Posts so far for parshat Bereishit

2014

1. Minchas Shai introduces us to Ben Asher and Ben Naftali, who have their very first difference on Bereishit 1:3. Plus, why he calls the munach a galgal.

2. At Girsology, an attempt at a Mikraot Gedolot Chadashot. Link goes to Bereishit 1:1, but just change the last number. At the time of this writing, it goes to Bereishit 1:6, but hope to have the first perek up in its entirety soon.

2013

1. Did Saadia Gaon have a masorah on shafan as al-wabr? According to Ibn Ezra, Saadia Gaon sometimes made things up, for the honor of Torah. Even so...

2. Ish and Isha, and dikduk. The derivation given in the Torah for Isha seems to contradict the grammatical analysis...

2012

1. Bereishit sources, 2012 edition. I've added biographical information to many of the meforshim, as well as images and discussions of their general approach. Also, sorted now in chronological order, so you can look at Geonim, Rishonim, 19th century Acharonim, and so on.

2. Running commentary on parashat Bereishit, part one.

3. YUTorah on parshat Bereishit

4. Is evolution and an old earth mentioned in Chagiga? I don't think so.



2011

1. All the king's horse -- on a post on Beshalach, I write:

   Even though Rashi to Bereishit 3:8 says "ואני לא באתי אלא לפשוטו של מקרא ולאגדה המיישבת דברי המקרא דבר דבור על אופניו", people overapply it. I am not at all convinced he meant it as people take it. How precisely to take it is another story, but it does NOT mean that Rashi always imagines that he is saying peshat. I've heard some Rashi scholars say that he only meant it in that instance. I would say that he is rejecting a specific type of midrash. 

   .
   See there for my analysis of that Rashi.
   .
2. The Or Hachaim, that we no longer have ruach hakodesh -- While the Divrei Chaim said someone was an apikores for saying that the Or HaChayim did not write with ruach kakodesh, and dismisses reports of Gedolim who say there is no ruach hakodesh nowadays, this is what Or Hachaim himself says. (Credit to David Guttman at Believing is Knowing, who credits in turn Professor David Assaf.)
   .
3. The talking snake vs. the talking donkey -- I discuss a short shiur which discusses Abrabanel's distinction.
   .
4. Bereishit sources -- In 2008, links to the appropriate page in an online Mikraot Gedolot, by aliyah and by perek.  In 2009, expanded to more than 100 meforshim. In 2010, further improved. In 2011, added many more more meforshim to several categories. For a small set of examples, Rav Chaim Kanievsky to general meforshim, meforshei Rashi and kitvei yad to the Rashi section, and Targumna to the Targum section.
   .
5. Did Rav Saadia Gaon dream that Pishon was the Nile? This is what Ibn Ezra alleges. It is possible, though far-reaching. I try to give a sevarah, at the end.
   .
6. Adnei HaSadeh and Earth Mouse in parashat Bereishit -- According to Rav Chaim Kanievsky, one can make adiyuk in two pesukim in parashat Bereishit to refer to the creation of the adnei hasadeh and the earth-mouse. The adnei hasadeh is a humanoid creature connected by an umbilical cord to the ground, and the earth mouth is one that is in the process of spontaneously generating, and so is still half made of earth.
   .
7. Of Tree-Geese and Mandrakes -- According to Rav Chaim Kanievsky, an additional reason for the repetition of the creation of bird and wild animals is that certain birds and wild animals indeed needed to be recreated for the purpose, since they could not be transported. For instance, the tree-goose, which is grows from a tree and is attached by its nose (beak?) to the tree, and the adnei hasadeh, which (as it seems is a humanoid creature attached to the ground by an umbilical cord.
   .
8. The Ohr HaChaim's kamatz in רָקִיעַ הַשָּׁמָיִם -- He makes a grammatical distinction based on a kametz under the resh, which places it in absolute rather than construct form. Alas, that kametz does not exist.
   .
9. Of the Sambatyon River, and the Fish who keeps Shabbos -- Radak explains the sanctification of Shabbos in part that there are elements of creation which testify to the chiddush haOlam. Namely, the River Sambatyon and the Shabtai fish, both which rest on Shabbos. I consider each. And Birkas Avraham expands upon the features of the Shabtai fish, and relates it to the mitzvah of eating fish on Shabbos.
   .
10. Does Sifsei Chachamim know about time zones? And that it can be night in one country while it is day in another? I think he can. Rav Chaim Kanievsky points out a difficulty in Sifsei Chachamim, in that it does not seem to work with a round earth. He answers that the division away from ערבוביא was only during the days of Creation. I suggest another resolution.
    .
11. What parsing of זאת הפעם does Ibn Caspi reject, based on trup?  I don't think it is the one mentioned in the footnote, namely the traditional parse of 'this time a bone of a bone', rejected in favor of 'Adam said this time'. This does not work with Ibn Caspi's wording. Rather, I think that he is rejecting Shadal's parse of זאת referring to the אשה, in favor of the traditional parse.
    .
12. YU Torah on parashat Bereishit
    .
13. Peshita on Bereshit perek one and two, three, four, five, six.
    .
14. The revii on דשא -- Minchas Shai and Shadal weigh the merits of a zakef or a revia on the word דֶשֶׁא, in parashat Bereishit. Shadal gives some good evidence
    .
15. Is it וַחֲשׁוֹכָא פְרִישׂ עַל אַפֵּי תְּהוֹמָא in the very second verse of the Torah? Already in the second pasuk of Bereshit, Shadal notes and endorses a girsological variant in Onkelos.
    .
16. Is יְעוֹפֵף a command, or an adjective? Two girsaot in Onkelos, reflecting a machlokes Chazal. Plus, the trup appears to indicate one way over another.
    .
17. Ramban, the perfect encoding of Torah, and hidden messages such as Torah codes -- Torah Codes are based, in part, on this kabbalistic concept. The text of the Torah in its present form is perfect and can be used to discover hidden meanings. But if one disagrees with this assertion -- and there is strong reason to do so -- then all Torah codes are thrown off.

2009

1. Introducing Absolut Genesis, 2009 edition. From the same folks who brought you the Absolut Haggadah. See my review of Absolut Genesis here, and download Absolut Genesis here.
   
   Also, as part of my review, I give several of my own suggestions as to the meaning of the two clothes-giving incidents.
   
   
2. In the beginning, Hashem separated?! Why I don't find this novel interpretation persuasive, or even that novel.
   .
3. The Torah begins with the letter Bet. Ibn Ezra criticizes a midrash which explains why, and is criticized in turn by his supercommentator, Avi Ezer, who concludes that Ibn Ezra never wrote it, but that it was written by a talmid toeh. This is somewhat reminiscent of goings-on nowadays. I look into Ibn Ezra in Sefer Tzachot and see that the purported contradiction between Ibn Ezra and himself is readily answerable.
   .
4. Is the second Pru Urvu a blessing or a mitzvah? Ibn Ezra "argues" with the traditional explanation of Chazal that is it a mitzvah, and explains why. Or rather, says that this was a din deRabbanan which Chazal attached to this pasuk as a sort of asmachta. And I defend him from an attack by Avi Ezer, his supercommentary.
   .
5. From Junior, did Adam HaRishon name the T-Rex? And proof that no one created Hashem. And all about bechira chofshis.
   .
6. Did Chava speak parseltongue? If not, how was she able to communicate with the snake in Gan Eden?
   .
7. The unfinished north, like the letter Beis. Which means that in medieval times, some people considered east to be up. Does this mean that the world was flat?
   .
8. Was Rashi's father an Am HaAretz? Why does Rashi ask such a "silly" question in the beginning of his perush, if not out of respect to his father?
   .
9. How are the days of man 120 years? We can say that these Benei Elohim are angels, the nefilim of the context which follows. And since the descendants are also flesh, and not just spiritual beings, they shall have a similar lifespan as that of man, namely 120. Someone who is adam cannot have Hashem's spirit abide in them forever, and therefore they are mortal.
   
   
   Or alternatively, because of their sinning, their lifespan has been reduced. I still think it is plausible, and don't consider the explicit contradiction we find immediately after, in that Shem and company lived much longer, to be an unassailable contradiction.
   .
10. The Torah is not a science book! When arguing this out with one another, the Rishonim do not seem to assume that such a question -- we don't see snakes speak -- is by its very nature heretical. Rather, such questions, and grappling with various features of the text, is talmud torah, and is what they are obligated to engage in. Compare with the attitude that some take nowadays.
    .
11. The gimel / kaf switch, and the talmid toeh -- Or is Ibn Ezra simply reversing himself?
    .
12. His journey(s) -- when the masorah opposes the Zohar -- Zohar on Bereishit, on a pasuk in Lech Lecha. In Lecha Lecha, we have a few instances in which rather old Rabbinic texts indicate something about a pasuk that goes against the masoretic notes as well as all our sefarim. In one instance, it is Zohar against the masorah; in another, the gemara; and in a third, Rashi.
    
    
    This is interesting in and of itself, but what is also interesting is the way that the mosereticcommentators handle this. In this first post, a contradiction between Zohar's version of a pasuk and our own.

2008

1. The World Was Created in 10 Statements, part i and part ii -- An attempted analysis of this curious declaration, and identification of which statements in Bereishit these may be.

2007

1. The Snake's punishment: Taking the narrative of the sin in the garden of Eden as metaphor, how are we to understand the snake being punished. What I believe is a plausible explanation, in which the Snake is the evil inclination, and it is not punishment but rather a delineating of the role of the "snake" in terms of its relation to mankind.
   .
2. Gilgamesh, Utanpishtim, and Gan Eden: cross-listed to Noach. Comparisons and contrasts to the Noach story, and to the Adam story. Such as sleep overtaking Adam, the tree of knowledge perhaps being intercourse, the mouth of the rivers as a place in which eternal life is possessed by those dwelling there. And so on.
   .
3. Was Chava named for a snake? A response to a DovBear post. I doubt it, and explain why.
   .
4. The appropriately named Er and Onan: Cross-listed from Vayeshev. But along the lines of the idea that Hevel was not Hevel's true name, but rather was a name chosen as appropriate to his fate.

2006

• Let Us Make Man
• What is the meaning of Naaseh Adam Betzalmenu? A video.

2005

• Adam and Eve as Metaphor
• This post is divided into three parts.
  [A. Motivations] claims that assigning Scripture a metaphorical role where it contradicts modern scientific beliefs is a sign of lack of faith - in which case the claim of metaphor is a means of rendering the text impotent without seeming a heretic; or abundance of faith - in which case one is sure both science and Torah are absolutely true, but this forces one to claim the Torah speaks metaphorically. Either approach is unfair to the text. An example of genesis on the basis of the four elements is given, as is an example of a midrash switching around the order of a verse about rotting manna to accomodate a scientific belief in spontaneous generation. (Before turning for this last, I offer a defense of this midrash.) It is fair to label a text metaphorical if there are features internal to the text that suggest it is metaphor.
  [B. Three Distinct Issues] puts forth that there are three issues that should not be conflated - age of the universe, age of the earth, and age of civilization. It is the last that is really under discussion. Age of the universe is no issue since a proper reading of the first three verses in Genesis, as well as comparison to other creation stories, implies a creation from primordial matter, rather than ex nihilo. The creation ex nihilo may still exist for the primordial matter. Creation and placement of celestial bodies on the fourth day should be understood in the context of the entire described creation, which is a different matter. The solution might lie in the pluperfect, or better, since the creation in 6-days is Earth-centered and the celestial bodies are explicitly placed there to mark time - day, night, years, and seasons - perhaps we might interpret this as the placing of the earth in relation to these celestial bodies - at a certain distance from the Sun, at a certain revolution about it, and at a specific axis and speed of rotation. Age of the Earth is also not necessarily truly an issue. The purpose of retelling the cosmogony, even if absolutely literal, is to show God's relationship with His creation. Thus, for example, He creates and keeps as pets the sea monsters, which in other cultures were the enemies of the pantheon of the gods. Also, actions of the unfathomable God are described, so they must be metaphor on at least some level - God has no arm, but has a zeroa netuya. Similarly, "days" are a tool to allow the human mind to wrap around whatever epoch or grouping (perhaps not even chronological) of God's creative acts. This may be separated by some time from Adam, especially if Adam is metaphor. Age of Civilization is no problem if the tale of the garden is metaphor, and if the genealogical lists with thousand-year old people, like that of the Sumerian king lists, is not meant to record historical fact but serves another purpose. Also, a curiosity about carbon dating and question if a 6000 year dating for civilization is truly problematic.
  [C. Adam and Eve as Metaphor] gets to the meat of the issue. What features of the story suggest it is metaphor. I propose how each story details the relationship of man to God or the world. Thus, Man as created in God's image, Man as dominating nature, man's relation to woman, and man's place in the world, as distinct from that of angels.
  I give reasons why the story seems metaphor. The Man and the Woman are given type names, and referred to with the definite article. Talking snakes and magic trees are not in the normal range of human experience. Disagreement between details of creation in this story vs. that of chapter 1 (accounted for since details of a metaphor may clash with reality or that of another metaphor). Consumption of the fruit changes mankinds nature. The punishment is not personal but establishes the very nature of Man and the natural order.
  I discuss the meaning of the metaphor. Man's eating from the tree was inevitable, and reflects his ability to choose between Good and Evil, a capacity angels lack. The serpent represented Man's yetzer, and the act of diverting from God's will, rather than something intristic in the fruit, actualized Man's ability to choose. This ability is a Good Thing (TM), for it makes choosing Good more valuable, and so there is no fall from Grace but rather a description of how Man is on a higher level than angels. The punishment is no punishment but rather a description of how the world must be to accomodate Man's special nature - life must be finite, rewards must be earned through hard work and pain, and there must be a struggle to overcome and crush the head of temptation. Other metaphors are surely present but this represents a major one.
• Moshe's Name (cross-posted from Vayikra)
• This post argues in favor of the Biblically given derivation of Moshe's name, which has many points in its favor over the proposed Egyptian one MSS. It begins with a discussion of how many Biblical derivations do not work out entirely etymologically, but are based on sound similarity. Several examples from parashat Bereishit are discussed: Noach, Kayin, Shet, Isha.
• Hevel's Hark and the Skipper Too
• We consider the meaning of kol in the phrase ק֚וֹל דְּמֵ֣י אָחִ֔יךָ צֹֽעֲקִ֥ים אֵלַ֖י מִן־הָֽאֲדָמָֽה, from the perspective of trup. Does it mean hark, or the voice of?

2004

• Adam and Chava pull a Yeshaya
• by hiding themselves in a tree, in a neo-drash I just made up. This leads to a discussion of Yeshaya hiding in a tree and being killed by the evil king Menashe, in the gemara and in pseudopigraphic work called The Ascension of Isaiah.

• Moshe/Kayin parallels, and midrashic vs. peshat narrative (cross-posted from Shemot)
• Parallels between two murders - of Hevel and of the Egyptian. Both killings take place in solitude, both killers try to pretend the murder did not happen, both go into exile as a result of the murder. In both instances the ground plays a role in covering up the murder. Brothers play a role in both. In both instances focus is made on potential descendants of the deceased.
  Then I highlight and discuss the difference between the two accounts of Moshe's actions, one midrashic, and one literal.

2003

• Three paths to sin
• Some homiletics I wrote, for a class in homiletics. From the three possible ways Adam came to sin, the subject of a Rabbinic dispute. 1) Carelessness caused by lack of chavivut for mitzvot; 2) Rationalization; 3) Sympathy and empathy.
• HaGān, Mashiv HaRuach, And The Pseudo-pausal
• HaGān, with a kametz appearing even where there is no etnachta or silluq, is good evidence of the pseudo-pausal, such that hatāl should be said even if you say hageshem.

to be continued...

Running Commentary on parashat Ki Teitzei, part iii

See part one and part two. Consider this an interlude, before the actual analysis.

Ki Teitzei continues with rebellious son, the Ben Sorer UMoreh. Chazal say בן סורר ומורה לא היה ולא עתיד להיות ולמה נכתב דרוש וקבל שכר, that the Ben Sorer Umoreh never existed nor will exist in the future, and it is written in the Torah in order to interpret it and receive reward. I intend to show how this is peshat in the pesukim. This will be a lengthy introduction, prior to actual interpretation of the verses.

Recall that, as discussed in part one, the purpose of the legislation regarding the female captive was to restrict the power of the captors. While he indeed was able to to eventually sleep with her, he first needed to allow her to regain her humanity, remove her soiled clothing of captivity, engage in normal hygienic practices (of haircut and trimming her nails), mourn for her family for a decent amount of time, enter a normal calm home, and so on. Then, if he wished to sleep with her, she would not be chattel, and a sex slave. She would be the equivalent of a full Israelite wife. If he changed his mind, he could not simply pass her on as a sex slave to his friend. He would divorce her and let her go free. The moral rules of society restrict the actions of the victors of the battle.

Recall that, as discussed in part two, the purpose of the legislation regarding inheritance of the favored vs. unfavored sons is to restrict the whims of the father. Just because he preferred one wife over the other, he cannot dismiss the rights of the firstborn, because those supersede his individual preferences. This mishpat habechora is set by society. As we see in the Code of Hammurabi, if a father wished to disinherit his son, this is not his choice to make. He would bring his case before judges who would decide on its merits.

The pesukim [Devarim 21]:

יח  כִּי-יִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ, בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה--אֵינֶנּוּ שֹׁמֵעַ, בְּקוֹל אָבִיו וּבְקוֹל אִמּוֹ; וְיִסְּרוּ אֹתוֹ, וְלֹא יִשְׁמַע אֲלֵיהֶם.	18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, that will not hearken to the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and though they chasten him, will not hearken unto them;
יט  וְתָפְשׂוּ בוֹ, אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ; וְהוֹצִיאוּ אֹתוֹ אֶל-זִקְנֵי עִירוֹ, וְאֶל-שַׁעַר מְקֹמוֹ.	19 then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
כ  וְאָמְרוּ אֶל-זִקְנֵי עִירוֹ, בְּנֵנוּ זֶה סוֹרֵר וּמֹרֶה--אֵינֶנּוּ שֹׁמֵעַ, בְּקֹלֵנוּ; זוֹלֵל, וְסֹבֵא.	20 and they shall say unto the elders of his city: 'This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he doth not hearken to our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.'
כא  וּרְגָמֻהוּ כָּל-אַנְשֵׁי עִירוֹ בָאֲבָנִים, וָמֵת, וּבִעַרְתָּ הָרָע, מִקִּרְבֶּךָ; וְכָל-יִשְׂרָאֵל, יִשְׁמְעוּ וְיִרָאוּ.  {ס}	21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die; so shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. {S}

Now we see a restriction on family law, that while extreme rebelliousness and familial ingratitude combined with corruption is still a capitol offense, the decision to impose the penalty and the execution of this penalty is taken out of the hands of the mother and father. If they seek to impose this penalty on their son, they must state their case before the the court, which evaluates the situation and comes to a judgement.

There is then certainly a reformative spirit to this law, moving from a more primitive, brutal, and self-interested family law ("he didn't clean up his toys! I'll kill him!") to a fairer, more objective societal law. And it is up to the courts to decide. And Chazal can direct the courts how to decide. Plus, al pi haTorah asher yorucha. As society develops and matures, this entire idea of capital punishment for lack of familial obeisance should really be discarded. And thus, when it is put in the hands of the courts, they can declare that this is not something that should be penalized. Or they can accomplish this using legal maneuverings, by setting the requirements for a valid case extremely high (as the gemara indeed does). Thus, even if at some point in history (and this is likely so), Ben Sorers were punished, once these restrictions were set in place, they have set the bar so high that no Ben Sorer could possibly have existed in the past or could exist in the future. Thus,  בן סורר ומורה לא היה ולא עתיד להיות.

Even so, the Torah is nitzchiyus. Honoring one's parents, avoiding gluttony and drunkenness, etc., is very important, and we often know how important something is by the penalty spelled out by the Torah. This law stays on the books and we can deduce important ideas from it and receive reward. למה נכתב דרוש וקבל שכר.

כִּי-יִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ -- It does not start with כִּי-יִהְיֶה בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה, when there be a stubborn and rebellious son. Rather, this is told from the perspective of the man who has this son. Just like כִּי-תִהְיֶיןָ לְאִישׁ שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים. How shall he be able to deal with his son?

בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה -- we have no local definition of what behavior is "stubborn" and "rebellious". Perhaps the continuation of the pasuk forms the local definition, אֵינֶנּוּ שֹׁמֵעַ, בְּקוֹל אָבִיו וּבְקוֹל אִמּוֹ,  or perhaps pasuk 20 distributes across, with sorer as אֵינֶנּוּ שֹׁמֵעַ, בְּקֹלֵנוּ and umoreh as זוֹלֵל, וְסֹבֵא. Thus, with underlying misbehavior as well as unwillingness to heed parental correction.

To be continued, perhaps more in depth.

Running Commentary on parashat Ki Teitzei, part ii

See part one here. Ki Teitzei continues with the ability, or lack thereof, of the father to change the inheritance of favored or disfavored sons. This section reads (Devarim 21-15-17):

טו  כִּי-תִהְיֶיןָ לְאִישׁ שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים, הָאַחַת אֲהוּבָה וְהָאַחַת שְׂנוּאָה, וְיָלְדוּ-לוֹ בָנִים, הָאֲהוּבָה וְהַשְּׂנוּאָה; וְהָיָה הַבֵּן הַבְּכֹר, לַשְּׂנִיאָה.	15 If a man have two wives, the one beloved, and the other hated, and they have borne him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the first-born son be hers that was hated;
טז  וְהָיָה, בְּיוֹם הַנְחִילוֹ אֶת-בָּנָיו, אֵת אֲשֶׁר-יִהְיֶה, לוֹ--לֹא יוּכַל, לְבַכֵּר אֶת-בֶּן-הָאֲהוּבָה, עַל-פְּנֵי בֶן-הַשְּׂנוּאָה, הַבְּכֹר.	16 then it shall be, in the day that he causeth his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved the first-born before the son of the hated, who is the first-born;
יז  כִּי אֶת-הַבְּכֹר בֶּן-הַשְּׂנוּאָה יַכִּיר, לָתֶת לוֹ פִּי שְׁנַיִם, בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר-יִמָּצֵא, לוֹ:  כִּי-הוּא רֵאשִׁית אֹנוֹ, לוֹ מִשְׁפַּט הַבְּכֹרָה.  {ס}	17 but he shall acknowledge the first-born, the son of the hated, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath; for he is the first-fruits of his strength, the right of the first-born is his. {S}

The main thrust of this section are contained in the words לֹא יוּכַל. He is not able to effect such a change, on a mere whim or preference, because the laws imposed by society take precedence, such that לוֹ מִשְׁפַּט הַבְּכֹרָה, emphasis on mishpat.

כִּי-תִהְיֶיןָ לְאִישׁ שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים -- Note that this is not a recommendation. It is ki tihiyeha, if there would be, not that there should be. And the purpose is the set up for deciding the situation. Perhaps even sequential marriage, instead of simultaneous marriage would fit the bill. Yet the Torah does not outlaw multiple wives.

הָאַחַת אֲהוּבָה וְהָאַחַת שְׂנוּאָה -- Not literally hated. These are what Ibn Caspi calls ממאמר המצרף. Comparatively, he loves one more than the other.

The preference is the preference of the mothers, not of the sons, but it carries over to the sons. Think Rachel and Leah. [Perhaps indeed שְׂנוּאָה by Leah is ממאמר המצרף.] Which means that this is not the result of poor conduct by the son.

The Code of Hammurabi has the following:

52  If a man present field, garden or house to his favorite son and write for him a sealed deed, when the brothers divide the property after their father’s death, the favorite son shall take the present which his father gave him and the rest shall be divided equally among all the brothers.  165

53  If a man set his face to disinherit his son and say to the judges, “I will disinherit my son”, the judges shall inquire into his antecedents and if the son have not committed a crime sufficiently grave to cut him off from being recognized as a son, the father may not disinherit him.  168

Thus, he is allowed to allocate to a favored son over and above the general rules of inheritance. And entire disinheritance is not allowed at the father's whim. It must come before judges.

The law under discussion seems to fall somewhere along the spectrum, since the question is one of disinheriting the non-favored son of his extra portion, and not as a result of his personal conduct. Which is why the father is not able.

Did Yaakov not favor Yosef over Reuven, and indeed give Yosef the double-portion, namely true tribes and a Shechem Echad over his brothers? In answer, see Vaychi:
3. Reuben, you are my firstborn, my strength and the first of my might. [You should have been] superior in rank and superior in power.ג. רְאוּבֵן בְּכֹרִי אַתָּה כֹּחִי וְרֵאשִׁית אוֹנִי יֶתֶר שְׂאֵת וְיֶתֶר עָז:4. [You have] the restlessness of water; [therefore,] you shall not have superiority, for you ascended upon your father's couch; then you profaned [Him Who] ascended upon my bed.ד. פַּחַז כַּמַּיִם אַל תּוֹתַר כִּי עָלִיתָ מִשְׁכְּבֵי אָבִיךָ אָז חִלַּלְתָּ יְצוּעִי עָלָה:

More explicitly, meaning not as cryptic, see Divrei Hayamim I, 5:1-2:

א  וּבְנֵי רְאוּבֵן בְּכוֹר-יִשְׂרָאֵל, כִּי הוּא הַבְּכוֹר--וּבְחַלְּלוֹ יְצוּעֵי אָבִיו, נִתְּנָה בְּכֹרָתוֹ לִבְנֵי יוֹסֵף בֶּן-יִשְׂרָאֵל; וְלֹא לְהִתְיַחֵשׂ, לַבְּכֹרָה.	1 And the sons of Reuben the first-born of Israel--for he was the first-born; but, forasmuch as he defiled his father's couch, his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph the son of Israel, yet not so that he was to be reckoned in the genealogy as first-born.
ב  כִּי יְהוּדָה גָּבַר בְּאֶחָיו, וּלְנָגִיד מִמֶּנּוּ; וְהַבְּכֹרָה, לְיוֹסֵף.  {ס}	2 For Judah prevailed above his brethren, and of him came he that is the prince; but the birthright was Joseph's-- {S}

This

To cite myself:

See the Code of Hammurabi, law 158. People translate it in more and less expansive ways. Here are two renderings of it:

158. If a free man has sexual relations with his father's first wife, who is the mother of sons, after the death of his father, that man shall lose his paternal inheritance.

158. If any one be surprised after his father with his chief wife, who has borne children, he shall be driven out of his father's house.

As I understand it, "surprised" means caught in the act, in flagrante delicto, such that there is no room for doubt. "After his father" is all that is said, but it is understood to mean after his father's death. (Otherwise, wouldn't this merit the death penalty?) Note that this is thechief wife, rather than a second wife, a concubine, or a sexual slave. And even there, it is the chief wife who has borne children, such that she retains this status of mother of his father's children after the father's death.

Obviously, this is not 100% parallel to Reuven and Bilhah, but there are remarkable similarities, such that one could envision a local law code covering his case. Reuven was not caught with Bilhah in the act. Rather, וַיִּשְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל, Yisrael heard of it. That should potentially make the penalty less. Yet it was during his father's lifetime, which should make the penalty greater. Yet, this was not with a chief-wife who had borne offspring -- it was a concubine, or a slave given by Rachel to Yaakov for the purpose of procreating. That she is a pilegesh might well lessen the offense, in this pre-Mosaic law.

The end result is that Reuven loses aspects of his inheritance, or if you will, thebechora status of his inheritance over that of his other brothers. A fitting punishment, given local laws.

We thus see that Yaakov Avinu held by the dina d'malchusa.

לָתֶת לוֹ פִּי שְׁנַיִם, בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר-יִמָּצֵא, לוֹ -- there is some tumult over what this might mean. Thus,

 The Mari and Nuzi texts (though not formal law codes in the sense of the others) describe situations where the firstborn son receives double the share of an adopted son. Finally, the mid first millennium NeoBabylonian laws stipulate that the sons of a first wife share 2/3 of the estate between them, while the sons of a second wife share only 1/3, half as much.

I see no reason not to say like Ibn Ezra, that he counts as if he were two sons.

The royal archives at Mari were found, with a nice parallel:

Dozens of legal tablets were also found, mostly contracts concerning transactions and loans of silver or grain (ARM, 8), revealing that the palace served as a sort of exchange. Of exceptional interest is an adoption contract which ensured the "primogeniture" of the "eldest" (i.e., first adopted) son, stipulating that he receive a double portion of the inheritance; this is in full accord with biblical law (cf. Deut. 21:15–17).

כִּי-הוּא רֵאשִׁית אֹנוֹ-- meaning first of his strength. See Reuven's blessing for the comparison. An interesting use of the idiom here.

Running commentary for parashat Vayera, part i

Parashat Vayera begins:

א  וַיֵּרָא אֵלָיו ה, בְּאֵלֹנֵי מַמְרֵא; וְהוּא יֹשֵׁב פֶּתַח-הָאֹהֶל, כְּחֹם הַיּוֹם.

1 And the LORD appeared unto him by the terebinths of Mamre, as he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;

וַיֵּרָא אֵלָיו ה -- Hashem appears to Avraham. On a peshat level, this conversation is not interrupted by the visit of the three men. Rather, it is the visit of the three men. However, this leads to a possibly uncomfortable theological conclusion about whether God is corporeal or, to a lesser degree, can manifest in what appears to be human form. Chazal interpret these pesukim otherwise, in which Hashem first visits, is interrupted by the arrival of the three men, and resumes his conversation with Avraham after the three angels leave. This is most likely understood by them not merely as derash but peshat as well, just as the Rishonim understood it.

Shadal says וַיֵּרָא אֵלָיו ה, via his angels, as it continues to explain. And he refers us to Rashbam and Nisivot Hashalom.

וירא אליו ה' - האיך? 
שבאו אליו שלשה אנשים שהיו מלאכים, שבהרבה מקומות כשנראה המלאך קוראו בלשון שכינה, כדכתיב: כי שמי בקרבו שלוחו כמותו. 
וכן: וירא מלאך ה' אליו בלבת אש מתוך הסנה. וכתוב שם: וירא ה' כי סר לראות. 

One could argue with Rashbam's presentation, and say that only two were malachim and the third, central one, was Hashem.

Ibn Ezra attacks Rashbam's position, pointing out that only two malachim arrived at Sodom:

הנה קצת אמרו, כי השם ג' אנשים הוא אחד והוא ג' ולא יתפרדו. והנה שכחו ויבאו שני המלאכים סדומה

I agree. Not all three were Hashem. Two were malachim, who accompanied Hashem, and one was some deeper manifestation of Hashem's presence.

(However, to answer on behalf of those who would have all thee as a manifestation of Hashem, we can point out that
 (a) any angel is a manifestation of Hashem, and angels can surely split up -- the later 'Hashem said' is the agent speaking in his Master's name.
 (b) any angel can be said to be a manifestation of Hashem, and that manifestation can be in the image of three or in the image of two, as appropriate.
)

בְּאֵלֹנֵי מַמְרֵא -- This is in Chevron. See this pasuk:

בראשית פרק יג

• פסוק י"ח: וַיֶּאֱהַל אַבְרָם, וַיָּבֹא וַיֵּשֶׁב בְּאֵלֹנֵי מַמְרֵא--אֲשֶׁר בְּחֶבְרוֹן; וַיִּבֶן-שָׁם מִזְבֵּחַ, לַה.  

which immediately preceded the first destruction of Sodom, at the hands of man.

וְהוּא יֹשֵׁב פֶּתַח-הָאֹהֶל -- the midrash has it that he was looking for guests, as a way of highlighting Avraham's hospitality, which certainly is stressed elsewhere in the narrative. As peshat, it introduces the lifting up of his eyes such that he sees guests in a distance.

One entrance to the tent, not four, on the level of peshat.

כְּחֹם הַיּוֹם -- 
See II Shmuel 4:5:

ה  וַיֵּלְכוּ בְּנֵי-רִמּוֹן הַבְּאֵרֹתִי, רֵכָב וּבַעֲנָה, וַיָּבֹאוּ כְּחֹם הַיּוֹם, אֶל-בֵּית אִישׁ בֹּשֶׁת; וְהוּא שֹׁכֵב, אֵת מִשְׁכַּב הַצָּהֳרָיִם.

5 And the sons of Rimmon the Beerothite, Rechab and Baanah, went, and came about the heat of the day to the house of Ish-bosheth, as he took his rest at noon.

This demonstrates that כְּחֹם הַיּוֹם means about the noon. Shadal says that this is why Avraham detained the malachim, since it was time to eat lunch and difficult to travel.

Perhaps this is to show that Avraham was dozing, and this entire exchange happened as a vision.

Next pasuk:

ב  וַיִּשָּׂא עֵינָיו, וַיַּרְא, וְהִנֵּה שְׁלֹשָׁה אֲנָשִׁים, נִצָּבִים עָלָיו; וַיַּרְא, וַיָּרָץ לִקְרָאתָם מִפֶּתַח הָאֹהֶל, וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ, אָרְצָה.

2 and he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood over against him; and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed down to the earth,

וַיִּשָּׂא עֵינָיו -- thus, in the distance.

וַיַּרְא -- matching וַיֵּרָא אֵלָיו. This is the fulfillment and details of the preceding pasuk.

שְׁלֹשָׁה אֲנָשִׁים -- is the Torah lying to us, by calling them men? At the very least, we know that later they are malachim. And we might want to even say that one, or all of them is Hashem!

We can answer that just like dibra Torah kilshon bnei Adam, in the sense that the Torah speaks in accordance with the sometimes flawed understanding of the world, here too, also, since Avraham saw them as men, the Torah described them according to that perception. And that is not a falsehood.

According to Ralbag, the three men were neviim,  namely Shem, Ever, and one other prophet. And that they are later called malachim is because prophets are messengers, or malachim, of Hashem. Indeed, Ralbag in general understands malachim to mean human prophets. If so, the Torah is explicit here that these were men.

וַיַּרְא -- although it already said this word above, the word is repeated. First, establish what he saw, at length, and then, describe his reaction to the right. Rashi takes the second instance to denote hospitality. Midrash Rabba takes one to refer to the angels and one to refer to the Shechina.

וַיָּרָץ לִקְרָאתָם מִפֶּתַח הָאֹהֶל -- zerizut for the hospitality.

Next pasuk:

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.

אֲדֹנָי -- Ramban writes:

אדני אם נא מצאתי חן בעיניך - מצינו אותו בספרים קמוץ. והנה קראם בשם רבם באל"ף דל"ת, כי הכיר בהם שהם מלאכי עליון כאשר יקראו אלוהים ואלים ולכן השתחוה להם ארצה:

That is, we find a kametz under the nun. With a chirik, adoni, it should mean "my master". With a patach, it should mean "my masters". With a kametz, it should mean Hashem.

Ramban explains that Avraham knew at this early stage that these were angels, and therefore referred to them by the name of their master, Hashem. One must grapple with the singular of תַעֲבֹר. Ramban understands this as distributive, that he addressed every one of them as the name of their master.

Shadal claims that Avraham actually said Adoni, with a chirik (and was thus singular), but this was made kodesh based on what would eventually come out.

Rashi mentions the dual interpretations of this. Either he addressed the gadol of the malachim (and with a kametz will still be appropriate); or else, he addressed Hashem. Recall that first, Hashem appeared, and separately, these men/angels appeared. Thus, Avraham is saying to Hashem, please don't leave, but let me first take care of this mitzvah of hachnasas orechim.

There is a nice thought associated with this interpretation in Shabbat 127a, in terms of balancing bein adam laMakom and bein adam lachaveiro:

Rab Judah said in Rab's name: Hospitality to wayfarers is greater than welcoming the presence of the Shechinah, for it is written, And he said, My lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, etc.¹⁵  R. Eleazar said: Come and observe how the conduct of the Holy One, blessed be He, is not like that of mortals. The conduct of mortals [is such that] an inferior person cannot say to a great[er] man, Wait for me until I come to you; whereas in the case of the Holy One, blessed be He, it is written, and he said, My Lord, if now I have found, etc.

Someone asked me that we know that hospitality is greater than welcoming the presence of the Shechina, based on this gemara, but how did Avraham know? The answer is that Avraham didn't know from a text, but intuited how one should act with Hashem. While some could say that Avraham knew the gemara in Shabbos because he knew all the Torah, we could say like the Rashba explained (and as we see in a midrash as well) when endorsing this idea, that Avraham intuited in his heart and kidneys how to act, even before the Torah was given.

Related to this is the story of the Chafetz Chaim (author of Mishneh Berurah) who once skipped Shalom Aleichem, and only sand it after kiddush and hamotzi. When questioned as to the propriety of this, he explained that in this case, his poor guests were very hungry, but the malachim who accompanied him home from shul were malachim, who were not hungry, and could wait a bit.

See Minchas Shai about this being kodesh vs. chol.

based on the gemara in Shevuot 35b which reads:

כל שמות האמורים בתורה באברהם קדש חוץ מזה שהוא חול שנאמר (בראשית יח) ויאמר יי' אם נא מצאתי חן בעיניך חנינא בן אחי רבי יהושע ורבי אלעזר בן עזריה משום רבי אלעזר המודעי אמרו אף זה קדש

(Note the funny emendation of the pasuk in the quotation in the gemara.)

I wonder if it actually worked in the opposite direction, namely that there was an argument of whether it was Adonay as kodesh or chol among Chazal (with little to no difference in pronunciation between them, as patach vs. kametz are quite close in pronunciation, perhaps a slightly longer vowel), and given all these Rabbinic sources fixing it as kodesh, it was set with a kametz in accordance with this midrashic interpretation. If so, no need for concern with the nikkud when dealing with peshat.

Because of the difficulty of the plural and singular in this pasuk, the Samaritans falsified their Torah. They emended it to read:

Samaritan text on the left. Note how they make three words in this pasuk plural. (Shadal points this out.)

אִם-נָא מָצָאתִי חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ -- as if he is asking a favor, even as he offers them hospitality.

נָא -- Rashi often makes the midrashic statement that ain na ele leshon bakasha. Na in Biblical Hebrew apparently always mean "now", and means "please" only in Rabbinic Hebrew. Indeed, Onkelos consistently renders it ke'an, which is Aramaic for "now":

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

וַאֲמַר:  יְיָ, אִם כְּעַן אַשְׁכַּחִית רַחֲמִין קֳדָמָךְ--לָא כְּעַן תִּעְבַּר, מֵעַל עַבְדָּךְ.

Next pasuk:

ד  יֻקַּח-נָא מְעַט-מַיִם, וְרַחֲצוּ רַגְלֵיכֶם; וְהִשָּׁעֲנוּ, תַּחַת הָעֵץ.

4 Let now a little water be fetched, and wash your feet, and recline yourselves under the tree.

יֻקַּח-נָא -- the passive, let it be fetched. Rashi cites a midrash which connects this to the water that the Israelites receive via a shaliach. Baal HaTurim then draws a connection based on gematria, to reinforce this existing connection.

מְעַט-מַיִם -- again minimizing his actions. Emor meat ve'aseh harbei, as action of tzaddikim (consider the stark contrast to what he actually does) as well as a polite mode of expression.

וְרַחֲצוּ רַגְלֵיכֶם -- the only other place this occurs is by Lot meeting these malachim. We can contrast the two. Rashi contrasts these as follows:

and bathe your feet: He thought that they were Arabs, who prostrate themselves to the dust of their feet, and he was strict not to allow any idolatry into his house. But Lot, who was not strict, mentioned lodging before washing, as it is said (below 19:2): “and lodge and bathe your feet.” - [from Gen. Rabbah 54:4]

ורחצו רגליכם: כסבור שהם ערביים שמשתחוים לאבק רגליהם והקפיד שלא להכניס עבודה זרה לביתו. אבל לוט שלא הקפיד, הקדים לינה לרחיצה, שנאמר (יט ב) ולינו ורחצו רגליכם:

However, as Rashbam notes, by Lot it was evening, while here, it was earlier in the day, which is why lodging (or sleeping) was not relevant. Perhaps we can compare, though, with וְהִשָּׁעֲנוּ תַּחַת הָעֵץ. Note also that just as by Avraham, lina was not relevant, by Lot, lina was not just relevant but the most important thing to take care of, because of nightfall as well as because of the evil nature of the Sodomites.

וְהִשָּׁעֲנוּ תַּחַת הָעֵץ -- thus, providing them with shade from the חֹם הַיּוֹם.

Rav Chaim Kanievsky notes in Taama deKra that according to a midrash, this occurred on Succot. If so, since Avraham Avinu kept the entire Torah, it must be that this tree was talush, detached from the ground, and it means that he built a succah, under which they sat. And even though travelers are exempt, if there is one available without difficulty, one is obligated in Succah. And this is the meaning of the pasuk כִּי-עַל-כֵּן עֲבַרְתֶּם עַל-עַבְדְּכֶם. This cute vort fits in with Rav Kanievsky's general approach to the avos keeping the Torah. But it is obviously farfetched.

Running commentary on Lech Lecha, part i

Parashat Lech Lecha begins:

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

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.

Leipzig Mahzor, Abraham in Nimrod`s Furnace, ca.1320

וַיֹּאמֶר ה אֶל-אַבְרָם -- For Noach, we were informed of him finding favor in Hashem's eyes, and that he walked with Hashem. Here, there is only this startling sudden directive. Midrashim fill in this gap, of Avraham finding Hashem and rejecting idolatry at an early age. These are midrashim, perhaps intended literally, but are not historical. Some of them, such as being cast into the furnace by Nimrod, are not maaseh avos siman labanim, but are rather maaseh banim siman le'avos from sefer Daniel. It certainly makes sense that there was some background, and some reason for Avraham to be chosen.

לֶךְ-לְךָ -- Like Shelach Lecha for the meraglim, it was not an instruction, but acquiescence to an idea Avraham suggested. Not really. But lehanaasecha, for your own benefit, is surely not peshat. It is midrash picking up on the irregularity, and filling in the import based on immediate context, that context being the next pasuk, of וְאֶעֶשְׂךָ לְגוֹי גָּדוֹל. (This a reaction to Rashi and then Gur Aryeh.)

The lecha is idiomatic. Get yourself a drink. Sit yourself down. It functions as an intensifier.

There might be a connection to the widespread Amorite migrations in Mesopotamia.

מֵאַרְצְךָ וּמִמּוֹלַדְתְּךָ וּמִבֵּית אָבִיךָ -- These are not three different places, but three ways of describing the same place. This is also an intensifier, to indicate to Avraham, and the reader, how much Avraham what Avraham is giving up. Compare with Hashem's instruction to Avraham later: ka na es bincha, es yechidcha, asher ahavta, es Yitzchak, with the associated midrash.

מֵאַרְצְךָ -- He is leaving his own country, and will be a resident alien in another land.

וּמִמּוֹלַדְתְּךָ  -- and he is leaving the place he was born, and which fostered him. Maybe also the narrower neighborhood.

וּמִבֵּית אָבִיךָ -- and is leaving extended family behind. Perhaps this is not "house of your father" but rather "your bet av", which is an extended family group.

אֶל-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר אַרְאֶךָּ -- This is putting faith in Hashem. He did not even know the destination, or the destination did not matter. Compare to the faith Avraham displayed later on by akeidas Yitzchak, with  וְהַעֲלֵהוּ שָׁם לְעֹלָה עַל אַחַד הֶהָרִים אֲשֶׁר אֹמַר אֵלֶיךָ. I think it is possible there that Avraham was informed fairly immediately of the place, such that we can be told that וַיִּשָּׂא אַבְרָהָם אֶת-עֵינָיו וַיַּרְא אֶת-הַמָּקוֹם--מֵרָחֹק.

Which movement was this? The three possibilities are:

1. from Ur Kasdim to Charan
2. or from Charan to Canaan
3. from Ur Kasdim to Canaan

Ibn Ezra:

[יב, א]השם ציווה לאברהם ועודנו באור כשדים שיעזוב ארצו ומקום מולדתו, גם בית אביו. 

See what various meforshim say. I think a strong case can be made for option 3.

I'll first argue for Ur Kasdim. We can point to Bereishit perek 15:

ז  וַיֹּאמֶר, אֵלָיו:  אֲנִי ה, אֲשֶׁר הוֹצֵאתִיךָ מֵאוּר כַּשְׂדִּים--לָתֶת לְךָ אֶת-הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת, לְרִשְׁתָּהּ.

7 And He said unto him: 'I am the LORD that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.'

This "brought thee out" indicated more than hidden Divine manipulation of historical events. There are difficulties with this interpretation, which are answerable.

The first difficulty is that the movement from Ur Kasdim to Charan already happened. Thus, at the end of the previous perek, 11:

לא  וַיִּקַּח תֶּרַח אֶת-אַבְרָם בְּנוֹ, וְאֶת-לוֹט בֶּן-הָרָן בֶּן-בְּנוֹ, וְאֵת שָׂרַי כַּלָּתוֹ, אֵשֶׁת אַבְרָם בְּנוֹ; וַיֵּצְאוּ אִתָּם מֵאוּר כַּשְׂדִּים, לָלֶכֶת אַרְצָה כְּנַעַן, וַיָּבֹאוּ עַד-חָרָן, וַיֵּשְׁבוּ שָׁם.

31 And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran, his son's son, and Sarai his daughter-in-law, his son Abram's wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there.

If so, how could the Divine directive to leave Ur Kasdim come after Avraham had already left Ur Kasdim? The answer is ain mukdam eme'uchar baTorah. And I am not kidding here. The previous perek was concerned with genealogical data (the P stream), and so it brings us up to date with events until Terach's death. Both Rashi and Ibn Ezra note this ain mukdam. So Terach was said to die in Charan at the end of perek 11, yet we know the following:

Terach age at Avraham's birth: about 70, based on Bereishit 11:26.

Terach's age at death: 205, based on Bereishit 11:32.

Avraham's age when he left Charan: 75, based on Bereishit 12:4.

If so, Terach was 70 + 75 - 145, which was less than 205. Thus, Terach was still alive when Avraham left from Charan, in the next perek. The answer is that ain mukdam, and the next perek, a J stream, is zooming in to the micro level of what happened in Bereishit 11:31.

Interjection: I generally dislike calculations of this sort, which force us into sometimes difficult interpretations of pesukim. Who says we fully understand ambiguous pesukim, such as that Terach was 70 what he fathered three children, to mean that Avraham must have been the earliest, and such that this constraint will lead to a further interpretation down the road? Where the pasuk (11:32) tells us that Terach died in Charan, וַיָּמָת תֶּרַח בְּחָרָן, maybe this was intended to explain why he did not make the next leg of the journey, such that we see Avraham continued onward with Lot and Sarah. In other words, perhaps one call still say that Avraham only continued on after Terach's death, such that this portion is not necessarily ain mukdam. Yet the Divine instruction was what led them to leave Ur Kasdim, and so for this, at the very least, ain mukdam, or the transfer of macro-scale in P to micro-scale in J holds.

I do think that Avraham left his father while his father was still alive. But this was not abandonment. I think that after the move to Charan, Terach and his family were established there. Though Nachor, Avraham's brother, is not explicitly listed as one of those who traveled with Terach (the Samaritans add explicit mention of him and Milkah) from Ur Kasdim to Charan, we see later that his descendants, Betuel, Lavan, and Rivkah, are living in Charan. 

The next difficulty is that it seems that in the movement from Ur Kasdim, it is Terach who took the initiative: וַיִּקַּח תֶּרַח אֶת-אַבְרָם בְּנוֹ. The answer is that, despite the Divine command to Avraham, Terach was still officially the head of the household, and since he is travelling as well, he should be listed first.

Further, vayikach does not mean that there is a single actor. Rather, vayikach is a way of selecting multiple actors for the later specified action. We see that later action in the pasuk, where we have the plural: וַיֵּצְאוּ אִתָּם. (Compare this to my remarks on Vayikach Korach, where we are specifying Korach, Datan, Aviram, and On are the actors of the next verb, which explains there what was taken -- nothing at all.) Rashi says something which supports this:

and they went forth with them: And Terah and Abram went forth with Lot and Sarai.

ויצאו אתם: ויצאו תרח ואברם עם לוט ושרי:

Another difficulty is that leaving Charan was also part of the Divine command:

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

While one could try to sever the first half of the pasuk from the second, it is clear that this is part of the fulfillment of the command. Rashi says it like this:

from your land: Now had he not already gone out of there with his father and come as far as Haran? Rather, thus did He say to him, “Distance yourself more from there and leave your father’s house.”

מארצך: והלא כבר יצא משם עם אביו ובא עד לחרן, אלא כך אמר לו התרחק עוד משם וצא מבית אביך:

But I don't think one needs to make this into a separate command, in order to accomplish the correct result of every movement being part of the Divine command.

Hashem, after all, had told Avraham אֶל-הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר אַרְאֶךָּ. So long as Hashem does not tell him to stop, for this is the land, Avraham is continuing. Further, see what the pasuk (11:32) stated: וַיֵּצְאוּ אִתָּם מֵאוּר כַּשְׂדִּים, לָלֶכֶת אַרְצָה כְּנַעַן. They had left Ur Kasdim to travel towards the land of Canaan. Then what? וַיָּבֹאוּ עַד-חָרָן, וַיֵּשְׁבוּ שָׁם. They paused for a while there. But still, they had not yet reached the land of Canaan. At a later point, Avraham, Sarah, and Lot continued on this journey.

Next pasuk, 12:2:

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

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.

One can read this as a positive result of the leaving (meshaneh makom meshaneh mazal). One can read it as an assurance despite the negative effects one usually encounters when leaving. The first is Rashi on pasuk 1 and the second is Rashi on pasuk 2. Rashi is drawing these admittedly contradictory midrashim from different sources. The first Rashi, from Rosh Hashanah 16b, Tanchuma; the second Rashi, from Gen. Rabbah 39:11; Tanchuma Buber, Chaye Sarah 6. Don't get a headache trying to resolve the two.

The dispute is whether וְאֶעֶשְׂךָ is a "therefore" or "and despite this".

Hashem had a plan from the beginning, to give this particular land to Avraham and his descendants. This plan encompassed the entire patriarchal narrative, even unto the sale of Yosef and the descent into Egypt. This is not meshaneh makom meshaneh mazal. Hashem is kol yachol, and had He wished to make Avraham wealthy in Ur Kasdim, and Sarah fertile in Ur Kasdim, He certainly could have. But this is how Hashem decided to shape history.

וְאֶעֶשְׂךָ לְגוֹי גָּדוֹל -- Leave as part of My enabling this to happen.

וַאֲבָרֶכְךָ -- is this a positive spiritual blessing, or is it a way of conveying material success, directed from on high.

וֶהְיֵה בְּרָכָה -- See Seforno:

וֶהְיֵה בְּרָכָה. בִּרְכַּת ה' הִיא שֶׁיִּשְׂמַח ה' בְּמַעֲשָׂיו, כְּמו שֶׁאָמְרוּ רַבּותֵינוּ זִכְרונָם לִבְרָכָה: 'יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנִי בָּרְכֵנִי. אָמַרְתִּי לו: יְהִי רָצון מִלְּפָנֶיךָ.. וְיָגלּוּ רַחֲמֶיךָ עַל מִדּותֶיךָ' (ברכות ז, א). אָמַר אִם כֵּן הֱיֵה לִי בְּרָכָה בַּמֶּה שֶּׁתִּתְבּונֵן וְתִקְנֶה שְׁלֵמוּת, וּתְלַמֵּד דַּעַת אֶת הָעָם. 

Thus, Avraham is a blessing to Hashem. I would simply say, "you will be in a state of blessing". Or, based on the next pasuk, "you will be referred to when people bless one another".

Next pasuk:

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

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.'

Think Bilaam. I'm rubber, you're glue. All blessing comes from Hashem, and so Avraham is above any attempt by humans to curse him. Further, those who ally themselves with Avraham and seek out his benefit will be rewarded, and the opposite for those who take an opposite position.

Thus, וְנִבְרְכוּ בְךָ כֹּל מִשְׁפְּחֹת הָאֲדָמָה, for those who ally themselves with Avraham. The alternative, which I prefer, is that Avraham's status will be so great that all families on the earth will bless one another to be like you. See the blessing to Ephraim and Menasheh, from Yaakov Avinu:

כ  וַיְבָרְכֵם בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא, לֵאמוֹר, בְּךָ יְבָרֵךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר, יְשִׂמְךָ אֱלֹהִים כְּאֶפְרַיִם וְכִמְנַשֶּׁה; וַיָּשֶׂם אֶת-אֶפְרַיִם, לִפְנֵי מְנַשֶּׁה.

20 And he blessed them that day, saying: 'By thee shall Israel bless, saying: God make thee as Ephraim and as Manasseh.' And he set Ephraim before Manasseh.

So Rashi, Shadal.

Next pasuk:

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

We should focus on why pasuk 4 and pasuk 5 are not mere repetitions of one another.

וַיֵּלֶךְ אַבְרָם -- In similar fashion to "Just as Hashem commanded Noach, so did he do." The section began with לֶךְ-לְךָ, and so here we are told vayelech.

כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר אֵלָיו ה -- This is then the completion of the Divine instruction.

וַיֵּלֶךְ אִתּוֹ לוֹט -- Because Lot will feature in the individual, micro-level action. Note Sarah is not mentioned, though she had been in the previous perek.

וְאַבְרָם, בֶּן-חָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים וְשִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה, בְּצֵאתוֹ, מֵחָרָן -- This is the sort of concern that we saw in the previous perek, of establishing a Biblical chronology. How old was person X when significant event Y occurred?

Next pasuk:

ה  וַיִּקַּח אַבְרָם אֶת-שָׂרַי אִשְׁתּוֹ וְאֶת-לוֹט בֶּן-אָחִיו, וְאֶת-כָּל-רְכוּשָׁם אֲשֶׁר רָכָשׁוּ, וְאֶת-הַנֶּפֶשׁ, אֲשֶׁר-עָשׂוּ בְחָרָן; וַיֵּצְאוּ, לָלֶכֶת אַרְצָה כְּנַעַן, וַיָּבֹאוּ, אַרְצָה כְּנָעַן.

5 And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all their substance that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran; and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan they came.

The focus here is not fulfillment of the Divine directive. It is progression of the genealogical line, listing where each person moves. Compare וַיִּקַּח אַבְרָם אֶת-שָׂרַי אִשְׁתּוֹ וְאֶת-לוֹט בֶּן-אָחִיו to the pasuk in the previous perek,  וַיִּקַּח תֶּרַח אֶת-אַבְרָם בְּנוֹ, וְאֶת-לוֹט בֶּן-הָרָן בֶּן-בְּנוֹ, וְאֵת שָׂרַי כַּלָּתוֹ, אֵשֶׁת אַבְרָם בְּנוֹ.

Also compare וַיֵּצְאוּ לָלֶכֶת אַרְצָה כְּנַעַן וַיָּבֹאוּ אַרְצָה כְּנָעַן in this pasuk with וַיֵּצְאוּ אִתָּם מֵאוּר כַּשְׂדִּים לָלֶכֶת אַרְצָה כְּנַעַן וַיָּבֹאוּ עַד-חָרָן וַיֵּשְׁבוּ שָׁם. This is then the ending point of travel from Ur Kasdim to Eretz Kenaan, with the interlude in Charan.

וְאֶת-כָּל-רְכוּשָׁם אֲשֶׁר רָכָשׁוּ וְאֶת-הַנֶּפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר-עָשׂוּ בְחָרָן -- Perhaps to demonstrate an initial fulfillment of the Divine promise of reward, when Hashem told Avraham Lech Lecha.

וְאֶת-הַנֶּפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר-עָשׂוּ בְחָרָן -- Not a golem. These is the servant they acquired. As in the peshat interpretation Rashi offers (second):

and the souls they had acquired in Haran: whom he had brought under the wings of the Shechinah. Abraham would convert the men, and Sarah would convert the women, and Scripture ascribes to them [a merit] as if they had made them (Gen. Rabbah 39:14). (Hence, the expression אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ, lit. that they made.) The simple meaning of the verse is: the slaves and maidservants that they had acquired for themselves, as in [the verse] (below 31:1): “He acquired (עָשָׂה) all this wealth” [an expression of acquisition]; (Num. 24:18): “and Israel acquires,” an expression of acquiring and gathering.

אשר עשו בחרן: שהכניסן תחת כנפי השכינה, אברהם מגייר את האנשים, ושרה מגיירת הנשים, ומעלה עליהם הכתוב כאלו עשאום. ופשוטו של מקרא עבדים ושפחות שקנו להם, כמו (שם לא א) עשה את כל הכבוד הזה, (במדבר כד יח) וישראל עושה חיל, לשון קונה וכונס:

Next pasuk:

ו  וַיַּעֲבֹר אַבְרָם, בָּאָרֶץ, עַד מְקוֹם שְׁכֶם, עַד אֵלוֹן מוֹרֶה; וְהַכְּנַעֲנִי, אָז בָּאָרֶץ.

6 And Abram passed through the land unto the place of Shechem, unto the terebinth of Moreh. And the Canaanite was then in the land.

עַד מְקוֹם שְׁכֶם -- See Shadal for an interesting imagined alternate Israelite history, were Shechem chosen over Yerushalayim by David Hamelech. Perhaps the 10 shevatim would not have rebelled...

וְהַכְּנַעֲנִי אָז בָּאָרֶץ -- Of course, they were there as well later. But recall that this was called Eretz Kenaan. This parenthetical remark explains that.

This has the flavor of a parenthetical remark. Should a parenthetical remark interact with pesukim in direct context? That is, can we say that the spark for וְהַכְּנַעֲנִי אָז בָּאָרֶץ is the following statement, that לְזַרְעֲךָ אֶתֵּן אֶת-הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת? Rashi suggests that only now were they in the land, but not before.