לעילוי נשמת של החייל אילן משה כהן ז"ל En recuerdo de Ilan Moshe Cohen z"l
Donar Mapa bíblico
Es

Those Who Curse Avraham

       Toward the beginning of Parashat Lekh-Lekha, we read of the promises God made to Avraham when He commanded him to leave his homeland and resettle in Canaan.  Among these promises we find, “u-mkalelkha a’or” – “I shall curse those who curse you” (12:3).  It appears that from the outset, already at the moment when God informed Avraham of the mission he and his descendants would be assigned in the world, it was anticipated that he would have mekalelim – detractors and adversaries.  But God also promises Avraham that as long as he remains steadfastly committed to his mission, the curses uttered by his foes will fall upon them, and not him.

            Rav Yehuda Leib Ginsburg, in his Yalkut Yehuda (Denver, 1936), notes that God did not promise Avraham that he won’t havemekalelim, that he would not meet with strident opposition.  He guaranteed to visit retribution upon his adversaries, but not that he would be spared from opposition altogether.  The reason, the Yalkut Yehuda explains, is because a mission like Avraham’s naturally arouses opposition.  He writes:

That which the Almighty said to him, “and I shall curse those who curse you,” and did not bless him that he would not have people who curse him at all – this is because this is something impossible, that there would not be any callous people capable of cursing even the most distinguished person.  In particular, it is unavoidable that a great person will have enemies as a result of jealousy, and especially a person like Avraham, who came along and said that that which they considered sacred is actually profane, and that which they revered and made into a deity is something worthless and vacuous.  Certainly there were people who looked upon him as a man who disgraced that which is sacred, and they became his adversaries.

            A person who embarks on a successful idealistic mission will, almost by definition, meet with opposition, cynicism, resistance and derision.  Latent within this blessing to Avraham is a warning that he and his descendants would have to gird themselves with several layers of thick skin, that mekalelim of different strips and colors will scorn, mock and even actively oppose their efforts.  The nation of Avraham would have to persist on its journey through history with firm resolve and determination, and with conviction and faith in God’s eternal promise of “u-mkalelkha a’or,” that we will ultimately prevail over the mekalelim.

Volver al capítulo

Kinship Despite Conflict: Avraham and Lot

We read in Parashat Lekh-Lekha of the conflict that erupted between Avraham’s shepherds and those of his nephew, Lot.  In response to the growing tensions, Avraham suggested to his nephew that they part ways, and no longer reside together.  He said, “Let there not be a fight between me and you, or between my shepherds and your shepherds, for we are men who are brothers” (13:8).

            The Tanchuma Yashan notes the significance of the fact that Avraham called Lot his “brother” in this context: “Look at the humility of Avraham Avinu!  After the entire quarrel that they engaged in with him…Avraham Avinu did not mention the quarrel, but rather called Lot his brother.”  Despite the tensions that raged between the two, Avraham made a point of referring to Lot as his “brother,” his relative.  Even as he felt compelled to separate from his nephew due to the conflict that had arisen, he ensured to emphasize their kinship and the close ties that bound them to one another.

            Chazal, as Rashi cites (in his commentary to 13:7), cast the blame for this incident squarely on Lot, who allowed his shepherds to graze on private property, over the objections of Avraham’s shepherds.  And yet, even though Lot was to blame for the conflict, Avraham referred to him as his “brother.”  Many people in this situation would allow the conflict and tension to overshadow, if not eliminate altogether, the close bonds of friendship or familial closeness between the two parties.  Avraham knew that Lot acted improperly and bore responsibility for the unpleasant tensions, but he was wise and humble enough to focus on what bound them together, rather than on that which divided them.

            Arguments between friends and family members are sometimes unavoidable.  The lesson conveyed by the Tanchuma Yashan is the need to remember in these situations that “anashim achim anachnu,” that there is a strong and meaningful relationship between the two parties, and this must be the point of focus even – and especially – in moments of tension and conflict.

 

Volver al capítulo

Piety: Islands of Isolation vs. Open Involvement

 The haftara for Parashat Lekh-Lekha is taken from Sefer Yeshayahu, and in this prophecy we find a description of islands gripped with fear (“Ra’u iyim ve-yiyra’u” – 41:5).  The Midrash (Bereishit Rabba 44:8) interprets this verse as a poetic reference to Avraham and Shem (Noach’s son), who lived at the same time (though obviously Shem was much older than Avraham).  The Midrash writes:

Just as these islands are distinguished, similarly, Avraham and Shem were distinguished in the world.  “And they were frightened” – this one feared the other, and this one feared the other.  This one [Avraham] feared the other [Shem], saying, “Perhaps Shem resents me because I killed his descendants.”  And this one [Shem] feared the other [Avraham], saying, “Perhaps Avraham resents me because I allowed wicked people to arise.”

It emerges from the Midrash’s comments that Avraham and Shem were the two most prominent religious figures of the time, and there was some tension between them.  Avraham felt concerned that Shem resented the bloody war Avraham waged against the four eastern powers – kingdoms that were founded by the descendants of Shem.  In the meantime, Shem suspected that Avraham might look unfavorably upon him because of the many wicked people that descended from him.

            Rav Shimon Sofer of Cracow (son of the Chatam Sofer), as recorded in Mikhtav Sofer, suggested that the Midrash refers here to the tension that exists between two different models of spiritual greatness.  Shem, as depicted in Midrashic literature, represents the model of a righteous person who achieves greatness through withdrawal and isolation.  He preferred to remain separate and apart from his contemporaries so he could focus his attention on his own spiritual growth and achievements.  Avraham, of course, adopted the precise opposite approach, working tirelessly to spread the truth of God’s existence throughout the world.  He was very involved in world affairs, and maintained close ties with important figures while also going out of his way to care for even the simple, ordinary people.  While Shem kept his doors closed so he could concentrate on pursuing his spiritual ambitions, the doors to Avraham’s tent were always open, as he was devoted to assisting all people and to impact the world through his kindness, wisdom and influence.

            Each approach has its drawbacks, as the Midrash notes by depicting the tension that existed between Avraham and Shem. Avraham’s involvement in world affairs led him to intervene in a world war, which resulted in untold numbers of casualties.  The tzadikrepresented by Shem keeps away from worldly affairs out of disdain for the morally complex situations that such involvement requires one to confront.  From his perspective, the battlefield is no place for a person who has set his sights upon spiritual greatness.  This pursuit requires a person to avoid soiling his hands and getting entangled in difficult controversies and conflicts that often characterize public service.  Shem resents Avraham’s involvement in warfare; this model of piety advocates withdrawing from public, communal affairs, and instead isolating oneself in a safe haven of spirituality and sanctity.

            Conversely, as the Midrash describes, Avraham resented the results of Shem’s policy of isolation.  Generations of sinners emerged from Shem, as he remained cloistered in his “island” of spirituality.  Communal involvement may necessitate some compromise in one’s personal growth, but unless spiritual leaders are prepared to make this compromise, the world’s standards will steadily decline.  Avraham therefore looks askance at Shem, resenting his exclusive focus on his own spiritual growth which allows the world to continue along its downward spiral.

            Am Yisrael, of course, is the nation founded by Avraham, not by Shem.  The model we follow is that of religious excellence without ignoring the world.  At the same time, the tension between the model of Avraham and the model of Shem will always exist – and must always exist.  We must always struggle to maintain our own strict religious standards even as we involve ourselves in the world in an effort to perfect it.  Although we certainly follow the model of Avraham, we must also feel the pressure of Shem, the pressure to pursue our highest spiritual ambitions even as we involve ourselves in world affairs.

Volver al capítulo

יונה פותה

 

"וַיְהִי אֶפְרַיִם כְּיוֹנָה פוֹתָה אֵין לֵב" (יא) -

פירושים שונים הוצעו לתיאור זה של היונה כ‘פותה, אין לב‘.

הרד“ק פירש שהיונה היא פתיה באשר אינה נזהרת מפני הרשת הפרושה לרגליה בבואה ללקוט גרגרים בשדה...

מקובל לראות בחיי המשפחה של היונים סמל לנאמנות ולמסירות של בני הזוג. דבר זה בוטא במאמר ’אלמלא לא ניתנה תורה - היינו לומדים עריות מיונה‘, ופירש רש“י: ’שאינו נזקק אלא לבת זוגו‘. אכן תופעה זו של נאמנות בין זוגות יונים נכונה כנראה לגבי יוני בר כגון יונת הסלעים. ברם הדבר כלל אינו חד משמעי לגבי יונת הבית.

הושע הנביא, שנפל בגורלו לשאת אשת זנונים, ספקן הוא לגבי תופעת האהבה או הנאמנות של בני הזוג. נקודת ראות מפוכחת זו העביר הושע גם לתחום יחסי האהבה של בעלי החיים. כגון ’פרא בודד לו אפרים – התנו אהבים‘. נראה כי בדימוי של אפרים ל‘יונה פותה אין לב‘ כיון הושע לתופעה שכיחה בקרב יוני שובך שהנקבות מתפתות אחר זכרים המושכים אותן לשובכיהם. היו אף בעלי שובך שהתמחו בכך והכשירו את היון למשוך למלכודת יונים זרות. בתלמוד קבעו כי מפריחי יונים פסולים לעדות באשר הם חשודים משום גזל, ומלאכת פיתוי זו כונתה בשם ’ארא‘. כותב שורות אלה הבחין בעובדה שאף בשעת הדגירה על הביצים אין הנאמנות בין בני הזוג רבה: בשעה שהיון דגר על הביצים מצאה לה בת זוגו שעת כושר ללכת עם יון אחר.

נראה כי לכך מתכוון הושע בדימוי אפרים ליונה פותה, הנפתית על נקלה ובוגדת בבן זוגה. הנמשל הוא עם ישראל שבגד בא-להיו. ’מצרים קראו – אשור הלכו‘, בתורו אחר סיוע ומשען אצל אשור ומצרים לסירוגין. בהמשך המשל על היונה שעזבה את שובך בעליה נאמר: ’כאשר ילכו אפרוש עליהם רשתי‘. עתה לא נשארה לבעליה ברירה אלא לנהוג ביונה כמו בעוף בר שפורשים רשת לצודו. נחושה דעתו של בעל היונה לצודה ואף אם תגביה עוף הרי 'כעוף השמים אורידם איסירם‘. ישלח בה חיצו וירה בה כבעוף בר. לכאורה נחרץ גורלה של היונה הפותה להיפגע מהחץ, או להיצוד ברשת... אולם יש שהאיש המרומה מרחם על בת זוגו הסוררת ומנסה להחזירה אליו. כפי שהתנבא הושע: ’הנה אנוכי מפתיה והולכתיה המדבר ודברתי על לבה‘. וגם לגבי יונה שעזבה את קינה ונדדה למרחקים עדיין יש תקווה שתחזור: ’יֶחֶרְדּו כְצִפֹור מִמִצְרַיִם  וכְיֹונָה מֵאֶרֶץ אַשור, וְהֹושַבְתִים עַל בָתֵיהֶם, נְאֻם ה‘.“ 


נערך ע"י צוות אתר התנ"ך מתוך הספר 'טבע וארץ בתנ"ך'

Volver al capítulo

Walk Before Me and Be Blameless: Avraham's Ethical Outreach

     We read in Parashat Lekh-Lekha of God’s exhortation to Avraham, “Hit’halekh lefanai ve-hyei tamim” (literally, “Walk before Me and be blameless” – 17:1).  The commentators offer several different interpretations to the word “tamim” in this verse, and different explanations for the connection between the commands “hit’halekh lefanai” and “tamim.”

            A particularly novel approach to explaining this verse was suggested by Rav Chaim Mordechai Bronroth of Chechnov, in his Omer U-dvarim (Warsaw, 1936).  The phrase, “hit’halekh lefanai,” which instructs Avraham to “walk in front of” the Almighty, might refer to Avraham’s role in disseminating the knowledge of the Creator throughout the world, as described in the Midrashim and elsewhere.  Avraham walked “in front of” God as a servant walks ahead of his master to announce his arrival, proclaiming God’s existence and urging His subjects to observe His dictates.  He served as God’s representative and emissary on earth, working tirelessly to refute the claims of paganism and spread the belief in a single Creator.

In this verse, God commands Avraham to be “tamim” – innocent and upright – in this endeavor.  People assigned important responsibilities are often ready to “bend the rules” and push the limits of propriety in the pursuit of their goal.  Particularly when it came to as important an endeavor as spreading the belief in God, one might have assumed that Avraham was entitled to a certain degree of leeway in this effort, and would be allowed to employ ethically questionable tactics as he worked to bring his beliefs to the people.  God therefore commanded Avraham to be “tamim,” to remain innocent and morally impeccable as he embarked on his historic mission.  His goal was to be pursued within the limits of integrity and dignified conduct, as the rules of morals and ethics may not be broken even for the lofty sake of disseminating the belief in God.

Volver al capítulo

Why Avraham's Belief is Called "Tzedaka"

 

            Parashat Lekh-Lekha tells of the prophecy of berit bein ha-betarim, which begins with God reiterating His promise to make a great nation from Avraham.  The Torah then proceeds to describe Avraham’s response to God’s promise: “He believed in the Lord, and He considered it tzedaka” (15:6).

            What does the Torah mean when it says that God looked upon Avraham’s belief as “tzedaka”?

            Rashi explains the word “tzedaka” hear to mean “merit.”  Quite simply, Avraham’s unbridled faith in God’s promise, despite his and his wife’s advanced age and many years of infertility, was a source of great personal merit for him.

            The Rambam, in his Guide for the Perplexed (3:53), seems to explain differently, interpreting this verse to mean that faith itself is termed “tzedaka.”  The word “tzedaka” is rooted in the word “tzedek,” or “justice,” which the Rambam defines to mean “the act of giving every one his due, and of showing kindness to every being according as it deserves.”  As opposed to chesed, which denotes extraordinary kindness, tzedek refers to giving to people as they deserve.  Tzedaka, according to the Rambam, means not giving to people what they rightfully deserve, but rather giving oneself, one’s inner sense of duty and responsibility, what it deserves.  The Rambam writes:

…we do perform an act of tzedaka when we fulfill those duties toward our fellow-men which our moral conscience imposes upon us; e.g., when we heal the wound of the sufferer… When we walk in the way of virtue we act righteously towards our intellectual faculty, and pay what is due unto it; and because every virtue is thus tzedaka, Scripture applies the term to the virtue of faith in God.  Comp. “And he believed in the Lord, and he accounted it to him as righteousness.”

The Torah here teaches that faith amounts to tzedaka insofar as we thereby “act righteously towards our intellectual faculty and pay what is due unto it.”

            The Rosh, in his Torah commentary (cited in Torah Sheleima to this verse, note 81), likewise seems to interpret this verse as establishing the classification of faith as tzedaka, though without explaining how precisely the term tzedaka is an appropriate description of faith.  Interestingly, he adds that this verse sheds light on a number of famous prophecies that speak of the importance of “tzedaka.”  Among the prophecies mentioned by the Rosh is the famous verse in Sefer Yeshayahu (1:27), “Tziyon be-mishpat tipadeh ve-shaveha bi-tzdaka” – “Zion shall be redeemed through justice, and those who return to it – through tzedaka.”  The Rosh contends that in this verse, too, “tzedaka” is used to mean faith, particularly, faith in the prophet’s message.  Yeshayahu declares that Am Yisrael will earn its redemption through mishpat – living up to the Torah’s ethical ideals – as well as through tzedaka, unshakable faith in these prophecies.  Without the nation’s firm belief in the predictions of its ultimate restoration, it could not possibly survive the tribulations of exile.  Our national redemption thus depends not only on the exercise of mishpat, but also in our continued faith in the words of the prophets.

Volver al capítulo

Avraham’s Success and Lot’s Distress - Foregoing Serenity to Help a Brother

 Among the incidents recorded in Parashat Lekh-Lekha is the battle waged by the four eastern powers against the five cities of the Jordan River Valley.  The forces of the four kingdoms took captive the residents of Sedom, including Lot, Avraham’s nephew.  The Torah tells that a refugee from the war fled to Avraham, who was living in Chevron, to inform him of what had happened to his nephew: “The refugee came and told Avram Ha-ivri, and he was residing in the plains of Mamrei the Emorite, the brother of Eshkol and the brother Aner; they were allies of Avram” (14:13).

            This verse gives rise to numerous questions, many of which have been addressed by the commentators.  Here we will focus on the unusual verb shokhen(“residing”) which the Torah uses in this verse in reference to Avraham’s residence in Elonei Mamrei (the plains of Mamrei, or Chevron).  This verb appears very rarely, as the Torah more commonly refers to “residence” with verbs such as y.sh.v. or g.u.r.  A quick survey of the Torah’s usage of sh.kh.n. reveals that it refers specifically to a peaceful, secure and serene kind of dwelling.  For example, the gentile seer Bilam, who attempted to curse Benei Yisrael in the wilderness, looked out and beheld the nation “shokhen li-shvatav” – “dwelling according to its tribes” – whereupon he was endowed with the “spirit of God” (Bamidbar 24:3).  Obviously, what inspired Bilam was more than just the sight of people and tents; he undoubtedly took note of the special aura of sanctity that characterized the Israelite camp, which led him to bestow a blessing, rather than a curse.  (Indeed, Chazal famously interpret this verse to mean that Bilam took note of how Benei Yisrael ensured that the entrances to their homes did not face each other, thereby guaranteeing each other privacy and avoiding neighborly tensions.)  A more explicit association between the verb sh.kh.n. and serenity appears in a verse in Parashat Vezot Haberakha (Devarim 33:28), in which Moshe foresees, “Va-yishkon Yisrael betach badad…el eretz dagan ve-tirosh…” – “Israeldwelled securely, alone…in a land of grain and wine…”  This verse clearly seeks to describe Benei Yisrael’s secure, prosperous existence in their land, and employs the word va-yishkon in reference to this idyllic condition.  Finally, and perhaps most obviously, God’s residence among Benei Yisrael is frequently described with the verbsh.k.n. (as in the word Shekhina), as God, by definition, resides, as it were, in complete security and serenity.  (See also Rav Shimshon Refael Hirsch’s commentary to this verse here in Parashat Lekh-Lekha.)

            Why does the Torah employ the verb sh.kh.n. here in Parashat Lekh-Lekha, in reference to Avraham’s residence in Chevron?

            Possibly, the Torah sought to underscore the stark contrast between the conditions of Avraham and his nephew.  Whereas Lot now finds himself bound by ruthless captors, Avraham lives a life of wealth and prominence, having formed an alliance with Aner, Eshkol and Mamrei, who appear to have been among the region’s influential figures.  The verb sh.kh.n. highlights the difference between Avraham’s success and Lot’s distress, a contrast which serves to introduce the next verse: “Avram heard that his brother was captured, and he mustered his men…”  Avram could have easily basked in the life of safety and wealth which he had built for himself, and ignored the plight of his estranged nephew.  But instead, he left the comforts of Elonei Mamrei and headed to the battlefield in order to rescue Lot.  This narrative thus instructs the importance of sacrificing one’s comforts for the sake of assisting those in need, and the dangers of being cloistered within one’s “four cubits” of happiness and security while others wallow in poverty and hardship.  Just as Avraham disrupted his serenity and comfort for the sake of his nephew in captivity, so must we be prepared to forego on our own comforts when necessary to assist our brethren in need.

Volver al capítulo

חזון הנחל

 

פרקי המקדש נחתמים בחזון מופלא על נחל המפכה מן המקדש וזורם אל ים המלח (א-ב). הנחל מתחיל את דרכו בזרם חלש (׳מי אפסים׳), והוא הולך וגואה עד שהנביא אינו מסוגל עוד לעבור בו (ג-ו). מי הנחל הפלאי מחיים את כל סביבתם ומרפאים לבסוף את מימי ים המלח, שהופך לאזור פורח ושוקק חיים (ז-יב). חזון הנחל היוצא מן המקדש קושר בין חטיבת פרקי המקדש שלפניו, לענייני גבולות הארץ וחלוקתה שלאחריו.

א. המראה הסטטי של המקדש העתידי מקבל תפנית דינמית כאשר פורצים מן המקדש מים ההופכים לנחל גדול. ישנה זיקה בין הסיור במקדש לסיור בעקבות הנחל: שימו לב לדמיון בתפקיד האיש בשני הסיורים, ובדקו את ההבדל בכיוון הסיור - מבחוץ פנימה ומבפנים החוצה. תנו דעתכם למתח שבין הבדלה להשפעה ביחס שבין המקדש לסביבתו בשני הסיורים ונסו לחשוב מה עומד מאחורי ההבדלים.

ב. א) תיאור גן עדן עומד ברקע חזון הנחל. עיינו בבראשית ב׳,ט-י והשוו לפסוקים א ו-יב בנבואתנו. מה מלמד הדמיון על פשרו של חזון הנחל? התייחסו לתפקידו של המקדש ולמשמעות חזרת כבוד ה׳ אליו. ראו גם את תיאור הגאולה לעיל ל"ו,לה.

ב) יעדו של הנחל הוא אזור ים המלח. חשבו על משמעותו של התיקון לאור בראשית י"ג,י; י"ט,כד-כה. ראו גם את נבואת יחזקאל לעיל ט"ז,נה.


למעבר לדף הלימוד המלא מתוך התכנית "מתן על הפרק"

Volver al capítulo

Avraham's Conflict Resolution with Lot

We read in Parashat Lekh-Lekha of the conflict that arose between Avraham’s shepherds and those of his nephew, Lot.  Avraham and Lot returned from their temporary stay in Egypt with large herds of sheep and cattle, and the shepherds began quarreling over space and resources (13:7).  Avraham said to his nephew, “Al na tehi meriva beini u-veinekha” – “Let there not be a fight between me and you…for we are men who are brothers” (13:8).

Avraham’s remark to Lot is one that likely resonates among most of us.  Few people enjoy conflict and arguments.  It is far more pleasant and enjoyable to live with our family members, neighbors and friends in peace, harmony and serenity, without the tensions brought on by hostility and controversy.  Most people find themselves occasionally saying or thinking, “Let there not be a fight between me and you…for we are brothers.”  We don’t want to fight with our “brothers” – with our family members, neighbors, associates or friends.  We prefer smooth, positive relationships, in which all parties are in agreement and work together effectively.

But what distinguishes Avraham Avinu from most others is the subsequent verse, in which Avraham presents his strategy for diffusing the conflict between his and Lot’s camps: “Behold, the entire land is before you!  Please separate from me – if to the left, then I shall go right, and if to the right, then I shall go left” (13:9).

Most people who say, “Let there not be a fight between me and you” complete the sentence by saying something to the effect of, “so don’t argue with me,” or “so do what I am asking.”  Avraham did just the opposite.  In his desire to avert further tensions, he said to Lot, “Choose whichever region you like.”  Avraham understood that the best way to avoid conflict is to show greater flexibility, rather than demand flexibility.  Instead of saying, “Let’s not fight – do what I want,” he said, “Let’s not fight – I’ll do what you want.”  Avraham thus teaches that the more effective conclusion to the statement, “Let there not be a fight” is “I’ll happy to do as you wish,” rather than “so do as I say.”  By showing flexibility and minimizing demands, we stand a greater chance of establishing and maintaining stable and enjoyable relationships, and avoiding the strains of conflict and hard feelings.

Volver al capítulo

Accepting Gifts from Pharaoh but not from Sodom - Inconsistency or Insight?

 

            Among the incidents recorded in Parashat Lekh-Lekha is the battle that Avraham led against the four kingdoms that had captured the five cities of the Jordan River valley.  In order to rescue his nephew, Lot, who was taken captive from Sedom, Avraham mobilized a small force and pursued the four kings, ultimately defeating them. The king of Sedom greeted Avraham upon his return from battle and offered him all the possessions of Sedom that he had retrieved from the captors.  But Avraham refused the offer, proclaiming that he would not take anything belonging to Sedom, “so that you will not say: ‘I made Avram wealthy’” (14:23).

            Many writers addressed the question of why Avraham refused to accept property from Sedom, but did not hesitate (or at least did not appear to hesitate) to accept large gifts during his stay in Egypt.  As we read earlier in the parasha (12:16), Avraham became very wealthy when, during his stay in Egypt, Pharaoh took Sara, thinking she was Avraham’s sister.  As a member of the “royal family,” Avraham was offered and accepted large amounts of cattle and servants.  The question thus arises as to why Avraham accepted the gifts of Pharaoh, but refused the gifts of the Sedomite ruler.  It is worth noting that Avraham refused to accept the property of Sedom despite the fact that he was, presumably, entitled to it, given that he had retrieved it from captivity.  Ironically, he refused to accept this property, while he unhesitatingly accepted the undeserved gifts of Pharaoh.

            The Moshav Zekeinim (a collection of commentaries by the Tosafists) answers by attributing Avraham’s refusal to take the property of Sedom to the particular nature of the city’s population.  The people of Sedom, a wicked city that God would later destroy, were characterized by tzarut ayin – selfishness and stinginess.  Indeed, we later read how the people of Sedom threatened Lot because he welcomed guests into his home.  They objected to the notion of sharing one’s possessions with others, believing that each person’s resources are reserved for him.  The Moshav Zekeinim cites in this context the verse in Sefer Mishlei (23:6), “Al tilcham et lechem ra ayin,” which warns against partaking of the food offered by a selfish person.  As Shelomo explains in the next verse, even if the selfish person outwardly extends an invitation and shares his food, in his heart he feels resentful (“Ekhol u-shtei yomar lakh ve-libo bal imakh”).  The Moshav Zekeinim thus explains that Avraham refused to take the property of Sedom because he anticipated the people’s resentful feelings.  He realized that although he rightfully deserved a share of the possessions, it served his interests to refuse, rather than invite the previous owners’ animosity.  But the people of Egypt, the Moshav Zekeinim suggests, were perhaps not plagued by the same degree of selfishness as the Sedomites, and therefore Avraham did not refused the gifts offered by Pharaoh.

            What this approach perhaps teaches is that at times it is advisable to forego on that to which one is legitimately entitled, for the sake of peaceful relations.  Just as Avraham waived his rights to Sedom’s property in order to avoid the people’s resentment, similarly, it is occasionally preferable not to insist on receiving what one deserves, in the interest of social harmony.  The fact that a claim or argument is valid does not make it advisable.  As Avraham shows, sometimes we are better off foregoing on what we deserve and sparing ourselves the animosity and hard feelings of others.

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'.