The Good Years

“These were the years (shnei) of the life of Sarah.” Genesis 23:1

All of Sarah’s years were equally good. Rashi

            Considering the fact that Sarah was barren until age ninety, and that her life included being taken to the palace of pharaoh and to the palace of Abimelech, as well as the troubles of Hagar and Ishmael, it seems strange to state that “all her years were equally good!”

            My father explained that Rashi’s intention is that throughout her years, whether in easy times or difficult ones, Sarah continued to do good. Even in times of personal distress and challenge, Sarah continued to perform god deeds for others.

            Rabbi Zusha of Annopol (died 1800) suggested that Rashi’s intention is that Sarah considered everything that happened in her life to be good, since it was God’s will. As it were, no matter what happened, Sarah’s response was “this too is for the good.”

            We can suggest an additional intention: no matter what was happening in her life, there remained a goodness about Sarah, and even in times which objectively were not good, she maintained her personal goodness.

            Homiletically, we can say that the “shnei” also means “two,” and perhaps the verse hints that Sarah’s life fused together two aspects: the material and the spiritual. It was the harmony within Sarah of the two divergent aspects which allowed her to do good throughout her life. Ultimately, it was due to the fact that the spiritual dimension of life was pre-eminent for Sarah that all her years were alike in goodness.

                This Dvar Torah is dedicated in memory of my wife. The above comments are a fitting tribute to Gloria’s memory.

The Source of Generosity

... and the man took a golden pendant a beka (half shekel) in weight and two bracelets for her hands of ten shekels weight of gold.                 Genesis 24:22

            Our Sages (Breishit Rabba, 60, quoted by Rashi) note the symbolic significance of the presents which Eliezer, servant of Abraham presented to Rivka. The beka represents the half shekel the Israelites gave to the Temple. (Exodus 28:26) The two bracelets, of ten shekels weight symbolize the two tablets containing the Ten Commandments.

            Rebecca was extravagant in her readiness to help another person. She volunteered not only to draw water for Eliezer and his men, but for the ten camels as well. In our times, chances are most people would ignore a stranger. At best, we might expect a good natured person to offer the use of his bucket so Eliezer could draw water for the camels.

            My father suggested that the symbolic nature of the gifts teaches a very important lesson. Generosity, whether in kindness to fellow human beings or in contributing to charity, must be based upon the Ten Commandments. Generosity which is disconnected from our traditional sources can lead to destructiveness. Our Sages note that our ancestors in the desert contributed generously to the making of the golden calf as well as to the building of the Tabernacle. The lesson is that bein adam l’ḥaveiro (between man and fellow man) and bein adam laMakom (between man and his Maker) are interrelated. Ultimately, it is bein adam laMakom which guides bein adam l’ḥaveiro.

The Servant's Conversation

            It is a fascinating fact that in this week’s parasha, we hear more words from Eliezer, servant of Abraham than we hear from the mouth of Isaac in all of Torah. Rashi (24:42), implies surprise at this fact and quotes Breishit Rabba (60):

Rav Aḥa said: the ordinary conversation of the Patriarchs’ servants is more pleasing to God than even the Torah of their children, for the chapter of Eliezer is repeated in the Torah, whereas many important principles of the Torah (gufei Torah, literally “bodies of Torah”) are given only by hint

            Perhaps the explanation of Rav Aḥa’s comment is the following: while “gufei Torah” may be given only by hint, our Sages elaborate on such hints and teach us their true meaning. One who wants to properly observe “gufei Torah” needs only to open the Shulḥan Aruch, find the appropriate chapter and learn the accepted Halacha.

But beyond fulfilling the Halacha, there is behaving as a zaddik (righteous person). This is not taught in Shulḥan Aruch, but must be learned by observing how a zaddik behaves.

            Throughout the years that Eliezer served Abraham, he was able to learn, through observation, how a righteous person behaves.

The influence on Eliezer of what he learned in this way is immense, as we read in Breishit Rabba:

Canaan (who was cursed by Noah [Genesis 9:25]) is Eliezer, and since he served Abraham faithfully, he left the category of the cursed into the category of the blessed, as is written (Genesis 24:31): “come, Blessed of God”.

The Midrash continues with the practical lesson:

Says Rabbi Ya’akov, in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan of Bet Guvrin: If Eliezer, through faithfully serving a zaddik, went from accursed to blessed, Israel, who deal kindly with their great ones and small ones, all the more so.

The Eleventh Test

To the sons of the concubines that he had taken, Abraham (also) gave gifts. Then, while he was still alive, he sent them to the country of the East , away from his son Isaac.                       Genesis 25:6

Our father Abraham was tested with ten tests and he withstood them all--in order to make known how great was our father Abraham's love (for God).                                                   Pirkei Avot 5:3

            The Mishna does not list the ten tests of Abraham. Maimonides in his commentary on the Mishna, lists only what is stated explicitly in the verses, while Rashi’s list includes tests which are not explicitly stated, but derived from Midrashim. In order to complete his list, Maimonides is forced to count two versions of the same test separately (viz. Sarah in the palace of Pharaoh and again in the palace of Abimelech, king of the Philistines), while Rashi avoids give double accounting.

            According to Maimonides, we may ask why sending away the sons of the concubines

does not constitute one of the tests, since it apparently is a six-fold repetition of the expulsion of Ishmael.

            My grandson noted the difference between the two expulsions: Abraham was specifically instructed by God to send Ishmael out of his home [Genesis 21:12], while it was Abraham himself who initiated the expulsion of the sons of the concubines. While Abraham’s experience, no doubt, was no easier than when he chased out his first born son, and perhaps even more intense, since he was now expelling six sons, it cannot be considered a test, since Abraham himself was the initiator.

            With all the pain involved, it seems that Abraham realized that fulfillment of the Divine promise “It is through Isaac that you will gain posterity” [Genesis 21:12] required him to send away his remaining sons.

It's All About Continuity

            A survey of the parasha reveals that it deals with five topics:

the death and burial of Sarah

Eliezer’s mission to find a wife for Isaac;

the sons of Abraham’s concubines and their being sent away;

the death and burial of Abraham;

a list of the descendants of Ishmael.

            The common theme which connects all of these topics is continuity.

            Respect for ancestors, as demonstrated by Abraham’s concern for the proper burial of Sarah, is a necessary element of continuity. One who does not respect or learn from his forebears divorces the present from the past and thereby jeopardizes the future.

            Following Sarah’s death, it is only natural that continuity requires finding a suitable wife for Isaac.

            Eliezer’s criterion for recognizing the woman destined for his master’s son is an act of kindness:

Let it then be that the maiden to whom I shall say: please lower your      pitcher so I may drink; and she shall say: drink and I will give your camels drink also; she is the one you have appointed for Your servant Isaac; and thereby shall I know that You have shown kindness to my master.                          Genesis 24: 14

            It is instructive that the criterion for identifying she who is worthy of continuing Sarah’s path is not a religious act, but one of interpersonal relations. Not the length of Rebecca’s sleeves, not eating only glatt, but being kind to a stranger demonstrates her worthiness.

            Abraham’s sending away the sons of his concubines represents the painful aspect of guaranteeing continuity. Abraham, who brought strangers to accept monotheism, and brought them under the wings of the Shechina was unsuccessful with his own children. He had to satisfy himself with giving the sons of the concubines presents and sending them off so that his line will continue through Isaac.

            As far as Abraham’s burial, it is noteworthy that the verses again specifically mention his purchase of Ma’arat haMachpelah. As my brother commented, it is an eternal concrete reminder of his continuity for all the generations that followed Abraham who have renewed their connection to our ancestors and their teachings by visiting or even remembering Ma'arat haMachpelah.

            The parasha ends with the list of Ishmael’s descendants. This too can be seen as being related to Abraham’s continuity specifically through Isaac. It is certainly not by chance that the list of Ishmael’s sons is composed of twelve names. Possibly the intention is to present this list of twelve names against the twelve grandsons of Isaac. Perhaps there is even an implied challenge. The Twelve Tribes are not the only group of twelve in God’s sight.  Maybe it is a reminder to not take our status for granted. 

Old and In Days

And Abraham was old, well advanced in years, (literally “come in days”) and God had blessed Abraham with everything.                                                                                                                  Genesis 24:1 Rabbi Aḥa says: there are those who are old, but not in days, and others in days, but not old, but Abraham was both.                                                     Breishit Rabba

My saintly teacher, Rabbi Mordechai Rogov, of blessed memory, explained the Midrash’s intention. Those “in days, but not old” understand and know well modern times and the spirit of the contemporary generation. Yet they do not appreciate nor have they learned the lessons of their own past. They are, in effect, disconnected from their own history and their roots.

Those who are “old, but not in days” are the opposite. They have an appreciation of tradition, but no understanding of the contemporary generation.

The greatness of Abraham was combining both a true appreciation of tradition and understanding of the younger generation.

The Devoted Servant

And I said unto my master: perhaps (ulai) the woman will not wish to follow me.                       Genesis 24:39

As spelled without the letter vav, the word ulai is “incomplete,” and therefore can be read as the word elai (to me). Rashi, based upon a Midrash, comments that Eliezer wished to marry off his own daughter to Isaac.

Kli Yakar raises the question of why the word ulai is spelled fully, with the vav, in the “transcript” of Eliezer’s conversation with Avraham (24:5).

My father explained that this stresses the greatness of Eliezer. When speaking to his master, Eliezer asked an honest and unbiased question: “What shall I do if the woman chooses not to come with me to Canaan?” He sincerely sought Abraham’s instructions without trying to further his own interest. However, when Eliezer related his conversation with Abraham to Rebecca’s family, he hinted of his own desire to marry his daughter to Isaac, specifically to encourage Rebecca’s family to accept the proposed match. In essence, Eliezer said “Don’t think that Isaac is an unworthy bridegroom, I myself would be pleased to have him as a son-in-law”.

The greatness of Eliezer is in faithfully following Abraham’s instructions, against what he perceives to be his own interest.

We are all God’s servants. How many of us are on the level of Eliezer, being able to subjugate our interests and desires to the will of our Master?

Hands-on God

I will bind you by an oath to God, Lord of heaven and earth, that you will not take a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites among whom I live.                                                                                 Genesis 24:3

            Our Sages taught that God entrusted the care of all lands to His ministering angels, save the Land of Israel, which He supervises directly and personally. Thus, explains Rabbi Yehonatan Eybschutz, outside the Holy Land, God is known as the God of heaven, since, as it were, He supervises those lands from heaven. In contrast, in the Land of Israel, God is known as the God of heaven and earth, since He takes a hands-on approach and directly oversees the affairs of the Land. Thus, when Abraham charged his servant Eliezer to avoid taking a daughter of Canaan for his son Isaac, Abraham spoke of God as the “Lord of heaven and earth.” Four verses later, when Abraham spoke of God as He Who brought him from his father’s house and his land of birth, namely Ur, outside the Holy Land, Abraham referred to God only as “Lord of heaven.”

Whose Servant Are You?

Eliezer introduced himself to Rivka’s family by saying “I am Avraham’s servant.” [Genesis 24:34]

 Rabbi Macy Gordon comments that whom or what a person serves is an important aspect of defining that person. Rabbi Gordon relates the story of one of his students who added the abbreviation ayin hei after signing his name. Since ayin hei normally stands for alav hashalom (peace upon him) and refers to one who is no longer living, Rabbi Gordon was most curious as to his student’s choice of signature. The student explained that in this instance, ayin hei stands for eved haShem (the servant of God)!

Indeed we have much to learn from Eliezer, servant of Avraham.

The great Or haḤayyim (Rabbi Hayyim ben Attar, 1696–1743) signed the introduction to his commentary on Ḥumash: “servant of God, servant of Torah, servant of Israel.”

The Lessons of Salt

But his wife looked back behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.               Genesis 19:26

          Rashi notes that our Sages teach us that divine punishment always fits the crime (midda k’neged midda, measure for measure). In the case of Lot’s wife, since she begrudged Lot offering salt to his guests, it was appropriate that she be turned into a pillar of salt.

          Years ago, a tourist of mine suggested an alternate explanation of the appropriateness of Mrs. Lot’s being turned into a pillar of salt. Salt is a preservative, perhaps the ultimate preservative. In looking back, Lot’s wife was looking to the past rather than to the future. Hence, she was turned into a preservative.

          There are lessons to be learnt from salt. As my father pointed out, when salt is added to food it enhances the flavor of the food. However, salt by itself is inedible. Our Sages teach us that the approach “what is yours is yours and what is mine is mine” is the measure of Sodom. The citizens of Sodom failed to learn the lesson of salt. By insisting on strict ownership rights and ideological opposition to sharing with their fellow citizens, the Sodomites ultimately deprived their possessions (and themselves) of their true worth.

          There is an additional lesson to be learnt from salt. In moderate quantity and proper measure, salt brings out the flavor of food. Yet, if too much salt is added, the food will be ruined and rendered inedible. So too in life, one must strive to find the proper measure to be used and avoid going to extremes.

          Lot’s dealings with his fellow citizens of Sodom demonstrate his failure to have learned this lesson of salt. Lot, in defiance of the laws of Sodom, brought guests into his home. Essentially, Lot was fulfilling the mitzva of hachnasat orḥim, the importance of which he had learned from his uncle Abraham. When the people of Sodom demanded that Lot surrender his guests “that we shall know them” (19:5), Lot responded by offering his daughters instead (19:8). Sacrificing one’s own children is certainly not a requirement of, nor fulfillment of hachnasat orḥim. In his failure to learn the lesson of salt, Lot perverted the mitzva of hachnasat orḥim.

Faith History versus Power History

 “And it came to pass at that time that Abimelech and Phicol, his field marshal spoke to Abraham saying: God is with you in all that you do. And now swear to me here, that you will not deal falsely with me, nor with my son, nor with my grandson .... “

                                                        Genesis 21: 22 - 23

            After Abraham chased Hagar and Ishmael out of his home, Abimelech, king of the Philistines came to Abraham to demand that he grant him a treaty. The timing requires understanding why Abimelech, who had known Abraham for years, was moved to request a treaty specifically “at that time”?

            Professor Eliezer Berkovits wrote that Jewish history cannot be understood in the same terms as world history. World history is “power history”. Whoever has had power has succeeded. The definition of power changes, but the principle that the nation which has the power succeeds remains a constant.

            Jewish history cannot be understood in terms of power history. On the contrary, by the rules of power history, Jews should have disappeared many generations ago. Rather, Jewish history can be explained and understood only in terms of “faith history”. It is the Jews’ faith which has allowed them to escape the fate which should be theirs  based upon the rules of power history.  Based upon Professor Berkovits' insightful comment, we can say that the fate of Israel depends upon its faith.            

            For as long as Abimelech saw Abraham as some sort of weirdo who lives in his own world of faith history, he could ignore Abraham. However, now Abraham has done something seemingly cruel and heartless: chasing his own son out of his home into the desert. Such behavior is associated with power history, where any means is considered legitimate in order to preserve power.

            When Abimelech saw that Abraham was capable of playing the game of power history in order to preserve his life style which is based upon faith history, Abimelech realized that he could no longer ignore Abraham. Abraham had become a force which must be reckoned with.  Therefore, specifically “at that time” Abimelech came to Abraham to demand a treaty. 

Interrupting Conversation With God

And (Abraham) said: “My God, if indeed I have found favor in Your sight, do not pass away from Your servant.”                                         Genesis 18: 3

            Abraham interrupted his conversation with God in order to fulfill the mitzva of hachnasat orḥim (bringing in guests).  From this verse, we learn that greeting guests is greater than receiving the Shechina.

            My father explained that this is true because of the primacy of bein adam l’ḥavero (between man and fellow man) over bein adam laMakom (between man and God).

            We saw this primacy two weeks ago in Parashat Noaḥ. The generation of the flood was dealt with more harshly than the generation of the Tower of Babel, which had rebelled against God. This is because the generation of the flood quarreled among themselves, while in the generation of the Tower of Babel there was love and friendship.

            It is noteworthy that the same distinction applied between the generation in which the First Temple was destroyed and that of the Second Temple. Our Sages tell us that the First Temple was destroyed because the Jews violated the three cardinal sins: idolatry, adultery and murder. The Second Temple, though the generation was observant of mitzvot, was destroyed because of needless hatred among the Jews. The first destruction lasted seventy years, while the second destruction has lasted 1936 years.

            Perhaps this distinction between bein adam l’ḥavero and bein adam laMakom explains the discrepancy in Abraham’s behavior in our parasha. When God told Abraham of the impending destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, he immediately launched an impassioned plea on behalf of the residents of the evil cities. Yet when asked to sacrifice his beloved son, Abraham responded in action, getting up early to saddle the donkey and prepare whatever will be necessary.  Here is Abraham, fighting to save a society whose ideals are the antithesis of what he has spent his life teaching, and yet not arguing to save his own son. (As our Sages pointed out, Abraham could have presented convincing arguments.) Perhaps the distinction is that the request to offer Isaac as a sacrifice is essentially between Abraham and God, bein adam laMakom, while saving the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah is a matter of bein adam l’ḥavero.

Moriah: The Completion of Abraham's Journey

And God said: take your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go (v’lech l’cha) to the land of Moriah …                                                          Genesis 22:2

The first and last times we hear God speak to Abraham, it is with the words lech l’cha. In our verse “lech l’cha” is preceded by the conjunctive vav, which my father suggested connects the two divine commands of “lech l’cha, to teach us that the Land of Israel can be fully acquired only through sacrifice.

Our Sages taught that the origin of “Moriah” is the word “hora’ah” (teaching), for it Mount Moriah is the source of teaching. The purpose of Abraham’s journey was not merely to reach the Land, but to sanctify the Land through Torah and to be sanctified by the Land. Thus, as Abraham taught the world that there is only one God, his journey to Mount Moriah was essential to the completion of his mission.

Creating Angels

And he took butter and milk and the calf he had prepared and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree and they ate.        Genesis 18:8

          Rashi, quoting the Talmud [Bava Metzia, 87b], comments that the angels pretended to eat (since celestial beings do not require eating). The angels’ behavior is not a trivial matter, as the Sages derive a practical moral lesson from this behavior: one should not diverge from the local custom.

          Malbim offers an alternate explanation of the angels’ “eating”. The root word “echol” (eat) refers to that which sustains someone or something. Thus, Hebrew can speak of fire “eating” wood (generally translated as “consuming”, but literally “eating”), since it is the wood which sustains the fire. Similarly, a number of verses refer to sacrifices as the “bread of God”, since the sacrifice maintains and sustains the Shechina in the lower world.

          Our Sages teach us that angels are created through the performance of mitzvot. In essence, an angel is the agent of divine providence to provide recompense for one’s good deeds.

          The three angels sent to Abraham were angels of mercy, created through the acts of kindness (g’milut ḥassadim) and hospitality of Abraham. Rashi comments that any given angel has but one task, therefore, each of the three angels who appeared to Abraham had a unique function. It was due to Abraham’s acts of g’milut ḥassadim that an angel was sent to “heal” Sarah of her infertility and prepare her for childbirth. Through these mitzvot of Abraham, a second angel was dispatched to rescue Abraham’s nephew Lot. Though the mission of the third angel was the destruction of Sodom, he too was an angel of mercy. The acts of the Sodomites, being diametrically opposed to mercy (“ḥessed”), required the evil city’s destruction.

          Thus, the final phrase of our verse can be translated “and they were sustained”. As an act of ḥessed, the meal which Abraham served his angelic guests (whom he thought to be mortal travelers) gave vitality to, and created these angels.

Whose Test is It?

            Rabbinic tradition is that Isaac was an adult, aged thirty-seven when Abraham brought him to Mount Moriah and bound him on the altar. Thus, Isaac was a knowing and willing participant in the akeda.

            The question which begs asking is why Jewish tradition focuses on Abraham’s role in the akeda rather than on that of Isaac. It is true that we refer to akedat Yitzchak, the binding of Isaac, yet it is Abraham who is seen as the hero.

            The truth is that one of our Sages do stress Isaac’s role. The verse which  introduces  the akeda is: “and it came to pass after these things that God tested Abraham ….” [Genesis 22:1]

Two Sages of the Talmud offer differing opinions as to the meaning of “these things”.

Rabbi Yoḥanan, quoting Rabbi Yossi ben Zimra, says “after the words of Satan”. Satan said to God that Abraham failed to express his appreciation to God for having had a son at age one hundred. “This old man did not offer even a single bird to You”, said Satan. God responded “If I were to ask him to sacrifice his son to Me, he would immediately do it”. Immediately after this conversation between God and Satan,  “God tested Abraham”.

Rabbi Levi says “After the words of Ishmael to Isaac”. Ishmael bragged that he is greater than his half-brother. He said to Isaac, “You were circumcised as an eight day old, I was thirteen and did not resist”. Isaac responded “You taunt me with a single limb. If the Holy One blessed be He were to say to me ‘sacrifice yourself to Me’, I will do so”. Immediately, “God tested Abraham”.

            Thus, in the opinion of Rabbi Levi, Isaac actually instigated the akeda! According to Rabbi Levi, Isaac was the initiator of his father’s test. Abraham is credited because it was his test, and therefore the focus is upon Abraham rather than upon Isaac.

            Rabbi Dov Eichenstein commented that Abraham’s experience, as a father was more intense than Isaac’s experience. As a father, Abraham felt not only his own distress but that of his son Isaac as well.

            My father commented that Abraham’s experience was the more prolonged experience. From before Abraham and Isaac left Be’er Sheba for their three day journey to Mount Moriah, Abraham knew the purpose of the journey. Until shortly before being bound on the altar, apparently Isaac did not understand that he was to be the sacrifice. (Only as Abraham and Isaac have left the donkey and servants behind and were walking to Mount Moriah did Isaac ask “behold the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for the offering?” [Genesis 22:7]).

            I would add an additional aspect. For one on the level of Abraham, the thought of taking another’s life is more distressing than the prospect of losing one’s own life. 

Fear of Heaven versus the Social Compact

Abraham replied, “I realized that the one thing missing here is the fear of God. I could be killed because of my wife.”       Genesis 20:11 Great is fear [of Heaven], for all who fear Heaven it can be presumed will not sin, and one who does not fear Heaven it can be presumed will not abstain from any sin, as the verse [Exodus 20:17] states:  “His fear will then be on your faces, and you will not sin.” And what is stated concerning evil ones? [Psalms 14:1] “The fool has said in his heart: 'There is no God'; they have dealt corruptly, they have done abominably; there is none that does good.”   Midrash haGadol

                The Midrash teaches that the source of mitzvot between man and fellow man (bein adam l’ḥavero)] is fear of Heaven, and not any social compact. We fulfill mitzvot bein adam l’ḥavero because it is God’s command, and it is this divine imperative which makes the obligations absolute.

                Malbim, in his commentary on our verse, phrases the point thus:

Abraham informed Abimelech that even if there are individuals or entire nations who are great philosophers imbued with proper etiquette and who have trained themselves in positive traits, based upon their intellectual understanding, and who act justly and righteously, they still cannot be relied upon … intellectual understanding and wise traits alone are not immune to ones desires.

There is but one power within the human soul which can be relied upon to prevent sin, and that is the quality of fear which is implanted within the soul, and it is from this source that fear of Heaven issues.

                Yehuda Kiel [Da’at Mikra on our verse] comments: “Fear of Heaven is the religious force which dissuades man from erring in grave sins between man and fellow man.”

                Netziv adds that Abraham did not claim that Abimelech’s subjects are bereft of courtesy and good manners, rather that the social mores of the land are based upon human intellectual understanding. Therefore, Abraham feared, since one who does not fear Heaven will be unable to control his urges, which overcome human wisdom.

                Zohar [1:140] explains the reason fear of Heaven was lacking in Gerar:

Rabbi Elazar says: because the Shechinah rests only within the Holy Land, and therefore “the one thing missing here is the fear of God,” for this is not the place where the Shechinah rests.

Based upon these comments, it can be concluded that the Land of Israel is the most suitable place for fulfilling mitzvot bein adam l’ḥavero.

                Rabbi Menaḥem Kasher [Torah Shelayma] connects Zohar’s comment with that of the Babylonian Talmud [Ketubot 110b]: “One who dwells outside the Land is considered as one who has no God.” The comment of Maharsha on this Talmudic statement is most enlightening: “For one of the Divine qualities is doing kindness (gemilut ḥassadim) and man should follow the Divine attributes.”

                 We can add that our Sages [Babylonian Talmud Avoda Zara 17b] use the same phrase “as one who has no God” to describe one who engages in Torah study but not gemilut ḥassadim, on which Noam Elimelech comments: “since he lacks connection with the Created, only with Torah.” Thus, true connection to God requires dealing with gemilut ḥassadim and the Jew being in the Holy Land, the Land which is uniquely the Land of the Creator.

The Rejoicing Heart

And I will fetch a morsel of bread and refresh you your hearts (libchem)…                   Genesis 18:5

          That Abraham said “and I will fetch a morsel of bread” (literally, “and I will take a morsel”) rather than “I will give you a morsel” or any alternate wording expresses that, in waiting on his guests, Abraham  felt he was receiving more than he gave. Indeed, our Sages explain the verse [Exodus 25:2] “that they take an offering for me” to mean that one who donates receives more than he gives.

          Ba’al haTurim connects our verse’s use of the word “libchem” with that in two additional verses:

Set your heart to her (Jerusalem’s) ramparts, traverse her palaces; that you may tell it to the generation following.            Psalms 48:14

and

And when you see this, your heart shall rejoice, and your bones shall flourish as the grass …                                     Isaiah 66:14

          My father noted our verse deals with eating food while that of the Psalm refers to Jerusalem and the Temple [v.10], thus the connection of the verses is to demonstrate that we must be able to connect the physical and the spiritual. When we succeed in this task, our hearts shall rejoice, as prophesied by Isaiah.

The Third Start

And they came to the place God had told him of, and Abraham built the altar there …                       Genesis 22:9

The verse does not say “he built an altar,” rather “the altar,” the altar on which Adam brought his sacrifices, which is the altar on which Noah and his sons offered their sacrifices, and where Adam made his offerings.                     Yalkut Shimoni

Perhaps the Yalkut wishes to teach us that the akeda (binding of Isaac) was a new start for Mankind, just as Adam and Noah were.

Adam, the progenitor of all mankind, obviously marks the start of the human race.

Noah and his sons, who together with their spouses were the sole human survivors of the Flood, represent Mankind’s second start, God’s granting a second chance to His choicest creature.

The akeda, in a real sense, marks the beginning of Jewish history. As such, it represents man’s embarking on the path of fulfillment of the purpose of creation, acceptance of monotheism and Torah. Thus, the akeda symbolizes yet a third start for Mankind.

Ultimately, each of mankind’s “starts” is connected to the Temple Mount, as our Sages taught, that the altar was located at the site of the Temple altar.

A Tale of Two Daughters of Pharaoh

Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: Hagar was the daughter of Pharaoh. When Pharaoh saw the deeds done on behalf of Sarah in his palace, he gave his daughter to Sarah, saying: “Better that my daughter be a handmaiden in her home and not a matron in any other home.                     Breishit Rabba 45

            Rabbi Shimon’s comment suggests a comparison with another daughter of Pharaoh, who saved the infant Moses and raised him as her son. [Exodus 2:5ff]

            Interestingly, in both chapters, Hagar and her son Ishmael in the desert [Genesis 21:14ff] and Pharaoh’s daughter saving Moses, the boy is referred to both as a “child” (yeled) and as a “lad” (na’ar). Further, the words “yeled” and “na’ar” appear seven times in each chapter. It is not by chance, it is as if the Torah wants us to compare and contrast the two chapters.

            Hagar and her son were sent away from the home of Abraham and wandered in the wilderness of Beer Sheba, and when they had drunk all their water, and death by thirst seemed imminent, Hagar’s reaction was:

When the water in the skin was used up, she cast the boy under one of the bushes. She walked away, and sat down facing him, about a bowshot away. She said, “Let me not see the boy die.” She sat a good way off, and she wept in a loud voice.                                                                  Genesis 21:15-16 

            Other than crying, Hagar did nothing. (Rashi [21:16] comments that as Ishmael’s apparent death came closer, Hagar moved further away from her son.) Beyond this, Hagar’s reaction was egocentric. Rather than doing whatever she could to encourage and help her son, rather than hugging him in what seemingly were his last minutes of life, Hagar declared “Let me not see the boy die.” Hagar placed herself, rather than her son, in the center.

            Rabbi Shimshon Raphael Hirsch notes the vast difference between Hagar’s approach and that of a Jewish mother:

A Jewish mother would not have forsaken her child, even if all she could would be to try to pacify him, even if it were only to soothe him for the millionth part of a second.

            Rabbi Menashe Klein stresses Hagar’s inaction, commenting that she should have searched for water for her son. Hagar perhaps even had the right to expect that miraculously someone would show up with water, since she had already seen an angel when she ran away the first time [Genesis 16:7ff] and had herself experienced a miracle. In any event, she should have sought some way of keeping her son alive, especially knowing that the angel had promised, in God’s name: “I will grant you many descendants. They will be so many that they will be uncountable.”

            In contrast to Hagar, Bitya, daughter of Pharaoh (our Sages [Shemot Rabba 1:26] taught that this was her name) saw an infant, son of the people against whom her father had decreed “'Every boy who is born must be cast into the Nile” [Exodus 1:22] and reacted with compassion [ibid. 2:6].

            Our Sages relate the words of Bitya’s servants who accompanied her to the banks of the Nile:

When (the servants) saw that she wished to rescue Moses, they said to her, “'Mistress, it is the custom of the world that when a human king makes a decree, though everybody else does not obey it, at least his children and the members of his household obey it; but you  transgress your father's decree!” Gabriel came and beat them to the ground.

                                     Babylonian Talmud, Sota 12b

            Bitya, an Egyptian princess, did not think of herself nor of her personal status, rather acted out of compassion to save an infant who not only was not of her own nation, but from the nation against whom her father had issued his dastardly decree. Bitya chose to defy her father’s decree and do what she considered to be morally correct. (We may note that some of our Sages understand that Bitya herself fetched Moses’ ark.)

            Our Sages have great praise for Bitya, teaching that she converted to Judaism and was among the few mortals who entered the Garden of Eden alive. [Midrash Mishlei] Pirkei d’Rebbi Eliezer [chapter 48] teaches that Bitya merited clinging to the wings of the Shechina and that she is called “the daughter of God.” (the translation of her name)

            Considering her lofty soul, it would have been surprising had Bitya not converted to Judaism. Indeed, Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai, who taught that Hagar was pharaoh’s daughter, taught as well that Bitya went down to the river [Exodus 2:5] to purify herself from the idols of her father’s palace, that is to immerse herself for the sake of conversion.

            The bottom line is that despite the fact that Hagar was privileged to live in the home of our father Abraham, she maintained her Egyptian mentality, while Bitya, who grew up in Pharaoh’s palace was able to overcome her “Egyptianness.”

Lech L'Cha versus Lech L'Cha

The first (recorded) time God spoke to Abraham, He said “Lech L’cha” [Genesis 12:1]. The last time we hear God address Abraham directly, He again said to him “Lech L’cha.” [Genesis 22:2] It is certainly not by chance that the first and last conversations between God and Abraham include the same phrase.

Rashi [Genesis 12:1] comments that God informed Abram that his journey was for his own good and benefit. Truthfully, even before learning Rashi, Abraham understood that this “Lech L’Cha” was for his good and benefit. After all, Abraham was leaving Nimrod who had tried to kill him.

By contrast, the last Lech L’Cha, on the face of it, is the antithesis of Abraham’s good and benefit. Abraham was asked to sacrifice his beloved son. Beyond that, the second Lech L’Cha, apparently is incomprehensible to Abraham. Abraham’s adult life had been spent trying to teach the nations the concept of monotheism, of a God who cannot condone idolatry, including, and especially, child sacrifice. Yet, this God of Abraham’s is now requesting that he do exactly what he opposed for so many years. On the personal level as well, sacrificing Isaac will obviously negate God’s promise to Abraham that Isaac will carry on after him. Therefore, it would seem that on an intellectual – philosophical level, the last Lech L’Cha is beyond Abraham’s comprehension.

The last Lech L’Cha appears not only as something which is contrary to Abraham’s good and benefit, but also a source of emotional and intellectual suffering.

It would seem that we have conflicting and contrasting Lech L’Cha’s: Lech L’Cha of Parashat Lech L’Cha versus Lech L’Cha of the Akeda.

Yet, Abraham did not argue with God, nor even present his claims (which apparently are justified). Abraham did not even raise a question. Rather, Abraham’s response is in action: “Abraham arose early in the morning”. [22:3]

Abraham and his beloved son reached Mount Moriah on the third day of their journey. With Isaac bound on the altar and Abraham about to fulfill God’s request which he could not comprehend, God sent an angel to instruct Abraham to do nothing to Isaac. The angel conveyed God’s oath and promise to Abraham:

I will surely bless you and multiply your descendants as the stars of   the heavens and as the sand of the sea shore and your descendants shall inherit the gates of their enemies and through your descendants all the nations of the world shall be blessed.    [22:17-18]

In the end, there is no contrast, no Lech L’Cha versus Lech L’Cha. Everything proves to be for the good and benefit of Abraham.

Our Sages stress that the “events of the fathers are a sign for the sons”, that is, the events of the Fathers of the Jewish People are lessons for the future generations of Jews.

When we analyze Jewish history, we see that the paradigm is the second Lech L’Cha. There are very few instances in Jewish history where the situation was clearly for the good and benefit of the Jews. The norm of Jewish history is a situation which apparently is counter to the good and benefit of the Jews, perhaps even a situation which is incomprehensible to the Jews.

Our first father taught us to have faith in God and His providence, even when we do not and cannot understand His actions.

The lesson of the second Lech L’Cha is that having this faith, we will discover that in the end everything is in fact for the good and benefit of the descendants of Abraham.

Jerusalem Spiritual and Physical

And Melchizedek king of Shalem brought forth bread and wine and he was priest of God Most  High.                 Genesis 14:18

            Thus Melchizedek, king of Shalem, which our Sages teach us is Jerusalem, greeted Abraham upon his return from defeating the four kings. [verses 14 – 15]

            Rabbi Shlomo Aviner comments that Melchizedek was not offering Abraham a meal, rather, the bread and the wine are symbols, representing physical and spiritual life. Melchizedek is described as “priest of God Most High,” yet he realized that Abraham was greater than he and passed the priesthood to Abraham.

            It is significant that it is specifically in Jerusalem that Abraham receives a blessing of both physical and spiritual aspects of life.  Jerusalem itself combines these two aspects, being both the temporal and the spiritual capital of Israel. It is noteworthy that Jerusalem is known as the City of David [II Samuel 5:7; I Chronicles 15:1], as well as God’s city. [Isaiah 45:13]

            Jerusalem, in some sense, endows the earthly with a heavenly, spiritual aspect as well. Perhaps this is the reason that the name Yerushalayim is plural (the “ayim” suffix in Hebrew denotes a pair).

The Name Game

God said to Abraham: “Sarai your wife – do not call her by the name Sarai, for Sarah is her name.”                    Genesis 17:15

            When God changed Sarai’s name, he commanded Abraham to no longer use her old name. The Hebrew can be understood as well to mean that Sarah herself may longer use the name Sarai. From this point on both Abraham and Sarai herself must see her exclusively as Sarah. One’s self-perception determines his/her personal identity and self-concept.

            When God changed Abram’s name, He instructed him:

Your name shall no longer (od) be called Abram, for your name shall be Abraham, for I have set you up as the father of a horde of nations.                                                                     Genesis 17:5

That is, as an absolute, the name Abram is no longer to be used. Our Sages understood this to convey an actual prohibition:

Bar Kappara taught: Whoever calls Abraham Abram transgresses a positive precept, since the verse says “Your name shall be Abraham.” Rabbi Eliezer says he transgresses negative command, since the verse says “Your name shall no longer be called Abram.”      Babylonian Talmud, Berachot 13a

            Netziv notes that the word “od” seems superfluous, and suggests that it purpose is to limit the prohibition of referring to our first father by the name Abram to his descendants, while the nations of the world are free to refer to Abraham as Abram.

            Based upon Netziv’s exposition, God demanded self-awareness of Abraham and his descendants, as he did of Sarah. In the end, it matters not whether the world use the appellation Abram or Abraham, but it is vital for us to appreciate that our first father is not “Abram,” but ”(Abraham) the father of a horde of nations,” and our mother is not Sarai (meaning “our mistress”) but Sarah, the mistress of the entire world.