*************************************************************
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
*************************************************************

          PARSHAT  VA'YERA  - the AKEYDA (and more)

     In Part Two of this week's shiur, we present a six short
'mini-shiurim' that discuss the Akeyda and misc. topics in the
Parasha.

PART I -  A CONFLICT BETWEEN IDEALS
     In the story of the Akeyda (Breishit chapter 22), we find
a conflict between two ideals. From the perspective of
'natural morality', there is probably nothing more detestable
to man's natural instinct that killing his own son, even more
so his only son.  On the other hand, from the perspective of
man's relationship with God, there is nothing more compelling
than the diligent fulfillment of a divine command.
     In an ideal world, these two ideals should never
conflict, for how could God command man to perform an act that
is immoral?  However, in the real world, individuals often
face situations where they are torn between his 'conscience'
and his 'religion'. How should one act in such situations?
     One could suggest a resolution of this dilemma based on
the special manner by which the Torah tells the story of the
Akeyda (chapter 22). On the one hand, God ["b'shem Elokim"]
commands Avraham to offer his only son Yitzchak. Avraham, a
devout servant of God, diligently follows God's command, even
though this must have been one of the most difficult moments
of his life. In this manner, God tests Avraham's faith (see
22:1). However, it is impossible that God could truly make
such a demand. Therefore, at the last minute, He sends a
"malach" [b'shem Havaya/ see 22:11] to stop him.
     Was Avraham correct in his behavior? Should he have not
questioned God's command, just as he had questioned God's
decision to destroy Sedom?
     There is no easy answer to this question. In fact,
hundreds of articles and commentaries have been written that
deal with this question, and even though they are all based on
the same narrative, many of them reach very different
conclusion - and for a very simple reason! The story of the
Akeyda does not provide us with enough details to arrive at a
concrete conclusion.
     One could suggest that this Biblical ambiguity may be
deliberate, for the Torah's intention may be that we do not
resolve this conflict, rather we must ponder it.  In fact, it
is rather amazing how one very short but dramatic narrative
(about ten psukim) has sparked hundreds of philosophical
debates over centuries. [This is the beauty of the Bible.]
     In other words, it is important that we are internally
torn by this conflict, and make every effort to resolve it,
while recognizing that ultimately a divine command could not
be immoral.
     This conflict becomes more acute when we face a situation
when is not so clear precisely what God's command is, and when
it is not so clear what is considered moral or immoral.  When
those situations arise, not only must we ponder, we must also
pray that God send a "malach" to help guide us in the proper
direction.
    =======

PART TWO - YIRAT ELOKIM & 'NATURAL MORALITY'
     Undoubtedly, the climax of the Akeyda takes place in
22:12, when God's angel tells Avraham not to harm his child.
However, this pasuk includes a very interesting phrase - "ki
ya'rey Elokim ata...", which may relate directly to our above
discussion.  To explain how, let's first take a careful look
at that pasuk:
  "And he [God's angel] said: Do not harm the boy - don't do
  anything to him, for now I know - KI ya'rey Elokim ata -
  'that' you fear Elokim, and you have not withheld your only
  son from Me"
    [See 22:12 / Note in the various English translations and
    commentaries the unclarity whether this "malach" is
    talking on behalf of himself or if it's a direct comment
    from God.]

     According to the 'simplest' understanding of this pasuk,
the word "ki" should be translated 'that'.  In other words,
Avraham's readiness to sacrifice his own son [the final clause
of this pasuk] proved to God that Avraham was indeed a "ya'rey
Elokim" [the middle clause]. The use of God's Name - Elokim -
also appears to make sense, for it was "shem Elokim" in 22:1
that first commanded Avraham to offer his son.
     However, there is a small problem with this
interpretation. First of all, this suggests that before the
Akeyda, God had doubted if Avraham was a "ya'rey Elokim"; yet
there doesn't seem to be any reason for this doubt.  [Unless
one explains that this test was due to God's anger to the
covenant that Avraham had just made with Avimelech, see this
amazing ('right wing') Rashbam on 22:1!]
     Furthermore, this phrase "yirat Elokim" is found several
other times in Chumash, but with a very different meaning. The
best example is found in Parshat Va'yera itself, in the story
when Avimelech takes Avraham's wife Sarah (see 20:1-18).
Recall the reason that Avraham tells Avimelech, explaining why
he had to lie about Sarah's true identity, and note the phrase
"yirat Elokim":
  "And Avraham said: for I had assumed that there was no YIRAT
  ELOKIM in this place, and they would kill me in order to
  take my wife" (see 20:11)

     Obviously, Avraham did not expect that Avimelech and his
people were 'Jewish', i.e. God had never spoken to them, nor
had He  given them any commandments.  Clearly, when Avraham
mentions YIRAT ELOKIM, he must be referring to the basic
'moral behavior' expected of any just society.  As can be
proven from the story of the Flood, this 'natural morality'
(i.e. not to kill or steal etc. /see the last five of the Ten
Commandments!) does not require a divine command.  Rather it
is God's expectation from mankind.
  [Why nonetheless God decided to include them in the Ten
  Commandments is a very interesting topic, but not for now.
  However, I do suggest that you note the conclusion of
  Rashbam's interpretation to Breishit 26:5 in this regard.]

     Another example is found in the story of Yosef and his
brothers; when Yosef, pretending to be an Egyptian, explains
to his brothers why he will not leave them all in jail.  After
first jailing them, he changes his mind after three days,
allowing them to go home to bring back their brother so that
they can prove their innocence.  Note how Yosef introduces
this 'change of mind' by saying: "et ha'Elokim ani ya'rey" (see
42:18 and its context!).
     But Yosef says this to his brothers pretending to be an
Egyptian! Surely he wouldn't 'blow his cover' by hinting to
the fact that he is Jewish. Clearly, here as well, the phrase
"yirat Elokim" relates to a concept of 'natural morality'.
Yosef, acting as an important Egyptian official, wants to
impress upon his brothers that he is acting in a just manner.
     The following other examples also include this phrase,
and each one also relates to some standard of 'moral'
behavior:
      Shmot 1:21 - re: the midwives killing the male babies
      Shmot 18:21 - re: Yitro's advice re: the appt. of judges
      Devarim 25:18 - re: the sin of the Amalek. ]
          [Please review these before continuing.]

     Based on these examples, it seems that the phrase "yirat
Elokim" in Chumash refers exclusively to some type of 'moral'
behavior. If so, then we would expect it to carry a similar
meaning in the pasuk that we are discussing (i.e. Breishit
22:12, the key pasuk of the Akeyda).
     However, it would be difficult to explain our pasuk at
the Akeyda in this manner, for Avraham did what appears to be
exactly the opposite, i.e. he followed a divine command that
contradicts 'natural morality' (see discussion in Part One,
above).
     Why would the fact that Avraham is willing to sacrifice
his son make him a "ya'rey Elokim" - in the Biblical sense of
this phrase?

     The simplest answer would be to say that this instance is
an exception, because the Akeyda began with a direct command,
given by Elokim, that Avraham take his son (see 22:1).
     However, one could suggest a rather daring interpretation
that would be consistent with the meaning of "yirat Elokim"
elsewhere in Sefer Breishit. To do so, we must reconsider our
translation of the Hebrew word "ki" in 22:12, i.e. in "ata
yadati, KI yarey Elokim ata, v'lo cha'sachta et bincha
et yechidecha mi'meni".
     Instead of translating "ki" as 'that', one could use an
alternate meaning of "ki" = 'even though'!  [As in Shmot 34:9
- "ki am keshe oref hu", and Shmot 13:17 "ki karov hu" - see
Ibn Ezra on that pasuk for other examples.]
  If so, then this pasuk would be emphasizing precisely the
point that we discussed in Part One, i.e. - EVEN THOUGH
Avraham was a "ya'rey Elokim", he overcame his 'moral
conscience' in order to follow a divine command. Thus, we
could translate the pasuk as follows:
  "And he [God's angel] said: Do not harm the boy - don't do
  anything to him, for now I know - KI ya'rey Elokim ata -
  EVEN THOUGH you are a YAREY ELOKIM,  you did not withhold
  your only son from Me."

     Specifically because Avraham was a man of such a high
moral nature, this test was most difficult for him.
Nevertheless, his commitment to follow a divine command
prevailed!
     In reward, God now promises Avraham with an 'oath' (see
22:16) that he shall never break His covenant with them (even
should Bnei Yisrael sin), as explained by Ramban and Radak on
22:16, and as we will now discuss in Part Three.

PART THREE  - THE OATH
     At the conclusion of the Akeyda, God affirms His promise
to Avraham Avinu one more time concerning the future of his
offspring (see 22:15-19).  Note however, that the when God
first explains why He is making this oath in 22:16, He
explains specifically because "lo chasachta et bincha" - that
Avraham did not hold back his son - and NOT because he was a
"yarey Elokim".  This provides additional support to our
discussion in Part Two (above).
     In this oath (see 22:16-19), we find the repetition of
themes from Brit Bein ha'btarim such as "kochvei ha'shayamyim"
and "yerusha", as well as a repetition of God's original
blessing to Avraham from the beginning of Lech L'cha.
     It is interesting to note that this blessing relates (as
does "brit bein ha'btarim") to our relationship with God as a
Nation, and our future conquest of the land of Israel
("v'yirash zaracha et shaar oyvav" - your offspring will
conquer the gates of its enemies/ see 22:17).  It is
specifically in this context that Bnei Yisrael will later face
this moral conflict as discussed in Part I.
     However, the most special aspect of this blessing is the
"shvuah" - the oath that God makes that He will indeed fulfill
this promise. See Ramban & Radak on 22:16, noting their
explanation how this oath takes God's commitment to His
covenant one step higher. Now, no matter how unfaithful Bnei
Yisrael may be in the future, even though God will have the
right to punish them, He will never break His covenant with
them and they will always remain His special nation.
     With this in mind, it is interesting to note that the
story in Chumash that precedes the Akeyda also relates to a
covenant and an oath (see 21:22-34).  Recall how Avimelech
approaches Avraham to enter into a covenant, while Avraham
insists that Avimelech must remain honest in relation to the
wells that his servants had stolen.
     At the conclusion of that agreement, as Avraham now gains
the respect of the local sovereign power, we find once again
how Avraham 'call out in God's Name'.  Foreshadowing the time
period of David and Shlomo, Avraham is now in a position where
he can successfully represent God before the other nations of
the world.
     That setting provides a signficant backdrop for Avraham
Avinu's ultimate test at the Akeyda.
====
MISC TOPICS -
     [Relating once again to Sdom vs. Avraham Avinu]
PART FOUR - YEDA & YI'UD
     In the shiur we sent out yesterday, we discussed the
importance of 18:18-19, showing how God's goal for the nation
of Avraham would come true through the establishment of a
society characterized by "tzedaka u'mishpat".
     Recall how that pasuk began with "ki y'DAATIV", which
implies to KNOW, but the key word carried a deeper meaning
throughout the entire narrative of Lot being saved from Sdom.
[Note also the use of the word "rah" (and "tov") as well as
"l'daat" in 19:7-9. This may (and should) point to a thematic
connection between the events in Sdom and the story of Adam in
Gan Eden where we find the "etz ha'DAAT TOV v'RAH. Note also
how God is described by "shem Ha'vayah" in both stories.]
     In relation to the translation of the pasuk itself - "Ki
YeDA'ATIV lema'an asher yetzaveh et banav... ve-shamru derekh
Hashem la'assot TZEDAKA u-MISHPAT....." (18:19), in our shiur
we translated "yeda'ativ" as "I have singled him out." The
term literally translates as, "I have 'known him.' This
meaning, however, seems out of place in this context. If it
simply means that God 'knows' that Bnei Yisrael will do
"tzedek u-mishpat," how does Hashem 'know' this?  What
guarantee is there that Avraham's children will keep this
mitzvah more than anyone else?  Is there no bechira chofshit -
freedom of choice to do good or bad?
  (Further troubling is the usage of the construction
  "yeda'ativ," rather than the expected, "yeda'ati" - see
  mefarshim al atar.)
In answer to this question, Rav Yoel bin Nun explained in a
shiur several years ago that the word "yeda'ativ" should be
understood not as 'yeda' - to know - but rather as "ye'ud"
(switching the last two letters as in keves-kesev;
salma-simla). Ye'ud (a similar shoresh) means designation,
being singled out for a specific purpose, a raison d'etre, a
destiny.  Thus, "yeda'ativ" here should be read not as, "God
knows..." but rather, "God set them aside for the purpose...
(that they keep tzedaka and mishpat)."  The point is not that
God KNOWS that bnei Avraham will do tzedaka & mishpat, but
that God chose Avraham in ORDER that his children will do
tzedaka & mishpat!

====
PART FIVE - TOLDOT TERACH
     Parshat Va'yera informs us not only of the birth of
Yitzchak, but also of several other grandchildren and great-
grandchildren of Terach, such as the twelve children of
Nachor, and the two children/grandchildren of Lot.   [See
19:30-38, 22:20-24.]
      These stories form an integral part of Sefer Breishit
for technically speaking, Parshat Va'yera is still under the
title of TOLDOT TERACH (see 11:27 with TOLDOT SHEM (see 11:10
and our shiur on Parshat Noach).
  [It is interesting to note when considering 11:26-32 that we
  find a 'header' - "ayleh toldot Terach," but we never find
  the expression: "ayleh toldot Avraham" throughout Sefer
  Breishit, even though we do find "ayleh toldot Yitzchak
  (25:19), and "ayleh toldot Yaakov" (37:2). This may relate
  to Avram's name change, so there can't be TOLDOT AVRAM when
  he is first introduced, since AVRAM as AVRAM never has
  children from Sarah! This may also explain the need for the
  additional phrase "Avraham holid et Yizchak" in 25:19!]

     Furthermore, many (female) descendants of Terach later
'weave' their way back into the family of Avraham Avinu, such
as Rivka, Nachor's granddaughter, and her brother Lavan's
daughters Rachel & Leah. [See also part five below in regard
to Ruth from Moab.]
  [Recall that Terach was the first 'zionist', i.e. it was his
  idea to attempt aliyah to eretz Canaan (even though he never
  made it). It may have been in that zchut!]
[Note also the number (and type) of wives and children born to
Nachor (in 22:20-24)! Which of the Avot does this bring to
mind? [8 + 4 !]
     Who else in Sefer Breishit has twelve children  [8 + 4] ?
=====

PART SIX /  'MITZAR' - A sad but fitting ending
     As Lot escapes from Sdom, a somewhat peculiar
conversation ensues between him and the angel concerning the
city of TZOAR. What is it all about?
     For those of you who don't remember, here's a quick
recap:
     After taking Lot out of Sdom, the "malachim" instruct Lot
to run away 'up to the mountain' ["he'hara hi'malet" /see
19:17]. Lot defers, claiming that 'up in the mountain' poses
potential danger. He requests that instead the angels spare
one city, which will serve as a "MITZAR," a small place of
refuge. The Torah then informs us that this is why the city is
named TZOAR (see 19:17-22).
     Why do we need to hear about all this?
     To appreciate this story, we must return to the first
reference to Sedom in Chumash. When Avraham and Lot decide
that the time had come to part ways, Lot decides to move to
the KIKAR HA'YARDEN (the region of Sdom), rather than the
mountain range of Canaan, where Avraham resided.
     Recall from our shiur on Parshat Lech L'cha that Lot's
choice reflected his preference of the 'good-life' in KIKAR
HA'YARDEN (where the abundant water supply alleviated the need
to rely upon God's provision of water) over Avraham's
lifestyle in the MOUNTAINS (where one depends upon rainfall
for his water supply).
     Let's take a closer look at the key pasuk of that
narrative. [I recommend you read this pasuk in the original
Hebrew to note its key phrases. Pay particular attention to
the word "kol"]:
  "And Lot lifted his eyes, and he saw KOL KIKAR HA'YARDEN -
  the ENTIRE Jordan River Valley - that it was FULL of
  water... like God's Garden, like the land of Egypt, UP UNTIL
  TZOAR." (13:10)

     The final phrase of this pasuk - BO'ACHA TZOAR - appears
superfluous. Why must we know the exact spot where the KIKAR
ends?
     When we consider the origin of the city's name - TZOAR -
from the story of Lot's flight from Sdom, this short phrase
takes on a whole new meaning. The Torah appears to be taking a
cynical 'jibe' at Lot. He wanted EVERYTHING - "et KOL Kikar
Ha'Yarden" [see also 13:11: "And Lot chose for himself KOL
KIKAR HA'YARDEN..."], and thus chose to settle in Sdom. But
when it's all over, Lot finds himself begging the "malachim"
for a small hideaway - a MITZAR (the city to be named TZOAR).
Lot wants EVERYTHING - KOL Kikar ha'Yarden - and ends up with
'next to nothing' - BO'ACHA TZOAR!    [Thanks to Danny Berlin
- ish Karmei Tzur - for this insight.]
     With this background we can better understand Lot's
conversation with the "malachim" when he flees from Sdom. Note
their original instruction to Lot:
  "And it came to pass when they had brought them out [of
  Sdom], they told him: Escape for your life, do not look
  behind you, do not stay behind B'KOL HA'KIKAR. Rather, run
  away to the MOUNTAIN, lest you be consumed." (19:17)

     Once again, the Torah establishes a direct CONTRAST
between KIKAR HA'YARDEN and the MOUNTAIN. Lot is commanded to
return to the MOUNTAIN - to the area of Avraham, from where he
never have left in the first place. Lot, however, refuses to
return. He knows that if he returns to the mountain, he will
not be able to 'survive' living in the shadow of Avraham
Avinu. He will no longer be the righteous among the wicked,
but rather the wicked among the righteous. He therefore begs
them for a refuge:
  "And Lot begged them - please no. Behold if I have found
  favor in your eyes...I cannot run away to the MOUNTAIN, lest
  some evil will take me and I die. [Rather,] there is a city
  nearby [at the edge of Kikar ha'Yarden] and it is MITZAR - a
  little one. Let me escape there and my SOUL will
  live...[They concede to Lot's request,] and that city was
  therefore named TZOAR. Then the sun rose over the land and
  Lot arrived in TZOAR..."  (see 19:18-24)

     Finally, after Sdom and the other cities of the KIKAR are
destroyed, Lot changes his mind. He decides to leave TZOAR and
settle with his daughters in the MOUNTAINS (see 19:25-30).
However, instead of reuniting with Avraham, they HIDE AWAY in
a CAVE. The rest is history - i.e. the history of AMON & MOAV,
whose descendants have not even the common decency to offer
bread & water to Am Yisrael (their kinsman) as they pass Moav
on their way from Egypt to Eretz Canaan (see Devarim 23:4-5).
It's no coincidence that they never learn the lesson of
"hachnasat orchim" - welcoming guests. Sdom was destroyed, but
unfortunately, its 'legacy' continued.
     One spark of good does, however, come forth from Moav.
Ruth the Moabite joins the tribe of Judah - through an act of
"chessed" (see Megillat Rut) - and she becomes the great-
grandmother of David ben Yishai, the king of Israel.
Predictably, Sefer Shmuel summarizes his reign as follows:
  "And David reigned over all of Israel, and David performed
  MISHPAT and TZEDAKA for his entire nation."
               (see Shmuel 8:15)
    [Recall that David had earlier hidden out in a CAVE in
    the area of the Dead Sea (Ein Gedi), where he performed
    an act of "chessed" by not injuring Shaul - see I Shmuel
    24:1-15; note especially 24:12-15! See also Yirmiyahu
    22:1-5!]

     Malchut David constitutes the "tikun" for the descendants
of Lot: his kingdom was characterized by the performance of
TZEDAKA & MISHPAT - the antithesis of Sdom.

                    shabbat shalom
                    menachem