Rise, walk in the land,

to its length and to its breadth,

 for I will give it to you.

(Bereishit 13:17)

Now it was about

went down… (Bereishit 38:1) This is the

meaning of what is written: A dispossessor will I bring to you who dwell in

Mareshah (Micah 1:15). The Holy One said

to Israel: I concluded [a covenant] with Abraham your father and told him, Rise,

walk in the land (Bereishit 13:17),

and I carried out My promise and I gave him all the land, as is written, The

sons came and took possession of the land (Nehemiah

9:24) and I will bring you to this country of farm land (Jeremiah 2:7), a land which is yielding and

full. But you angered me, you came and you defiled my land, etc. And

what will I do to you? I will bring the nations and they will drive you from

the land: A dispossessor will I bring to you who dwell in Mareshah (Micah 1:15), because you failed to heed the

words of Micah of Mareshah.

(Midrash Aggadat Bereishit, 64)

… philosophically

understood, the word "walking" [hit'halkhut] is used in

connection with wisdom, as in the verse, When you

walk, it shall lead you (Proverbs

6:22), and it is written, Man walks about as

a tzelem, which is the form of the rational soul, and it is only

mentioned in connection with singularly righteous people, those who seek

wisdom, such as Noah, Enoch, Abraham, and the like. And since Abraham moved his

mind in search of the sciences from one level to the next, and drove his

rational soul continuously travelling in perceiving the universal southwards,

the blessed Lord said to him: Rise, walk in the land. That is to

say: Move the form of your mind in search of the existents that are in the

land, for we do not find that Abraham actually walked across the width and

breadth of the Land as the blessed Lord told him. Rather, we find that he

stayed put and did not travel, as it is written, and Abram pitched his tent

and came and dwelled. And in any event, that walking was a movement of

the rational soul and quiescence of the body. That is the meaning of pitched

his tent, as in a dweller of tents (Bereishit

25:27), for the quest for the sciences requires movement of the rational

soul and quiescence of the body. That is the opposite of the body's needs which

require movement of the body and quiescence of the soul. And He said, for I will give it to you [meaning] I will give

you knowledge and wisdom to know the essence of the existents, as in the verse,

And the Lord gave wisdom to Solomon.

(Rabbeinu Behayeiy ad loc)

Abraham and Lot

Between Acquisitive Ethnocentrism and Morality¹

Pinhas Leiser

Abraham and his nephew Lot began their journey together, as

it is written: And Lot went with him (Bereishit 12:4). We can understand from their

walking together that at the beginning of his road Lot

joined Abraham and linked his fate and goals to the fate of his uncle, who

walked following God's command from his country and homeland to an unknown land.

The Torah tells us very little about Lot and to what extent

he accepted the vision which led Abraham to be willing to leave all that was familiar

and build a new culture, a culture of faith and loving-kindness.

Lot accompanied Abraham on his journey from Haran to the

Land of Canaan, he apparently joined Abraham when he traveled to Egypt

following the famine in Canaan and returned with Abraham to Canaan, when both

had accumulated great wealth (Bereishit 13:2-5).

Abraham had, so to speak, an additional Individual

accompanying him on his journey. At each stop along the way, a connection

was established between Abraham and God. Sometimes God revealed Himself to

Abraham, and other times Abraham built an altar to the Lord who appears to him.

God punished Pharaoh, who took Sarai, Abraham's wife-sister, thus indirectly prompting

Abraham's return to Canaan. Lot

did not share in Abraham's connection with God.

A radical change takes place in the relationship between

Abraham and Lot upon their return to Canaan (Genesis 13:6-12). This change is consummated

when they separate and each goes his own way. Upon a first reading, it simply

appears that overcrowded conditions prevented Abraham and Lot

from dwelling near each other.

There is a well-known drasha on the dictum from Pirkei Avot

5:5, "And no man ever told his fellow, 'It is too crowded for me to sleep in

Jerusalem.'"

The drasha says that it was certainly crowded in Jerusalem, but no one ever complained about

it. We can understand the following verse in the same spirit: And the land did not bear them to dwell together, for

their possessions were many, and they could not dwell together (Bereishit 13:6). The

repeated statement that they could not dwell together hints at

difficulties of coexistence that were not merely technical in nature.

What, then, is the root of this inability to dwell

together?

Rashi (13:7),

following the Sages in Bereishit Rabbah, examines the tension between the

herdsmen of Abraham and those of Lot in a

different light:

And there was a quarrel

– because Lot's shepherds were wicked men and

grazed their cattle in other people's fields. Abraham's shepherds rebuked them

for this act of robbery, but they replied, "The land has been given to

Abram, and since he has no son as heir, Lot

will be his heir – consequently this is not robbery." Scripture, however,

states: The Canaanite and the Perizzite dwelt then in the land, so that

Abram was not yet entitled to possession.

According to Rashi, the disagreement between Abram's

herdsmen (who apparently accepted Abram's values and followed his instructions)

and Lot's herdsmen was concerned with values.

Two different perspectives on God's promise emerge here.

Abraham's perspective is influenced by his constant, direct communication with

God; that very connection enables him to see the Other.

Lot and his herdsmen

understand God's promise as an absolute declaration from which profit

and power can be gained; it is a promise that may be immediately acted upon,

and it trumps any other considerations. According to this perspective, neither present

reality nor those moral considerations which might prevent the promise from

being carried out immediately – here and now – should be taken into

account, since God's promise transcends everything else and sweeps away all

other factors in its path.

In contrast to Lot,

Abraham and his herdsmen comprehend the importance of distinguishing between God's

promise and the existing reality. They also understand that moral

considerations are never overridden by God's promise, since Abraham's God is the

Judge of the whole earth and it could not be that He would not do

justice. It is this world view which explains Abraham's negotiations with

God regarding the minimum number of righteous people needed to save Sodom.

While Abraham felt gratitude towards God for the promise

granted to him, he was also profoundly anxious about the realization of this

promise.

When Abraham reached Elon Moreh, God revealed Himself to

him and promised him that He would give his descendents the land of Canaan.

Abraham responded by building an altar to the Lord who appeared to him.

Rashi, following the Midrash, provides this commentary: "for the good

tidings that he would have children, and for the good tidings that they would

possess the Land

of Israel" (Rashi Bereishit 12:7). Abraham's act of

building an altar is thus a religious response, an expression of gratitude.

The next verse (12:8)

mentions that Abraham builds another altar. Here Rashi again borrows a midrashic

idea:

And he built there an

altar – He perceived through the gift of prophecy that his descendents

would stumble there through Achan's transgression: therefore he prayed for them

there.

Abraham understands that in spite of God's promise, his

children might misinterpret the moral significance of the promise and be

dragged down. They might commit undesirable acts as a result of impulses

stimulated by the act of conquering the land (Achan). The second altar that

Abraham builds expresses this anxiety and represents both the hope and prayer

that in the end his descendents will be worthy of the promise (Achan's

transgression during the conquest of the land did indeed occur between Beth-El

and HaAi).

When the land was promised once more to Abraham in the Pact

of the Cut Pieces [Brit ben HaBetarim], Abraham asks, how will I know that I will inherit it? (Bereishit 15:8). The commentators Rabbi

Ovadiah from Solfranu ("Seforno") and RaMBaN provide us with their

interpretations. Seforno (15:8) writes:

How will I know? Perhaps my children

will sin and not merit to inherit it.

RaMBaN (15:7)

writes:

…and so he asked, how will I know that I will inherit it? This is

not like the question, What is the sign? (II

Kings 20:8). And the Holy One, blessed be He, did not act as He did

regarding the other signs by showing him a sign or a miracle or something wondrous.

Rather, He asked Abraham to know with true knowledge that he would inherit it,

and that neither he nor his descendents would commit a sin preventing this from

happening, and that the Canaanites would not repent, making applicable to them

the prophecy: At one instant I may speak about plucking up, breaking down,

upon it (Jeremiah 18:7-8). The Holy

One, blessed be He, made a pact with him that he would inherit it in any event.

Thus, Abraham is afraid that the realization of the promise

will depend on the actions of his children and therefore he is very concerned.

The promise is strengthened by the establishment of a covenant which is reciprocal

in nature. Thus, Rashi (17:7-8) writes:

And I will establish My

covenant – And what is this Covenant? To be a God unto you.

For an everlasting

possession – and there I will be your God.

That is, the promise made because of the covenant is not a guarantee

or deed of registry. The existence of the covenant between God and

Abraham's descendents is conditional on being a God unto you. True,

there is a lasting imprint of the covenant passed down from generation to

generation through the ritual of circumcision, which is "The Covenant of

Our Father Abraham." However, the possession which is everlasting

in the spiritual realm is not a prize but rather an anchor in reality enabling

the fulfillment of the spiritual and moral vision – there I will be your God.

Lot is not a partner in

this vision, as Rashi (13:11) writes

following the Midrash:

And Lot

journeyed from the East [mikedem]: he distanced himself from the Ancient One [mikadmono]

of the world. He said, “I care neither for Abram nor for his God.

The absence of Abraham's God – the judge of all the land

and the God of loving-kindness – from Lot's journey, is an essential element in

Lot's concrete, absolute, and aggressive

understanding of God's promise.

Abraham is able to distinguish between the promise he

believes in, the promise given as part of a covenant, and the practical and

moral possibilities for the realization of that promise. Abraham is very

anxious about the potential dangers involved in transforming the promise into

reality through force and harm to others.

Abraham's only suggestion for dealing with the conflict is,

Please separate yourself from me. Abraham probably understood that the

land could not support them to dwell together. The deep ideological

conflict between the two views would not enable the continuation of their

journey together. These differences could even deteriorate into a state of

civil war resulting in bloodshed. Therefore, the separation enabled each of

them to choose the path they believed in. This separation enables us to examine

the potential results of the different paths chosen by Lot

and Abraham:

At the end of the story Lot reaches Sodom, a city full of evil and sinful

inhabitants and he needs Abraham's help to save him. The entire land, including

that of Lot, was promised to Abraham, who

upheld the conditions of the covenant.

This story enables us to make a deep and profound

examination of the distinction made by people of faith between God's promise

and concrete reality, which requires consideration of moral values as an

important element in the promise. Peaceful coexistence may be impossible

between "Abram's herdsmen" and "Lot's herdsmen," and so, in

order to avoid a bloody conflict (as in the quarrel between Cain and Abel, to which

the Midrash assigns a moral character), the two sides should peacefully

separate or find an alternate way to peacefully settle the conflict, allowing

room for differing opinions and respecting democratic decisions. Unfortunately,

the events in Kikar Rabin (then Kikar Malkhei Yisrael) of Motza'ei

Shabbat Parashat Lekh Lekha 5756 demonstrate this all too clearly. Has Israeli

society learned anything since that gloomy night?

[1]. This devar Torah is based on an earlier

version, which appeared in issue 54 of Shabbat Shalom. I think it has

lost none of its relevance.

Pinhas Leiser, editor of Shabbat

Shalom, is a psychologist.

And you shall come to your ancestors in

peace; you shall be buried at a good old age

You shall be buried at a good old age:

He revealed to him that Ishmael would repent during his lifetime.

(Rashi

on Bereishit 15:15, following Bereishit Rabbah 38)

…here the deeds of the fathers are a sign

for the sons. It hints at how the children of Ishmael will draw near to the

truth and believe in one God in the end of days, and separate themselves from

the idolaters, as our rabbi [the RaMBaM] wrote. That is what Isaac meant when

he pleaded for Esau: Let the scoundrel be spared [yet he learns not

of the Lord] (Isaiah 26:10); [Isaac

pleaded] that he [Esau] would also distance himself from idolatry in the end of

days, but the answer [to his plea] was in a place of integrity [he does

wrong] therefore he ignores the majesty of the Lord, and will

worship idols until and in that day the Lord shall be one.

(Rabbi

Meir Simkha Mi'Dvinsk's Meshekh Hokhmah on Bereishit 15:15)

Abram

condition, and the choice.

The

Canaanites degenerated in this land until they reached the lowest level of

moral turpitude, until the merciful God Himself sentenced them to exile or

extermination. Thus we see: The Holy One wished to renew mankind, to return his

Presence to man's domain. To reach this end, He chose that land which was

suitable for this, and those who dwell therein in accordance with God's will

possess the potential for achieving every moral excellence. But then, as later,

there lived inhabitants who corrupted their ways, and were condemned to

annihilation. Therefore, the Torah was given in the wilderness – to teach us

that man's improvement depends neither on time nor on place. In this

place, where degeneracy had sunk to its lowest – here the Holy Presence began

to return to earth. Thus we learn: True, the nature of a land does influence

the nature of the nation and its attributes. But the divine component in man,

the ability to earn God's proximity – these are attainable by any nation and

people, in Lapland as well as in Greece. The land where Abraham

dwells can also be a dwelling-place for murderers; the same land can contain

both seer and assassin… The denizen of the land must choose between the apex of

moral elevation and the nadir of brutish depravity – between blessing/life and

curse/death. It is possible that these diametrically opposed alternatives are

symbolized by the proximity of the two mountains, the blossoming Mount Gerizim

alongside the barren Mount

Eval.

(Rabbi Shimshon Rafael Hirsch, Bereishit 12:6-7)

…similarly

in general affairs between people. Sons have the right to inherit their

father's possessions. But the question whether or not these belongings will

remain intact in the sons' hands depends not upon the sons' rights of inheritance.

It is depends on what use the sons make of the legacy.

(From Prof. Y. Leibowitz, z"l, Sheva Shanim

shel Sihot al Parashat HaShavua, p. 58)

Midrashei Tzafon

From the pen of

our member, Ronen Ahituv

Please come to my handmaid (16:3)

Sarai said to Abram:

"Come to my maidservant and make me a son through her." Abram told

her: "Yes, but only on the condition that you release her from servitude

and I marry her as a wife," for it is written: And she gave her to

Abram her husband as a wife. As a wife – and not as a concubine; as

a wife – and not as a maidservant.

Sarai saw that Hagar

became pregnant, she said: "Now this one will be important and I will be

secondary." The verse was fulfilled through her: When a maidservant

inherits her mistress (Proverbs 30:23).

That is the sense of the verse: And she saw she had become pregnant, and her

mistress became unimportant in her eyes – in her mistress's eyes. She went

out and said to Abram: May my injustice be upon you!

Abram stood,

thinking: "One verse says, If she is

person, when he betrays her (Shemot 21:8), but another verse says: work

them forever (Vayikra

25:46). Could I be allowed to enslave her to this one, after I freed

her, thus betraying her? She went back and said: and if the wife of one's

youth becomes displeasing? Abram told her: Here is your maidservant in

your hand.

Hagar stood and thought: "Am I Abram's wife? Or am I

Sarai's maidservant?" She departed to the wilderness, and when the angel

saw her and called her Hagar, Sarai's maidservant, she said:

"Certainly from before Sarai my mistress, I am

fleeing."

If you wish to subscribe to the email English editions of Shabbat

please call +972-52-3920206 or at ozshalom@netvision.net.il

If you enjoy Shabbat Shalom, please consider contributing towards

its publication and distribution.

• Hebrew edition distributed in Israel

  $700

• English edition distributed via email $

  100

Issues may be dedicated in honor of an event, person, simcha, etc.

Requests must be made 3-4 weeks in advance to appear in the Hebrew, 10 days in

advance to appear in the English email.

About us

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom is a movement dedicated to the advancement of

a civil society in Israel.

It is committed to promoting the ideals of tolerance, pluralism, and justice,

concepts that have always been central to Jewish tradition and law.