Shabbat-B'shabbato Parshatvayeira

Shabbat-B'Shabbato – ParshatVayeira

No 1447: 18Cheshvan 5773 (3November 2012)

AS SHABBAT APPROACHES

Who is Right – Rambam, Ramban, or Ralbag? - by Rabbi Oury Cherki, Machon Meir, Rabbi of Beit Yehuda Congregation, Jerusalem

A serious dispute brought the Rambam and the Ramban to the same topic in their discussions of this week's Torah portion. According to the Rambam, the entire story of Avraham welcoming his guests and the promise of the birth of Yitzchak, including the subsequent defense of Sedom and Amora, took place as a Divine vision, without any physical events. His proof is the phrase that opens the entire event, "And G-d appeared to Avraham" [Bereishit 18:1], which indicates a prophetic revelation and serves as a preamble for all that follows. Not only does the Ramban not accept this approach, he argues against it in very strong and unusual terms: "These are things that are contrary to the written word. One is forbidden to listen to them and to believe them." Why does he feel that a commentary that poses some difficulty can become heretical from the point of view of faith?

Rabbi David Cohen (a disciple of Rav Kook known as the "Nazir," the Ascetic) explained that the Ramban lived among Christians and was acutely sensitive to the possibility that the Rambam's explanation could be exploited by themand used against the Jews. They might discover that a prominent Jewish commentator explains that G-d appeared in the form of three men, and use this to justify their doctrine of the Trinity. The Rambam, on the other hand, lived in Moslem surroundings, where this fear did not exist, and he was more involved in combating folk beliefs that viewed spiritual matters in terms of demons and ghosts. This led him to emphasize the abstract significance of Avraham's encounter with the angels.

It is important to consider the difficulty that the Ramban had with the Rambam's approach, for we cannot accept an assumption that the Rambam did not see this difficulty. That is, if we postulate that the entire revelation of the angels was merely a prophetic vision, how could the people of Sedom have attempted to harm the angels? Were the people of Sedom able to take part in a prophetic vision?

The answer is that a straightforward readingof the passage implies that the Rambam was right. Look at the verses related to Sedom:

"And G-d rained down on Sedom and on Amora sulfur and fire, from G-d, from heaven. And He overturned these cities, and the entire square, and all the dwellers of the cities, and the plants of the earth. And his wife looked in back of him, and she became a pillar of salt. And Avraham woke up early in the morning." [Bereishit 19:24-27].

This is indeed a surprising end! It would seem that the entire events of overturning Sedom, the visit of the angels, and saving Lot, took place in a prophetic dream by Avraham, at the same time as the cities were physically destroyed. Based on this, we can better understand the Rambam's approach. The vision of the descent of the angels into Sedom can now be seen as an attempt by G-d to allow Avraham to participate in the decree against Sedom, when in his dream he saw how the people there would have treated the angels if they had in fact physically come to the city.

We must also add a note about the remarkable approach to this story by Ralbag. In his opinion, on principle no miracle can take place without the participation of a human prophet. He therefore explains that the three men who came to Avraham were men – that is, prophets. They came to tell the news about Sarah's pregnancy and the judgment against the people of Sedom. These men were called "angels" as a proper sign of respect for the heavenly prophets of G-d.

* Rabbi Cherki is the head of Brit Olam – Noahide World Center, Jerusalem

POINT OF VIEW

Form a Religious Front Now- by Rabbi Yisrael Rozen, Dean of the Zomet Institute

"Separate from me - if you go left, I will go right, and if you go right, I will go left" [Bereishit 13:9].

The Left Leads to Sedom

In last Shabbat's Torah portion, Avraham presented Lot with what might well have been a question for an election poll: Choose the left or the right, as quoted above. In which direction did Lot go when he chose "the entire plain of the Jordan" [Bereishit 13:10]? Did he go left or right? The sages gave us the answer to this with respect to another left-or-right choice that we will read about next week, in the portion of Chayei Sarah: Eliezer wants to take Rivka to marry his master's son, and he begs the family, "Tell me, and if not... I will turn right or left" [24:49]. The sages taught us what he meant: "Right refers to Yishmael, and left refers to Lot, as is written, 'If you go left I will go right' [13:9]." [Yalkut Shimoni Chayei Sarah 109].

The commentators, in the wake of the sages and the mystic inner meaning of the Torah, explain that the concepts of right and left correspond to the concepts of "chessed" and "gevurah" – kindness and strength – or "rachamim" and "din" – mercy and justice. In this week's portion, we see that Lot went strongly to the left – he took a job in the courts of Sedom (Bereishit 19:1), a place of great sin (13:13; 18:20). His uncle Avraham treated Lot with the trait of mercy and rescued him twice. In last week's portion he saved Lot from captivity by the four kings (14:14), and in this week's portion he rescued Lot again from the destruction of Sedom and Amorah. ("And it happened, when G-d destroyed the cities of the plain, G-d remembered Avraham and sent Lot out from among the destruction" [19:29].) Evidently Lot's wife was more intimately connected to the "leftist" cities of the plains and was afraid to break her links with them. "And his wife looked back" - she was trapped by the trait of justice, "and she became a pillar of salt" [19:26].

* * * * * *

Controversy and Togetherness

Last week we were treated to a small political bombshell. The heads of the Likud and Yisrael Beiteinu parties announced that they would run together on one slate in the elections to be held soon for the Knesset. Their goal is to reduce the number of parties from which the voters have tochoose and to present them with large blocs which seem to be more attractive than a number of splinter parties. Coalitions will not be stitched together after the elections but rather beforehand. Will this move give the two parties more seats in the Knesset? My political instincts tell me that this may not be the case and that in fact the combined list may end up with less MK's than the number of seats that the two separate parties would get. Some of the members of the Likud may be put off by a strong turn to the right and will prefer a party that is more solid and centrist. Every bloc of parties will form after the solution of the personality problems, which are the main factor causing the delays now. I assume that very soon we will see gatherings both in the central political position and on the left. Every bloc will try to nibble away at its colleagues by intentionally blurring the definitions of right-centrist-left, on questions of both national security and social and economic issues. These are the current rules of the game, and we will see "what will happen to the dreams" of the parties (see Bereishit 37:20, how Yosef's brothers reacted to his dreams).

The truth is that this "ploy" is the exact opposite of true democracy. The formation of this slate was forced on the Likud and Yisrael Beiteinu by their authoritative leaders, with no real opposition. The party central committees have been asked to give their approval to the agreement, which was signed in the middle of the night, in secret. And this includes the formula by which the list of candidates will be put together. As we noted, everybody expects a similar forced bloc to be formed among the "moderate" left, but there personality problems and rules of democracy are causing ever greater delays.

In the "center" there is no real problem. Here there is traditionally some new party that springs up for every election, attempting to capture the political map by gathering floating votes or those who vote in order to register a protest. This year the likely candidate is a party named "Tikshoret" – communications. It is the product of the ambitions of a communications professional whose expertise is in blurring the issues. He has no personal or democratic hindrances, since he makes all the decisions. Who can tell him what to do (aside from communications advisors and pollsters)? We will see how far his one-time dreams take him.

Religious Parties – Separate or Together?

Among all the rest, the religious parties maintain their position as exotic nature preserves. They float around with candidates who seem to be too mechanical and idealistic, and they are divided into categories along the lines of left-right-central, including from the religious point of view. Each party is sure that it will gain strength by garnering votes from the outcasts of the "rightist bloc" which has just been announced. As far as I can see, I fear that the news of the new large blocs will decrease the strength of the religious parties in general. Just look how many kippot of all types are prominently displayed at the central committee meetings of the rightist parties and among their activists.

I propose that we return to the approach of the first Knesset that was elected in Israel (in 1949), where there was a unified "religious front" which included Mizrachi, Hapoel Hamizrachi, Agudat Yisrael, and Poalei Agudat Yisrael. The banner that can be supported by all of these parties together is the common denominator, "A Jewish character for the State of Israel!" No more, no less. The sequence of candidates on such a list should be established according to existing membership in the Knesset or the results of current polls.

I am not naive and I know that such a proposal raises mountains of questions related to personalities, and other secondary questions of ideology. In spite of this, I feel that the good news of a single unified bloc will help alleviate even such problems. And who can lead such a move? Only the Shas party could do it!

LET YOUR WELLSPRINGS BURST FORTH

Absolute Insignificance - by Rabbi Moshe Shilat, Director of "The Torah of Chabad for Yeshiva Students"

"This passage is the ultimate in the essence of Yisrael and shows their merits before their Father in Heaven. We therefore repeat it in our prayers every day." [Abarbanel on the Binding of Yitzchak[.

The Binding is Avraham's tenth trial, and it is the most important of all. The Talmud teaches us that the Holy One, Blessed be He, begged Avraham to pass this test. "'Please take' [Bereishit 22:2] – I put you through several trials and you passed them all, now pass this test too, so that nobody will be able to say that the first trials were unimportant." [Sanhedrin 89]. This seems quite problematic. Why, if Avraham fails the trial of the Binding, will it be said that the earlier trials had no significance, including the test of Ur Kasdim, when Avraham was thrown into a fiery furnace (even though he did not do this in response to a direct command)?

To find an answer to this question, we must first understand the essence of the trial of the Binding. It is commonly accepted that what made the Binding the most serious trial of all was the fact that Avraham was given an almost inhuman command to sacrifice his only son. This is clearly a most difficult task but it does not explain why this was so important to Avraham himself! We should not have any doubts that Avraham would have definitely fulfilled the command, and that it was not necessary for the Holy One, Blessed be He, to beg him to obey. After all, Avraham was given a direct command by the Almighty!

An Illogical Trial

The Rebbe of Lubavitch explains that the unique aspect of this trial was that it is not logical at all. In all the other trials Avraham stands up against tremendous difficulty, and he is willing to sacrifice himself for the exalted task of spreading the name of G-d. But in the case of the Binding of Yitzchak, G-d asks Avraham to sacrifice his only son for no apparent reason, and even without anybody else present to witness the event.

In addition, Yitzchak was known to be Avraham's heir, who would continue the tradition of spreading the word of G-d in the world. The new command is completely contrary to G-d's promise to Avraham, that Yitzchak would continue the traditions after his death, "for Yitzchak will carry on the name of your offspring" [21:12]. And it is an established principle that "a good prophesy will never be cancelled." But then what is happening here? In order to comply with G-d's earlier promise, Avraham should beg G-d not to do this, not to cross this boundary. This act would have destroyed all the faith that had been built up throughout the world! Avraham could have also told himself that G-d's revelation commanding him to do the sacrifice must surely be an act of his own imagination.

But in the end Avraham was able to pass this confusing trial, showing that "the first trials were also significant." He passed those tests too not because of logical and spiritual considerations, but only through his feeling of total insignificance in relation to G-d, without any further considerations or reckoning.

The main lesson that we can learn from the Binding of Yitzchak is not only the dedication and willingness to sacrifice a life but mainly the dedication of giving over the internal "I" to the Master of the World, to act without trying to understand. The link between us and the Holy One, Blessed be He, must not depend on how we understand Him.

Our link to Our Father in Heaven goes beyond our intellect! It goes without saying that there is strict logic in our service of G-d, but this does not "depend" on the logical approach of the creatures. Mainly, it is based on the exalted high position of G-d and the insignificance of any other consciousness in relation to Him.

The Link is in Response to a Divine Initiative

This approach can help us understand why the story of Avraham in the Torah begins with the command, "Lech Lecha – go for yourself" [Bereishit 12:1]from your land. There is no mention at all of his exalted status and his righteousness and of his struggle against all of humanity from the age of three until the age of seventy-five in order to publicize the name of G-d, including being thrown into the furnace at Ur Kasdim. Avraham appears in the Torah with the command to leave his family and his land and to move on to "the land I will show you" [12:1]. In this way the Torah emphasizes that Avraham's greatness did not stem from his choosing G-d and from his own initiative but solely because G-d chose him. The existence of a command by G-d created a much stronger link with the Almighty than Avraham would have been able to achieve himself by any Divine service or effort of his own.

NATURE AND THE TORAH PORTION

Ayil, Ayal, Tzvi - by Dr. Moshe Raanan, Herzog College and the Jerusalem College for Women

"And Avraham raised his eyes, and saw. And behold there was... a ram caught in the bushes by its horns" [Bereishit 22:13].

The three names of animals in the title of this article are a source of much confusion. Getting mixed up between these species is not only the fate of "simple" folks. Before getting involved in "turning away from evil" we will "begin by doing good" (see Tehillim 34:15), and we will describe the different species. The "ayil" (accent on the first syllable) which Avraham sacrificed is a ram, a male sheep. Because of this, we consider a ram's horn as the ideal raw material from which to make a shofar for Rosh Hashana. The Bovidae Family includes domestic cattle and buffalo, among other animals, all of which chew their cud. The ram and the tzvi - a gazelle - are from the Bovidae Family. On the other hand, the ayal (a deer - accent at the end of the word, with the letter yud often appearing twice) is from the Cervidae Family, which also chew their cud.

Similar but Not the Same

The Bovidae and the Cervidae have many similar characteristics, such as chewing their cud and split hoofs, but their horns are very different. The horns of the Cervidae are called "antlers," while the word "horns" is used for the Bovidae. The antlers of the Cervidae branch off in a complex pattern and are made of solid bone. The horns of the Bovidae are not branched and are made of material similar to fingernails. The structure of the horns is a tube of hard material surrounding a bone that grows out of the forehead. The outside can be separated from the inner bone, leaving the tube itself (the words "shofar" and "shefoferet" – tube – are related). The horns of the Bovidae are permanent, while the antlers of the Cervidae fall off at the end of every mating season.