And noah, a man of the soil,

Began and planted a vineyard.

And he drank of the wine and became drunk,

And exposed himself within his tent. (Bereshit 9:20)

"And

Noah, a man of the soil, began…" – He became hollow and profaned himself

Hebrew root- Trans.]; why did he "plant a vineyard – he should have

planted something of positive use, not a single shoot and not a single cutting?

But "He planted a vineyard"! And from where did he take it? Said Abba

bar Kahana, He took with him [into the ark] branches, cuttings, and shoots of

figs and a cutting of olives, as is written (Bereshit

6:21) "And you shall gather in with you" – a person gathers in

only that which he needs. "A man of the soil" – There were three who

were enthusiastic about land, and were of no use: Cain, Noah, and Uziyahu – Cain

was "a worker of the soil", Noah was "a man of the soil",

Uziyahu (Chronicles II 21) "And

farmers and vintners in the mountains and on the fertile lands, for he loved

the soil". "A man of the soil" – for he gave shape [lit.- gave a

face] to the soil, and because of him the soil became wet [meaning that because

Noah existed, God was able to bring on the flood, knowing that there would

remain someone to continue the human race], and thanks to him, the earth [lit.

– the soil] was propagated. "A man of the soil" – a farmer for the

sake of farming. Said Rabbi Berechia: Moshe was dearer then Noah – Noah was

first called "a righteous man" but later "a man of the soil";

Moshe was first called "an Egyptian man" but later "a man of

God."

(Bereishit Rabba 36:3)

Later it says "And Noah, a

man of the soil, began…" – he began to be a worker of the soil, and

planted a vineyard. There is an allusion that he profaned [lit. – hollowed

himself] his attachment to God and leaned toward farming and its benefits. "He

planted a vineyard" and he drank of its fruit and he wallowed within his

tent. This development is alluded to in textual signposts: At the beginning he

was called 'a righteous, wholehearted man' (6:9), ready for all good; when he neglected to

request mercy for his generation, he was called only a 'righteous man' (7:1). Following the destruction of the world

he was called neither righteous nor wholehearted, but 'a man of the earth', meaning

a man who facilitated the destruction of the earth. This is the allusion of "he

began" – from one who was holy he became profane/hollow, from a

righteous and wholehearted man he descends to being a man of the earth, to the

point that he drinks from the wine and wallows in his tent.

(Tsror HaMor, by Rech Avraham ben Yaakov Saba – 15-16^th

centuries, Spain-Italy)

Avraham and Lot part ways

Jeremy Weil

Although

at first blush the description of the Abraham-Lot parting (Bereishit 13) seems quite uncomplicated, the

words hide many hidden meanings and messages.

Verse 2: And

Abram was heavily laden with cattle, with silver and gold .

Verse 5: And

flocks and herds and tents.

Verse 7: And

there was a strife between the herdsmen of Abram's flocks and the herdsmen of Lot's flocks.

In verse 9,

Abram says to Lot: Is not all the land

go right, and if you take the right hand, I shall go left.

Verse 10: And

well-watered,…

According to

the p'shat [plain meaning] Abram and Lot travel from Egypt to Canaan,

both are wealthy, a conflict arises and they decide to separate. Deeper

investigation reveals a slightly different story.

One of the

difficulties arising from the text. "…who came along with ["et"]

Abram". Why the use of the term et [usually a term used to indicate

a direct object] rather than the more commonly used im?

Verse 6: And

the land could not support their dwelling together, for their substance

was great and they could not dwell together.

Why the

repetition of "dwell together" in the same verse?

Verse 7: What

is the significance of adding "And the Canaanite and the Perizzite were

then dwelling in the land"?

A perusal of

ideas suggested by Rashi and other commentators will prove worthwhile.

What was the

conflict really about? Rashi writes: "Because the herdsmen of Lot were

wicked and let their cattle graze in the fields of others, and Abram's herdsmen

admonished them for their theft, and they replied the land was given to Abram

and he has no inheritor and Lot will inherit

and therefore this is not theft. This is the reason, writes Rashi, for "And

the Canaanite and the Perizzite were then dwelling in the land" — the

land was not yet the property of Abram." The question arises immediately –

why did Rashi have to find a cause for the strife? What was not intelligible in

the simple narrative of two wealthy men whose abundance of cattle led to

quarrels between themselves and between their herdsmen?!

Abram says to Lot (ibid13;9): "If

I shall go left." Ostensibly Abram is talking about total separation,

each going in different directions, as distant from each other as possible. But

Rashi interprets the words "If you take the left hand, than I shall go

right" – "Wherever you settle, I shall not be far from you, and I

will stand by you to defend and help you". Regardless of what

happens, I will not be far from you, so that I will be able to assist you when

necessary. And, indeed, Abram saves Lot twice  – once from the destruction of Sodom and once from

captivity at the hands of the kings. But why does Rashi explain the words "If

you take the left hand, than I shall go right" as meaning that they

will continue to dwell in proximity? Does this not seem to contradict the p'shat?

[plain meaning].

And in verse

11: "And Lot chose for himself the whole plain of the Jordan, and Lot

journeyed eastward one from the other [lit. "each from his brother]."

The midrash

quoted by Rashi relates to" and Lot journeyed eastward" – "Lot

moved himself from the primary force of the universe" – that is to

say that Lot departed from the ways of God and

of Abram. What are we to understand from this midrash?

In verses 2

and 5, "And Abram was heavily laden with cattle, with silver and gold.

…And Lot, too, who came along with Abram, had flocks and

herds and tents". Nehama Leibowitz maintains that the word "too"

indicates that we do not have before us a new story, but rather a

continuation of the narrative which begins with the first verse of the parasha.

There God says to Abram "Lech

lecha" [lit. "Go you forth", but the midrash

reads it as "Go forth for your benefit] – for your welfare leave your

birthplace for a land "which I will show you" – to the land of Canaan which is promised to you. Abraham

trusts God and erects an altar of thanks to the Lord.

And in verse

5: "Lot, who came along with Abram"

the usual "im"]. Rabbi Shimshon Rafael Hirsch explains that Lot was not only along with Abram – he was as a part of

Abram who saw him as his possible successor. In Chap 12:4-5, we read "And

Abram went… and Lot went with him", and also "And Abram took

Lot is actually part of Abram's family. In

Chapter 12 (verse 7), God promises Abram "To

your seed I

will give

this land", but we read (11:30) that

Sarai was "barren, she had no child". Lot could reasonably

have imagined that he would succeed Abram and Abram could perceive Lot as his possible inheritor.

When they

arrive in Canaan, however, everything changes.

The land is occupied by the Canaanite and Perizzites. "The Canaanite

and Perizzite were then dwelling in the land". Ramban and Seforno see

the word 'then' as indicating that also the Canaanite and the Perizzites

were nomads, not indigenous to the region. But at the very time, there was a

famine in the land which forced the family to go down to Egypt where Sarai was taken from Abram

by Pharaoh. Abram now has neither successor, nor home, nor wife. God comes to Abrams's

aid and forces Pharaoh to return Sarai. Egypt was a wealthy nation, and

Abram begins to acclimate. Therefore God has to command him to leave Egypt and to go up and return to the Land of Canaan – an impoverished region, settled by

others, and dependant upon rain which falls sparingly. Abram passes the test,

and unhesitatingly reaches a courageous decision – to return to nomadic life in

the Land of Canaan,

an area – unlike Egypt

– deficient in water.

Lot, on the

other hand, decides to seek "Egypt" – the good life. Abram

thought that, lacking progeny, Lot would

succeed him. Therefore, when the time came for parting, he offered Lot the choice of the right or the left, that is to say,

nearby, just far enough to prevent quarrels between their respective herdsmen.

As God says to Abram (13:14-15)

"…look

through its length and its breadth" – God orders Abram to continue and

wander in the land, to seek that which is the good and correct path. Abram

thought that the separation between himself and Lot would be temporary – one

will wander to the right and other to the left – and in the end Lot will be his inheritor.

Note, however,

that regarding the return journey from Egypt, it is written: "And Abram

to the Negeb" Here the Hebrew for "with" is not the more

intimate "et" but rather the more impersonal "im".

Lot has become like a stranger to Abram.

Note also the change in order – Lot is listed

only following Abram's possessions. This alludes to the fact that the discord

had begun yet in Egypt.

This passage

is the opposite of that which is written in the Book of Devarim (11:10-11). The

Land of Israel

is described as "Not like the land of Egypt…

valleys, from the rain of the heavens you will drink water." This

description is factually correct; the land in the Nile region of Egypt

is watered from the river constantly and effortlessly. But in the Land

of Israel,

everything depends on rain.

From the

passage in Devarim, it is clear that the Land

of Israel is preferable to Egypt, whereas here, in Bereishit, Egypt

seems the more advantageous. This is the point! In Devarim, everything is seen through

the eyes of Moshe. But here all is seen though the eyes of Lot–"and

Lot raised his eyes" – he sees an area comparable to Egypt, suitable for cattle and

tents, where there will be no need to wander, where one can dwell in

prosperity. Lot seeks "Egypt"

in the Land of Canaan, and he finds it. Therefore Lot

declines the nomadic life and prefers to move neither right nor left; he

decides to live in a location most similar to the culture which he recognized

and loved in Egypt.

He took a different path, and did not follow Abram. This time God cannot

offer Abram direct assistance, because Lot chose

his path, and God does not intervene in men's decisions.

Later God

promises Abram that his inheritor will not be Lot;

it will be Abram's son. This is the reason why "and they could not

dwell together" written twice in Verse 6. At first Abram thought that

the reason for the conflict was the lack of grazing land. But later he realizes

that that their abundant possessions caused a change in Lot's perspective on "Egypt" – they

can no longer dwell together. Two approaches so dissimilar leave no possibility

for compromise. Abram chose the peripatetic life, a life of active searching.

This approach receives expression in Abram's argument with God regarding the

destruction of Sodom;

Abram attempts to save lives. Lot, however, had a different outlook which

allowed him to live his life according to his desires, with no connection to

the evil and sinful people of Sodom

among whom he lived.

We see that

the two stories are two trials of Abram – in Egypt

when Sarai was taken from him, and later on in Canaan where he separates with Lot – both are actually of a single cloth. At first Abram

thought that God's promise would be realized through Lot, but the descent into

Egypt was an experience which separated between Abram and Lot and made clear to

Abram that his way, that of wandering and quest, is not the way of "Egypt"

– Lot's way – and therefore the inheritance had to reach the son of Abram,

someone who would understand his approach to life and his values.

Perhaps this

is the message of the story. The difference between Lot

and Abram was not between an evil man and a good one; it was between two weltanschauungs.

Lot was prepared to live passively among

sinful people without being involved in what happens around him. But Abram feels

responsibility for the well-being and the righteousness of the society in which

he lives. Perhaps because of this we are obliged to be the children of Abraham

and not the sons of Lot.

Jeremy Weil is an independent

business consultant specializing in international commerce.

Sixteen years after the murder of rabin –

Looking back in contemplation

In the Yaaleh V'yavoh

prayer we recite:

"…may

the remembrance of us, of our fathers, of Messiah the son David thy servant, of

Jerusalem thy holy city, and of all thy people the house of Israel, ascend and

come and be accepted before thee for deliverance and happiness, for grace,

kindness and mercy, for life and peace…"

Along with the remembrance of the

past, we also recall the yearning for the future geula ('the remembrance

of Messiah son of David'). This undermines the accepted approach in which

remembrance relates only to past events; how can one "remember"

events which have yet to happen!?

Perhaps the connection between "remembrance

of our fathers" and "remembrance of Messiah son of David" comes

to teach us an important principle regarding past and present, and the

place/purpose of the present in between.

Perhaps the "fathers"

whom we remember not only in the Yaaleh V'yavoh prayer but also at the

beginning of the Amida prayer represent and symbolize a religious consciousness

which is supposed to develop within us a desire to "perfect the world

under the reign of God" which is spiritual world of our Father Abraham,

who "will charge his sons and his household after him to keep the way

of the Lord to do righteousness and justice".

In his wonderful preface to the

Book of Bereishet, the Netziv of Volozhin writes:

This book

called the Book of Bereishit was called by the Prophets The Book of the

Right (Hayashar) [in the sense of straight and honest]… and

Rabbi Yochanan explains: This is the book of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who were

called 'straight', as is written "May my soul die the death of the

straight" and it is important to understand why Balaam labeled them yashar

rather than tzaddikim or hassidim, etc… This

matter is clarified in the Song of Haazinu, regarding the passage "The

Rock, His acts are perfect… true and right is He". The praise "yashar"

is used in justification of God's sentence in destroying the Second Temple

which was a perverse and twisted generation, and there [in our commentary on

Haazinu] we explained that they were, in effect, righteous and saintly people

who labored in Torah, but they were not straight in their 'ways of the world' –

this was so because of the baseless hatred they harbored in their hearts

towards others, they suspected whomsoever's religious practice differed from

theirs of being a Sadducee and an Apikorus [heretic], and this led to extensive

bloodshed and all the evils in the world until the Temple was destroyed, and

this necessitated tzidduk hadin – justification of His sentence, to the

effect that the Holy One, Blessed Be He, is straight, and cannot stand tsaddikim

such as these, only if they walk the straight path also in 'the ways of the

world', with no crookedness even though it [the crookedness] be in the

the land's settlement.

This was the praise of the

patriarchs, not only were they tzaddikim and hassidim, and loved

God to their upmost, but they were also straight, meaning that they also

dealt with the nations of the world, even with the disgusting idolaters, they

were together with them in love and rushed to the assistance, for this is the

preservation of the creation, as we see how our father Abraham prostrated

himself to plead for Sodom, even though he thoroughly hated them and their king

because of their wickedness, as is clear from his words to the King of Sodom,

in any case he wished for preservation…"

The Netziv, head of the Volozhin

Yeshiva, a man of the 19^th century, severely criticizes people who

lived during the Second

Temple, despite their

being tzaddikim and hassidim, and loved God to their utmost.

He sets their "tzidkut" – their supercilious and separatist "righteousness"-

in apposition to the approach of the patriarchs who were"yesharim"

– "straight", and were concerned for the entire world. It seems to me

that the Netziv, in his tactful fashion, is speaking not only to past

generations, but also to his own generation and those to come, and it seems

that he understands that no generation is immune to the phenomena of haughty

and exclusive righteousness.

Is there a connection between

murder, have anything to learn?

It seems to me that the Rabin

killing reflects a dangerous mood which totally negates the existence of other ideological

and political stances. The wise words of the Rishon LeZion, Chief Rabbi Bakshi

Doron, which I heard from him many years ago, reverberate in my ears. He then

said: It is forbidden that the political conflict become a religious conflict,

because when a conflict is of a religious stripe, compromise and accord are

difficult to reach. Rabbi Amital, of blessed memory, said after the murder that

religious Zionism was not wise enough to educate the coming generation to

complex thought. Aggressive acts are performed because of the zeal of persons

who believed with all their hearts in the justice of their cause which negates

all other belief, and therefore we must fight with determination every

manifestation of justification of physical or verbal violence, even if there

are those who attempt religious or ideological rationalization. There is no

need to bring examples from our times to understand that there exist real

dangers.

Chanan Porat, z'l, a founder

illness. He was an exceptional person, a religious Zionist, a man of faith,

a Torah scholar, a man of vision and action. Our paths met years ago in the

Gesher organization, but since then, our paths parted, and his understanding of

Zionism differed from mine. He, too, edited, almost until his end, a weekly

Parashat Shavua sheet called "A Bit of the Light" and penned derashot

with meaning. A few years ago we met, and he complained that we at "Shabbat

Shalom" somewhat veer from the p'shat. I understood that for

one so infused with the fire of belief as himself, fully believing that "the

time of the nightingale has arrived", there was only one truth. This zeal

led him to act consistently according to his belief, and he succeeded to

enthuse many with his fiery faith which I do not share. Along with this, he

always acted in accordance with the law and with a politically responsible

approach which does not subvert the sovereign and democratic institutions of

the State of Israel. Therefore, despite differences with his approach, I write

in pain: "Alas for those who are gone and no more to be found."

It seems to me that the challenge

before us, as religious Zionists living in the State of Israel, is to define

the shared vision of all who strive for peace and justice – secular and

religious alike – and at the same time learn to manage conflicts with mutual

respect, even when we are certain in the justice of our cause.

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.

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.

Shabbat Shalom is available on

our website: www.netivot-shalom.org.il

For responses and arranging to

write for Shabbat Shalom: pleiser@netvision.net.il