The Difference between Haran’s and Avraham’s Convictions
Haran died in the presence of his
father Terach in the land of his birth, Ur Kasdim. (Beresheit 11:28)
The above passage is found at the end of Parshat Noach.
Rashi, in his comments on this pasuk,
provides an important biographical note on Avram[1] – the
main character of Parshat Lech Lecha. Rashi
relates that Avram destroyed his father Terach's idols. Enraged, Terach brought
Avram before the king, Nimrod, to be tried for this heresy. Nimrod condemned Avram
to be thrown alive into a fiery furnace.
Avram’s brother, Haran, decided to test the veracity of Avram's
religion. If Avram emerged unharmed form the fiery furnace, then Haran would
proclaim his commitment to Avram’s G-d.
If Avram did not survive the furnace, he would retain his idolatrous
beliefs. Avram emerged from the furnace unscathed. Haran, faithful to his
decision, declared his faith in Avram's G-d, and he too was condemned to suffer
the same punishment. However, unlike Avram, the flames of the furnace consumed
Haran.[2]
It is difficult to understand why Avram and his brother,
Haran, experienced such different fates. Why did Hashem intercede on behalf of Avram,
but allow Haran, who also proclaimed his faith in G-d, to be consumed? The
answer lies in the difference between the nature of Avram's commitment to G-d
and Haran's conviction.
Maimonides writes that Avram came to his understanding of
G-d through a careful, lengthy analysis.
Avram studied the universe and its wonders. He was completely convinced that there must be a Creator.[3] In contrast, Haran did not pursue this
difficult, challenging path. His faith was based completely on a single
observation, which he understood to be a sign from G-d. Although Haran and Avram
came to the same conclusion, the bases of their convictions were very
different. Avram’s convictions were based upon a deep understanding of the
universe and the Creator. He had been
transformed by his convictions and elevated to a higher spiritual level. Haran
remained, to a great extent, the same person who existed prior to his religious
conversion. As a result, Avram's spiritual perfection resulted in his
salvation. Haran, lacking Avram's elevated state, was not saved.
Hashem Tests Avraham with the Command to Travel to the Land
of Israel
And Hashem said to
Avram: Go forth from your land, your birthplace, and your father’s house to the
land that I will show to you. (Beresheit
12:1)
Hashem commands Avram to leave his homeland and the
household of his father. He is to
travel to the land that Hashem will indicate.
This is the Land of Israel. Our
Sages comment that this was one of the tests that Hashem required of Avram.[4]
One important aspect of this command is not
clear. The Torah seems to indicate that
Avram was born in Ur Casdim. He left Ur
Casdim with Terach, his father, and traveled to Charan. Terach died in Charan. Avram traveled from Charan to the Land of Israel.[5] This account suggests a problem.
Hashem commanded Avram to leave his birthplace and his father’s
household. This implies that these two
descriptions refer to the same location.
However, according to the simple interpretation of the passages, this is
not the case. Avram’s birthplace was Ur
Casdim. His father’s household was
located in Charan!
There is another difficulty. When did Avram receive this command? If we assume that Avram received the command
in Ur Casdim, then he did not fulfill its requirements. He was commanded to leave his father’s
household. He did not do this. Terach left Ur Casdim with Avram. Avram only left his paternal household after
the death of his father in Charan.
Alternatively, we can propose that Avram received the command while
living in Charan. If this is true, the
command does not make sense! Avram had
already left his birthplace of Ur Casdim.
Why would Hashem command Avram to leave a place from which he had
previously departed?
The commentaries offer a number of approaches to
solving these problems. Rashi suggests
that Avram received the command while living in Charan.[6] He explains that Avram left Charan during his father’s
lifetime. He points out that a careful
and full analysis of the passages supports this interpretation. Rashi acknowledges that a simple reading of
the passages is misleading. This
elementary interpretation would indicate that Avram left Charan after Terach’s
death. Rashi asserts that the Torah, by
design, allows the casual reader to make this assumption. The Torah does not explicitly state that
Avram abandoned his aged father. This
statement might diminish our estimation of the importance of the commandment to
respect our parents.[7]
Rashi further explains that Avram was not commanded
to leave his birthplace. He had already
departed from Ur Casdim. Instead, the
intent of the command was that Avram should further distance himself from his
homeland.[8]
Gershonides suggests a very different interpretation
of the passages. He maintains that
Avram received the original command while living in Ur Casdim. In response to this directive, he left Ur
Casdim with his father. Together, they
traveled as far as Charan. Terach
decided to stay in Charan. Avram
realized that his father would not accompany him any further. Therefore, he left Terach in Charan and
proceeded to the Land of Israel.
Subsequently, Terach died in Charan.[9] Of course, this creates a problem. Avram was commanded to leave his birthplace and his father’s
household. According to Gershonides, it
appears that Avram did not completely fulfill this directive. He left his homeland of Ur Casdim. However, he did not leave his father’s
household. He was accompanied by his
father!
Gershonides acknowledges this problem and offers a
very interesting answer. He asserts
that Avram was not directed to abandon his father’s household and his
family. He was commanded to travel to
the location that Hashem would indicate.
Hashem told Avram that he must fulfill this command even at the cost of
leaving his family. He must be willing
to endure this separation. However, he
should certainly attempt to convince his father and his family to join him in
his service to Hashem. Gershonides
supports his interpretation of Hashem’s command with a simple proof. Lote – Avram’s nephew – was an orphan. He was a member of Terach’s household. Lote accompanied Avram to the Land of
Israel. If Hashem’s directive required
complete abandonment of Terach’s household, then Avram should not have allowed
Lote to accompany him![10]
In short, Rashi and Gershonides offer differing
interpretations of Hashem’s directive.
Their dispute seems to center on one fundamental issue. Was Avram absolutely required to abandon his
family? According to Rashi, he was
commanded to leave Terach. According to
Gershonides, Avram was commanded to travel to the Land of Israel. He must be willing to leave his father. However, he was not required to abandon him.
This dispute suggests a fundamental disagreement
regarding the nature of the tests Avram experienced. According to Rashi, these tests included a very personal
element. Avram was required to perfect
himself through these challenges. In
this test, he was required to separate himself from all previous
influences. He was to leave the land in
which he was familiar. He was to
abandon his father and eliminate this influence. These challenges were designed to lead Avram to greater personal
perfection.
According to Gershonides, this personal element was
not present in this test. Avram was
commanded to travel to the Land of Israel.
He was to initiate the eternal relationship between Bnai Yisrael and the
Land of Israel. Acting properly often
entails enduring personal trials. In
order to fulfill Hashem’s command, Avram had to be willing to leave all that
was familiar and dear to him. However,
this personal trial was not the essential element of the directive. It was a result of the imperative to act in
accordance with the will of Hashem.
The First Blessing of the Amidah
Hashem promises Avram that he will be rewarded for his
devotion. Rashi, based upon the Talmud,
provides an interesting interpretation of these rewards. A short introduction is needed to understand
this interpretation.
The Amidah is the
most important prayer in the daily liturgy.
It is recited at least three times each
day. This prayer is composed of a
number of blessings. The central
blessings of the Amidah vary in content and number depending on the
occasion. However, the first and last
two blessings are constant. The first blessing
refers to the Almighty as “the G-d of Avraham, the G-d of Yitzchak, and the G-d
of Yaakov.” The closing of the blessing
refers to Hashem as the “shield of Avraham.”
Let us now return to our pasuk. Rashi explains that the rewards described in
our passage allude to this first blessing of the Amidah. The phrase, “And I
will make you into a great nation,” alludes to the characterization of Hashem
as the “G-d of Avraham.” “I will bless
you,” refers to the phrase “the G-d of Yitzchak.” Finally, “I will make your name great,” is a reference to the
phrase, “the G-d of Yaakov.” The blessing
ends by associating Hashem to Avraham alone.
This is an expression of the promise “and you will be a blessing.”[11]
In order to understand the meaning of Rashi’s important comments
it is necessary to review the insight of Etz Yosef on this phrase from the Amidah.
The wording of the blessing troubles Etz Yosef. Our Sages designed the teffilah very carefully.
They avoided redundancies or verbose wording. Yet, in this first blessing of the Amidah, Hashem is referred to as “the G-d of Avraham, the G-d of
Yitzchak and the G-d of Yaakov.” This
can be reduced to “the G-d of Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov.” Why did the Sages choose the more repetitious
formulation?
Etz Yosef explains that the Sages are teaching us a
fundamental lesson. Yitzchak did not merely
serve Hashem because He was the G-d of his father Avraham. Instead, Yitzchak repeated Avraham’s
investigations. He was not satisfied
until he was personally convinced of the reality of Hashem. Hashem was not a remote G-d known only
through tradition. The Creator was
Yitzchak’s own G-d – discovered through his personal efforts. The same was true for Yaakov. He made Hashem his personal G-d. He did not settle for a G-d known only
through folklore.[12]
Based on Etz Yosef’s insight, we can understand Rashi’s
interpretation of our pasuk. According to the Rashi, part of the reward
promised to Avraham was that his sons would follow his way. They would develop a personal relationship
with the Almighty. They would not be
satisfied with a second-hand G-d, known only through their ancestors’ traditions.
However, the reward in the pasuk contains a second element.
Often, when various individuals conduct the same investigation, they
come to different conclusions. This is
especially true in theological areas.
Such issues are often difficult to analyze objectively. Each investigator brings his own perspectives
and prejudices to the study. In view of
this consideration, it is notable that Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov all
discovered the same G-d. Although each
studied the issues separately, they all discovered and worshipped the “shield
of Avraham.” This was the second
element of Avraham’s reward. His children
would not only find G-d; they would discover the Creator Avraham had
discerned. The closing of the blessing
reflects this concept by associating Hashem with Avraham alone.
The Necessity of the Brit ben HaBetarim
And
He said unto him: Take for Me a heifer of three years old, and a she-goat of
three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtle-dove, and a young
pigeon. (Beresheit 15:9)
Our parasha describes the development of the
relationship between Hashem and Avraham.
In the opening passages of the parasha,
Hashem tells Avraham that he will enjoy His providence. However, despite the influence of Hashem’s
providence, Avraham and Sarah do not have children. This leads to a dialogue between Hashem and Avraham. Again,
Hashem tells Avraham he his has earned great merit and He will protect
him. Avraham responds that this merit
is of little value to him. He has no
heir. Hashem tells Avraham that he will
have an heir and that that his descendants will be as numerous as the
stars. Avraham accepts Hashem’s
message. Then, Hashem tells Avraham his
descendants will occupy Canaan. Avraham
asks, “In what will I know?” In other
words, he seems to ask Hashem for an additional indication that his descendants
will occupy Canaan.
Our
passage introduces Hashem’s response to this last question. Hashem instructs Avraham in the Brit ben
HaBetarim – the Covenant of the Halves.
The instructions for the creation of this covenant are unusual. Avraham is to take various animals. Most are to be split in half. Two birds are to be included among the
animals. The birds are not to be split
and are to be placed at the beginning and end of the series of split
animals. Avraham follows the
directions. He arranges the animals and
the birds as required. Then, Avraham
sees a bird of prey descend upon the dead animals. He chases it away.
The incident of the
Brit ben HaBetarim ends with another prophecy. Hashem tells Avraham that his descendants will be afflicted for
four-hundred years in a foreign land.
They will leave with the wealth of their tormentors and conquer
Canaan. The prophecy ends with a flame
passing between the halves of the animals.
The Brit ben HaBetarim is not easily
understood. It raises a number of
questions. One of the obvious problems
is that Avraham’s responses to the various messages that Hashem communicated
seem inconsistent. It seems that Avraham was comfortable with and willing to immediately
accept the prophecy that he would have an heir and that his descendents would
be as numerous as the stars of the heavens.
However, Avraham seems to have been less certain of the message that his
descendants would inherit the Land of Canaan.
Why was Avraham less certain of the meaning of this second message?
Rabbaynu
Ovadia Sforno addresses this question.
In order to understand Sforno’s response to this question, a brief
introduction will be helpful.
Maimonides explains that the Torah provides us with a method by which we
can determine the credibility of any prophet.
In order for us to accept that a claimant is a true prophet, we assess
the accuracy of his prophecies. Every
prophecy that the claimant communicates must be fulfilled. If all of the claimant’s predictions become
reality, then we are required to assume that the claimant is an authentic
prophet. If at some point the assumed
prophet offers a prediction that is not fulfilled, then we must assume that
this person is a false prophet.
Maimonides
adds two significant qualifications to this rule. First, he explains that the requirement of absolute accuracy only
applies to the positive predictions specified by the claimant. However, if the claimant warns of disaster or
tragedy and this prediction does not materialize, we do not assume that the claimant is a false prophet. We recognize that a prediction of disaster
is intended as a warning to repent. We
know that repentance and forgiveness are always possible. We must acknowledge that the fulfillment of
the prediction of disaster may have been forestalled by repentance and
forgiveness. Therefore, although the
claimant must be absolutely accurate in his prediction of positive outcomes and
events, inaccuracies in predictions of tragedy and disaster are not of
consequence. Such inaccuracies do not
undermine the credibility of the claimant.
Second,
it is important to recognize that there are two types of prophecy. Some prophecies are designed for
communication to others. In such
instances, the prophet serves as Hashem’s spokesman to humanity, or to a group
or nation. Other prophecies are
personal. In these prophecies the
prophet receives information from Hashem for his own benefit. These prophecies are not intended to be
communicated to others. Maimonides
explains that the requirement for absolute accuracy only applies to prophecies
intended for communication to the public.
This is because the public must have a means by which to determine the
credibility of the claimant. The means
is the accuracy of the claimant’s predictions.
However, the true prophet himself knows that he is communicating with Hashem. He does not need proof as to the veracity of
his prophecy. Therefore, it is possible
that some personal prophecies will not be fulfilled.
This
seems somewhat bizarre. We can
understand why negative prophecies may not be fulfilled. As Maimonides explained, it is possible that
through repentance and forgiveness disaster will be averted. However, how is possible that Hashem
communicate a personal prophecy to the prophet and not fulfill this prophecy?
Maimonides
offers an amazing answer based on the comments of our Sages. Our Sages explain that it is possible that a
subsequent sin or wrongdoing will invalidate the prophecy. In other words, Hashem may communicate to
the prophet that he will receive a specific reward. This communication is not a guarantee that this reward will be
granted. The granting of the blessing,
or reward, remains dependent upon the righteousness and merit of the
prophet. If the prophet remains
deserving, he will experience the fulfillment of the prophecy. However, if he sins, he may be deprived of
the predicted blessing.[13]
As an
aside, it is worth noting that Maimonides is providing a clear basis for
differentiating between true prophets and counterfeits. Throughout the generations various
individuals have claimed or implied prophetic powers. Such a claim is not substantiated simply because some – or even
many – of the claimant’s predictions seem to have been fulfilled. The claimant must be unerring in his
predictions. Even a single unfulfilled
positive prediction that goes unfulfilled completely undermines any possible
claim of authentic prophecy.
Based
on Maimonides’ analysis, Sforno explains Avraham’s differing reactions to these
two prophecies. First, Sforno assumes
that Avraham understood that both of these communications were personal
prophecies. They were not intended for
communication to his followers. Hashem
communicated the future to Avraham for his own benefit. Avraham concluded that these communications
were not absolute assurances. Like all
personal prophecies, the fulfillment of these blessings would depend upon the beneficiaries’
righteousness. He understood Hashem’s message that he would have children and
that his descendants would be as numerous as the stars depended upon his own
continued righteousness and merit. He
accepted this responsibility without hesitation. However, the message that his descendants would posses the Land
of Canaan seemed problematic for Avraham.
How could he know that his descendants would follow in his path and
merit this reward? Avraham expressed
his uncertainty regarding the absoluteness of this outcome.
Based
on this interpretation of Avraham’s question, Sforno offers a novel explanation
of Hashem’s response. He asserts that
any prophecy that is accompanied by a promise – or brit (a covenant) – must be fulfilled. Therefore, the brit Hashem
entered into with Avraham provided a definite assurance that the prophecy would
come true.[14]
It is
possible that Sforno maintains that a covenant, by definition, is a public
declaration. Any prophecy that is
accompanied by a covenant rises above the level of a personal prophecy. A covenant is an objective and public declaration. The blessing is no longer dependent upon the
beneficiary’s merit. The covenant must be fulfilled.
There
is some evidence that this is Sforno’s understanding of the significance of a
covenant. In other words, further
comments seem to indicate that Sforno understood a covenant as a public
declaration and not just the affirmation of a personal prophecy.
Sforno
is bothered by another problem presented by the Brit ben HeBetarim. As noted above, one of the final elements of
the brit was a prophecy regarding the
future persecution of Bnai Yisrael.
Hashem told Avraham that his descendants would experience four-hundred
years of affliction and exile. This was
a revelation of the eventual exile of Bnai Yisrael to Egypt and their
persecution at the hands of the Egyptians.
Hashem also revealed to Avraham that Bnai Yisrael’s tormentors would be
punished. Bnai Yisrael would be
redeemed from this exile and would leave the land of their persecution with
great wealth. Why was this revelation
necessary and how is it related to Hashem’s covenant with Avraham?
Sforno
explains that Hashem foretold Avraham of the suffering of his descendants in a
foreign land for a specific reason.
During their suffering they would question Avraham’s prophecy that they
would possess the Land of Canaan. They
would wonder how their suffering could be reconciled with the promises that
their forefather Avraham had communicated to them. In order to respond to this inevitable question, Hashem revealed
the exile and suffering to Avraham.
Avraham was to share this revelation with his children and, through them,
his descendants. This revelation made
clear that this suffering was envisioned by Hashem when He made His promises to
Avraham. Therefore, it was clearly not
a contradiction to those promises.[15]
These
comments indicate that Avraham was expected to communicate to his descendants the
prophecy that they would possess the Land of Canaan. With the addition of the covenantal element to the prophecy, the
message was no longer personal. It
became a public declaration for future generations. This necessitated the additional revelation of future exile and
persecution. Once the message was
transformed into a public prophecy, this additional element – the prophecy of
exile and persecution – became essential.
[1] In the opening chapters of the parasha, Avraham is referred to be his original name, Avram. Later in the parasha, Hashem instructs Avram to change his name to Avraham.
[2] Rabbaynu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer Beresheit 11:28.
[3] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Mishne Torah, Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 1:3.
[4] Mesechet Avot 5:3, Avot DeRav Natan 33:2.
[5] Sefer Beresheit 11:28 - 12:5.
[6] Rabbaynu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer Beresheit 12:1.
[7] Rabbaynu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer Beresheit 11:32.
[8] Rabbaynu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer Beresheit 12:1.
[9] Rabbaynu Levi ben Gershon (Ralbag / Gershonides), Commentary on Sefer Beresheit, (Mosad HaRav Kook, 1994), p 100.
[10] Rabbaynu Levi ben Gershon (Ralbag / Gershonides), Commentary on Sefer Beresheit, (Mosad HaRav Kook, 1994), pp. 101-102.
[11] Rabbaynu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer Beresheit 12:2.
[12] Rav Hanoch Zundel ben Yosef, Etz Yosef – Commentary on Siddur Otzer HaTeffilot, pp. 308-309.
[13] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Commentary on the Mishne, Introduction.
[14] Rabbaynu Ovadia Sforno, Commentary on Sefer Beresheit, 15:6-9.
[15]
Rabbaynu Ovadia
Sforno, Commentary on Sefer Beresheit, 15:13.