posts so far for parshat Lech Lecha

2012

1. Chedorlaomer vs. the army of the dead -- in response to this request:

josh, can you help me with ibn-Ezra commentary on Genesis 14-5, why he calls Rephaim deadman, ghosts, because they have no resurrection?

2011

1. Lech Lecha sources -- by perek and aliyah in a Mikraos Gedolos, plus more than 100 meforshim on the parsha and haftorah. Further expanded over previous years.
   .
2. Should we darshen the run of tevirs on וַיָּבֹא וַיֵּשֶׁב? Birkas Avraham does. But assuming that it is correct (and not an error for darga), how are we to make sense of this trup on a 'peshat' level?
   .
3. Peshita on Bereishit perek 12. And perek 13, and fourteen, and fifteen, and sixteen, and seventeen.
   .
4. YUTorah on parashat Lech Lecha.
   .
5. Avraham did not consume pas akum or stam yeinam, redux -- A while back, in 2006, I considered a dvar Torah that grappled with how Avraham could have eaten pas akum and stam yeinam from the hands of Malkitzedek, and dismissed this sort of concern.
   
   Now I see that this idea was already put forth, in a slightly different form, in Or HaChaim...
   .
6. Why doesn't the Torah explicitly relate Avraham's early life? Why is Avraham's early life not mentioned in the Torah? That is, the midrash records a lengthy story about his concealment at birth, smashing his father's idols, being brought before Nimrod, his defiance, and so on and so forth. This is a remarkable story. How come we only first hear of Avraham when he is 75 years old?
   .
7. Avraham was 74X the stature of a normal man -- Considering an interpretation of a midrash by Rav Kanievsky. The Midrash: "The man [who lived in Chevron] was the greatest of the giants" (Yehoshua 14:15) -- This refers to our forefather Avraham, whose height was equal to that of seventy-four men. The amount of food and drink he consumed was enough for seventy-four men, and he had the strength of that many men as well.
   
   (Concluding Beraita of Masechet Sofrim)
   .
8. If Abraham won't come to the mountain...  then the mountain will come to Abraham. So explains the Or HaChaim. Plus, other ways of explaining the pasuk, on the level of peshat.
   .
9. Does Onkelos render וְאַשְׂמְאִילָה as וְאַצְפְּנָךְ or אֲנָא לְצִפּוּנָא? and the ramifications. It is plausible that Onkelos follows a midrash. Or it could be ataus sofer. I try to explain away the variant.
   .
10. Ibn Caspi on the Avos keeping the entire Torah -- He endorses the idea, kind-of. In one instance, as a restrained and coded rejection. In another, as a philosophical co-opting of the idea. Also, Chizkuni and my own approach to understanding the pasuk that sparks all this.

2010

1. Sodomites and Procrustes -- A parallel between a midrash and a Greek myth, and what this might mean.
   .
2. When did the Sodomites turn evil? Major repercussions, depending on whether it was before or after Lot arrived.
   .
3. Hinei Na -- If not now, then when?  Na means now! But did he not know beforehand that Sarah was beautiful?
   .
4. Avraham Avinu as author of Sefer Yetzira --  Whether hanefesh asher asu beCharan is indicative of this. Did Avraham create golems? Did he create cattle?
   .
5. How to spell 'goyim' -- and how I would justify the Masoretic reading. Plus the strange, counter-intuitive vowel pattern provided by the Masorah, and its significance.

2009

1. His journey(s) -- when the masorah opposes the Zohar. Ohr Torah has a somewhat dubious resolution (IMHO) in which the Zohar darshens the text as if it was written chaser. I think it is a genuine machlokes.
   .
2. How many words are Kedarlaomer? The masorah vs. the gemara. Once again, Ohr Torah has a resolution. And once again, I lean towards thinking that there is a genuine machlokes here.
   .
3. Did Rashi darshen a non-existent chaser? Minchas Shai has a pretty strong answer, that this is not the correct girsa of Rashi. Quite plausible, though I am not entirely convinced.
   .
4. Did Eliezer, or 318 men, accompany Avraham? It cannot be both! How I would resolve this, and differ from some of Rashi's standard supercommentators.
   .
5. Avraham Avinu's kippah -- in which Junior and I disagree over whether Avraham even wore 

Abraham and Lot Part Ways

2008

1. The Duplication in Sarah-As-Sister stories -- because this was a standing practice, in many places they went, including a great many that passed without incident.
2. Brit Milah as Adopted, Adapted, and Directed Practice Taken from the Egyptians -- Shadal addresses the question that if the Egyptians also practice circumcision, how can it be a sign / covenant for the Israelites? And also deals with a Pheonician myth about Cronus and Uranus, child sacrifice and circumcision, and says this developed from the story about Avraham and Yitzchak.
3. As a followup to this 2004 post on vehakenaani az baaretz, this 2008 post about Avraham pursuing as far as Dan, when the area of Dan was not named this until sefer Shofetim. Shadal rejects the idea that this a later addition to chumash; rather, this was another place called Dan. This same concern likely motivates Rashi to say that it was called this via ruach hakodesh.
4. What was the name of Lot's wife? And why should we care? First, various answers as to her name. Where does it come from? Is it an extra-Biblical tradition, derived via midrashic methods from the Biblical text, made up in order to convey some message, or to put more focus on a previously minor character? I trace through various sources which discuss her name. Also, whether Lot's wife really turned into a pillar of salt.
   
   This last one really is rooted in Vayera, but Lot's decision to move to Sodom in the first place takes place in Lech Lecha, and comes into play here.

2007

• What Are Avraham's Bowels?
• And how children can come from it. Ibn Ezra's take, and my own take on it.
• How Many People Fought Alongside Avraham?
  Eliezer, or 318 people. And how these ideas develop.
• The Perverted Law Code of Nimrod as reference to the code of Hammurabi.
• Avraham's death as proof of the Biblical concept of afterlife, since he did not literally sleep (get buried) with his ancestors.
• Chazak!
• How the popular song seems to reference Migdal Bavel, making use of a pasuk from the haftara of Lech Lecha.
• How Shem Lost the Kehuna
• Contrasting Noach's blessing of Shem with Malkitzedek's (=Shem's) blessing of Avraham. We can see in this contrast a possible motivation for Chazal's emphasis on Shem's preceding the blessing of Avraham to the blessing of Hashem, to the effect of Shem's loss of Kehuna.

2006

• Vayavo HaPalit -- A Case Study In Peshat and Derash
• Ibn Ezra vs Rashi. What Rashi surprisingly labels peshat (identifying the palit from the battle as Og), and why it so. And the additional stretch labeling him as a survivor of the flood, as Mishrash. Then Ibn Ezra's take, and why he does not see fit to adopt Chazal's identification of the palit.
• The Avot Keeping Kol HaTorah Kulah -- setam yeinam, pas akum, and lo techanem
• Two divrei Torah giving rather "creative" explanations for how the Avot kept the Torah, despite apparent violations. And these violations are for rather minor things that might have escaped notice. And a discussion as to whether these are meant as creative exercise or seriously.
• How Long After Avraham's Brit did Hashem Appear? How Soon After Sarah Laughed Did She Give Birth to Yitzchak?
• When the season comes around. Is this a full year? Or rather 9 months. Assume the latter, and it resolves an apparent contradiction with an earlier Divine promise for a son. Therefore, a three month interval between the two promises.

2005

• "And I Will Make Your Name Great"
• What is meant by "name?" Explores possibility that it literally means making the name larger by adding the letter heh, and the implications of that interpretation. On a pshat level, it most likely means "renown." Turn to another example, by yibum, where it means "title" to land/inheritance, proved by evidence internal to the text (Rut names her son Oved) and via lexical comparison to a similar phrase by Ephraim and Menashe. Discuss the idea of ain mikra yotzei midei peshuto, and how a gezera shava here uproots the pshat meaning entirely, with an eye to the meaning of the statement in general. Finally, apply this meaning of "name" to a pasuk in Haazinu.
• Avraham's Sacrifice
• Explores when the command to leave his homeland was made, and why the poetic repetition. Compare with the command to bind Yitzchak, and we see Biblical poetry and repetition used to highlight the drama and the difficulty of the request.

2004

• "And the Canaanites were then in the land"
• This statement seems to be looking back from in Eretz Yisrael. How could it have been written by Moshe? Some suggestions.

2003

• Is the Code of Hammurabi the Dina Demalchuta of Avraham?
• Cross-listed for Vayera, this begins in parshat Lech Lecha.
  If so, a way in which Avraham kept the Torah, or the Torah of Shem and Ever. Yet the incident in which Sarah offers her maidservant; her insistence of Hagar's demotion back to maidservant despite bearing Avraham a son; and the recognizing of such a child vs. casting out of the house, all have basis in the Code of Hammurabi.
• Avraham's Refusal to the King of Sodom - somewhat political
• Had Avraham taken the gifts, the king of Sodom might have thought he was only in it for the money
• Suggested KedorLaOmer etymology
• as servant of the deity Gomer
• Kings Goofus and Gallant, and the MIGGEN Avraham
• In which Avraham *receives* 10% of the spoils from Malkitzedek, rather than *giving* it to him. If so, we have a contrast to his conduct with the King of Sodom. And an explanation is respective attitudes, a la Goofus and Gallant.
  Further, in the aftermath, Hashem is not saying that he will be a shield, but rather a gatherer of wealth. See the post inside.

to be continued...

Avraham was 74X the stature of a normal man

Summary: Considering an interpretation of a midrash by Rav Kanievsky.

Post: Here is an interesting midrash:

"The man [who lived in Chevron] was the greatest of the giants" (Yehoshua 14:15) -- This refers to our forefather Avraham, whose height was equal to that of seventy-four men. The amount of food and drink he consumed was enough for seventy-four men, and he had the strength of that many men as well.

(Concluding Beraita of Masechet Sofrim)

Not every midrash is intended literally, and this one, with its strange reference to precisely 74 men, seems like a perfect candidate for an allegorical midrash. Explanations have been offered for the 74, such as that this is a coded reference to the following:

Moshe, Aharon, Nadav, Avihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel climbed [Mount Sinai]... . They gazed at Hashem and they ate and they drank. [They saw the Divine Glory, and when He accepted the offerings they brought to Him, they were as happy as if they had been eating and drinking.]

(Shmot 24:9-11, according to Targum Onkeles)

This sounds quite plausible. Though for all we know, this might be a coded reference to something else entirely, of which we know nothing at all.

I saw this week in Taama de-Kra that Rav Chaim Kanievsky gives a rather nice interpretation of this midrash:

 שילהי מס׳ סופרים אברהם אבינו הי׳ גבוה קומתו כנגד ע״ד אנשים וכן כחו ע״ש וצריך ביאור, וי״ל דהוא מוכרח דבסנהדרין צ״ב ב׳ מבואר דאורך המחנה שבאו על אברהם הי׳ ת׳ פרסה, ואליעזר הוא עוג כמ״ש שם במס׳ סופרים והוא בא עם אברהם להלחם כמ״ש בנדרים ל״ב א׳ ומפורש בפ׳ דברים דעוג ערסו ט׳ אמות וכל אדם כשנולד ארכו אמה ומחצה כמ״ש בב״ר פי״ב וא״כ עוג קומתו כנגד ו׳ אנשים, ש

ומבואר בפסחים צ״ד א׳ דמהלך אדם  י׳ פרסאות ביום והם נלחמו עד חצי הלילה כדפירש״י בחומש וא״כ נלחמו ו׳ שעות ורדפו אחרי המחנה ואדם בינוני מהלך בו׳ שעות ה׳ פרסאות 

וא״כ אברהם שהי׳ קומתו וכחו כנגד ע״ד אנשים ואליעזר כנגד ו׳ הרי ביחד היו כנגד  פ׳ אנשים א״כ הלכו בו׳ שעות פ׳ פעמים  ה׳ פרסאות והוא מכוון ת׳ פרסאות כנגד כל המחנה וזהו שפירש״י ויחלק עליהם כדרך הרודפין זה לכאן וזה לכאן דהיינו   שאליעזר רדף לצד מזרח המחנה ל׳ פרסאות כנגד ו׳ אנשים ואברהם רדף לצד מערב ש״ע פרסאות כנגד ע״ד אנשים נמצא השיגו כל המחנה (ואע״ג שהם ברחו הרי גם אברהם ואליעזר רדפו ושוב נשתוו) ודו״ק (מיהו י״ל  דכשרודף או בורח הולך יותר מי׳ פרסאות ליום וצ״ע).ש

"At the end of Masechet Soferim: Avraham Avinu was tall as 74 men, and so too his strength, see there. And this requires explanation. And there is to say that it comes from the following. In Sanhdrin 92b it is explained that the length of the camp which came upon Avraham was 400 parsangs. And Eliezer was Og, as is written there in Masechet Soferim. And he came with Avraham to fight, as is written in Nefarim 32a. And it is spelled out in parashat Devarim that Og's baby-crib was 9 cubits; and a regular person, when he is born, his length is 1.5 cubits, as is written in Bereishit Rabba, chapter 12. And if so, Og's height corresponded to that of 6 men.


And it is explained in Pesachim 94a that a person can walk 10 parsangs in a day. And they fought until half the night, as Rashi explains in Chumash. And if so, they fought for 6 hours and pursued the camp. And a regular person can walk in 6 hours 5 parsangs.


And if so, Avraham, whose stature and strength was equal to 74 men, and Eliezer, equal to 6, behold together are equal to 80 men. If so, they traveled, in 6 hours, 80 X 5 parsangs, which is precisely 400 parsangs, parallel to the entire camp. And this is what Rashi explains, ויחלק עליהם, that they divided themselves, in the manner of pursuers, this one this way and this one that way. That this is that Eliezer pursued to the east of the camp 30 parsangs, parallel to 6 men, and Avraham pursued to the west side, 370 parsangs, parallel to 74 men. Thus, it is found that they reached the entire camp. (And even though they also fled, behold Avraham and Eliezer also pursued, and so they return to being equal.) And consider, and it works out. (However, there is to say that when one pursues or flees, one travels more than 10 parsangs in a day, and this requires analysis.)"

This works out quite nicely, though I am not entirely convinced that it really reflects the intent of the midrash. However, I would note that it is from Masachet Soferim that he gets that Eliezer = Og. And I would also note that other sources darshening this same pasuk in Yehoshua talk of the great distance that Avraham could walk, and specifically when pursuing these kings. Thus, in Yalkut Shimoni,

דבר אחר האדם הגדול בענקים אמר רבי זה אברהם, ולמה קורא אותו גדול, רבי לוי ורבי אלעזר בשם ר' יוסי בן זמרא פסיעותיו של אברהם אבינו היו ג' מילין. ר' יהודה ברבי סימון אומר מיל שנאמר ארח ברגליו לא יבא מי פעל למפרע מיל ר"ת. רבי נחמיה בשם רבי איבו לא נתאבקו רגליו כשהלך אחר המלכים אלא כזה שהוא הולך מביתו לבית הכנסת. 

But they understand that he could walk 3 mil, or 1 mil, in each stride. The relationship of a parsang to a mil is as follows:

• 1 mil (Mil) = 2000 ells (Amot)
• 1 parasang (Parasa) = 4 mils (Milin)

400 parsangs (parsaot) = 1600 mil. If each stride was 3 mil, then this is 533 1/3 strides. If each stride was 1 mil, then this is 1600 strides. This seems

Here, however, is an interesting conversion. 3 mil = 75% of a parsa, which is one off from 74.

No, I cannot figure out a precise correlation. But the point is that indeed, the pursuit is connected to this parasha of Avraham pursuing the kings. This makes Rav Kanievsky's interpretation much more likely.

Still, I generally have reservations of interpretations based on precise calculations like this. It seems pretty convincing, but then we see another just as convincing interpretation which also works out via precise calculations. (Consider, for instance, the various interpretations of how the vav of gachon is the precise middle of the Torah in letters.) This means that clever people can come up with mathematical calculations which work out just right, even if it is not the true meaning of the text under consideration.

Peshita Bereishit perek 13

Masoretic Text

Onkelos

English for MT

Peshitta

Bereishit 13:

Some interesting changes marked in bold  red

א וַיַּעַל אַבְרָם מִמִּצְרַיִם הוּא וְאִשְׁתּוֹ וְכָל-אֲשֶׁר-לוֹ, וְלוֹט עִמּוֹ--הַנֶּגְבָּה.  

וּסְלֵיק אַבְרָם מִמִּצְרַיִם הוּא וְאִתְּתֵיהּ וְכָל דְּלֵיהּ, וְלוֹט עִמֵּיהּ--לְדָרוֹמָא.

1 And Abram went up out of Egypt, he, and his wife, and all that he had, and Lot with him, into the South. 

וסלק אברם מן מצרין הו ואנתתה וכל דאית לה ולוט עמה לתימנא:

ב וְאַבְרָם, כָּבֵד מְאֹד, בַּמִּקְנֶה, בַּכֶּסֶף וּבַזָּהָב.  

וְאַבְרָם, תְּקֵיף לַחְדָּא, בִּבְעִירָא, בְּכַסְפָּא וּבְדַהְבָּא.

2 And Abram was very rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold. 

ואברם עתר טב בקנינא ובסאמא ובדהבא :

Interesting Posts and Articles #248

1) It appears that those neutrinos did NOT travel faster than light. See Rationalist Judaism's analysis back before the debunking.

In shul last week, I overheard a conversation. Someone was relating that while the scientists were so amazed that something could travel faster than light. Meanwhile, this is a known phenomenon (to some in the frum community?) regarding eclipses, that 30 minutes prior to our experiencing the eclipse, ants are closing up their ant holes. Thus, they know about it before us, which must be that they are detecting something which comes to them before the light reaches us.

I don't know that ants actually do this. And if they do, the Sun is on average 8.3 light-minutes away from earth, not a full half hour. But he could not see why this was not a proof. The obvious answer is that there are actual things happening besides blotting out the sun, which occurs during an eclipse. Perhaps a change in gravity, for instance. And the ants can be detecting that.

2) I see that I am mentioned favorably (at first), in the Ima Mother forum. Someone was asking about contact information for someone who casts lead. Another poster referred to my blogpost warning against this superstitious practice. And then, this reply:

[person] wrote:

I'm only listing this in case you wish to be more informed about the practice, and don't realize the possible halachic problems with it. "pouring lead" a pagan practice

Rebetzin Miller has a haskama from R' Chaim Pinchas Scheinberg, who I imagine would be as aware of possible halachic problems as any random blogger, yet doesn't seem to have a problem with it.

The thing is, I would NOT necessarily imagine that Rav Scheinberg would be aware of possible halachic problems as any random blogger. My post points out that this superstition is also common among the Pennsylvania Dutch. Is he an expert on the practices of the Pennsylvania Dutch? Well, am I? Of course not, but I have access to Google. Does Rav Scheinberg have Internet access? I would guess not.

Part of pesak is knowing metzius. And why in the world would you think Rav Scheinberg knows random bits of metzius like this? Consider the following, from Jerusalem Kosher News, a chodosh update:

On Dec 21 we announced that we had received a p’sak from HaRav Elyashiv that stated that wheat bran and oat bran have no problem of Chodosh, even if they come from Chodosh grain. 

It turns out that the p’sak was based on the incorrect assumption that such bran today is basically produced for animal food. When it was explained to HaRav Elyashiv that such bran is very commonly used for human food, he stated that bran coming from Chodosh grain should be treated as Chodosh. 

Therefore, where oat bran is listed as an ingredient, the usual packing cutoff date of Jul 26 should be used and for wheat bran Aug 9, as has been used in the past in the Guide.

One needs to know the metzius.

Of course, it is also possible that even had he known the metzius, Rav Scheinberg would maintain that it is a well-established Jewish tradition, and that the gentiles got it from us. There is a huge sociological component that feeds into how one evaluates such information. Consider this teshuva in Beer Moshe, in favor of a bunch of old wives' tales, establishing them as real minhag. If one researches these superstitions, one finds them based not in holy ideas, but rather borrowed from superstitious non-Jewish neighbors. There is a reason the Tosefta labels a bunch of practices as darkei Emori. The Jewish women were engaged in such practices. And so Chazal needed to tell them that it was wrong.

3) At the Seforim blog, an essay regarding the controversy of succah on Shmini Atzeres.

4) At Matzav, a 21-year old bas yisroel writes in to protest their posting a picture of Rebbetzin Kanievsky accompanying news about her death. Naturally, they illustrate this post with a picture of Rebbetzin Kanievsky. Heh.

5) At Hirhurim, Rav Soloveitchik vs. the Chazon Ish.

6) Elder of Zion with an interesting post about Saddam, Israel and the Bomb. And Pokemon.

7) Here on parshablog, I speak about Ramban, the perfect encoding of Torah, and hidden messages such as Torah codes.

Why doesn't the Torah explicitly relate Avraham's early life?

Why is Avraham's early life not mentioned in the Torah? That is, the midrash records a lengthy story about his concealment at birth, smashing his father's idols, being brought before Nimrod, his defiance, and so on and so forth. This is a remarkable story. How come we only first hear of Avraham when he is 75 years old?

This is addressed by Ramban, who writes regarding Ur Kasdim and what happened there:

אבל התורה לא תרצה להאריך בדעות עובדי עבודה זרה ולפרש העניין שהיה בינו ובין הכשדים באמונה, כאשר קצרה בעניין דור אנוש וסברתם בעבודה זרה שחדשו:

"But the Torah did not wish to go on at length in the opinions of idol worshipers, and to explain the matter which was between him and the Chaldeans in matters of faith, just as it shortened in the matter of the generation of Enosh, and their position in the idolatry they innovated."

Someone asked me (via email) whether anyone else addresses this issue:

Besides the answer of the Ramban, who else discusses why Avraham's life story from birth to 75 is not in the text of the Torah?

Here was my response, lightly edited:

None that I know of.  But then, I haven't researched the question.

But one might answer that the Torah does not tell us all sorts of details about people.

The Torah does not tell us explicitly about the brothers eating ever min hachai. It does

not tell us about Avraham establishing eruvin, or printing currency, and so on and so 

forth. There is a Biblical narrative with a specific group of details it wants to convey.

Other details were not part of this Divine intent. (Just as there were many neviim and nevuot which did not make it into Tanach.)

Or, to seize upon the story of Nimrod and the fiery furnace, this hangs rather loosely

on "Ur Kasdim" together with details gathered from sefer Daniel. A similar situation

occurred for the midrashim surrounding Pharaoh's dreams. While this might be a case

of maaseh avos siman labanim, my intuition is that (or at the least, one might say)

that these were not necessarily intended as history, but rather homily, or else to stress

certain aspects of Avraham's underlying character. 

(I can add other obvious approaches, such as that Chazal interpreted that they happened, and believed that they happened. But they did not happen, and so the Torah omitted it.

Or, it is in the text of the Torah. It is just encoded. If the Torah explicitly included every detail, it would be much, much larger. And Hashem is concerned for tircha de-tzibura. Leining on Shabbos is long enough, and we are all pining for the chulent. What if krias haTorah were five times longer? And so, most of the content is encoded in shorthand, via textual irregularities to be interpreted.

Or, this way, we won't mess up the Torah Code about Elenin and Nibiru.)

It is interesting that many, many Jewish people actually do think that the story of Avraham and Nimrod is written explicitly in the Torah. Try it out.

How about you, dear reader? Any meforshim you know of that address this? Absent any meforshim, any perspective?

Avraham did not consume pas akum or stam yeinam, redux

A while back, in 2006, I considered a dvar Torah that grappled with how Avraham could have eaten pas akum and stam yeinam from the hands of Malkitzedek, and dismissed this sort of concern.

Now I see that this idea was already put forth, in a slightly different form, in Or HaChaim. He considers the question of the interjection of Malkitzedek between the King of Sodom coming out and the relating of his words to Avraham. He gives an answer, about the difference between the conduct good and bad people. (See the first paragraph in the Hebrew below.) Then, he writes (second paragraph in the Hebrew):

"Furthermore this is desired based on what Chazal said, that Avraham Avinu kept the entire Torah, even eruvei tavshilin which was a rabbinic ordinance. And therefore the Scriptures informed us that Avraham was an honored and great prince in everyone's eyes; and when the king of Sodom went out to him, naturally he would have greeted him with a present of bread for him his servants, and his warriors. And since Avraham kept away from food -- from the bread, because of pas akum, and from the wine because of stam yeinam, therefore, the king of Sodom he was clever and endeavored to make the gift of food via a trustworthy person, who was Shem [=Malkitzedek]. And from the hand of Shem to the hand of Avraham. And the Scriptures are informing us of a novelty, that even bread and wine, which was only Rabbinic, Avraham was insistent upon. And certainly, the other matters which have a worry of a Biblical prohibition."

An interesting approach, though one I disagree with. Still, even within this disagreement, there is a slight difference in attitude between this dvar and the previous one -- between insisting that Avraham could not have done X because it goes against a derabbanan, and then finding a solution; and noting a textual irregularity and answering it as another instance or proof of Avraham keeping even derabbanans.

I don't think that, historically, Avraham kept all relevant Biblical commandments, let alone Rabbinic institutions. There are midrashim that assert that he did. It is possible that the authors of these midrashim believed this to be historically true, just like Or HaChaim and plenty of other people, rabbanim. It is also possible that the authors of these midrashim were speaking homiletically, and did not really believe that Avraham kept all the mitzvos. As such, they would dismiss as irrelevant instances of Avraham serving milk and meat, or Yaakov marrying two sisters, and so on.

There is a famous teshuva of the Rashba (1:94) that the Avos kept the Torah. But it is more nuanced that that, I think. Let us examine the words of the Rashba, at the end of that teshuva:

"And in terms of what they [, Chazal,] said, that Yaakov kept the 613 commandments, and that this is hinted in the words (Bereishit 32) עם לבן גרתי, and it is difficult to you how he kept them, when he was not yet commanded; and further, that Yaakov married two sisters.


Know that they, za'l, said that Avraham kept even the eruvei techumin as is written (Bereishit 27) וישמר משמרתי מצותי חקתי ותורותי. And do not be astonished, for you have already been awakened to know that there is not, in all the details of the commandments, a commandment which does not hint to matters of chochma, such that the chochma should come {?} so that the shefeilim should be found in actions, and in the hints that they hint to the chochma, so that it comes out that the chochma compels the action and the inaction. And the action and inaction inform what is hinted to them from the chochma.


And the patriarchs reached, with their great wisdom, to these fundamentals, just as Chazal said regarding Avraham that his two kidneys expressed to him chochma like two teachers. And so too all the patriarchs, such that Yehuda, who received from his fathers, kept the commandment of yibbum, even though he was not yet commanded upon it, and he commanded it to his son in that language itself that the Torah commands it, and this is via the aspect I have spoken.


And regarding that which Yaakov married two sisters, know that the Torah stands on three pillars:

1. time
2. place
3. vessels

The time, that not all days are forbidden in labor as on Shabbat and Yom Tov. And one is not prohibited in chametz like on Pesach. And one is not obligated in Succah and lulav like on Succot.


And the place, that not every place is obligated in terumah and maaser, and is prohibited in untithed foods, as in the land of Israel. And one is not obligated in sacrifices as in the Bet HaMikdash.


And vessels, that not with every possible item can one fulfill, in exchange for the lulav and etrog, and not every thing can one offer, like cattle and sheep, turtledoves and doves, and not everyone is fit to offer like a kohen. And I am not able to explain further, and one who contemplates the matter will find."

Now, just because the Rashba endorses the idea -- or R' Eliyahu Mizrachi, or Gur Aryeh -- do we need to agree. Or even find it (or a simplified version of it) convincing, or non-silly.

But note that it is not, according to the Rashba, a simple anachronism. Since the mitzvos in the Torah are rooted in spiritual fundamentals, by spiritual knowledge, one could recreate or intuit the details of the mitzvos. And he seems to be saying that not everything will be applicable to every time, place, or situation. He is dealing in general, but mentions the particular of Yaakov marrying two wives, and this is reminiscent of Ramban's distinguishing keeping the Torah based on place.

One could ask: How could Avraham or Yaakov have descended to Egypt, when it is an issur of traveling to Egypt? One could say that it was a prohibition of returning to Egypt. Or rather, that the time for this issur had not yet set in.

It is more than that. Before mattan Torah, in this different place, time, and available vessels, the spiritual principles could yield different appropriate actions. In terms of mitzvos, obviously it was crystalized in its specific form, but beforehand, not so. And so you won't find an exact match to every single commandment, Biblical and Rabbinic.

If so, I would expect that even Rashba would not be so bothered by every single "problem" that bothered later meforshim, ad hayom hazeh, in trying to put the square peg of the patriarchal narrative into the round hole of Rabbinic Judaism.

Thus, I don't believe that Rashba would have had to find a kvetch to account for how Avraham could have married Hagar (as I've seen in others). For Hagar, recall, was a maidservant to Sarah. And she stayed a maidservant, which was why she could revert to Sarah's control later. And one can only give a maidservant to a manservant, whether an eved kenaani or an eved ivri. (Such as saying that Sarah was a prophet and he was following her as a horaas shaah.) I would guess that he would likely find an "out" based on his three conditions, rather than figuring out a specific halachic way that it would have worked out, and advancing that as peshat.

YU Torah on parashat Lech Lecha

Audio Shiurim on Lech Lecha Rabbi Elchanan Adler: Matnas Eretz Yisroel to Avraham Avinu  Rabbi Etan Moshe Berman: Jewish Legal Values and Concepts: The Integrity Expected of a Jew  Rabbi Azarya Berzon: Why did the Torah Omit an Introduction to Avraham? Rabbi Chaim Brovender: The Benefits of "Lekh Lekha" Rabbi Avishai David: Kiruv Rechokim  Rabbi Ally Ehrman: Rising To A Loftier Plane  Rabbi Chaim Eisenstein: Why Avraham waited for his brit milah  Rabbi Aaron Feigenbaum: Promises from God Rabbi Daniel Z. Feldman: Mitzvah Bo Yoser mi-bi-Shelucho  Rabbi Joel Finkelstein: Why Choose The Jews Rabbi Beinish Ginsburg: Bein Adam l’Chaveiro as a stepping-stone to Bein Adam l’Makom Rabbi Eric Goldman: What it means to be a true Baal Chesed  Rabbi Ephraim Greene: A Test of Self-Discovery  Rabbi Shalom Hammer: Find Man Find God  Rabbi Jesse Horn: Responsibility of Bnei Avraham to the world  Rabbi Ari Kahn: Avraham -From the Universal to the Particular  Rabbi Yisroel Kaminetsky: Ma'aseh Avot Siman L'banim  Rabbi Eliakim Koenigsberg: Making a Kiddush Hashem  Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz: Ethics and Etiquette  Rabbi Menachem Leibtag: How and Why the Avot were Chosen  Rabbi Yaakov Neuburger: Maaseh Avos Siman L`Banim  Rabbi Hershel Reichman : The Mystery of Lot  Rabbi Zev Reichman: Avraham's Personality  Rabbi Zvi Romm: Haftarat Lech Lecha - Overcoming the Odds  Rabbi Michael Rosensweig: Self Sacrifice and Self Perfection in Birth and Circumcision  Rabbi Shalom Rosner: Observance of Mitzvos by the Avos and Imahos  Rabbi Yonason Sacks: Haftorah Lech Lecha -The Despair of Golut  Mrs. Ilana Saks: How To Be A Blessing  Mrs. Shira Schiowitz: Fair Treatment for Hagar And Yishmael? Rabbi Avi Schneider: Don't Walk in Front of Me!!  Dr. Shai Secunda: Who is Searching for Whom  Rabbi Baruch Simon: Bris Milah and the Greatness of Simcha shel Mitzvah  Mrs. Shira Smiles: Betwixt and Between  Rabbi Reuven Spolter: The First Oleh, First Aliyah Challenges  Rabbi Daniel Stein: Going on "Yeridah"  Rabbi Moshe Taragin: Faith vs Covenant  Rabbi Michael Taubes: The Outdoor Chupah  Rabbi Michael Teitcher: Yishmael: His Life, Character, and Reputation  Rabbi Mordechai Torczyner: Avraham's guide to keeping children on the derech  Rabbi Mordechai Willig: Kivud Av V'Aim & Yishuv Eretz Yisrael  Rabbi Andi Yudin: All for Kavod Shamayim  Rabbi Ari Zahtz: Was Lot a Yankee Fan  Articles on Lech Lecha Nina J. Ackerman: Infertility: A Weighty Matter Rabbi Ezra Frazer: Two Covenants between Avraham and God Rabbi Ozer Glickman: On the Impetus to Believe: Avraham Avinu, the Midrash, Kant and Unamuno Rabbi Meir Goldwicht: Uncovering Lot Rabbi Avraham Gordimer: Malki-Tzedek's Mysterious Appearance Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb: The Essence of Education Rabbi Maury Grebenau: Mission Statements Rabbi David Horwitz: The Value of Haritzut Rabbis Stanley Wagner and Israel Drazin: The Targum's Use of “Prophecy” Rabbi Ephraim Meth: Avraham Avinu and Ahavat Hashem Rav Avigdor Nebenzahl: The Heritage of Eretz Yisrael - Gifts with Strings Attached Rabbi Jeremy Wieder: Laining for Parshat Lech Lecha See all shiurim on YUTorah for Parshat Lech Lecha

New This Week Mesillat Yesharim 1 (Hebrew)  Rabbi Eliyahu Ben-Chaim Why We Do Mitzvot: A Maladjusted Life  Rabbi Reuven Brand Rav Kook - Kodesh and Chol Rabbi osef Bronstein Davening One Nusach in the Shul of Another  Rabbi Shmuel Marcus Halachos of Bikur Cholim  Rabbi Uri Orlian The Role of Ribbis and Shtar Iska in the Modern Marketplace  Rabbi Yona Reiss Electricity on Shabbos  Rabbi Hershel Schachter E-Commerce On Shabbos Part 1 - E-bay and Amazon Bidding  Shay Schachter The Bridge between Shmuel Aleph and Shmuel Bet Rabbi Allen Schwartz Marriage in Halacha #1  Rabbi Ezra Schwartz Hefsek in Netilah and Birkat Hamotize  Rabbi Eliav Silverman Minhagim in Halacha  Rabbi Baruch Simon Zecharyah: Introduction, 1:1-6 Rabbi Mordechai Torczyner Limitations on free will: Nisyonos that can't be passed Rabbi Netanel Wiederblank

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, tonight and tomorrow at Etz Chaim in KGH

It is via live broadcast from Toronto, and is free.

Here are the details:

Torah in Motion is pleased to present a unique and wonderful opportunity to your synagogue; two live broadcasts of Chief Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks, as he addresses the Toronto Jewish community.

On Wednesday November 2^nd, 8:00pm, Rabbi Sacks will be in conversation with Dr. Elliott Malamet, co-founder of Torah in Motion, discussing his vision of how Jews and Judaism should relate to the challenges of modernity in today’s world.

Rabbi Sacks will be introduced by the Hon. Prof. Irwin Cotler, Member of Parliament for Mount Royal, former Minister of Justice & Attorney General of Canada and International Human Rights Advocate.

On Thursday November 3^rd, at 7:30pm Rabbi Sacks will be joined by Professor Charles Taylor, Professor of Philosophy at McGill University and winner of the prestigious Templeton prize amongst his many awards. See his complete bio at http://www.torahinmotion.org/spkrs_crnr/faculty/bioCharlesTaylor.htm. These two prominent thinkers will engage in a fascinating discussion: “The Future of Religion in a Secular Age”.

Peshita Bereishit perek 12

Masoretic Text

Onkelos

English for MT

Peshitta

Bereishit 11:

Some interesting changes marked in bold  red

א וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל-אַבְרָם, לֶךְ-לְךָ מֵאַרְצְךָ וּמִמּוֹלַדְתְּךָ וּמִבֵּית אָבִיךָ, אֶל-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר אַרְאֶךָּ.  

וַאֲמַר יְיָ לְאַבְרָם, אִיזֵיל לָךְ מֵאַרְעָךְ וּמִיַּלָּדוּתָךְ וּמִבֵּית אֲבוּךְ, לְאַרְעָא, דְּאַחְזֵינָךְ.

1 Now the LORD said unto Abram: 'Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto the land that I will show thee.

ואמר מריא לאברם זל לך מן ארעך ומן אימכא דאתילדת ומן בית אבוך לארעא דאחויך:

ב וְאֶעֶשְׂךָ, לְגוֹי גָּדוֹל, וַאֲבָרֶכְךָ, וַאֲגַדְּלָה שְׁמֶךָ; וֶהְיֵה, בְּרָכָה.  

וְאַעְבְּדִנָּךְ, לְעַם סַגִּי, וַאֲבָרְכִנָּךְ, וַאֲרַבֵּי שְׁמָךְ; וּתְהֵי, מְבָרַךְ.

 2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and be thou a blessing. 

ואעבדך לעמא רבא ואברכך ואורב שמך והוי בריך:

ג וַאֲבָרְכָה, מְבָרְכֶיךָ, וּמְקַלֶּלְךָ, אָאֹר; וְנִבְרְכוּ בְךָ, כֹּל מִשְׁפְּחֹת הָאֲדָמָה.  

וַאֲבָרֵיךְ, מְבָרְכָךְ, וּמְלָטְטָךְ, אֲלוּט; וְיִתְבָּרְכוּן בְּדִילָךְ, כֹּל זַרְעֲיָת אַרְעָא.

3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and him that curseth thee will I curse; and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.' 

ואברך מברכניך ומליטניך אלוט ונתברכן בך כלהין שרבתא דארעא ובזרעך

ד וַיֵּלֶךְ אַבְרָם, כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר אֵלָיו יְהוָה, וַיֵּלֶךְ אִתּוֹ, לוֹט; וְאַבְרָם, בֶּן-חָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים וְשִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה, בְּצֵאתוֹ, מֵחָרָן.  

וַאֲזַל אַבְרָם, כְּמָא דְּמַלֵּיל עִמֵּיהּ יְיָ, וַאֲזַל עִמֵּיהּ, לוֹט; וְאַבְרָם, בַּר שִׁבְעִין וַחֲמֵישׁ שְׁנִין, בְּמִפְּקֵיהּ, מֵחָרָן.

4 So Abram went, as the LORD had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him; and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran. 

ועבד אבדם איך דאמר לה מריא ואזל עמה לוט ואברם בר שבעין הוא וחמש שנין כד נפק מן חרן:

Should we darshen the run of tevirs on וַיָּבֹא וַיֵּשֶׁב?

Summary: Birkas Avraham does. But assuming that it is correct (and not an error for darga), how are we to make sense of this trup on a 'peshat' level?

Post: Here is an interesting bit of trup in parashat Lech Lecha, in Bereishit 13:18:

Minchas Shai and Or Torah both write that there is a tevir in ויבא and not a דרגא. And so has the Leningrad Codex.

Birkas Avraham notes this weird trup and comments:

טעמי המקרא מלמדים על מתינות אברהם אבינו בקביעת מקומו

בפסוק (בראשית יג,יח) ויאהל אברם ויבא
וישב באלוני ממרא, תיבות ויבא וישב,
שתיהם בטעם תביר, ולפי הרגילות היה צריך
להיות מוטעם במרכא טפחא שמחברם ובטעם
קל (והתיבות שאחריהן היה משתנה הטעם
שלהם ממרכא טפחא). ואפשר שבא לרמוז, כי
לא היה זה בתכיפות ופשטות כדרך של מה
בכך. אלא הן ביאת אברהם אבינו והן ישיבתו
שם היתה במתינות ובישוב הדעת, לידע איך
להזהר מאנשי המקום ומחברתם.



That is, he is of the opinion that ויבא וישב should have regularly have had a joining accent of mercha tipcha, and what followed would have had some other, different trup. And he suggests that this connotes that both his coming and settling was done with pause and care, to know how to be careful of the people of their place and their society.

I don't know that I would leap into the idea of a mercha tipcha. We should be cognizant of the rules of trup and continuous dichotomy. A tevir at וישב indicated that it subdivides the clause beginning at the first word, ויאהל, until the tipcha at ממרא. It strikes me that that is a fine and appropriate place for a subdivision. If so, a joining trup on the preceding word ויבא would be the darga (which Minchas Shai and others rule out), and a disjunctive trup subdividing the tevir would be pashta or revii.

Even taking it as a disjunctive trup subdividing the tipcha, the preceding tevir on יובא is weird. In general, tevir will subdivide a clause ending in tipcha, but only in the first two words away from the tipcha. The tevir on ויבא is three words away. I would have expected, in this position with this level of subdivision, to have a zakef on ויבא rather than the tevir.

Maybe this tevir is a transformed pashta, acting to subdivide the clause ending in the tevir on וישב? That was my theory, and it seems that Wickes makes the same observation, based on a bunch of other pesukim. This is what he writes:

To quickly summarize the idea and its implications in this case, the initial, theoretical trup in our pasuk would have been munach revii revii tevir, but it would be transformed to munach revii pashta tevir. But a pashta can't stand so close to a tevir, so it is further transformed to a tevir, making for munach revii tevir tevir. Thus, the first of the two tevirs really functions as a revii, subdividing the clause ending in tevir.

To perform the actual continuous dichotomy on the pasuk, here is what we have.

We begin with:
וַיֶּאֱהַל אַבְרָם, וַיָּבֹא וַיֵּשֶׁב בְּאֵלֹנֵי מַמְרֵא--אֲשֶׁר בְּחֶבְרוֹן; וַיִּבֶן-שָׁם מִזְבֵּחַ, לַה.

We divide at the etnachta on logical grounds, and the first half of the pasuk is then:
וַיֶּאֱהַל אַבְרָם, וַיָּבֹא וַיֵּשֶׁב בְּאֵלֹנֵי מַמְרֵא--אֲשֶׁר בְּחֶבְרוֹן

We divide at the tipcha, into
וַיֶּאֱהַל אַבְרָם, וַיָּבֹא וַיֵּשֶׁב בְּאֵלֹנֵי מַמְרֵא
אֲשֶׁר בְּחֶבְרוֹן

At this point, we have a tipcha on the word מַמְרֵא. And what subdivides a clause ending in tipcha are tevir, pashta, and revii. The tevir if closest (one or two words away), and the pashta and revii at greater distance. And we also have declared the tevir on וַיָּבֹא to be a transformed pashta, so it subdivides.

We have the following which will subdivide the aforementioned clause ending at מַמְרֵא:

The tevir on וַיֵּשֶׁב
The tevir on וַיָּבֹא
The revii on אַבְרָם

Since all of these are competing, it must be that the intent is that the earlier one in the pasuk subdivides first. [Because if the later one (say, the tevir of וַיֵּשֶׁב) subdivided first, then the trup appearing before it would need to be different, namely those trup symbols used to divide a clause ending in tevir.]

Therefore, the subdivision continues as follows:
וַיֶּאֱהַל אַבְרָם
וַיָּבֹא וַיֵּשֶׁב בְּאֵלֹנֵי מַמְרֵא

And then,
וַיָּבֹא
וַיֵּשֶׁב בְּאֵלֹנֵי מַמְרֵא

And finally, in the three word clause,
וַיֵּשֶׁב
בְּאֵלֹנֵי מַמְרֵא

This is caused by pure syntax, combined with the rules and transformation rules of trup. As such, I would not adopt the neo-midrash offered in Birkas Avraham. Though indeed, there are multiple pauses in place here.

Indeed, here is why a mercha tipcha cannot work. The mercha tipcha would join וַיָּבֹא וַיֵּשֶׁב into a single unit, to be followed by בְּאֵלֹנֵי מַמְרֵא. Now בְּאֵלֹנֵי מַמְרֵא is surely a part of וַיֵּשֶׁב. Avraham settled, but he settled in a specific place. As such, וַיֵּשֶׁב בְּאֵלֹנֵי מַמְרֵא has to be a unit. (Of course, at some point, since it consists of three words, it needs to be divided, but we delay that until the last moment.) But בְּאֵלֹנֵי מַמְרֵא does not go on וַיָּבֹא. You come to a place, not in.

הובלתי כתיב in Midrash Rabba on Noach

Summary: Midrash Rabba and Tanchuma appear to have a derasha based on a ketiv which isn't.

Post: In Midrash Rabba on parashat Noach, we encounter the following midrash, which plays on a pasuk in Yechezkel 31:15:

טו  כֹּה-אָמַר אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה, בְּיוֹם רִדְתּוֹ שְׁאוֹלָה הֶאֱבַלְתִּי כִּסֵּתִי עָלָיו אֶת-תְּהוֹם, וָאֶמְנַע נַהֲרוֹתֶיהָ, וַיִּכָּלְאוּ מַיִם רַבִּים; וָאַקְדִּר עָלָיו לְבָנוֹן, וְכָל-עֲצֵי הַשָּׂדֶה עָלָיו עֻלְפֶּה.

15 Thus saith the Lord GOD: In the day when he went down to the nether-world I caused the deep to mourn and cover itself for him, and I restrained the rivers thereof, and the great waters were stayed; and I caused Lebanon to mourn for him, and all the trees of the field fainted for him.

The midrash reads:

אמר רבי לוי: משל את הצדיקים בדירתן ואת הרשעים בדירתן. 
את הצדיקים בדירתן, שנאמר: (יחזקאל לד) במרעה טוב ארעה אותם ובהרי מרום ישראל יהיה נויהם. ואת הרשעים בדירתן, (שם לא) כה אמר ה' אלהים ביום רדתו שאולה, האבלתי כסיתי עליו את התהום. 
ר"י בר רבי אמר:הובלתי כתיב:, אין עושין כסוי לגיגית, לא של כסף, ולא של זהב, ולא של נחושת, אלא חרס לאותם שהם ממינה. 
כך, רשעים חשך גיהינום, חשך תהום. 
חשך הובלתי רשעים לגיהינום, וכסיתי עליהם את התהום, חשך יכסה חשך

Rabbi Yehuda bar Rabbi says הובלתי is written.

The 'problem' is that in our texts, הֶאֱבַלְתִּי, with an aleph, is written. Vetus Testamentum records one instance of it spelled like this in this pasuk:

Here is what Tirosh, a commentator on Midrash Rabba, has to say:

He notes the issue, and cites himself in his Mesillot, and that so is the girsa as well in Shemot Rabba perek 14. But in Vayikra Rabba perek 27 and Bemidbar Rabba perek 1, these two words do not appear. (I would add that it does appear in Midrash Tanchuma.) He suggests that it is a scribal error via a copying from later on in the midrash, where it states הובלתי רשעים לגיהינום. But even if we assert that it is from the primary language of the midrash, it is fairly straightforward to realize that this is not the intent, that it is so written in the Scriptures. Rather, since the language of הֶאֱבַלְתִּי is not really understandable in this context of the melitza, as all the pashtanim have difficulty with it, the entire construction is the pattern of hiphil based on the root אבל, which is strange and has no fellow except for one in Eicha 2:8, where it implies destruction. Therefore they darshened it as if it were written הובלתי.

Buber writes similarly on Tanchuma, saying that it is darshened 'as if' it were written הובלתי.

I think this is somewhat plausible in this context.