The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash

Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat Har Etzion

PARASHAT LEKH LEKHA

Rav David Silverberg

            We read in Parashat Lekh-Lekha of Avraham's military campaign against the four eastern kingdoms who had captured his nephew, Lot, along with rest of the residents of Sedom.  Upon Avraham's triumphant return from battle, the king of Sedom greets him and offers to allow Avraham to keep all of Sedom's property that he had retrieved from the city's captors, in exchange for the people.  Avraham responds by declaring, "I have lifted my hand to the Lord, the Supreme God, owner of heavens and earth, that I shall not take from all that is yours – from a thread until a shoelace – so that you shall not say, 'I made Avraham wealthy'" (14:22-3).   In order to ensure that the king of Sedom does not take credit for Avraham's wealth, Avraham chose to give the king all the property and people he had retrieved; he demanded only that his allies – Aner, Eshkol and Mamrei – receive a portion of Sedom's spoils, without taking anything for himself.

            It is commonly understood that the phrase harimoti yadi el Hashem – "I have lifted my hand to the Lord – refers to the declaration of an oath; lifting one's hand even today is used to signify the acceptance of an oath.  Targum Onkelos, however, translates this clause as, "Areimit yedi bi-tzlo" – "I have lifted my hand in prayer."  Apparently, Onkelos understood this phrase not as an introduction to the next clause – "I shall not take from all that is yours" – but rather as an independent statement.  Avraham here declares that he outstretches his hands to the Almighty in prayer, and then, in the next verse, announces his refusal to accept any spoils from the property of Sedom.  The obvious question arises, of what relevance is prayer in this context?  Why does Avraham speak of his prayers to God before relinquishing his rights to the spoils of Sedom?

            Rav Yosef Shaul Nathanson, in his Divrei Shaul (Mahadura Tanina), suggests that Avraham here explains to the Sedomite king the attitude with which he approaches material acquisitions, which forms the basis of his refusal to accept spoils.  Even when it comes to a "thread" or "shoelace," Avraham looks to the Almighty, rather than any human being, as the source of all his material needs, and it is this outlook that he seeks to establish and disseminate throughout the world.  Suspecting that the king of Sedom would later credit himself for Avraham's wealth, Avraham had no choice but to refuse the spoils, in order to firmly establish the fact that God it is his true benefactor.  He therefore begins by avowing his exclusive dependence on God, that his material benefits are ultimately acquired only as a result of his prayers to the Almighty.

            We might add that the Divrei Shaul's approach helps explain why Avraham refers to God in this context as koneh shamayim va-aretz – "owner of the heavens and earth."  He seeks to emphasize the fact that he looks to and depends upon God, rather than people, and in order to reinforce this notion he must not allow the Sedomite ruler to portray himself as Avraham's benefactor.  Avraham therefore underscores God's authority over heaven and earth, and He exerts unlimited control over all the earth's resources and it is He who determines how those resources are distributed.

******

            The final section of Parashat Lekh-Lekha records God's command to Avraham regarding berit mila (circumcision), a command which He introduces by exhorting, "Hit'halekh lefanai ve'hyeh tamim" – "Walk before Me and be complete" (17:1).  Rashi explains (in his second interpretation of this verse), "Walk before Me through the command of circumcision, and you will thereby be complete, for so long as the foreskin is upon you, you are a ba'al mum [person with a blemish] before Me."  The exhortation "be complete," according to this interpretation, simply explains the function or objective of berit mila: to transform Avraham from a ba'al mum – a blemished person – to a tamim – a complete person.

            The Meshekh Chokhma infers from Rashi's comments that an arel – a Jewish male who has not undergone circumcision – has the same halakhic status as a ba'al mum – a man with a physical blemish.  Accordingly, this verse forms the basis of the halakha disqualifying an uncircumcised kohen from performing the avoda (ritual service in the Temple), and invalidating any rituals performed by such a kohen.  Just as rituals performed by a kohen with a physical blemish are invalid (see Vayikra 21:16-23), so must we invalidate any avoda performed by an uncircumcised kohen, who, as Rashi writes, is halakhically equivalent to a ba'al mum.

            The Gemara (Zevachim 22b), however, as the Meshekh Chokhma notes, cites Rav Chisda as commenting that this disqualification of an uncircumcised kohen does not have a source in the Torah.  Rather, it is derived from a prophecy of Yechezkel in which God explicitly forbids uncircumcised men from performing the avoda (Yechezkel 44:9) and speaks of avoda performed by such individuals as "desecrating" the Temple (ibid. 44:7).  Why, the Meshekh Chokhma asks, does Rav Chisda not derive this halakha from the association between an arel and ba'al mum, as implied in God's exhortation to Avraham to be "complete" through circumcision?  The Meshekh Chokhma answers that Rav Chisda apparently followed a different approach in interpreting the phrase veh'yeh tamim ("be complete").  The Ramban, for example, in his Torah commentary, explains this phrase in light of the similar command "Tamim tiheyh im Hashem Elokekha" – "You shall be 'complete' with the Lord your God" (Devarim 18:13).  As is clear from the context of that command, it demands firm, unwavering belief in God's power to the point where one ignores the predictions of oracles, spirits and fortune-telling devices.  In a similar vein, the Ramban claims, God here commands Avraham to pay no heed to the predictions made by the sorcerers of his time and place his faith exclusively in the power and authority of God.  Conceivably, the Meshekh Chokhma suggests, Rav Chisda accepted this interpretation of the verse, as opposed to Rashi's, and thus found no Biblical source for the halakha disqualifying an uncircumcised kohen from the avoda.

            Rav Moshe Leib Shachor, in his Avnei Shoham, takes issue with the Meshekh Chokhma's assumption that this verse, according to Rashi's interpretation, serves as a source for the disqualification of an arel.  As the Rambam rules in Hilkhot Bi'at Mikdash (6:5, based on the Gemara in Masekhet Bekhorot 43), the laws of ba'al mum depend upon the nature of the physical blemish.  If a kohen features a kind of blemish that would disqualify an animal for use as a sacrifice, then indeed any service he performs in the Temple would be invalid.  If, however, a kohen's blemish disqualifies only kohanim, while the same defect in an animal would not render the animal unsuitable for use as a sacrifice, then ex post facto his avoda is valid.  Even though it is forbidden for him to perform rituals in the Temple, if he does perform avoda it is valid and need not be repeated by an unblemished kohen.

            It would certainly seem that the presence of foreskin is a blemish that applies only to the kohanim, as there is no halakha requiring that an animal's foreskin be removed before it is brought as a sacrifice.  Presumably, then, had it been only for the association between an arel and a ba'al mum, we would not invalidate the avoda performed by an uncircumcised kohen.  Therefore, even according to Rashi's interpretation of this verse we must resort to Rav Chisda's inference from Yechezkel's prophecy to invalidate the avoda performed by an uncircumcised kohen.

******

            The Ramban, in one the more famous and intriguing passages in his commentary (Bereishit 12:10), surprisingly asserts that Avraham committed a sin when he left Canaan to escape the famine that ravaged the land.  He writes that once God had instructed Avraham to reside in Canaan, he should have trusted in the Almighty's ability to support him even during harsh drought conditions, and he thus sinned by relocating in Egypt.  The Ramban also claims that Avraham's scheme to pose as Sara's brother was likewise sinful.  Rather than subjecting his wife to abuse at the hands of the Egyptians, the Ramban writes, he was to have trusted in God's ability to protect them, and identify himself as Sara's husband, despite the risk that he would then be killed.

            Some later writers questioned the Ramban's theory in light of the Mishna's comment in Masekhet Avot (5:5) regarding the ten nisyonot ("tests") which Avraham confronted and successfully withstood.  The commentators attempted to identify the ten tests and arrived at varying lists, but virtually all these lists include the onset of drought as one of Avraham's ten nisyonot.  According to the Ramban, it would seem that Avraham could hardly be said to have "withstood" this test; to the contrary, his response to this challenge constituted, in the Ramban's words, an avon asher chata ("an iniquity that he committed").

            Rav Yaakov Kopel Schwartz, in his Yekev Efrayim (Brooklyn, 2001), suggests reconciling the Mishna with the Ramban's claim by noting that even if Avraham transgressed by leaving Canaan, he prevailed in the sense of retaining general trust in, and loyalty to, God.  True, he departed from the land in which he was commanded to reside, but he did not question God's promise of ultimate success and prosperity, or entertain doubts concerning his future.  Avraham accepted the famine as a temporary digression, if you will, from the course God had promised, rather than viewing it as evidence of God's inability to carry this promise through to fruition.  In this sense, then, he indeed withstood the test of the famine, even if he erred by escaping to Egypt.

            It emerges from this discussion that "passing" or "failing" the religious tests we confront cannot always be described in absolute terms.  We can speak of Avraham "passing" the test of the famine even if his response fell, in the Ramban's view, far short of the ideal.  A person can take some pride in his successful handling of life's challenges even when he falls short of perfection, and even if he commits a mistake – or two – along the way.  So long as the objective is to improve, one can feel gratified even with a score that is less than perfect.

******

            Parashat Lekh-Lekha tells of the battle waged between the four kingdoms of the east and the five cities of the Jordan River Valley.  The eastern kingdoms overpowered the rebel cities and captured the people and property of Sedom, where Lot, Avraham's nephew, had lived.  Avraham mobilizes a modest army, pursues the kingdoms, and rescues the people and possessions of Sedom.

The Midrash (Bereishit Rabba 42:1) tells that Rabbi Eliezer, while still a student of Rabban Yochanan Ben Zakai, once spoke of this incident at a public address he delivered in the presence of "the leaders of his country," including the wealthiest and most prominent men of Jerusalem (Ben Tzitzit Ha-keset, Nakdimon Ben Gurion, and Kalba Savua).  He applied to this battle the verses in Sefer Tehillim (37:14) – “The wicked proceeded to bend their bows to knock down the poor and the destitute, to slaughter the upright ones.  Their sword came into their hearts, and their bows were shattered."  Rabbi Eliezer identified "the wicked" as the four powerful kingdoms of the east.  The term "poor and destitute," he claimed, refers to Lot, and "the upright ones" describes Avraham.  These verses thus describe the battle waged by the four kingdoms against Avraham and Lot and the remarkable defeat they ultimately suffered.  The Midrash tells that Rabbi Eliezer's father, a wealthy landowner who did not wish for his son to become a Rabbinic scholar, had come to Jerusalem to announce his disowning of his son.  But upon seeing his son delivering such a lecture in the presence of Jerusalem's most distinguished figures, he decided to instead bequeath all his possessions to Rabbi Eliezer. 

Upon studying this Midrash, one might wonder why such a "high profile" public gathering of this nature was held, and why Rabbi Eliezer chose to speak on this occasion of Avraham's triumph over the four kingdoms.  Furthermore, some explanation is needed for why Rabbi Eliezer's responded so enthusiastically to this lecture, to the point where his entire attitude towards his son's scholarly pursuits underwent such a drastic transformation.

Rav Menachem Benzion Zaks, in his Menachem Tziyon, speculates that this assembly was perhaps held in response to the dire crisis that the Jews of Jerusalem faced at this time.  As we know from a number of passages in the Talmud, these men – Rabban Yochanan Ben Zakai, Nakdimon Ben Gurion, Ben-Tzitzit Ha-keset, and Kalba Savua – lived during the time of the destruction of the Second Temple.  It is possible that Rabbi Eliezer addressed this gathering in the final months or weeks before the destruction, as the city was laid siege and its population faced starvation.  Unfortunately, the Jews of the time formed different factions that advocated different policies as to how to handle the situation, and these factions fought bitterly with one another.  Rabbi Eliezer perhaps stood at the podium to bemoan the breakdown of Jewish unity in the face of pending disaster.  He pointed to the example of Avraham, who sacrificed his life to rescue Lot, his estranged nephew from whom he had been forced to part ways, and who had joined the contemptuous community of Sedom.  The advent of war and potential calamity led Avraham to put aside his differences with Lot and treat him as family: "Avram heard that HIS BROTHER was captured..." (14:14).  True, Avraham had found it necessary to part ways with his nephew, and later he would even move away from his city to further distance himself from Lot who had engaged in immoral behavior (see Rashi, 20:1).  But when crisis struck, Avraham recognized his sense of duty towards Lot and literally put his life on the line on his behalf.

Rabbi Eliezer thus made reference to this incident as an appeal to his townspeople to work towards greater unity among conflicting ideological factions.  During troubled times, the people somehow need to focus upon their shared goals and aspirations, and form a united front in their joint struggle for survival.

******

            On several occasions in Parashat Lekh-Lekha we read of God's promise to produce a great, populous nation from Avraham.  After Avraham's return from Egypt and separation from his nephew, Lot, God promises to make his offspring "like the dust of the earth" (13:16).  Later, in establishing the berit bein ha-betarim covenant with Avraham, God informs the patriarch that his offspring will be as numerous as the stars in the heavens (15:5).

            The Midrash (Midrash Aggada, Parashat Vayetze, cited in Torah Sheleima) makes the following comment in revealing the underlying symbolism of these two comparisons: "When Israel fulfill the Almighty's will, they are likened to the stars, upon whom no hand can exert control… [When they are] sinful, [they are] like the dust of the earth, upon which everybody treads."  Whether Benei Yisrael are comparable to the stars or the dust depends entirely upon their conduct.  When they faithfully observe God's commands, than they rise as high as the stars where they are protected from harm; but if they disobey, they are "treaded upon" like the earth itself.

            The obvious question arises, why, according to this Midrashic passage, is the promise "I shall make your offspring like the earth of the land" considered a blessing to Avraham?  If God speaks here of Am Yisrael's persecution at the hands of enemy nations as punishment for their disloyalty, then this verse should be seen as a warning, rather than a promise of blessing.  Yet, the context clearly implies that God makes a favorable promise to Avraham: "Lift, please, your eyes and see…for all the land that you see I shall give to you and your offspring, forever.  And I shall make your offspring like the dust of the earth…"

            Rav Yehuda Leib Ginsburg, in his Yalkut Yehuda (Denver, 1936), suggests that a closer examination of this comparison indeed reveals a most profound blessing and promise.  While it is true that people "tread upon" earth and regard it as something of little value and importance, latent within the earth is, of course, enormous potential.  When given seeds and water, the earth can produce life-sustaining food in remarkable quantities.  When the Midrash speaks of a comparison between the earth and Benei Yisrael in their state of rebellion, it alludes to this hidden quality.  God here promises Avraham that even when his offspring disobey and must be subject to exile and persecution, when they are "treaded upon" by the enemy peoples, they will still retain their potential for greatness.  There may be times in the nation's history when it will sink as low as the earth, but, like the earth, it will always have the capacity for extraordinary achievement, creativity and production.  No matter how far Am Yisrael fall, God's promise to Avraham guarantees that their potential will never be lost, and that they will always be capable of growing and accomplishing in all areas of life.

******

            The Torah tells in Parashat Lekh-Lekha of the capture of Sedom by the four kingdoms of the east, and Avraham's bold initiative to pursue the captors and free the people and property of Sedom (Bereishit 14).  We read that Avraham mobilized a modest army and pursued the forces of the four kingdoms northward until the "Dan" region, presumably referring to the area that would later be settled by the tribe of Dan (14:14). 

Rashi, apparently troubled by the Torah's mention of this seemingly superfluous detail, cites a comment by the Gemara in Masekhet Sanhedrin (96a) explaining the significance of this region: "There his strength was weakened, for he foresaw that his descendants would later erect a [golden] calf there."  Upon arriving in this region, Avraham prophetically beheld the future designation of Dan as an idolatrous temple by the King Yerovam (I Melakhim 12:29), a vision that caused him anguish and depleted his strength and vigor as he pursued the enemy kingdoms.

            The Mekhilta (Parashat Amalek, 2) makes a similar comment, emphasizing the God specifically appeared to Avraham in Dan to inform him of what would occur at that site during the time of Yerovam.

            The obvious question arises, why would God convey this information to Avraham at this point, as he pursues four large enemies in a desperate attempt to rescue his brother?  How was the future designation of Dan as an idolatrous center relevant to the current crisis that Avraham confronted?

            Earlier this week, we cited a comment by the Midrash (Bereishit Rabba 42:1) that applies to this battle the verse in Sefer Tehillim (37:14), “The wicked proceeded to bend their bows to knock down the poor and the destitute, to slaughter the upright ones."  According to the Midrash, this verse speaks of the four eastern kingdoms that set out to "knock down" Avraham and Lot – referred to as "the poor and destitute."  The Midrash here likely follows the tradition identifying Amrafel – one of the four kings – as Nimrod, the emperor who pursued and attempted to kill Avraham for preaching monotheism.  Avraham's involvement in this war, according to the Midrash, did not occur incidentally as a result of his relationship to Lot.  Rather, Amrafel – Nimrod – and his colleagues intentionally launched an attack on Sedom in order to lure Avraham to the battlefield where – so they presumed – he would undoubtedly fall.

            Thus, Avraham's battle against the four kings involved far more than merely his devotion to his nephew; it marked a critical stage in his lifelong struggle against paganism, and his efforts to disseminate the belief in a single, omnipotent Creator.

            With this in mind, we can perhaps understand the significance behind the prophetic vision of Yerovam's golden calf in Dan.  People who tirelessly exert themselves in idealistic endeavors will occasionally – or often – find themselves doubting the value and impact of their efforts.  They will at times wonder whether their eventual achievements will justify the sacrifices they make and the hard work they invest.  As Avraham risked his life to go to war against four mighty kings committed to his downfall, he perhaps began entertaining similar thoughts.  Specifically at this point, when he put his life on the line for his faith and commitment to the monotheistic truth, he foresaw his own offspring betraying those very ideals.  He perhaps wondered, "Is it worth it?  Is it worth sacrificing my personal tranquility, comfort and perhaps even life itself for a belief that my own descendants will someday challenge?"  This prophetic vision was thus yet another in a long series of tests and challenges that Avraham confronted during his lifelong quest to spread the truth about God.  He was shown that these efforts will yield only partial results, a specter that caused him considerable teshishut ko'ach – "weakness" and discouragement.

            Fortunately, of course, Avraham withstood this challenge – as he did many others – and persevered.  Despite his teshishut ko'ach, the discouragement and doubts, he continued to wage his persistent struggle against Amrafel and the pagan ideology he represented.  Heroically, Avraham overcame the obstacle of pessimism and remained steadfast in his determination to establish the belief in a Creator, regardless of the difficulties and sacrifices this ambitious endeavor entailed.

******

            We read in Parashat Lekh-Lekha of the famine which struck Canaan, in response to which Avraham temporarily relocated in Egypt.  The Torah tells that Avraham amassed a considerable fortune during his brief stay in Egypt and returned to Canaan a wealthy man (13:2).  The subsequent verse adds, "And also Lot, who traveled with Avram, had sheep, cattle and tents."  This verse sets the stage for the ensuing narrative of the quarrels that erupted between the shepherds of Avraham and those of his nephew, Lot.

            Additionally, as noted by Rav Shimshon Refael Hirsch, this verse also presents a subtle portrayal of Lot's character, and the unfortunate nature of his relationship with Avraham.  Rav Hirsch observes that the te'amim, the traditional arrangement of cantillation notes accompanying the text, does not, at first glance, seem consistent with the structure of this verse.  An etnachta note, which signifies a pause (roughly equivalent to a comma or semicolon in English), appears underneath the word "Avram," as if the verse should be read as follows: "And also Lot, who traveled with Avraham; he had sheep, cattle and tents."  Why would the reader be told to pause after the fragment, "And also Lot, who traveled with Avraham," rather than immediately proceed to the sentence's predicate phrase – "had sheep, cattle and tents"?

            Rav Hirsch suggests that the Torah structured the verse in this manner in order to underscore the stark contrast between the verse's actual conclusion, and how the reader likely anticipated that it would conclude.  Upon reading the words, "And also Lot, who traveled with Avram," the reader might expect to hear of how Avraham's kindness and generosity impacted upon him, the profound spiritual effect that the close, sustained company of the great patriarch had upon Lot's character.  Instead, what Lot gained from this experience was "sheep, cattle and tents."  His relationship with his uncle was limited to financial affairs, and did not involve Avraham's spiritual mission.  As Rav Hirsch writes, Lot "accompanied Avraham because he profited materially by it."  The time he spent with his uncle did not have much of an educational impact upon Lot, whose mind was singularly focused upon his quest for material success.  The Torah thus arranges this verse in a manner which raises the reader's expectations of Lot, thereby highlighting the disappointing truth about his relationship with Avraham.