Could Sedom Become the Garden of Eden?

Why did Lot decide to move to Sedom? Chazal sharply criticize this decision, describing his settlement in Sedom as moving away from God (see Rashi, 13:11). The Torah itself issues a somewhat subtle condemnation of Lot's choice of residence by reminding us in this context, "And the people of Sedom were very evil and sinful to God" (13:13). But what was Avraham's nephew thinking? Had he really deteriorated so drastically to the point where he fell prey to the sinful temptation of the depraved society?

A hint to understanding Lot's decision may emerge from the Torah's illustration of the Jordan River Valley as Lot gazed thereupon while considering settling there: "like the Garden of God, like the land of Egypt…" "Garden of God" clearly refers to Gan Eden. What about the region of Sedom rendered it comparable to Gan Eden and Egypt? The conventional interpretation views this comparison as focused on agricultural prosperity: Sedom, Egypt and Gan Eden all benefited from constant water sources, in contrast to the hills of Eretz Yisrael, which depend on rainwater. (See Bereishit 2:10, Devarim 11:10-11). However, the focus on God - 'the garden of God" - may give rise to a different interpretation.

Gan Eden is characterized not only by constant, effortless availability of food and other comforts, but by the harmonious coexistence of the physical and spiritual. Man lived together with God until he failed to maintain the strict standards that such an intense man-God relationship demands. Banishment from the garden meant not only back-breaking labor to till the land, but also God's distancing Himself from man.

When Lot observed the material comforts and luxuries of Sedom, he may have very well considered the possibility of turning it into a Gan Eden. True, Sedom resembled the land of Egypt, the moral emptiness of which he had just experienced with the abduction of his aunt, Sarah. On the other hand, perhaps Sedom retained some redeeming quality that afforded it the potential of becoming a Gan Eden, a place where physical indulgence and spirituality live hand-in-hand. Obviously, Lot was wrong. Only through Avraham's merit did he escape the destruction of Sedom (see 19:29). Apparently, he, too, deserved the same fate as the iniquitous city.

It is often difficult to distinguish between "the garden of God" and "the land of Egypt." Lines between good and evil become obscured and our eyes desensitized to the parity between the two. Particularly in a culture that worships the god of tolerance and openness, there remains little room for healthy taboos and necessary discrimination between right and wrong, sacred and profane, and righteous and corrupt. Lot may have allowed Sedom's redeeming qualities to blind him from the city's defining characteristic of corruption. The lesson to learn is that when making any decision throughout life, we must ensure to carefully discern between the "garden of God" and the "land of Egypt," and not to naively ignore the corruption that unfortunately abounds in our society.

Volver al capítulo

אקרע סגור ליבם

 

הושע טוען שהשובע הכלכלי הוא הגורם לחוסר הנאמנות: "כמרעיתם וישבעו שבעו וירם לבם על כן שכחוני" (ו)

התהליך הנועד לעקור את אוטם הלב בעקבות השובע הינו תהליך קשה ביותר:

"ואהי להם כמו שחל, כנמר על דרך אשור. אפגשם כדב שכול ואקרע סגור לבם, ואוכלם שם כלביא, חית השדה תבקעם. שחתך ישראל, כי בי בעזרך. אהי מלכך אפוא ויושיעך בכל עריך, ושופטיך אשר אמרת, תנה לי מלך ושרים. אתן לך מלך באפי, ואקח בעברתי" (ז-יא)

מטאפורת הדב השכול והלביא הטורף הינם משלים קשים ביותר, שיש בהם חוזק בתוך חוזק ("דב שכול" ולא סתם דב), ואין הנביא נזקק להם אלא מתוך תחושה שכלו כל הקיצין ואין מתודות הפיתוי או השיחה האישית מועילים כלל. לא זו הדרך הרצויה לכתחילה להשיב בנים אובדים לדרך הישר ורק במצב של אין ברירה, כשהאטימות היא כה גדולה שאין שום אפשרות אחרת, ניתן להיזקק לה. ואולם, זהו המצב אותו הנביא רואה לנגד עיניו בסיום הספר.

סופו של התהליך הוא "שובה ישראל עד ד' אלקיך" (י"ד, ב) אך תשובה זו מגיעה רק בעקבות קריעת הלב האלימה, ותיאור קשה נוסף בנביא של חטא ועוון המובא לאחר המפגש של קריעת הלב. התשובה המתרחשת בסוף ספר הושע נולדת מתוך תחושה ומציאות של כשלון ולא מהכרה דתית כשלעצמה.

טיב ואופי התשובה נגזרים מן החטא והמצב הרוחני המשתקף דרכם, כלומר: עולם ההנאה וחוסר הנאמנות שהושע נלחם נגדו לאורך הספר.


נערך ע"י צוות אתר התנ"ך

לקריאת המאמר המלא באדיבות אתר VBM של ישיבת הר עציון

Volver al capítulo

What is the Challenge of Lekh Lekha?

The mishna in Pirkei Avot teaches that Avraham Avinu successfully withstood ten trials through which the Almighty tested him. It is generally understood by the commentators that the opening commandment of Parashat Lekh-Lekha, after which the parasha is named, marks the first of these trials. Uprooting oneself from his past and resettling in a foreign country with a cloud of uncertainty hovering over his future certainly is a difficult challenge for anyone. If nothing else, the sense of disorientation, language adjustment, and general culture shock contribute to make relocation to a new country indeed a most difficult decision.

In Avraham's case, however, he seems to have had little reason for hesitation. After ten years of childless marriage, he is now promised a family in his new location. He is also guaranteed wealth, prosperity, prestige and honor. With a guaranteed reversal of fortune like this one, was it really so difficult for Avraham to obey God's word and emigrate to Canaan? Why do the Rambam and other commentators on the mishna list his move as the first of the ten great achievements for which Avraham is so famous?

Rav Moshe Feinstein zt"l suggests that Avraham faced here not the emotional challenge or physical strain of moving, but rather a theological test. God never explained to Avraham why he can beget a son and earn wealth and prestige only in Canaan and not in his homeland of Charan. What difference should it make? Rav Moshe adds that the population in Canaan were more corrupt than the people of Charan. (Evidence for this assumption may be drawn from Parashat Chayei-Sara, where Avraham adamantly insists that his son marry a girl from Charan, rather than from the local Canaanite populace.) If anything, Avraham would fare better spiritually back in his homeland than he would in Canaan. This was Avraham's trial - to trust God's word even when it seems counterintuitive. He asked no questions; he simply packed his bags and left. Having reached the conclusion of the existence of an omniscient, all-powerful God, he understands that one cannot disobey Him, no matter what demands He makes of us.

If so, then this first trial of Avraham directly corresponds to the final and most famous of his trials: the binding of Yitzchak. (We follow the common position that the "akeida" marked the tenth and final test; some commentators claim that the purchase of a burial site for Sarah - after the "akeida" - constituted Avraham's last test.) Chazal already drew a parallel between these two tests, noting the common expression, "lekh lekha" employed by God in both commands. In our parasha, Avraham is bidden to forego on his past and build for himself a brand new life; at the "akeida," God orders Avraham to destroy his future. Both, however, require him to subdue his own intellect and reasoning in humble submission to God's will.

Avraham's contemporaries could not accept the existence of a non-physical God, they could not perceive anything outside the strict confines of time, matter and space that characterize our world. Avraham advanced the notion of a purely spiritual Being responsible for creating and overseeing the earth. He was then called upon to demonstrate the ramifications of this belief by submitting himself unconditionally to the command of the God that he could not even see.

Volver al capítulo

Walk Before Me and Be Tamim

Towards the end of Parashat Lekh-Lekha, God instructs Avraham Avinu with regard to the mitzva of berit mila (circumcision). He introduces His command by enjoining the patriarch, "Walk before Me and be complete" (17:1). What does this imperative mean, and how does it relate to circumcision?

The Midrash contrasts the imperative, "walk before Me" with the Torah's description of Noach, "Noach walked with God" (6:9). To explain the difference between walking "before" and "with" the Almighty, the Midrash draws an analogy to a king who walks with his two sons. He has the older, mature son walk in front to lead the way, while the younger, more dependent child walks beside the father clutching tightly onto his hand. Similarly, God asks Avraham to walk in front of Him, as it were, while Noach walked at the Almighty's side, holding on tightly. Avraham, the "older son," served as God's ambassador on earth, preaching His existence and teaching His laws. Noach, by contrast, lived a private life of piety, sheltering himself from the winds of corruption blowing all around him. Thus, "walk before Me" refers to Avraham's mission as publicizing monotheistic ideology and God's ethical code to mankind.

How may we understand the second charge, "be complete" - "heyei tamim"? This same term arises much later in Chumash, in Parashat Shoftim, amidst the Torah's discussion of prohibited forms of magic and sorcery: "When you enter the land that the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not learn to imitate the abhorrent practices of those nations. Let no one be found among you who consigns his son or daughter to the fire, or who is an augur, a soothsayer, a diviner, a sorcerer, one who casts spells… You must be complete ['tamim'] with the Lord your God" (Devarim 18:9-13). "Tamim" in this context may perhaps denote steadfast resistance to the influence of one's surroundings. While the other nations consult all types of superstitious practitioners, Am Yisrael was to cling tight to its heritage and oppose these practices. Similarly, the Torah describes Noach as "'tamim' in his generation." Noach's greatness was manifest most prominently in his ability to withstand the forces of evil that prevailed in his time and remain pious and just. Thus, God here encourages Avraham to hold firm to his principles, even when confronted by foreign influence.

We must now address our final question: how do these instructions relate to the mitzva of mila?

Rav Kook ("Midbar Shur," p. 197) and others have noted that the requirement of circumcision posed a particularly difficult challenge for Avraham Avinu. As mentioned, he served as a public religious figure, one who spent a good deal of his life meeting people of other beliefs and interacting with them in an effort to spread the teachings of ethical monotheism. A physical blemish as part of religious ritual would effectively erect a solid barrier between Avraham and his contemporaries. It means a permanent symbol of his essential difference from them, as he becomes distinct not only in ideology, but physically, as well. Moreover, people may be discouraged from meeting with Avraham in fear that he would impose this practice upon them. We may add that circumcision serves as a powerful symbol of ethnic isolation, Am Yisrael's commitment to reproduce only with those from its own kin. Undoubtedly, fulfilling this new mitzva would impair Avraham's ability to fulfill his life's mission of disseminating the belief in God. Rav Kook explains that this difficulty prompted Avraham Avinu to consult with his comrades with regard to this obligation, as Chazal claim (see Rashi and Midrash Tanchuma, beginning of Parashat Vayera).

It is precisely this challenge that the Almighty acknowledges in His opening remarks to Avraham Avinu when introducing the mitzva of berit mila: "Walk before Me and be 'tamim.'" God bids Avraham to remain loyal to both conflicting responsibilities: his role as the Almighty's spokesman, and His distinctiveness and firm opposition to the pagan theologies and unethical norms of his time. To the best of his ability, Avraham must simultaneously fulfill both roles - actively engaging in society while firmly opposing the values (or lack thereof) it represents. His interaction with those of beliefs antithetical to his own was not to - and did not - cause his personal resolve to fade or ironclad faith to diminish.

Volver al capítulo

וזה שער השמים

"וְשַׁעֲרֵי הָעִיר עַל-שְׁמוֹת שִׁבְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל שְׁעָרִים שְׁלוֹשָׁה צָפוֹנָה שַׁעַר רְאוּבֵן אֶחָד שַׁעַר יְהוּדָה אֶחָד שַׁעַר לֵוִי אֶחָד" (מ"ח, לא)

"וַיִּירָא וַיֹּאמַר מַה-נּוֹרָא הַמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה  אֵין זֶה כִּי אִם-בֵּית אֱלֹהִים וְזֶה שַׁעַר הַשָּׁמָיִם" (בראשית כ"ח, יז)

 

לקח טוב (פסיקתא זוטרתא) בראשית פרשת ויצא פרק כח סימן יז

ויירא ויאמר מה נורא המקום הזה. מלמד שראה בית המקדש בנוי וחרב ובנוי, כמו שנאמר ביצחק, מה נורא בנוי, וכן הוא אומר: "נורא אלהים ממקדשיך" (תהלים ס"ח, לו). אין זה, הרי חרב, וכן הוא אומר: "על זה דוה לבנו" וגו' (איכה ה יז). וזה שער השמים בנוי, וכן הוא אומר: "כי חזק בריחי שעריך" (תהלים קמז יג):

דבר אחר: אין זה - אלו י"ב שבטים שהיו עולין ברגל בירושלים: וזה שער השמים -  שעתידין לחזור לירושלים וכל אחד מהם עומדת שערים על שמם, שנאמר שער ראובן אחד, שער שמעון אחד, שער לוי אחד (יחזקאל מח לא), זה בגימטריא י"ב...

 

 

 

לקח טוב (פסיקתא זוטרתא) - לקח טוב הוא ילקוט מדרשי שחיבר ר' טוביה בן אליעזר במאה ה-11 ביוון. הילקוט מרכז מדרשי חז"ל בהלכה ובאגדה לפי סדר הפסוקים לחמשת חומשי התורה והמגילות וכן פירושים של מחבר הילקוט על דרך הפשט והדרש. בדפוס הראשון של הילקוט, ובעקבותיו, הוא כונה בטעות בשם "פסיקתא זוטרתא". הדרשות בילקוט מעובדות ומתורגמות מארמית, יוונית ולטינית לעברית. (מתוך: ע' רייזל, מבוא למדרשים, מכללת הרצוג תשע"א)

Volver al capítulo

Concentration, Thanksgiving, Shock: Why Did Avraham Fall on His Face?

We looked at Rashi's explanation as to why Avraham Avinu "falls on his face" when God appears to him to present the mitzva of berit mila (Bereishit 17:3), and we presented the approach of the "Gelilei Zahav." Today we will look at other possible approaches.

1) The Ralbag and the Ran (cited by the Abarbanel) interpret Avraham's fall as a sign of submission, meaning, he prostrated himself before God to symbolize his humble acceptance of this mitzva.

  1. The Ramban explains that Avraham fell on his face "le-khaven da'ato li-n'vua" - to concentrate on this prophecy. The Ramban does not, however, explain why specifically this prophecy required special concentration. The Abarbanel explains along generally similar lines, but with a bit more elaboration. He claims that after God initially spoke and said, "Walk in My ways… I will establish My covenant between Me and you, and I will make you exceedingly numerous," the prophecy stopped. Avraham was thus left to wonder what precisely God meant by this command and this "covenant." He therefore fell on his face "to meditate and concentrate on this matter such that physical matters, that are felt with one's senses, would not distract him… " He thereby earned a second prophecy which explained God's initial, ambiguous remarks. This two-stage process, the Abarbanel claims, was necessary "because the matter of circumcision was very difficult given Avraham's old age and frailty." God therefore decided to present this mitzva gradually, by first speaking in riddles such that Avraham would ask for a clarification. Somehow, this would help ease Avraham's absorption of this most difficult notion of berit mila.         
  2. The Radak understands Avraham's fall as a bow to express thanksgiving for the special covenant God promises to establish with him.      
  3. A unique and novel approach to this verse is taken by the Netziv. God began this address to Avraham by instructing, "Walk in My ways and be blameless." The implication, of course, is that until now Avraham has not "walked before" God or been "blameless." This realization, the Netziv suggests, came as a shock to Avraham, who had worked so hard to perfect his avodat Hashem. It is indeed frightening to learn that our basic presumptions regarding our self-assessment are fundamentally mistaken. We must therefore constantly study our behavior and conduct, and take an honest, critical look at ourselves to see how and where we can improve.
Volver al capítulo

השובע מביא לידי חטא

"כְּמַרְעִיתָם וַיִּשְׂבָּעוּ שָׂבְעוּ וַיָּרָם לִבָּם עַל-כֵּן שְׁכֵחוּנִי" (הושע י"ג, ו)

 

תלמוד בבלי מסכת ברכות דף לב עמוד א

מאי [=מה כוונת הכתוב] "ודי זהב" (דברים א', א)? אמרי דבי רבי ינאי: כך אמר משה לפני הקדוש ברוך הוא: רבונו של עולם בשביל כסף וזהב שהשפעת להם לישראל עד שאמרו די, הוא גרם שעשו את העגל.

אמרי דבי רבי ינאי: אין ארי נוהם מתוך קופה של תבן, אלא מתוך קופה של בשר.

אמר רבי אושעיא: משל לאדם שהיתה לו פרה כחושה ובעלת אברים, האכילה כרשינין והיתה מבעטת בו, אמר לה: מי גרם ליך שתהא מבעטת בי? אלא כרשינין שהאכלתיך!

אמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן: משל לאדם אחד שהיה לו בן, הרחיצו וסכו והאכילו והשקהו, ותלה לו כיס על צוארו והושיבו על פתח של זונות, מה יעשה אותו הבן שלא יחטא?

אמר רב אחא בריה דרב הונא אמר רב ששת: היינו דאמרי אינשי "מלי כריסיה זני בישי" [תרגום שטיינזלץ: זהו שאומרים בני אדם - מילוי כרסו הוא ממיני החטא] שנאמר: "כמרעיתם וישבעו שבעו וירם לבם על כן שכחוני" (הושע י"ג, ו).

רב נחמן אמר מהכא [=מכאן למדו]: "ורם לבבך ושכחת את ה'" (דברים ח', יד).

ורבנן אמרי מהכא [=מכאן למדו]: "ואכל ושבע ודשן ופנה" (דברים ל"א). 


להאזנה לשיעורו של הרב דוד מנחם על הגמרא

Volver al capítulo

Universalism vs. Particularism: Avraham Falls on His Face

Towards the end of Parashat Lekh-Lekha, God appears to Avraham to instruct him with regard to the mitzva of berit mila - circumcision. The Torah records that upon hearing God speak to him, Avraham "falls on his face" (Bereishit 17:3). What caused Avraham to "collapse"? Rashi explains that he fell due to "mora Shekhina" - fear of God's presence. Before his circumcision, Avraham was unable to withstand the overpowering experience of divine revelation, and hence he fell.

The obvious question arises, why does this occur specifically now, at this point? God has spoken to Avraham several times in the past; why suddenly here is Avraham incapable of handling the experience?

Rav David Moskovits, in his Gelilei Zahav, points to a different factor that may have led to Avraham's weakness at this point, as God commands him with regard to circumcision. Avraham had devoted his life to a specific mission: to unite humanity in the recognition and service of the Creator. As the Midrashim describe, Avraham was very active in preaching and proselytizing. He dreamt of a world without conflict or strife, he envisioned all of mankind joined in a universal bond characterized by ethical monotheism. He never aspired to begin a new nation of his own; much to the contrary, he longed to bring all of mankind together, to break nationalistic barriers and spread his beliefs throughout the world. (In a sense, Avraham's mission could thus be seen as an endeavor inversely parallel to that of the Tower of Babel; whereas there mankind tried to unite in an effort to rebel against God, Avraham sought to bring humanity together for the sake of recognizing and worshipping God.)

This, Rav Moskovits claims, accounts for the trauma Avraham experiences at the beginning of the seventeenth chapter of Sefer Bereishit. The commandment of berit mila was a commandment to withdraw, to separate, to isolate himself, to form a distinct people. It marks a unique, eternal covenant between the Almighty and Avraham, as well as his descendants. By definition, this covenant sets Avraham and his progeny apart from the rest of mankind; it thus compelled Avraham to rethink his entire program and reverse his entire line of thinking. The Midrashim describe the barrier Avraham's circumcision erected between him and his contemporaries. Two of his closest confidants, Aner and Eshkol, strongly discouraged him from going through with the ritual. Many people stopped coming to hear Avraham's discourses after hearing of the circumcision. This mitzva thus constitutes a dramatic about-face in Avraham's lifelong mission. Rather than unite all of mankind, Avraham must form a separate nation, bound by a unique covenant with God, and only through that nation can his message be spread. Whereas until now he dreamt of a utopian, universal kingdom of mankind governed by the belief in God, he must now focus on creating a distinct nation to represent that belief.

Volver al capítulo

Why was Avraham Offered Gifts?

Among the stories of Avraham told in Parashat Lekh-Lekha in his military victory over the four powers of the east and the celebration of his triumph in the city of Shalem (chapter 14). There the king of Sedom, the city that had been taken captive by the four kings and subsequently liberated by Avraham, offers Avraham all the spoils of Sedom he had retrieved, in exchange for the captives he rescued. But Avraham refuses to take as much as "a thread or a shoe strap" (14:23) from the spoils of Sedom. He explains, "so that you shall not say, 'It is I who made Avram rich'." However, Rav Yehoshua Katz, in his classic commentary on the Tur, known as "Derisha" (in Choshen Mishpat, 249), places Avraham's refusal to take the spoils within a broader context, viewing it as a fulfillment of the famous dictum, "Sonei matanot yichyeh" ("He who spurns gifts will live long" – Mishlei 15:27). Avraham turned down the king's offer because of the general value of refusing gifts.

As the Derisha himself notes, however, earlier in the parasha we indeed find that Avraham not only accepted gifts, but intentionally put himself in a situation where he would become wealthy by receiving gifts. As he and Sara left to Egypt to flee the famine in Canaan, Avraham feared that he might be killed so that his attractive wife would be available for marriage. He therefore asked Sara to pose as his sister, "that it may go well with me because of you" (12:13). Rashi explains this phrase to mean, "They will give me gifts." Avraham correctly anticipated that Sara would be abducted to the king's palace, and Avraham, as her brother, would be treated to royalty as a result. But how could Avraham, the one who "spurns gifts," look forward to receiving royal wealth at Sara's expense? How does Avraham's conduct here correspond to his refusal to accept any spoils from Sedom?

This difficulty led the Derisha and others to offer creative, alternative explanations of this verse. According to the Derisha, Avraham refers not to gifts he received from the royal treasury, but gifts he was given from other Egyptians who desired his wife. Suspecting that many Egyptians would compete for Sara, Avraham anticipated that the wealthier inhabitants would try to win his favor in an effort to convince him to give them his alleged sister. Avraham will therefore receive many bribes and become very wealthy. His wealth and stature will then help ensure Sara's protection from those who might seek to forcibly seize her. Avraham thus meant that by posing as his sister, Sara will bring about a situation where Avraham would become exceedingly wealthy and thus have the power to protect her. (In the end, of course, Pharaoh himself took Sara, and she was saved only by God's intervention.)

The Chid"a (Rav Chayim Yosef David Azulai, 18th century), in his "Penei David," offers a different explanation of this verse. He claims that Avraham refers here not to the gifts he receives when Sara is initially taken, but rather to the gifts given to him after God intervenes and forces Pharaoh to return her to her husband. Later, in Parashat Vayera, we read that in a similar situation, Avimelekh, the king of Gerar, gives Avraham and Sara generous financial compensation, which he described as "kesut einayim" – proof to the fact that he had not defiled Sara (see 20:16). The Chid"a suggests that the same occurred in Egypt, as well; after God's punishment of Pharaoh and his palace, the king went to great pains to guarantee Sara's protection from rumors. Anticipating all this as he makes his way towards Egypt, Avraham seeks to assuage Sara's fears by guaranteeing her that she would not be defiled. To the contrary, they will receive enormous gifts as part of an effort to protect her reputation.

The Moshav Zekeinim addresses this question, as well, and suggest a much simpler explanation, claiming that accepting the gifts was part of Avraham's disguise as Sara's brother. As brother of the woman desired by the Pharaoh, he would be expected to accept gifts and royal treasures. Had Avraham refused, he would have aroused suspicion, thus undermining his entire scheme. It turns out, then, that in Egypt, too, Avraham would have preferred to refuse the gifts, but he simply had no choice but to accept them.

Volver al capítulo

ה' שמה

 

החטיבה המסיימת את ספר יחזקאל עוסקת בגבולותיה העתידיים של הארץ ובחלוקתה לשבטים. החלוקה של הארץ לשבטים שונה לחלוטין מזו שנהגה בימי בית ראשון. היא מבוססת על חלוקת הארץ לרצועות שוות, שבמרכזן ניצב המקדש והעיר המשותפים לכלל השבטים.

א. סדר החלוקה המתואר ביחזקאל הוא מהצפון לדרום: תחילה נסקרים השבטים הצפוניים (א-ז), אחר כך המקדש והעיר (ח-כב) ולבסוף השבטים הדרומיים (כג-לד). חלוקה זו שונה במהותה מן החלוקה ששררה בימי בית ראשון. חשבו מהן התפיסות הניצבות ביסוד החלוקה המחודשת של הארץ. תנו דעתכם לדמיון בין חלוקה זו לחניית השבטים סביב המשכן בבמדבר ב׳. עמדו גם על אופי החלוקה לרצועות רוחב שוות.

ב. ׳וְשֵׁם־הָעִיר מִיּוֹם ה׳ שָׁמָּה׳ - תיאור חלוקת הארץ, ועימו ספר יחזקאל כולו, חותם בציון שמה של ׳העיר׳ ירושלים – "ה׳ שמה". שינוי שמה של ירושלים לעתיד לבוא מופיע אצל מספר נביאים – ראו למשל ישעיהו א׳,כו. חשבו מה מבטא שמה העתידי של ירושלים וכיצד הוא מבטא את הרעיון המרכזי של פרקי המקדש ביחזקאל ואת יחסו הכללי של יחזקאל לירושלים. שימו לב להשמטת שמה של ירושלים בפרקי הגאולה, מפרק ל"ז ועד סוף הספר, ולביקורתו החריפה של יחזקאל בנבואותיו על ירושלים (ראו למשל כ"ב,ב,ה). היעזרו בדברים הבאים:

בבא בתרא עה ע"ב: ׳שלושה נקראו על שמו של הקב"ה ואלו הן, צדיקים ומשיח וירושלים... ירושלים שנאמר ׳ושם העיר מיום ה׳ שמה׳, אל תקרי שמה אלא שמה׳.

רד"ק: ׳ומאז והלאה יהיה שם העיר ה׳ שמה, רוצה לומר כי עד עולמי עד לא תסור עוד שכינתו מהעיר׳.


למעבר לדף הלימוד המלא מתוך התכנית "מתן על הפרק"

Volver al capítulo

Pages

x

Lee el Tanaj cómodamente. ¡Instala nuestra App en tu pantalla de inicio!

📲 Instala nuestra App

Toca el botón de Compartir (el icono de un cuadrado con una flecha hacia arriba) en la barra de Safari, desliza hacia abajo y selecciona 'Agregar a la pantalla de inicio'.