(Mesh with the
above?)
But of course God is also the source of pain and death [“yotzer ohr ….ra”: I create light and darkness, peace and evil”]; clearly we are meant not to imitate God in this way.
Noah was indeed a righteous man, but in his generation God
viewed all humanity as deserving of death, and it was not necessary that Noah
view them in this way. God grants us the privilege and perhaps the obligation of
differing, as Abraham did in serving as defense attorney for the people of
Tradition teaches us that “Hashem” is the name for God in the divine manifestation to us as Merciful, whereas “elokim” is the equivalent for Justice.
The Torah tells us “tamim tihye im hashem elokecha”: perhaps in the light of the above I may be permitted to translate this as “we should be tamim [tamim = straight, complete, pure, maybe even naïve?] with the Merciful aspect when God is revealed in the aspect of Justice”. Defending Humanity against the Divine Justice is our way of imitating God, of serving God, of actualizing our aspect as beings created in the image of God[25].
Avram was commanded by the God in the Merciful aspect to be Mighty, to defend humanity.
And
when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD (Merciful aspect) appeared to
Abram, and said unto him: 'I am God Almighty; walk before Me, and be thou
wholehearted
19
For I have known him, to the end that he may command his children and his
household after him, that they may keep the way of the LORD (Merciful aspect) [=
“derech hashem”], to do righteousness and justice; to the end that the LORD
(Merciful aspect) may bring upon Abraham that which He hath spoken of
him.'
|
|
[In a very speculative and allegorical sense we might perhaps say: God relies on the beings He created in His image to set the reality of human destiny, as Man relies on his helpmeet (“etzem mi’atzomai”: “bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh = in my image); this is our challenge.]
· Terach left Ur Kasdim taking Abraham etc
·
They stopped on the way, in
· Terach died.
·
God spoke to Abraham saying “Leave your
birthplace, go to the land I will show you… “ and so Abraham left Harran to go
to
But
So it cannot be that the passages are in their chronological order!
We can therefore see that the Torah is simply telling us the Terach-saga in complete form before moving on to the Abraham saga, and the passages are indeed not in their chronological order.
This then teaches us two important lessons:
1) Abraham was the one who initiated the trip;
2) the Torah’s chronology is subtle.
1) We know that some of the events in
the Terach saga (eg Terach’s death)
happened AFTER the LATER Abraham saga: we can then easily include the
event of Terach’s leaving
The order would then be:
· God spoke to Abram in Ur Kasdim, and as a result Abram and Sara were planning to go to the land of Canaan, so Terach and Lot etc “left with them” (“vayetzu itam”); however since the father takes precedence over the son, when they went together the Torah tells us that Terah took them rather than that Terach went because his son went.
·
Terach stayed in
·
Abraham then continued to
· Terach died.
2) As with the creation and
Abraham asks Sarah to say that she is his sister[30] for if she doesn’t “they will kill me and let you live”. And as her brother “they will be good to me on your behalf” (and indeed they make him a rich man while she is kidnapped in Pharaoh’s house!)
Questions:
Is it not crass to say “so that they will be good to me on your behalf”?
Was Pharaoh justified in saying that Abraham was to blame since he told everyone Sarah was his sister and not his wife?
If Abraham knew that they would take Sarah to Pharaoh’s house forcibly, what did he expect would happen to her? Would he just allow this to happen?
From the wording quoted above it almost sounds as though Abraham had to convince Sarah to tell the Egyptians she was his sister; why would she refuse him if it was to save his life? Was he asking her to sacrifice herself in order to save him?
Answer: Abraham did have to convince her.
Sarah knew she was in danger of being kidnapped by the King. Which status was more dangerous: sister or wife? If it was known that she was married, perhaps it was slightly less likely that she would be kidnapped; saying that she was Abraham’s sister might heighten her chances of being abducted. On the other hand whereas a married woman might be taken by force since there was no option of getting her for the king in any peaceful manner, it might be that an unmarried woman could be convinced to become the king’s consort, and the brother could be convinced to give his permission, and so there would be no need for violence.
At first Abraham may have asked Sarah to say she was his sister for HER sake, to protect her, so that she would not be taken forcefully but rather negotiations over his ‘sister’ would begin, and perhaps they could leave before having to make a decision. But Sarah may have felt that the possible extra margin of safety for herself was not worth the lie, and perhaps in any case they were honorable people and there was no need to lie. Either way, she was willing to die if need be.
But then Abraham clarifies to her that not only was she affected, he said effectively “do it for me”; he knows that she is willing to die to protect her virtue but he tells her that they will not give her a choice nor will they kill her, so it is not about her at all, but about him: he tells her that they will take her no matter what, but if they know he is her husband they will kill him; of course as soon as she hears that his life is at stake this convinces her to say she is his sister.
However, what did Abraham expect to happen? We can see from the story that before Pharaoh was afflicted when trying to sleep with Sarah Abraham was made wealthy, and this must have taken some time. And the process of being reported to Pharaoh took some time. Abraham was aware of the way things were done there, he knew they would take her, and he knew that they would make him wealthy and therefore knew that he was buying time this way rather than being killed outright and Sarah immediately kidnapped. With the time he could perhaps arrange for her to be saved: perhaps via using his new-found wealth, perhaps via prayer (as it turned out, God intervened at the last minute.) So it made sense to arrange for wealth to come his way to buy influence and for a lengthy process to be initiated to buy time, all by having Sarah say she was his sister. And this is the meaning of “they will kill me and let you live; say you are my sister so that they will be good to me on your behalf”
Pharaoh’s complaint seems justified, “why did you tell me she was your sister, why didn’t you tell me she was your wife?” and at first it seems as though we should agree with him, however from the context it is clear that Sarah was taken by force: clearly had she been asked if she wished to be Pharaoh’s consort, and given a real choice, she would have refused; the fact that she was “taken to Pharaohs house” shows that she was taken against her will. Abraham correctly saw that this would be the case. A king who would kidnap a woman and think that by giving presents to her brother all is OK could well also kidnap a married woman and kill the husband. And so, Pharaoh’s complaint rings as hollow as many complaints of the nations against the Jewish People in other contexts.
Abraham’s army wins the day, his
nephew Lot is rescued, and the king of
Question: So why did Abram allow
Pharaoh to make him rich?
Answer: The other King who was
saved by Abraham, Malchitzedek, says after the victory: 'Blessed be Abram to God Most High, Possessor
of heaven and earth. And blessed be God Most High, who delivered your enemies
into your hand.' “ He knows it is all from God, and that if Abraham acquired
wealth through the war it was via God, not as a gift from the kings. The King of
Sodom in contrast is all business: 'Give me the people. You can keep the goods’.
Such a person who did not give any credit to God will take credit for himself
for any wealth accrued to Abraham.
Pharaoh also recognizes that God
is sovereign and in charge of Abraham’s fate: he is afflicted and understands
that it is due to an injustice done to Abraham and realized that Sarah is his
wife. The wealth Abraham acquires is understood by Pharaoh to be gained by the
grace of God, not the will of
VAYERA
Would YOU trust the kashrut in Abraham’s
tent?
Tolerant Hospitality
Guests appear and Abraham serves them butter/cream and meat!
Various
Traditionally-presented Mitigating factors:
· This is prior to the giving of the Torah laws (on the other hand the Sages teach that Abraham kept the Kosher laws);
· The two substances were not cooked together;
· The guests were not Jews (he had special dishes etc for guests);
· Dairy can be eaten before meat, and there may well have been much time between the two since preparing the cow and the meat took a while (even though 18:8 may imply simultaneous serving).
However perhaps there is a lesson here: Abraham’s mission was to teach hospitality, and to teach monotheism, not to convert people to Judaism. He respected the practices of others and did not impose his views on them unnecessarily: there is no Jewish law forbidding non-Jews from eating meat and dairy, and so since this mixture was one he himself did not eat, but he did not feel that his guests must follow his practice in this, Abraham deliberately served them this to show tolerance and respect for the ways of others. Today perhaps one could not because it is after Sinai and this might be considered unseemly. On the other hand in homes where some are observant and others are not (yet) perhaps one can learn tolerance from this act of Abraham.
Abraham tells the guests: “Let there be taken please a small amount of water and wash your feet”.
Various Traditional sources ask:
· Why does he say: “let there be taken” rather than “take”?
· Or better still, why doesn’t he just give it to them, all travelers appreciate a wash.
· And why a small amount of water- why not offer a whole bath? Or whatever amount could be spared in the desert: why insult them by implying they would inconsiderately use too much?
· Why “please” take as though it is a favor to him: surely travelers will appreciate water, it is a favor to THEM!
· Why not simply give it to them, and say: “here’s water to wash your feet”.
The Midrash tells that some people at the time worshiped the sand and Abraham did not want this in his tent, and therefore Abraham requested that his guests wash their feet in order to rid them of sand (and so today Muslims wash their feet prior to prayer). Abraham was teaching them about monotheism, with the opening being a request of them that they respect his religious beliefs not to bring into his tent the sand that perhaps they or others worshipped.
Perhaps one can offer the following explanation: Since he was projecting his own religious beliefs here, to say “take” or to bring it to them would be overbearing and instead he sensitively said: “let it be taken, please”. And not to insult them by having them think that he really said this due to an odor of theirs after traveling, he specified “a bit of water”, just enough to symbolically wash off the dust.
All this is mentioned to teach us a similar combination of thoughtfulness: the way to get across a religious message, helping people with their spiritual needs, is not preaching or chastising but by helping them with their physical needs: to be unabashed in teaching, but to do so sensitively, and via hospitality and other caring help.
As some have said: rather than looking after your own physical needs and the spiritual needs of others, look after the physical needs of others, and your own spiritual needs. To this one may add:
a) look after the physical needs of others as did Abraham, tolerantly, but infuse it with content as did he:
b) looking after the physical needs of others IS the way to look after your own spiritual needs.
Abraham says: “I’ll take some bread for you, and you’ll eat”.
The guests answer: “So you should do, as you have said”. What a strange answer.
Then Abraham runs to Sarah in the tent and tells her to “quickly” prepare food. Is this a polite way to treat his wife?
Then instead of getting bread and doing as he said, Abraham immediately asks Sara to do something else: to prepare cakes!
1) Why does he suddenly do differently than he originally said? And this, ironically, immediately after his guest specifically told him to do as he said!
2) Why does he run to prepare meat? why does he run to prepare meat [the fact of his running is stressed]?
Answer: We are taught that great people say little and do much, and they certainly do that which they say they will do. The opposite is true of people with the opposite characteristics. Traditional commentators point out that from here we can see that Abraham intended to do much more than he said, offering a bit of bread: he intended to offer cake and meat but without telling them, so that they could not refuse.
Perhaps one can add the following: The visitors were intending not to bother him, and being messengers of God knew his intent, and so their strange answer was meant to say “do as you said and not as you intend to do”, that is: “bring only bread rather than the elaborate meal you intend”. However from this wise and perceptive (prophetic?) answer/request, Abraham realized these were special guests, and this is why he raced to prepare the meat.
Perhaps Abraham (having just been in communication with God, and perhaps still in the throes of the experience) realized that they were messengers of God, related to God’s earlier promise of a child, and this prompted him to run to Sarah and excitedly ask her to hurry…. Also for her to be part of the mitzvah: as Yitschak asked Esav to provide him with food in order to receive the blessing: indeed the son whose birth they will foretell is Yitschak! Indeed immediately after the food was placed and eaten the ‘guests’ ask “where is Sarah…”
[Note also the parallel between the two accounts:
· 27:5: Rivka was listening (to Yitschak talk of the blessing). AND
·
· God says: (paraphrase) “Let me go down to see what’s going on in Sdom, is it as bad as it sounds”. Why is God talking to himself?
· Does God not already know what is happening?
·
Right before this we are told that the guests
leave towards Sdom, and as we know they were going there to save
· Abraham starts bargaining with God for the lives of the people of Sdom. How does Abraham know of God’s plan to destroy the city?
Answer (Tradition):
The beginning of the whole story is “And the LORD appeared unto him by the tents of Mamre” and then the guests appeared. And right as they were leaving God asks Abraham why Sarah laughed. Clearly then Abraham was in contact with God all the while, the arrival of the guests being part of this contact. (Maimonides teaches that the whole event was a vision.) So, when God says “Let me go down to see what’s going on in Sdom, is it as bad as it sounds” he is saying it to Abraham! And that is what “going down to see” means.
Also: in the passage “And the LORD said: 'Shall I hide from Abraham that which I am doing” the words “and the Lord said” are in a very unusual passive form (‘veHashem amar’, rather than ‘vayomer Hashem’). God is deciding to tell Abraham, and then does so via the statement “Let me go down to see what’s going on in Sdom, is it as bad as it sounds”. Abraham takes his cue from this and begins his defense speech.
Abraham interrupted his communing with God as soon as he saw the guests, and ran to greet them. This is not disrespectful: on the contrary the way to worship God is via kindness to those created in God’s image. Bringing strangers into one’s tent and ministering to their physical needs (with a touch of a spiritual message) is the way to bring in God’s presence.
Perhaps one can add: As a result of Abraham’s correct decision to take care of the guests rather than put up a sign saying ‘busy communing with God’, the connection to God was maintained throughout the visit and afterwards. Also, in this way Abraham proved himself sufficiently a lover of humanity and spiritually deep to become the defender of Sdom.
Furthermore, he showed understanding of the principle that God wants us to serve those created in the divine image as the way to serve God, and so Abraham was ready to be a defended of humanity even against God – without this deriving from disrespect: quite the opposite: the more respect for God, the more respect for the divine image that is a human being.
12-15: And Sarah laughed within herself … And the LORD said unto Abraham: 'Wherefore did Sarah laugh… Then Sarah denied, saying: 'I laughed not'; for she was afraid. And He said: 'Nay; but thou didst laugh.'
· Sarah laughed when overhearing the guests talking to Abraham. God asks Abraham why Sarah laughed but we are explicitly told that Sarah “laughed within herself” - how was Abraham to know about Sarah’s internal laughter?!
· Why did God chastise Abraham about not believing the message about the birth of his son, asking rhetorically “Is this too difficult for God to do?” After all, the message came from guests, not from God – and why should an approximately 100-year-old couple believe such a strange message?!
· God asks Abraham why Sarah laughs, but Sarah answers: “I didn’t laugh!” How did Sarah know what God said to Abraham?
Perhaps one can answer as follows: The
questions imply the answer: there was a
……………………….
[Having God in our
relationships can help us achieve deeper empathy with each other: couples can
develop an understanding that borders on telepathy.]
12-15: And Sarah laughed within herself … And the LORD said unto Abraham: 'Wherefore did Sarah laugh… Then Sarah denied, saying: 'I laughed not'; for she was afraid. And He said: 'Nay; but thou didst laugh.'
· Sarah laughs, and God challenges Abraham about it: why does God not challenge Sarah?
· Sarah answers instead of Abraham, why does she interrupt God’s question to Abraham?
Answer: Earlier, when God tells Abraham that he will have a son, Abraham laughs. However he is not scolded for this, and the Sages teach that it was laughter of joy, not of skepticism. The second time he hears of a son who will be born, he does not laugh, but Sarah does.
Perhaps this is because it was the first time that Sarah heard of it, in other words Abraham did not tell her of God’s promise! [32]
This is what God is challenging Abraham about, and this is why Sarah wants to deny having laughed. From the question God asks, and the prophetic connection between the three, she understand what has happened: God hears her laugh, and this of course shows that braham didn’t tell her about the promise of a child! So God challenges Abraham – not Sarah – and then to defend Abraham Sarah claimed that it was not a skeptical laugh but a joyful one, that she of course believed it (the implication being that she had heard about it already from Abraham) and so she had actually laughed from joy (as did Abraham when he heard it and believed it)!
The passage says she lied “because she was afraid”, but we
read it as ‘for
she was afraid’
of
what would happen to Abraham as a result of this, not of what would happen to
her!
And
how could she lie to God?! She learned from Abraham that to
save the life of another – as was the case when they entered
Of
course God knew that Abraham in fact had NOT told Sarah, but the whole episode
was designed to test their reaction, and they responded perfectly, in defense of
each other, and so God dropped the subject and did not punish Abraham for not
telling Sarah, nor Sarah for laughing.
Judaism values truth, and the suffering and growth that comes with the responsibility of accepting the truth, but not necessarily blindly in all cases where MY telling the truth will cause SOMEONE ELSE to suffer. Especially to defend someone else’s honor one can perhaps ‘stretch the truth’.
And
now we can understand why the Torah tells us that God said [
·
After
implicitly criticizing Abraham for not revealing God’s plan to Sarah, God now is
‘obliged’ to reveal the divine plan for Sdom.
·
Now
that Abraham and Sarah have shown their preference for kindness over justice,
and willingness to go out on a limb for another, they are on the level to be
defenders of the people of Sdom;
·
Abraham,
Sarah and God are still in a three-way communication: but Sarah is in her role
of “And Sarah was listening”:
·
Now
that they have shown their willingness to stand up to God in order to defend
another human being they are qualified to attempt to defend the people of Sdom
against God’s justice
Why is it important for God to contradict
Sarah and point out that she did indeed laugh?
God
is not being spiteful or infantile. God wishes to show her and Abraham that He
knows what is in a person’s heart and so confronts her with the truth, which she
no longer denies. And this insight about God is important for its own sake, and
also as a prelude to the story of Sdom.
Question:
How is it that as defense attorney for Sdom Abraham doesn’t even question God’s
determination of the guilt of his clients?! All he asks is that God spare the
righteous: but perhaps they are ALL righteous?
Perhaps
one can offer the following answer: After the previous encounter, Abraham knows
now in a very personal way that God is the Judge of the Earth, and
merciful:
·
God
knows what is in each person’s inner heart and therefore a defense attorney
cannot question God’s determination of fact even regarding the most inner
thoughts and intents:
·
God
is merciful and totally overlooks even a direct lie if the intent was to save
another human being from shame or punishment, and so the issue here was not one
of too strict justice;
As
opening line in his argument with God Abraham says about the imminent
destruction of Sdom: “wilt Thou indeed sweep away and not forgive the place”.
Perhaps there is a hidden meaning in this passage. In
Hebrew:
·
The
word translated as “wilt” is “ha’af” which also means the forbearance (ma’arich
af) or anger (charon af) of God;
·
The
word translated as “forgive” is “tisa”, invoke, used in the Ten Commandments for
“do not invoke my name in vain”;
·
The
word “the place” is a known name of God (since all space is in
God).
Thus
the passage can be translated as a mystical reference, and in the third person:
“will the divine attribute of Anger sweep all away and not allow the aspect
“Place” be invoked in its stead?”
The
Destruction of S’dom (Hussein?)
Abraham says: Will not the Judge of all the Earth do justice?”
· There is a Jewish law that a court of many judges is required for capital cases, and so Abraham is challenging any decision reached without a defense attorney or alternate judge, and appoints himself.
· Also, there is a law that if a large court rules unanimously for the death penalty, then there is something wrong, if not one judge dissented, and so Abraham challenges the unanimity of the decision.
This is why it seems as though a decision was already reached by God to destroy Sdom, but then he reopens the case in discussion with Abraham.
· The words translated as “Will not the Judge of all the Earth do justice?” can be interpreted as a statement rather than a question: Abraham challenges God saying that a Judge who condemns the whole land (Sdom) is not doing correct judgment, and indeed God then later saves Lot in ‘remembrance’/recognition of this.
·
Abraham says:
That
be far from Thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked,
that so the righteous should be as the wicked; that be far from Thee; shall not
the judge of all the earth do justly?'.
Perhaps Abraham is not merely trying to save the righteous: he is saying: if one can slay all the righteous because of the wicked, should it not be symmetrical and one can as well save the wicked because of the righteous?!”. This can fit with the Hebrew: the words translated above as “so the righteous should be as the wicked” is actually symmetric: something like: “and it will be as the righteous as the wicked”.
Abraham bargains with God about Sdom, asking God to save the people if there are 50 righteous people, then if there are only 40 etc until “if there are ten”.
· Why did Abraham stop at ten?
·
Why did he not ask God to spare his nephew
·
Why did God spare
·
Why does it say that “God remembered Abraham
and spared
Answer: The surrounding culture generally has a great affect on one’s behavior. Can one be blamed for this effect? Yes, because a person is responsible for choosing where to live, and thereby choosing their local culture.
Noah was a righteous person despite his culture, and in any case all humanity was corrupt and there was nowhere to live that was not corrupt, so he was spared (also, in order to spare humanity, someone had to survive the Flood).
However God wants Abraham to teach his
children not simply Justice, but ‘Righteousness and Justice’: 19: “For
I have known him, to the end that he may command his children and his household
after him, that they may keep the way of the LORD, to do righteousness and
justice”:
And
so God saves Lot even though Justice would militate against it, in order to
teach this combination to Abraham - and therefore we are told that God
remembered Abraham and saved
And
this is our inheritance from Abraham: the combination of Righteousness and
Justice, not one without the other.
Abraham
asks: “how can you kill the good with the bad. If there are fifty righteous
people will you save the whole place? How can the Judge of the whole Earth do
this, to kill the good with the bad!?”
Problem:
This is a poor bargaining tactic: Abraham starts with a minimal demand, not to
kill the good with the bad, then has the courage to up his request, to not kill
anyone, neither good not bad if there are fifty righteous people, then goes back
to the weaker demand, to at least save the righteous. Why do
this?
And,
strangely God actually replies to the tougher demand, not to kill at all, rather
than to the opening and ending weaker demand: And the LORD said: 'If I find in
Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will forgive all the place for
their sake.'
Answer:
We see that the city of
As a consummate bargainer, who could argue with God, and knew the value of human life, Abraham could easily have convinced himself that God wished for him to contest the justice of bringing Isaac as a sacrifice. Whereas the test of Abraham regarding Sdom was whether he would rise to the occasion, put his life on the line, and take up cause against God, now God was testing him to see if he could resist the temptation to do the same here, to get out of the sacrifice. And Abraham passed the test of course.
In contrast to a very wordy exchange with God regarding Sdom, lengthy bargaining, here Abraham utters one word only: “Hineni” (“ I am here, [ready to do your bidding]”) and then after hearing the command, he says nothing at all! He just gets up early in the morning and goes to fulfill his mission.
·
Why
does Abraham stop the bargaining at ten?
·
Why
does God simply leave the discussion without ending it for example by saying
“there are not ten people and so I will destroy
Sdom”?
Answer:
Perhaps indeed there were ten, and so Sdom was to have been
saved!
How
many people were initially to be saved?
The
angels ask
12-14:
“And the men said unto
Counting
all these we have:
·
·
The
two unmarried daughters mentioned earlier, who indeed escaped Sdom;
2
·
The
sons-in-law in the plural so this is at least: 2: and their wives (his
daughters); total at least 4;
·
Sons
(or grandchildren); in the plural so this is at least:
2
for
a minimum total of 10![33]
However
only
·
Perhaps
had all ten believed the message the whole city might have been
saved.
·
Or,
perhaps the agreement with Abraham was to have all the righteous die with the
wicked if there were fewer than ten righteous people, but to save all the
righteous people if there were at least ten of them, but not to save the whole
city. Since there were indeed ten, God gave them the chance to escape: however
those that were not sufficiently believing did not utilize this
possibility.
God
told Abraham to send Hagar and Yishmael away as Sarah had commanded: but why did
he not give them more water?!
Answer:
First of all God had promised Abraham that Yishmael would be a great nation,
(and had also promised Hagar the same: [
Furthermore,
from the previous story we know that he was living near ‘Shur’ (20:1), which was
where Hagar found the well the first time she was cast out (16:7). Indeed Hagar
would have found that well this time also, as Abraham expected, except that she
lost her way [21:14] “she strayed in the wilderness of Beer-sheba” ….. and it
was only after praying that: “And God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of
water”.
Avimelech,
who earlier kidnapped Sarah and then protested his innocence (Chapter 20) - as
though we are to believe that he could kidnap and rape someone’s sister, but
would not have kidnapped her had he known she was someone’s wife - confronting
Abraham “why didn’t you tell me she was your wife, why did you say she was your
sister” now confronts Abraham again with his slimy
hypocrisy.
He
should have learnt from before: God punished him with a disease as a result of
taking Sarah, and he was not healed even after returning her, and giving gifts
to Abraham; he healed only when Abraham prayed for him; and he has the nerve to
accuse Abraham of wrongdoing!
“[21:23
– 24] Now therefore swear unto me here by God that thou wilt not deal falsely
with me, nor with my son, nor with my son's son; but according to the kindness
that I have done unto thee, thou shalt do unto me”
And
then Avimelech again denies responsibility for his actions:
[
Why
does Avimelech appear here again, what is he complaining about, and what is all
this about the wells?
Answer:
This story is told right after that of Hagar’s expulsion. Perhaps Avimelech
heard of it and wants to rub it in to Abraham, that he is a man not to be
trusted about his wives: he lied about Sarah and allowed her to be taken away by
another man, and now he kicked out his other wife, and didn’t even give her
sufficient water. He has the nerve to come and ask Abraham to promise he won’t
lie anymore. Abraham counters by telling him that Hagar was lacking water only
because she couldn’t find her water-well due to the fact that Avimelech’s people
had taken it forcibly (as they had taken Sarah). Again Avimelech denies
everything “I didn’t hear it etc….[34]
Some
nations in that part of the world will kidnap and rape, and steal water sources,
hypocritically not only blaming others for their own crimes, but will blame the
victim.
Even
back then the women lamented: Why are there no Good Straight
Men?
Answer:
They thought that there were no straight men left!
There
are many indications of the homosexuality of the Sdom
area:
·
The
men of all ages surrounded the house;
·
They
wanted the male guests brought out ‘to know them’.
·
This
happened ‘before they went to bed’.
·
They
were not willing to accept
·
Seeing
that Sdom and other cities had been destroyed, not knowing the extent of the
destruction and thinking it almost universal, and assuming that any remaining
cities were probably also homosexual Lot’s daughters say:
And
therefore in order to have children they resort to their father (who is old and
soon would not be able to have children.)
[35]
[36]
…….
Technical Matters
Reducing Confusion
The order of events in the passages is a bit confusing:
· Why does Abraham assume that God has already decided the matter of Sdom’s destruction if God merely says: “I will go down and see if things are as bad as they seem”.
· Why does the passage mention twice that the angels leave for Sdom (in 16 and in 22)
Answer:
The angels were on the way to Sdom, Abraham was accompanying them as one would walk with departing guests, but he did not know of their mission: this is passage 16.
Then God says “will I hide this from Abraham”, and then tells him “I will go down to see”.
Then God does this, and decides to destroy Sdom, or the decision was taken before but this is the way God lets Abraham in on the process.
Then in passage 22 the angels leave Abraham to go towards Sdom and by this Abraham understands that God’s decision was now taken. And thus Abraham starts the bargaining.
God blesses Abraham that his children would be like the sand of the sea (shore)[1]. But Abraham lived in a desert area, and surely there is more sand in a desert than at the seashore! It must have been strange to hear that his children would be plentiful but not the sand in the desert, only as the sand at the shore.
Answer: Perhaps this preference of the sand of the shore is
in reference to the request that Abraham made of his guests, to wash their feet.
The Midrash tells that some people at the time worshiped the (all-covering,
virtually indestructible) desert sand and Abraham did not want this in his tent,
and therefore asked them to wash their feet in order to remove the sand.
Therefore the image of the sand of the desert is not used by God to describe the
children of
Chayei
Sarah
Why Is This God Any Different Than Any Other God? Don’t Look a Gift God in the Mouth
Eliezer (Abraham’s assistant/disciple/servant) is sent to bring a wife for Isaac. He ends up at the home of Abraham’s relative Lavan.
“And he (Lavan) said: 'Come in,
thou blessed of the LORD; wherefore standest thou without? for I have cleared
the house, and made room for the camels.”
Why does Lavan say “I have cleared
the house”[39]
a rather strange thing to say to a guest?
The Sages teach that Lavan was aware of Abraham’s views on idolatry and when he saw the gold presents given to his daughter by Abraham’s servant, Lavan became instantly “converted” and removed his idols to make his home “kosher” for his guest.
Questions:
· We know that Lavan later on ran after Yakov to retrieve his idols, so they clearly meant something to him. At this earlier juncture we assume they also meant a lot to him, and so why would he suddenly ‘do teshuva’ and remove his idols?
· Why did he do so after seeing the gold?
Perhaps one can offer an additional explanation to the one provided in Traditional sources.
Years later Isaac’s son Yakov (Jacob) flees there. When he
eventually leaves Lavan’s home we are told [35:4] that Yakov’s
family gave him “all
the foreign gods which were in their hand, and the rings which were in their
ears.”
Seemingly the jewelry was an aspect of some form of idolatry.
We can now see the explanation for the events in the following: When Eliezer comes to Lavan’s home:
“the
man (Eliezer) took a golden ring of half a shekel weight, and two bracelets for
her hands of ten shekels weight of gold ….And it came to pass, when he (Lavan)
saw the ring, and the bracelets upon his sister's hands… he came unto the man …
And he (Lavan) said: 'Come in, thou blessed of the LORD; wherefore standest thou
without? for I have cleared the house”.
Why
did he clear the house of his idols?
Perhaps Lavan was simply substituting one idol for the other -
after all, Gold is worshipped even today!
{Alternate version: It may be that when Lavan saw the gold - which had been brought to him as a gift/dowery - he (said “My go(l)d!!, and) accepted it as his new idol(atry). Thus he removed the old gods from his home not because he had done teshuva, but simply to bring in the new. (“bring in the gold, throw out the old (god)”)
[These can be titles: “Oh My Go(l)d”, and “out with old, bring in the gold”.]}
………..
One of the major cities in
But the word ‘shova’ means ‘swore’. And in fact the original name of the town was ‘Be’er-shova’! (swearing at the well!?)
One can perhaps venture that Abraham made a very clever pun with this name as we’ll see below, but for a reason which had political and familial significance for the future.
27
And Abraham took sheep and oxen, and gave them unto Abimelech; and they two made
a covenant. 28 And Abraham set seven (sheva) ewe-lambs of the flock by
themselves. 29 And Abimelech said
unto Abraham: 'What mean these seven (sheva) ewe-lambs which thou hast set by
themselves?' 30 And he said:
'Verily, these seven (sheva) ewe-lambs shalt thou take of my hand, that it may
be a witness unto me, that I have digged this well.
31
Wherefore that place was called Beer-sh?va; because …….
AR:
What is the natural assumption to make regarding the name? That it was called
Beer-sheva (well-of-seven) because of the seven lambs; after all Abraham and
Avimelekh make a big deal about there being seven of them, and they are the sign
for their treaty about the well. Instead though the Torah makes a switch and
says:
31 Wherefore that place was called Beer-shova (‘well-swore’); because there they swore both of them. !!!
AR: A very cute last-second unexpected punny switch! Why did Abraham do this?
Isaac would one day re-dig his fathers’ wells, and would give them similar names. He wanted on the one hand to keep the name Beershova to remind everyone of the pact which Avimelekh had violated, but not in so blatant a manner; so with political wisdom he instead called it Beersheva, the name that Abraham ‘prepared’ in advance and that Avimelekh expected at the time – and anyone hearing it would understand the implication!
History Repeats Itself, Again (“it’s déjà
vu all over again!”)
Our forefathers had a history which was a foreshadowing the troubled history of their descendants. But by persisting they created mystical ‘pathways’ which would enable their descendants to prevail in similarlyadverse circumstances:
·
Abraham and Sarah journey to
· They go to areas near the Plishtim[40] and Sarah was kidnapped by Avimelekh (the local king), another kidnapper-rapist who then tries to paint himself as a righteous person.
· Avimelekh’s servants harassed Abraham by stealing his wells[41]; Avimelekh denies all knowledge of this in a very unconvincing speech. So Abraham makes a pact with Avimelekh and a sign, so that posterity will know that he dug the well.
Does all this help? Of course not!
· Abraham and Sarah’s son Isaac and his wife Rebecca go to the same area, and again Avimelekh (probably a generic name for whoever was the king of that area) pesters them: he peeks into their window and learns that they are husband and wife rather than brother and sister – so presumably he peeked into the bedroom window. A voyeur-king, who then tries to present himself as an honorable man.
· Isaac becomes wealthy and the local people begin to get jealous and (see 26:16) eventually make him leave (sound familiar?). They probably figure that this exile, and being far from water sources, will impoverish him.
· He goes to the area where his father Abraham had dug the wells, and where he had made the pact with Avimelekh, and, true to form, all the wells had been filled in! Without water he will have nothing; no sheep, no wealth.
· So he digs a new well, they find water, and the people living nearby claim it as theirs. He digs another, finds water, and again the same thing, they take it from him,.
· Finally he digs one and they leave him alone. He showed enough persistence and willingness to work the land and create resources despite whatever they threw at him, and finally was ‘tolerated’.
· God appears to him and blesses him; he remains wealthy and powerful and seeing that Isaac is still powerful despite all their efforts to exile and impoverish him Avimelekh comes to visit him: Isaac says “you threw me out of your land, what do you want now?!” and Avimelekh says he wants to make a pact of friendship, after all they have always been friends! And so they sign yet another peace treaty.
The forefathers went through these cyclic events so that when their descendants experienced these same trials they would be fortified with the merit of their ancestors; with the spiritual tools inherited from our forefathers we can overcome all obstacles.
AR: Interestingly, we do not find people mentioned in the Torah naming their children after their ancestors: this did not happen until much later in Jewish history. (Perhaps because history was still ‘being made’)
However the practice of using the names used by ancestors does appear in a different sense:
· When Abraham’s son Isaac re-digs his father’s wells in the future, after they were covered up, the Torah tells us that he wishes to give them names similar to the ones given by his father.
· Jacob gives the blessing to Efraim and Menashe that they will be called in his name and the names of his ancestors.
Loaded
Silence
The
Torah seems to present the connection between each Patriarch and God in a manner
which grants them exclusivity: no two Patriarchs are recorded as having
conversation with God in the same period: After the first recorded communication
by God with Isaac there isn’t any with Abraham anymore, and aftr the first
recorded conversation with Yakov there’s none with Isaac.
However
the timing of each of these transitions is interesting. For the case at hand:
the last recorded communicating from Abraham to God is the one word “Hineni”;
immediately following is God’s request to take Isaac as a sacrifice. From that
moment on Abraham, though totally obedient, does not talk to
God.
(The
word hineni and the consequent silence is echoed by the words and silence
between Abraham and Isaac on their three-day journey towars the akedah at
Moriah.)
Countering Revisionist
Historians
Although Abraham and his
grandson Yakov (Jacob) left
Why
could Abraham and Yakov - Isaac’s father and son – leave
We’ll combine two
Traditional ideas:
·
God promised Abraham ‘your
seed’ will inherit the land, and tells him that ‘Isaac will be your seed’.
Presumably therefore it is via Isaac that the Land was to be inherited.
·
According to Jewish Law
unchallenged occupancy of land over some period of time indicates ownership.
That is, abandonment of a piece of land by its owners for that period
constitutes abandonment of the claim to ownership.
AR: The Jewish People did
not claim the Land via conquest but rather via the covenant which God had made
with Abraham to give the Land to his seed, Isaac. Had Abraham left
Isaac’s claim to the Land
was cemented by a life-time of his residence there. It was therefore possible
for his son Yakov to leave, even for a lengthy stay, and for this to be
considered temporary since it was always the intention to return, and because
the Jews were eventually enslaved and couldn’t return on their own, and returned
as soon as they escaped slavery.
Perhaps never in history since that time has the Jewish
claim to the Land been as challenged by others as it is now: our enemies in the
past destroyed our Temple, but our enemies today deny that it ever existed, and
make attempts to destroy archaeological evidence of its existence, and so living
there now is especially important – it is a reaffirmation of our
covenant.
Whether is it Lavan or
Avimelech or someone else: Our enemies cast their sins on us; we are called
nazis by those who slaughter us, who themselves want to exterminate us.
·
Those who cannot accept how
successful is
·
As they work to destroy the
·
And though they dream of
creating another Holocaust, they deny it ever happened since they cannot
reconcile it with their paranoid fantasy of a worldwide network of all-powerful
Jews.
·
After a generation of
denial, whatever will then be left of the Holocaust will be attributed to the
Jews themselves: they will say: first of all it didn’t happen, secondly the Jews
deserved it because they are nazis, and thirdly the Jews perpetrated it
themselves just as they did with the WTC.
AR:
Abraham was too liberal in his treatment of Yishmael, and it was necessary for
God to inspire Sarah to take matters in hand. Yitschak was too liberal in his
treatment of Esav, and it was necessary for God to instruct Rivka to take
matters in hand. If not for them, the descent of Abraham and Isaac might have
been through Yishmael and Esav.
Continuing in this
tradition, Rachel and Leah encouraged Yakov to leave Lavan, their own father,
who they realized had betrayed them.
The
matriarchs were always the trend-setters, determining who would be the true
descendants of Abraham.[44]
…But Names Will Never Harm
Me
Ya’akov was born holding the heel of his first-born twin brother Esav as Esav was emerging before him from the womb they shared; as a result he was given the name Ya’akov (the Torah tells us that the name is based on the root word ‘akev’ = heel, because he ‘held the heel of his twin brother’ as he was being born.) It’