Forethoughts And AfterThoughts Archives
- Bereshis
The Evolution of Absurdity
The Medrash teaches that the following line was used to recruit workers to build the Tower of Bavel (Genesis 11): The heavens tilt every 1,656 years and this caused the great Noahide deluge. Mankind therefore needs to construct a huge tower to keep it propped up, thereby saving future generations from calamity.
These recruiters share common ground with the Evolutionists in that both were con-artists who fooled masses of people with absurdities.
The use of the random evolution to explain the origin of life by scientists and in the name of science is a discredit to science because it's nonsense.
Here's one way to see this.
Make a list of creatures and their unique attributes. Focus on attributes whose absence would make life very difficult for each creature.
Here are two examples:
- Spider-drool makes webs that help them catch flies.
- Anteaters have sticky tongues that help them catch ants.
If you do it right then your list will turn into a huge book.
In the world of random evolution, there were first spiders who didn't drool. With all the zillion spiders being hatched over a gazillion years, one happened to pop into the world with what appeared to be a drooling problem. However, it turned out that this spider grew quite fat and healthy because flies kept on getting struck in his goop. He had a lot of descendents who drooled while his siblings did not. Non-drooling spiders died out because all the flies were being eaten by ones who could spit out goo, supposedly by a sudden and severe. severe shortage of flies, which has yet to repeat itself (and which most of us yearn for).
Now make up such a story for the anteater and for the web-spinning spiders and for all of the creatures in your book.
Can't you see the absurdity?
Here's another death nail for the evolutionist: The absence of artifacts.
Suppose you and your friend are walking by a house. You see a flash of light and hear a loud boom, followed by smoke coming out of a window. You rush inside to see a room with overturned chairs and fragments of a table. The air smells acrid. Your friend says, "This was an explosion." You agree with his assessment.
You continue walking down the street and see the same by another house. This time, the room is completely in order. The flowers on the table show no signs of being ruffled. There is no smell of smoke. Your friend says, "This was another explosion." You disagree. You ask, "Why are the chairs set neatly around the table?" He responds that perhaps this how they landed after the explosion. After all, can anyone prove otherwise, that this is impossible? "But where is the smoke," you ask? He proposes that it all blew out the window and was replaced by fresh air just prior to our entry. "Prove otherwise, he exclaims."
Now, multiply this scenario by the number of items in your list.
This is what subscribers to the Theory of Evolution have to put up with, for each one of the accidents that they rely on have left little if any trace of artifacts.
Let's scrutinize this with probability theory.
You have one chance in about 175 times 10^6 to win the New Jersey State lottery. (This is 175 times ten with six zeros, or 1,000,000.) Assuming that winnings are independent events, a player has 175^2 times 10^12 to win twice in a row, 175^3 times 10^18 to be a three-time winner, and 175^4 times 10^24 for the fourth consecutive game, assuming that the FBI doesn't shut down the State of New Jersey's lottery by that time.
Now what's the probability for an accident on the scale of Mr. Spider occurring without artifacts and that all the non-droolers vanished? Let's give it the odds of the New Jersey lottery. Now simply raise the power of 10 by six times the number of items in your list Forget about the 175's. To give you a feeling of what type of number you are dealing with, writers on the Advanced Physics forum postulate that there are 10^130 electrons in observable universe.
I feel compelled to say that anybody who associates the 'theory' with the origin of life is either a crook or a fool. I see no charitable way to describe any organization of scholars that suggests this association has any validity.
The only shred of logic they hang their hats on is what Mr. Harold Gans calls "Sherlock Holms Logic." It goes like this: Suppose there are two explanations for a phenomenon. One is extremely improbable and the other is impossible. In such a case the extremely improbable wins because there is no alternative.
To apply this logic, scientists must first make a conscious decision to deny the existence of a Creator. This makes evolution acceptable to them because there is no alternative.
So evolutionists use denial to create a bubble where they can live and play in .This is like mom waking you up at 7 AM and telling you that it's time to get ready for school. You respond by denying the existence of school so you can now go back to sleep.
Speaking of Mr. Gans, allow me to recommend his fascinating lectures on science and Creation, which can be found on Aish.com.
Recently, activists chose to assume risk and promote the notion of the existence of a designer, a truth that we believe in. The courts said that this position was not science and that it connoted a faith.
Rather then trying to legitimize an alternate view, they should have simply attacked its teaching in of evolution in schools on the grounds that children shouldn't be involuntarily subjected to what clearly appears to be an absurdity that is based on having faith in the denial of a Designer.
Apparently, the Justices felt that the constitution limits the Government from doing things that impose the existence of a Designer on its citizens but it provides no limit from imposing the denial of a Creator.
Given the huge sums of taxpayer research dollars that these scientists bilk the Government to promote their rubbish, I suggest that it's economically justifiable to modify the constitution and cut them out, too.
The noise that the Church of Science generates seems to unnecessarily put some of us on the defensive, as if theology conflicts with reality.
It appears to me that three ingredients are needed to make a theological conflict.
One is a set of realities, like as stalactites that appear to have taken quite a bit more than 6000 years to form, or stars that are billions of light-years away, or bunch of bones that seem to be very old.
The second is a theological source, such as verses of the Torah.
The third ingredient is an interpretation of the verse(s).
Falsifiers make trouble by asserting assert interpretations that create conflict between the verse(s) and the realities.
We should not let ourselves get painted into a corner. We certainly need not credit them any degree of Torah scholarship or competence
I see absolutely no reason to let any interpretation that is not explicitly and clearly stated by our sages, be it of the oral or written Torah, to cause question or crisis.
Let those who create crisis prove that their interpretation is authentic.
For example, we are taught that the Torah is not a history book and there are many historical events that are not openly recorded.
Can anybody disprove a notion that events occurred between the first and second verses of the Torah? Could there not have existed a world, or perhaps worlds during which G-D provided creations the option of receiving the Torah, only to be obliterated upon their refusal? Could this obliteration not have been complete enough so as to leave traces of former existences to give those of a later and final world a test of faith?
A whole lot of dinosaur bones can fit into these worlds.
Again from Mr. Gans, while we know from the Torah that Adam was the first human with a soul, we have no reason to believe that he was indeed the first homo-sapiens. We have no reason to assert that there weren't people running around before his appearance, only they were animalistic and had no souls.
Consider the following verses in Genesis:
2:19 And G-D formed all of the beasts of the field and all of the birds of the sky from the ground. And He brought (them) to the Adam..,
2:20 And the Adam gave names to all of the animals, birds of the sky and to all of the beasts of the field. And Adam did not find a helper corresponding to him.
If Adam was seeking a wife then why was he looking in the zoo to find one? A possible answer is that Adam found plenty of pretty women in his world, only none of them had a soul.
Let's take a look at Chava (Eve). Did she need nine months to give birth to her first children? This is explicitly stated in the Oral Torah and the answer is no.
Can anybody prove that the pace of events and of even time itself during the six days of creation matched those of afterwards? Is this explicitly stated in the Oral Torah?
Thanks to Einstein, scientists now declare that time is relative. So, objects that approach the event-horizon of a black-hole appear as if they are slowing down even though they are not. And people who travel near the speed of light come back to find a world in their future, as if they went to sleep without knowing it. If they do it long enough, they'll come back to a world and visit a cemetery where their wives, children, and grandchildren are all interred.
So six days can be going on in one part of the universe while billions of years are going on somewhere else
We don't need to exert much energy to prove the truths of the Torah. Rather, the falsifiers need to prove the veracity of their interpretations.
And we need to change our attitude. We don't need answers to every question in order to live. One of the first principles one learns in Yeshiva is "fune a kasha shtarb mir nish," that nobody dies from asking and having questions. The only show-stoppers are those for which there is obvious and open proof to the contrary and for those who rely on an absurdity, such as those which we have been discussing all along.
As the timeline of history moves further away from Creation and Sinai we move further away from the events themselves. But this does not make us any weaker and by far to the contrary. As history marches on, the probability that there should exist a vibrant Jewish people approaches zero.
But we do exist, we still exist.
From Aish.com: "Over 300 years ago King Louis XIV of France asked Blaise Pascal, the great French philosopher, to give him proof of the supernatural. Pascal answered: 'Why, the Jews, your Majesty -- the Jews.'"
In the words of another enemy: "The greatest proof of the existence of a G-D is the existence of the Jewish people."
Just about any Jewish wedding album contains more proof that G-D exists, has been, and is actively managing the world than dozens of May 2006 editions of the Jewish Observer, which by the way does a very nice take on Random Evolution.
This alone deflates any cost associated with assuming responsibilities associated with accepting the fundamental principle of Judaism, that there was indeed a Being who designed and created the universe.
Given that G-D exists and that He is calling the shots through every bend of our impossible history, why does the average man on the street need to devote much energy on conjecturing the process He used to create the universe?
We need to move on. We need to focus our energies on meeting responsibilities and making achievements, not on defenses.
1:1 In the beginning, G-D created the heaven and the Earth.
Nouns in the English language are typically in the plural tense when they end with the letter s. Nouns in the Hebrew language are typically in the plural tense when they end with the letters yud and mem.
The Hebrew in the above verse for the word G-D is E - l - o - him and this word ends with the letters yud and mem.
The Talmud records that distorters used this to justify their departure into some form of polytheism.
Their logic is absurd because the laws of grammar are not absolute and have many exceptions. Grammar can therefore not be used to discount an openly stated principle in the Torah, which is that G-D is One (Deuteronomy 6:4).
However, we should be able to consider a lesson that can be derived from this grammar and how G-D relates to us, as long as it is consistent with that which is openly stated in the Torah.
The following came to mind.
A person can be both one and many. That is, a person is a single individual so he/she is one. A person interacts with many other people and the interactions can all be different because the people that he/she interact with are different. A person can thus become many people.
For example, a man can have a wife and seven children. He interacts as a husband with his wife, not as a father. Since his children are all different, he needs to tailor his behavior as a father in seven ways. So in one sense he has seven different behaviors as a father and is thus seven fathers. But he is really just one person (and dad is usually reminded of this each year when he gets one tie for his birthday and not eight and as he files a single tax form, not eight).
We find many references that the word E - l - o - him suggests a single entity that customizes his/its interaction according to differing recipients or individuals.
The Tanchuma in Numbers 18 references Yehoshua (Joshua) as a person who has the "spirit of E - l - o - him" because he was able to know how to deal with each and every person.
The Medrash in Exodus (5) notes that when G-D spoke to the Jewish people on Mount Sinai and said, "I am Hashem your G-D," that each and every person who stood there felt that G-D was speaking directly and individually at him. The grammar for this phrase is a follows: "I" (singular tense) - "am Hashem" - "your" (singular tense) "G-D" (plural).
So G-D is one but awareness of Him has the same number as there are people in the world.
Elsewhere in the literature, the word E - l - o - him suggests the Divine attribute of law and judgment. The Torah even uses this word to reference human judges in a courtroom (Exodus 22:8).
To me, this suggests that on our Days of Judgment, G-D will show understanding and take into account the unique opportunities and hurdles that each and every one of us had during our lifetime.
1:1 In the beginning, G-d created the heaven and the Earth.
Rashi introduces the Torah with the following fascinating commentary:
Rabbi Yitzchak said, "G-d needed only to begin the Torah with the verse, 'This month (of Nisan) shall be for you the head [i.e. first] of all months" (Exodus 12:2), for this was the very first commandment that the Jewish people were charged with. Why then did He open (the Torah) with 'In the beginning (G-d created the heaven and the Earth)?' This is because of the verse, "He informed His nation the power of his acts in order to give them the estate of nations (Psalms 111:6)." In case the nations of the world call the Jewish people thieves for conquering the lands of the seven nations (of Cannan), the Jewish people will (now be able to) respond that all of the Earth belongs to G-d. He created it and gave it to whoever was proper in His eyes. He intentionally gave (the land) to them and He intentionally took it from them and gave it to us.
Rashi in Tehilim (Psalms) 111:6 offers the following variation:
The Medrash Tanchuma says that (G-D) wrote the story of Creation for the Jewish people to let them know that the earth is His and it is in His power to make settle (in the land of Israel) whoever He wants and to uproot one people and make another people settle (there). This is so that the nations should not be able to tell the Jewish people that they were thieves for conquering the lands of the seven nations.
I pose the following question. Suppose person 'A' gave person 'B' a present. Then, suppose person 'A' wants person 'C' to have that gift.. What is his recourse? You will answer that he must ask person 'B' to give the present to 'C'. And if 'B' does not agree then both 'A' and 'C' are out of luck. Now, suppose the giver tells 'C' to grab the present from 'B'. Would you not call this an act of theft? Should 'C' listen to 'A', would he not be labeled a thief? Of course he would be a thief!
Now, Rashi in Genesis says that G-D gave the land to the seven Cannaanite nations. Rashi in Tehilim says that the nations will not be able to label the conquering Jewish people as thieves. Why? If G-D gave the seven nation the land then it fully belonged to them and not to G-D. Assuming that the seven nations did not want to give up their land, how could G-D ask the Jewish people to conquer it? How can the story of Creation be used as a defense for the Jewish people against the accusation of theft?
In truth, the best defense is that the source of every outcome, military and otherwise, is none other than G-D Himself who actively manages the affairs of Mankind. It was G-D who charged the Jewish people to conquer the land and it was G-D who made their campaign successful. As Rashi says, it was in "His power to make settle (in the land of Israel) whoever He wants and to uproot one people and make another people settle (there)."
If G-D would need to justify to humanity His right to decide where people lived then beginning the Torah with the story of Creation would be beneficial. However, I do not believe that G-D needs to justify anything. He is the King and His will is supreme.
So rather than focus on G-D's role as Creator, perhaps we should focus on His role as Manager.
The primary story in the Torah that illustrates G-D's role as a Manager is that of the Exodus. Given the importance of shielding the Jewish people from unjust criticism, I would think that a very good place to begin the Torah is right before the Exodus, where G-D gives the Jewish people their first commandment. The Torah could then flash back to the story of G-D's extraction of the Jewish people from their Egyptian exile to demonstrate His active management. However, this is precisely where Rabbi Yitzchak says that the Torah should not begin because this would not help the Jewish people in their defense.
How are we to understand Rashi?
The following came to mind.
Let's go back and analyze what happened between our Mr. A and B. 'A' initially owned an object, the gift. He obtained ownership by doing an act of acquisition, such as by picking up the object after paying for it. When 'B' became the new owner, he also made an act of acquisition, such as by taking it from 'A's hand. When A handed over the gift, he made B an owner in the same manner that he himself became an owner, as an acquirer. Since B was equally as capable as A to become an owner through acquisition, when A gave him the object it was a full transfer of ownership and 'A' no longer owned it. That is, the transfer of ownership of 'A' to 'B' undid the ownership of 'A'.
Now let's analyze what happened when G-D gave the land to the Canaanite nations.
G-D's ownership of the land came from His creating the land from nothing, not through any an act of acquisition. Prior to creation there was nothing to acquire and after creation it already G-D's. Since G-D was owner through creation, the only way another being could obtain ownership on the same level as G-D's would be through their own act of creation, which is impossible since the land was already created, not to mention the fact that there is no other being that can create something out of pure nothing.
So, while the Canaanite nations lived in the land, their ownership was at best relative to other humans, but not with respect to G-D. They could not undo G'D's ownership because they could not become an owner to the degree that G-D was able to, which is that of a Creator. Their ownership was relative, not absolute. Their ownership was dependent on G-D's will. As they were dependent on G-D's will, when their conduct disqualified them from living in the Holy Land, G-D exercised His right as absolute owner of the land to charge the Jewish people to drive them out.
The 'A' 'B' and 'C' analogy is no longer applicable because G-D, in His role as the giver 'A', never lost ownership of the article. So He was still able to give it to 'C', or to ask 'C' to take it from 'B'.
So we can now understand Rashi.
Now that G-D's role as Creator is openly documented in the Torah, we can see that His direction of conquest dissolved the Cannaanite's ownership. While G-D's role as manager enabled the Jewish people to succeed in their conquest, it was His role as Creator that legitimized the Jewish people's claim of ownership to the land.
1:1 In the beginning, G-d created the heaven and the Earth.
Rashi introduces the Torah with the following fascinating commentary:
Rabbi Yitzchak said, 'G-d had only a need to begin the Torah with the verse, 'This month shall be for you the head of all months (Exodus 12:2), for this was the very first commandment that the Jewish people were commanded. Why then did the Torah commence with 'In the beginning (G-d created the heaven and the Earth)?' This is because of the verse, 'He informed His nation the power of his acts in order to give them the estate of nations (Psalms 111:6).' That is, in case the nations of the world condemn the Jewish people and call them thieves for conquering the lands of the seven nations (of Cannan), the Jewish people will (now be able to) respond that all of the Earth belongs to G-d. He created it and gave (property) to whoever was proper in His eyes. He willfully gave (the land) to them and He willfully took it from them and gave it to us.
There are many aspects to this fascinating commentary. Let's focus on the question.
Apparently the message of the verse in Exodus is of such significance that it can dominate the account of how the entire world was created. How do we understand the need to begin the Torah with this verse?
The following came to mind.
Genesis is an account of how the physical world was created. Exodus is an account of the creation of the Jewish people, a nation that pledged its subservience to do the will of G-d, a nation that accepted upon itself the responsibility of keeping six-hundred-thirteen commandments, a nation that formally committed itself to spirituality.
We see the significance of spirituality over physicality from the very next Torah portion, Noach, when G-d destroys a civilization committed to physicality and corruption. Save for a boat-full of people, Mankind was destroyed together with its physical environment.
One cannot emphasize enough the significance of spirituality over physicality. Beginning the Torah with the formation of the Jewish nation would bring the point home even more.
Furthermore, the creation of the Jewish nation occurred only with G-d's subtle but powerful management of the highly complex and interdependent courses of human events, on global, communal, and individual levels. Given that G-d gives every person the ability to behave in a manner that is contrary to G-d's will, the formation of Nation of G-d appears to me to be far a more astonishing feat than the creation of the physical world, an existence that is completely subservient to G-d's will. It is therefore quite fitting to begin the Torah with the first commandment that the Jewish people were given, that of declaring the new month.
In and of itself, the physical world is meaningless to G-d. Without a humanity that chooses to follow His will and earn their eternal destiny, the physical world gives G-d no reason to commit to its existence.
The creation of the physical world was a temporal event. The creation of the Jewish nation some thirty-three centuries ago was an act of eternity.
1:1 In the beginning, G-D created the heaven and the earth.
1:2 And the earth was empty and void, and darkness was upon the deep, and a spirit of G-D hovered above the waters.
Scientist / Evolutionists claim that they have evidence against the Biblical version of the origin of life and the universe.
According to the Bible, they claim, the world is no more than a few thousands years old.
They provide mountains of evidence to the contrary.
Fossils and old bones indicate a much longer history for living beings. Stalactites and stalagmites take tens of thousands of years to form. The light of a star can take billions of years to reach us.
Don't let them fool you.
Their facts can be true but so can the Bible. Their disproof is based upon the way they want their listeners to understand the Bible. Their interpretation is based on ignorance and/or bias.
From a cursory reading, it is clear that its Author had no intentions of providing a comprehensive account of creation, the world, or of human civilization. Although the Bible contains history, it is clear that the Bible is not a history book. Rather, the Bible provides a selection of events, a very narrow cross-section of reality. It is for us to study the Bible within the guidelines of tradition to derive instruction on how to live.
The first verse states: "In the beginning, G-D created the heaven and the earth."
The second verse states: "And the earth was empty and void, and darkness was upon the deep, and a spirit of G-D hovered above the waters."
We have no proof that the events described in the second verse occurred within the same day or time-frame as the observation in the first verse. Between these two verses, it is quite possible that a huge time-span transpired, together with many attempts at establishing a civilization that would accept the Torah in the manner that we did.
It is remarkable that the Targum Yonosan Ben Uziel provides the following reading for 'empty and void:' Empty of people and void of any animal.' One can undestand this to suggest that lower forms of life, such as micro-organizisms, were present, as a carry-over from prior version(s) of one (or more) attempts to make a Torah-based people.
Of course, in no way does this imply that lower forms of life were always present. There was indeed an event of 'Creation' that G-D evoked, before which there was nothing but Him.
The Bible speaks about seven days for creation. We have no proof that the events of creation occurred at the same pace as those of today, especially for events that transpired before Adam.
Don't let the Evolutionists become your Bible teachers. Don't be afraid of their dinosaurs.
1:8 And G-D called the expanse "Heaven." And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
The verses for every other day of creation contain the word 'good' except for the second. The Medrash says that this is because G-D split the waters on the second day and the Torah did not want to associate goodness with separation and disunity.
The Medrash further says that the earthly waters cried to G-D over the disconnection with heaven. G-D offered an appeasement by declaring that the Jewish people will use the water in the Temple during the Succa holiday's libation ceremony. The seawaters were still not appeased because this would only occur annually. Thereupon, G-D declared an everlasting Covenant of Salt (Leviticus 2:13), requiring all temple offerings to be salted.
The Be'er Yosef observes that it would be two-thousand-forty-nine years from creation before there would be a Jewish people with a temple. Furthermore, the libations and Covenant of Salt were functional for only thirteen-hundred-ten years before the second temple was destroyed.
From this he notes the significance of having a role in G-D's commandments, for despite the long wait and temporal involvement, the earthly waters were appeased.
He then proposes that we use this understand the following teaching: "If one never saw the celebration of the libation then he never saw a celebration in his lifetime." (Succa 51a).
The libation ceremony reminded them of great significance of the commandments that we are privileged to have and perform. The joy during the libation was so intense that the celebrants barely slept during the entire seven-day holiday.
1:16 And G-D made the two great light sources. The big light source for the rule of the day and the small light source for the rule of the night (together with) the stars.
The Talmud provides the following fascinating discussion for this verse in Chulin 60b:
Rabbi Shimon son of Pazi asked the following question. Initially it states that there were two great light sources, which implies that they were equal. Then the verse goes to describe one as being larger than the other, which appears to be a contradiction.
The answer is that they were initially created with the same size.
Subsequently, the moon came before G-D and presented the following comment, "Is it possible for two kings to share one crown? G-D replied to the moon that it should (therefore) reduce itself. Thereupon the moon responded, "Should I be reduced because I presented before You a proper comment?" G-D replied, "Go and rule by day and by night." The moon responded, "Of what use is a torch (i.e. my small light) during daylight?" G-D replied, "Let the Jewish people use you to count their days and years." The moon responded, "It's impossible to not designate the seasons with it (i.e. the sun)." G-D replied, "Let the righteous be called by your name, such as David the little (one), Shmuel (Samuel) the little (one). G-D saw that the moon was still in distress and thereupon declared, "Bring a sacrifice for me as an atonement for my reducing the moon."
How can we understand this astonishing give and take? The following came to mind.
From birth, a human being is naturally self-centered. His lifetime struggle is the acceptance of a will that is other than his own, which is that of G-D Himself. Perhaps these are the two kings that the moon was referencing.
Perhaps this came to mind when the moon saw it shared the same role as the sun and that both were of equal size. The moon had no problem with sharing the role of providing a light source in harmony with the sun. However, this differed with Mankind's objective relationship with G-D which is that of submission to His will and domination. Perhaps the moon felt uncomfortable with being party to providing an alternate model, especially since Mankind is the central focus and purpose of Creation.
The moon was concerned with Mankind's disadvantage and with the awesome perils of Mankind's failure.
Thereupon, G-D decreed that the moon should reduce itself. From now on, the moon would not generate any light of its own and would instead merely reflect the light of the sun. Perhaps this represents the successful human being who has managed to constrain and nullify his own will with respect to that of G-D's. By only reflecting the light of the sun, the moon would thereby become a role model for the righteous, whose behavior reflects only the will of G-D.
The moon was not comfortable with reducing itself. Perhaps it was concerned that this role model was too subtle to be of significant benefit to Mankind. It wanted to be of more help to Mankind.
Thereupon G-D increased its role and declared that it should rule by day and by night. In contrast to the sun that always sets and becomes lost in the horizon by nightfall, the moon's absence by day will appear to be largely due to its being blocked by daylight, suggesting that it never really disappears. So too, the righteous are destined to live in two worlds, the world that we live in today and the world-to-come. In contrast, the wicked will survive only through one world, that of today.
The moon responded that the torch is of little benefit during daylight. This brings to mind that the greatness that is in store for the righteous in the world-to-come is not obvious to us today and is therefore of limited benefit to motivate a Mankind that struggles with the domination of its relatively transparent spirituality over its own visible physicality.
Thereupon, G-D said, "Let the Jewish people use you to count their days and years." Perhaps this is a reference to one of the roles that the Jewish people have, which is to provide a role-model for the rest Mankind.
Perhaps the link to the lunar calendar of the Jewish people represents a very visible way that G-D will communicate with Mankind, which is through the Jewish people and their history, which is affected by their compliance with the Torah, G-D's will that was commanded through Moshe (Moses) from Mount Sinai.
The moon responded, "It's impossible to not designate the seasons with it (i.e. the sun)."
The Jewish calendar is linked to both the lunar and the solar cycles, as we are commanded to make the season of Passover occur during the spring.
If the moon represented an approach for spiritual progress then the sun represented the reverse.
The Jewish people are human beings, not angels. While we have made much progress in spirituality, our ties to physicality have been a source for some failings and downfalls. This has limited the benefits that we were able to provide for the rest of Mankind, who have not fared any better.
G-D replied, "Let the righteous be called by your name, such as David the little (one), Shmuel (Samuel) the little (one).
While all of us are not perfect all of the time, we have chosen righteous people for role models reflecting an inner goal towards goodness and greatness. Also, the righteous among us can be of a more obvious benefit to the rest of Mankind.
G-D saw that the moon was still in distress and thereupon declared, "Bring a sacrifice for me as an atonement for my reducing the moon."
There comes a point at which we can no longer fathom the wisdom of G-D's plan for Mankind.
4:3 And it was after (some) days, in the fourteenth of Nisan, (that) Kayin (Cain) brought an offering of the first fruits from the produce of the land, from flax seed.
4:4 And Hevel (Able) also brought from the first of his flock, from the choicest (animals), and (this was) desirable before G-d and He expressed recognition towards Hevel and his offering.
4:5 And He (G-d) did not give (any) regard for Kayin and his offering. And Kayin became very angry and he lost his composure.
4:6 And G-d said to Kayin, 'Why are you angry and why have you lost your composure?'
4:7 'If only you would improve your deeds then your sin would be released. (However,) if you don't improve your deeds (in this world) then your sin will be preserved for the Great Day Of Judgment. Your sin will be poised at the opening of your heart. The domain of the evil inclination is in your hands and you are its focus of desire. You can win over it, for good and for evil.'
The above was translated per Targum Yonosan Ben Uziel)
Rashi in verse 3 refers to a tradition that the produce that Kayin brought was of low quality. This is in contrast to Hevel's offering, which consisted of the choicest of his flock.
Verse 7 states that Kayin did a sin. Furthermore, it says: 'You can win over it, for good and for evil.'
Now, a sin is an act of evil, a misdeed.
In Judaism there are three general classes of sin: unintentional, done intentionally but out of weakness, and an act of rebellion.
In what way was Kayin's offering a sin, or similar to a sin? What is the Torah trying to tell us?
The following came to mind.
We must struggle with our evil inclination on two fronts. It tries to get us to do evil. It also tries to keep us from doing good. Even when we decide to do good, it tries to reduce the quality of our actions.
Perhaps this is the message of the words, 'You can win over it, for good and for evil.' That is, one must deal with the evil inclination when presented with opportunities for doing good as well as evil.
The Hebrew word for an unintentional sin is a 'Chet.' This word is used elsewhere to imply something that is lacking or missing.
Kayin's offering was a good deed, but it could have been done in a better manner. As it lacked quality, it was referred to in terms of a 'Chet,' something lacking.
Just because a person does not sin, he/she can not afford to feel confident about his/her spiritual status. As stated in the book, 'Mesilas Yesharim,' one must constantly scrutinize his/her good deeds to see whether they could have been done in a better manner.
4:25 .. and she (Chava - Eve) gave birth to a son, and she called his name Shais (Seth) because [she said that] G-d gave (shas - Hebrew) me another child in place of Hevel (Able) 'because' (kee - Hebrew) Kayin (Cain) killed him.
Shais was born some one-hundred-thirty years after Hevel's death.
While it is understandable for Chava to name Shais after her lost child, why did she also mention Kayin's act of murder? Also, why did the Torah make a point of recording this association?
The following came to mind.
Note the quotation marks in 4:25 around the word 'because' and the original Hebrew for it, 'kee'.
The Talmud (Rosh Hashana 3) teaches that the Hebrew word 'kee' has four translations. They are: if/when, perhaps, rather, and because/for. The word 'kee' in this verse is popularly translated 'because'. Perhaps we can consider another translation for this word.
The Oral Torah tells us that Adam separated from Chava after she caused him to sin.
Lemech was a descendant of Kayin and a plea that he made to his wives is recorded in the Torah.
4:23-24 .. wives of Lemech listen to my speech, for I killed a man in my injury and a child in my wound. For (to) seven (generations) was vengeance taken (against) Kayin, and Lemech (should therefore be given a period of at least) seven times seven.
Our verse, 4:25 follows this speech. This all seems rather strange.
The Oral Torah explains 4:23-24 as follows.
The Torah (4:9) says that vengeance will be taken against Kayin after seven generations.
Lemech was Kayin's sixth generation. He was blind but he was a powerful hunter. His son, the seventh generation, went on an expedition with him. He told Lemech where and when to shoot. Kayin was in the field and the child mistook him for an animal. Lemech accidentally killed Kayin. When he realized the mistake, he struck his hands together in grief. In the process, he accidentally struck and killed his son.
Lemech's wives were filled with grief and horror. They feared that G-d's curse against Kayin would continue into their family. They separated from Lemech so as not to bring children with a cursed fate into the world. Lemech pleaded with them to return, but in vain.
As a last resort he summoned them to court. Adam was the judge.
Adam turned to Lemech's wives and told them that the bond of marriage had obligated them to be with Lemech. They had no right to abandon him, curses or not. We have no right to interfere with G-d's plans, especially at the expense of others.
In accepting the judgment, Lemech's wives turned to Adam and asked him why he had still abandoned Chava after one-hundred-thirty years. Adam didn't have a good answer. Instead, he took Chava back.
We now have a chain of events. Adam separated from Chava. Subsequently, Kayin killed Hevel and he was sentenced to death in seven generations. The circumstances surrounding Kayin's death in the seventh generation caused Adam and Chava to reconcile and they had a child.
Let us now consider translating verse 4:25 with another usage of the word, 'kee'
.. and she (Chava - Eve) gave birth to a son, and she called his name Shais (Seth) because [she said that] G-d gave (shas - Hebrew) me another child in place of Hevel (Able) 'WHEN' (kee - Hebrew) Kayin (Cain) killed him.
Chava brought calamity to Mankind. However, after a hundred-thirty years of remorse and repentance, Chava was now a person of great vision and sensitivity. As proof of her greatness, she was able to see this chain of events and she sought to praise G-d and His guiding hand in her personal and family history. Perhaps this is what the Torah is recording for us.
6:8 And Noach (Noah) found favor in G-D's eyes.
7:7 And Noach, his sons, his wife, and his son's wives came with him into the ark.
The Sefurno commentary (6:8) says that Noach would have been spared from the flood on the merit of his personal behavior. G-D's favor was only needed to spare his immediate family members.
This was because of the approach that Noach took to correct the society in which he lived. Instead of trying to repair the relationship his peers felt towards G-D, Noach appealed to their personal sensitivities for decent civil behavior.
I view this as another example of how G-D instructively responds to a person's behavior by reflecting it back, measure for measure.
Although not always obvious, G-D has a deep relationship with mankind, being very much interested and involved with our affairs.
Noach's approach may have been easier for him to implement but it did not reflect G-D's connection with the world. Therefore, without special favor from G-D, Noach's merits were not sufficient to spare those with whom Noach had a connection with in this world.
The Sefurno goes on to state that had Noach focused on G-D's relationship with mankind, this would have provided their only hope for repentance.
I understand this to mean that an appeal to a person's feelings of civil decency provides a weak basis for evoking corrective behavior because a person tends to take the easy way out. That is, instead of moving one to adjust his personal behavior, one would tend to adjust his standards for civility.
There's been a recent surge of interest in Bible codes.
We have also been taught that the letters of the Torah convey meanings on their own.
Perhaps we can uncover a few.
6:8 'And Noach (Noah) found favor in the Eyes of G-d.' (end of Genesis.)
Noach's name consists of two Hebrew letters, Nun and Ches.
The Hebrew word for favor is Chen. It is spelled Ches and Nun (reverse of Noach)
If we begin with the second letter in this verse, we have Nun-Ches (Noah), the word Matza (found) and the letters Ches-Nun, the letters of Noach in reverse.
Let's look at the word Matza, Hebrew for found.
This word consists of three letters, Mem, Tzadi, and Aleph.
Mem is close to Mayim, Hebrew for water. Tzadi is close to Tzadik, Hebrew for a righteous person, and Aleph is Aramaic for learning.
The Talmud (Bava Kama 17a) teaches that references to water in the scriptures can also refer to Torah.
We know that Noach studied Torah (Rashi 7:2).
It came to mind that this all may be conveying a special message.
Noach, Mem-Tzadi-Aleph and the reverse of Noach are perhaps hinting to what can happen when a Mayim-Tzadik-Aleph, a person studies Torah, the Will of G-d. He or she becomes righteous and transformed, even reversed, into becoming worthy of obtaining G-d's favor.
6:9 These are the generations of Noach (Noah). Noach was a righteous man. He was perfect in his generation. Noach walked with G-d.
6:13 And G-d said to Noach, 'The (decree to) end all flesh has come before me'
6:14 'Make for yourself an ark'
7:1 And G-d said to Noach, 'You and your household must (now) enter the ark, because I saw you as being righteous before me in this generation.'
It took Noach a hundred-twenty years to build the ark (Rashi 6:14).
When Noach was commanded to build the ark, he was not told that he was righteous, even though it was true at that time (verse 6:9). Why did G-d tell him this after it was built and not before?
As of this moment, I don't recall any other place in the Torah where G-d told someone that he was righteous. A person never knows how Heaven views him until he passes away.
Why did G-d tell Noach that he was righteous at all?
The following came to mind.
The Talmud (Kidushin 40) teaches that it is very beneficial for a person to always view himself as though he has equal amounts of merits and sins, with his eternal fate at stake. If his next deed is positive then he will enter heaven and the reverse, if G-d forbid the next deed is a sin. With such a perspective, a person will always be inclined to do only good.
Perhaps this is why G-d did not initially let Noach know about his status. It served to guarantee that Noach would retain his righteousness, especially during the difficult period when he built the ark, a time when he was the subject of public ridicule.
During those one-hundred-twenty years, Noach needed to persuade the people of his generation to repent. G-d told him that they were wicked. Perhaps, had his righteousness been verified by G-d at that time then the confirmed spiritual gap may have affected his actions or speech.
When the time of destruction came, Noach was reluctant to enter the ark (Rashi 7:7). Perhaps this knowledge helped him make the difficult physical separation from society.
Only Noach was told of his righteousness. As far as he knew, he was the only cause for there being a subsequent civilization. This focused a great deal of responsibility on him, which was very much needed at this critical time.
Perhaps the tragedy and responsibility were so great that this knowledge served to console Noach.
6:14 (G-d said to Noach - Noah, ) 'Make for yourself an ark of gofer wood ..'
The Targum Yonasan Ben Uziel translates gofer wood as Kadronian wood.
8:4 On the seventeenth day of the seventh day (of the flood,) the ark came to rest on (one of the) mountains of Ararat.
The Targum Yonosan Ben Uziel translates Arrat as Kadron. That's similar to where the wood came from. Perhap it's the same place.
The following came to mind.
The ordeal which Noach and his family had just been through was caused by a civilization that had been morally and spiritually lost.
Noach did not want this to happen again. He was actually hesitant to repopulate the world and this is why G-d made the Rainbow Covenant with him (Rashi 9:9).
Perhaps G-d selected this landing site in order to raise Noach's hopes for the future of Mankind.
Despite months of being bounced in turbulent waters, G-d guided the ark in such a way as to make it come to rest in the region of its source.
Just as G-d guided the ark back to its source, He will also guide all of Mankind back to its moral and spiritual source.
Daily, we await and pray for this glorious era.
6:22 And Noach did all that G-d commanded him, he did so.
Rashi says that this verse refers to Noach's the building the Ark.
Prior to this verse, G-d commanded him to build the Ark, to enter it, and to bring animals and food into the Ark
In the next chapter, when the flood was about to occur, G-d commanded Noach to enter the Ark and to take the animals inside.
7:5 And Noach did all that G-d commanded him to do.
Rashi says that this refers to his entering the Ark. We note that the phrase, 'he did so,' is not in this verse, as it is in the previous verse. Why?
7:7 And Noach, his sons, his wife, and the wives of his sons went into the ark with him because of the flood waters.
It does not say that he entered the Ark because G-d commanded him to do so.
Rashi provides the following commentary:
Even Noach was of those with small faith. He believed and he didn't believe that there would be a flood. He didn't enter (the Ark) until the flood waters forced him.
Yet, verse 7:5 appears to be praising Noach for entering the Ark. How do we understand this?
7:9 Two, two (of each species of animals) came to Noach into the ark, male and female, just as G-d commanded Noach.
Here, it does not say that Noach did that which G-d commanded him. Rather, it says that it happened like G-d commanded. Why?
The following came to mind.
Although G-d gives us free will to choose how to act, what a person winds up doing and what a person accomplishes is up to G-d. That is, a person may choose to do good, try to do something to accomplish it, but G-d may stop him. In this case, G-d will give the person credit for having done the good act. Conversely, a person may choose to not do good but G-d may force him to do it anyway. In this case, the person may get minimal credit for doing the good act, if at all.
Man has many thoughts, but (only that which decreed by) council of G-d is what stands. (Proverbs 19:12)
Verse 6:22 has the extra phrase at the end, 'he did so.' Noach was commanded to build the Ark, he choose to build it, and he got full credit for doing so.
Verse 7:5 does not have this extra phrase. It just says that Noach did that which G-d commanded him to do. Since he hesitated, he had to be forced to go inside and he wound up doing that which G-d commanded him to do anyway. Perhaps this is why the extra phrase is missing.
Even after toiling for one-hundred-twenty years to build a huge ark as an object lesson to Mankind, when push came to shove, Noach could not fully accept that an all-merciful G-d could bring Himself to destroy the world. This is how we can understand his hesitation.
If Noach didn't enter the ark, one can assume that he didn't bring the animals inside, either. Perhaps this is why verse 7:9 tells us what happened, not that Noach did it. This is, in fact what Rashi says on this verse:
.. (the animals) came to Noach: - By themselves.
Due to Noach's hesitation, the ark had no people or animals inside. G-d then used the flood waters to force Noach inside. Noach was then unable to go around and gather the animals. So, G-d made the animals come inside by themselves, without Noach's assistance.
Man has many thoughts, but (only that which decreed by) council of G-d is what stands. (Proverbs 19:12)
Questions are fine, but one can't afford to let them get in the way of performing G-d's commandment.
7:1 And G-D said to Noach, "Go into the ark, you and your household, for I see you as being righteous in this generation."
7:7 And Noach, his sons, his wife, and the wives of his sons went into the ark with him because of the flood waters.
Rashi provides the commentary that follows.
"… because of the flood waters." Even Noach was of those with undersized faith. He believed that the flood would happen and yet he didn't believe. He therefore did not enter the ark until pressed by the flood waters.
It is remarkable that he and his family had previously invested much time and resources in building the colossal ark and they were publicly scorned and ridiculed for doing so. Yet, he hesitated when G-D commanded him to enter the ark.
It appears to me that Noach was able to justify the personal and emotional expense if the ark was just used as a monument or vehicle of protest against the decadence of his generation. However, he could not come to terms with the benevolent Creator destroying the world because of misbehavior.
In contrast, we find in chapter twenty-two that Avraham (Abraham) did not understand G-D's commandment to bring up his only son on the altar. Yet he did so without hesitation.
One of life's many tasks and tests is to learn how to manage uncertainty and doubt.
7:7 And Noach, his sons, his wife, and the wives of his sons went into the ark with him because of the flood waters.
Rashi provides the following commentary:
"… (And Noach … went into the ark …) because of the flood waters." Even Noach was of among those with undersized faith. He (both) believed and didn't believe that the flood would happen. He (therefore) did not enter the ark until he was forced to do so by the flood waters.
We know that Noach's had faith that the flood would happen because he spent one-hundred-twenty years of his life constructing the ark, during which time he withstood ridicule and threats.
The Be'er Yosef commentary explains that Noach was faulted for not obeying a direct commandment from G-D. He did not believe that the flood would happen because he knew that G-D's is merciful. He also counted on his peer's repentance.
This explains Rashi's statement that that Noach both believed and he didn't believe. Yet Rashi also states that he had undersized faith, which implies that he had something in-between, or partial faith. How do we understand this third state?
The following came to mind.
Perhaps Noach thought that he could stop the flood by not entering the ark. As G-D committed to spare his life, he thought that he could prevent G-D from making the flood so long as he was outside the ark.
Our verse states that Noach eventually entered the ark, but only because the flood waters forced him to do so.
I would not view Noach's entertaining the notion that he could force G-D's Hand as a demonstration of partial faith. Rather, it is more similar to an absence of faith in G-D's Omnipotence.
Perhaps we can take a cue from what we know about the recent Days of Judgment.
We are taught that Heavenly judgment utilizes the notion of a balance scale. If there are more merits then the outcome is favorable. An unfavorable judgment is decreed when there are more demerits.
We are also taught that the weights of merits and demerits are affected by both quantity and quality, or significance.
Therefore, as the outcome of Heavenly judgment depends upon a balance, a single merit can tip the scale.
Perhaps Noach's deficiency in faith was that he did not fully appreciate the significance of the merit that he could have generated by obeying G-D's commandment to enter the ark.
I truly believe that the knowledge of the significance of any of our meritorious acts would profoundly transform our lives.
Did you get this secret?
8:1 And G-D remembered Noach (Noah) and all of the beasts and all of the animals that were with him in the ark. And G-D made a wind pass over the earth and the waters calmed.
The Torah writes that G-D remembered Noach and the animals.
We do not understand this to imply that G-D forgot about Noach and his companions until now. Rather, and so to speak, G-D consciously brought a thought to the forefront that justified and dictated a change in the situation.
The Ramban explains that Noach's righteousness and G-D's covenant with him became relevant at this time in deciding Noach's fate and this became the determining factor for Noach. It was Noach's righteousness and the covenant that are referred to when the Torah writes that G-D remembered Noach.
The Ramban continues and says that unlike Noach, the animals did not earn their being saved because animals have no free will. The only justification for saving the animals was the expression of G-D's will at the time of Creation that there shall be a world that contains animals and this is what became relevant when G-D decided to make the waters subside.
If sufficient justification existed for saving the animals without their deserving to be alive then I derive from this Ramban an inherent value that each and every human being has in just being alive in this world. Just as it was G-D's will that there be a world that has animals and they were saved as a result of this will, so was His will that there should be people in the world.
If merely being alive justifies that the Torah should write that G-D remembered the animals, then how much more so should G-D's protection and attention be directed towards a person who consciously chooses to do good.
In a related thought, the following selection from our Rosh Hashana (musaf) service makes a reference to a verse in the above weekly Torah reading.
"Moreover, You lovingly remembered Noach (Noah) and You recalled him with words of salvation and mercy, when You brought the flood waters to destroy all flesh because of the evil of their deeds. Therefore, his memory comes before You, Hashem our G-D, to increase his offspring like the dust of the world, and his descendents like the sand of the sea. As it is written, 'And G-D remembered Noach, and all the beasts, and all the animals that were together with him in the ark. And G-D made a wind pass over the earth and the waters subsided. (Genesis 8:1)'"
How do we see from our verse that G-D remembered Noach in a loving manner?
The following came to mind.
The flood destroyed both human and animal life. Only humans have free-will and only they are held responsible for their actions. Yet, the animals were also destroyed because they were created for people and without people they lose their significance (Rashi 6:7).
It follows that ascribing significance to animals within the context of their relation to human life is a demonstration of value towards humanity.
The above verse states that G-D remembered both Noach and the animals.
Thus, after destroying the animals because of the massive loss of human life, G-D displayed his love to Noach, and thereby to mankind, by writing explicitly that He remembered the animals together with Noach.
8:20 And Noach built an altar to G-D and he took from all of the ritually acceptable (kosher) animals and birds and he brought sacrifices on the altar.
8:21 And G-D accepted the scent of the (appeasement) offering and G-D said, "I will no longer curse the earth because of man's (misdeeds) because his inner tendency is towards doing evil from his youth. And I will no longer strike all living beings as I have already done."
Later in the Bible we find the majority suffering because of the misdeeds of the minority. The Yehoshua (Joshua) chapter seven is a very good example, where the Jewish people lost in battle and suffered causalities because one person secretly disregarded a ban against taking spoils from their first victory.
The story of Noach (Noah) appears to be a counter-example because every family in mankind except for one was corrupt.
Why wasn't Noach destroyed with the rest of the world?
Also, it appears that Noach's sacrifice moved G-D to state that He will no longer destroy the world because of mankind's misdeeds. What was the particular significance of Noach's sacrifice over many of the other sacrifices that are recorded in the Bible?
The following came to mind.
A saying comes to mind. Love acts as a magnifying glass. The closer people are, the more they expect and the more they are strict with each other.
Noach made accomplishments strides in developing a relationship between G-D and mankind.
The seeds came to fruit in a very unique way through Abraham (Avraham) and the Jewish people when G-D called them "His children."
A person is more strict with his children than with strangers. Therefore while the enhanced relationship brought new opportunities to the Jewish people, it also brought new responsibilities and standards. Therefore, they were held more to account than Noach's generation, including Noach himself.
The commentaries and Medrash give us a glimpse of Noach's greatness from the above verse.
Rashi says the following for verse 20: He [Noach] said, 'G-D must have asked me to take seven pairs from these kinds (of animals and birds) so that I should make an offering with them."
We see from this Rashi that Noach inferred that it was G-D's will to make these offerings. He wasn't commanded to make them. This indicates that he recognized that G-D had a will, that we must pay close attention to what He says, and we must do our best to figure out what He wants. This is no small feat and not everyone does this today.
The Medrash says that Noach built his altar on Mount Moriah, on the same spot that Adam brought his offering and where Avraham would later bring his son for sacrifice.
He probably selected this spot because that was where G-D demonstrated His appeasement to Adam. He therefore wanted to maximize the probability that his offering would also be acceptable to G-D.
It was no small feat for Noach to bring sacrifices to G-D on Mount Moriah from every kind of ritually acceptable animal.
The Torah openly states that the ark landed on Mount Ararat. It is commonly believed that this location is somewhere in Afghanistan. Mount Moriah is the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.
Noach found a pretty desolate world when he left the ark.
Noach needed to move himself and some animals this great distance with no support.
He couldn't leave the animals home and buy a set at his destination because there were no more. He had to take provisions for the trip and back because there were no Burger Kings (Mac-Dovids?) along the way. There were no Holiday Inns for sleeping along the way, no triple-A to call for breakdowns, no cell-phones either.
He trekked by foot (no airlines, trains, or trucks yet) from Afghanistan to Israel with a bunch of cranky animals simply because he thought that G-D would like the sacrifice more if it were brought there.
The Torah records for the rest of mankind this great demonstration of the significance that one man assigned to G-D's will. It provided hope for mankind and a foundation stone for mankind to enhance their relationship with G-D.
Thus, mankind was finally evolving upwards instead of downwards, has they had done in the past.
Therefore:
"I will no longer curse the earth because of man's (misdeeds) because his inner tendency is towards doing evil from his youth. And I will no longer strike all living beings as I have already done."
9:9 Therefore He (G-d) called its name Bavel (Babylon, the place where the Tower of Babel was built) because (it was) there (that) He mixed up the language(s) of all (of the people on) the Earth'
Bavel (Babylon) consists of three letters: Bais, Bais and Lamed. The Hebrew word for mixed up is Balal: Bais, Lamed, and Lamed. Why was the place named Bavel and not Balal?
The following came to mind.
According to our tradition, the people of Bavel were wicked. Their king Nimrod led them in spiritual rebellion against G-d. The tower was intended to become a center for idolatry.
Now, the letter Lamed is also a Hebrew word. It means learning. Perhaps the missing Lamed from Balal is a reference to the Babylonians not taking a lesson from what happened to the people in their recent history who also rebelled against G-d and subsequently suffered misfortune.
So, let's remove a Lamed from Balal.
However, this would give us the word, Bal, Bais and Lamed. How do we get to Bavel, Bais Bais Lamed?
Perhaps the Targum (translation of) Onkolus can be of help. His translation is written in Aramaic, the language of ancient Babylonia. He translates the Hebrew word Balel into the Aramaic word Bilbel. Bilbel is spelled Bais Lamed Bais Lamed. By removing a Lamed from Bilbel we have Bais Bais Lamed, or Bavel.
So, the Babylonians did not need to learn much Hebrew to figure out what hit them and why.
11:3 And each man said to his fellow, "Let us make bricks and make a fire." And the bricks became stones to them and the slime became for them mortar.
11:4 And they said, "Let us build for ourselves a city and a tower with its top into the sky and we will make a name for ourselves, lest we scatter over the face of the earth."
11:5 And G-D came down to see the city and the tower the sons of man built.
11:6 And G-D said, "Behold they are one people and one language for them all and this is what they began to do. And now, nothing will be withheld from them regarding all that they proposed to do."
11:7 "Let us (the Heavenly court) descend there and mix their languages so that each man will not understand the language of his fellow."
The Sefurno commentary explains this episode in the following manner, as reflected by the Oral Torah.
The leaders of that generation wanted all of mankind to commit to idol worship. They began by bringing Nimrod to power. (I assume this was to counter the leadership of Shem son of Noach who opposed idolatry.)
They planned to build mammoth city that would have a colossal tower and its summit would host an idol that would be billed as a god of all gods, all to make a massive impression that would insure mankind's following. As the city would be the world's center of theology, Nimrod's rule of that city would give him power over mankind. (I assume that they planned for the theology to serve the politics and that the politics would serve the theology.)
Mankind's common culture and language served to unite everyone behind the common cause. This was harmful because it would cause them all to stop trying to know G-D and to understand that He is the Creator.
The differences in culture and language that resulted from G-D's action served to create and grow disagreement and diversity. While people were still prone to succumb to idolatry, the new potential for diversity in religion would bring the people of resulting nations to consider that there is a G-D that all gods seek to know, One that completes their order and that of all existence. (Not that theological diversity is good. Rather, universal agreement in the wrong theology is far worse because it would deter people from arriving at the true theology. Also, the hierarchy of gods was by no means the objective theology for Mankind. Rather it was a step in the right direction, one that would lead to the monotheism that Avraham / Abraham realized and taught.)
To me, the above reflects a viewpoint that while Man was created with the ability to have theological failings, Man was also endowed with a tendency to strive towards theological maturity and truth.
The initial harmony provided opportunists with the ability to establish an exclusive theological environment that could replace G-D in the minds and hearts of Mankind. The diversity provided a climate for idol worshipers to question the theology that they were born into, enabling them to grow and to strive towards truth.
11:32 And the days of Terach [father of Avraham / Abraham] were two-hundred-five years. And Terach passed away in (the city of) Charan. [Last verse in Noach]
12:1 And G-D said to Avraham, 'Go (out) for yourself from your land and from your birthplace and from the house of your father (and travel) to a land that I will show you.' [First verse in Lech Lecha]
The text flow suggests that Terach died before G-D appeared to Avraham. However, from 11:26 and 11:32 we know that Avraham was 135 years old when his father passed away. And, from 12:4 we know that Avraham was 75 years old when he left his father's house in Charan. Thus, G-D's appearance to Avraham in 12:1 occurred sixty years before Terach died.
Rashi provides two reasons for Terach's death being recorded before G-D's appearance to Avraham.
In his second reason, Rashi cites the teaching that wicked people who are alive are referred to by the Torah as being dead and that righteous people who are dead are referred to as being alive.
We know that Terach was into idol worship. This suggests to me that Avraham's exit gave Terach his final opportunity to repent and repair his relationship with G-D, for Avraham was Terach's only positive influence and this ceased with the imposed separation.
As he did not repent, Terach was classified as a wicked person and so the Torah records his death with Avraham's exit.
The Ramban commentary notes that Rashi in 15:15 says that Terach repented at the moment of his death. He states that this is not a contradiction because Terach did continue to practice idolatry when Avraham left his home.
The full quote of 15:15 is as follows:
15:15 And you (Avraham) will return to your fathers in peace, you will be buried in good old age.
Rashi brings up the question that Terach was an idol worshiper. If so, then why is G-D promising Avraham that he will go to his father when he dies? Rashi answers that this teaches us that Terach repented.
It is interesting to note that our version of Rashi in 15:15 states that Terach repented. There is no reference to him repenting at the moment of death, as the Ramban writes. He must have had another edition of Rashi's commentary.
The Ramban then presents another approach and says that perhaps Terach never repented and that he actually died as an idol worshiper. Yet, G-D can promise Avraham that he will go to his father, even though the wicked Terach should not be in a neighborhood (or climate) in the next world that is suitable for a righteous person, especially Avraham.
The Ramban explains that in the merit of his great son, Terach will be given an eternity that is fitting for Avarham. This is the lesson of 15:15, that a son can bestow a great eternity on an unworthy parent.
It came to mind that perhaps the Ramban's two approaches revolve around the question of whether a person can have a peaceful eternity without having made any attempt to repent prior to death.
Rabbi Avigdor Miller of blessed memory taught that the spiritual quality of a person is eternally fixated at the moment of his death.
This is how we understand the Talmud in Gittin (55b) where Unkolus, then a perspective convert to Judaism, had a communication with his dead uncle Titus. He asked Titus for the status of the Jewish people in the next world and received a very positive report. He then sought advice on whether he should convert and Titus said no. Instead, Titus advised him to oppress the Jewish people. Unkolus then asked Titus how he was being treated in the next world and got an extremely upsetting picture.
Fortunately for Unkolus, he did convert and he excelled to such a degree that his record of the Torah translation into Aramaic is used to this day.
Still, how could Titus advise his nephew to oppress the Jewish people while at the same he confesses that he is being eternally tormented for doing so himself?
Rabbi Miller explains that Titus died as an anti-Semite and this was how he was fixated. And of course, he was quite frustrated because up there (actually down there), anti-Semites have no resources to do mischief and the only thing they have in 'life' is to suffer for what they did before they died.
Getting back to Terach, the Ramban's two approaches may then revolve around whether the merit of a son can undo or perhaps override a parent's fixation.
Perhaps the first approach takes on the assumption that it can't so this is why we must say that Terach repented. And, perhaps the second approach assumes that it can so this is why we can say that Terach died as an idol worshiper.
If our understanding of the first approach is correct, we need to reconcile this other teachings which state that children can elevate and even save their parents who have passsed onto the next world.
One approach to reconciliation is that there is a limit to the extent that children can help. Perhaps Terach was too heavily committed to idolatry to be helped by his son Avraham. Or perhaps, this mechanism was put into effect after the Giving of the Torah when there was a Jewish people and it was possible for someone to start out with an initial share in the world to come.
12:1 And G-D said to Avram (Abraham), "Go for yourself from your land, from your birthplace, and from our father's house to the land that I will show you."
12:2 "And I will make you into a great nation …"
Rashi says that Avram was given a blessing for having children because he was asked to move, which can disrupt family life.
Avram and Sarai did not have children during their relocation. Instead, Hagar gave birth to Avram's first child some thirteen years after the move, long after he had settled in the Land of Canaan. Sarai gave birth to Yitzchak thirty years after his departure.
How was this special blessing applied to his family life?
The following came to mind.
The message behind the blessing is that Avram's new journey will be more than physical relocation. It was his venture into the field of outreach, which can be both very rewarding and very demanding.
Avram reached out to men and Sarai did the same with women. It is in their merit that the Jewish people exist today, who seek to follow in their footsteps.
12:1 And G-d said to Avram (Abraham), 'For yourself, go forth from your land, from your place of birth, and from your father's home (and travel) to the land that I will (later) reveal to you.'
Rashi provides the following commentary on the phrase, 'that I will (later) reveal to you:'
G-d did not divulge the land at that time in order to make it cherished in Avram's eyes. Also, G-d spoke in this (wordy) manner to give Avram reward for fulfilling every word. (That is, G-d could have said, 'travel to the Land of Canaan,' instead of saying 'travel to the land that I will later reveal to you. When Avram later fulfilled this commandment, the additional words increased his reward.)
Similarly, (when G-d commanded Avraham to sacrifice Yitzchak - Isaac, it says [22:2] 'Please take) your son, your only one, that you love, Yitzchak (and go for yourself to the land of Moriah')
Similarly, it says (in this same verse 'and bring him up there as a sacrifice) on one of the mountains that I will (later) reveal to you.'
Similarly, (Yona - Jonah:3:1 'And the word of G-d came to Yonah a second time, saying. [3:2] Arise and go forth to the great city of Ninveh) and furnish it with the prophecy that I am telling you.' (The first time G-d spoke to Yonah, He just said, [Yonah 1:2] 'Arise and go forth to the great city of Ninveh and furnish it with a prophecy.')
Why does Rashi need to provide three references? In what way do they differ from one another? What is each one teaching us? Why does Rashi split up verse 22:2 and count it as two references?
The following came to mind.
G-d's commandment to leave the homeland is counted as one of the ten tests by which Avram was tested.
The story of Yitzchak's near sacrifice on Mount Moriah is Avraham's final test.
The verse from Yonah is second time G-d commanded Yonah to furnish the prophecy in Ninveh. You may recall that Yonah fled when G-d first asked him to prophesize. After his ordeal with the fish, Yonah was accepted the mission without contest.
Again, Rashi says that G-d did not divulge the land at that time in order to make it cherished in Avram's eyes.
The Sifsei Chachamim's commentary on Rashi references the following Mizrachi commentary.
By saying, 'go forth from your land, from your place of birth, and from your father's home,' G-d sought to make the land that Avram was leaving become cherished in his eyes. This increased the test and Avram's reward for passing it.
Similarly, by asking Avraham to take 'your son, your only one, that you love, Yitzchak,' G-d was increasing that test.
So, our verse discusses two places, the place of departure and the destination. We now have reasons to make both places cherished. The place of departure was made cherished in order to increase Avram's test and subsequent reward. The destination was not immediately revealed and Avram was kept in suspense in order so that the Promised Land would be more cherished in his eyes.
We now understand the need for Rashi's first reference. It addresses the test.
Recall that Rashi said, 'G-d spoke in this (wordy) manner to give Avram reward for fulfilling every word.'
Imagine that a blue book is laying on a table before you. Imagine that you hear the following heavenly voice: 'Pick up that book.' This is a four-word commandment. Now imagine another heavenly voice: 'Pick up that blue book.' This is a five-word commandment. Rashi is apparently telling us that one gets more reward by fulfilling the second commandment.
Now, by the calling to sacrifice Yitzchak, at first glance it seems difficult to say that G-d withheld the exact location in order to make it cherished in Avraham's eyes. Rather, the extra words were to increase Avraham's reward.
Actually, our blue-book example is not fully congruous to the near sacrifice of Yitzchak. While both cases involve a commandment from G-d, picking up a book involves no test. Rashi's second example suggests that a person who is being tested will receive a greater reward if the test is made with more words. This is similar to our verse, where Avram is also being tested.
We thus can understand why Rashi split up verse 22:2 and counted it as two references. Each addresses a different aspect.
The third example from Yonah extends Rashi's second lesson further and addresses the blue-book example. After being swallowed up by a fish for refusing to prophesize, there was no longer a test for whether Yonah would go or not. So, Rashi is telling us that the extra words would have increased Avram's reward, even if he was not under test.
In closing, recall that we said that at first glance it seems difficult to say that G-d withheld the exact location of Yitzchak's sacrifice in order to make it cherished in Avraham's eyes. Perhaps, Avraham's love of G-d surpassed the natural love for his son to the extent that it was possible to make the place of sacrifice cherished.
12:1 And G-d said to Avram (Abraham), 'Go for yourself from your land, from your birthplace, and from the house of your father to a land that I will show you.'
12:2 'And I will make you into a great nation, I will bless you, I will make your name great, and you will become blessed.'
12:3 'And I will bless those who bless you and those who curse I will curse. And all the families of the earth will become blessed because of you.'
Rashi provides the following commentary for 12:1
'Go for yourself:' For your benefit and pleasure. And there I will make you into a great nation, for you will not be fortunate to have children if you live here. Furthermore, I will make your (good) character known in the (civilized) world (if you make this move).
Rashi provides the following commentary for 12:2
'And I will make you into a great nation:' Because the process of relocation causes three things: It reduces opportunities for procreation, it is financially draining, and it causes a decrease in status. Therefore, Avram needed these three blessings: He was promised (by G-d to have) children, wealth, and status.
'And I will bless you:' With money.
For Avram's benefit and pleasure, Rashi lists two things in 12:1: Children and Avram's character becoming known. In the very next verse, Rashi explains that Avram will have three benefits from the move: Having children, becoming wealthy, and obtaining status. Why is there a difference between these two lists of advantages? What is Rashi trying to tell us?
The following came to mind.
While both verses list advantages, only the first verse explicitly describes its list as being for Avram's benefit and pleasure.
Children and having good character traits known to one's peers are great benefits.
Children are one of G-d's greatest gifts.
People who became aware of Avram and Sarai's legendary hospitality and kindness were inspired to follow their fine example, which only served to raise the quality of life that surrounded Avram and Sarai.
For Avram and his wife Sarai, only having children and making their good character traits known were their source of true pleasure. This is because they were focused on influencing others to commit themselves to G-d.
With proper training, children will perpetuate the fine example of their parents.
Verse 12:5 says that when Avram moved, people that he and Sarai 'made' in the city of Charan came along.
Rashi provides the following commentary:
'That they made in Charan:' Who they brought under the 'wings of Divine Presence.' Avraham converted the men and Sarah converted the women. Thus, the scripture give them credit as though they (actually) made them'
Perpetuation and inspiring others was Avram and Sarai's only true source of pleasure. For such great people, wealth and status were comparatively meaningless.
12:2 And I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you and I will make your name great. And you will be a blessing.
Rabbi Yuden says the following commentary in the Medrash Rabah on the phrase, 'And you will be a blessing:' "I (G-D) am establishing a blessing for you in the eighteen (blessings of the Jewish people's prayer service) but you will not know whether My blessing will be said first or whether yours will be said first."
Rabbi Achviah adds the following in the name of Rabbi Zeira, "Your (blessing) will come before Mine" as the first blessing is (Blessed are You, Oh G-D) Magen Avraham [Shield of Abraham] and the second blessing is (Blessed are You, Oh G-D) Who revives the dead.
The structure of our prayer service was established some twenty-three-hundred years ago by the Men of the Great Assembly.
Having Avraham's blessing placed before that of G-D's appears to be contradictory to that which Avraham himself lived and taught which is that G-D is supreme. How do we understand this Medrash? What is the Torah trying to tell us by saying that Avraham will be a blessing?
The following came to mind.
Placing Avraham's blessing first is not an indication of his importance over that which is mentioned afterwards, G-D forbid. Rather, it may be understood as providing a preface to the prayers that follow.
Mankind is the centerpiece of a Creation that emanated from G-D's will. Alternately, among all physical and spiritual creations, Mankind's significance is supreme. But as significant as Man is, it is G-D and His will that are paramount. Alternately again, Man has no significance with respect to G-D and it is G-D's will that provides significance (not to mention existence) to Man.
These ideas can challenge the notion of prayer, for how can a lowly and relatively insignificant creation have any hope of making a request or even having a relationship with the Greatest of all beings?
An answer is that since Creation emanated from G-D's will, the more a person lives in a manner that demonstrates that G-D's will is supreme, the greater is that person's justification for making a request from G-D.
Avraham is our model of the supremacy of G-D's will. He was therefore a person of great prayer.
Since it may take quite a while for us to develop into an Avraham (and most of us, if not all, will probably not make it that far), how can we pray in the meantime without feeling totally inadequate and discouraged? An answer is by associating and referencing ourselves with Avraham in our prayers. By approaching G-D a descendant of Avraham and by declaring that Avraham is our role model, we add credence and legitimacy to the prayers that follow.
Perhaps this is the meaning of Avraham's becoming a blessing, that future generations will enhance the effectiveness of their prayers by referencing themselves through Avraham's great relationship with G-D.
12:12 And it will be that when they will see you they will kill me and they will let you live.
Avraham (Abraham) is asking his wife Sarah to tell the Egyptians that she is his sister. He says that two things will happen if the Egyptians think that she is his wife: they will kill him and they will let her live.
Now, since the Egyptians want to free Sarah up for Pharaoh, it is obvious that they will let her live. The Be'er Yosef commentary therefore asks why this second statement, that she would live, would help persuade Sarah to say that she is Avraham's sister.
We are taught that human life takes precedence over Torah observance for all but three commandments: Idolatry, incest, and murder. So, for example, if one is threatened to do something that would kill another person then he must refuse, even at the cost of his life.
The Be'er Yosef commentary takes the position that Jewish law would not allow a single woman to let herself be killed to avoid being involuntary violated. This is partially because it is the male that does the action during the violation. However, he rules that a married woman would be permitted to let herself be killed this situation. (He does not say that she is required to do so and other authorities rule differently.)
This being said, Avraham's death would preclude Sarah from refusing to consent to the forced marriage with Pharaoh, for she would no longer be a married woman and she would be required do whatever is necessary avoid risking her life.
Avraham knew that if his pure and righteous wife would be given the choice of being queen or being killed for refusing to marry Pharaoh that she would prefer death.
Thus, he was telling her that his death would also condemn her to a meaningless and spiritually non-productive life, despite the title, power, and wealth that results from being Queen of Egypt.
Sarah concurred.
14:21 And the king of Sedom said to Avram (Abraham), "Give me the souls and take the belongings for yourself."
14:22 And Avraham said to the king of Sedom, "I raise my hands (in an oath) to G-D, the Acquirer of heaven and earth.
14:23 That I will not take anything that is yours, from a thread to a shoelace, so that you will not (be able to) say, "I made Avram wealthy."
Why is Avraham referencing G-D as the One who acquires the heaven and earth and not the One who created them? Why is this reference written in the present tense?
The Talmud (Chulin 88b-89a) says the following about this interchange between Avraham and the king of Sedom:
Rava said, "As a reward for Avraham saying, 'From a thread to a shoelace,' his children merited having two commandments, the royal blue thread of the talis/tzitzis and the strap of the tefilin."
Rashi notes that Avraham didn't want the king's property because he did not want to derive benefit from stolen goods.
Where do we see that the king of Sedom was a thief? Was this common knowledge during Avraham's time?
The Talmud continues and states some benefits that result from these two commandments.
The wearer of tefilin is able to project an aura of great dignity, majesty, and a resulting awe.
Regarding the talis, the Talmud cites a teaching of Rabbi Meir that the royal blue color of its techeles thread (which is no longer available today) is similar to the color of the sea, which in turn is similar to the sky, which is similar to sapphire, which is similar to G-D's Heavenly Throne.
How do we benefit from the latter chain of associations?
The following came to mind:
Perhaps the king of Sedom was not a thief and all of his property was legally his. Nevertheless, Avraham did not want to have anything to do with it because of his aversion to stolen property.
I can understand this with a teaching of Rabbi Moshe Feinstein of blessed memory. He taught that the act of theft demonstrates a gap or a weakness in a person's attitude towards G-D.
We are taught that G-D didn't just create the world and walk away from it. Rather, G-D assumed full responsibility for providing everyone's needs and He actively manages the world to assure that everyone's needs are cared for. We are also taught that G-D tasked everyone to take action towards obtaining needs and that He provided guidelines within which we can act through, providing an opportunity for testing for compliance. Finally, we are taught that success is up to G-D, not through our actions. So, it is quite possible for a person to take one set of actions to obtain his needs, the person can fail, but yet the person will obtain his needs anyway because of G-D's role as the Provider of Mankind.
Unfortunately, every human being does not fully operate within this framework. An example of one such person is the thief. By taking action outside of the behavioral guidelines that G-D set for mankind, he/she demonstrates a weakness or a gap in trust that G-D will provides for the needs of every person. (Or it may demonstrate an inappropriate appetite.)
While the king of Sedom may not have been a thief, he appeared to operate in a theological context that is similar to the thief, for he did not recognize G-D's interactive and supportive role with mankind.
In contrast to the king of Sedom who disconnected G-D with humanity, Avraham was steadfast in his belief that we are all deeply connected. Perhaps this explains why he referenced G-D as the Acquirer of the heaven and earth and in the present tense, for G-D's connection is always active and current and His sustenance is a great means of acquisition.
In the light that Avraham stood for G-D's connection with humanity we can now better see a relationship to his statement and the resulting reward for his children.
We are taught that G-D Himself wears a type of tefilin. So our donning these adornments provides us with a visible connection to G-D, reminding us of His Existence and Nobility.
Through the teaching of Rabbi Meir we see how our very clothing can provide a visual cue and connection to G-D's heavenly throne.
So, in the merit of Avraham's great sacrifice to demonstrate his belief in G-D's connection with our lives and the world, G-D gave commandments to his children to help them strengthen their personal awareness of these great truths.
As an aside, I'd like to share a story that is said about the Gaon of Vilna and the majesty of tefilin.
This great rabbi of two centuries ago was once traveling and was given the very best room of an inn. During his stay, a nobleman sought residence and became infuriated that the best room was given to some Jew. He pushed the innkeeper aside, who was also Jewish, and he stormed up to the room to give the occupant a piece of his mind. He burst open the door, took one look at the Gaon, and fled the inn with great terror and fear.
The innkeeper was absolutely dazed. What did the nobleman see and what caused his terror? He went to the room and found the Gaon wearing tefilin and studying Torah. The Gaon looked up and saw the astonishment on the innkeeper's face. He explained (as usual) that the Torah can provide a full explanation for what had just occurred.
It states in Deuteronomy 28:10, "And the nations of the earth will see that the Name of G-D is called upon you and they will fear you." The Oral Torah (Menachos 35b) provides an explanation in the name of Rabbi Eliezer the Great that this refers to the 'tefilin shebarosh.'
The innkeeper took this to mean that the reference was to the tefilin that we wear on our head and therefore requested from the Gaon a further clarification. "Rebbie, I also wear tefilin. This nobleman has seen me in the past while I was wearing them and he never fled my presence."
Thereupon (I can just imagine a twinkle in his eye), the Gaon instructed him to take a closer look at the words of the Talmud (as usual). Had the Talmud written, 'tefilin shel rosh,' which translates to "tefilin that are *on* the head" then the innkeeper's question would be valid. However, the Talmud states, 'tefilin shebarosh' which strictly translates to "tefilin that are *in* the head."
So, while the innkeeper exhibited piety and compliance by placing tefilin *on* his head every day, the Gaon of Vilna's spiritual development brought him to bring the message and sanctity of the tefilin *into* his head, thereby meriting the great aura that projected great fear and terror into the heart of the thug who broke into his hotel room.
15:1 The word of G-D was (spoken) to Avram (Abraham) after these matters in a vision of the night saying, "Fear not Avram (for) I [Anochi] am a shield for you. Your reward is very great."
15:2 And Avram said, "Hashem - G-D, what will you give me (if) I [Anochi] (continue to) go childless and the steward of my household is Eliezer (from) Dameshek?"
15:3 And Avram said, "Behold you gave me no children and behold one of my household is inheriting me."
Why does Avraham mention twice that G-D has yet to give him children?
The following came to mind.
Consider these verses:
Exodus 4:22 "Yisroel (Israel) is My first-born child," so says G-D.
Deuteronomy 14:1 You (Israel) are children to G-D …
The concept of the Jewish people being referenced as G-D's children is clearly one of the most overlooked and misunderstood concepts in the works of non-Jewish Bible scholars.
In the Bible, two words refer to the first person, I. They are 'ani' and 'anochi.'
In 15:1, G-D refers to Himself with the word 'Anochi.' Avraham uses this same expression in his first statement about being childless.
Perhaps Avraham in 15:2 is not speaking about himself being childless. Perhaps the first reference to being childless is not a request for Avraham to have children. Rather, perhaps it is a request towards G-D Himself, that He adopt and refer to a people as His children.
This is truly a sobering and an awesome concept.
By making this statement, G-D has committed Himself to share in the happiness and success of the Jewish people. At the same time, G-D has committed to put up our foibles and pranks, just like a parent does. His acts of anger are external, just like a parent's.
The following is an interpretation of another verse. While I have yet to find any open support for this interpretation in our writings, I believe that it is a valid interpretation.
When G-D first revealed Himself to Moshe (Moses), he said the following:
Exodus 3:6 And He said, "I [Anochi] am the G-D of your fathers, the G-D of Avraham, the G-D of Yitzchak (Isaac), and the G-D of Yaakov (Jacob) …"
Exodus 3:11 And Moshe said to G-D, "Who am I ( literally: Who is Anochi) that I should go to Pharaoh and that I should take the Children of Israel from Egypt?"
Exodus 3:12 And He said, "For I will be with you. And this for you a sign that I (Anochi) sent you. You will worship G-D (E-lohim) on this mountain (of Sinai) when you take this nation from Egypt."
How is the sign of 3:12 of relevance to Moshe's request in 3:11? It appears that Moshe wanted a sign that he would succeed in taking the Children of Israel out of Egypt. The Sinai experience happened after the Exodus.
What made Moshe question the success of the mission that G-D assigned? It is absurd to consider that the miracles of the Exodus were more difficult to G-D than the creation of the universe.
The following came to mind.
Consider the following verses:
Exodus 22:19 He who slaughters (sacrifices) to Elohim (the gods) shall be destroyed. (Do this) only to Hashem.
Exodus 32:7 And Hashem said to Moshe, "Go down (from this Mount Sinai) for your nation that you took out of Egypt has become corrupted."
Exodus 32:8 "They turned away quickly from the way that I commanded them. They made for themselves a molten calf. And they bowed down to it. And they slaughtered to it. And they said, 'These, O Israel, are your gods (Elohecha - same root as Elohim in 22:19) who took you out from Egypt.'"
The standard interpretation of 3:12 is that the sign that G-d gave for Moshe is that the Jewish people will worship Him at Mount Sinai.
As stated above, it is difficult to see how this signals to Moshe that he will succeed in taking the Jewish people out of Egypt since this occurred afterwards.
However, perhaps Moshe wasn't asking for a sign that the Exodus will succeed. Rather, perhaps he sought a sign that the mission of Jewish people will succeed, that G-D's plans and goals will be achieved.
Perhaps the sign of worship in 3:12 is not just about worship to G-D. Rather, perhaps it's also a reference to that of the Golden Calf. In this light, this becomes a revelation of the extent that the concept of Anochi can go. That is, G-D's response to Moshe is that He is taking the Jewish people out of Egypt in spite of His foreknowledge that this same people will be responsible for worshipping a Golden Calf a mere 40 days after their receiving the Torah, the purpose and climax of the Exodus process.
Our worship of the Golden Calf has got to be the world's greatest bungle. It is an historical watershed in many ways. While many are negative, one is clearly positive. It is inconceivable for us to mess up any more than that. If G-D took us out of Egypt with this foreknowledge and if G-D subsequently forgave us, then we've got to survive history and G-D's goals and plan will definitely succeed, someday.
The response for Moshe's request for a sign is now understood in this light.
A father will do everything in his power to see that his child will succeed.
We owe this all to our forefather Avraham
15:1 The word of G-D came to Avram in a vision of the night after these things (occurred) saying, "Do not fear Avram. I am your shield. Your reward is very great."
15:2 And Avram said, "Oh G-D, what will you give me and I (still) go childless. And the one who feeds those in my house is Eliezer from Damascus."
15:3 And Avram said, "Behold, to me you did not give children and behold someone from my household will inherit me."
The Targum Yonoson Ben Eliezer explains why G-D came to Avraham in 15:1 at this time, right after his war with the four kings.
Avram said to himself, "Woe is to me. Perhaps (the victory caused) me to receive the reward of my observance of (G-D's) commandments in this world and I have no share in the next world. Or perhaps the relatives of those who were killed will organize into legions and will attack me. Or perhaps I will have some reward (left) and (it will cause) them to fall before me but in another confrontation I will have exhausted my reward (and I will lose), causing the Name (i.e. the reputation) of G-D to be profaned.
And so, the word of G-D came to Avram in a vision saying, "Fear not. Even if their mighty soldiers organize into legions and attack you, My word will make you victorious. And even though they are falling before you in this world, the great reward of your good deeds are preserved before Me in the next world.
According to the Targum, Avraham was worried about his afterlife and also about causing G-D's name to be profaned.
How then do we understand the next two verses? Why is Avraham bringing up the fact that he is childless. How does it relate to his initial concerns?
The following came to mind.
The Orach Hachayim commentary provides the following insight.
He asks the following questions:
How could Avraham bring up the fact that he was childless at this time if G-D had already promised him that he will have children. In 12:16 it states, "And I will make your seed like the dust of the Earth." Surely, Avraham would not complain that G-D is not fulfilling His commitment in a timely manner.
Also 15:3 says, "Behold, to me you did not give children." It sounds more correct to write, "Behold, you did not give me children."
(To understand the above,) the intent of the scriptures is (as follows). The promise (of G-D) was for children who were to be like the dust of the earth. People who are described in this manner are typically lowly and scorned, with no connection to holiness.
Thus, Avraham said "to me you did not give children," meaning that the future offspring will not match who I am. That is, they will not be "to me."
And so, G-D responded in 15:8 by telling Avraham to "count the stars" and "you children will be like this."
This sheds light on the projected similarity of his children to the dust of the earth. We now focus on the positive aspects of earth, such as its ability to overpower (i.e. oxidize) metal utensils.
We now have an answer to our first question. Avraham wasn't questioning when and whether G-D would give him children. Rather, he was questioning the quality of his future offspring.
On the surface, the Orach Hachayim's approach answers the questions that were posed but it also raises others. If Avraham is questioning the quality of the offspring that G-D promised him then this transforms his question into a complaint, which is what we were avoiding in the first place.
Perhaps the Orach Hachayim can be understood within the context of the Targum that we cited above.
Avraham's focus in life was to elevate G-D's reputation and this is evident from the Targum.
Since he was public known as a person of G-D, if all of his offspring turned out to be animalistic then this would not reflect well on how other people viewed G-D's management of the affairs of mankind. Avraham's questioning of the quality of his offspring came from his sincere and lofty motives, which was to protect G'D's reputation in the eyes of his fellow man.
With a new understanding of the Orach Hachayim we now have an answer to our initial queston.
Avraham is not bringing up the fact that he is childless. Rather, his question directly relates to his initial concerns of G-D's reputation within this world and he is trying to insure that his offspring would be fitting for someone who was closely linked by his peers to G-D Himself.
15:7 And He said to him [Avraham / Abraham], "I am G-D who took you out from Ur Kasdim to give you this land to inherit it."
15:8 And he [Avraham] said, "Oh G-D A-lmighty, how will I know that I will inherit it?"
Avraham appears to be asking for a verification that he will inherit the land. He does not appear to be concerned with whether or not he will actually receive the land. Why?
From a surface reading of the Scriptures it doesn't appear that Avraham ever got this land. How could it be that G-D makes a solemn covenant to give something to a person and this is not fulfilled?
It appears that G-D is promising two things, that Avraham will receive the land and that he will inherit it. Or, it could be that this is really one thing, that Avraham will receive the land as an inheritance. What is the significance of this inheritance?
The following came to mind.
Possession through gifting is very different from possession through inheritance.
If all we have to say it that "This Land Is Mine, G-D Gave It To Me" then we have no eternal basis for ownership and Palestine is up for grabs each and every day. G-D gave the Jewish people the Promised Land some three-thousand years ago. However, He also let others take it away from us some two-thousand years ago. And, He gave it back and then He took it away, and today some of us are clinging to some parts of this land but we have no guarantee what tomorrow will bring.
I submit that this 'arrangement' is NOT what G-D promised Avraham.
Rather, G-D promised that Avraham will *inherit* the land. And this is very significant. By receiving the land through inheritance, Avraham enabled his offspring (who inherited him) to do the same.
Therefore, when the Babylonians and Romans seized the land, they only affected our ability to live there, not our claims to ownership.
This explains why Avraham's focus was only on the inheritance. It explains why he never got the land because his legal rights as they were defined by the government in power at the time were of little significance. Rather, the focus was on his legal status with the land by the Government of all governments, G-D Himself. G-D fulfilled His promise. In the eyes of the Heavenly legal system, Avraham got the land through inheritance.
I hope that you do not view this arrangement as mere legal trick to insure that the Jewish people will always have a basis for claiming the land. G-D forbid. Rather, it is the key to our being able to live there, all of us and forever.
Linking ownership to inheritance through Avraham will now insure that the Jewish people (and the rest of the world) will keep thinking about Avraham.
They will now say, "What on earth did Avraham *DO* that warranted such favor from G-D? Look at how it paid off. Perhaps we should study what we know about this person. Perhaps we can do better and behave more like an Avraham."
I'm sure that if we all pull together and focus on the true source of our ownership, which may require some changes in attitudes and behavior, that we will all indeed live there, in peace and in the best of relations with the rest of mankind.
15:15 [G-d is speaking to Avraham - Abraham] 'And you [Avraham] will go to your fathers in peace, you will be buried in good old age.'
Avraham's father was Terach, an idolater. We say this every year during our Pesach (Passover) seder:
'Your ancestors lived on the other side of the river, of old, Terach the father of Avraham and Nachor, and they worshipped other gods.'
Upon his passing, one would certainly not expect the saintly Avraham to move into the same neighborhood/department where idolaters go!
Rashi addresses this:
His (Avraham's) father was an idolater and He (G-d) declares that he will go to him. This teaches you that Terach did Teshuva (i.e. he repented).
Now, Avraham is the spiritual foundation stone for all of Jewry and for all of Mankind. Would it even be possible for us in our current existence to imagine the greatness and happiness of the afterlife, I'm certain that we would be unable to even imagine how to imagine that of Avraham's.
It is difficult to understand how Avraham would be given a place in the afterlife near his father. If anything, it would be a great privilege for Terach to be let in once in a while to where Avraham is situated in order to pay him a visit.
The following came to mind.
Terach was a Baal Teshuva, one who repented from evil. We know the following from the Talmud (Brachos 34b):
'Rav Abahu said, 'A purely righteous person (- one who did not sin, does not have enough status in the next world) to stand in the place where those who (sinned but who also) did Teshuva (are permitted to be.)
[Note: This is NOT a directive to do sins in order to repent! The Talmud also says that one who sins with the intention to repent is not given the ability to repent.]
From this teaching alone, one may be tempted to say that Terach was in fact greater than Avraham because he did Teshuva.
However, the Torah mentions Avraham's family relationship with Terach. If being a Baal Teshuva from idolatry is sufficient to make a person in the next world as great as Avraham, then G-d should have told Avraham, 'You will go to the place where those who did Teshuva from idolatry go.'
Apparently, Terach had another thing going for himself, too.
The Mishna (Sanhedrin 90) lists people who have no share in the next world. Many made the list because of their extreme wickedness.
The Talmud (Sanhedrin 104a) notes that some people are missing.
'Why is Amnon (the wicked King of Judea) not listed? Because of the esteem of (his righteous son) Yoshiahu. (If so,) Menasheh (who made the list) should not be (on it) because of the esteem of (his righteous father) Chizkiyahu (Hezekiah). (Answers the Talmud: ) A son can provide merit for a father but a father can not provide merit for a son. (The fact that a father can not help a son is reflected in the following teaching on the verse, ) 'No one can save from My (G-d's) hand (Deuteronomy 32)' (We learn from here that) Avraham can not save Yishmael (Ishmael), and Yitzchak (Isaac) can not save Aisav (Essau).'
So apparently, Terach had two wonderful things. First, he had a terrific (understatement) son. However, from this alone the Talmud seems to be saying that Terach would have only been saved from the unfortunate fate in the next world of an idolator. We may not be able to derive that he would have been in Avraham's neighborhood-to-come.
However, Terach also did Teshuva and we already know how great that is.
Perhaps this is what the Torah is trying to tell us.
So, let's all get busy doing Teshuva and having righteous children.
16:2 And Sarai said to Avram (Abraham), "Behold G-D withheld me from giving birth. Please come to my maidservant, perhaps I can become built through her." And Avram listened to the voice of Sarai.
16:4 And he (Avram) came to Hagar and she became pregnant. And she saw that she became pregnant and her mistress (Sarai) became cheapened in her eyes (because Sarai failed to conceive from Avraham).
16:5 And Sarai said to Avram, "You are responsible for my shame ..."
The Seforno commentary explains that Sarai was disappointed that Avram did not sufficiently protest when Hagar belittled Sarai.
Avram subsequently consented to Sarai's afflicting Hagar to clarify the point that while Hagar was married to Avram, she was still Sarai's maidservant.
Sarai's affliction drove Hagar to escape into the desert where she had an encounter with an angel who encouraged her return and bear the affliction. By returning to Avram's home she would soon afterward bear a child who would become the founder of a great nation.
16:13 And she called the Name of G-D that spoke to her, "You are G-D who sees" for she said, "Could it be that I saw here (such a vision) after I had already seen so (in Avram's home.)
The Sefurno explains that she praised G-D for showing consideration for her hurt feelings even though she was in such a remote place, outside the walls of Avram and Sarai's great home.
This Sefurno tells me that the pain that Sarai inflicted on Hagar was of a corrective nature, not one of being vindictive.
As much as Sarai wanted Avram to have a child, even if meant bringing another woman into the home, it was unacceptable for the circumstances surrounding the birth of this child to include the humiliation of another person.
It was only after Hagar realized the significance that G-D places on a person's hurt feelings that she became worthy of becoming a mother to Avram's child.
18:1 And G-D appeared to him [Avraham / Abraham] in Alonei Mamre and he was sitting by the opening of the tent as the day grew hot.
18:2 And he lifted up his eyes and he saw. And behold there are three men standing across him. And he saw (this) and he ran towards them from the opening of the tent and he bowed to the ground (to greet them and provide them with hospitality).
18:3 And he said, "Please, Oh G-D, if I have found favor in your eyes then please do not pass away from your servant."
This happened after Avraham's circumcision, while he was recovering. Our sages tell us that G-D appeared to Avraham in accordance with the practice of visiting the sick. Avraham begged G-D's pardon and interrupted the Divine encounter so that he could provide hospitality to the three men, whom he didn't even know.
Avraham was never faulted for the disruption. In fact, G-D picked up the conversation in verse 20, after the guests were fed and sent on their way.
Rabbi Yehudah says in the name of Rav that Avraham's behavior teaches us that receiving guests is greater than receiving G-D's presence.
The Be'er Yosef commentary questions whether receiving G-D's presence is associated with the fulfillment of any commandment.
If it does fulfill a commandment then Avraham's behavior appears inconsistent with a Torah rule that one is not permitted to interrupt the fulfillment of one commandment in order to fulfill another commandment, even if the second commandment is of greater importance, such as receiving guests. Following this rule, Avraham would not have been permitted to interrupt his encounter with G-D.
We must therefore say that no Divine commandment is associated with receiving G-D's presence.
If so, then we have no proof that greeting guests is of greater significance or priority over any other commandment.
Rather, Rav Yehudah's teaching that receiving guests is greater than receiving G-D's presence must be referring to honor and related behaviors.
Avraham had a conflict between greeting G-D and greeting guests.
If one was privileged to have an audience with a mortal king, it would be hard to justify interrupting the encounter to greet a set of ordinary guests for this would slight the honor that is due the king.
Rav Yehudah derives from Avraham's behavior that this does not apply to a Divine encounter and greeting guests justifies an interruption.
I understand this in the following manner.
We are taught that the underlying purpose of the Creation to provide G-D a way to bestow the greatest possible pleasure upon His creations, for it is fitting for that which is good to bestow good.
We are on this earth is to perform acts that can later justify G-D's bestowing upon us this goodness.
The principle that our existence is founded on providing loving kindness to G-D's creations drove Avraham's decision to interrupt his awesome encounter with G-D in order to take in some guests.
To Avraham, greeting guests was a far greater way to honor G-D than ignoring them at that moment, for doing so addressed G-D's will and the purpose of Creation.
The Be'er Yosef also notes the Ramban commentary that Avraham's Divine encounter was a reward for his decision to circumcise. Such an encounter brings with it one of the greatest and meaningful pleasures that a human being can experience.
Avraham did not hesitate interrupting the experience so that he could run out in the heat of the day and care for some perfect strangers, despite the discomfort of his illness.
18:1 And G-D appeared to him [Avraham / Abraham] in Alonei Mamre and he was sitting by the opening of the tent as the day grew hot.
Rashi explains that G-D was paying Avraham a visit because he was ill from the circumcision. Rabbi Chana son of Chanina explains that it was the third day since the procedure was done (Talmud Bava Metziah 86b).
We know from the story of Chamor (34:25) that the third day from circumcision is the most painful.
Why did G-D wait until the third day to make this visit? Why didn’t G-D heal Avraham immediately so that he would not have to endure the pain for three days?
The following came to mind.
A story is told of a youth who took his studies seriously and decided to become religious. His parents were not religious and were outraged over his decision to the degree that his mother slapped him for observing a commandment.
The youth bemoaned his plight to his mentor. In response, the mentor offered several hundred dollars to purchase the reward in the next word that the youth would receive for the slap.
The youth thought about it for a moment and decided to keep the slap for himself.
Similarly, had G-D healed Avraham immediately then I suggest that Avraham would have felt distress for not having had the opportunity to demonstrate his love towards G-D by experiencing some discomfort that naturally comes from fulfilling His commandment. I submit that the distress that this great person would have felt would have been more than the three days of discomfort that he felt and this is why G-D waited before paying the visit.
18:2 And he lifted up his eyes and he saw. And behold there are three men standing across him. And he saw (this) and he ran towards them from the opening of the tent and he bowed to the ground (to greet them and provide them with hospitality).
Avaham's guests were quite unusual and were no ordinary people.
Rashi 18:1 says the following:
Avraham dedicated his life and assets to hospitality. He had recently undergone circumcision and was recovering from the surgery. G-d did not want to bother him with taking care of guests. G-d therefore made the sun shine so intensely that it discouraged people from traveling. Although Avraham had no guests, he was not relieved. Due to his greatness, the lack of guests caused him more distress than his illness. G-d therefore disguised three angels and sent them from heaven to visit Avraham.
Rashi tells us more about the angels in the next verse. One angel was sent to destroy the evil city of Sodom. The second angel had two missions. He first healed Avraham. He then accompanied the first angel and went to Sodom where Lot resided. He was charged to save Avraham's nephew from the destruction. The third angel was sent to tell Sarah that she will have a child.
Why didn't one guest / angel suffice? Why didn't G-d just send the one angel which healed Avraham? Why did Avraham have to meet Sodom's angel of destruction? Why did Avraham have to see the healing / rescuing angel accompany the angel of destruction? Why did the third guest / angel need to come at this point in the story? Angel or not, Sarah was to become pregnant within three months anyway.
The following came to mind.
From the first Rashi we see that G-d sought to put Avraham at ease and make him comfortable.
The Sodomite culture was the antithesis of Avraham. They outlawed hospitality and extended cruel punishment to anyone who broke this law (See Rashi's reference to Talmud Sanhedrin 109b). Yet, as the world's Pillar of Kindness, Avraham sincerely prayed to save them from destruction(18:23-33).
G-d assured Avraham that He would not destroy the city if there was hope for them. Perhaps G-d wanted to provide Avrohom with visible confirmation that the city would be spared if there was hope. He therefore showed Avrohom that the angel of rescue was accompanying the angel of destruction.
We now have a reason for the two angels.
The third angel completed his mission when he announced Yitzchak (Isaac's) birth. This provided Avraham great relief at this time for the following reason.
G-d had already told Avraham about the birth of Yitzchak (17:19 & 21) However, G-d did not give this prophecy to Sarah. Since she herself was a prophet (Rashi 21:12), Avraham reasoned that if G-d wanted her to have foreknowledge about the birth then He would have told her, also.
We can assume that Avraham was bursting to tell Sarah the good news, but he couldn't.
This third angel thus enabled Avraham to immediately share the joy with his dear wife.
18:20 And G-D said, "The scream of (the cities of) Sodom and Amorah are great and their sins are very serious."
18:21 I will descend and judge whether they are responsible for the outcry that comes before me (and) if so then I will destroy (them but) if they repent then I will not exact (punishment).
18:32 And he (Avraham / Abraham) said (to G-D), "May G-D please not be angry (that) I speak just one more time. Perhaps (only) ten (righteous people) will be found there. (Will You still destroy the city?)" And He responded, "I will not destroy for the sake of the ten."
The Sodomic region was infamous for the wickedness of its inhabitants.
The Oral Torah records some examples.
Charity was illegal and the poverty-stricken were persecuted.
Hospitality was illegal. Travelers seeking hospitality were maimed. The Torah records that the entire region was in an uproar over Lot's caring for two travelers.
The legal system was corrupt and did not protect the weak. Avraham's servant Eliezer was assaulted and wounded. He took the assailant to court and the judge required him to pay the assailant a fee for bloodletting.
The word, 'sodomy' is derived from their behavior.
Had Sodom contained ten righteous people then they would have been saved from doom. Given the outrageous conduct of Sodom, one would expect that these people would need outstanding behavior and merits to shield their fellow citizens from destruction.
The Sefurno provides the following insight for 18:21.
"If so then I will destroy:" If they all behaved in this manner and there was not one person who protested.
We see from here that a person can be characterized as being a righteous person by merely protesting against evil behavior.
Even within the Torah's clearly delineated standards and criteria for conduct, people can be termed as being righteous in some sense even though they are not fully compliant.
Understandably, being classified righteous does not relieve one from experiencing consequences from non-compliance.
18:25 It is not befitting to You [G-D] to do this thing, to kill the righteous (of Sodom together) with the wicked. And the righteous will be (treated) just like the wicked. It is not befitting to you, who judges all the earth (and) not to do justice.
Avraham's plea for justice is puzzling because by reversing the judgment and sparing the wicked of the city then the injustice will still exist, only in the reverse. That is, instead of the righteous receiving the same judgment as the wicked people; the wicked people will receive the same judgment as the righteous.
Also, how could Avraham contemplate that G-D would do an injustice and kill innocent people?
The following came to mind.
In the current phase of world history, it sometimes appears that good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people.
I say that this appears so because our vision is limited by physicality and by time. Once we transition into the afterlife, we enter a world where only good things eternally happen to good people and bad people are eternal losers.
Many reasons are given for the temporal comfort of the wi | 
![[RWB]](../../images/rwb.gif){kind=small}
![[JewishAmerica]](../../images/jalogoan.gif)