Hamaayan / The Torah Spring Parashat Lech Lecha VII, 3 (290) 11 Marcheshvan 5753 / Nov. 7, 1992 Edited by Shlomo Katz A well-known Midrash relates how Avraham's father Terach left his young son in charge of his (Terach's) idol store one day. When Terach returned, all but one of the idols were smashed to bits; the largest idol, standing in the center of the store, was holding a large ax. Terach was not impressed by young Avraham's explanation that the idols had begun to fight and, not surprisingly, the largest one, had won. Rather, Terach had Avraham arrested for this blasphemy. Hearing this story as children, says R' Moshe Eisemann, shlita, we probably laughed at Terach. If he knew that the idols were powerless against each other, why did he believe in them? The key to this story is the difference between Avraham's world-view and that of an idol-worshipper such a Terach. In a word, it is "freedom. " Polytheism recognizes many gods, each bound by nature and limited in potency to the confines of a particular realm. Such a belief does not recognize the omnipotence, the freedom, of a unique G-d, Creator of all. A Terach is not disturbed by the inability of one idol to destroy another, for each is limited to its own province. If the gods are not free, then certainly man is not. According to this view, man is an impotent midget powerless against the forces which surround him. Only with this analysis can we understand the full import of Avraham's rebellion: he discovered that not only G-d, but man, has freedom. This means, however, that man has accountability; if man controls his deeds, then he must take responsibility for them. This was a blow to the entire society in which Terach lived. (Lailah kaYom Yair p. 87) *************************************** We may sometime feel, writes R' Shneur Kotler (1918-1982), zatzal, that true "Gedolim" (Torah giants) cannot be our role models, for their accomplishments are beyond us. We must remember, however, that the deeds of the Patriarchs were recorded in the Torah, and the intention is obviously that those deeds should serve as a guide to all generations. Furthermore, the Patriarchs, through their deeds, implanted within us the ability to follow them. This is why all of Sefer B'reishit (not just the first Parasha) is called by Chazal the "Book of Creation," for our ancestors "created" us. (Noam Siach p.28) *************************************** We find in the words of chazal that Avraham Avinu is called a "Nadiv" - "volunteer." This refers to his being a "Ba'al Teshuva." The Gemara (Yoma 86b) says that if one repents, Hashem reckons it as if that penitent has sacrificed oxen -- not as an obligatory sacrifice, but as a voluntary sacrifice! Why should this be? Isn't such a person merely doing what he is obligated to do? R' Yitzchak Hutner (1904-1980), zatzal explains: This teaches us the magnitude of Hashem's kindness. Indeed from Hashem's viewpoint the Torah is obligatory on us, but from a Ba'al Teshuva's perspective -- at least at the beginning of his journey -- he is creating the obligation. He is taking upon himself Mitzvot which yesterday he did not consider himself obligated to perform. Hashem, in his kindness, accepts that view, and considers Teshuva to be a voluntary offering. (Pachad Yitzchak Rosh haShanah XXIX , 3) ****************************************** Hashem told Avraham that his descendants would be like the stars. What does a star represent? R' Yekutiel Yehuda Halberstam (the "Klausenberger Rebbe"), shlita, notes that the Hebrew word for star - "Kochav" - has two parts: the letters "Kaf" and "Vav" and the letters "Kaf" and "Bet." The first pair has the numerical value of Hashem's name (26), and the other has the numerical value of 22, the number of letters of which the Torah is made up. This is the nature of Avraham's descendants: they reside in Hashem's shadow, and keep the Torah. (Quoted in Sukkot Bet Ropshitz, p. 35) ************************************************** "And Hashem spoke to Avraham after Lot had left him..." (13:14) Rashi comments: "As long as that 'Rasha' - evil person - was with Avraham, Hashem did not speak to him." Yet before, notes R' Shimon Schwab, shlita, Hashem did speak to Avraham in Lot's presence. What changed? The Torah answers this question by saying (13:5), "And also Lot, who was traveling with Avraham, had sheep and cattle and [many] tents." The wealth which Lot had accumulated changed him; if there is any doubt, the fact that he settled in S'dom should prove it. In light of this, we can understand the unusual construction of another verse (14:12): "And [the attacking kings] took Lot and his property, the son of Avraham's brother." Should the Torah not have said, "Lot, the son of Avraham's brother, and his property." The answer is that Lot let his property come between him and his relationship to Avraham. (Selected Writings p.304) ****************************************** There is a famous question: If the Patriarchs kept the whole Torah even though it had not been given why did Avraham wait for Hashem's command before circumcising himself? R' Yitzchak Ze'ev Soloveitchik (the "Brisker Rav"), zatzal (1878-1959) explains that the purpose of "Milah'' (circumcision) is to remove the skin known as the "Orlah". However, before the Mitzvah of Milah was given, Hashem had not yet defined that skin as "Orlah"; it was just skin like any other, and so, by definition, the Mitzvah could not be done. We can similarly explain why Yaakov married two sisters, a relationship prohibited by the Torah. Although non-Jews are also prohibited from immorality and adultery, they are permitted to marry two sisters. Only "Jewish marriage" to two sisters is prohibited. Before the Torah was given, however, the concept of Jewish marriage did not exist. (Chiddushei haGriz [stencil] p. 3) ************************************* Two neighbors had a violent argument over a piece of property. Each claimed that it was his, and neither would hear of compromise. Finally, they brought their dispute to R' Chaim of Volozhin for adjudication. R' Chaim listened to their arguments, and then said that he wished to see the property first-hand. The three men went to the field in question, and each emphatically repeated his arguments. Suddenly, R' Chaim knelt down and placed his ear to the ground. "What are you doing?" the litigants asked, astounded. "I have heard your viewpoints," said R' Chaim. "Now I wish to hear what the land has to say." Thinking that R' Chaim was joking, the two men asked in jest, "And what does the land have to say?" "The land doesn't understand how you can argue so violently over it. It says, 'This one says I belong to him; the other says I belong to him. Actually, they both belong to me'." (Around the Maggid's Table p.121, in the name of R' Yissachar Frand, shlita) ************************************** Today's learning: Taharot 10:1-2 O.C. 507:6-508:1 Ketubit 11 Yerushalmi - Horiot 7 *********************************** The hardcopy distribution of this issue of Hamaayan is sponsored by Dr. and Mrs. Robert Klein in memory of father, Shlomo Kaplowitz In honor of the Serlin's observing a Mitzvah egual to all of the Torah 's Mitzvot (see Sifri, Re'eh 12:29) by their friends Sarah and David Maslow in memory of Archie Maslow (18 Cheshvan) and Samuel Holstein (25 Cheshvan) ****************************** Donations to Hamaayan are tex deductible ******************************