Avraham Standing Alone

Parashat Lekh-Lekha tells of the separation between Avraham and his nephew, Lot. Unable to manage together given the vast wealth they accumulated, they decide to part ways, with Lot choosing to relocate in the corrupt city of Sedom, while Avraham remains in the region west of Sedom, in the Judean Hills. (See 13:5-13.)

After Lot's departure, God appears to Avraham and reiterates His promise to give the Land of Canaan to Avraham's offspring: "The Lord said to Avraham after Lot had parted from him: Raise your eyes and look out from the place where you are… for I give all the land that you see to you and your offspring forever… " (13:14-15). The Torah's introduction to this promise, "The Lord said to Avraham after Lot had parted from him," suggests a connection between this promise and Lot's recent departure. Wherein lies this connection? Why did Lot's separation from Avraham warrant a repetition of God's promise to Avraham?

Rashi, based on the Midrash Tanchuma, explains that in truth, Lot's separation did not necessitate God's reiteration of His promise, but rather allowed it, it made it possible. Meaning, God wanted to remind Avraham of His promise, but the presence of Lot, whom Rashi describes here as a "rasha" (wicked person), precluded the possibility of a divine revelation to Avraham. Only once Lot left Avraham's side could God once again reveal Himself to Avraham and repeat His promise.

Radak suggests a different explanation, claiming that God here informs Avraham that he alone will inherit the land. Lot himself no longer enjoys any rights to Eretz Canaan, and no one else will take Lot's place alongside Avraham. Rather, Avraham alone with receive rights to the land and bequeath it to his offspring.

An interesting variation of this approach appears in the work "Tishbi," by Rav Shraga Pollak. He suggests that after Lot's departure, Avraham felt uneasy about his sudden solitude, he was intimidated by the prospect of having to embark on his mission alone, without anyone at his side. How can he hope to spread the teachings of ethical monotheism in a pagan world without any assistance?

God therefore reassures him, "Look out from the place where you are… " From this very situation, from the solitude and isolation Avraham currently experiences, he will inherit Canaan and build a nation that will represent his values. God here informs Avraham that throughout his descendants' history, they will be subjected to loneliness and seclusion, they must engage in a bitter struggle against the entire world, with little if any support or assistance from without. Many years later, the sorcerer Bilam describes Am Yisrael as, "a people that dwells apart, not reckoned among the nations" (Bamidbar 23:9). This is the destiny of the Jewish people – a destiny of distinction and aloneness. Lekh-Lekha describes Avraham as "Avram ha-ivri" – "Avram the Hebrew" (14:13). Chazal explain this expression to mean, "He stands on one side ['ever echad'], and the entire world stands on the other." Whereas Avraham may have thought that he will accomplish his mission together with the assistance of Lot, he is now informed that he must go about this struggle on his own – a symbol of the isolation with which his progeny will have to contend for millennia to come.

Volver al capítulo

נאמנות

בפרק י"ב, פונה הנביא לזכרו של יעקב ומציג אותו כסמל הנאמנות: "ויברח יעקב שדה ארם ויעבד ישראל באשה ובאשה שמר" (יג). באם נעצור לרגע ונתבונן במעשהו של יעקב, נראה כמה מושג הנאמנות חזק אצלו. תכונה זו באה לידי ביטוי כבר בתחילת הדרך, כשהוא אוהב את רחל ומבקש להתחתן איתה. שבע שנים נאלץ יעקב להמתין לה בתחילה, תוך כדי עבודה קשה עבור לבן, וזאת מרוב אהבתו לרחל. הבה ונשאל את עצמנו: כמה מאתנו בגיל השידוכים היו מוכנים לחכות שבע שנים תמימות עבור בחורה מסוימת? הלא גם אם היינו אוהבים אותה, עדיין היינו אומרים שחבל מאד שלא ניתן להתחתן עמה, אך הרבה שלוחים למקום, הרבה בחורות טובות בעיר, ולא היינו מוכנים להמתין שבע שנים אלא היינו נפרדים לשלום ומחפשים אחרת נאה הימנה (או כמותה). ואולם יעקב נאמן באהבתו ואינו מחפש אלטרנטיבות אחרות.

מושג הנאמנות האישית בא לידי ביטוי ביתר שאת וביתר עוז, בהמשך הפסוק המתייחס לכך שלבן מרמה את יעקב ונותן לו את לאה. עכשיו, כשכבר יש לו אשה אחת, ההצעה להמתין עוד שבע שנים, כגר בארץ זרה ותוך כדי עבודה קשה, דורשת מנה גדושה של נאמנות אישית לאהובתו. ובל נשכח, שאין לו כל ערובה שגם הפעם לבן לא ינסה לרמותו ולהתכחש להסכם שביניהם. אם בפעם הראשונה החליפו לו את אשתו המיועדת, מי יתקע כף לידו שהתרמית לא תחזור על עצמה? כך, שנכונותו לעבוד עוד שבע שנים נוספות על הספק שיזכה ברחל היא ביטוי לנאמנות יוצאת דופן.

הפסוק הבא מקביל את נאמנותו של יעקב לנאמנות של הקב"ה כלפי עמו: "ובנביא העלה ד' את ישראל ממצרים ובנביא נשמר" (יד). סוף הפסוק ("ובנביא נשמר") מקביל לסוף הפסוק הקודם ("ובאשה שמר") ויש לראות גם את תחילת הפסוקים כמקבילים, דהיינו העבודה עבור רחל מקבילה לנביא המעלה את ישראל ממצרים. בשני המקרים נוצרת מערכת יחסים ארוכת טווח המוכנה להתמודד עם קשיים מפאת המחויבות כלפי בת הזוג (רחל\כנסת ישראל).

נערך ע"י צוות אתר התנ"ך

לקריאת המאמר המלא באדיבות אתר VBM של ישיבת הר עציון

Volver al capítulo

Sedom vs. Shalem-Jerusalem

In Parashat Lekh-Lekha (chapter 14) we read of the battle between the four powers of Mesopotamia, led by Amrafel, the king of Shinar (Babylon), against the five cities of the Jordan River Valley, led by Bera, the king of Sedom. This war takes place shortly after Lot, Avraham's nephew, had resettled in Sedom, and Lot, along with entire city of Sedom, is captured by Amrafel's army. Upon hearing of his nephew's captivity, Avraham immediately mobilizes a modest militia and pursues the four Mesopotamian kings, ultimately defeating them, liberating his nephew and the population of Sedom.

As he returns towards his home in Chevron, Avraham passes through the city of Shalem, which Chazal identify as the city that is later called Yerushalayim. The Torah records two conversations Avraham has in Shalem: one with Malki-Tzedek, the city's king and religious leader ("kohen"), and the other with the king of Sedom, whom he had just freed from captivity. Malki-Tzedek, we are told, brings bread and wine to celebrate Avraham's victory and offers a blessing to Avraham and God. In response, Avraham gives the king of Shalem one-tenth of the booty from the recent war. The king of Sedom comes to greet Avraham and asks that Avraham return to him the people of his city whom he had just liberated. In exchange, he offers Avraham all the possessions won in the conflict. But Avraham refuses to take any of the spoils, and explains, "so that you do not say: It is I who made Avraham rich" (14:23).

What is the Torah's purpose in describing Avraham's encounter with these two kings?

Perhaps the Torah here seeks to draw a contrast between the two kings, thereby drawing a contrast between these two cities – Sedom and Jerusalem. Earlier, the Torah describes Sedom as a city of sinners (13:13) and records Lot's settlement there with the phrase, "Va-yisa Lot mi-kedem" (13:11), which Chazal interpret as an allusion to his having abandoned God through his settlement in the corrupt city. Furthermore, the king of Sedom is named "Bera" (14:2), which means "evil." The name "Malki-Tzedek," by contrast, means, "my king of justice." Indeed, whereas Malki-Tzedek greets Avraham for the sole purpose of offering thanksgiving to the Almighty for Avraham's triumph, Bera approaches Avraham with his personal interests in mind. He presents an offer intended to ensure that the population of Sedom would be returned to his authority and control, rather than come under Avraham's sphere of influence. And although he offers Avraham all the spoils, Avraham astutely detects the underlying motive behind this proposal: to allow the Sedomite king to take credit for Avraham's success. This encounter in Shalem, then, highlights the fundamental difference in values between the Shalem, the city of justice and peace, and Sedom, the city of selfishness and corruption.

The story of Lot's resettlement in Sedom, the event immediately preceding this battle, emphasizes the contrast between Avraham and Sedom, it underscores the fact that Avraham stands in direct opposition to the values and culture of Sedom. The verses stress that whereas Lot dwelled in the region of Sedom, Avraham specifically remained in the mountain region – the area of Jerusalem. The narrative in chapter 14 further develops this conflict between Avraham-Jerusalem on the one hand, and Sedom on the other. This contrast teaches the ultimate goal of the nation Avraham establishes, whose capital will be Jerusalem: to oppose the culture of Sedom, to champion the ideals of justice and ethics, as opposed to the selfishness and indulgence that characterized the population of Sedom.

Much later in history, the prophet Yeshayahu famously bemoans the moral deterioration of the Jewish people. He cries, "Hear the word of the Lord, you chieftains of Sedom; give ear to our God's instruction, you folk of Amora!" (Yeshayahu 1:10). He describes how "the faithful city that was filled with justice, where righteousness dwelt, are now murderers" (1:21). The ethical standards of Jerusalem, which was to represent the ideals of justice and kindness, have degenerated into widespread corruption and theft; its leaders have become like the leaders of Sedom. The prophet asks in the name of God, "What need have I for all your sacrifices… That you come before Me – who asked that of you?" (1:11-12). There is no need for the religious center of Jerusalem if its inhabitants do not abide by the values of Jerusalem. If the city's population has become like Sedom, then we have no need for the city, no purpose is served by having a nation with a Temple in Jerusalem.

The prophet concludes that ultimately, God will restore Jerusalem to its previous stature, that once again Jerusalem will stand in opposition to the culture of Sedom and become the symbol of morality and human dignity: "I will restore your magistrates as of old, and your counselors as of yore. After that you shall be called City of Righteousness, Faithful City" (1:26).

(Based on a devar Torah by Rav Amnon Bazak)

Volver al capítulo

The Setting Sun in the Covenant Between the Pieces

The Torah tells in Parashat Lekh-Lekha that after Avraham’s return to Canaan from his sojourn in Egypt, a quarrel erupted between his shepherds and those of his nephew, Lot. The verse reads, “There was an argument between the shepherds of Avram’s cattle and the shepherds of Lot’s cattle; and the Canaanites and Perizites were then dwelling in the land” (13:7).

The commentators offer different explanations for the relevance of the final phrase – “and the Canaanites and Perizites were then dwelling in the land” – to this quarrel. The most obvious explanation, it would seem, is that of Chizkuni, who writes that the presence of other peoples in Canaan resulted in very limited availability of pasture for Avraham and Lot, and the shepherds therefore fought over the few areas to which they did have access. Seforno and Abarbanel suggest that the controversy between the shepherds gave Avraham and Lot a bad reputation among the other peoples, who looked upon them as a difficult and quarrelsome clan. This phrase thus highlights the urgent need Avraham sensed to end the infighting immediately. Rashi explains that the dispute erupted when Lot’s shepherds allowed their cattle to graze in private property, and thus drew the condemnation of Avraham’s shepherds, who were trained to bring the cattle specifically to ownerless territories. Lot’s shepherds responded that once God promised all of Canaan to Avraham, the land legally belonged to him. The Torah therefore adds, “and the Canaanites and Perizites were then in the land,” to indicate that their presence meant that Avraham had not yet taken legal possession over Canaan.

A particularly novel interpretation of this verse appears in the work Lu’ach Erez, written by Rav Yitzchak Kunstadt of Pressburg (published in Vienna, 1915). Referring to his reading as a remez (allusion), rather than the primary, straightforward meaning, the Lu’ach Erez speculates that the quarrel between the two groups of shepherds involved a conflict between the Canaanites and the Perizites. On many occasions throughout Jewish history, different camps among the Jews supported different sides of international conflicts, on the assumption that their support would yield dividends in the form of the given party’s favorable disposition towards the Jews. The fighting among the shepherds perhaps represents the first example of this kind of bitter dispute. “And the Canaanites and Perizites were then dwelling in the land” means that they were engaged in conflict, and Avraham’s and Lot’s shepherds were divided on the question of which nation to support.

On this basis, the Lu’ach Erez suggests a novel interpretation also of Avraham’s response to the conflict. He says to Lot, “Please, let there not be a fight between me and you, and between my shepherds and your shepherds, because we are brothers” (13:8). Avraham perhaps warns Lot against involvement in external conflicts, because neither party is genuinely concerned about the welfare of outside supporters. They solicit support by forming temporary alliances, the mutuality of which dissolves the moment the support is no longer necessary. Avraham therefore emphasizes, “for we are brothers” – only he and Lot have genuine fealty and unconditional devotion to one another. The Canaanites and Perizites, by contrast, seek to promote only their own respective agendas, and Lot and Avraham thus have nothing to gain by supporting one party over the other.

Volver al capítulo

בגידה

מוקד תוכחתו של הושע לישראל סובב סביב חוסר נאמנותם לקב"ה. הוא מוכיח אותם על חטא עבודה זרה, אך מוקד התוכחה איננו הטעות שבעבודה זרה אלא חוסר הנאמנות וכפיות הטובה כלפי הקב"ה.

משל האשה המזנה תחת בעלה המשמש תדיר, בתנ"ך בכלל ובספר הושע בפרט, כמטאפורה לעבודה זרה יכול להצביע על שני מודלים של עבודה זרה.

יש אשה סוטה אשר איננה בהכרח מזנה עם רעים רבים אלא עם מאהב אחד, לו היא שומרת אמונים. לכן, עיקר בעייתה היא הטומאה והמעילה בבעלה, ולאו דווקא האקראיות וחוסר הנאמנות עם הגברים שהיא מזנה עמם.

לעומתה, יש את האשה הזונה\הקדשה שמוקד כשלונה הוא חוסר הזיקה לאף אחד, היות והכל משתמשים בה. לא רק טומאה אלא גם זנות אמורים אצלה.

כך גם בעבודה זרה. תיתכן עזיבת הקב"ה ואימוץ עבודה זרה אחת קבועה, אשר בעייתה איננה חוסר הקביעות הדתית אלא הטעות והשקר שבה. מאבקו של ישעיהו באלילות והלעג שהוא שופך על עובד העבודה זרה הסוגד לפסל הנעשה מעצים, אינו מכוון כלפי האקראיות אלא כלפי הטעות שבעבודה זרה.

ברם, ישנו גם מצב של החלפת אלים חדשים לבקרים מתוך חוסר נאמנות לאף אחד מהם. בנקל ניתן להחליף אלילים, והדחף לפנות לאליל על מנת לסלק איום שהתעורר ולעבוד אותו לפתרון בעיה מיידית, מעודד את האדם לפנות בכל פעם לאל אחר. אין הפולחן נעשה מתוך מחויבות דתית אלא כפניה מזדמנת. מן הפרספקטיבה הזאת, אף כלפי העבודה זרה אין העובד מגלה דבקות, וקל וחומר כלפי הקב"ה.

לשמיעת שיעור בנושא זה, שהועבר על ידי הרב משה ליכטנשטיין בימי העיון בתנ"ך

נערך ע"י צוות אתר התנ"ך

לקריאת המאמר המלא באדיבות אתר VBM של ישיבת הר עציון

Volver al capítulo

Go For You - For Your Benefit and Goodness

Parashat Lekh-Lekha received its name from God’s command to Avraham in the parasha’s opening verse, “Lekh lekha” – “Go.” God commands Avraham to resettle in a land he will be shown, which was, of course, the Land of Canaan. Rashi, apparently troubled by the seemingly unnecessary word lekha (literally, “for you”) in this verse, comments, “Le-hana’atekha u-le-tovatekha” – which literally means, “for your benefit [or ‘enjoyment’] and your well-being.” God emphasized to Avraham that his relocation will ultimately prove beneficial for him, and this is the meaning of the instruction, “Lekh lekha”- “Go for yourself.”

Rav Menachem Benzion Zaks (son-in-law of Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank), in his Menachem Tziyon, observes that Rashi speaks of two different concepts – hana’a, which is generally used to mean either benefit, pleasure or enjoyment; and tova, which literally means “goodness,” or “well being.” Gods tells Avraham that his resettlement will bring him not only hana’a – benefit – but also tova – goodness. How are we to explain these two different terms?

Rav Zaks explains, quite simply, that not everything from which a person derives “benefit” is “good” for him. That which provides enjoyment and gratification does not always serve one’s long-term interests; very often, it in fact works to one’s detriment. Rav Zaks brings as an example the halakha established in the Mishna in Masekhet Bekhorot (37a), concerning a butcher who sold meat that was subsequently determined to come from a tereifa (animal with a fatal illness, which may not be eaten). The Mishna states that even though the customer already ate the meat, and thus derived benefit from his purchase, the butcher must nevertheless return the money. Although the customer received physical enjoyment, the meat was not “good” for him in the spiritual sense, and the transaction is therefore void. (We should note that Rashi, in his commentary to that Mishna, indicates that the butcher must return the money only as a kenas – as a penalty imposed on him by the Sages. This implies that from a strict, legal point of view, the transaction is binding, since the customer indeed derived the desired benefit from the purchase.)

The Almighty therefore emphasized to Avraham that his new residence will prove beneficial in both senses: in terms of the immediate experience of benefit, as well as in terms of long-term benefit.

Volver al capítulo

Being Great Doesn't Mean Being Aloof

Among the many intriguing aspects of the story of akeidat Yitzchak is the narrative’s concluding verse. The drama, suspense and emotion that accompany this entire episode abruptly give way to a very plain, unexciting ending. After God describes the eternal blessings promised to Avraham’s descendants as a result of his boundless devotion, we read, “Avraham returned to his young men, and they arose and traveled together to Be’er Sheva, and Avraham resided in Be’er Sheva” (22:199). Curiously, the Torah chose to describe Avraham’s return to his ne’arim – the young men who had accompanied him and Yitzchak to the area near Mount Moriah – and to report that they traveled together from Moriah back home to Be’er Sheva (though according to Rashi, Avraham was not actually living in Be’er Sheva at the time). The obvious question arises as to the significance of this information. Why is this mentioned at all? Avraham’s ne’arim, whom he had instructed to wait for him and Yitzchak near the mountain, do not appear to play any especially important role in this episode. Why did the Torah conclude this narrative with Avraham and Yitzchak’s reunion with the ne’arim and their journey back to Be’er Sheva?

Rav Shimshon Rafael Hirsch, in a very eloquent and insightful passage in his commentary, explains why this conclusion is so significant and constitutes a vital part of the “nisayon” (test) of the akeida:

Exceedingly characteristic and significant for the whole spirit of the frame of mind – which was to begin with Abraham and Isaac, does it now say here – after they had achieved the great, yea, the greatest loftiest height that a human being can reach – they returned to their attendants, and all of them – Abraham, Isaac and the men – went together, yachdav, to Beer Sheba. In all other circles of humanity, after such a soaring into the proximity of God, after such elevation above everything earthly, an Abraham and an Isaac would have been so full of “I,” “myself,” or of the “Divine,” that they would have been lost for ordinary earthly life, and for “ordinary” human beings. Elsewhere such “standing near to God” – even if only presumed or imaginary – begets such pride that one proudly looks down on other people as “common mortals,” and avoids contact with them. Totally different from that is the spirit that should be inherited from the example of Abraham and Isaac. Just after they had achieved the very loftiest deed that could be made on earth, they return to the attendants they had left at the foot of Moriah, and go yachdav with them, feel themselves no whit higher than anybody else. To the true son of Abraham everybody is equally respected in their vocation, he finds no difference between himself and the lowest hewer of wood or servant. The higher he stands spiritually, intellectually or morally, the less superior does he feel, the less is he conscious of his own greatness… Abraham and Isaac, returned from the summit of Moriah as if they had done nothing special at all – “Abraham returned unto his young men, and they rose up and went together to Beer-sheba.”

We often assume that when a person reaches a higher stature of piety or scholarship, he finds it difficult or is unwilling to relate to, bond with, or concern himself with the common folk. The Torah therefore concludes the story of the test of akeidat Yitzchak by informing us of the very ordinary fact that Avraham and Yitzchak reunited with the attendants and they all traveled home together just as they had traveled to Moriah. The experience of the akeida did not cause Avraham and Yitzchak to feel disconnected from ordinary people like their attendants. They understood that part of being great is the ability to deal and associate with those who aren’t, without condescension or supremacy.

In truth, this might likely be one of the messages conveyed by the opening section of Parashat Vayera, as well – the story of Avraham’s three visitors. This incident follows on the heels of Avraham’s circumcision, which bound him and his descendants to an exclusive and eternal covenant with God. And yet, soon after this extraordinary act, Avraham implores three strangers to come and partake of a lavish meal. The entry into a special covenant with God did not cause Avraham to dissociate himself from his contemporaries. To the contrary, a special relationship with the Almighty imposes even greater demands regarding proper care and concern for His creatures. Spiritual achievements should thus lead one to a greater level of association with commoners, not less. And so even after the akeida, Avraham and Yitzchak travel “together” with their attendants, without any sense of remoteness, superiority, or condescension.

Volver al capítulo

Avraham and Lot: Moving Beyond "Who Started It"

The Torah in Parashat Lekh-Lekha tells of the strife that erupted between Avraham’s shepherds and Lot’s shepherds after their return from their brief sojourn in Egypt. Rashi (13:7) cites the Midrash as filling in the details of this argument, relating that Lot’s shepherds allowed their flocks to graze on other people’s property, drawing the criticism of Avraham’s ethically-attuned shepherds. To defend what would certainly constitute outright theft, Lot’s shepherds contended that God promised the land of Canaan to Avraham’s offspring, and since Avraham had no children, Lot was his de facto inheritor. As such, the land effectively belonged to Lot, and thus his animals, according to the shepherds, were entitled to graze freely anywhere throughout Canaan.

Quite obviously, this argument was fundamentally flawed on two counts: God’s promise to Avraham had not yet been fulfilled, and thus the land did not yet belong to him or his offspring; and, secondly, Avraham would eventually produce offspring, and thus Lot was not the inheritor. Chazal portray the shepherds as concocting nonsensical arguments to defend an indefensible position, demonstrating the dangers of subjective reasoning and how personal interests can skew our perspective and prevent us from rational, objective assessments of right and wrong.

Significantly, Avraham, in responding to the situation, makes no mention at all of theft or of the shepherds’ outrageous claim. He approaches the situation from a strictly pragmatic standpoint: “Let there not be a fight between me and you, or between my shepherds and yours, for we are brothers. Look, you have the entire land before you; separate, if you will, from me…” (13:8-9). Avraham speaks not a word of criticism to Lot, and makes no attempt to present himself as the morally correct party in this affair, which he certainly was. Instead, he recognized the problem and sought a reasonable, peaceful solution. Avraham’s aim was not to prove himself right and his nephew wrong, but rather to resolve the unfortunate crisis that suddenly arose.

Very often, the questions of “who started” and of who’s right and who’s wrong are the least important questions to be answered in situations of conflict. The more important question is, what is the wisest, most beneficial way to handle the situation? Criticizing the other and defending oneself will seldom lead to a workable solution, and often causes both parties more aggravation. The wiser approach is that of Avraham Avinu, who ignored the issue of who was right, and focused instead on finding a sound, sensible and pragmatic resolution to the conflict.

Volver al capítulo

Lekh Lekha - Go Forth and Make Changes

Parashat Lekh-Lekha opens with God’s famous call to Avraham to relocate: “Go forth from your land, from your birthplace, and from your father’s home, to the land that I will show you.” Several commentators noted the verbosity of this command, calling upon Avraham to leave his “land,” “birthplace” and “father’s home.” One explanation is that God here acknowledges the multifaceted challenge entailed in leaving one’s homeland. As the Radak comments:

“From your land” – for it is difficult for a person to leave the land where he has lived for many years, all the more so if he had been born there, and this is why it says, “and from your birthplace”; and even more so to leave the house of his father and family to go to a land he had not previously known…

In His command to Avraham, God makes it clear to the patriarch that this mission will not be an easy one, that Avraham will have to break the natural bonds that connect one to his familiar surroundings and to his past. He essentially tells Avraham straight on that this will be a difficult challenge, but he must accept it nonetheless.

The command of “lekh lekha” is one which is issued to each and every one of us, and extends far beyond the issue of geographic location. We are bidden throughout our lives to “go forth,” to advance, to move forward, to progress, to grow. And the biggest impediment to personal growth is the lure of “your land, your birthplace, and your father’s home.” We tend to feel comfortable and ease right where we are, in our current situation, and feel inhibited by the prospect of change. And just as God did not reveal to Avraham where He was leading him, making his future even more uncertain, similarly, personal growth requires us to live in a way we have not lived before and is thus strange and unknown. Change demands the courage to “go forth” to somewhere uncertain, to take leave of our comfort zone to a different zone with which we have not yet been fully acquainted. God’s very first call to our nation’s founder was “lekh lekha” not only because of the vital role of Eretz Yisrael in our national mission, but also to instruct that this mission is defined, in part, by the notion of “lekh lekha,” the courage and strength to move forward and advance.

Several verses later, we read that shortly after Avraham’s arrival in Canaan the region is struck by a severe drought, prompting the patriarch to temporarily relocate in Egypt (12:10). The Gemara in Bava Kama (60b) cites this episode as the Biblical source for the adage, “If there is hunger in the city, scatter your feet.” At first glance, it might seem unnecessary, and perhaps even bizarre, to find it necessary to invoke a Scriptural source advising relocation when there is an insufficient food supply in one’s current location. Possibly, the Gemara here addresses the all-too-common phenomenon of people remaining in undesirable conditions out of fear for the unknown, due to the comfort of familiarity and inertia. Indeed, we occasionally need to be reminded to take the initiative to improve ourselves and our condition, not to fall into the malaise of a lethargic status quo. Our “land, birthplace and father’s home” – our familiar surroundings and context – pull us like a magnet and discourage growth and change. We learn from our patriarch Avraham to “scatter our feet,” to always be prepared to make necessary changes in our lives and within ourselves to improve, to grow, and to fulfill our personal potential to its very fullest.

Volver al capítulo

Lot's Quest for Material Objects Turns him into One

The Torah in Parashat Lekh-Lekha tells the story of Lot, Avraham’s nephew, who chooses to live in the wicked city of Sedom and is then captured when the city falls into the hands of the four Eastern empires. Upon hearing of his nephew’s capture, Avraham assembles a small army and wages war against the five kings, rescuing the population of Sedom, including Lot.

It is worth noting how the Torah depicts Lot in the narrative of Sedom’s capture and subsequent rescue. In describing the fall of Sedom, the Torah writes, “They [the four kings] took all the property of Sedom and Amora, and all their food, and set off. They took Lot, Avram’s nephew, and his property, and they set off…” (14:11:12). These two verses seem to be deliberately written in identical fashion: the four kings took all the property of Sedom and went, and they also took Lot and went. The identical structure of these verses sets up a clear parallel between the property of Sedom, and Lot. In other words, Lot is treated by the narrative as nothing more than part of the booty, one object among many that was looted by the triumphant four kings. This parallel returns later in the narrative, when we read of Lot’s rescue, which is described as parallel to the rescue of the property of Sedom: “He [Avraham] restored all the property, and he also restored Lot, his kin, and his property…” (14:16).

This structure alludes to Lot’s “objectification,” his transformation from a thinking, active individual to a piece of property. In this narrative, Lot is nothing more than an article of value that kings fight over and that changes hands during warfare.

Dr. Tzvi Shimon of Bar-Ilan University notes that this depiction of Lot should be understood off the backdrop of Lot’s fateful decision to settle in Sedom in the first place. When Avraham realized the need for him and his nephew to part ways, and offered Lot the choice of where to settle, Lot chose the region of Sedom because of its agricultural qualities, and because it resembled Egypt, the country where Lot and Avraham had briefly sojourned and amassed great wealth (13:10). In that context, the Torah notes the corruption that characterized the population of Sedom (13:13), likely emphasizing the point that Lot chose the material benefits of Sedom at the expense of moral standards. The Torah subtly criticizes Lot’s decision, which prioritized material potential over idealistic concerns (a critique elaborated upon by Chazal, as Rashi cites to 13:11).

Dr. Shimon notes the significance of this progression from Lot’s ill-advised choice of residence and his subsequent “objectification”:

The story of the war of the four kings against the five (chapter 14) shows us the bitter fruit of materialism. Lot, who was led primarily by materialist considerations, after parting ways with Abraham is presented in materialist terms, as an object that is moved around. This depiction serves to underscore the outcome of a materialist world view; a person who is led by material considerations ultimately becomes no more than a material object, one more item in a list of booty.

Excessive preoccupation with wealth effectively strips a person of his humanity, reducing him from a noble, Godly, spiritual being to a bank account number or portfolio. Once Lot chose to betray his uncle’s teachings and ideals and associate with the people of Sedom to enjoy the city’s material’s benefits, he lowered himself from a human being to an asset, a piece of property.

The Torah draws a stark contrast in this regard between Lot and Avraham. In direct contradistinction to Lot, Avraham refuses to take even “a thread or shoelace” from the property of Sedom that he courageously rescued (14:23), in order not to have any material association with the city. Although Avraham was very wealthy, and was not adverse to material prosperity per se, he favored morals and ideals over wealth, and turned down an opportunity to augment his fortunes when it necessitated associating with the sinful city of Sedom.

The Torah’s contrast between Avraham and Lot thus teaches the proper perspective on material success, demonstrating that while wealth in itself is perfectly legitimate, it must not come at the expense of our religious and ethical values.

Volver al capítulo

Avraham Standing Alone

נאמנות

Sedom vs. Shalem-Jerusalem

The Setting Sun in the Covenant Between the Pieces

בגידה

Go For You - For Your Benefit and Goodness

Being Great Doesn't Mean Being Aloof

Avraham and Lot: Moving Beyond "Who Started It"

Lekh Lekha - Go Forth and Make Changes

Lot's Quest for Material Objects Turns him into One

Pages

📲 Instala nuestra App