The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash

Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat Har Etzion

Parashat Lekh-Lekha tells the story of Avraham's rescue of his nephew, Lot, who was captured as the city of Sedom fell into the hands of the four kingdoms of the east. The Chumash tells that Avraham assembled a modest army of three hundred and eighteen men, to whom the Torah refers as "chanikhav." The precise definition of this term is unclear. Chazal interpret the word as associated with the root "ch.n.kh.," education, and thus the verse refers specifically to Avraham's servant, Eliezer, whom Avraham educated along the path of mitzvot.

Rashi cites this commentary of Chazal and then proceeds to present a brief etymological discussion regarding the word "chinukh." He defines the term as "the beginning of the entrance of the person or thing into the profession that he/it will perform in the future."

Rav Moshe Shapiro zt"l noted that Rashi's final comments - "that he/it will perform in the future," teaches us an important lesson about education: its primary function involves its effect and successful implementation in the future. Education means preparation; as such, its value corresponds to the extent to which it will impact the student's life in years to come. Rav Shapiro applied this principle specifically to Torah education, urging parents and educators to maintain the proper perspective on "chinukh." It's not merely about imparting knowledge and facts; it must relate to the students' future and ensure an ongoing process of spiritual growth and development.

In truth, we believe that Torah study bears inherent value, regardless of its impact upon the individual. The very encounter with the divine wisdom of the Torah is spiritually significant in and of itself. But although Torah study without any impact upon one's religious growth may be considered significant learning, it does not constitute "chinukh," education. For education requires the establishment of building blocks for the future, the laying of the groundwork for continued development and an ever-growing sense of commitment and devotion.

[Prepared by David Silverberg]

When Avraham and Lot decide to part ways, the former offers his nephew the choice of where to live. The Chumash writes that Lot looked out to the Jordan River Valley, the region of Sedom, and saw that it was "like the Garden of God, like the land Egypt…" The comparison between Sedom and Egypt seems pretty clear. As Chazal suggest, Lot decided upon Sedom because of its agricultural and financial benefits. And, as we know, Egypt was the most prosperous nation of the time, reaping the benefits of irrigation from the Nile River. (This is why Avraham and Sarah migrated to Egypt to escape the famine in Canaan.) Thus, we can understand why Lot is reminded of Egypt upon seeing and contemplating the fertile region of Sedom.

But how could Lot associate Sedom and Egypt with "the Garden of God," Gan Eden? Why was this what comes to mind as he considers a new life in Sedom?

As mentioned, Chazal censure Lot's settlement in Sedom. It would seem that this reference to Gan Eden in this context may have contributed to our tradition's negative attitude towards Lot, or at least towards his choice of residence. Gan Eden is truly a "paradise," described in Parashat Bereishit as possessing "every tree that was pleasing to the sight and good for food" (2:9). Furthermore, it was a place where an individual recognized, sensed, experienced and perhaps communicated with God most directly. Indeed, man's banishment from Gan Eden meant both physical hardship - the experience of hard work, pain and death - as well as the spiritual downfall of being distanced from God.

Lot's recollection of Gan Eden as he looked upon Sedom reveals what "paradise" meant to him. In his mind, Gan Eden was about the comforts of life, the freedom from hard work and financial concern. It was a place resembling Sedom and Egypt, featuring all the physical and material comforts one could hope for.

This skewed system of priorities is perhaps manifest even earlier in the parasha. After his ordeal in Egypt, Avraham emerged a wealthy man. The verse states that he was "overloaded" ["kaved"] with wealth. The Ba'al Hafla'ah suggests that this term - "kaved" - alludes to Avraham's attitude towards his newly acquired riches. Since he regarded them as temporal and ephemeral, the vast amount of assets seemed to him as a load, a heavy and cumbersome burden. Significantly, the verse that speaks of Lot's wealth does not use this term, and simply tells us that he possessed a lot of cattle and tents. Evidently, Lot's fortune was not a burden to him at all, as he regarded his wealth as his dearest possession.

The contrast between Avraham and Lot, then, teaches us a lesson about values and priorities, what we should consider as more important and what should be viewed as less meaningful. The difference between "olam oveir" - the fleeting, temporary world - and "olam omeid" - that which is eternal and everlasting - must accompany us throughout lives. This sense should motivate all our decisions, both big and small, and determine how we spend our resources of time, energy and wealth.

[Prepared by David Silverberg]

In the introduction to this week's parasha, Hashem promises Avram, "Va-avarkha me'varakhekha, um-kalelkha a'or, ve-nivrekehu ve-kha kol mishpechot ha-adama" (Bereishit 12:3). This is commonly translated as "I will bless those who bless you, and he who curses you, I will curse, and through you all the families of the land will be blessed." This interpretation faces two problems, one linguistic and the other logical. First, in the pasuk's second clause, why does Hashem use two different words to mean "curse?" Instead of "um-kalelkcha a'or," wouldn't it be clearer (and more parallel to the composition of the first phrase of the pasuk, "va-avarkcha me'varakhekha") to say "um-kalelkha akaleil?" Second, if Hashem curses anyone who curses Avram, then how will all the families of the land be blessed? Won't those who curse Avram be excluded from the blessing?

The Gra answers these two questions by reinterpreting the word "a'or." He says that it comes not from the root "aleph-reish-hey," meaning "to curse," but rather from the root "aleph-vav-reish," meaning "light." Hashem promises Avram that those who curse him will be "shown the light," or enlightened. Even Avram's enemies will eventually see his true greatness and will thereby come to bless him. Ultimately, all the families of the land will bless Avram and his descendants, and they will all be blessed for having done so.

[Prepared by Reuven Weiser]

In our parasha, Abram, a descendant of Shem, is called by God to go to a land that He will show him, where he will become "a great nation." God makes two covenants with Abram. In the first he explains the historical path of this great nation, from slavery in a foreign land to conquering the promised land. In the second he changes Abram's name to Abraham and makes the covenant of circumcision for all generations of Abraham's great nation. As Abraham's descendants, bound by these covenants, what do we learn from them?

As Jews, slavery in Egypt was not our last period of suffering, nor was conquering the land of Israel our last time of success. We have survived every exile and persecution and returned to our land. The first covenant is to tell us that God is with us in every difficulty and will deliver us. As a nation we are bound together by our shared fate and linto God, our help and our shield.

But what is it all for? If we are just on an historical roller-coaster, what is the point? This is clear in the text too. Abram is not yet complete with the first covenant, for he is not yet Abraham. Only with the second covenant is he complete, by accepting the commandment of circumcision. By this one act, a Jew is proclaiming God owner and master of the whole world. It is His right to command us and our duty to obey.

In our parasha, God chooses Abraham to become the ancestor of His chosen people. God will cause us to survive, bring us out of exiles, for a purpose. The purpose is to proclaim God King over the whole world.

[Prepared by Samuel Jackman]

In His initial appearance to Avraham, God instructs the to-be-patriarch to relocate in Eretz Canaan and offers His blessing. Among God's promises to Avraham is, "I will make you a great nation, I will bless you, I will glorify your name, and you will be a blessing." Chazal, cited by Rashi, understand this verse as an allusion to the "birkat avot," the first berakha recited in our thrice-daily Shemone Esrei prayer. "I will make you a great nation" alludes to our reference to God in that prayer as "the God of Avraham"; "I will bless you" hints to the expression, "the God of Yitzchak"; and "I will glorify your name" points to the recitation of, "the God of Yaakov." God's final words to Avraham - "and you will be a blessing" - indicates that at the conclusion of this first berakha of Shemone Esrei we refer to God as simply, "the Shield of Avraham," omitting any reference to the other three patriarchs.

What's going on? If each of the three patriarchs is deserving of independent mention with the Name of God, why does Avraham earn the particular privilege of having his name alone form the conclusion to the blessing?

The Ketav Sofer answers with an insightful analysis of different approaches to Jewish observance. One can perform the mitzvot out of conviction and strong resolve to follow God's commandments, or simply out of routine, having been accustomed to a Torah lifestyle from a young age. Avraham undoubtedly belonged to the first category. As the Midrashim describe, Avraham was raised in a pagan family among a pagan civilization. His recognition of the one, true God and his decision to follow His mandates clearly evolved out of genuine conviction. Less obvious but just as accurate, the last two patriarchs served their Creator with a strong sense of belief and devotion, not just from habit. Unlike Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov grew up in homes within which Godliness was instilled and through which it permeated. Yet, as they developed their individual sense of spirituality, they chose to serve God, willingly and resolutely, not merely as a result of years of habitual conditioning.

Thus, explains the Ketav Sofer, each of the three deserve independent mention with God's Name: "the God of Avraham, the God of Yitzchak and the God of Yaakov." Nevertheless, Avraham earns special distinction. He was the first; for him the knowledge of the oneness of God was revolutionary, and thus he faced far greater challenges as he embarked upon his road of avodat Hashem.

This message - of the continuous "choosing" of Torah of mitzvot, rather than indifferent, habitual routine - may underlie Chazal's comment that all Jews from all time - past and future - stood at Har Sinai and accepted the Torah. Perhaps the intent isn't that we were actually there, but that we must see ourselves as accepting upon ourselves the Torah as did our ancestors, without prior conditioning from our parents. Our relationship to the commandments must be such that we continuously reaffirm our dedication to them, rather than performing them by rote. Some have noted that the festival of Shavuot - which commemorates Ma'amad Har Sinai - is referred to as "Zeman Matan Torateinu," the day of the giving of the Torah, rather than "Zeman Kabbalat Torateinu," the day of the receiving or accepting of the Torah. The reason is that the acceptance of the Torah must occur every day of one's life - not only on Shavuot!

Needless to say, forming good habits is an integral and indispensable part of one's growth in Torah observance. Concurrently, however, one must ensure that the passion and love for mitzvot is maintained, and that mitzvah observance never remains a mere force of habit.

[Prepared by David Silverberg]

Through the homilies of the Midrash, the Sages went to considerable effort to present to us the background of Avraham's relationship with God. We find there numerous passages filling in the gap left by the narrative of the Torah concerning Avraham - we are told of nothing prior to the command for him to leave his land, which is given when he is already advanced in years. Avraham is portrayed to us as one who, with his own powers of deduction, comes to a belief in God. In light of this portrayal, not only is he credited as the initiator of monotheistic religion, but also as the ultimate believer.

On the basis of all this, there is one section of our parasha which presents a number of difficulties. After the successful conclusion of the battle of the five kings against the four kings, God decrees to Avraham:

If, as we have mentioned, Avraham achieved a complete, unconditional belief in God and His word, then why does he question: "By what shall I know that I shall inherit it?" Would God not fulfill His promise? Additionally, God's answer is mysterious in its seeming lack of connection to the question! ("take me a heifer...")

The gemara (Megila 31) is similarly troubled. It 'describes' the dialogue between Avraham and God: "And Avraham said: Master of the Universe! Perhaps Israel will sin before You, and You will do to them as to the generation of the flood. And God said to him: "No! [Avraham] said before Him: By what shall I know? And God said to him: take me a heifer... - meaning that they will achieve atonement with sacrifices (and therefore never be deserving of such punishment).

The Beit Ha-levi )R.Yosef Dov Ber Soloveitchik 1820-1892) explains that Avraham took no issue with the validity of God's promise. He merely feared that his descendents would willfully and rebelliously sin (meizid) and be punished accordingly, like those in the deluge. This must be the only conclusion since if they were to transgress only unintentionally (Shogeggim), such a dire punishment could not be feared. However, God answers with the atoning device of sacrifices - which, as we know, are only good for unintentional transgressions and not willful, rebellious sin. Again, the answer does not appear to deal with the question!

The Beit Ha-levi explains that clearly Israel will not start by sinning willfully and rebelliously - rather unintentionally. However, such is the nature of man that these transgressions will not be perceived too significantly - leading to a progression in the same path with repeated sin until they end up transgressing even willfully and rebelliously.

This then was behind God's answer. The atonement that the sacrifices bestow will indeed be to atone for unintentional transgressions. This is because, necessitating a simultaneous process of repentance, as they do, Israel will be ensured of never reaching such a level of heinous and willful sin that could lead to their destruction.

The continuation of the promise, that they will be strangers and afflicted in a land not their own for four hundred years, but afterwards come out with great substance - is an extensionof God's revelation of His methods of administrating equitable justice. This justice will be dealt to Israel differently than to the Canaanites:

While the Canaanites are left unhampered for a lengthy period of time, God is allowing their "transgression credits" to build up until their "inequity is full" and are destroyed as befits such actions. Israel conversely, are punished with "only" exile and servitude for sins committed, in order that upon payment of the sin the promise of inheritance can be fulfilled.

This then is Avraham's belief - He does know God, but needs God to tell him how His more intimate knowledge of man in general, and Israel specifically, will provide a mechanism to allaying Avraham's fears and further bolster his unstinting belief in God's word.

[Prepared by Reuven Lavi]

In parashat lekh-lekha, Hagar runs away from her mistress - Sara and sees angels in the wilderness. She later proclaims "that even here I saw after having (previously) seen." (Bereishit 16:13) Rashi explains that Hagar had often seen angels in Avraham and Sara's home (and for that reason she was not shocked when she saw angels later). He says that she spoke here of her excitement at seeing angels "even here in the wilderness."

Often, one is in a state or place in which there is an abundance of spiritual or religious experiences and in such a context a specific experience may not awaken that much excitement. However, when one is later in a different environment where one would not have expected such an experience it may be much more meaningful.

Similarly, one is often in a situation where one's experiences (and insights) may be traced to outside sources such as teachers and peers. When these later occur within a closed context one may derive much pleasure from that which is, in a sense, only one's own.

However, it is important to remember that just as Hagar presumably saw angels because she had lived in Avraham's home, so we must always be aware that our ability to experience in a less spiritual environment may be connected to the world of the spiritual and religious where we may have experienced in a commonplace manner. Similarly, our ability to have our own meaningful experiences (and insights) may have not grown in a vacuum but may have it's roots, even indirectly, in that which we have received from others.

[Prepared by Shlomo Dov Rosen]

This shiur is provided courtesy of the Virtual Beit Midrash, the premier source of online courses on Torah and Judaism - 14 different courses on all levels, for all backgrounds.

Make Jewish learning partof your week on a regular basis - enroll in the
Virtual Beit Midrash

Yeshivat Har Et
Alon Shvut, Israel, 90433
office@etzion.org.il