And the Lord said to

father's house, to the land that I will show you. (Bereishit

12:1)

Go forth – lekh lekha [literally: go for

yourself] – for your own good and benefit I will aggrandize your name

there. This requires study: even if his name would not be aggrandized and – God

forbid – all the evils befall him there, in any event the going itself is for

his own good and benefit, since it is commanded and desired by God.

It is worth looking into how our father Abraham, of blessed

memory, risked his life and broke Nimrod's idols and stood up against him, but

did not do so in the land of Canaan which was full of abominations and there

wasn't a single verdant tree [in Canaan] without idolatry beneath it and so too

with every tall mountain or high hill (Avodah Zarah 45a). But we do not find that

Abraham shattered their idols – on the contrary, he prostrated himself before

the sons of Het and was submissive to them. However, the truth is that back in

Ur Kasdim they did not listen to him at all, and his rebukes were ineffective,

and he did not win a single soul as he did in the Land [of Israel], and no one

recognized the Lord there but he. That is why he risked his life [in Ur] to

separate them from idolatry, and if they killed him, what would it matter? However,

in the Land of Israel he called in the Lord's name and he became famous and

received tens of thousands of them and won many souls (as RaMBaN writes on verses 2

and 8). That is why he was not permitted to risk his life by irritating

those who did not listen to him and convert: what would all those students who

depended on his teaching and instruction do [if he were killed]? You cannot say

he should have trusted in a miracle – that is not the way of the wise, since a

miracle might not occur to save him and he would just be submitting himself to

death. That is why he was not permitted [to risk his life] if that might be a

loss to the disciples, and he lived in the Land of Israel in order to publicize

his name, thus gathering many converts. He served God in tranquility and did

not need to quarrel with the wicked, rather, those who listened would listen

and those who did not did not, and so it [his going to the Land of Israel] was

for his own good and benefit.

(Hatam Sofer Bereishit 12:1)

Wisdom and Desolation on the way to an Encounter with

God

Yaron Schur

Abraham's story – and

with it, the story of the Jewish People – begins with the command, Go forth

land that I will show you. Why didn't Scripture locate the beginning of its

description of Jewish history in the Land of Israel, instead recounting the

three legs of Abraham's journey, which began in Ur Kasdim, continued to Haran,

and only then reached its completion in Canaan? Most of the commentators are

hard-put to explain this. They think that Abraham was adversely influenced by

the lands in which he grew up, "Terah believed that his dwelling in Ur

Kasdim caused the problem" (Abarbanel).

Rashi explains the place-name Haran: "Until Abraham arrived, God's

anger – haron af – was in the world." The choice of Canaan is also

left unexplained, and the commentators mostly treat the fact that no particular

land of destination was mentioned in the command Abraham received, rather the

verse speaks of the land that I will show you.

Rashi finds a similarity between the command to move to the Land of Israel and

the later command telling Abraham to go to Mount Moriah, Abarbanel says that

Canaan is advantaged by its unique air: "It's air is good since it is a

mountainous and hilly land, so much so that its good climate caused the sons of

giants to live there."

The ancient Jewish

commentator, Philo of Alexandria, who lived in the first century of the Common

Era in the important Hellenistic center of Alexandria, Egypt and died about

twenty years before the destruction of the Second Temple, viewed Abraham's

journey from Ur Kasdim through Haran and ending in Canaan, as having an

important role in preparing Abraham for his life's mission. Each of the

stations of his journey had a positive affect on Abraham's development. The

very act of journeying from one country to another allows for inner

development. Philo says that a journey is an opportunity "to investigate things

not previously known, something that brings the soul both pleasure and profit;

those who sit at home are to those who travel as the blind are to the sighted"

(Philo, On Abraham, 65).

Philo describes Abraham's

wisdom as developing through three stages, each of which derives from a place

where he lived. Abraham's soul experienced an inner journey in each of the

places and his intellect developed to such a degree that God could communicate

with him directly.

The first stage

involved Abraham's gaining a comprehensive education. This can happen in a

place of superior culture. In Abraham's case he received his education in Ur

Kasdim, which was the great power of his day. Abraham learned astronomy, which

was highly developed in Babylonia. Those who believed in the great power of

science had no doubts about its truth. Science granted them a strong foundation

for belief in the truth of that which they observed and the lawfulness deriving

from observation. Philo claims that the early name – "Abram" – refers

to his knowledge of astronomy: "For Abram – av ram – means ‘Exalted

father'…the first name marks its bearer as an expert on the stars or an expert

on heavenly phenomena, who cultivates the opinions of the Kasdim as a father

cultivates his children" (ibid, 82).

The scientific view of the Kasdim saw astronomical observation as constituting

the acme of human wisdom: "Everything in the world is controlled by powers

which are contained in numbers and relationships between numbers. They glorified

visible reality and neglected invisible and intellectual reality…they assumed

that the world is god, thus accepting heresy and identifying creation with the

Creator" (Ibid, 69).

The second

developmental stage involved the ability to look inward into the soul of man. This

insight is also learned within the framework of human society. Deeper study

takes place in a narrower framework of scholars. The group of scholars lives in

a smaller place; it is less sure of itself and sees fit to ask questions and

raise doubts not only about the details of the phenomena being studied but also

about the general framework of knowledge within which it toils. Abraham's

encounter with the sages of Haran focused upon understanding man. "'Haran'

in Greek means "holes" – a symbolic reference to the places where our

senses are located" (ibid, 72). That

is to say, we must attend to two different components in order to understand

man. The first is self-knowledge, "Know thyself," while the second is

acquaintance with one's body's systems. The combination of these two allows us

to understand that man can use his mind and control the various parts of his

body and use his senses in a thoughtful way. Philo claims that understanding

the function of the human brain was for Abraham an important step towards

understanding that there is also something controlling the large natural

systems. Just as the brain controls the body there is a brain – God – who

controls the natural world. The move to Haran allowed Abraham to leave the

Kasdian astronomical view that is concerned with the material world and to

understand the need to undertake a spiritual quest for God. "Abraham, who

had passed through this way and learned the entire sensual philosophy could

progress – leave Haran – and gain superior knowledge" (Philo, On Dreams 1).

The third stage of wisdom's

development took place with the entry to Canaan. For Philo, Canaan is not a

developed country enjoying special qualities, but rather a wasteland. Philo

describes Abraham's move from Haran to Canaan: "The second migration is

again undertaken by the virtuous man under the influence of a sacred oracle,

but this is no longer one from one city to another, but it is to a desolate

country, in which he wandered about for a long time without being discontented

at his wandering and at his unsettled condition, which necessarily arose from

it" (On Abraham 85). Abraham

did not despair of his new place, as Philo believed would happen to most people

for whom such exile is worse than death. Rather, Abraham finds his purpose in

isolation and desolation: "But this man alone appears to have behaved in

the contrary manner, thinking that life which was remote from the fellowship of

many companions the most pleasant of all. And this is naturally the case; for

those who seek and desire to find God, love that solitude which is dear to him"

(ibid, 87). In the desolation Abraham

became aware of his nothingness compared to the world: "To the extent that

a person grasps himself, his nothingness and the nothingness of all creatures,

he will be able to grasp his Creator" (On

Dreams 58). Only then could God reveal Himself to Abraham, bringing

him to ascend. "Immediately after the sage left, it is said: and God

showed Himself to Abraham. From this it is clear that He had not revealed

Himself to him previously, when he behaved like a Kasdian, devoting his

thoughts to the host of stars" (On

Abraham 77). Only this combination of change of place with change of

outlook and the move to searching for that which is beyond the material allowed

God to reveal Himself to Abraham: "But He, by reason of his love for

mankind, did not reject the soul which came to Him, but went forward to meet

it, and showed to it His own nature as far as it was possible that he who was

looking at it could see it. For which reason it is said, not that the wise man

saw God but that God appeared to the wise man; for it was impossible for anyone

to comprehend by his own unassisted power the true living God, unless He Himself

displayed and revealed Himself to him" (ibid

79-80).

For Philo, wisdom

combines knowledge and understanding of the world with the ability to act; this

results in the possibility of connection with God. Abraham's physical journey

granted him the possibility of achieving wisdom and each of the stations along

the way prepared him to ascend to a new intellectual-spiritual level towards

the intimate encounter with God in the desolate land of Canaan. His association

with different people allowed Abraham to gain wisdom in both Ur Kasdim and

Haran, but the arrival in the wasteland allowed him to search for new and

personal paths in the search for God. Like RaMBaM, who lived a thousand years

later, Philo saw in rational-scientific wisdom a means towards thinking about

God. Abraham's intellectual ability allowed him to reach the supreme level of

human thought, which was a precondition for God's revelation to him.

Philo shows us a way to

develop wisdom that finds practical expression in life. He emphasizes the need

for broad education and self-knowledge of one's strengths and limitations as

the foundations for the development of independent thought. The first two steps

prepare one for entering the desolation where one can raise the deepest

questions. The wasteland, described as an empty place where other people have

never operated, is where the educated person can make his stand and decide to

seek out the challenges which will grant meaning to his life. And there are

many wastelands in our vicinity.

Prof. Yaron

Schur teaches at the Hebrew University and at the Lander Institute.

The Ends do not Justify the Means

Know that Abraham our

father unintentionally committed a great sin by bringing his righteous wife to

a stumbling-block of sin on account of his fear for his life. He should have

trusted that God would save him and his wife and all his belongings, for God

surely has the power to help and to save. His leaving the Land, concerning

which he had been commanded from the beginning, on account of the famine, was

also a sin he committed, for in famine God would redeem him from death. It was

because of this deed that the exile in the land of Egypt at the hand of Pharaoh

was decreed for his children. In the place of justice, there is wickedness and

sin.

(RaMBaN on Bereishit 12:9, Chavel translation)

"The Deeds of the Fathers are a Sign

for the Sons": Israel's Flight as a Moral Consequence of Hagar's Flight

It is from the presence of my mistress

Sarah that I flee [borahat]: It [the word borahat]

occurs twice in the traditional biblical text. Here, and there [i.e., in the

verse:] All of the city flees from the sound of cavalry and bowman (Jeremiah 4:29). Since Sarah caused Ishmael to

flee, Israel had to flee from him; for bowmen refers to Ishmael, as he

is called a shooter of bows (21:20).

(Ba'al

Ha'Turim Bereishit 16:8)

Conflict between

Brothers Leads to Desecration of the Divine Name

The Canaanites and

Perizites were then dwelling in the land: And the matter involved desecration

of the Divine Name, since they knew that Abraham and his household were great

and sanctified to the Name of God, and while the Canaanite and Perizites were

living in peace amongst themselves there was conflict between Abraham and Lot.

This caused a desecration of the Name since it could be said that Abraham's

faith led to it. Eventually, Abraham could bear it no more.

(Ha-Amek Davar on Bereishit 13:7)

Fourteen Years Since

the Murder of Prime Minister of Israel Yitzhak Rabin z"l

Who remembers? What to

remember? When?

It seems that as the years pass since the murder of an Israeli prime

minister, the confusion regarding how it should be commemorated only increases.

Unfortunately, a painful event of national importance which should have

unified all sections of the people without distinction between "right"

and "left" or religious and non-religious, has become a divisive

force. This makes it impossible to genuinely contemplate the significance of

the murder, the events preceding it, and its consequences for the future of

democracy in Israel.

In contrast to other, agreed upon, dates upon which Israel's Jewish

public (or at least its Zionist components) marks Yom HaShoah, the Memorial Day

for fallen IDF soldiers, and Israel Independence Day, the various different

sections of the public commemorate the murder at different times, and this lack

of consensus reflects the divisive confusion mentioned above.

The Sages taught us that in order memorialize a particular event so that

it will remain significant for future generations, it is sometimes appropriate

to join the commemoration of several different events together on a single date

(Mishnah Ta'anit 4:6):

Five things befell our fathers on the

seventeenth of Tammuz and five on the ninth of Av. On the seventeenth of Tammuz

the Tablets were broken, and the daily offering was discontinued, and the city

was broken into, and Aphastimos burnt the Torah and set up an idol in the

sanctuary. On the ninth of Av it was decreed that our fathers would not enter

the Land, and the First and Second Temples were destroyed, and Beitar was

captured, and the city was plowed under.

The Gemara treating this mishnah questions the historical accuracy of

the dates it gives, but, at the end of the day, the need to lend public

significance to a particular day overcame the drive for historical precision.

The last issue of the journal Akdamot, which is published by Beit

Morasha, includes an interesting and important article by Prof. Yisrael

Rosenson, who heads Michlelet Efrata. The article, which is titled, "Gedaliah,

Rachel, Rabin – Religious-Zionist Meditations on Days of Commemoration,"

reviews different ways the Religious-Zionist community has dealt with the Rabin

murder over the years, beginning with the attempt to "revive" Tzom

Gedaliah by pointing to elements shared by the political assassination

mentioned in Scripture with the Rabin murder and concluding with the attempt to

connect Rabin's murder with the eleventh of Heshvan, the day which commemorates

the death of our mother Rachel. Prof. Rosenson quotes a passage from an article

which appeared a year ago in Makor Rishon concerning "the

reinvesting of historical dates with irrelevant significance as an important

mechanism for dealing with memory formation and alternative membership in an over-heated

and multi-sectoral society." As Yohai Ben Gedaliah wrote in his article, "Without

Relevance" (Makor Rishon 14:11:08,

pg. 21):

The anniversary of the death of our mother

Rachel offers a more recent and therefore less pleasant example. I remember

that when I was a child this day was not celebrated in the government-religious

school system…at that time the gatherings at Rachel's Tomb were not large, and

mostly attended by Haredim. For various and understandable reasons, the

mourning for Rachel was reawakened by the national-religious community in

reaction to Rabin's murder and the unease felt in its wake. It was easy to flee

from self-scrutiny – and especially from the campaign of incitement against the

kippa-wearing public – to the warm and consoling embrace of our mother Rachel. While

the character of the memorial day for Rabin had not yet crystallize for the

general public, an alternative character of the day had already been

crystallized for the national-religious public

Beyond any specific issue, Prof, Rosenson's article points to the

distress stemming from the fact that this day had become a day of divisiveness,

underlining political disagreements and Israeli society's lack of tolerance. It

is not merely a problem of disagreement over the particular date of the murder's

commemoration.

Besides the group which believes in a conspiracy theory and which denies

that Yitzhak Rabin was murdered by Yigal Amir – and which therefore is

unwilling to view what happened as a worrying symptom of the rise of

anti-democratic forces in Israeli society, an atmosphere has been created in

which the murder and the right to mourn it has been monopolized by people who

identify with Rabin's path, and the public that disagreed with Rabin's politics

feels alienated from its commemoration and mourning.

This is a troubling phenomenon because beyond legitimate disagreements

regarding one policy or another, there is room to join together in shock over

the murder and in a joint effort to create an atmosphere of mutual tolerance

and respect between holders of different opinions in which, naturally,

decisions will be made on a democratic basis.

I recall with admiration a statement made by Tzipi Livni at one of the

memorial rallies for Yitzhak Rabin: "His political path was not my path,

but he was my prime minister and he was murdered."

May we all learn to internalize that message. Every individual; and

group should undertake honest and courageous self-examination. However, I feel

that the main lesson of this event for society should be the internalization of

tolerance and pluralism as values which allow us to conduct even the most

difficult of disagreements with mutual respect within a democratic society.

Pinchas Leiser, Editor

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.

In Israel, checks payable to Oz VeShalom may be sent to Oz

VeShalom-P.O.B. 4433, Jerusalem 91043.

US and British tax-exempt contributions to Oz VeShalom may be made

through:

New Israel Fund, POB 91588, Washington, DC 20090-1588, USA

New Israel Fund of Great Britain, 26 Enford Street, London W1H 2DD,

Great Britain

Please note that the NIF is no longer accepting donations under $100

PEF will also channel donations and provide a tax-exemption. Donations

should be sent to P.E.F. Israel Endowment Funds, Inc., 317 Madison Ave., Suite

607, New York, New York 10017 USA

All contributions to either the NIF or PEF should be marked as

donor-advised to Oz ve'Shalom, the Shabbat Shalom project. For Donations

to NIF, please mention that Oz veShalom is registered as no. 5708.

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.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom shares a deep attachment to the land of

Israel and it no less views peace as a central religious value. It believes

that Jews have both the religious and the national obligation to support the

pursuit of peace. It maintains that Jewish law clearly requires us to create a

fair and just society, and that co-existence between Jews and Arabs is not an

option but an imperative.

4,500 copies

of a 4-page peace oriented commentary on the weekly Torah reading are written

and published by Oz VeShalom/Netivot Shalom and they are distributed to over

350 synagogues in Israel and are sent overseas via email. Our web site is

www.netivot-shalom.org.il.