The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash

Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat Har Etzion

by Rav David Silverberg

Among the events recorded in Parashat Lekh-Lekha is Avraham's military victory over the four kingdoms of the east who had defeated the region of Sedom and captured Lot, Avraham's nephew. The verse records that Avraham pursued the kings "until Dan" (14:14). The Gemara (Masekhet Sanhedrin 96a) understands this not as a geographical reference, but rather as a description of Avraham's emotional condition upon reaching this point. Much later in history, Yerovam, who formed the independent northern kingdom of Israel, would establish a house of idolatrous worship in this area of Dan. The prophetic vision of this development distressed Avraham when he reached this location.

Clearly, this is not the straightforward meaning of the verse. What prompted Chazal to offer a Midrashic, or homiletic reading? Rav Barukh ha-Levi Epstein, in his Torah Temima, explains that generally the Torah refers to a location by its future name only when it did not have a name at the present point in the narrative. The region of Dan, as we know from later in Tanakh, was originally called "Layish." Why does the Torah here refer to it as "Dan," the name given to this spot only much later, when it is settled by the tribe of Dan, rather than its original name? This question, Rav Epstein suggests, led Chazal to lend a Midrashic interpretation to the verse.

Nevertheless, he continues, this still should not be seen as the straightforward, or "peshat," reading of the verse. Rav Epstein suggests a fascinating reading of the verse that resolves the aforementioned problem without resorting to a Midrashic interpretation. He posits a novel theory concerning Biblical syntax: when the last letter of a word is the same as the first letter of the following word, the Torah will often drop one of the two letters, either the last letter of the first word or the first letter of the second word. For example, in Parashat Vayishlach (Bereishit 32:23), the Torah employs the phrase, "ba-layla hu" to mean "on that night." The normal construction should be "ba-layla ha-hu." However, since the final letter of the first word ("hei") matches the first letter of the second word, the Torah dropped the "hei" from the beginning of the second word. The Torah Temima cites several other examples to this effect, and then seeks to apply this principle to our context. He claims that the location spoken of by the Torah here is not "Dan," but rather "Didan," a name mentioned earlier, in Parashat Noach, as a great-great-grandson of Noach. "Didan" appears as a name of a location in Sefer Yirmiyahu (49:8). Thus, Rav Epstein speculates, the Torah actually refers here to Didan, but dropped the first letter "dalet" because the previous word, "ad," ends with a "dalet," the same letter as that which begins the word "Didan."

One could, however, raise a very simple objection to this explanation. As mentioned, the verse records Avraham's pursuit of the four kings until Dan. In the next verse, we read that the battle continued until near "Damesek," generally identified as Damascus. Therefore, the location referred to as "Dan" must be situated somewhere in between, or at least in the vicinity of, Canaan and Damascus. But in the verse in Yirmiyahu cited by Rav Epstein, the prophet speaks of Didan as a city within the kingdom of Edom, which was situated generally to the south and southeast of the Land of Israel. In fact, in the previous verse Yirmiyahu speaks of Teiman, the area of Edom often identified as Yemen, significantly south of Israel. Menachem Bula, in his "Da'at Mikra" commentary there in Yirmiyahu, identifies Didan as a kingdom centered in the northern Arabian Desert, obviously nowhere near Canaan or Syria. Additionally, in his commentary to Yirmiyahu 25:23, Bula associates the Didan mentioned by Yirmiyahu with the Didan born to Ketura, whom Avraham married after Sara's death (see Bereishit 25:3), rather than the Didan of Parashat Noach. It is thus very hard to assume that the Biblical region of Didan was situated along the battle-route taken by Avraham in his campaign against the four kings.

What more, Chazal clearly identify this location with the region later called "Dan," the northernmost point in Eretz Yisrael; we have no reason to believe that the Edomite city of Didan spoken of by Yirmiyahu was situated in this area.

Additionally, even if we accept the general theory proposed by Rav Epstein, one could argue that it cannot apply in this instance. Rav Epstein cites many examples which indeed render his theory quite compelling. However, none of those examples involve a proper noun. It stands to reason that the Torah would not drop a letter from a name or title, as this obviously could mislead the reader. It is thus hard to image that the word "Dan" in this verse actually refers to "Didan."

******

Yesterday we discussed the verse recording Avraham's pursuit of the five kings of the east "until Dan" (14:14). Chazal explained that upon reaching this point, Avraham prophetically foresaw the idolatry that his descendants would practice at that location later in history. As we saw, Chazal likely felt compelled to offer a Midrashic interpretation to this verse because the Torah will generally not refer to a location by a name given to it later instead of its name at that point in the narrative. This area was named "Dan" much later, when the tribe of Dan settled there; until then it was called "Layish." Chazal therefore understood the verse in a homiletic sense, as an allusion to the idolatry Benei Yisrael will in the future worship in that region. However, is there any other explanation for the Torah's use of the name "Dan" in this verse, without resorting to a Midrashic approach?

Yesterday we looked at the very novel approach taken by the Torah Temima. A much simpler explanation is suggested by Rav Yaakov Kaminetzky zt"l, in his "Emet le-Yaakov." The Midrash (Bereishit Rabba 43), commenting on this verse, states that "Dan" was the name of a pagan deity. (This is how Rav Yaakov understood this passage in the Midrash. Rashi, in his commentary to Yirmiyahu 4:15, seems to have understood this Midrash much differently.) Apparently, the worship of this particular idol was centered in this area which consequently bore its name. The area later became called Layish (as we know from Shoftim 18), and, coincidentally, was renamed "Dan" when the Israelite tribe of Dan inhabited the region.

On this basis, Rav Yaakov attempts to explain a very difficult verse in Sefer Shoftim. Chapter 18 of that sefer tells the story of how the tribe of Dan captured and settled the area of Layish. The verse then reports, "They named the town Dan after their ancestor Dan, Israel's son; originally, however, the name of the town was Layish" (Shoftim 18:29). This verse seems unnecessarily superfluous. Why must it emphasize that they named the area after their ancestor, Israel's son? Is it not obvious to the reader why the tribe of Dan - who, like every other tribe of Israel, received its name from its ancestor, one of Yaakov's twelve sons - would name its area of settlement Dan? Why does the verse feel the need to explain the source of the name given to this location, let alone to remind us that Dan was Israel's son?

The Radak there explains that one might have thought that Dan was the name of the general who led the expedition and conquest of the area, and the location was therefore named after him. It is hard to imagine why one would have considered this scenario over the far more likely possibility that the tribe of Dan named the location after their tribe. Rav Yaakov suggests a more compelling explanation. Since this region had previously been named Dan because of its having served as the center of the idolatrous worship with that name, the verse sought to dissociate the current naming of this area with its previous name. It emphasizethat the tribe of Dan named this location "Dan" after their righteous ancestor, and this name therefore has no connection whatsoever to the original name given to this area in Avraham's time.

We might add that this approach lends an element of bitter irony to the story of Dan's conquest of Layish. That chapter in Sefer Shoftim describes how the warriors of Dan stole idols from a house of pagan worship as they made their way towards Layish. Yet, according to Rav Yaakov's explanation, the verse goes out of its way to dissociate the new name of the area, Dan, with the idol "Dan" that was worshipped there many centuries earlier. Quite possibly, the Danites themselves wanted to emphasize that the name Dan originated from their ancestor and not from the idol. They may have prided themselves on their loyalty to the house of Yaakov and rejection of the pagan worship of Dan. In the meantime, they had taken idols with them as they went to establish their territory. This perhaps underscores the hypocrisy of the tribe of Dan at that time, who proudly affirmed their fidelity to their Israelite tradition while at the same time violating the most basic tenet of that tradition. In this sense, this presentation runs consistent with the general spirit of the final chapters of Sefer Shoftim, which clearly seek to describe a lawless nation without any religious direction and in desperate need of leadership - which it finally receives in the next sefer, Sefer Shemuel.

******

Towards the end of Parashat Lekh-Lekha, God appears to Avraham to instruct him with regard to the mitzva of berit mila - circumcision. The Torah records that upon hearing God speak to him, Avraham "falls on his face" (Bereishit 17:3). What caused Avraham to "collapse"? Rashi explains that he fell due to "mora Shekhina" - fear of God's presence. Before his circumcision, Avraham was unable to withstand the overpowering experience of divine revelation, and hence he fell.

The obvious question arises, why does this occur specifically now, at this point? God has spoken to Avraham several times in the past; why suddenly here is Avraham incapable of handling the experience?

Rav David Moskovits, in his Gelilei Zahav, points to a different factor that may have led to Avraham's weakness at this point, as God commands him with regard to circumcision. Avraham had devoted his life to a specific mission: to unite humanity in the recognition and service of the Creator. As the Midrashim describe, Avraham was very active in preaching and proselytizing. He dreamt of a world without conflict or strife, he envisioned all of mankind joined in a universal bond characterized by ethical monotheism. He never aspired to begin a new nation of his own; much to the contrary, he longed to bring all of mankind together, to break nationalistic barriers and spread his beliefs throughout the world. (In a sense, Avraham's mission could thus be seen as an endeavor inversely parallel to that of the Tower of Babel; whereas there mankind tried to unite in an effort to rebel against God, Avraham sought to bring humanity together for the sake of recognizing and worshipping God.)

This, Rav Moskovits claims, accounts for the trauma Avraham experiences at the beginning of the seventeenth chapter of Sefer Bereishit. The commandment of berit mila was a commandment to withdraw, to separate, to isolate himself, to form a distinct people. It marks a unique, eternal covenant between the Almighty and Avraham, as well as his descendants. By definition, this covenant sets Avraham and his progeny apart from the rest of mankind; it thus compelled Avraham to rethink his entire program and reverse his entire line of thinking. The Midrashim describe the barrier Avraham's circumcision erected between him and his contemporaries. Two of his closest confidants, Aner and Eshkol, strongly discouraged him from going through with the ritual. Many people stopped coming to hear Avraham's discourses after hearing of the circumcision. This mitzva thus constitutes a dramatic about-face in Avraham's lifelong mission. Rather than unite all of mankind, Avraham must form a separate nation, bound by a unique covenant with God, and only through that nation can his message be spread. Whereas until now he dreamt of a utopian, universal kingdom of mankind governed by the belief in God, he must now focus on creating a distinct nation to represent that belief.

******

Yesterday we looked at Rashi's explanation as to why Avraham Avinu "falls on his face" when God appears to him to present the mitzva of berit mila (Bereishit 17:3), and we presented the approach of the "Gelilei Zahav." Today we will look at other possible approaches.

1) The Ralbag and the Ran (cited by the Abarbanel) interpret Avraham's fall as a sign of submission, meaning, he prostrated himself before God to symbolize his humble acceptance of this mitzva.

2. The Ramban explains that Avraham fell on his face "le-khaven da'ato li-n'vua" - to concentrate on this prophecy. The Ramban does not, however, explain why specifically this prophecy required special concentration. The Abarbanel explains along generally similar lines, but with a bit more elaboration. He claims that after God initially spoke and said, "Walk in My ways… I will establish My covenant between Me and you, and I will make you exceedingly numerous," the prophecy stopped. Avraham was thus left to wonder what precisely God meant by this command and this "covenant." He therefore fell on his face "to meditate and concentrate on this matter such that physical matters, that are felt with one's senses, would not distract him… " He thereby earned a second prophecy which explained God's initial, ambiguous remarks. This two-stage process, the Abarbanel claims, was necessary "because the matter of circumcision was very difficult given Avraham's old age and frailty." God therefore decided to present this mitzva gradually, by first speaking in riddles such that Avraham would ask for a clarification. Somehow, this would help ease Avraham's absorption of this most difficult notion of berit mila.
3. The Radak understands Avraham's fall as a bow to express thanksgiving for the special covenant God promises to establish with him.
4. A unique and novel approach to this verse is taken by the Netziv. God began this address to Avraham by instructing, "Walk in My ways and be blameless." The implication, of course, is that until now Avraham has not "walked before" God or been "blameless." This realization, the Netziv suggests, came as a shock to Avraham, who had worked so hard to perfect his avodat Hashem. It is indeed frightening to learn that our basic presumptions regarding our self-assessment are fundamentally mistaken. We must therefore constantly study our behavior and conduct, and take an honest, critical look at ourselves to see how and where we can improve.

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 part of your week on a regular basis - enroll in the
Virtual Beit Midrash

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