[Par-reg] for CHAYA SARAH - 3 mini shiurim

[Menachem Leibtag]

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

          PARSHAT CHAYEI SARAH - 3 mini shiurim

SHIUR #1  - "HASHEM ELOKEI HA-SHAMAYIM"
     How should one describe God?
     In Parshat Chayei Sarah, we find that Avraham Avinu
appears to contradict himself in this regard.  First he
describes Hashem as “the God of the Heavens and the God of the
Earth” (see 24:3), and then only four psukim later he
describes Him as just “the God of the Heavens” (see 24:7).
     This apparent contradiction caught the attention of many
commentators, and hence provides us with an excellent
opportunity to take a quick peek into their world of
’parshanut’.

     To better appreciate the various answers that they
provide to the above question, we must first review the
context of these two psukim.
     In chapter 24, Avraham Avinu is sending his servant to
his 'home-town' of Charan in search of a wife for his son
Yitzchak.
  [Most likely, 'his servant' refers to Eliezer, even though
  his name is never mentioned (even once) in this entire
  parshia!  In our shiur, we rely on this assumption.]

     To guarantee that Eliezer will faithfully fulfill that
mission, Avraham makes his servant take an oath in the Name
of:
  “Hashem, the God of the Heavens, and the God of the Earth
  (see 24:1-4).
  
  However, two psukim later, when Avraham must allay Eliezer's
worry that the wife he finds for Yitzchak may prefer to stay
in Charan (see 24:5-6) - he promises his servant that:
  “Hashem the God of the Heavens, who had taken him [Avraham]
  from his homeland...” will send an 'angel' to assist him
  (see 24:7).

     The classical commentators are troubled by two problems.
First of all, Avraham's description of God as “Hashem, the God
of the Heavens AND the God of the Earth” (24:3) seems to imply
that there may be multiple gods, i.e. one of the heavens AND
one of the earth!  Why couldn't Avraham simply have stated
“Hashem, the God of 'heaven and earth”, just like the first
pasuk of Breishit implies.
     Secondly, they are bothered by the question mentioned in
our introduction, i.e.: Why does Avraham ‘shorten’ his second
description of God to simply “the God of the Heavens”, without
mentioning 'the earth' at all?
     In our shiur, we will discuss how the commentators deal
with these two questions.

HEAVENS 'and' EARTH
     In relation to the first question, most all of the
commentators share one basic approach, i.e. Avraham's peculiar
statement of ‘the God of the Heavens AND the God of the Earth’
- relates directly to his current predicament.
     As we will see, each commentator will consider one of the
following points:
[A]  Avraham's is talking to his servant;
  [who may have a over-simplistic understanding of God]
[B]  He is administering an oath at this time;
[C]  He is searching for a wife for his son; and
[D] He is sending his servant to his home-town of Charan.

A.  RADAK - 'Helping his servant understand'
     Radak offers a 'philosophical' explanation of Avraham's
statement to Eliezer.  He claims that Avraham may be worried
that his servant - even though he surely believes in the
existence of 'the God of the heavens' - may not believe that
God’s Providence extends over mundane matters down on earth as
well.  Therefore, Avraham emphasizes this point in his opening
statement, that he is not only the God overseeing what happens
in the Heavens, but He also oversees what happens on earth.
     However, when Avraham later explains to Eliezer how God
had earlier spoken to him (see 24:7), it is sufficient for
Avraham to mention only ’Elokei Ha-shamayim’ - the God of the
Heavens.

B.  SFORNO - 'Scare tactics'
     Seforno explains that Avraham must impress upon his
servant the severity of this oath.  To assure that his servant
will keep this oath, he reminds him that God controls not only
the matters of the ’earth’ - and hence his fate in 'this
world' - but also the matters of ’heaven’, which implies his
fate in the 'world to come' (i.e. after death).  By this
statement, Avraham warns his servant that should he break this
oath, he could expect not only a punishment in this world, but
also in the world to come!

C.  IBN EZRA - ’Finding one's beshert’
     Ibn Ezra relates to the fact the Avraham is sending his
servant on a mission to find a wife.  Even though finding a
spouse may appear to Eliezer as a mundane event taking place
on 'earth’, Avraham must convince Eliezer that this marriage
has been decided upon in the 'heavens'.  This commentary may
actually be based on the Gemara in Moed Katan 18b ("Amar
Shmuel..." - in the middle of the daf), that on each day a
’bat-kol’ proclaims that the daughter of 'ploni' will be
married to the 'ploni'.

D.  RAMBAN - "Eretz Yisrael"
     Finally, Ramban offers a very 'zionistic' explanation.
Unlike the other commentators who understand ’aretz’ as
referring to the 'earth', i.e. to events taking place on earth
or in this world, Ramban understands ’aretz’ as referring to
the 'land of Israel'.  Because his servant is now leaving
Eretz Yisrael (but must bring Yitzchak's future wife back to
this land), Avraham adds the phrase ’Elokei ha-aretz’ to the
standard phrase of ’Elokei ha-shamayim’ in his description of
God at this time.

ELOKEI HA-SHAMAYIM
     Rashi does not deal directly with our first question.
However, he does answer our second question (i.e. why Avraham
only mentions ’Elokei ha-shamayim’ in 24:7); and while doing
so, he provides a solution for the first question as well.
     Rashi, based on a Midrash of R. Pinchas in Breishit Rabba
59:8, differentiates between Man’s perception of God BEFORE
Avraham was chosen (as reflected in 24:7), and Man’s
perception of God now (in 24:3).
  When God had first commanded Avraham to leave his homeland
(see 24:7), no one on earth recognized God; therefore His
Kingdom was only in Heaven.  However, once Avraham came to the
Land and began to proclaim His Name to the public (see
Breishit 12:8 and Ramban on that pasuk), His Kingdom is now
known 'on earth' as well.  Therefore, when Avraham now sends
Eliezer on his mission, God can be referred to as both ’Elokei
ha-shamayim’ AND ’Elokei ha-aretz’.
     Note that Rashi's explanation is definitely not the
'simple pshat' of these psukim.  Clearly, the interpretations
offered by the other commentators provide a more 'local'
explanation for the specific use of this phrase.  Nonetheless,
this Midrash definitely reflects one of the primary themes of
Sefer Breishit (as discussed at length in our shiur on Parshat
Lech Lecha), and hence may reflect the ’pshat’ of the Sefer,
rather than the ’pshat’ of the pasuk.
  [Here we find a beautiful example of the art of Midrash,
  taking the opportunity of an apparent problem in the ’pshat’
  of a pasuk to deliver an important message concerning the
  entire Sefer.]

     In conclusion, it is important to note a common
denominator to all the interpretations presented above.  We
find that - when referring to God - it is not necessary to
always refer to Him by the same Name.  Instead, we refer to
God in the context of our relationship with Him.
  For example, in the Ten Commandments, we speak of God as
Hashem, Kel KANA (see Shmot 20:2-4), and when Moshe receives
the Second Luchot he speaks of God as "Hashem, Kel RACHUM ve-
CHANUN" (see Shmot 34:6-8).  In other words, the appellation
that we use for God relates to the specific situation we are
in.
     The best example is from daily tefilla, when we begin by
describing God as "Hashem, Elokeinu ve-Elokei avoteinu"; then
in each of the 19 ’brachot’ that follow, we bless God based on
one of various attributes in on our relationship with Him.
Next time you ’daven’, take note!

================================================

SHIUR #2 - AVRAHAM AVINU & 'REAL' ESTATE

     The beginning of this week's Parsha is well known for its
detailed description of the bargaining between Avraham and
Efron.  Some claim that Efron's intention all along was to
attain the highest price (see 23:16), explaining that his
generous opening offer (to give Avraham the land gratis - see
23:5-6) was nothing more than a ploy.  But if this assumption
were correct, why would Sefer Breishit find it necessary to
discuss this event in such minute detail?
     If, on the other hand, we assume that the stories of
Sefer Breishit help develop its theme of ’bechira’, then
perhaps we should view this narrative from the perspective of
that theme.  Let's give it a try.

TWO PERCEPTIONS
     To better appreciate what's going on, let's examine both
sides of the bargaining table - Bnei Chet and Avraham:

1) Bnei Chet's perception:
     Efron and his people [Bnei Chet] reign sovereign in
Chevron and the surrounding region.  As their families had
been living in those hills for generations, they have every
reason to think that they would continue to do so for future
generations as well.  In their eyes, Avraham is simply a
'wandering Jew', posing no threat whatsoever to their
sovereignty.
  Recall as well that Avraham had lived in Mesopotamia until
age 75, and, ever since his migration to Cannan he spent much
of his time traveling - to and from cities - such as Shechem,
Bet-El, Chevron, and Beer Sheva.  Having never established
permanent residence, Avraham represents no challenge to the
sovereign government of the Chittim.
     Furthermore, Avraham constantly 'called out in the Name
of God' wherever he went.  His teaching had earned him such a
widespread reputation that Bnei Chet refer to him as "nasi
Elokim ata betocheinu" - you are a prince a God in our midst
(see 23:6).  As his career sent him constantly 'on the road',
Bnei Chet had no reason to believe that Avraham's offspring
would one day return to attempt to gain sovereignty over their
land.
     Therefore, there is no need to doubt the sincerity of
their original offer to grant Avraham [at no charge] any
burial plot he desires (see 23:5-7).  Even in our own time,
many societies express their appreciation for individuals who
preach morality and dedicate their entire life to God by
offering various benefits [what we call a 'clergy discount'].
     Their generous offer simply reflects their sympathetic
understanding of Avraham's difficult situation - a wandering
'man of God' who needs a place to bury his wife.  For Bnei
Chet, this entire incident was of little significance -
Avraham posed no threat to their future or permanent control
of the land.

2) Avraham Avinu's perception:
     In contrast, Avraham Avinu perceived his situation in an
entirely different light.  His wife's death and the need for a
burial site awakened his realization that aside from a Divine
Promise, he had no real 'hold' in the land.  For him, the
purchase of a family burial plot constituted the first step
towards a permanent attachment to the land.  He wants to
ensure that his children and grandchildren will return to this
site and feel a true connection to the land.
     Therefore, Avraham insists on paying the full price, as
he has no interest at this time for 'handouts' or presents.
He wants it known that this burial plot and its surrounding
field belong to his family.  Therefore, not only does Avraham
insist on paying full price, he also demands that it be
purchased in the presence of all the community leaders ("le-
chol baei sha’ar iro" / read 23:16-20 carefully).  In Avraham
Avinu's eyes, this is a momentous occasion - he has now
purchased his first ’achuza’ [inheritance] in ’Eretz Canaan’
(note 23:19-20!).
======

FOR FURTHER IYUN:
     In the above shiur, we discussed how the purchase of
’ma’arat ha-machpela’ may relate to Avraham Avinu's special
connection to the land, as promised to him by God.  To further
appreciate this connection, review 23:16-20 and compare them
to 17:7-8.  Note especially ’achuza’ and ’Eretz Canaan’, and
relate this to our shiur on ’brit mila’.  Note as well 25:9-
10, 49:29-30 & 50:13!

==================================================

SHIUR #3    "ZERA VA-ARETZ"
          - A PROMISE, COVENANT, AND OATH

     Just prior to sending his servant in search of a wife for
his son, Avraham briefly reviews the various stages of his
’bechira’:
  "Hashem Elokei ha-shamayim asher lekachani mI-BEIT AVI u-
  ME’ERETZ MOLADETI ve-asher DIBER li, ve-asher NISHBA li
  leimor - le-ZAR’ACHA ETeiN et ha-ARETZ ha-zot..." (24:7)

     In the following mini-shiur we attempt to explain the
meaning of each phrase in this pasuk.
     Recall from Parshat Lech Lecha that Hashem had made three
promises (see 12:1-3, 12:7, 13:15) and two covenants (see
15:18, 17:8) concerning the future of Avraham's offspring in
the Promised Land.  In each of these promises, the key words
repeated over and over again were "era’ [offspring] and
’aretz’  [the Promised Land/ e.g. "le-zar’acha etein et ha-
aretz ha-zot"].
     In Avraham's opening statement to his servant, we find an
obvious parallel to the beginning of Parshat Lech Lecha, as:
     "Asher lekachani mi-BEIT AVI uMe'ERETZ MOLADETI"
clearly echoes God's opening command of:
  "Lech Lecha me-artzecha, u-mMOLADETECHA u-miBEIT AVICHA."

     However, the continuation of this statement: "e-'asher
DIBER li, ve-asher NISHBA li leimor ..." raises a question
concerning the precise OATH (’nishba’) to which Avraham
refers.
     This question sparked a controversy among the
commentators.  Rashi explains that this oath was made at Brit
Bein Ha-betarim, while Radak contends that it refers to the
Akeida.
     The reason for this controversy is quite simple. The term
’shvu'a’ - oath - appears only once throughout all of God's
promises to Avraham - specifically in God's ’hitgalut’ to
Avraham after the Akeida:
     "bi nishbati ne’um Hashem, ki ..." (see 22:16)

     Thus, Radak cites the Akeida as the source for "nishba
li."  Rashi, however, rejects this contention, presumably
because nowhere at the Akeida does God say anything similar to
"le-zar’acha etein et ha-aretz ha-zot."  Rashi therefore cites
as the source of God's oath Brit Bein Ha-betarim, which
includes this very promise:
  "ba-yom ha-hu karat Hashem [note Shem Havaya, as above in
  24:7] et Avram brit leimor: le-zar’acha natati et ha-aretz
  ha-zot..." (15:18).

     Even though the actual word ’shvu’a’ is never mentioned
at Brit Bein Ha-Betarim, God's establishment of a covenant
with Avraham may itself constitute a guarantee equivalent to a
promise accompanied by an oath.
     In truth, a closer look at the psukim relating to the
Akeida may reveal that BOTH Rashi and Radak are correct:  God
had stated:
  "By myself I SWEAR ["bi nishba’ti"], the Lord declares:
  Because you have done this and have not withheld your son...
  I will bestow My blessing upon you ["barech avarechecha"]
  and make your descendants as numerous as the stars of the
  heaven ["ke-kochvei ha-shamayim"] ... and your descendants
  will CONQUER the gates of their enemies ["ve-YIRASH zar’acha
  et sha'ar oyvav"]...(15:17).

     Considering this context - i.e. the aftermath of the
Akeida - we can well understand why this oath focuses
primarily on Avraham's descendants ‘"zera’), who will evolve
from Yitzchak.  Hence, the promise regarding the Land emerges
as less dominant a theme in God's vow in contrast to the
promise of ’zera’.
  Nonetheless, this oath does contain several expressions
taken directly from God's earlier promises to Avraham
concerning the ’aretz’, especially Brit Bein Ha-betarim. The
following table highlights the literary parallel between God's
promise at the Akeida and previous promises to Avraham:


AKEIDA (22:17)    PREVIOUS PROMISES
==============	  ================
ki barech         va- avarechecha
avarechecha       ve-heye bracha
                  (First Promise - 12:2)
                 
ve-harbeh arbeh   habet na ha-
et zar’acha ke-   shamayma  u-re'eh et
kochevei ha-      ha-kochavim...
shamayim          ko yhiyeh zar’echa
                   (Brit Bein Ha- Betarim - 15:5)

Ve-yirash         lo yirashcha zeh
zar’acha et       ki im asher yetzeh mi-
sha’ar oyvav      mey'echa,hu yirashecha
                   (Brit Bein Ha'Btarim - 15:4)
                 
Ve-hitbarchu be-  Ve-nivrchu becha
zar’acha kol      kol mishpechot
goyei ha-aretz    ha-adama
(15:18)            (First Promise - 12:3)

     This parallel demonstrates that God's oath after the
Akeida reaffirms His previous promises and covenants.
  Furthermore, Avraham's statement of "ve-asher nishba li
leimor le-zar'acha etein et ha-aretz ha-zot," can be
understood as his own understanding of God's promise BOTH in
Brit Bein Ha-Betarim (shitat Rashi) AND the Akeida (shitat ha-
Radak), as one essentially complements the other.
     This interpretation also explains the redundancy in
Avraham's statement: "asher DIBER li ve-'asher NISHBA li":
  *  "asher DIBER li" -
     most probably refers to Brit Bein Ha-Betarim, which
begins with "haya DVAR Hashem el Avram..."
                              (15:1, see also 15:4);
  *  while "asher NISHBA li"
     refers the oath of the Akeida (22:16).

THE OATH
     Why is an oath necessary in ADDITION to God's original
promise and covenant?  Furthermore, why does God make this
oath only after the Akeida?
     The answer to these questions relates to the nature of
the original promise and covenant, as explained in the last
three shiurim.
     Recall that in reaction to the events of Migdal Bavel
(mankind's development into an anthropocentric society), God
chose Avraham Avinu IN ORDER THAT his offspring become a
special nation that would lead all nations toward a
theocentric existence [our shiur on Noach].  Three promises
and two covenants guaranteed Avraham Avinu a special Land
(’aretz’) to allow his offspring (’zera’) to fulfill its
destiny [our shiur on Lech Lecha].  This goal is to be
achieved by this special nation's embodiment of the values of
’tzedek u-mishpat’ [our shiur on Parshat Vayera].
     One could suggest that in recognition of Avraham Avinu's
display of complete faith in, and dedication to, God, as
reflected specifically in the story of the Akeida, God
elevates the status of His original promise from a ’brit’
[covenant] to a ’shvu’a’ [oath].
     But what's the real difference between a covenant and an
oath?
     A covenantal arrangement is almost by definition
bilateral; for it allows for one side to break his agreement
should the other party break his.  At the Akeida, God takes
His obligation one step further for an oath reflects a
unilateral commitment, binding regardless of what the other
side does.
  God now swears that even should Am Yisrael break their side
of the covenant, He will never break His original promise.
Although His nation may sin and consequently be punished, they
will forever remain His people.
     Herein may lie the primary significance of the Akeida, as
it relates to the developing theme of Sefer Breishit.  As the
story of Avraham Avinu nears its conclusion, God brings His
relationship with Bnei Yisrael to the level where He will
never abandon us.
     The Akeida, the greatest example of ’mesirut nefesh’,
symbolizes an indispensable prerequisite for Am Yisrael's
development into God's special nation - their willingness to
dedicate their entire life to the service of God. The site of
the Akeida, Har Ha-Moriya, later becomes the site of the Bet
Ha-mikdash (see II Chronicles 3:1), the most prominent symbol
of that relationship.

                         shabbat shalom,
                         menachem


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: chaya2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 46224 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20051124/5f970dcf/chaya2-0001.pdf