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

Rav Hirsch and the Netziv on Lekh Lekha: Avraham's Response to God's Command

   Parashat Lekh-Lekha begins with God’s initial revelation to Avraham, in which He commanded the patriarch to leave his homeland and relocate (12:1), and promised to bless him (12:2-3).  In the next verse, we read, “Avram went as God had told him…” (12:4).

            Rav Shimshon Refael Hirsch, in his commentary (see also Malbim), notes the shift in the Torah’s terminology between the first and fourth verses in this parasha. In the first verse, the Torah employs the term va-yomer (“said”), whereas the fourth verse records that Avraham left his homeland as God had “told” him – diber.  Quite often, the verb d.b.r. is used in reference to instruction and commands, as opposed to simply relating information.  Rav Hirsch thus explains that in the first verse, when the Torah introduces God’s statement to Avraham, it employs the more generic term va-yomer, since it incorporated both a command and a promise.  But in describing Avraham’s response, the Torah writes that he left “ka’asher diber elav Hashem” – as “God had told,” or commanded.  As Rav Hirsch comments, “…Abraham did not obey the promise but the order of God.  He went because God had told him to.”  His primary motivation in leaving his homeland and relocating in Canaan was the divine command, the fact that he was ordered to do so.  It was the command, not the promise of reward and success, that drove him to act.  According to Rav Hirsch, then, this verse teaches us to perform mitzvot out of a sincere desire to fulfill the divine will, and not simply for the purpose of earning reward.

            The Netziv, in his Ha’amek Davar, presents a different reading of this verse (one which does not explain the transition from va-yomer to diber).  In his view, the words “ka’asher diber” (“as [the Lord] had told”) actually means, “when [the Lord] had told.”  According to the Netziv, the Torah here emphasizes that Avraham left immediately upon hearing God’s command, without delay.  Rather than delaying his journey until he completed his preparations and the sale of his property and possessions, Avraham immediately embarked on his trip, leaving behind his wife and servants to complete the preparations and sales.  Avraham’s response is thus intended to set an example of zeal and alacrity in performing mitzvot, the importance of fulfilling our duties swiftly and responsibly, rather than delaying them in favor of other, less critical matters.

Volver al capítulo

Something from Nothing: Who is Avraham?

Among the most commonly asked questions concerning Parashat Lekh-Lekha relates to the absence of information regarding Avraham’s background.  This parasha begins with God speaking to Avraham and instructing him to migrate to a land, which we later discover to be Canaan, where he would be blessed with offspring and success.  No mention is made at all of what Avraham had done during the first seventy-five years of his life that rendered him deserving of a prophetic revelation or the blessings promised to him.  In stark contrast to the Midrashim, which speak at length of Avraham’s heroic struggles against paganism, his family and the monarch Nimrod, the Torah says nothing about Avraham’s life before God commanded him to relocate.

The Rosh Yeshiva, HaRav Aharon Lichtenstein shelit”a (as recorded by a student – vbm-torah.org/archive/sichot/bereishit/03-57lekh.doc), suggested that the Torah sought to emphasize the fact that Avraham was self-made, that he created himself, so-to-speak, ex nihilo.  In a society and family firmly entrenched in paganism, the emergence of a monotheist of Avraham’s piety and stature is indeed a beri’a yeish mei-ayin, a new creation that surfaced out of nothing.  Rav Lichtenstein noted that Avraham’s emergence violates the common principle of causality that underlies much of the accepted theories in social sciences.  No part of Avraham was the product of his upbringing; he was entirely self-made, a new “creature” that arose out of a spiritual vacuum.  For this reason, perhaps, the Torah is silent about Avraham’s background. The sudden, unexplained appearance of Avraham reflects the fact that he emerged “out of nowhere,” like a plant that grows without soil, sunlight or water.

Rav Lichtenstein added that the extraordinary story of Avraham poses a formidable challenge for each and every one of us:  

Even if a person is incapable of reaching the spiritual levels attained by the forefathers, he must still strive and try - at the very least - to create his own path to serving God.  Avraham embodies the proof that it is possible to free oneself from the pressures of society and family and to swim against the current…

Avraham teaches that the human being is not a programmed or programmable robot, that simply reacts mechanically to the “buttons” pressed by his surroundings and experiences.  A person is endowed with the ability to become who he wishes to be, regardless of his background.  Nobody is trapped in the mold of his upbringing; each individual has the capacity to build himself according to his principles and convictions.

Indeed, as Rav Lichtenstein noted, Avraham is called “Avraham Ha-ivri” (14:13), the one “on the other side.”  He exemplifies the ability to oppose the current, to stand alone in opposition, to do what is right when everyone else is wrong.  As Rav Lichtenstein remarked, “The father of the nation teaches us that it is within a person's power, if he but wills it, to beat his own path, to clear himself a way, to create his own current.”  We are not bound by the forces and influences exerted upon us; rather, we have the capability to resist these pressures and chart our own path of sincere avodat Hashem.

Volver al capítulo

Ramban vs. Ralbag: Escaping the Famine - Sin or Responsibility?

            We read in Parashat Lekh-Lekha of the drought that struck Canaan shortly after Avraham relocated there in fulfillment of God’s command.  Avraham escaped the famine by temporarily moving to Egypt, where his wife, Sara, was abducted by Pharaoh.

            In among the more famous passages in his Torah commentary, the Ramban, somewhat surprisingly, asserts that Avraham “committed a great sin” by leaving Canaan to seek relief from the harsh drought conditions.  According to the Ramban, after God had commanded Avraham to settle in Canaan, he should have trusted in the Almighty’s ability to sustain him regardless of the economic conditions, rather than leaving the land in which he was told to live.

            The Ramban’s comments reflect a lone voice among the classic Medieval commentators, who generally seem to support Avraham’s decision to move to Egypt. In fact, Rashi, citing the Midrash Tanchuma, writes that God caused Avraham to leave Canaan (“masi’o la-tzeit mimena”) as a test to see if Avraham would question God’s promise of prosperity.  It seems that Avraham was expected to leave Canaan and remain trustful that God’s promise of blessing would come to fruition at some point in the future.

            What’s more, the Ralbag, in his commentary, writes that the story of the drought – and Avraham’s response – was recorded in the Torah specifically to provide us with an example of the proactive effort required in securing a proper livelihood:

A man should obtain food and similar necessities needed for bodily preservation with vigilance.  God had already promised Avram success with respect to the acquisition of possessions.  Nonetheless, Avram aroused himself because of the famine that existed in the land of Canaan to go to the land of Egypt, and did not desist from going there because God, may He be exalted, had (previously) commanded him to dwell in the land of Canaan.


For the commandments of God, may He be exalted, are to bestow good upon man, not that he would die because of them.  And because of this Avram knew the will of God, may He be exalted, was that he should turn away from there (Canaan) for the pursuit of food. 


Moreover, the intention of Avram's journey to the land of Canaan was in order that he should be more prepared to receive the Divine overflow that would cling to him, and this would not be conceivable in a state of famine and lack of food. And for this reason it was the greater good that he (Avram) should leave that place (Canaan) to the place where food would be found-until the famine should cease.

According to the Ralbag – in direct contradistinction to the Ramban’s view – Avraham’s conduct here exemplifies the “charitzut” (“vigilance”) demanded of us in caring for our physical and material needs.  Even though God had promised Avraham prosperity, it was self-understood (according to the Ralbag) that Avraham would have to do his share – even packing his bags and temporarily settling in the hostile environs of Egypt.  In fact, the Ralbag writes, God’s promise to bless Avraham was more of a reason for Avraham to leave Canaan, for it implicitly required Avraham to undertake the necessary measures to allow that blessing to materialize.  (For a more thorough elaboration on the Ralbag’s comments, see Rav Dovid Horowitz’s article on the subject at http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/728606/Rabbi_David_Horwitz/Parashat_Lech-Lecha:_The_Value_of_Haritzut.)

            This debate between the Ramban and the Ralbag raises a number of interesting questions, including whether their differing views relate to the unique circumstances faced by Avraham, who faced a deadly drought in a land in which he was commanded to live and where he was promised to prosper, or if they perhaps reflect broader perspectives on the proper balance between human effort and trust in God.  What is clear, however, and quite revealing, is that the Ralbag identified the value of proactive effort and personal responsibility as one of the messages the Torah sought to convey in this section.  For the Ralbag, taking personal responsibility for one’s general well-being constitutes a religious value, something which the Torah found it necessary to remind us.  Avraham is the exemplar not only of kindness and firm religious conviction, but also of the seemingly more basic value of personal responsibility and diligence in caring for oneself and one’s family.

Volver al capítulo

Avraham's Nephew was Captured - Why?

            The Torah in Parashat Lekh-Lekha tells of the battle fought between the four eastern kingdoms and the five cities of the Jordan River Valley.  The four powers routed the cities’ armies, and captured their people and property – including Lot, Avraham’s nephew, who resided in Sedom (one of the five cities).  Upon hearing of his nephew’s capture, Avraham immediately mobilized a small army and defeated the four powerful conquerors.

            In telling of Lot’s capture, the Torah writes, “They took Lot and his property – Avram’s nephew – and they left; he had been living in Sedom” (14:12).  The obvious question arises as to why the Torah found it necessary to identify Lot’s relationship to Avraham.  Lot has already played a significant role in the narratives of Avraham’s experiences since resettling in Canaan, and we’ve already been told that he was the son of Avraham’s deceased brother, Haran.  Why, then, does the Torah emphasizeLot’s relationship to Avraham in this verse?

            Commenting on the phrase, “Avraham’s nephew,” the Midrash Ha-gadol writes, “For they prided themselves and said, ‘We captured Avraham’s nephew!’  The end proves that they came only for him.”  The Midrash Ha-gadol finds in this verse evidence of the fact that the offensive waged by the four kingdoms was launched for the specific purpose of luring Avraham to battle.  The Torah emphasizes that they captured “Avraham’s nephew” because this was precisely their intent: to create a situation where Avraham would come to war, and they could eliminate him.  This premise – that the four kings had intentionally captured Lot for the sake of luring Avraham to war – appears elsewhere, as well, in Bereishit Rabba (42:1).

            Netziv, in his Ha’amek Davar, finds further evidence for this theory from the final phrase in the verse cited above – “he had been living in Sedom” (“ve-hu yosheiv bi-Sdom”).  This narrative is presented shortly after the story of Lot’s separation from Avraham and his taking residence in Sedom.  There thus seems no reason for the Torah to inform us here, in the context of the battle, that Lot was residing in Sedom.  Netziv explains that the Torah seeks to emphasize that at the time of the war, Lotwas in the city, not on the battlefield.  According to Netziv’s reading, the four kings captured only the soldiers and provisions which they found on the battlefield; they did not seize the property in the cities.  Yet, they made a point of entering Sedom for the specific purpose of seizing Lot – “Avraham’s nephew” – and his property.  The reason, Netziv explains, is because their primary goal was to lure Avraham to war.

            Rav Shimshon Raphael Hirsch suggests a much different explanation for why the Torah identifies Lot as “Avraham’s nephew” and emphasizes that he lived in Sedom.  Rav Hirsch does not follow the Midrash’s understanding that the four kingdoms had come to wage battle against Avraham.  He instead accepts the plain reading of the text, which indicates that this war resulted from the five cities’ attempt to free themselves from the control and taxation of the eastern kingdoms (14:4).  Lot, who had only recently come to Sedom, was still easily identifiable as “Avraham’s nephew,” an outsider, and could have perhaps expected to be spared from the vengeance of the four kingdoms, who set out to punish the rebellious cities.  But this is not what happened, because, as the Torah stresses, “he had been living in Sedom.”  Lot had relocated to Sedom in order to enjoy the material benefits and luxuries the prosperous region offered.  Little did he realize, however, that reaping the benefits of Sedomite citizenship came at the cost of suffering the consequences – which turned out to be captivity at the hands of foreign conquerors.  Although he was “Avraham’s nephew,” he suffered the same fate as the native Sedomites, because, after all, “he had been living in Sedom.”

            Rav Hirsch concludes with the historical message conveyed by Lot’s fate:

Herein lies a warning hint for the members of the Abrahamic family which has proved itself during the centuries of Jewish history.  If one remains faithful to the Jewish calling one certainly has to do without a good deal, but one also saves oneself from a good deal, one seems to be borne by the kanfei ha-Shekhina[“wings” of the Divine Presence].  The isolating ghettos were not only against the Jews, they existed also for them.  Within them they remained protected from many evils which…befell the people outside.

Volver al capítulo

Adon Olam: The Burning Palace has an Owner

The Gemara in Masekhet Berakhot (7b) comments that Avraham was the first person in the history of mankind to refer to God with the title, “Adon” (“Master”). Avraham uses this term in speaking to God at the “berit bein ha-betarim” prophecy, as recorded in Parashat Lekh-Lekha (15:8).

            What might be the significance of Avraham being the first individual to make reference to this divine Name?

            It is possible that the Gemara refers here to the kind of relationship between the human being and the Almighty which Avraham espoused and taught.  The status of “adon” implies that there is an “eved” (servant), or, more likely, many “avadim” (servants).  Avraham taught that although we cannot begin to understand or even identify God’s intrinsic qualities (as the Rambam famously discusses in his Guide for the Perplexed), we can – and must – perceive Him as an “Adon,” a Master whom we are bound to serve.  In a world submerged in pagan beliefs and practices, which did not recognize a Supreme Being, Avraham taught that there is an Adon, a Master over the earth whom we are here to devotedly serve.

            Chazal, in a passage that appears in various forms in several Midrashic sources (Bereishit Rabba 39, Yalkut Shimoni – Lekh Lekha 62) compare Avraham to a traveler who sees a burning palace.  At first, the traveler assumes that the building is ownerless.  After all, a person who owns a building would never allow it to burn down, and not try to extinguish the flames.  Just then, the owner peers through the smoldering structure and reveals his identity.  Similarly, the Midrash writes, as Avraham began contemplating the question of whether the world has an “owner,” God eventually spoke to Avraham to confirm that there is indeed a Master of the world.  According to the version recorded in Midrash Lekach Tov, God said to Avraham, “I am the first and I am the last, I am the Master of the world [Adon ha-olam]!”

            Avraham’s contemporaries saw a “burning palace,” a world ravaged by all kinds of ills, and reached the conclusion that there can be no “owner.”  They could not imagine that a God would allow the world to “burn” and not put out the flames.  Avraham, however, realized (ultimately with the help of God’s explicit confirmation) that the world has a ruler – or, more accurately, that the world has a “Master.”  The “Owner” allows the fires to rage because He has “servants” whom He has charged with the responsibility of dousing the flames and maintaining His “palace.”  This was Avraham’s response to the pagan world.  God allows the “palace” to “burn” because He expects us – His servants – to take care of it.  Difficult problems continue to beset mankind not because God does not care to resolve them, but because it is our job to resolve them (of course, with God’s assistance).  The raging fire is testament not to the fact that the world has no owner, but rather to the fact that the Owner’s servants are failing to do their job. 

            Thus, Avraham was the first one to call God by the term “Adon.”  He announced to the world the notion of God’s status as Master, which, by definition, includes the notion of our status as servants.

Volver al capítulo

Why is Avraham Commanded to Continue What he had Started?

          Parashat Lekh-Lekha begins with God’s command to Avraham to leave his birthplace and resettle in “the land which I will show you” (12:1), which, of course, turned out to be Canaan.  As many commentators noted, Avraham seems to have already planned on settling in Canaan.  Several verses earlier (11:31), we read that Avraham’s father took the family from Ur Kasdim, their homeland, and set out to live in Canaan.  They stopped along the way in Charan, and settled there.  It appears that God then appeared to Avraham and instructed him to continue the journey which the family had begun, and travel to Canaan.

            The Ramban, in his comments to the final verses of Parashat Noach (11:28), explains the sequence of events based on the famous tradition that Avraham was pursued by the government of Ur Kasdim for disseminating the monotheistic belief.  Avraham’s family decided to escape the authorities and settle in Canaan, a distant land, where Avraham was not known and the family could live safely and securely.  But the family ended up staying in Charan, which was along the way to Canaan.  God then appeared to Avraham and commanded him to continue traveling and to settle in Canaan.

            Here in Parashat Lekh-Lekha (12:1), the Ramban proposes that Avraham intuitively recognized Canaan as God’s special land, and for this reason had planned to settle there initially even before God’s command.  The Ramban does not explain why Avraham decided to stay with his family in Charan and not proceed to Canaan (until God instructed him to go), if he was aware of the land’s special quality and had initially desired to live there.

            Returning to the Ramban’s earlier claim, that Avraham’s family had set out for Canaan to flee the authorities in Ur Kasdim, one may question the Ramban’s underlying assumption that the family felt they would be safer in Canaan.  The Torah writes (12:6) that when Avraham first arrived in Canaan, in Shekhem, “the Canaanites were in the land at that time.”  The Ramban explains that upon his arrival in Canaan, Avraham was afraid to erect an altar and publicize God’s existence, fearing the response of the hostile, native Canaanites.  As we read in the next verse, God then appeared to Avraham in Shekhem and promised that his offspring would inherit this area, and at that point (verse 8), Avraham felt secure and erected an altar.

            As Rav Yaakov Koppel Schwartz notes in his Yekev Efrayim, it seems that Avraham faced risks in Canaan, too, perhaps calling into question the Ramban’s understanding of the events, according to which the family sought refuge in Canaan.  Of course, one might claim that geopolitical conditions had changed in the interim.  In fact, Rashi (12:6) writes that the area had been under the peaceful control of the descendants of Shem, but had now come fallen under the rule of the hostile descendants of Canaan (a son of Noach’s son Cham).  According to Rashi, we might say that Canaan was safe and secure when Avraham’s family first set out to reside there, but in the interim the situation deteriorated due to the Canaanite conquest.  However, as Rav Schwartz observes, the Ramban disagrees with Rashi’s account of the events, and claims that Canaan had always been under the rule of the Canaanites.  In his view, then, one might wonder why Avraham’s family felt Canaan would provide them with a safe haven, in light of Avraham’s fear upon arriving there.  Rav Schwartz does not offer any explanation.

Volver al capítulo

Men Who are Brothers - Avraham and Lot

          The Torah relates in Parashat Lekh-Lekha that Avraham amassed considerable wealth during his brief sojourn in Egypt, where he temporarily relocated to escape the drought that ravaged Canaan.  His nephew, Lot, who traveled with him, also became wealthy in Egypt.  Upon their return to Canaan, Avraham and Lot encountered difficulty living together, given their large, numerous herds of sheep and cattle.  Avraham therefore proposed to his nephew that they part ways: “Let there not be a fight between me and you, or between my shepherds and your shepherds, for we are men who are brothers.  Behold, the entire land is yours – please separate from me” (13:8-9).

            A number of commentators noted the unusual construction, “anashim achim” (“men who are brothers”) with which Avraham described his relationship with Lot.  He did not simply state that he and Lot were “achim” (“brothers” or “relatives”), but rather emphasized that they are “anashim achim” – “men who are brothers.”  How might we explain this description?

            Rav Yaakov Mecklenberg, in his Ha-ketav Ve-ha-kabbala, suggests that Avraham here points to two reasons why he and Lot should not argue.  The word “anashim,” though generally translated simply as “men,” is also often used in specific reference to people of stature and distinction (as in Bamidbar 13:3 – “they were allanashim; they were the heads of the Israelites”).  Avraham explained to Lot that they must stop fighting for two reasons: they are “anashim,” and they are “brothers.”  As wealthy, prominent and distinguished figures, it was beneath them to argue and to allow their differences to cause friction and tension.  “Anashim” should be able to resolve conflicts and find a workable arrangement – such as a peaceful disengagement – to avoid petty arguing.  Additionally, irrespective of their social stature, they should avoid conflict for the simple reason that they are “achim,” relatives, who should make every effort to maintain congenial and pleasant relations.

            Unfortunately, these two factors, which ought to lead people away from conflict and discord, are very often the cause of fighting.  Many people who rise to the status of “anashim,” who achieve wealth or prominence, become more demanding and less flexible, viewing their position as a basis for special entitlement.  They have little tolerance for those who fail to grant them the respect and privileges they believe they deserve.  Rather than considering themselves above petty arguing, they instead insist and fight over trivial and inconsequential matters.  Likewise, the factor of “achim” oftentimes is a source of additional arguing, rather than a reason to avoid arguing. Many people act and speak pleasantly and amiably in social contexts, but are quarrelsome and unyielding at home.  Avraham here reminds us that family relations should be a reason for greater pleasantness and amiability, and not a cause for friction and tension.  People who succeed in getting along with their peers and associated outside the home should ensure to maintain at least this same level of affability among their family members. 

Volver al capítulo

Lot's Questionable Journey (from the) East

    We read in Parashat Lekh-Lekha of the argument that erupted between Avraham’s shepherds and those of his nephew, Lot, in response to which Avraham proposed that they part ways.  Lot chose to relocate in Sedom, in the area of the Dead Sea.  Curiously, the Torah writes that “Lot journeyed from the east” (“va-yisa Lot mi-kedem” – 13:11).  The separation of Avraham and Lot took place in the area of Beit-El (13:3), which is situated along the central mountain rage of Eretz Yisrael, north of Jerusalem.  Sedom, of course, which lies along the Jordan River Valley, is located to the east of the mountains.  Lot thus traveled eastward from Beit-El to Sedom, rather than westward, as the verse indicates.  Surprisingly, Rashi and Seforno explain this phrase according to its simple reading, to mean that Lot journeyed westward away from Avraham, and Ibn Ezra explicitly writes that Sedom is to the west of Beit-El.

            Other commentators suggested different interpretations to reconcile this phrase with accepted assumptions of Biblical geography.  Some commentators (cited by Ha-ketav Ve-ha-kabbala) suggested that the word “mi-kedem” (“from the east”) means not that Lot journeyed from east to west, but rather that he left from the eastern regions of Beit-El.  Lot and Avraham were situated at this point on the eastern side of Beit-El, and Lot traveled from there further eastward, to Sedom.

            It seems difficult to explain, however, according to this approach, why the Torah would find it necessary to inform us that Lot left specifically from the eastern border of Beit-El.

            Shadal notes that the Torah oftentimes omits the word el (“to”), and leaves it implicit.  He thus suggests reading this phrase as “va-yisa Lot el mi-kedem,” which would mean that Lot journeyed to the place which is to the east, that is, to the east of Beit-El, where he had been living.

            Rav Yaakov Mecklenberg, in his Ha-ketav Ve-ha-kabbala, advances a different theory, based on the translation of Targum Onkelos to this phrase.  Onkelos translates the word “mi-kedem” as “be-kadmeita,” which means “first.”  Apparently, according to Onkelos, the word “kedem” here means not “east,” but rather “first” or “before.”  The Torah emphasizes that Lot took leave of Avraham immediately after Avraham made his offer, allowing Lot to choose an area to settle.  It would have been far more respectful and mannerly for Lot to exercise some patience and discuss the matter with his uncle at greater length.  He instead rushed to settle in the area of his choice, before discussing the matter with Avraham.  The Torah therefore adds the word “mi-kedem” as a subtle criticism of Lot for his impatience and imprudence.

 

Volver al capítulo

Avraham: Repaying Debts and Inspiring Monotheism

         Yesterday, we discussed the verse in Parashat Lekh-Lekha that describes Avraham's return to Canaan after his turbulent sojourn in Egypt: "Va-yeilekh le-masa'av" (literally, "He went along his travels").  As we saw, Rashi cites the Midrash's interpretation that Avraham found lodging in the same inns in which he had stayed when he first journeyed from Canaan to Egypt.

            In addition, however, Rashi cites a second interpretation from the Midrash, which reads this verse to mean that Avraham "repaid his debts."  According to the simple reading of the Midrash, it seeks to emphasize Avraham's sense of respect and responsibility towards others, that immediately upon acquiring wealth and returning home, he made a point of repaying his outstanding loans.  The priority he afforded to his financial obligations serves as yet another example of his strict ethical standards and respect for other people and their property.

            Rav Shlomo Breuer (son-in-law of Rav Shimshon Refael Hirsch), however, in his work Chokhma U-musar, suggested a deeper reading of the Midrash's comment.  The Torah tells that when Avraham first arrived in Canaan, he "called in the Name of the Lord" (12:8), which the Midrash (Bereishit Rabba 39) and several commentators (such as the Ramban and Radak) explain to mean that he began his campaign of disseminating the belief in the one true God.  In a pagan world, that had for several generations been taught to bow to and worship graven images and natural elements, one can easily imagine the challenges and ridicule Avraham had to confront during this campaign.  He sought to teach the people of his time to worship and believe in a God whom they neither saw nor heard, and whom they could not even conjure in their minds as any kind of image.  We may assume that these challenges only intensified as drought struck the area and Avraham fell into destitution.  "If you do worship a kind, benevolent God," they may have asked, "why does he not provide you with rain and miraculously bring you food and water?"  These difficulties in disseminating monotheism intensified as Avraham fled to Egypt and then had to endure the abduction of his wife.

            But just then, God intervened and brought plagues upon Pharaoh and his household.  Sara was returned, and Avraham was showered with wealth.  He could now return to Canaan and look forward to a future of financial security.  Upon his return, he went to "repay his debts."  According to Rav Breuer, this comment in the Midrash alludes to his "debts" to his interlocutors, those who pointed to his struggles as proof against the beliefs he was trying to sell.  Indeed, this verse tells of Avraham's renewed efforts to draw people to the belief in God: "He went along his travels…to the site of the altar which he had initially made, and Avraham called there in the Name of the Lord" (13:3-4).  (According to one interpretation suggested by Rashi, this refers to a new campaign to "call in the Name of the Lord.")  Equipped with success and salvation, Avraham was now in a position to teach and inspire, to provide some of the answers he "owed" to those who rejected him.  He showed his audience that even when God's power and authority over the world seems difficult to discern, when the rewards of belief and observance seem distant, ultimately His salvation surfaces and His unchallenged dominion over the earth becomes evident and undeniable.

Volver al capítulo

Avraham's Wealth and Lifestyle Choices

            Towards the beginning of Parashat Lekh-Lekha we read of Avraham's relocation in Egypt after Canaan is struck by drought, and the travails he experiences during this period. He ultimately emerges from Egypt as a wealthy man, and returns to Canaan.  The verse states in describing his return, "Va-yeilekh le-masa'av," which literally means, "He went along his travels" (13:3).  Rashi, however, citing the Midrash (Bereishit Rabba 41:3), explains this as a reference to Avraham's lodging as he made his way from Egypt to Canaan.  He made a point of staying in the same inns where he had lodged as he traveled initially from Canaan to Egypt.  "He went along his travels" thus means that he ensured to follow the same route as he did "along his travels" when he first moved to Egypt, and even stayed overnight at the same motels.  Rashi refers us to the Gemara in Masekhet Arakhin (16b), which extracts from this verse a general rule that one should not lodge with a different host than the one with whom he had previous stayed.  Seeking accommodations elsewhere raises suspicions about both the host and oneself, as people will conclude that either the host did not extend proper hospitality, or that he found the guest distasteful and did not invite him back.

            Rav Avraham Pam (as cited in Rav Pam on Chumash) added yet another lesson that may be derived from Avraham's lodging as he returned to Canaan.  Avraham had fled Canaan due to the financial hardships wrought by the drought, and returned from Egypt a fabulously wealthy man.  This kind of drastic increase in wealth is generally followed by a drastic "upgrade" in one's quality of life.  One might have expected Avraham to use his newfound wealth for better accommodations, to treat himself to more comfortable and luxurious travel conditions.  But he chose differently, preferring to continue living the life of humble simplicity that he lived before earning his fortune in Egypt.  He decided to use the money for more important causes, such as hospitality, of which we read in Parashat Vayera.  Additionally, nobody really knows when or how the tides will reverse, and Avraham therefore exercised discretion in spending his fortune.  This Midrash thus advises against squandering wealth on unnecessary luxury items, that even the wealthy should budget carefully and spend their money wisely.

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'.