah is his future level, his vector of development. Addressing a person in double suggests equivalence of his nefesh and his neshamah – the person has completed his assigned task, for which he was created. In other words, the doubled name symbolizes potential completely realized.
It should be noted that among the three Patriarchs, only Isaac is never addressed in double. This is because Isaac’s nefesh was completely “annulled” after the events of the Akedah, leaving him with only a neshamah. Isaac in his lifetime thus became, in a certain sense, “a man of the World to Come,” exceeding and transcending, as it were, the level of a doubled name, as achieved by Abraham and Jacob. The doubled name of the other Patriarchs indicates full completion of their assigned tasks. Although they did not achieve perfection, they completely realized the tasks assigned to them by God.
But there is yet another aspect to this. Abraham, Jacob, and Samuel all have a separator between the first and second instances of their doubled names, which in printed Torah texts appears as a simple vertical line, known as pesik or pasek: “Abraham | Abraham…” The effect is that although the two name instances are joined by a conjunctive cantillation mark, which according to standard cantillation rules would normally make them a single continuous unit, the separator renders them more disconnected than connected.
(A clearer example of this principle can be seen in the word ba-esh at Deut. 9:21. The pronunciation of that word would normally have been softened to va‑esh because of the conjunctive accent on the preceding word, oto, and because oto ends with a vowel. But in this case the pesik before ba-esh negates the conjunctive, softening effect of that preceding accent. Such examples of this effect in Tanach are in fact quite rare.)
Only in the case of Moses’ doubled name no such separator appears, with the effect that the two consecutive instances of his name, following their conjunctive cantillation symbols, are truly one continuous and unbroken unit.
Moses, as it were, “united himself with his own goal.” He so fully realized the unity of his nefesh and neshamah that any question of their separation could never even arise. But as concerns Abraham, Jacob, and Samuel on the other hand, although they too achieved unity, their nefesh and neshamah nonetheless remained two distinct components with actual distance between them.
“Here I am” ◊ Just as he did at the very beginning of the Akeidah, when God first called upon him to sacrifice Isaac, here again Abraham answers, hineni, “Here I am,” but this time to Isaac himself.
This is the third hineni of the Akeidah. In order to arrive at his new level of communion with God, Abraham, when addressed by Isaac near the middle of the narrative, again had to answer, “here I am.” The lesson is that one can advance in fellowship with God only by also advancing in his fellowship with fellow human beings.
When God addresses a person by name, He is addressing Himself to that person’s true essence – to his life’s goal. (We have noted previously that in Hebrew one’s name expresses his goal in life.) When Abraham, in response to just such an appeal, responds to God, “Here I am,” he is remedying Adam’s sin, as it were. Abraham’s “Here I am” is the belated reply to God’s question to Adam in the Garden of Eden, “Where are you?” (3:9). Adam, who could not bring himself to answer that question, hid himself instead. More than two thousand years would elapse before Abraham could at length finally answer the question God had posed at the beginning of Creation to all mankind.
There is an important parallel in the Kabbalah between Abraham and Adam. They are both located on the right line of the sefirot. Adam is choñhmah (wisdom), and Abraham is chesed, directly beneath it. Each of them is the birth of something new. Adam is the birth of humanity, and Abraham is the birth of the Jewish people. In view of this parallelism, Abraham had to correct Adam’s mistake – in particular, by answering and not avoiding God’s question, and by teaching the Jewish people and all of humankind how to adopt that same mindset.
יב וַיֹּ֗אמֶר אַל־תִּשְׁלַ֤ח יָֽדְךָ֙ אֶל־הַנַּ֔עַר וְאַל־תַּ֥עַשׂ ל֖וֹ מְא֑וּמָה כִּ֣י ׀ עַתָּ֣ה יָדַ֗עְתִּי כִּֽי־יְרֵ֤א אֱלֹהִים֙ אַ֔תָּה וְלֹ֥א חָשַׂ֛כְתָּ אֶת־בִּנְךָ֥ אֶת־יְחִֽידְךָ֖ מִמֶּֽנִּי׃
[12] And he said, “Do not raise your hand against the boy, or do anything to him. …
God tells Abraham that the binding is itself sufficient – the sacrifice has been averted, and there is no need to destroy gevurah. The binding of Isaac is therefore not just a physical action or mere ancillary preparation for the sacrifice. Rather, it is a form of dialogue, of contact and mutual enlightenment.
Although Abraham was of course extremely fond of Isaac, he might have tacitly entertained the thought that perhaps gevurah had to be destroyed for the sake of “higher correctness” – so that ñhesed alone would remain in the world. Perhaps it is with that objective (albeit by God’s command!) that Abraham binds his son to the altar, grasps the knife, and stretches his hand toward his son. But at that very moment God stays Abraham’s hand – because Abraham can no longer stop himself. God also commands him: “Do not raise your hand against the boy, or do anything to him!” That is, do no damage to gevurah.
Abraham and Isaac in the course of the Akedah together tread a path of personal development. Isaac agrees to be tied up, which means that gevurah is agreeing to limit itself. This is Isaac’s advancement. And chesed stops short in the face of bound and helpless gevurah. This is Abraham’s advancement.
The kavanot (Kabbalistic lessons on the meaning of the prayers) note that when a person reads the story of Akeidat Yitzchak each morning, he should envision himself tying up, as it were, the attribute of din (strict law, an alternate name of the gevurah attribute), which represents the “accusers of Israel.” We must not ask God to destroy them, but only that He not allow them any freedom of action.
...כִּ֣י ׀ עַתָּ֣ה יָדַ֗עְתִּי כִּֽי־יְרֵ֤א אֱלֹהִים֙ אַ֔תָּה וְלֹ֥א חָשַׂ֛כְתָּ אֶת־בִּנְךָ֥ אֶת־יְחִֽידְךָ֖ מִמֶּֽנִּי׃ יג וַיִּשָּׂ֨א אַבְרָהָ֜ם אֶת־עֵינָ֗יו וַיַּרְא֙ וְהִנֵּה־אַ֔יִל אַחַ֕ר נֶֽאֱחַ֥ז בַּסְּבַ֖ךְ בְּקַרְנָ֑יו וַיֵּ֤לֶךְ אַבְרָהָם֙ וַיִּקַּ֣ח אֶת־הָאַ֔יִל וַיַּֽעֲלֵ֥הוּ לְעֹלָ֖ה תַּ֥חַת בְּנֽוֹ׃ יד וַיִּקְרָ֧א אַבְרָהָ֛ם שֵֽׁם־הַמָּק֥וֹם הַה֖וּא י֣י ׀ יִרְאֶ֑ה אֲשֶׁר֙ יֵֽאָמֵ֣ר הַיּ֔וֹם בְּהַ֥ר י֖י יֵֽרָאֶֽה׃
[12] … For now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your favored one, from Me.”
[13] When Abraham looked up, his eye fell upon a ram, caught in the thicket by its horns. So Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering in place of his son.
[14] And Abraham named that site Adonai-yireh, whence the present saying, “On the mount of the Lord there is vision.”
[12] That you fear God ◊ It is not “fear,” but “trembling,” yir’ah,” that is here associated with yir’eh”: “the Lord will see.”
On the mount of the Lord there is vision ◊ Such trust in divine discretion is true reverence. It is not a feeling of fear, but of complete reliance on God in a situation that by all appearances can have no logical resolution. When Abraham reaches this stage, Isaac is replaced by a ram. Having succeeded at learning to fully rely on God’s support, Abraham earns a doubled name for himself.
A ram, caught in the thicket by its horns ◊ The Hebrew includes the word añhar, after “ram,” which, although not always translated here, means “behind” (i.e., “A ram, behind, caught in the thicket by its horns”). Not only in terms of its physical location relative to Abraham, but also in time, this ram “came from behind,” meaning that it had been “prepared from the very beginning” – from the Six Days of Creation. We shall soon explain this in further detail.
[13] When Abraham looked up ◊ It would seem that Abraham had arrived at the pinnacle. First he saw this place from a distance, then he climbed the mountain. But then it turned out that he could climb even higher. The words “When Abraham looked up” in this verse are clearly a continuation of verse 4: “On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place from afar.” When Abraham reaches this even greater height, he learns that there is indeed a way out of his hopeless situation, and a ram appears.
The Midrash says that this ram was created at the end of the Sixth Day
of Creation, in the twilight just before shabbat – that is, at the very end of the process of Creation, when God added certain
supernatural “items of special designation” to the world that was otherwise
already complete. Since that time, the ram had been waiting for Abraham’s
arrival on
Thus, God added these “items of special designation” to the world as pressure valves that afford relief from “hopeless” situations. But they always remain invisible until we become capable of perceiving them.
[14] And Abraham named that site Adonai-yireh ◊ These words mean “The Lord will see.” Abraham uses the same words that he had previously spoken to Isaac, “God will see to the sheep for His burnt offering.” Understanding that “the Lord will see” is an expression of hope for synthesis even in the face of all the contradictions that remain, for in the Divine light it is possible to unite even things that to human eyes seem irreconcilable. By giving the place this name, Abraham wishes to convey to all people the new understanding that has now been revealed to him.
Whence the present saying, “On the mount of the
Lord there is vision.” The temple must stand only on
טו וַיִּקְרָ֛א מַלְאַ֥ךְ י֖י אֶל־אַבְרָהָ֑ם שֵׁנִ֖ית מִן־הַשָּׁמָֽיִם׃ טז וַיֹּ֕אמֶר בִּ֥י נִשְׁבַּ֖עְתִּי נְאֻם־י֑י כִּ֗י יַ֚עַן אֲשֶׁ֤ר עָשִׂ֨יתָ֙ אֶת־הַדָּבָ֣ר הַזֶּ֔ה וְלֹ֥א חָשַׂ֖כְתָּ אֶת־בִּנְךָ֥ אֶת־יְחִידֶֽךָ׃ יז כִּֽי־בָרֵ֣ךְ אֲבָֽרֶכְךָ֗ וְהַרְבָּ֨ה אַרְבֶּ֤ה אֶֽת־זַרְעֲךָ֙ כְּכֽוֹכְבֵ֣י הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם וְכַח֕וֹל אֲשֶׁ֖ר עַל־שְׂפַ֣ת הַיָּ֑ם וְיִרַ֣שׁ זַרְעֲךָ֔ אֵ֖ת שַׁ֥עַר אֹֽיְבָֽיו׃ יח וְהִתְבָּֽרְכ֣וּ בְזַרְעֲךָ֔ כֹּ֖ל גּוֹיֵ֣י הָאָ֑רֶץ עֵ֕קֶב אֲשֶׁ֥ר שָׁמַ֖עְתָּ בְּקֹלִֽי׃
[15] The angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time from heaven,
[16] and said, “By Myself I swear, the Lord declares: Because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your favored one,
[17] I will bestow My blessing upon you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars of heaven and the sands on the seashore; and your descendants shall seize the gates of their foes.
[18] All the nations of the earth shall bless themselves by your descendants, because you have obeyed My command.”
[15] The angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time from heaven ◊ Abraham’s enhanced understanding, expressed in the name that he gives to this mountain, “The Lord Will See,” brings with it a commensurate increase in his reward. The angel of God calls to Abraham a second time and proclaims that all mankind will be blessed through him.
[18] All the nations of the earth shall bless themselves by your descendants ◊ This is a confirmation of the promise made at the beginning of the Lech Lecha portion: “And all the families of the earth shall bless themselves by you” (12:3).
All the nations of the earth shall bless themselves by your descendants, because you have obeyed My command ◊ The peoples of the earth will be blessed through Abraham’s posterity because of his achievements. For Abraham, this repetition of the blessing signifies that although the future path lies through Isaac, through the national element, the universal component will also remain.
Because you have obeyed My command ◊ The Hebrew word ekev, which means “due to the fact that,” has the same root as the name “Jacob.” In other words, the fact that the Akedah has taken place, and the connection between Abraham’s chesed and Isaac’s gevurah has now been established, makes possible the birth of Isaac’s son Jacob, who would add his own attribute to theirs – tiferet (adornment). Thus, the Torah will later call Jacob “a mild man who stayed in camp” (25:27); literally, “who dwelled in tents.” Note that “tents” is in the plural. These are, simultaneously, the tents of both Abraham and Isaac.
יט וַיָּ֤שָׁב אַבְרָהָם֙ אֶל־נְעָרָ֔יו וַיָּקֻ֛מוּ וַיֵּֽלְכ֥וּ יַחְדָּ֖ו אֶל־בְּאֵ֣ר שָׁ֑בַע וַיֵּ֥שֶׁב אַבְרָהָ֖ם בִּבְאֵ֥ר שָֽׁבַע׃
[19] Abraham then returned to his servants, and they departed together for Beer-sheba; and Abraham stayed in Beer-sheba.
[19] Abraham then returned ◊ The verb is in the singular. Physically, both Abraham and Isaac returned, but mentally – only Abraham. Because Isaac, having attained the level of self-sacrifice, remained at that height all the days of his life.
Everything that Isaac will ever do from here onward – eat, drink, practice agriculture, live with his wife, and anything whatsoever – will be a life lived always from the perspective of Mount Moriah. Isaac is a very vigorous person, because holiness, in the Jewish conception, means participation in the fullness of life (and not disengagement from the world). But even so, Isaac never went back to being “one of the boys.” (“Abraham then returned to his servants” is more literally translated as “Abraham then returned to his boys.” Abraham did so, but Isaac never did.)
Thus, the “Sacrifice of Isaac” did in fact occur – in the metaphysical sense. It could never have happened as a physical reality, because then it would have lost all its meaning. The whole point of the Akedah was to make contact with Heaven, in order that all of life thereafter would continue bringing Heavenly radiance down to this earth.
And Abraham stayed in Beer-sheba ◊ These words seem to
contradict what very soon follows: “Sarah died in Kiriath-arba – now
כ וַיְהִ֗י אַֽחֲרֵי֙ הַדְּבָרִ֣ים הָאֵ֔לֶּה וַיֻּגַּ֥ד לְאַבְרָהָ֖ם לֵאמֹ֑ר הִ֠נֵּה יָֽלְדָ֨ה מִלְכָּ֥ה גַם־הִ֛וא בָּנִ֖ים לְנָח֥וֹר אָחִֽיךָ׃ כא אֶת־ע֥וּץ בְּכֹר֖וֹ וְאֶת־בּ֣וּז אָחִ֑יו וְאֶת־קְמוּאֵ֖ל אֲבִ֥י אֲרָֽם׃ כב וְאֶת־כֶּ֣שֶׂד וְאֶת־חֲז֔וֹ וְאֶת־פִּלְדָּ֖שׁ וְאֶת־יִדְלָ֑ף וְאֵ֖ת בְּתוּאֵֽל׃ כג וּבְתוּאֵ֖ל יָלַ֣ד אֶת־רִבְקָ֑ה שְׁמֹנָ֥ה אֵ֨לֶּה֙ יָֽלְדָ֣ה מִלְכָּ֔ה לְנָח֖וֹר אֲחִ֥י אַבְרָהָֽם׃ כד וּפִֽילַגְשׁ֖וֹ וּשְׁמָ֣הּ רְאוּמָ֑ה וַתֵּ֤לֶד גַּם־הִוא֙ אֶת־טֶ֣בַח וְאֶת־גַּ֔חַם וְאֶת־תַּ֖חַשׁ וְאֶֽת־מַעֲכָֽה׃
[20] Some time later, Abraham was told, “Milcah too has borne children to your brother Nahor:
[21] Uz the first-born, and Buz his brother, and
Kemuel the father of
[22] and Kesed, Hazo, Pildash, Jidlaph, and Bethuel” –
[23] Bethuel being the father of Rebekah. These eight Milcah bore to Nahor, Abraham’s brother.
[24] And his concubine, whose name was Reumah, also bore children: Tebah, Gaham, Tahash, and Maacah.
[20] Some time later, Abraham was told, “Milcah too has borne children” ◊ In the story of the Akeidah, thanks to the connection that was established between Abraham’s chesed and Isaac’s gevurah, an opportunity now arose for the future birth of tiferet – Isaac’s son Jacob. Therefore, immediately after the Akeidah, Abraham is informed of the birth of Rebekah (Isaac’s wife and Jacob’s mother).
All the marriages of the Patriarchs as related in the book of Genesis were contracted with members of Terah’s family line, who had remained ivrim, and which consisted of two main branches: the branch of Abraham and the branch of Nahor.
We noted
earlier (11:29) that Milcah, Nahor’s wife, was the daughter of
We have
noted as well based on the Midrash that the relationship of the Terah family’s
branches can be summarized as follows. After the events in Ur Kasdim (
Terah, a
purveyor of idols, although not an active supporter of Ever’s religious system,
sought to return to
His sons, Abraham and Nahor, who survived the disaster of Ur Kasdim, differ on the question of what direction to choose for the family. Nahor (who in a sense can be considered a prototype of cosmopolitan Jewry) prefers to integrate into the Aramaean culture, the dominant culture of the time. However, he does not manage to survive as a Hebrew: his family very quickly assimilates, and his children are already called Aramaeans: “Betuel the Aramean … Laban the Aramean” (25:20).
Nahor, a cosmopolitan universalist, considers it proper to influence the culture of the peoples of the world from within. It is interesting to note that such a point of view, galut lishmah, “exile with a religious purpose,” is still alive and well among the Jewish people. Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, for example, who lived in Germany in the middle of the 19th century, argued that it is the calling of the Jewish people to live among other enlightened nations – Germany, for example – and to influence them from within.
Abraham, on
the other hand, represents the concept of “advancing toward the universal
through the national”. He goes to the
However, to withdraw into oneself on a nationalist plane alone, even one with a universalistic orientation, would be improper. The men of Abraham’s family (Isaac, Jacob) therefore married daughters of Nahor’s family (Rebekah, Rachel and Leah), in order to impart a spirit of universality to the national Jewish worldview.
As we read the Torah, we often neglect the genealogy lists – the descendants of Nahor in this chapter, for example. However, apart from the concrete factual importance of genealogical links, they include also one more essential piece of information.
In the Torah’s genealogies there is usually a main line in which there are only a few children, and then a side branch in which, on the contrary, there are many children. This corresponds to the idea that the privileged, such as the nobility, should have very few heirs “so as not to inflate the elite,” while there should always be a multitude of ordinary, lower-class people.
Moreover, we see several times in the Torah that a younger, subordinate member of a family’s secondary branch has twelve sons and a daughter (twelve true sons and one “spurious”); in other words, he has “12.5 children” (heirs) succeeding him. The reason for this is that the main and subsidiary lines represent the solar and lunar lines, respectively. Thus, the secondary line must usually consist of exactly 12.5 children, corresponding to the ratio of the lunar and solar cycles (in the sense that approximately 12.5 lunar months are contained in one solar year).
For example, Ham, Noah’s son (10:8,15), has a main line, Cush, whose son was Nimrod, and a younger line, Canaan, who had twelve children (in the Torah text eleven sons are enumerated, plus one additional one, the “Canaanite tribes,” likewise a separate nation).
Ever too has two sons. Peleg is the eldest, from whom came Terah and the Abrahamitic race, while the supplemental line, Joktan, had 12.5 sons (10:26).
In the Terah family, the eldest line is Abraham’s, through whom runs the primary identification, and Abraham has two primary sons Isaac and Ishmael (Keturah is a side line), while Nahor, as we see here, has twelve sons and a daughter (Rebekah, although she is the daughter of Betuel, is mentioned here not by mere chance). Abraham’s main line will go through Isaac, while Ishmael has twelve sons and a daughter (25:13, 28:9).
But this aspect is seen most prominently in Jacob. He, too, has 12.5 sons, which tells us that initially Jacob was meant to be only a side line, and his brother Esau the main line. Jacob, however, managed to achieve the level of progenitor of the Chosen People – by turning his side line into the primary. For a line to become the primary, it is not enough for its founder to be born first. The greatness of Jacob was that although he was the younger he “became” the older (25:33), and so the secondary became primary. Later we shall analyze all this in greater detail.
The central figure of the two portions Chayei Sarah and Toledot is Isaac. The Chayei Sarah portion describes his marriage, while in the Toledot portion we read about Isaac’s life as a self-sufficient family man.
The Chayei Sarah portion (“The Life of Sarah”) consists of
three short narratives, each devoted to a separate topic. The first of these
tells of Sarah’s death, and her burial by Abraham in the
Sarah, and her death and burial, are thus mentioned only at the beginning of the portion, but after that almost never again. What, then, is the meaning of this chapter’s title Chayei Sarah considering that the names of the weekly portions, as we have noted previously, are chosen to reflect the actual meaning of the Torah text, and are not just mechanically extracted from the first words of each of those portions, as it might superficially seem.
The answer is that everything in the Chayei Sarah portion is the result of the life that Sarah lived. For it deals with the three most important victories that Sarah won after her death, through which she was able to guide her family in the proper direction as she perceived it.
The first of these is that
Sarah’s second victory was Abraham’s decision to choose a wife for Isaac from among their ivrim (Hebrew) relatives, rather than have him marry a woman from one of the other nations. Abraham, as we have noted, inclined toward universalism, and was therefore perfectly satisfied being married to his Egyptian maidservant Hagar, even to the extent that he considered their son Ishmael a possible successor to his life’s work. But Sarah’s “nationalist-Jewish” orientation carried the day, and following her lead Abraham ultimately decided to seek a bride for Isaac only from within their kindred family.
And finally, Sarah’s third victory is told in the story of Abraham’s children from Keturah. On the one hand, it was very proper for Abraham to take another wife for himself after Sarah’s death, rather than remain unmarried. But by this time, Abraham already understood unequivocally that only Sarah’s son Isaac could be his heir, and he therefore willingly sent all his sons from Keturah “eastward, to the land of the East” (25:6) – giving them gifts, but not making them his heirs.
Thus, we see Sarah’s influence on Abraham not only in his obeying her instructions during her lifetime, the imperative that was established with the expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael [21:12]). Even beyond that, Sarah successfully built her relationship with Abraham, enabling him to advance in the aspect of gevurah. And now, even after she is gone, her opinion and wishes remain decisive for Abraham.
In light of all of the above, it becomes clear why this entire weekly portion bears the name Chayei Sarah, “The Life of Sarah.”
א וַיִּֽהְיוּ֙ חַיֵּ֣י שָׂרָ֔ה מֵאָ֥ה שָׁנָ֛ה וְעֶשְׂרִ֥ים שָׁנָ֖ה וְשֶׁ֣בַע שָׁנִ֑ים שְׁנֵ֖י חַיֵּ֥י שָׂרָֽה׃ ב וַתָּ֣מָת שָׂרָ֗ה בְּקִרְיַ֥ת אַרְבַּ֛ע הִ֥וא חֶבְר֖וֹן בְּאֶ֣רֶץ כְּנָ֑עַן וַיָּבֹא֙ אַבְרָהָ֔ם לִסְפֹּ֥ד לְשָׂרָ֖ה וְלִבְכֹּתָֽהּ׃
[1] Sarah’s lifetime–the span of Sarah’s life–came to one hundred and twenty-seven years.
[2] Sarah died in Kiriath-Arba–now Hebron–in the
[1] The span of Sarah’s life… [2] Sarah died in Kiriath-Arba ◊ Even Sarah’s death is a part of her life – in the sense that even through her death she was able to advance the Jewish nation in its development by shifting the center of her family’s activity from Beersheba to Hebron.
[2] Sarah died in
Kiriath-arba – now Hebron – in the land of Canaan ◊ The last
time we were told where Abraham was living, that place was Beersheba (22:19).
But Sarah then moves to
Abraham
therefore leaves
If
The Philistines were quite satisfied with that arrangement, actually, and agreed to accept Abraham as their most prominent religious leader. Even Abimelech himself, the King of Gerar, came to Abraham, made an alliance with him, and asked for his spiritual patronage.
The Jewish
approach, however, rejects the principle of “separation of church and state”,
because Judaism insists on treating everything in the world as a single
integrated reality, which means that national-political dialogue with God is no
less important than individual dialogue. Abraham himself could not attain this
level, which would be achieved only later by his grandchildren, Jacob’s sons,
who would by that time be
But Sarah,
who is not satisfied with that arrangement, moves before her death to
...וַיָּבֹא֙ אַבְרָהָ֔ם לִסְפֹּ֥ד לְשָׂרָ֖ה וְלִבְכֹּתָֽהּ׃ ג וַיָּ֨קָם֙ אַבְרָהָ֔ם מֵעַ֖ל פְּנֵ֣י מֵת֑וֹ...
[2] … and Abraham proceeded to mourn for Sarah and to bewail her.
[3] Then Abraham rose from beside his dead …
[2] Abraham proceeded ◊ After
the Akeidah, Abraham returned to
It is quite
possible that when Sarah moved to
To mourn for Sarah and to bewail her ◊ Recognizing the force of Sarah’s influence on the creation of the Jewish people, Abraham comes, first of all, “to mourn for Sarah,” which means he perceived the magnitude of his loss; and then “to bewail her” – which refers to his expressing an emotional reaction.
[3] Then Abraham rose from beside his dead ◊ A person must not allow the death of a loved one to enslave him; he must live on. But this verse has a supplementary meaning as well. “Then Abraham rose from beside (that is, under the influence of) his dead” means that Sarah’s death is itself an elevating force for Abraham that causes him to rise.
...וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר אֶל־בְּנֵי־חֵ֖ת לֵאמֹֽר׃ ד גֵּר־וְתוֹשָׁ֥ב אָֽנֹכִ֖י עִמָּכֶ֑ם תְּנ֨וּ לִ֤י אֲחֻזַּת־קֶ֨בֶר֙ עִמָּכֶ֔ם וְאֶקְבְּרָ֥ה מֵתִ֖י מִלְּפָנָֽי׃
[3] … , and spoke to the Hittites, saying,
[4] “I am a resident alien among you; sell me a burial site among you, that I may remove my dead for burial.”
[4] I am a resident alien among you ◊ With these words Abraham emphasizes his paradoxical status. He is an “alien” and a “resident” at the same time. An alien receives nothing except by grace; a resident receives by right. These are opposite concepts, but Abraham’s status incorporates them both.
Abraham
was originally a stranger and wanderer, because he came from somewhere else. He
later settled on this land, and it was here, in
Sell me a burial site among you ◊ This is an
application for a change of status. Purchasing the Machpelah, as well as the
lessons that Abraham will learn from his conversations with the Hittites, will enable
him to put down roots in
ה וַיַּֽעֲנ֧וּ בְנֵי־חֵ֛ת אֶת־אַבְרָהָ֖ם לֵאמֹ֥ר לֽוֹ׃ ו שְׁמָעֵ֣נוּ ׀ אֲדֹנִ֗י נְשִׂ֨יא אֱלֹהִ֤ים אַתָּה֙ בְּתוֹכֵ֔נוּ בְּמִבְחַ֣ר קְבָרֵ֔ינוּ קְבֹ֖ר אֶת־מֵתֶ֑ךָ אִ֣ישׁ מִמֶּ֔נּוּ אֶת־קִבְר֛וֹ לֹֽא־יִכְלֶ֥ה מִמְּךָ֖ מִקְּבֹ֥ר מֵתֶֽךָ׃
[5] And the Hittites replied to Abraham, saying to him,
[6] “Hear us, my lord: you are the elect of God among us. Bury your dead in the choicest of our burial places; none of us will withhold his burial place from you for burying your dead.”
[6] You are the elect of God among us ◊ The Hittites, it would seem, respond to Abraham’s request more than positively. Their words evidence the reverence they feel toward Abraham in deference to his elevated status as a spiritual personality.
None of us will withhold his burial place from you for burying your dead ◊ But that elevated status is not without its dangers as well.
They might tell Abraham: “Since you are so great, you can bury your dead in any tomb, and no one will refuse you. But on the other hand, if you are truly that great, you should not be occupying yourself with such trifles as the purchase of a private burial plot.”
But the real
truth is that if not for this purchase,
Abraham
internalized the message that Sarah conveyed to him when she left to die in
Such situations are encountered often in life: we use other people’s means to solve our immediate problems, instead of creating our own opportunities and thereby achieving strategic advancement. Clearly, it is usually much easier to use a ready-made solution than to create one’s own, but using what belongs to someone else will never give us the real support we need in critical situations. It is of course possible to bury our dead in someone else’s plot. But if the goal is to create a spiritual center that will then influence humanity for centuries to come, that solution will simply not work. For that reason, Abraham cannot accept their offer.
ז וַיָּ֧קָם אַבְרָהָ֛ם וַיִּשְׁתַּ֥חוּ לְעַם־הָאָ֖רֶץ לִבְנֵי־חֵֽת׃ ח וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר אִתָּ֖ם לֵאמֹ֑ר אִם־יֵ֣שׁ אֶֽת־נַפְשְׁכֶ֗ם לִקְבֹּ֤ר אֶת־מֵתִי֙ מִלְּפָנַ֔י שְׁמָע֕וּנִי וּפִגְעוּ־לִ֖י בְּעֶפְר֥וֹן בֶּן־צֹֽחַר׃ ט וְיִתֶּן־לִ֗י אֶת־מְעָרַ֤ת הַמַּכְפֵּלָה֙ אֲשֶׁר־ל֔וֹ אֲשֶׁ֖ר בִּקְצֵ֣ה שָׂדֵ֑הוּ בְּכֶ֨סֶף מָלֵ֜א יִתְּנֶ֥נָּה לִּ֛י בְּתֽוֹכְכֶ֖ם לַֽאֲחֻזַּת־קָֽבֶר׃
[7] Thereupon Abraham bowed low to the people of the land, the Hittites,
[8] and he said to them, “If it is your wish that I remove my dead for burial, you must agree to intercede for me with Ephron son of Zohar.
[9] Let him sell me the
[7] Thereupon Abraham bowed low to the people of the land, the Hittites ◊ Failing to feel and show gratitude is among the most repulsive of human vices, but by following the Patriarchs’ example we can avoid this shortcoming. Abraham does not neglect his duty to bow to the Hittites. When people are prepared to help us, it is our obligation to acknowledge their offer and to express our gratitude, even if what they are offering is not suitable for our needs and the discussion is still ongoing.
[9] Let him sell me the cave of Machpelah that he owns ◊ We have previously mentioned the Midrash that tells how already decades earlier, when the three angels visited him, Abraham decided to make this cave located in Hebron the site of a future burial plot for his family, after learning that Adam and Eve were buried there.
Nonetheless,
deciding on a plan and actually implementing it are two entirely different
things, and great effort is needed to bridge that gap. Moreover, it is possible
that after moving to
We wish to draw attention to two points in Abraham’s words. Note first that he wants to pay full price for the cave, and not receive it as a gift. A gift, having no legal force, could later revert to its previous owner, but property transferred through a legal sale can never be taken from the buyer. Secondly, Abraham asks only for the cave, but not for the field. All he needs is a place to bury Sarah.
A burial cave is something that cannot be uprooted; it is like a peg
hammered into the ground that will never move. A burial property implies an
eternal connection with the place, independent of the ebb and flow of life events
surrounding it. Our attitude towards the dead and buried is an essential, not a
functional, relation. Thus, the first Jewish acquisition in the
We note in
passing that in Middle Eastern culture a person’s willingness to abandon the
graves of his (presumptive) ancestors is deemed an indisputable indicator that
he is not really their descendant. Therefore, those Israelis today who offer to
abandon the graves of our ancestors in
However, achieving the objective of possessing the land along with a
burial plot has disadvantages as well as advantages. Burial creates a place of
memory, where people rarely go, for such a place is only used to remember the
dead. People often live and work a considerable distance away. Under pressure
from Sarah’s wish, Abraham anchors himself in
The name of
the cave is Machpelah, meaning “double.” There are various explanations for
this. The two main ones are that it is a two-story cave and that couples are
buried there (Adam and Eve, Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah, Jacob and
Leah). For four thousand years, from the days of Abraham until our own times,
this cave has been among the most important Jewish shrines, and has always been
a place of Jewish pilgrimage. Toward the end of the
The Arabs
who arrived in the seventh century built a mosque over that Herodian building,
but Crusaders later turned the building into a Christian church. The Muslims
then returned and removed all traces of its church use. Finally, in 1967, the
Jews reclaimed their dominion over
That
building above the
We have also
noted that the special significance of the
The meaning
of this Midrash is that Jewish tradition, as symbolized by the
For this
reason, the tomb in which Adam and Eve are buried is the right choice for
Abraham. As he puts down roots in the
The man who
owned the
Nor is it by chance that the Torah tells us the name of the cave’s owner, which also carries for us important information. The name “Ephron” derives from the Hebrew word afar, “dust,” which is also phonetically related to efer, “ash,” or something dark. But his father’s name, “Zohar” (Hebrew Tzochar), on the contrary, denotes “brightness,” “whiteness,” or “shining.” (Linguistically it is closely related to the words tzohorayim, “(after)noon,” and zohar, “shining.”)
Thus, the
name “Ephron son of Zohar” means “ash upon radiance” or “darkness, child of
light.” It describes a person coming from some remarkable lineage, who had a
brilliant beginning, and who, no doubt, became the owner of the
Ephron sees
no special virtues in the
י וְעֶפְר֥וֹן יֹשֵׁ֖ב בְּת֣וֹךְ בְּנֵי־חֵ֑ת וַיַּעַן֩ עֶפְר֨וֹן הַֽחִתִּ֤י אֶת־אַבְרָהָם֙ בְּאָזְנֵ֣י בְנֵי־חֵ֔ת לְכֹ֛ל בָּאֵ֥י שַֽׁעַר־עִיר֖וֹ לֵאמֹֽר׃ יא לֹֽא־אֲדֹנִ֣י שְׁמָעֵ֔נִי הַשָּׂדֶה֙ נָתַ֣תִּי לָ֔ךְ וְהַמְּעָרָ֥ה אֲשֶׁר־בּ֖וֹ לְךָ֣ נְתַתִּ֑יהָ לְעֵינֵ֧י בְנֵֽי־עַמִּ֛י נְתַתִּ֥יהָ לָּ֖ךְ קְבֹ֥ר מֵתֶֽךָ׃
[10] Ephron was present among the Hittites; so Ephron the Hittite answered Abraham in the hearing of the Hittites, all who entered the gate of his town, saying,
[11] “No, my lord, hear me: I give you the field and I give you the cave that is in it; I give it to you in the presence of my people. Bury your dead.”
[11] “No, my lord, hear me: I give you the field and I give you the cave that is in it ◊ Ephron now obligates Abraham to yet other conditions for the purchase: the cave is not for sale without its field.
Stressing his people’s legal conventions, Ephron says: “According to standard regulations as we practice them here, one may not purchase a burial site in isolation. We cannot allow the cave to pass to aliens who will use it exclusively for graves. However, the land can be sold on such terms that the buyer will live on it, and then he can also bury his dead on the same land if he so chooses. Therefore, if you please, purchase not only the cave, but the field as well.”
Thus,
Ephron’s demand that Abraham purchase not only the cave but also its
surrounding land is a demand for Abraham to intensify his connection with the
place and to raise his status in
Abraham was
originally a cattle herder and shepherd – nomadic occupations. But gradually
the Jewish people must give up shepherding and become farmers. Buying a field
near
יב וַיִּשְׁתַּ֨חוּ֙ אַבְרָהָ֔ם לִפְנֵ֖י עַ֥ם הָאָֽרֶץ׃
[12] Then Abraham bowed low before the people of the land,
Abraham bows again to the Hittites. If Abraham’s earlier bow can be explained as a matter of simple etiquette, this second bow is clearly of a different character. Moreover, if it were just a sign of politeness, it is unlikely that the Torah would specifically tell us about it. The Torah does not tell of every action, but only those of some value for all generations. Of what significance, then, are these bowings of Abraham?
In
Abraham, “the elect of God” among the Hittites as they have called him (verse 6), is neither too proud nor ashamed to actively acknowledge that he has learned an important lesson from Ephron and the Hittites.
Prior to
this conversation Abraham had been planning to return to
Judaism would never claim that the Jews know everything there is to know, that they have nothing to learn from others. Even Abraham, the greatest of the Jewish Patriarchs, has something to learn from the Canaanites, and feels no reason to be ashamed of that. Our chosenness for transmitting the Divine light to the nations of the world in no way contradicts the reality that we can and must learn from others. Moreover, we must express to them our gratitude for those lessons.
יג וַיְדַבֵּ֨ר אֶל־עֶפְר֜וֹן בְּאָזְנֵ֤י עַם־הָאָ֨רֶץ֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר אַ֛ךְ אִם־אַתָּ֥ה ל֖וּ שְׁמָעֵ֑נִי נָתַ֜תִּי כֶּ֤סֶף הַשָּׂדֶה֙ קַ֣ח מִמֶּ֔נִּי וְאֶקְבְּרָ֥ה אֶת־מֵתִ֖י שָֽׁמָּה׃ יד וַיַּ֧עַן עֶפְר֛וֹן אֶת־אַבְרָהָ֖ם לֵאמֹ֥ר לֽוֹ׃ טו אֲדֹנִ֣י שְׁמָעֵ֔נִי אֶרֶץ֩ אַרְבַּ֨ע מֵאֹ֧ת שֶֽׁקֶל־כֶּ֛סֶף בֵּינִ֥י וּבֵֽינְךָ֖ מַה־הִ֑וא וְאֶת־מֵֽתְךָ֖ קְבֹֽר׃ טז וַיִּשְׁמַ֣ע אַבְרָהָם֮ אֶל־עֶפְרוֹן֒ וַיִּשְׁקֹ֤ל אַבְרָהָם֙ לְעֶפְרֹ֔ן אֶת־הַכֶּ֕סֶף אֲשֶׁ֥ר דִּבֶּ֖ר בְּאָזְנֵ֣י בְנֵי־חֵ֑ת אַרְבַּ֤ע מֵאוֹת֙ שֶׁ֣קֶל כֶּ֔סֶף עֹבֵ֖ר לַסֹּחֵֽר׃
[13] and spoke to Ephron in the hearing of the people of the land, saying, “If only you would hear me out! Let me pay the price of the land; accept it from me, that I may bury my dead there.”
[14] And Ephron replied to Abraham, saying to him,
[15] “My lord, do hear me! A piece of land worth four hundred shekels of silver–what is that between you and me? Go and bury your dead.”
[16] Abraham accepted Ephron’s terms. Abraham paid out to Ephron the money that he had named in the hearing of the Hittites–four hundred shekels of silver at the going merchants’ rate.
[13] In the hearing of the people of the land ◊ A purchase transaction of this kind is deemed legitimate only when made with public consent, “in the hearing of the people of the land.”
Let me pay the price of the land; accept it from me ◊ Abraham consents to Ephron’s proposal, and is prepared to buy the field, which will also include rights of burial.
[15] A piece of land
worth four hundred shekels of silver – what is that between you and me? ◊ Four
hundred silver shekels were then an enormous sum. But in this case the Torah
calls it insignificant, because burying Sarah in the
[16] At the going merchants’ rate ◊ It was silver of the highest grade, negotiable currency.
The Talmud
has the following to say about the Machpelah story: “This is one of three
places concerning which the peoples of the world cannot possibly tell
יז וַיָּ֣קָם ׀ שְׂדֵ֣ה עֶפְר֗וֹן אֲשֶׁר֙ בַּמַּכְפֵּלָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֖ר לִפְנֵ֣י מַמְרֵ֑א הַשָּׂדֶה֙ וְהַמְּעָרָ֣ה אֲשֶׁר־בּ֔וֹ וְכָל־הָעֵץ֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר בַּשָּׂדֶ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר בְּכָל־גְּבֻל֖וֹ סָבִֽיב׃ יח לְאַבְרָהָ֥ם לְמִקְנָ֖ה לְעֵינֵ֣י בְנֵי־חֵ֑ת בְּכֹ֖ל בָּאֵ֥י שַֽׁעַר־עִירֽוֹ׃ יט וְאַֽחֲרֵי־כֵן֩ קָבַ֨ר אַבְרָהָ֜ם אֶת־שָׂרָ֣ה אִשְׁתּ֗וֹ אֶל־מְעָרַ֞ת שְׂדֵ֧ה הַמַּכְפֵּלָ֛ה עַל־פְּנֵ֥י מַמְרֵ֖א הִ֣וא חֶבְר֑וֹן בְּאֶ֖רֶץ כְּנָֽעַן׃ כ וַיָּ֨קָם הַשָּׂדֶ֜ה וְהַמְּעָרָ֧ה אֲשֶׁר־בּ֛וֹ לְאַבְרָהָ֖ם לַֽאֲחֻזַּת־קָ֑בֶר מֵאֵ֖ת בְּנֵי־חֵֽת׃
[17] So Ephron’s land in Machpelah, near Mamre–the field with its cave and all the trees anywhere within the confines of that field–passed
[18] to Abraham as his possession, in the presence of the Hittites, of all who entered the gate of his town.
[19] And then Abraham buried his wife Sarah in the
cave of the field of Machpelah, facing Mamre–now Hebron–in the
[20] Thus the field with its cave passed from the Hittites to Abraham, as a burial site.
[17] And all the trees anywhere within the confines of that field ◊ It is now the agricultural aspect of Abraham’s acquisition that is emphasized. A field and its trees require active care and cultivation. They cannot be abandoned to their own fate, with the proprietor arriving to tend to them only very occasionally. They are the essence of life itself, not just a memorial to the once-living.
[19] Facing Mamre – now
[20] Thus the field
with its cave passed ◊ Literally, “Thus the field and its cave
rose.” When the Jews take possession of the Land, it is elevated, and it
illuminates the world. But without the Jews, the
א וְאַבְרָהָ֣ם זָקֵ֔ן בָּ֖א בַּיָּמִ֑ים וַֽי֛י בֵּרַ֥ךְ אֶת־אַבְרָהָ֖ם בַּכֹּֽל׃ ב וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אַבְרָהָ֗ם אֶל־עַבְדּוֹ֙ זְקַ֣ן בֵּית֔וֹ הַמֹּשֵׁ֖ל בְּכָל־אֲשֶׁר־ל֑וֹ שִֽׂים־נָ֥א יָֽדְךָ֖ תַּ֥חַת יְרֵכִֽי׃ ג וְאַשְׁבִּ֣יעֲךָ֔ בַּֽיי֙ אֱלֹהֵ֣י הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם וֵֽאלֹהֵ֖י הָאָ֑רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֨ר לֹֽא־תִקַּ֤ח אִשָּׁה֙ לִבְנִ֔י מִבְּנוֹת֙ הַֽכְּנַעֲנִ֔י אֲשֶׁ֥ר אָֽנֹכִ֖י יוֹשֵׁ֥ב בְּקִרְבּֽוֹ׃ ד כִּ֧י אֶל־אַרְצִ֛י וְאֶל־מֽוֹלַדְתִּ֖י תֵּלֵ֑ךְ וְלָֽקַחְתָּ֥ אִשָּׁ֖ה לִבְנִ֥י לְיִצְחָֽק׃
[1] Abraham was now old, advanced in years, and the Lord had blessed Abraham in all things.
[2] And Abraham said to the senior servant of his household, who had charge of all that he owned, “Put your hand under my thigh
[3] and I will make you swear by the Lord, the God of heaven and the God of the earth, that you will not take a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites among whom I dwell,
[4] but will go to the land of my birth and get a wife for my son Isaac.”
[1] Abraham was now old ◊ That is, his activity had now ceased. Abraham had received from God all that he could, and his era was about to end. The last two stories about Abraham that now follow speak of his actions toward his children. First Abraham finds a suitable wife for Isaac, and then he sends the sons of Keturah “eastward toward the east.” The fact that Abraham’s slave, having been charged by Abraham with the task of finding a wife for Isaac, gives an account upon his return not to Abraham, but directly to Isaac, testifies to Abraham’s retirement from affairs.
[2] And Abraham said to the senior servant ◊ Like everywhere else in the entire Torah, a “slave/servant” refers to a patriarchal form of “servitude,” in which the slave or servant is actually nothing less than a subordinate, junior member of the family.
The senior servant of his household ◊ The Midrash identifies this servant with Eliezer, whom the Torah introduced earlier using the same words (15:2).
Put your hand under my thigh ◊ Although Abraham under normal conditions fully trusts Eliezer, here he exacts from him an oath associated with God’s Covenant of circumcision.
In that era
circumcision was the only tangible “sacred object.” No other act of holiness in
the time of the Patriarchs left its lasting mark on matter. In later times,
however, the situation changed. For example, after Solomon built the
However,
this form of holiness came into existence only after the Exodus from
Until the
creation of the Jewish nation at
[3] That you will not take a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites among whom I dwell ◊ We can infer from these words that by the end of his life Abraham had left Beersheba, a region of Philistia, and returned to Canaan, to Hebron. The Midrash adds that the “Canaanites” referred to here are Aner, Eshkol and Mamre, Abraham’s allies (14:3) – very respectable people with whom one could enjoy friendship, maintain common business dealings, go together into battle (15:24), and even learn from them important spiritual lessons (23:12). And yet, it is unacceptable for Isaac to marry one of their daughters. Although they are good people, a nation cannot be built through them.
[4] But will go to the
land of my birth and get a wife for my son Isaac ◊ In modern
Hebrew, moladti means “my homeland”, but here it
means not so much a homeland as a kindred family. Abraham sends his servant to
ה וַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֵלָיו֙ הָעֶ֔בֶד אוּלַי֙ לֹֽא־תֹאבֶ֣ה הָֽאִשָּׁ֔ה לָלֶ֥כֶת אַֽחֲרַ֖י אֶל־הָאָ֣רֶץ הַזֹּ֑את הֶֽהָשֵׁ֤ב אָשִׁיב֙ אֶת־בִּנְךָ֔ אֶל־הָאָ֖רֶץ אֲשֶׁר־יָצָ֥אתָ מִשָּֽׁם׃ ו וַיֹּ֥אמֶר אֵלָ֖יו אַבְרָהָ֑ם הִשָּׁ֣מֶר לְךָ֔ פֶּן־תָּשִׁ֥יב אֶת־בְּנִ֖י שָֽׁמָּה׃ ז י֣י ׀ אֱלֹהֵ֣י הַשָּׁמַ֗יִם אֲשֶׁ֨ר לְקָחַ֜נִי מִבֵּ֣ית אָבִי֮ וּמֵאֶ֣רֶץ מֽוֹלַדְתִּי֒ וַֽאֲשֶׁ֨ר דִּבֶּר־לִ֜י וַֽאֲשֶׁ֤ר נִֽשְׁבַּֽע־לִי֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר לְזַ֨רְעֲךָ֔ אֶתֵּ֖ן אֶת־הָאָ֣רֶץ הַזֹּ֑את ה֗וּא יִשְׁלַ֤ח מַלְאָכוֹ֙ לְפָנֶ֔יךָ וְלָֽקַחְתָּ֥ אִשָּׁ֛ה לִבְנִ֖י מִשָּֽׁם׃ ח וְאִם־לֹ֨א תֹאבֶ֤ה הָֽאִשָּׁה֙ לָלֶ֣כֶת אַֽחֲרֶ֔יךָ וְנִקִּ֕יתָ מִשְּׁבֻֽעָתִ֖י זֹ֑את רַ֣ק אֶת־בְּנִ֔י לֹ֥א תָשֵׁ֖ב שָֽׁמָּה׃ ט וַיָּ֤שֶׂם הָעֶ֨בֶד֙ אֶת־יָד֔וֹ תַּ֛חַת יֶ֥רֶךְ אַבְרָהָ֖ם אֲדֹנָ֑יו וַיִּשָּׁ֣בַֽע ל֔וֹ עַל־הַדָּבָ֖ר הַזֶּֽה׃
[5] And the servant said to him, “What if the woman does not consent to follow me to this land, shall I then take your son back to the land from which you came?”
[6] Abraham answered him, “On no account must you take my son back there!
[7] The Lord, the God of heaven, who took me from my father’s house and from my native land, who promised me on oath, saying, ‘I will assign this land to your offspring’–He will send His angel before you, and you will get a wife for my son from there.
[8] And if the woman does not consent to follow you, you shall then be clear of this oath to me; but do not take my son back there.”
[9] So the servant put his hand under the thigh of his master Abraham and swore to him as bidden.
[5] What if the woman does not consent ◊ The manner in which Eliezer responds to Abraham is perturbing. The word ulai, “what if” or “perhaps,” is usually used in a positive sense, to indicate a desired condition, rather than an undesired one. The Midrash therefore believes that subconsciously Eliezer was actually hoping that the lady would not consent and that his mission would fail, because Eliezer had plans of his own for the marriage of Isaac.
[6] On no account must
you take my son back there! (Literally, “Beware, lest you take my son back there!”) Should any
conflict arise between finding a suitable marriage partner and living in the
[8] But do not take my son back there ◊ The Hebrew here uses the word rak, an intensified form of “only.” Thus, we can translate Abraham’s words as, “Whatever you do, you must not take my son back there!” The argument of returning for the sake of marriage is a temptation from which one must be on guard. And so Abraham adds, “Beware!” And then he further adds, “You must not take my son back there.”
We have noted earlier that the two branches of the Terah family had different views on the proper path of development for the Jewish people. Should that path be nationalistic or cosmopolitan? Marriage to a representative of the “cosmopolitan branch” would increase the element of universalism in the family – something very positive. But at the same time the cosmopolitan line must not become the dominant one.
Abraham’s son must therefore not move to
[7] The Lord, the
God of heaven ◊ When the
Almighty sent Abraham to
It is relatively easy for a person to acknowledge that there is “God in Heaven” who is in charge of spiritual matters, and that He defines “salvation of the soul in the afterlife” and the like. But admitting God into one’s earthly life is much more difficult. This is the task of Judaism.
For the
Jewish people, this point is reflected also in the differences between life in
the
But in the
י וַיִּקַּ֣ח הָ֠עֶבֶד עֲשָׂרָ֨ה גְמַלִּ֜ים מִגְּמַלֵּ֤י אֲדֹנָיו֙ וַיֵּ֔לֶךְ וְכָל־ט֥וּב אֲדֹנָ֖יו בְּיָד֑וֹ וַיָּ֗קָם וַיֵּ֛לֶךְ אֶל־אֲרַ֥ם נַֽהֲרַ֖יִם אֶל־עִ֥יר נָחֽוֹר׃ יא וַיַּבְרֵ֧ךְ הַגְּמַלִּ֛ים מִח֥וּץ לָעִ֖יר אֶל־בְּאֵ֣ר הַמָּ֑יִם לְעֵ֣ת עֶ֔רֶב לְעֵ֖ת צֵ֥את הַשֹּֽׁאֲבֹֽת׃
[10] Then the servant took ten of his master’s camels and set out, taking with him all the bounty of his master; and he made his way to Aram-naharaim, to the city of Nahor.
[11] He made the camels kneel down by the well outside the city, at evening time, the time when women come out to draw water.
[11] By the well ◊ We repeatedly find in the Torah stories of first meetings and matchmaking at the well. It was typically the young girls who went out to fetch water, and this practice created one of the few public situations where it was possible to meet them.
At evening time ◊ Eliezer finds himself at the well in the afternoon, which is the time of Isaac, the man of gevurah. He is going to verify (verification is an action connected with gevurah) the girl’s spiritual qualities, asking her to show him exceptional kindness, which will require of her a considerable expenditure of time and effort. Had this happened in the morning, when people are full of energy, it would have been less difficult for the girl to fulfill his request. But in the evening when the day is ending, what he was asking of her was considerably more difficult, and the assistance she would provide for Eliezer would be commensurately much more noteworthy.
The story of choosing a wife for Isaac is told in the Torah in great detail. Four times it is told and retold – at first glance, the same thing over and over again. First how Eliezer envisioned Isaac’s future bride, then how Rebekah actually conducted herself, then Eliezer’s retelling to the girl’s relatives about what he had envisioned, and finally, yet again, his recounting to them how Rebekah conducted herself.
We imagine it would have been possible instead to tell of Eliezer’s plans just once, and then to refer back to them: “And so did it happen,” or, “He told it all just that way”, or something similar (just as in verse 66, for example: “The servant told Isaac all the things that he had done”). The fourfold telling and retelling is especially puzzling when we consider that many of the fundamental laws of the Torah are written only as extremely terse instructions, often nothing more than an allusion. Thus, there is a clear disproportionality here. But since these stories have been given such a prominent place in the Torah, we understand that their analysis and comparison must be very important.
The Talmud addresses this question directly, with the comment: “The mundane stories of the Patriarchs’ servants are more precious to God than even the details of the commandments given to their descendants.”
The legislative Torah is at the level of Moses, and indeed, Moses was the greatest of all Prophets. But the level of the Patriarchs was incomparably higher. At the level of Moses, there are commandments – obligations in which the Divine light is concentrated. In the lives of the Patriarchs, however, there were no specific commandments, and yet their entire lives consisted of Revelation and the realization of Divinity. The Book of Bereshit (Genesis), the Book of the Patriarchs, is therefore the first and most fundamental book of the Torah, because it is the book of God’s teachings.
Not only the conversations of the Patriarchs themselves, but even those of their servants, carry that light to us.
יב וַיֹּאמַ֓ר ׀ י֗י אֱלֹהֵי֙ אֲדֹנִ֣י אַבְרָהָ֔ם הַקְרֵה־נָ֥א לְפָנַ֖י הַיּ֑וֹם וַֽעֲשֵׂה־חֶ֕סֶד עִ֖ם אֲדֹנִ֥י אַבְרָהָֽם׃ יג הִנֵּ֛ה אָֽנֹכִ֥י נִצָּ֖ב עַל־עֵ֣ין הַמָּ֑יִם וּבְנוֹת֙ אַנְשֵׁ֣י הָעִ֔יר יֹֽצְאֹ֖ת לִשְׁאֹ֥ב מָֽיִם׃ יד וְהָיָ֣ה הַֽנַּעֲרָ֗ אֲשֶׁ֨ר אֹמַ֤ר אֵלֶ֨יהָ֙ הַטִּי־נָ֤א כַדֵּךְ֙ וְאֶשְׁתֶּ֔ה וְאָֽמְרָ֣ה שְׁתֵ֔ה וְגַם־גְּמַלֶּ֖יךָ אַשְׁקֶ֑ה אֹתָ֤הּ הֹכַ֨חְתָּ֙ לְעַבְדְּךָ֣ לְיִצְחָ֔ק וּבָ֣הּ אֵדַ֔ע כִּֽי־עָשִׂ֥יתָ חֶ֖סֶד עִם־אֲדֹנִֽי׃
[12] And he said, “O Lord, God of my master Abraham, grant me good fortune this day, and deal graciously with my master Abraham:
[13] Here I stand by the spring as the daughters of the townsmen come out to draw water;
[14] let the maiden to whom I say, ‘Please, lower your jar that I may drink,’ and who replies, ‘Drink, and I will also water your camels’–let her be the one whom You have decreed for Your servant Isaac. Thereby shall I know that You have dealt graciously with my master.”
[12] And he said ◊ Eliezer
had arrived at the “city of
[14] Let the maiden to whom I say, ‘Please, lower your jar that I may drink,’ and who replies, ‘Drink, and I will also water your camels’ ◊ He wants to find a girl having a remarkably exceptional standard of kindness, chesed – such that when he asks her for water to drink, she will offer to water his camels as well.
Since Isaac is gevurah, his wife should be chesed, because all the wives of the Patriarchs were their “opposites” in personal qualities, as if counterbalancing them. (Sarah is gevurah to Abraham’s chesed; Rebekah is chesed to Isaac’s gevurah.) A wife should be a man’s ezer kenegdo – “a counterweight of assistance” (2:18). Chesed is therefore precisely that criterion that guides Eliezer here. If a girl is prepared, even without being asked, to water a dozen camels, then her level of chesed is so great that she can become a suitable wife for Isaac.
Even if the girl, in response to Eliezer’s request, will give water only to him, she will thereby have already manifested chesed. She will surely be in a hurry, because it is now evening, and it is reasonable that she would say, “The well is right in front of you – help yourself, why are you asking me?” (Moreover, as we will note below [verse 32] Eliezer was not alone. The girl could simply have suggested that he ask his servants to assist.)
But if her thinking runs something like this: “When a person standing directly in front of a well asks others to give him water to drink, we must assume that he is unable to draw water even for himself, let alone for his camels. Thus, his camels, too, are almost certainly not watered; I should really water them as well” – then such thinking will absolutely demonstrate an abundance of chesed on her part, way above the norm.
טו וַֽיְהִי־ה֗וּא טֶרֶם֮ כִּלָּ֣ה לְדַבֵּר֒ וְהִנֵּ֧ה רִבְקָ֣ה יֹצֵ֗את אֲשֶׁ֤ר יֻלְּדָה֙ לִבְתוּאֵ֣ל בֶּן־מִלְכָּ֔ה אֵ֥שֶׁת נָח֖וֹר אֲחִ֣י אַבְרָהָ֑ם וְכַדָּ֖הּ עַל־שִׁכְמָֽהּ׃ טז וְהַֽנַּעֲרָ֗ טֹבַ֤ת מַרְאֶה֙ מְאֹ֔ד בְּתוּלָ֕ה וְאִ֖ישׁ לֹ֣א יְדָעָ֑הּ וַתֵּ֣רֶד הָעַ֔יְנָה וַתְּמַלֵּ֥א כַדָּ֖הּ וַתָּֽעַל׃ יז וַיָּ֥רָץ הָעֶ֖בֶד לִקְרָאתָ֑הּ וַיֹּ֕אמֶר הַגְמִיאִ֥ינִי נָ֛א מְעַט־מַ֖יִם מִכַּדֵּֽךְ׃ יח וַתֹּ֖אמֶר שְׁתֵ֣ה אֲדֹנִ֑י וַתְּמַהֵ֗ר וַתֹּ֧רֶד כַּדָּ֛הּ עַל־יָדָ֖הּ וַתַּשְׁקֵֽהוּ׃ יט וַתְּכַ֖ל לְהַשְׁקֹת֑וֹ וַתֹּ֗אמֶר גַּ֤ם לִגְמַלֶּ֨יךָ֙ אֶשְׁאָ֔ב עַ֥ד אִם־כִּלּ֖וּ לִשְׁתֹּֽת׃ כ וַתְּמַהֵ֗ר וַתְּעַ֤ר כַּדָּהּ֙ אֶל־הַשֹּׁ֔קֶת וַתָּ֥רָץ ע֛וֹד אֶֽל־הַבְּאֵ֖ר לִשְׁאֹ֑ב וַתִּשְׁאַ֖ב לְכָל־גְּמַלָּֽיו׃
[15] He had scarcely finished speaking, when Rebekah, who was born to Bethuel, the son of Milcah the wife of Abraham’s brother Nahor, came out with her jar on her shoulder.
[16] The maiden was very beautiful, a virgin whom no man had known. She went down to the spring, filled her jar, and came up.
[17] The servant ran toward her and said, “Please, let me sip a little water from your jar.”
[18] “Drink, my lord”, she said, and she quickly lowered her jar upon her hand and let him drink.
[19] When she had let him drink his fill, she said, “I will also draw for your camels, until they finish drinking.”
[20] Quickly emptying her jar into the trough, she ran back to the well to draw, and she drew for all his camels.
[15] He had scarcely finished speaking, when Rebekah … came out ◊ A question properly posed is already half answered. Because Eliezer has expressed the problem so well, the solution is close at hand.
“Drink, my lord” ◊ Rebekah’s words alone do not coincide with Eliezer’s original conception of what was to happen (24:14), but when taken together with her actions, her words do in fact correspond to what he expected. Once again this is meant to underscore that Eliezer’s plan was not some kind of magical test requiring precise, literal fulfillment, but only a check of Rebekah’s chesed. However, in Eliezer’s later retelling of the same events to Rebekah’s relatives (verses 43-46), he describes the events as if the girl had repeated his words exactly. Thus, Eliezer creates for the relatives the impression of a “magical coincidence” as a basis for seeking their consent to the marriage.
[16] She went down … and came up. [17] The servant ran toward her and said ◊ Eliezer does not ask Rebekah for water immediately, but waits for her to move away from the well somewhat, and only then runs up to her. Thus, he makes his test of her chesed that much more decisive.
[18] She quickly lowered her jar … [19] When she had let him drink his fill, she said, “I will also draw for your camels” ◊ Rebekah is herself in a hurry, but she does not rush Eliezer. She does not tell him from the outset, “Drink, and then I will also draw for your camels,” which would have forced him to drink quickly. Rather, she waits until he has completely finished drinking, and only then mentions watering the animals. Thus, Rebekah goes even beyond what Eliezer had envisioned.
If a person standing at a well asks to be given water, when by all appearances he can just take it himself, it is not unreasonable to conclude that he must be engaging in some form of mockery. But no such thought occurs to Rebekah. Rather, she reasons that he most probably has some actual problem and needs her help. Such a level of chesed is rarely encountered in real life.
כא וְהָאִ֥ישׁ מִשְׁתָּאֵ֖ה לָ֑הּ מַֽחֲרִ֕ישׁ לָדַ֗עַת הַֽהִצְלִ֧יחַ י֛י דַּרְכּ֖וֹ אִם־לֹֽא׃ כב וַיְהִ֗י כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֨ר כִּלּ֤וּ הַגְּמַלִּים֙ לִשְׁתּ֔וֹת וַיִּקַּ֤ח הָאִישׁ֙ נֶ֣זֶם זָהָ֔ב בֶּ֖קַע מִשְׁקָל֑וֹ וּשְׁנֵ֤י צְמִידִים֙ עַל־יָדֶ֔יהָ עֲשָׂרָ֥ה זָהָ֖ב מִשְׁקָלָֽם׃ כג וַיֹּ֨אמֶר֙ בַּת־מִ֣י אַ֔תְּ הַגִּ֥ידִי נָ֖א לִ֑י הֲיֵ֧שׁ בֵּית־אָבִ֛יךְ מָק֥וֹם לָ֖נוּ לָלִֽין׃ כד וַתֹּ֣אמֶר אֵלָ֔יו בַּת־בְּתוּאֵ֖ל אָנֹ֑כִי בֶּן־מִלְכָּ֕ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר יָֽלְדָ֖ה לְנָחֽוֹר׃ כה וַתֹּ֣אמֶר אֵלָ֔יו גַּם־תֶּ֥בֶן גַּם־מִסְפּ֖וֹא רַ֣ב עִמָּ֑נוּ גַּם־מָק֖וֹם לָלֽוּן׃ כו וַיִּקֹּ֣ד הָאִ֔ישׁ וַיִּשְׁתַּ֖חוּ לַֽיֽי׃ כז וַיֹּ֗אמֶר בָּר֤וּךְ יי֙ אֱלֹהֵי֙ אֲדֹנִ֣י אַבְרָהָ֔ם אֲ֠שֶׁר לֹֽא־עָזַ֥ב חַסְדּ֛וֹ וַֽאֲמִתּ֖וֹ מֵעִ֣ם אֲדֹנִ֑י אָֽנֹכִ֗י בַּדֶּ֨רֶךְ֙ נָחַ֣נִי י֔י בֵּ֖ית אֲחֵ֥י אֲדֹנִֽי׃
[21] The man, meanwhile, stood gazing at her, silently wondering whether the Lord had made his errand successful or not.
[22] When the camels had finished drinking, the man took a gold nose-ring weighing a half-shekel, and two gold bands for her arms, ten shekels in weight.
[23] “Pray tell me,” he said, “whose daughter are you? Is there room in your father’s house for us to spend the night?”
[24] She replied, “I am the daughter of Bethuel the son of Milcah, whom she bore to Nahor.”
[25] And she went on, “There is plenty of straw and feed at home, and also room to spend the night.”
[26] The man bowed low in homage to the Lord
[27] and said, “Blessed be the Lord, the God of my master Abraham, who has not withheld His steadfast faithfulness from my master. For I have been guided on my errand by the Lord, to the house of my master’s kinsmen.”
[21] The man, meanwhile, stood gazing at her, silently wondering whether the Lord had made his errand successful or not ◊ While Rebekah waters the camels, Abraham’s servant stands astonished at the goings on, but still remains silent. For although the girl’s behavior is remarkable, he knows he has given Abraham his sworn oath to find a wife for Isaac only from Abraham’s relatives.
[22] When the camels had finished drinking, the man took a gold nose-ring ◊ After the camels had finished drinking, although the girl did not ask for any compensation or reward, Eliezer gives her gifts. Although this of course goes beyond the norms of ordinary day-to-day communication, there is also no formal matchmaking happening here yet.
When, later, Eliezer retells this story to Rebekah’s relatives, he changes events in places – as if he first asked her about the relationship, and only then gave her gifts – because otherwise, Rebekah’s relatives would not have made sense of his actions. They are not interested in any degree of chesed. But they are very impressed by the coincidences.
[23] Whose daughter are you? Is there room in your father’s house for us to spend the night? By asking whose daughter she is, and whether they can spend the night, Eliezer is trying to determine whether these are Abraham’s relatives, and how hospitable the girl’s family is. That is, have they preserved Abraham’s traditions of hospitality, which for him, as a manifestation of love for one’s fellow humans, are a core religious principle?
[25] “There is plenty of straw and feed at home, and also room to spend the night”. [26] The man bowed low in homage to the Lord ◊ Upon learning that Rebekah’s family has ample place for lodging, and that they are always prepared to receive travelers (it is the accepted custom of the family, and their house has been specially adapted for this), Eliezer bows to the Lord in gratitude.
כח וַתָּ֨רָץ֙ הַֽנַּעֲרָ֔ וַתַּגֵּ֖ד לְבֵ֣ית אִמָּ֑הּ כַּדְּבָרִ֖ים הָאֵֽלֶּה׃ כט וּלְרִבְקָ֥ה אָ֖ח וּשְׁמ֣וֹ לָבָ֑ן וַיָּ֨רָץ לָבָ֧ן אֶל־הָאִ֛ישׁ הַח֖וּצָה אֶל־הָעָֽיִן׃ ל וַיְהִ֣י ׀ כִּרְאֹ֣ת אֶת־הַנֶּ֗זֶם וְֽאֶת־הַצְּמִדִים֮ עַל־יְדֵ֣י אֲחֹתוֹ֒ וּכְשָׁמְע֗וֹ אֶת־דִּבְרֵ֞י רִבְקָ֤ה אֲחֹתוֹ֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר כֹּֽה־דִבֶּ֥ר אֵלַ֖י הָאִ֑ישׁ וַיָּבֹא֙ אֶל־הָאִ֔ישׁ וְהִנֵּ֛ה עֹמֵ֥ד עַל־הַגְּמַלִּ֖ים עַל־הָעָֽיִן׃ לא וַיֹּ֕אמֶר בּ֖וֹא בְּר֣וּךְ י֑י לָ֤מָּה תַֽעֲמֹד֙ בַּח֔וּץ וְאָֽנֹכִי֙ פִּנִּ֣יתִי הַבַּ֔יִת וּמָק֖וֹם לַגְּמַלִּֽים׃ לב וַיָּבֹ֤א הָאִישׁ֙ הַבַּ֔יְתָה וַיְפַתַּ֖ח הַגְּמַלִּ֑ים וַיִּתֵּ֨ן תֶּ֤בֶן וּמִסְפּוֹא֙ לַגְּמַלִּ֔ים וּמַ֨יִם֙ לִרְחֹ֣ץ רַגְלָ֔יו וְרַגְלֵ֥י הָֽאֲנָשִׁ֖ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר אִתּֽוֹ׃ לג ויישם (וַיּוּשַׂ֤ם) לְפָנָיו֙ לֶֽאֱכֹ֔ל וַיֹּ֨אמֶר֙ לֹ֣א אֹכַ֔ל עַ֥ד אִם־דִּבַּ֖רְתִּי דְּבָרָ֑י וַיֹּ֖אמֶר דַּבֵּֽר׃
[28] The maiden ran and told all this to her mother’s household.
[29] Now Rebekah had a brother whose name was Laban. Laban ran out to the man at the spring—
[30] when he saw the nose-ring and the bands on his sister’s arms, and when he heard his sister Rebekah say, “Thus the man spoke to me.” He went up to the man, who was still standing beside the camels at the spring.
[31] “Come in, O blessed of the Lord,” he said, “why do you remain outside, when I have made ready the house and a place for the camels?”
[32] So the man entered the house, and the camels were unloaded. The camels were given straw and feed, and water was brought to bathe his feet and the feet of the men with him.
[33] But when food was set before him, he said, “I will not eat until I have told my tale.” He said, “Speak, then.”
[30] When he saw the nose-ring and the bands on his sister’s arms ◊ Here the Torah contrasts the selflessness of Rebekah’s actions with the self-interest (by all appearances, at least) of Laban’s motives. Nonetheless, the hospitality practiced by the entire Nahor family is also emphasized.
[33] I will not eat until I have told my tale ◊ Now that Eliezer has completed the first part of his assignment — finding a suitable woman for Isaac — he must also carry out the next part, ensuring that her relatives will give her hand in marriage. We will soon see how he accomplishes that, by dramatizing his retelling of the events and altering the emphasis in his story.
But in addition to negotiations with the family of the bride, the Torah here includes also a parallel subplot – the development of Eliezer himself. The text alternately refers to him as “the slave,” “the man,” and (here) “blessed of the Lord,” but these variations are not accidental. Earlier we mentioned that in Eliezer’s words to Abraham at the beginning of the story, “What if the girl does not consent to follow me …” there was an indication that Eliezer actually had his own views on whom Isaac should marry. Here he must surmount those previous attitudes.
לד וַיֹּאמַ֑ר עֶ֥בֶד אַבְרָהָ֖ם אָנֹֽכִי׃ לה וַֽי֞י בֵּרַ֧ךְ אֶת־אֲדֹנִ֛י מְאֹ֖ד וַיִּגְדָּ֑ל וַיִּתֶּן־ל֞וֹ צֹ֤אן וּבָקָר֙ וְכֶ֣סֶף וְזָהָ֔ב וַֽעֲבָדִם֙ וּשְׁפָחֹ֔ת וּגְמַלִּ֖ים וַֽחֲמֹרִֽים׃ לו וַתֵּ֡לֶד שָׂרָה֩ אֵ֨שֶׁת אֲדֹנִ֥י בֵן֙ לַֽאדֹנִ֔י אַֽחֲרֵ֖י זִקְנָתָ֑הּ וַיִּתֶּן־ל֖וֹ אֶת־כָּל־אֲשֶׁר־לֽוֹ׃ לז וַיַּשְׁבִּעֵ֥נִי אֲדֹנִ֖י לֵאמֹ֑ר לֹֽא־תִקַּ֤ח אִשָּׁה֙ לִבְנִ֔י מִבְּנוֹת֙ הַֽכְּנַעֲנִ֔י אֲשֶׁ֥ר אָֽנֹכִ֖י יֹשֵׁ֥ב בְּאַרְצֽוֹ׃ לח אִם־לֹ֧א אֶל־בֵּית־אָבִ֛י תֵּלֵ֖ךְ וְאֶל־מִשְׁפַּחְתִּ֑י וְלָֽקַחְתָּ֥ אִשָּׁ֖ה לִבְנִֽי׃
[34] “I am Abraham’s servant,” he began.
[35] “The Lord has greatly blessed my master, and he has become rich: He has given him sheep and cattle, silver and gold, male and female slaves, camels and asses.
[36] And Sarah, my master’s wife, bore my master a son in her old age, and he has assigned to him everything he owns.
[37] Now my master made me swear, saying, ‘You shall not get a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites in whose land I dwell;
[38] but you shall go to my father’s house, to my kindred, and get a wife for my son.’”
The events as Eliezer retells them are somewhat different from how they actually happened. Starting off with Abraham’s prominence and wealth, and emphasizing that all of that will pass to Isaac, Eliezer further shifts the emphases in his description of the task he was charged to perform.
[38] But you shall go to my father’s house, to my kindred, and get a wife for my son ◊ Abraham had instructed Eliezer to find a wife for Isaac from Abraham’s kin. But when retelling the events, Eliezer says that he was ordered to look for a girl from Abraham’s “father’s house.” “Kin” is a broad concept, whereas “father’s house” is much more specific. Eliezer intentionally narrows the task set by Abraham, representing the situation as even more of a miracle than it actually was. And Rebekah’s relatives are indeed duly impressed.
לט וָֽאֹמַ֖ר אֶל־אֲדֹנִ֑י אֻלַ֛י לֹֽא־תֵלֵ֥ךְ הָֽאִשָּׁ֖ה אַֽחֲרָֽי׃
[39] And I said to my master, ‘What if the woman does not follow me?’
[39] What if the woman does not follow me? We have already mentioned that Eliezer’s use of the word ulai, “what if,” here and also above (verse 5), seems strange, because that word usually indicates a condition that the speaker actually does want to occur. Was Eliezer actually hoping that his mission would fail? The Midrash believes that that was indeed the case, as we shall very soon explain.
At the same time, the Midrash notes that here the word ulai is written with the letter vav omitted. This is also unusual, but has the effect that the word can also be read as elai, “to me.” (In Eliezer’s original conversation with Abraham above (verse 5), the word is written the usual way, in full, including the letter vav.)
So, what is this all about? It seems that Eliezer himself had a daughter, and he had therefore for a long time been hoping that Isaac would marry her. The “what if” that escaped from Eliezer’s mouth was a (possibly only subconscious) expression of his hope that his current mission would fail, in order that his daughter could marry Isaac. In the process of completing the mission Eliezer had to overcome his misguided hope. And he does in fact change his approach, as indicated by his replacing the original, conventional “what if” with the unusual “what if” that he uses here.
Here is how
the Midrash describes the situation. Having received the assignment to go to
Doesn’t Abraham’s reply to Eliezer seem far too harsh? After all, Eliezer is a righteous individual who “had charge of all that Abraham owned” (24:2), which the Midrash understands to refer not only to Abraham’s property, but also to Eliezer’s responsibility for instructing Abraham’s servant-disciples. The Midrash adds that Eliezer was Abraham’s best student, “drawing living waters” from his master Abraham, and using them to water yet other disciples. Eliezer had even been considered a potential heir to Abraham (15:2-3). How, then, could Abraham utter such harsh words to such a beloved disciple?
We must take into account, however, that these words are not those of the Torah text itself, but of the Midrash, and thus should be understood not literally, but only as the expression of an important idea that the authors of the Midrash wish to convey.
The concept of berachah, “blessing,” means increasing, expanding, and advancing. The classic Jewish formula for reciting blessings to God, which begins, “Blessed are You, o Lord, our God,” means that through our efforts, Divine holiness increases and spreads throughout the world. Accordingly, a “curse” (the antithesis of blessing) means the cessation and impossibility of self-advancement, the mere mechanical repetition of something heard earlier. If you can only repeat after your teacher, but do not generate anything new, that is a curse. But one who is truly blessed can reveal in the world something new that was not previously recognized.
Eliezer is a wonderful person, full of love of God and of Abraham, but he is “cursed” in the sense that he can only repeat after his teacher. And so Abraham says to him: “My son must advance further, by discovering new phenomena in the world. Your daughter would provide no opportunity for such advancement.”
Eliezer’s daughter is not appropriate for Isaac, not because she is bad as a person, but because she cannot help him advance. She will listen to him with admiration and repeat his words, but she cannot be his “counterweight,” because although her father is a disciple of Abraham, she herself is unable to advance. She can comprehend what she has heard, and perhaps even “take charge over the house,” by educating younger students in the essentials of Divine teachings. But she lacks the potential for independent development. Such is Eliezer’s daughter.
In order for a wife to be a “counterweight helper” (2:18) to her husband, she must be at his level, and in some ways even surpass him. Abraham therefore wants Isaac to marry a woman who is capable of being spiritually independent, and who can bring him blessings and advancement.
And so the Midrash puts into Abraham’s mouth the statement that Eliezer is cursed. But at the same time, as we’ve just noted (verse 31), Laban calls Eliezer “blessed of the Lord,” which is, of course, not by mere happenstance.
In the course of fulfilling his mission, Eliezer changed. He performed not only what Abraham had instructed him; rather, he began to formulate on his own methods of choosing a bride and of persuading her relatives. Having received a harsh refusal from Abraham, Eliezer was able to part with his cherished dream of marrying his daughter to Isaac. But at the same time he also became more resourceful in accomplishing his mission. He puts his own understanding into the mission, revealing his desire for it to succeed. Thus, he enhances his assignment with that new understanding, and through this he acquires blessings and sheds the “curse.”
Every human being has been created in the image and likeness of God (1:26-27). Becoming like the Creator by acquiring His characteristics is the most important element of our advancement. Since God is first and foremost the Creator – “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (1:1) – independent creativity is the most important aspect of human likeness to God. By demonstrating a creative attitude toward his mission, Eliezer has found his blessing.
Throughout the story the Torah refers to Eliezer alternately as eved, “servant” (or “slave”), and as ish, “man,” which denotes a significant, autonomous individual. This variation in how the Torah refers to Eliezer is meant to tell us that at times Eliezer behaves as only an implementer of Abraham’s instructions, but at other times he acts as an autonomous individual in his own right.
מ וַיֹּ֖אמֶר אֵלָ֑י י֞י אֲשֶׁר־הִתְהַלַּ֣כְתִּי לְפָנָ֗יו יִשְׁלַ֨ח מַלְאָכ֤וֹ אִתָּךְ֙ וְהִצְלִ֣יחַ דַּרְכֶּ֔ךָ וְלָֽקַחְתָּ֤ אִשָּׁה֙ לִבְנִ֔י מִמִּשְׁפַּחְתִּ֖י וּמִבֵּ֥ית אָבִֽי׃ מא אָ֤ז תִּנָּקֶה֙ מֵאָ֣לָתִ֔י כִּ֥י תָב֖וֹא אֶל־מִשְׁפַּחְתִּ֑י וְאִם־לֹ֤א יִתְּנוּ֙ לָ֔ךְ וְהָיִ֥יתָ נָקִ֖י מֵאָֽלָתִֽי׃ מב וָֽאָבֹ֥א הַיּ֖וֹם אֶל־הָעָ֑יִן וָֽאֹמַ֗ר יי֙ אֱלֹהֵי֙ אֲדֹנִ֣י אַבְרָהָ֔ם אִם־יֶשְׁךָ־נָּא֙ מַצְלִ֣יחַ דַּרְכִּ֔י אֲשֶׁ֥ר אָֽנֹכִ֖י הֹלֵ֥ךְ עָלֶֽיהָ׃ מג הִנֵּ֛ה אָֽנֹכִ֥י נִצָּ֖ב עַל־עֵ֣ין הַמָּ֑יִם וְהָיָ֤ה הָֽעַלְמָה֙ הַיֹּצֵ֣את לִשְׁאֹ֔ב וְאָֽמַרְתִּ֣י אֵלֶ֔יהָ הַשְׁקִֽינִי־נָ֥א מְעַט־מַ֖יִם מִכַּדֵּֽךְ׃ מד וְאָֽמְרָ֤ה אֵלַי֙ גַּם־אַתָּ֣ה שְׁתֵ֔ה וְגַ֥ם לִגְמַלֶּ֖יךָ אֶשְׁאָ֑ב הִ֣וא הָֽאִשָּׁ֔ה אֲשֶׁר־הֹכִ֥יחַ י֖י לְבֶן־אֲדֹנִֽי׃ מה אֲנִי֩ טֶ֨רֶם אֲכַלֶּ֜ה לְדַבֵּ֣ר אֶל־לִבִּ֗י וְהִנֵּ֨ה רִבְקָ֤ה יֹצֵאת֙ וְכַדָּ֣הּ עַל־שִׁכְמָ֔הּ וַתֵּ֥רֶד הָעַ֖יְנָה וַתִּשְׁאָ֑ב וָֽאֹמַ֥ר אֵלֶ֖יהָ הַשְׁקִ֥ינִי נָֽא׃ מו וַתְּמַהֵ֗ר וַתּ֤וֹרֶד כַּדָּהּ֙ מֵֽעָלֶ֔יהָ וַתֹּ֣אמֶר שְׁתֵ֔ה וְגַם־גְּמַלֶּ֖יךָ אַשְׁקֶ֑ה וָאֵ֕שְׁתְּ וְגַ֥ם הַגְּמַלִּ֖ים הִשְׁקָֽתָה׃ מז וָֽאֶשְׁאַ֣ל אֹתָ֗הּ וָֽאֹמַר֮ בַּת־מִ֣י אַתְּ֒ וַתֹּ֗אמֶר בַּת־בְּתוּאֵל֙ בֶּן־נָח֔וֹר אֲשֶׁ֥ר יָֽלְדָה־לּ֖וֹ מִלְכָּ֑ה וָֽאָשִׂ֤ם הַנֶּ֨זֶם֙ עַל־אַפָּ֔הּ וְהַצְּמִידִ֖ים עַל־יָדֶֽיהָ׃ מח וָֽאֶקֹּ֥ד וָֽאֶשְׁתַּחֲוֶ֖ה לַֽי֑י וָֽאֲבָרֵ֗ךְ אֶת־יי֙ אֱלֹהֵי֙ אֲדֹנִ֣י אַבְרָהָ֔ם אֲשֶׁ֤ר הִנְחַ֨נִי֙ בְּדֶ֣רֶךְ אֱמֶ֔ת לָקַ֛חַת אֶת־בַּת־אֲחִ֥י אֲדֹנִ֖י לִבְנֽוֹ׃ מט וְ֠עַתָּה אִם־יֶשְׁכֶ֨ם עֹשִׂ֜ים חֶ֧סֶד וֶֽאֱמֶ֛ת אֶת־אֲדֹנִ֖י הַגִּ֣ידוּ לִ֑י וְאִם־לֹ֕א הַגִּ֣ידוּ לִ֔י וְאֶפְנֶ֥ה עַל־יָמִ֖ין א֥וֹ עַל־שְׂמֹֽאל׃ נ וַיַּ֨עַן לָבָ֤ן וּבְתוּאֵל֙ וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ מֵֽי֖י יָצָ֣א הַדָּבָ֑ר לֹ֥א נוּכַ֛ל דַּבֵּ֥ר אֵלֶ֖יךָ רַ֥ע אוֹ־טֽוֹב׃ נא הִנֵּֽה־רִבְקָ֥ה לְפָנֶ֖יךָ קַ֣ח וָלֵ֑ךְ וּתְהִ֤י אִשָּׁה֙ לְבֶן־אֲדֹנֶ֔יךָ כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֖ר דִּבֶּ֥ר יֽי׃ נב וַיְהִ֕י כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֥ר שָׁמַ֛ע עֶ֥בֶד אַבְרָהָ֖ם אֶת־דִּבְרֵיהֶ֑ם וַיִּשְׁתַּ֥חוּ אַ֖רְצָה לַֽיֽי׃ נג וַיּוֹצֵ֨א הָעֶ֜בֶד כְּלֵי־כֶ֨סֶף וּכְלֵ֤י זָהָב֙ וּבְגָדִ֔ים וַיִּתֵּ֖ן לְרִבְקָ֑ה וּמִ֨גְדָּנֹ֔ת נָתַ֥ן לְאָחִ֖יהָ וּלְאִמָּֽהּ׃ נד וַיֹּֽאכְל֣וּ וַיִּשְׁתּ֗וּ ה֛וּא וְהָֽאֲנָשִׁ֥ים אֲשֶׁר־עִמּ֖וֹ וַיָּלִ֑ינוּ וַיָּק֣וּמוּ בַבֹּ֔קֶר וַיֹּ֖אמֶר שַׁלְּחֻ֥נִי לַֽאדֹנִֽי׃ נה וַיֹּ֤אמֶר אָחִ֨יהָ֙ וְאִמָּ֔הּ תֵּשֵׁ֨ב הַנַּֽעֲרָ֥ אִתָּ֛נוּ יָמִ֖ים א֣וֹ עָשׂ֑וֹר אַחַ֖ר תֵּלֵֽךְ׃ נו וַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֲלֵהֶם֙ אַל־תְּאַֽחֲר֣וּ אֹתִ֔י וַֽי֖י הִצְלִ֣יחַ דַּרְכִּ֑י שַׁלְּח֕וּנִי וְאֵֽלְכָ֖ה לַֽאדֹנִֽי׃ נז וַיֹּֽאמְר֖וּ נִקְרָ֣א לַֽנַּעֲרָ֑ וְנִשְׁאֲלָ֖ה אֶת־פִּֽיהָ׃ נח וַיִּקְרְא֤וּ לְרִבְקָה֙ וַיֹּֽאמְר֣וּ אֵלֶ֔יהָ הֲתֵֽלְכִ֖י עִם־הָאִ֣ישׁ הַזֶּ֑ה וַתֹּ֖אמֶר אֵלֵֽךְ׃ נט וַֽיְשַׁלְּח֛וּ אֶת־רִבְקָ֥ה אֲחֹתָ֖ם וְאֶת־מֵֽנִקְתָּ֑הּ וְאֶת־עֶ֥בֶד אַבְרָהָ֖ם וְאֶת־אֲנָשָֽׁיו׃ ס וַיְבָֽרְכ֤וּ אֶת־רִבְקָה֙ וַיֹּ֣אמְרוּ לָ֔הּ אֲחֹתֵ֕נוּ אַ֥תְּ הֲיִ֖י לְאַלְפֵ֣י רְבָבָ֑ה וְיִירַ֣שׁ זַרְעֵ֔ךְ אֵ֖ת שַׁ֥עַר שֹֽׂנְאָֽיו׃ סא וַתָּ֨קָם רִבְקָ֜ה וְנַֽעֲרֹתֶ֗יהָ וַתִּרְכַּ֨בְנָה֙ עַל־הַגְּמַלִּ֔ים וַתֵּלַ֖כְנָה אַֽחֲרֵ֣י הָאִ֑ישׁ וַיִּקַּ֥ח הָעֶ֛בֶד אֶת־רִבְקָ֖ה וַיֵּלַֽךְ׃
[40] He replied to me, ‘The Lord, whose ways I have followed, will send His angel with you and make your errand successful; and you will get a wife for my son from my kindred, from my father’s house.
[41] Thus only shall you be freed from adjuration: if, when you come to my kindred, they refuse you – only then shall you be freed from my adjuration.’
[42] “I came today to the spring, and I said: O Lord, God of my master Abraham, if You would indeed grant success to the errand on which I am engaged!
[43] As I stand by the spring of water, let the young woman who comes out to draw and to whom I say, ‘Please, let me drink a little water from your jar,’
[44] and who answers, ‘You may drink, and I will also draw for your camels’—let her be the wife whom the Lord has decreed for my master’s son.’
[45] I had scarcely finished praying in my heart, when Rebekah came out with her jar on her shoulder, and went down to the spring and drew. And I said to her, ‘Please give me a drink.’
[46] She quickly lowered her jar and said, ‘Drink, and I will also water your camels.’ So I drank, and she also watered the camels.
[47] I inquired of her, ‘Whose daughter are you?’ And she said, ‘The daughter of Bethuel, son of Nahor, whom Milcah bore to him.’ And I put the ring on her nose and the bands on her arms.
[48] Then I bowed low in homage to the Lord and blessed the Lord, the God of my master Abraham, who led me on the right way to get the daughter of my master’s brother for his son.
[49] And now, if you mean to treat my master with true kindness, tell me; and if not, tell me also, that I may turn right or left.”
[50] Then Laban and Bethuel answered, “The matter was decreed by the Lord; we cannot speak to you bad or good.
[51] Here is Rebekah before you; take her and go, and let her be a wife to your master’s son, as the Lord has spoken.”
[52] When Abraham’s servant heard their words, he bowed low to the ground before the Lord.
[53] The servant brought out objects of silver and gold, and garments, and gave them to Rebekah; and he gave presents to her brother and her mother.
[54] Then he and the men with him ate and drank, and they spent the night. When they arose next morning, he said, “Give me leave to go to my master.”
[55] But her brother and her mother said, “Let the maiden remain with us some ten days; then you may go.”
[56] He said to them, “Do not delay me, now that the Lord has made my errand successful. Give me leave that I may go to my master”.
[57] And they said, “Let us call the girl and ask for her reply.”
[58] They called Rebekah and said to her, “Will you go with this man?” And she said, “I will.”
[59] So they sent off their sister Rebekah and her nurse along with Abraham’s servant and his men.
[60] And they blessed Rebekah and said to her, “O sister! May you grow Into thousands of myriads; May your offspring seize The gates of their foes.”
[61] Then Rebekah and her maids arose, mounted the camels, and followed the man. So the servant took Rebekah and went his way.
[40] The Lord, whose ways I have followed, will send His angel with you ◊ Eliezer mentions the angel, and also his own possible release from the oath, in terms somewhat different from those that Abraham had actually used. Abraham merely said, “you will get a wife for my son from there” (24:7), but Eliezer adds that the angel will lead him specifically to Abraham’s family.
[41] If … they refuse you – only then shall you be freed from my adjuration ◊ Abraham expressed it differently: “And if the woman does not consent to follow you, you shall then be clear of this oath to me” (24:8). By changing the wording, Eliezer shifts the responsibility for the decision to Rebekah’s family – her father and her brother.
[43] As I stand by the spring of water, let the young woman who comes out to draw … [45] I had scarcely finished praying in my heart, when Rebekah came out ◊ Eliezer presents the story as an act of magic, as if to say, “I simply stated what I wished to happen, and it literally happened exactly that way, which obviously means that a Higher Power has interceded on my behalf. So you’d better not even think of interfering with the Divine will.”
[47] And she said, ‘The daughter of Bethuel, son of Nahor, whom Milcah bore to him.’ And I put the ring on her nose ◊ By changing the order of events in his retelling (saying that he first asked Rebekah whose daughter she was, and only then gave her presents), Eliezer creates the impression that her family is exactly what he was looking for, and the accuracy with which the girl fulfilled his plans demonstrates Divine predestination. Rebekah’s display of chesed is deemphasized in his telling of the story.
[49] And if not, tell me also, that I may turn right or left ◊ For success in the negotiations, it is important for Eliezer to mention that other options also exist.
Right or left ◊ That is, to other relatives of Abraham. Once Eliezer puts it this way, Laban and Bethuel agree to give Rebekah in marriage.
We note several other points in which the retelling by Eliezer differs from the task that Abraham originally assigned to him.
In his conversation with Bethuel and Laban, Eliezer always emphasizes
the universal element, avoiding any mention of the
Abraham said to Eliezer: “The Lord, the God of Heaven, who took me from my father’s house” (24:7). But Eliezer conveys Abraham’s words to Bethuel and Laban differently: “The Lord, whose ways I have followed, will send His angel with you and make your errand successful” (24:40). Here the idea of chosenness is elided. Having a relationship with God is presented as a reward for good 'font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;'>chosenness and mission are alien to them.
[51] And let her be a wife to your master’s son, as the Lord has spoken ◊ Eliezer had now achieved his goal. Rebekah’s relatives recognized that a miracle sent from Above had occurred, and that this was not their choice to make.
[55] But her brother and her mother said, “Let the maiden remain with us some ten days; then you may go” ◊ The family’s consent had just been received – or so it seemed – but first thing the next morning, there is already a problem. With yesterday’s enthusiasm now quickly dissipating, Rebekah’s relatives begin to have misgivings about whether or not to let their daughter go.
[56] Do not delay me, now that the Lord has made my errand successful ◊ Eliezer understands that postponing a decision is the first step to its reversal, and that in dealing with such people it is of utmost importance to strike while the iron is hot. Once again he emphasizes the Divine will and insists on immediate execution of the agreements already concluded. Rebekah’s family has no way out but to summon and ask Rebekah herself, and once they have heard her consent to depart, they must come to terms with it.
[58] They called Rebekah and said to her, “Will you go with this man?” And she said, “I will” ◊ It turns out that Rebekah is not only a person of chesed; she possesses gevurah as well, and can insist that decisions already made must be carried out. Later, too, as Isaac’s wife, she realizes the very same synthesis: “Hesed within gevurah.”
Jewish tradition also concludes from this story that it is forbidden to marry off one’s children without their consent. Regardless of the opinions of her relatives, only Rebekah’s wishes were decisive.
Respecting one’s parents and their wishes is of course a principle of the highest importance in Judaism, but in matters of marriage it takes on only secondary importance at best. If the children in a proposed marriage do not themselves agree with their parents’ opinions about the appropriateness of the match, they have full rights under Jewish religious law to insist on their point of view, and the parents have no right to force them.
There are situations in modern literature where a father forces his daughter to marry a stranger. Although she implores her father for relief, it is to no avail, and the marriage must proceed. But in Jewish society this could never happen.
A classic
example is the Talmudic story of Rabbi Akiva. Akiva in his youth was an
ignorant shepherd, working for one of the wealthiest inhabitants of
(The Talmud then goes on to relate how Rachel, after selling her luxurious hair to a wigmaker in order to have funds to live on, sends her husband away to study. In a few short years the simple “Akiva the shepherd” becomes Rabbi Akiva, arguably the greatest of all Talmudic sages. But that is a story for another time.)
סב וְיִצְחָק֙ בָּ֣א מִבּ֔וֹא בְּאֵ֥ר לַחַ֖י רֹאִ֑י וְה֥וּא יוֹשֵׁ֖ב בְּאֶ֥רֶץ הַנֶּֽגֶב׃ סג וַיֵּצֵ֥א יִצְחָ֛ק לָשׂ֥וּחַ בַּשָּׂדֶ֖ה לִפְנ֣וֹת עָ֑רֶב וַיִּשָּׂ֤א עֵינָיו֙ וַיַּ֔רְא וְהִנֵּ֥ה גְמַלִּ֖ים בָּאִֽים׃
[62] Isaac had just come back from the vicinity of Beer-lahai-roi, for he was settled in the region of the Negeb.
[63] And Isaac went out walking in the field toward evening and, looking up, he saw camels approaching.
[62] Isaac had just come back from the vicinity of Beer-lahai-roi ◊ This is the place to which Hagar fled after Abraham sent her and Ishmael away at Sarah’s insistence (16:14). It is on the edge of the desert, and Isaac is now returning from there. The harshness of the desert corresponds to Isaac’s soul.
For he was settled in the region of the Negeb ◊ Isaac, although not yet married, lives apart from Abraham. Perhaps a certain estrangement occurred in their relationship after Sarah’s death.
[63] And Isaac went out walking in the field ◊ The field was for Isaac a place of work, both material and spiritual, and a meeting place with God (“And Isaac sowed in that land, and that year received a hundredfold: the Lord blessed him” (26:12)).
Toward evening ◊ This is the time of gevurah.
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob each have a different approach to the place for
communing with God. Abraham meets God on the mountain (“On the mount of the
Lord there is vision” (22:14)). For Isaac, the meeting place, as we see here,
is just a field. And Jacob defines the place of meeting with God as a “house” (
Abraham is a mountain towering over the world. Jacob, through his dialogue with God, will build the House of Israel. But Isaac maintains a consistently low profile. Any kind of prominence is alien to him, and he downplays his own virtues. The symbol of his communion with God is therefore just a field. It should be noted as well that Isaac is the only one of the Patriarchs who pursued farming and agriculture. (Abraham and Jacob were engaged only in cattle breeding and shepherding.)
סד וַתִּשָּׂ֤א רִבְקָה֙ אֶת־עֵינֶ֔יהָ וַתֵּ֖רֶא אֶת־יִצְחָ֑ק וַתִּפֹּ֖ל מֵעַ֥ל הַגָּמָֽל׃ סה וַתֹּ֣אמֶר אֶל־הָעֶ֗בֶד מִֽי־הָאִ֤ישׁ הַלָּזֶה֙ הַֽהֹלֵ֤ךְ בַּשָּׂדֶה֙ לִקְרָאתֵ֔נוּ וַיֹּ֥אמֶר הָעֶ֖בֶד ה֣וּא אֲדֹנִ֑י וַתִּקַּ֥ח הַצָּעִ֖יף וַתִּתְכָּֽס׃ סו וַיְסַפֵּ֥ר הָעֶ֖בֶד לְיִצְחָ֑ק אֵ֥ת כָּל־הַדְּבָרִ֖ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר עָשָֽׂה׃ סז וַיְבִאֶ֣הָ יִצְחָ֗ק הָאֹ֨הֱלָה֙ שָׂרָ֣ה אִמּ֔וֹ וַיִּקַּ֧ח אֶת־רִבְקָ֛ה וַתְּהִי־ל֥וֹ לְאִשָּׁ֖ה וַיֶּֽאֱהָבֶ֑הָ וַיִּנָּחֵ֥ם יִצְחָ֖ק אַֽחֲרֵ֥י אִמּֽוֹ׃
[64] Raising her eyes, Rebekah saw Isaac. She alighted from the camel
[65] and said to the servant, “Who is that man walking in the field toward us?” And the servant said, “That is my master.” So she took her veil and covered herself.
[66] The servant told Isaac all the things that he had done.
[67] Isaac then brought her into the tent of his mother Sarah, and he took Rebekah as his wife. Isaac loved her, and thus found comfort after his mother’s death.
[64] Raising her eyes, Rebekah saw Isaac. She alighted from the camel: Rebekah’s behavior can be understood as simple modesty. But literally translated the text means, “She fell off the camel.” The sense is not simply that she dismounted, but that she was stunned, or disappeared from view.
We have already mentioned that after the story of the Akeidah, Isaac lacked a soul at the nefesh level, that is, a soul at the level of an ordinary person (or animal). Isaac possessed only the highest level of soul, neshamah, because Isaac had already attained the level of belonging to the World to Come.
Although all this did not prevent Isaac from becoming a successful farmer, everyday communication with him was nonetheless quite difficult. Rebekah, upon seeing Isaac for the first time, was stunned that she was about to marry an angel, and she therefore “fell off the camel.”
A significant problem in the relationship of Isaac and Rebekah was the absence of contact – that is, communication – between them, unlike, for example, Abraham’s relationship with Sarah, or Jacob’s with Rachel and Leah. There are many conversations in the Torah between Abraham and Sarah, and between Jacob and his wives, but there are almost no conversations between Isaac and Rebekah. As just one example, perhaps it was for this reason that Rebekah could not convey her thoughts to Isaac concerning which of their two sons Jacob and Esau should receive Isaac’s final blessing. Rebekah was therefore forced to resort to deception, which only caused further conflict in the family.
[67] Isaac then brought her into the tent of his mother Sarah … and Isaac found comfort after his mother’s death ◊ By very briefly alluding to Isaac’s mental crisis after Sarah’s death, this verse connects the present story with the beginning of the Chayei Sarah portion, where the Torah had nothing at all to say about that crisis. Isaac’s parental home was Sarah’s home, not Abraham’s. Sarah (gevurah), was much closer to Isaac than Abraham (chesed) was. Thus, only by marrying Rebekah, “Isaac found comfort after his mother’s death.”
It is even possible that Abraham intentionally commissioned his servant Eliezer to conduct the search for a wife for Isaac, because he felt that that search would be better executed by his agent, rather than conducting that search himself.
Therefore, upon Eliezer’s return with Isaac’s bride after executing that mission, he goes not to Abraham, but directly to Isaac. Moreover, that fact is an indication that there has been a transition of command from one generation to the next. The Torah informs us that Abraham gave birth to Isaac at the age of one hundred (21:5), that Isaac married Rebekah at the age of forty (25:20), and that Abraham died at the age of one hundred seventy-five (25:7). Thus, after Isaac’s marriage Abraham continued to live another thirty-five years – a long time, relatively speaking. But from the moment of Isaac’s marriage, the leadership passes to him.
The fact that Abraham is chesed and Isaac is gevurah is also the reason that Abraham has been a leader all his life, while Isaac has been led. Abraham is proactive. He takes initiative to build the world around him. But Isaac is a reactive – he waits until he has observed in which direction a situation will develop, and only then he reacts to it.
Chesed seeks to spread out and it therefore actively advances – it is proactive, while gevurah wants to maintain the status quo, and only reacts to what already exists – it is reactive. Abraham all his life has taken the initiative to move to new places, but Isaac constantly retreats, moving only when compelled by external circumstances. He does not even marry on his own – his father and his father’s servant choose his wife for him. Later he retreats from the Philistines; his wife imposes on him her view of which of their sons he is to to bless; and so on.
This quality of Isaac – “submission to life’s circumstances” – is the most important property of gevurah. Gevurah can only react to what has already happened (judgment, the attribute of the court, can only operate in this mode), whereas chesed, mercy, takes initiative to remake the world.
Chapter 27. Abraham’s Other Children
א וַיֹּ֧סֶף אַבְרָהָ֛ם וַיִּקַּ֥ח אִשָּׁ֖ה וּשְׁמָ֥הּ קְטוּרָֽה׃ ב וַתֵּ֣לֶד ל֗וֹ אֶת־זִמְרָן֙ וְאֶת־יָקְשָׁ֔ן וְאֶת־מְדָ֖ן וְאֶת־מִדְיָ֑ן וְאֶת־יִשְׁבָּ֖ק וְאֶת־שֽׁוּחַ׃ ג וְיָקְשָׁ֣ן יָלַ֔ד אֶת־שְׁבָ֖א וְאֶת־דְּדָ֑ן וּבְנֵ֣י דְדָ֔ן הָי֛וּ אַשּׁוּרִ֥ם וּלְטוּשִׁ֖ם וּלְאֻמִּֽים׃ ד וּבְנֵ֣י מִדְיָ֗ן עֵיפָ֤ה וָעֵ֨פֶר֙ וַֽחֲנֹ֔ךְ וַֽאֲבִידָ֖ע וְאֶלְדָּעָ֑ה כָּל־אֵ֖לֶּה בְּנֵ֥י קְטוּרָֽה׃
[1] Abraham took another wife, whose name was Keturah.
[2] She bore him Zimran, Jokshan,
[3] Jokshan begot
[4] The descendants of Midian were Ephah, Epher, Enoch, Abida, and Eldaah. All these were descendants of Keturah.
[1] Abraham took another wife, whose name was Keturah ◊ After the story of Isaac’s marriage, when it seems that Abraham’s life is nearing its end, suddenly we read that Abraham is taking a new wife named Keturah, who will bear him many more children.
Jewish tradition states as a general principle that “there is no earlier or later in the Torah” –the order of events as presented in the Torah cannot be assumed to correspond to the chronological sequence of those events as they actually occurred. We therefore cannot discount the real possibility that Abraham’s marriage to Keturah occurred before, not after, the events of Isaac’s marriage. If such is the case, then the reason that the Torah mentions Abraham’s marriage to Keturah only now is that, the story of Keturah logically relates to the conclusion of Abraham’s life.
The Midrash believes that Keturah is Hagar, who, after being expelled from Abraham’s house remained unmarried while she waited for Abraham to call her back. And eventually Abraham did exactly that. But why, after all the problems and unpleasantness Abraham had experienced with Hagar, did he marry her again? The answer is that a change of name indicates a change in one’s essence. Since Hagar is now called Keturah, she is no longer Hagar, as she was before.
The Midrash derives the name “Keturah” from ketoret, “incense,” which has a unique ability to soar, rise, and cleanse. After Hagar had experienced such ennobling advances in her character, Abraham could marry her again.
Of course, Hagar cannot catch up with Sarah even after this correction, nor do Abraham’s children from Keturah inherit with Isaac. However, she is a worthy and especially close and important person for Abraham.
Hagar’s return in the form of Keturah means that even after she had left Abraham, she nonetheless resolved not to abandon his heritage. Thus, she remained faithful to Abraham not only in the physical sense (which, we note in passing, was also essential in this case, since a woman who marries another man after divorce may no longer return to her previous husband), but, above all, by remaining loyal to Abraham’s teachings. Hagar demonstrated that those teachings were meaningful and precious to her in a personal way, irrespective of marriage. And as Ishmael’s roots are in Hagar, her return also made Ishmael’s repentance possible, as we shall see below.
We note too
that Midian, the son of Abraham and Keturah, will later appear in the book of
Exodus (2:15 ff.), when Moses flees
ה וַיִּתֵּ֧ן אַבְרָהָ֛ם אֶת־כָּל־אֲשֶׁר־ל֖וֹ לְיִצְחָֽק׃ ו וְלִבְנֵ֤י הַפִּֽילַגְשִׁים֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר לְאַבְרָהָ֔ם נָתַ֥ן אַבְרָהָ֖ם מַתָּנֹ֑ת וַֽיְשַׁלְּחֵ֞ם מֵעַ֨ל יִצְחָ֤ק בְּנוֹ֙ בְּעוֹדֶ֣נּוּ חַ֔י קֵ֖דְמָה אֶל־אֶ֥רֶץ קֶֽדֶם׃
[5] Abraham willed all that he owned to Isaac;
[6] but to Abraham’s sons by concubines Abraham gave gifts while he was still living, and he sent them away from his son Isaac eastward, to the land of the East.
[5] Abraham willed all that he owned to Isaac ◊ This refers primarily to the rights to the Land of Israel, which was “all that he owned,” because without it the realization of Abraham’s mission would have been impossible.
[6] But to Abraham’s sons by concubines ◊ “Concubines” are mentioned here in the plural. According to the simple meaning of the text, Keturah and Hagar are actually two distinct persons (which of course does not negate the validity of the Midrash we cited above). In any case, this is not about Ishmael, who did not go to the East (see verse 9), but only about the children of Keturah enumerated in this passage.
Abraham gave gifts ◊ According to the Midrash, these “gifts” were methods for communicating with spirits. For Jews, this is “unclean knowledge” (which is therefore prohibited to them), but no such ban applies to non-Jews.
And he sent them away from his son Isaac eastward, to the land of the East ◊ Abraham understood that only Isaac was his true heir, and that all his other sons had to be sent away, receiving no share in his inheritance. Once again this is Sarah’s spiritual strength at work. Jewish tradition has emphasized this point by naming this entire weekly portion Chayei Sarah.
The fact
that Keturah bore more children to Abraham in his old age is significant,
because it means that, in addition to the Jewish heritage that he created,
Abraham also had a great deal of other spiritual content that he accumulated in
his lifetime. Abraham bequeathed to Isaac the most essential things: the
Covenant with God, and the
Such knowledge is of no use to Jews, and it may may even interfere with their fulfillment of the Jewish mission to transfer monotheism to humanity. It is therefore in many respects prohibited. But other nations are not restricted this way, and for them the ability to communicate with “spirits” can be positive. Abraham does not want to see this spiritual knowledge lost. He wants to bequeath it to humanity, and he therefore transfers that knowledge to the sons of Keturah. (Perhaps it was for this very purpose that he decided to have children from Keturah.) Abraham then sends Keturah’s sons to the East.
In other words, the totality of Abraham’s self-realization is much broader than which he has accomplished through Isaac. God charged Abraham with the creation of the Jewish people, because without that rigid framework, Abraham’s central purpose could not have been realized. But it was important that Abraham, as a person of great versatility, would realize not only his primary potential, but his secondary aspects as well. He is therefore the spiritual father of all mankind, and not only the Patriarch of the Jewish people. The children that Abraham bore from Keturah, as they spread eastward, remain Abraham’s descendants, and carry with them important elements of his heritage.
It is possible that just this completeness of goal realization is what is referred to immediately below (verse 8) when the Torah says of Abraham that he died “old and contented.” In other words, besides realizing the tasks that God had required of him, Abraham realized also what he himself wanted to accomplish.
ז וְאֵ֗לֶּה יְמֵ֛י שְׁנֵֽי־חַיֵּ֥י אַבְרָהָ֖ם אֲשֶׁר־חָ֑י מְאַ֥ת שָׁנָ֛ה וְשִׁבְעִ֥ים שָׁנָ֖ה וְחָמֵ֥שׁ שָׁנִֽים׃ ח וַיִּגְוַ֨ע וַיָּ֧מָת אַבְרָהָ֛ם בְּשֵׂיבָ֥ה טוֹבָ֖ה זָקֵ֣ן וְשָׂבֵ֑עַ וַיֵּאָ֖סֶף אֶל־עַמָּֽיו׃ ט וַיִּקְבְּר֨וּ אֹת֜וֹ יִצְחָ֤ק וְיִשְׁמָעֵאל֙ בָּנָ֔יו אֶל־מְעָרַ֖ת הַמַּכְפֵּלָ֑ה אֶל־שְׂדֵ֞ה עֶפְרֹ֤ן בֶּן־צֹ֨חַר֙ הַֽחִתִּ֔י אֲשֶׁ֖ר עַל־פְּנֵ֥י מַמְרֵֽא׃ י הַשָּׂדֶ֛ה אֲשֶׁר־קָנָ֥ה אַבְרָהָ֖ם מֵאֵ֣ת בְּנֵי־חֵ֑ת שָׁ֛מָּה קֻבַּ֥ר אַבְרָהָ֖ם וְשָׂרָ֥ה אִשְׁתּֽוֹ׃ יא וַיְהִ֗י אַֽחֲרֵי֙ מ֣וֹת אַבְרָהָ֔ם וַיְבָ֥רֶךְ אֱלֹהִ֖ים אֶת־יִצְחָ֣ק בְּנ֑וֹ וַיֵּ֣שֶׁב יִצְחָ֔ק עִם־בְּאֵ֥ר לַחַ֖י רֹאִֽי׃
[7] This was the total span of Abraham’s life: one hundred and seventy-five years.
[8] And Abraham breathed his last, dying at a good ripe age, old and contented; and he was gathered to his kin.
[9] His sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the
[10] the field that Abraham had bought from the Hittites; there Abraham was buried, and Sarah his wife.
[11] After the death of Abraham, God blessed his son Isaac . And Isaac settled near Beer-lahai-roi.
[8] Old and contented ◊ With a sense of having completely realized his mission.
[9] His sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him ◊ The order of Abraham’s sons’ participation in his burial shows that Ishmael understood that he was subordinate to Isaac. Having acknowledged the correct family hierarchy, he can now take up his worthy position within it.
Isaac settled near Beer-lahai-roi ◊ Since the Torah closely associates Beer-lahai-roi with Hagar and Ishmael (16:14), the Midrash believes that Isaac, having decided that Abraham should not be alone after Sarah’s death, tried to return Hagar to him. Isaac had followed her to Beer-lahai-roi, and was therefore returning from there when he was met by Eliezer with Rebekah (24:63).
Isaac, being gevurah, justice, gives no thought to his mother’s earlier conflicts with Hagar, nor to his own past conflicts with Ishmael. He believes that it would be proper for Abraham to marry, and he therefore leads Hagar back to his father. Perhaps it was this act that served to improve Isaac’s relationship with Ishmael, and led to Ishmael’s recognition of his primacy.
[7] This was the total span of Abraham’s life: one hundred and seventy-five years. [8] And Abraham breathed his last, dying at a good ripe age ◊ The Midrash emphasizes the influence that Abraham’s death had even on his grandchildren, Isaac’s sons Jacob and Esau. When Isaac was born, Abraham was one-hundred years old, and when Jacob and Esau were born, Isaac was sixty years old. Thus, by the time Abraham died, Jacob and Esau were already fifteen years old (175 − 100 − 60 = 15). In other words, Abraham lived long enough to influence even his grandsons Jacob and Esau, but only in their early youth.
When the Torah says that Abraham died “at a good ripe age, old and contented,” the Midrash understands these words to mean that Esau became corrupted only at fifteen years of age, after the death of Abraham, who therefore did not witness it. Moreover, the Midrash believes that it was Abraham’s death itself that caused Esau to veer from the proper path, because Esau lost faith in the justice of a world in which such great saints die. Faith that is too naive, when confronted with every aspect of life, and is still unable to find answers to life’s most complex questions, can lead a person to nonbelief. We must therefore never glorify or admire naive faith.
[11] After the death of Abraham, God blessed his son Isaac ◊ The fullness of Abraham’s life is realized only when Isaac continues his father’s work of creating the Jewish people.
יב וְאֵ֛לֶּה תֹּֽלְדֹ֥ת יִשְׁמָעֵ֖אל בֶּן־אַבְרָהָ֑ם אֲשֶׁ֨ר יָֽלְדָ֜ה הָגָ֧ר הַמִּצְרִ֛ית שִׁפְחַ֥ת שָׂרָ֖ה לְאַבְרָהָֽם׃ יג וְאֵ֗לֶּה שְׁמוֹת֙ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׁמָעֵ֔אל בִּשְׁמֹתָ֖ם לְתֽוֹלְדֹתָ֑ם בְּכֹ֤ר יִשְׁמָעֵאל֙ נְבָיֹ֔ת וְקֵדָ֥ר וְאַדְבְּאֵ֖ל וּמִבְשָֽׂם׃ יד וּמִשְׁמָ֥ע וְדוּמָ֖ה וּמַשָּֽׂא׃ טו חֲדַ֣ד וְתֵימָ֔א יְט֥וּר נָפִ֖ישׁ וָקֵֽדְמָה׃ טז אֵ֣לֶּה הֵ֞ם בְּנֵ֤י יִשְׁמָעֵאל֙ וְאֵ֣לֶּה שְׁמֹתָ֔ם בְּחַצְרֵיהֶ֖ם וּבְטִֽירֹתָ֑ם שְׁנֵים־עָשָׂ֥ר נְשִׂיאִ֖ם לְאֻמֹּתָֽם׃ יז וְאֵ֗לֶּה שְׁנֵי֙ חַיֵּ֣י יִשְׁמָעֵ֔אל מְאַ֥ת שָׁנָ֛ה וּשְׁלֹשִׁ֥ים שָׁנָ֖ה וְשֶׁ֣בַע שָׁנִ֑ים וַיִּגְוַ֣ע וַיָּ֔מָת וַיֵּאָ֖סֶף אֶל־עַמָּֽיו׃ יח וַיִּשְׁכְּנ֨וּ מֵֽחֲוִילָ֜ה עַד־שׁ֗וּר אֲשֶׁר֙ עַל־פְּנֵ֣י מִצְרַ֔יִם בֹּֽאֲכָ֖ה אַשּׁ֑וּרָה עַל־פְּנֵ֥י כָל־אֶחָ֖יו נָפָֽל׃
[12] This is the line of Ishmael, Abraham’s son, whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah’s slave, bore to Abraham.
[13] These are the names of the sons of Ishmael, by their names, in the order of their birth: Nebaioth, the first-born of Ishmael, Kedar, Adbeel, Mibsam,
[14] Mishma, Dumah,
[15] Hadad, Tema, Jetur, Naphish, and Kedmah.
[16] These are the sons of Ishmael and these are their names by their villages and by their encampments: twelve chieftains of as many tribes.—
[17] These were the years of the life of Ishmael: one hundred and thirty-seven years; then he breathed his last Abraham’s son, whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah’s slave, bore to Abraham.and died, and was gathered to his kin.—
[18] They dwelt from Havilah, by Shur, which is
close to
[12] This is the line of Ishmael ◊ Before going on to the detailed account of Isaac’s family, the Torah briefly enumerates the lineage of Ishmael’s descendants. The Torah often adopts this scheme – before moving on to the main line, the side line is briefly discussed; first a brief coverage of Ishmael, followed by much detail about Isaac, or first briefly about the descendants of Esau, and then in detail about Jacob.
Abraham’s son, whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah’s slave, bore to Abraham ◊ Once again, the hierarchy of relationships is emphasized. In the end, Ishmael too is Abraham’s son, and he carries his father’s potential.
[16] These are the sons of Ishmael and these are their names by their villages and by their encampments ◊ twelve chieftains of as many tribes ◊ That is, they are not just a nomadic tribe, but an organized system, carriers of a particular culture.
[17] These were the years of the life of Ishmael ◊ one hundred and thirty-seven years; then he breathed his last … and was gathered to his kin: The Midrash notes that the words describing Ishmael’s death are very similar to the Torah’s description a little earlier of Abraham’s death. The Midrash understands from this that Ishmael died a righteous man.
[18] They dwelt from
Havilah, by Shur, which is close to