Did Avraham call anyone 'My Master' besides Hashem?

Summary: According to Meshech Chochma, he did not, and so was of the select few to be called an eved Hashem. But it is not so simple, according to Rav Yechezkel Abramsky's son. According to one opinion, Adonay at the start of Vayera is chol. Then, I weigh in with what I think is an even stronger counter-example, עַל-עַבְדְּכֶם.

Post:

Meshech Chochma

The Meshech Chochmah, Rabbi Meir Simcha of Dvinsk, writes an interesting comment on the following pasuk in parashat Behaalotecha, on the pasuk:

כח  וַיַּעַן יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן-נוּן, מְשָׁרֵת מֹשֶׁה מִבְּחֻרָיו--וַיֹּאמַר:  אֲדֹנִי מֹשֶׁה, כְּלָאֵם.

28 And Joshua the son of Nun, the minister of Moses from his youth up, answered and said: 'My lord Moses, shut them in.'

He writes:

"And behold, there were three people mentioned in the Torah who were called 'My servant', namely 'Avraham My servant', 'Kalev My servant', 'in My servant Moshe'. These were the ones who never said to any person 'My master' or 'Your servant'. Not so Yehoshua, who said [in this pasuk] 'My master Moshe', and this is as they said, that they did not wish the mention the kingdom of heaven in relation to the kingdom of flesh and blood (the beginning of perek Shlosha sheAchlu). And so too by Aharon, it does no mention 'My servant', since he said 'Adoni' to Moshe."

R' Yechezkel Abramsky

This comment takes a position in the dispute in parashat Vayera, whether the "Adonay" that Avraham says is kodesh or chol, that is, whether it is directed to Hashem, or to the anashim/malachim, which is a machlokes in Shevuos and then later among the Rishonim.

In Chazon Yechezkel, Rav Yechezkel Avramsky writes the following, regarding Bereishit 18:2:

ג  וַיֹּאמַר:  אֲדֹנָי, אִם-נָא מָצָאתִי חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ--אַל-נָא תַעֲבֹר, מֵעַל עַבְדֶּךָ.

3 and said: 'My lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant.

That is, after summarizing the position of the Meshech Chochma, he writes:
"And my dear son, Mar Menachem Ezra comments that this general rule does not hold according to the one who says (on Shevuot daf 35b) that 'All names [of Adonay] said in the Torah by Avraham are kodesh except for this one, which os chol.'

And yet, by Avraham, it is said {in Toledot, in Bereishit 26:24}:

כד  וַיֵּרָא אֵלָיו ה, בַּלַּיְלָה הַהוּא, וַיֹּאמֶר, אָנֹכִי אֱלֹהֵי אַבְרָהָם אָבִיךָ; אַל-תִּירָא, כִּי-אִתְּךָ אָנֹכִי, וּבֵרַכְתִּיךָ וְהִרְבֵּיתִי אֶת-זַרְעֲךָ, בַּעֲבוּר אַבְרָהָם עַבְדִּי.

24 And the LORD appeared unto him the same night, and said: 'I am the God of Abraham thy father. Fear not, for I am with thee, and will bless thee, and multiply thy seed for My servant Abraham's sake.'

" End quote.

This pasuk, and example of Avraham being called the eved of Hashem, was explicitly mentioned by Meshech Chochma, rather than being a mere example of a general rule. And indeed, if we take Adonay to be chol, meaning 'my masters' as a term of respect, then he is calling entities who are not Hashem his masters.

This is the most obvious counterpoint, since the dispute about the meaning of Adonai is a famous one. And the Meshech Chochma would likely acknowledge this point, and assert that this is according to the position that this shem is indeed kodesh.

However, a much stronger objection (though less immediately obvious) could be raised from a slightly later pasuk in Vayera, which everyone seems to have forgotten:

ה  וְאֶקְחָה פַת-לֶחֶם וְסַעֲדוּ לִבְּכֶם, אַחַר תַּעֲבֹרוּ--כִּי-עַל-כֵּן עֲבַרְתֶּם, עַל-עַבְדְּכֶם; וַיֹּאמְרוּ, כֵּן תַּעֲשֶׂה כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבַּרְתָּ.

5 And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and stay ye your heart; after that ye shall pass on; forasmuch as ye are come to your servant.' And they said: 'So do, as thou hast said.'

Note that the word עַבְדְּכֶם is plural. While אֲדֹנָי could plausibly refer to Hashem, and עַבְדֶּךָ is singular, such that it could refer to Hashem, עַבְדְּכֶם is plural and so must refer to the malachim. And recall that Meshech Chochma said that these three never said to anyone Adoni or Avdecha.

I don't think that there is a good rejoinder to this objection, but I would offer the following anyway. Meshech Chochma did not forget עַבְדְּכֶם. And he did not forget the position that אֲדֹנָי was chol. But note that he said that this was not said לשום אדם, to any man. These are angels, not men. And indeed, there are interpretations of these pesukim that Avraham knew of the angels' exalted nature when he first saw them (though that might be coupled with the Shem Adnus as calling them by the name of their Master.)

The shaking, or shaken, earth

Summary: Considering a krei and ketiv in the haftara, according to Meshech Chochma.

Post: In the haftara for Haazinu, in II Shmuel 22, we read:

ז  בַּצַּר-לִי אֶקְרָא ה, וְאֶל-אֱלֹהַי אֶקְרָא;  {ס}  וַיִּשְׁמַע מֵהֵיכָלוֹ קוֹלִי, וְשַׁוְעָתִי בְּאָזְנָיו.  {ר}	7 In my distress I called upon the LORD, yea, I called unto my God; and out of His temple He heard my voice, and my cry did enter into His ears.
ח  ותגעש (וַיִּתְגָּעַשׁ) וַתִּרְעַשׁ הָאָרֶץ,  {ס}  מוֹסְדוֹת הַשָּׁמַיִם יִרְגָּזוּ; וַיִּתְגָּעֲשׁוּ, כִּי-חָרָה לוֹ.  {ר}	8 Then the earth did shake and quake, the foundations of heaven did tremble; they were shaken, because He was wroth.

Note the krei and ketiv. This is all part of a shir which David HaMelech sang, as it states in pasuk 1. There is a parallel song in Tehillim 18:8:

ז  בַּצַּר-לִי, אֶקְרָא יְהוָה--    וְאֶל-אֱלֹהַי אֲשַׁוֵּעַ: יִשְׁמַע מֵהֵיכָלוֹ קוֹלִי;    וְשַׁוְעָתִי, לְפָנָיו תָּבוֹא בְאָזְנָיו.	7 In my distress I called upon the LORD, and cried unto my God;{N} out of His temple He heard my voice, and my cry came before Him unto His ears.
ח  וַתִּגְעַשׁ וַתִּרְעַשׁ, הָאָרֶץ--    וּמוֹסְדֵי הָרִים יִרְגָּזוּ; וַיִּתְגָּעֲשׁוּ,    כִּי-חָרָה לוֹ.	8 Then the earth did shake and quake, the foundations also of the mountains did tremble; {N} they were shaken, because He was wroth.

And there, there is no krei and ketiv alternation, but the krei is in line with the ketiv. The difference, it seems to me, is that one, וַתִּגְעַשׁ, is the third person feminine past, while the other, וַיִּתְגָּעַשׁ, is the third person masculine reflexive (or passive) past. The former matches the pattern of the immediately following word, וַתִּרְעַשׁ, while the latter matches the later occurrence of וַיִּתְגָּעֲשׁוּ in the pasuk, though the subject later is the masculine plural מוֹסְדֵי הָרִים. Given the possibility of corruption from the later word וַיִּתְגָּעֲשׁוּ, given that even in Shmuel it only appears as an alternative krei, and given that in Tehillim we only have one, I would side with וַתִּגְעַשׁ as the correct one. This is if we consider krei and ketiv as the competing possibilities, with only one being correct.

In terms of meaning, I don't really see any major difference between the alternatives. Either way, the earth is literally or metaphorically shaking.

Meshech Chochma discusses this alternation. After citing the pasuk, he writes:


"And the ketiv according to the peshat is וַתִּגְעַשׁ, and so too in Tehillim. And this is strange, for the krei is against the peshat. And it appears that it is going upon the heichal, that the heichal is shaken, and from this, the earth quakes, just as they darshen in Yoma 54b:

וחכמים אומרים מציון נברא שנאמר (תהלים נ, א) מזמור לאסף אל אלהים ה' ואומר מציון מכלל יופי ממנו מוכלל יפיו של עולם

that the earth was created from Tziyon, for it is stated {in Tehillim}, מציון מכלל יופי. And this is the center, and from there it is shaken, and from there the earth shakes, and it is pashut."

This is an interesting way of parsing the pesukim, and one which I would not have thought of. And I think it would account for the masculine of וַיִּתְגָּעַשׁ (though ארץ might be able to support either).

Radak does not see any substantive difference between the krei and the ketiv:

[כב, ח]
ותגעש -כתיב כמו בתהלים וקרי ויתגעש והענין אחד, וקריאת המלה מלרע וכל הענין הזה עד ישלח ממרום רמז להשחית ולכלות אויבי ישראל, כי להם הוא רעש הארץ והשמים וחשך וערפל וגחלים ואש וחצים וברק, הכל דרך משל. 

He says vehainyan echad.

The Targum renders both וַתִּגְעַשׁ  and וַתִּרְעַשׁ as the itpael. Rashi, in saying that the head of the pasuk is mechubar to its end, might be mapping וַיִּתְגָּעַשׁ of the krei to the end.

Behar: The Land Which I *Give* You, not The Land Which I Sell You

Another cute devar Torah taken from Meshech Chochma. Parshas Behar begins:

א וַיְדַבֵּר ה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, בְּהַר סִינַי לֵאמֹר.	1 And the LORD spoke unto Moses in mount Sinai, saying:
ב דַּבֵּר אֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם, כִּי תָבֹאוּ אֶל-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי נֹתֵן לָכֶם--וְשָׁבְתָה הָאָרֶץ, שַׁבָּת לַה.	2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them: When ye come into the land which I give you, then shall the land keep a sabbath unto the LORD.

Why asher ani noten lachem? Meshech Chochma notes a dispute between Rabbi Akiva and the Rabanan, which occurs for example in Bava Basra 64b:

דרבי עקיבא סבר מוכר בעין יפה מוכר ורבנן סברי מוכר בעין רעה מוכר

When one sells land, does he do generously and in a heartfelt manner, hoping the person will enjoy it, plant it, gather in the fruits, and so on? Only according to Rabbi Akiva, but according to the Rabanan, he does not, but rather intends beayin raah. While this may be disputed, all would agree that when one gives land as a gift, he does so בעין יפה. Therefore, the Torah takes care to specify אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי נֹתֵן לָכֶם.

Now, it seems unlikely that the intent of this pasuk was to make sure not to take sides in a Tannaitic dispute. And Hashem is not about to say "which I sell to you," for this does not make sense. Yet once again, it is an extremely creative connection to draw.

And perhaps can be read as reinforcing a theme in the pesukim. After all, the next verses read:

ג שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים תִּזְרַע שָׂדֶךָ, וְשֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים תִּזְמֹר כַּרְמֶךָ; וְאָסַפְתָּ, אֶת-תְּבוּאָתָהּ.	3 Six years thou shalt sow thy field, and six years thou shalt prune thy vineyard, and gather in the produce thereof.
ד וּבַשָּׁנָה הַשְּׁבִיעִת, שַׁבַּת שַׁבָּתוֹן יִהְיֶה לָאָרֶץ--שַׁבָּת, לַה: שָׂדְךָ לֹא תִזְרָע, וְכַרְמְךָ לֹא תִזְמֹר.	4 But in the seventh year shall be a sabbath of solemn rest for the land, a sabbath unto the LORD; thou shalt neither sow thy field, nor prune thy vineyard.

Thus, as Meshech Chochma noted, this land was being given to be enjoyed and worked. Thus, six years you shall sow, and prune, and gather, as in pasuk 3. Hashem wants us to enjoy the land. That there is a restriction on the 7th year is not because Hashem does not want to us to enjoy the land, but for a different reason -- perhaps recognition of Hashem's role, and that it is a gift from God, and so on.

Behar: Land Reverting to the Father After the Son Redeems It

In the beginning of parshas Behar, we read the laws of what happens when someone sells his field, which he inherited.

Two pesukim:

י וְקִדַּשְׁתֶּם, אֵת שְׁנַת הַחֲמִשִּׁים שָׁנָה, וּקְרָאתֶם דְּרוֹר בָּאָרֶץ, לְכָל-יֹשְׁבֶיהָ; יוֹבֵל הִוא, תִּהְיֶה לָכֶם, וְשַׁבְתֶּם אִישׁ אֶל-אֲחֻזָּתוֹ, וְאִישׁ אֶל-מִשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ תָּשֻׁבוּ.

10 And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof; it shall be a jubilee unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family.

and then later:

יג בִּשְׁנַת הַיּוֹבֵל, הַזֹּאת, תָּשֻׁבוּ, אִישׁ אֶל-אֲחֻזָּתוֹ.

13 In this year of jubilee ye shall return every man unto his possession.

Rashi writes, citing Toras Kohanim:

13. you shall return, each man to his property. But has this not already been stated, [when Scripture says], “ and you shall return, each man to his property” (verse 10 above)? However, [this clause is stated here,] to include one who sold his field, and his son arose and redeemed it, that it reverts to his father in the Jubilee. — [Torath Kohanim 25:28]

Meshech Chochma claims this is a scribal error in Toras Kohanim. To expand on this (hopefully correctly), of course it would revert back to the father, for sales always revert back to the original seller, no matter how many times it is sold until Yovel -- as is clear from the subsequent pesukim. Rather, it should read that one was makdish (consecrated) his field, rather than sold his field. And not only is it a scribal error in Torat Kohanim, but it is a scribal error in Rashi as well. And then he looked and found his correction in the text of the Yalkut, thus showing his correction miSevara was accurate.

The lesson being taught is as follows: generally, when one is makdish his field, he can redeem it. If he does not, hekdesh sells it, and uses the money. The purchaser does not keep the field forever, but rather at Yovel, it goes back to the kohanim, who get to keep it forever. Thus, the one who consecrated it loses his nachala forever. This statement in Toras Kohanim is teaching that a man's son redeeming it from hekdesh is still considered redeeming it, rather than purchasing it, and so it would go back to the man who was makdish, rather than the Kohanim, at Yovel.

If there was a taus sofer, seems is unlikely it would appear in two separate places identically -- unless someone corrected Rashi on the basis of an erroneous Toras Kohanim, which is certainly possible. But then I would want to look at different editions of Rashi. And I misplaced by Rashi al HaTorah from Mossad haRav Kook. Rather (and perhaps this is what he means), if it is a scribal error in Toras Kohanim, perhaps Rashi saw this and simply copied it as is. Which would mean he agrees to the plausibility of the scribal error as peshat or derash.

I could see the plausibility of it as well. Perhaps one might think that all that is required is that sold land goes back into the family, as an achuza. And so since the goel was the son of the seller, it now is in the family possession. This pasuk re-stresses that fact that it is a return specifically to the man, ish el achuzato. This is not necessarily the way the derasha works, but semantically what is being learned seems closer to the words of the pasuk than any expansion about being makdish.

Behar: The Connection Between Shemitta and Har Sinai

Meshech Chochmah, citing Zohar, has an interesting connection he develops. You see, the Israelites were released from Egypt on Yovel. That is the meaning of Shemot 13:18:

יח וַיַּסֵּב אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָעָם דֶּרֶךְ הַמִּדְבָּר, יַם-סוּף; וַחֲמֻשִׁים עָלוּ בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם.

18 But God led the people about, by the way of the wilderness by the Red Sea; and the children of Israel went up armed out of the land of Egypt.

This is the meaning of chamushim. It means chamishim, the 50th year, which is Yovel. And this was why the Israelites were able to be taken out. This was not said explicitly, as far as I could see, but we can connect it with the deror, declared freedom for slaves, that happens at the Jubilee. And then it is connected to a 49 day buildup from the exodus to the giving of the Torah, ascending levels, corresponding to the 49 anpin of Torah. There are other connections listed there. Ayen sham.

As with many things Meshech Chochmah offers, I don't really "buy" it, but still, I can appreciate the beauty of its construction.