(All rights reserved to Keren Yishai)

Both of these parshiot focus on Avraham and Sarah. In fact, all of the parshiot in Bereshit are in pairs. Bereshit and Noah deal with the world that preceded the patriarchs and matriarchs. Lech Lecha and Vayera – Avraham and Sarah. Chayei Sarah and Toldot – Yitzhak and Rebecca, and so on, continuing with Jacob and Leah and Rachel, and then the sons. In each case there are many similarities between the two parshiot.

In Lech Lecha and Vayera I want to focus on two parallel events, the confrontation between Avraham and Sarah and Pharaoh (in Lecha Lecha) and Avimelech, king of Gerar (Vayera). They are problematical, for Avraham's conduct is not easily explained. The gaps in the first occurrence are filled in in the second, but the parshiot themselves require a great deal of understanding.

Let's start by taking a look at the incident in Lech Lecha

There was a famine in the land and Abram went down to Egypt to sojourn there, for the famine was severe in the land. As he was about to enter Egypt he said to his wife Sarai, 'I realize what a beautiful woman you are. If the Egyptians see you, and think, 'She is his wife,' they will kill me and let you live. Please say that you are my sister, that it may go well with me because of you, and that I may remain alive thanks to you.

A great deal of ink has been spilled on these verses. The Ramban has some very difficult things to say. The background is straightforward: There is a famine in the land and Avraham goes to Egypt. By the way, it doesn't say that the Holy One told him to leave. The central problem, however, is Avraham's strange conduct. As they approach Egypt he says to Sarah: “If the Egyptians see you, and think, 'She is his wife,' they will kill me and let you live. Please say that you are my sister.” I have no problem with the fact that Avraham lied; one is certainly permitted to lie to save one's life. But what does he mean by “that it may go well with me on your behalf, and that I may remain alive thanks to you”? What if Sarah had remained with Pharaoh and suffered? The Ramban views this with the utmost severity: “Know that our father Avraham sinned grievously, albeit inadvertently, in placing a sinful obstacle in the path of his virtuous wife because he feared for his life.” Harsh words indeed. He fears that he will be killed, so he is willing for his innocent wife to commit a punishable offence! “He should have trusted in the Lord to save him and his wife and all his possessions, for the Lord has the power to succor and save.” And furthermore: “Also his departure from the land, that was commanded from the beginning, because of the famine” - the land was commanded, not the departure - “was a sin, because the Lord would redeem him from death in the famine.” Note that the Ramban sees the whole episode as one unit. In other words –and it's difficult to say this – Avraham failed the test. He should have had implicit trust that God would rescue him. The Ramban continues: “Therefore it was decreed that his descendents would be exiled to Egypt by Pharaoh. In the site of the judgment, there was the wickedness and sin.” This is an extremely interesting commentary, especially the phrase “in the site of the judgment” – in other words, that which befell us in that place, the exile in Egypt – was our sentence for Avraham's iniquity. This is very harsh. If the words were not written down it would be impossible to utter them. But the fact that the Ramban saw fit to do so means that there is a great lesson to be learnt.

Is this really the only way to understand it? Let's take another look at the verses:

As he was about to enter Egypt he said to his wife Sarai, “I realize what a beautiful woman you are. If the Egyptians see you, and think, 'She is his wife,' they will kill me and let you live. Please say that you are my sister, that it may go well with me on your behalf, and that I may remain alive thanks to you.”

We all remember Rashi's comment, which, by the way, only complicates things further. Rashi says: “'That it may go well with me' – they will give me gifts.” So Sarah will stay with the wicked one while Avraham receives gifts?

They arrive in Egypt, and what happens?

That was the first story. The parallel story is not preceded by the same long introductory material.

Avraham journeyed from there to the region of the Negev and settled between Kadesh and Shur. While he was sojourning in Gerar, Avraham said of Sarah his wife, “She is my sister.” So Avimelech, king of Gerar, sent and took Sarah to him.

The preamble of “I realize what a beautiful woman you are,” and the idea that “I will be killed while you remain alive,” do not appear. Apparently the code is quite clear. “Avraham said of Sarah his wife, 'She is my sister.'” Rashi says: “Of Sarah his wife” means “in reference to.” Perhaps it means that whenever Avraham said the words “She is my sister” it is a form of code, indicating that “Operation Sister is under way! You and I both know the drill, we know how it works, let's do it!…” That's why the long introductory verses are omitted – we already know the background.

By the way, many years have passed between Operation A in Lech Lecha and Operation B in Vayera. I don't know Sarah's exact age in Lech Lecha. If Avraham were 75 when he arrived in the land, then Sarah was 65. That's pretty old, but still reasonable. But the Avimelech story happened after the angels went to Sodom, when Sarah asked, “ Can a 90-year-old woman give birth?” Is there no end to it – was her beauty even then a cause for concern? The Ramban has an interesting comment on this: “'Avimelech sent and took' – this is the wonder, that Sarah, even after menopause, was exceedingly beautiful.” She herself describes her physiological condition: “There ceased to be for Sarah the way of women,” but, “after my menopause, I had a rejuvenation.” And it's not that she was desired by just anyone, but by the king, who was willing to kill her husband in order to take this ninety-year-old woman?! “For, when she was taken by Pharaoh, if she had been 65 then it is possible that the description still applied to her, but after menopause [when Avimelech took her] it is a wonder. Perhaps she returned to youthfulness when the angel told her the news, as the sages said.” Perhaps this is the proof that she did indeed return to youthfulness. It says, “There ceased to be for Sarah the way of women,” and the angel told her that this would continue for her – therefore, she returned to youthfulness. Otherwise, what was it that attracted Avimelech?

The Ramban goes on to add an interesting comment regarding the fact that, as we already mentioned, we don't have the background here that we had on the first incident: “I realize what a beautiful woman you are.” We said that we don't have it here because it was already said there, but the Ramban adds an important note: “'Avraham said of Sarah his wife, 'She is my sister'” - This wasn't like it was in Egypt, because when they came to Egypt, “the Egyptians saw how very beautiful the woman was. Pharaoh's courtiers saw her and praised her to Pharaoh” for they were iniquitous people, but this king – Avimelech, king of Gerar – this king was “innocent and just and his people as well are good, but Avraham suspected them and would say to everyone 'She is my sister.'”

This is very interesting. The Ramban notes that not only does it not say here that he said to her “Please say that you are my sister,” but it also doesn't say that the local people said that she is beautiful and praised her to the king. That is, this crude statement does not appear at all in chapter 20. Says the Ramban, Avimelech, king of Gerar, is “innocent and just, and his people as well are good.” The same Ramban who criticizes Avraham so harshly suddenly becomes the defender of the people of Gerar: What a kingdom of tzaddikim they are, a kingdom of modesty.

What the Ramban says is implicit in the verses. Note how precise the Torah is about the conjugation of its verbs. What does it say in the Pharaoh incident? The Egyptians saw and praised her, and she was taken to the house of Pharaoh, whereas in the case of Avimelech, “Avimelech the king of Gerar sent and took” her. One could say that means took her by force, but it could also have the sense of “When a man takes a woman” – meaning marriage, taking her home.

If so, the differences between the parshiot are clear. The age is different, the location is different. According to the Ramban, the moral location is different as well. The atmosphere, the ambience, are completely different. In the one case, we are dealing with a kingdom full of wickedness and iniquity. The whole focus is on the woman as object – they took her, they saw her, they praised her. The linguistic style points to the lack of delicacy. But here, the style and the atmosphere are completely different. And of course, as we have said, the Torah could omit things in Vayera because the principle was already explained in Lech Lecha.

In other words, despite the difference between the moral situations of Egypt and Gerar, and despite the thirty years that have passed, the fear that the king would take a married woman – and kill her husband to do so – still exists. And the danger for a married woman was greater than for a single woman. The fear was a real one in the ancient world, for the king was master, he was omnipotent. Since he ruled the land, he was entitled to whatever and whoever he wanted. Of course, he had to be mindful of the honor of the kingdom, and therefore he couldn't take a commoner's wife, since this would dishonor him. So how do you solve the problem of the lowly personal status of someone like the wife of Avraham? You kill the commoner; she ceases to be the wife of a commoner; she suddenly becomes available; the king can now take this “available” woman.

This is familiar to us in other guises - it's a million times different but we might have something similar later with David… let's not get into it. But the problem is a familiar one, and it continues from Lech Lecha to Vayera, even with the passage of years and the change of location.

Another big difference can be found in verse 15:

He did well by Avraham on her behalf and he had sheep and cattle and donkeys and manservants and maidservants. God smote Pharaoh with great plagues, and his household, because of Sarai the wife of Abram.

How was Pharaoh to know that the plagues came because of this? Rashi says, “Because of Sarai” – that she at a certain point broke down and confessed that she was married. That makes a lot of sense.

Pharaoh called Abram and said, “What have you done to me, why did you not tell me that she is your wife? Why did you say 'She is my sister,' and I took her for my wife?”

Now if I can take off my Jewish garb for a moment – with all due respect to Avraham, these questions that Pharaoh asked are very good questions indeed. You can offer all the explanations in the world and I understand them. But his claim is still true: You didn't say she was your wife.

By the way, if I were in Avraham's place I would have, at this point, found some way to apologize, but Avraham doesn't feel the need to do this at all and the conversation turns to action. “Why did you say she was your sister… and I took her for my wife, and now here is your wife, take her and leave.” It is as if Pharaoh is saying, don't so to me what you did in chapter 20, please spare me and don't give me an impassioned speech about history, fear of God, etc. I don't want to hear from you at all. And to make sure that Avraham went, “Pharaoh commanded upon him people who sent him off, and his wife, and all he had.”

This is the ending of the Pharaoh incident, though it's not much of an ending. In contrast, the ending of the Avimelech incident is very protracted, being an ending not only of the conversation but also of the narrative. What was it that Pharaoh wanted from Avraham at the end of that story? That he depart immediately. What did Avimelech want from Avraham at the end of his story? Verse 14:

Avimelech took sheep and cattle and manservants and maidservants and gave to Avraham, and returned to him Sarah, his wife. Avimelech said, “Here is my land before you, settle wherever you see fit.”

What you did to us was so very nice, please do us a favor and don't go. Stay with us. His kingdom was practically destroyed, and this is his request?! Interesting.

Besides the strangeness of its ending, this story also includes a very strange and lengthy heart-to-heart conversation. Let's take a look at it, keeping the comparisons between the two stories in mind. “Avraham journeyed from there to the region of the Negev and settled between Kadesh and Shur, and sojourned in Gerar. Avraham said of Sarah his wife, 'She is my sister.'” As we pointed out, the preamble is missing, and instead Avraham goes straight to the statement that she is his sister. “Avimelech the king of Gerar sent and took Sarah” – not “she was taken,” but rather “he took.” The Ramban described Avimelech as an innocent and just king, and his people as good – that is, the atmosphere is completely different from the first time. And the verses bear this out: “God appeared to Avimelech in a nighttime dream.” First of all, this, in and of itself, is a high level. For example, God did not appear to me in a dream last night. You might say, true, God appeared to him, but only in order to punish him. Let's see. “He said to him, 'You are to die for the woman you took, for she has a husband.'” See the great difference between Pharaoh and Avimelech. Who revealed to Pharaoh that she is a married woman? Sarah herself. Pharaoh doesn't even deserve to be spoke to by the Angel of Death – such is the Pharaoh of Egypt. But Avimelech merits God speaking to him. It could have been arranged that Sarah would tell him the truth about herself – it was, after all, part of Operation Sister that she reveal herself at a certain point. Why not follow the drill? It is apparently due to Avimelech's high level of merit.

“Avimelech did not approach her.” Now, begging your pardon, I am going to attempt to read this text objectively. We are always convinced that Avraham is the tzaddik (and rightly so, and it is a good thing – it could have been otherwise). But let us free ourselves from that for a moment. After all, the Ramban managed to do that; when he said that this king is innocent and just, and his people are good, he was simply reading the text.

Chazal rebuke Avimelech: “If a boarder comes to town, must you inquire about the status of his wife?” I assert, in the name of the Ramban, that nobody did inquire. It might be true of Pharaoh, but not of Avimelech. What do you want from him? Hr heard Sarah was Avraham's sister – a woman from a good family! – and he took her. One who takes a wife is supposed to check her brother, after all. “Avimelech did not approach her.” I'm telling you, if this were about Joseph, imagine what kind of praises would be heaped upon him: What a tzaddik he is, look how God helps tzaddikim. But here, it is Avimelech who “did not approach her.”

So, we have already concluded that God doesn't appear to any old person in a dream, but he did appear to Avimelech. Now, listen to what he tells him in the dream. They have a conversation. And Avimelech doesn't fall down suddenly, saying, “This is surely the house of the Lord.” It's almost as if he is accustomed to Godly appearances (which may sound strange, but to me it seems clear). “Avimelech did not approach her, and he said 'My God, will You kill even an innocent nation?'” Where did he learn about God? Where was he, did he read the portion of the week? He sounds just like Havakuk, or Iyov, and all this before Avraham had lived in that land very long, calling in the name of God, the master of the world.

“Did he not tell me 'She is my sister,' and she, also, she said, 'He is my brother.'” Avimelech says: I checked with him, I checked with her (and Rashi adds, the words “she, also, she” indicate that he checked as well with all their servants, the camel drivers, the donkey drivers – everyone). Avimelech truly is innocent and just; he does his research. “With a pure heart and with clean hands I did this” – a declaration of innocence. You might say: He's a cheater, of course he would lie to protect himself. But let us see if he really is a cheater. “God said to him, 'I too know that with a pure heart you did this.'” God testifies to his innocence! Jurists know how difficult it is to put a seal of approval on a person's purity of heart. But here it is God doing it, not a court. A careful reader will note that God testified only that his heart was pure, but not that his hands were clean. Aha, we caught the cheater! “I saved you from sinning to Me.” I've seen commentators who say this means that if God hadn't saved him, he would have sinned. But the Midrash Hagadol says: “From here, our sages learned that God helps tzaddikim.”

“Therefore I did not allow you to touch her. Now, return the wife of this man, for he is a prophet, and he will pray on your behalf and you will live, and if you do not return, know that you will surely die, and all that is yours.” Avimelech does this immediately: “Avimelech arose early in the morning.” This parasha truly needs to be learned afresh each time. What does this remind us of? Of none other than the binding of Yitzhak! Many shiurim have been taught on that episode's “Avraham arose early in the morning,” but here people would simply ascribe it plain sleeplessness – why else would he arise early? He can't be up to any good. “Avimelech arose early in the morning, called to all his servants and told them all these things.” Which things? He told them: I nearly sinned with a married woman. Show me, if you can, a modern state in which you can have a cabinet meeting for this sort of problem, even at 11 in the morning – even if burekas are served. Today, they would fire him immediately for disturbing cabinet ministers too early in the morning, and for such nonsense! But here? “The people feared greatly.” We can ask – what were they afraid of? He must have told them that God said they would die. But that is not what is written. We must read it simply. They feared greatly – the sin!

“Avimelech called Avraham and said to him, 'What have you done to us?'” Let us compare this to Lech Lecha. What did Pharaoh ask, with what did he continue after “What have you done to me”? He said, “Why did you not tell me she is your wife, why did you say 'She is my sister'?” Three accusations, one after the other. But listen to the generosity of Avimelech. “He said to him, 'What have you done to us, how did I sin against you?'” It's amazing. First of all, he said Avraham did “to us,” not “to me.” His whole kingdom was suffering. Again, had this not been Avimelech, people would have used this to teach lessons on proper behavior. Second, presumably I have sinned against you, since evil is brought about by the guilty. This story is like a mussar book – he wants to know how he sinned!

Now, Pharaoh – did Pharaoh ask Avraham how he sinned?! Pharaoh asked him if he knew the quickest way out of town! For Pharaoh, it was “take and go!” But for Avimelech, it was, “What have you done to us, how have I sinned against you that you have brought upon me and upon my kingdom a great sin.” He is saying that Avraham sinned against them! Why go with the less direct explanation, that he is saying that Avraham caused him to perform an action that will bring upon him punishment and death. It is more simple to go with the literal explanation. And he continues in this vein by saying, “Acts which should not be done, you have done to us.”

By the way, let us not forget that Avraham lives in Gerar. Pardon me, father Avraham, but according to your own halacha, what you have done is called rebellion against the king! Open up the book of Kings and see what is meted out to one who rebels against the king. “What have you done to us,” “how have I sinned to you,” “you have brought upon me and my kingdom a great sin,” “acts which should not be done you have done to us.” Strong language indeed.

What would we expect to happen now? I would have said that maybe Avraham would say something along the lines of, “Listen, you're familiar with the story of chapter 12 in Lech Lecha. True, I've been living in Gerar a while now – it says “He settled between Kadesh and Shur and he dwelt in Gerar” – but still, I've been afraid for years now of kings who will kill a husband to take the wife, my whole life I've been afraid. I have a beautiful wife, that makes me afraid, and I'm very sorry. It's me, it's not you. Someone who merits having God appear in a dream to testify to his purity of heart, and manages to wake his whole kingdom up early the next day… I really didn't mean anything against you, I'm sorry.” Or not even “sorry,” but at least some sort of response. He should have said something, anything. He should have said, I heard you, I'll answer when I can. But, nothing. Verse 9 ends, and right away we have verse 10: “Avimelech said to Avraham, 'What did you see to do such a thing?'” I don't understand: didn't Avimelech finish his questions? He was on a roll, so why did he stop in the middle? And once he stopped, why did he start again?

Note again how precise the Torah is with its words. When Avimelech addressed Avraham, it says: “Avimelech called Avraham and said to him.” But with Pharaoh, it just says: “Pharaoh called Abram and said.” He does not relate to Avraham. “He said, 'What is this?'” – and don't you dare answer me! “He said” – but you don't speak. But in the case of Avimelech, “He said to him” – the lack of relating, this time, is coming from Avraham. Avimelech, then, goes on: “Avimelech said to Avraham, 'What did you see to do such a thing?'”

Now comes Avraham's response. One might expect a “sorry,” but that didn't happen. I would have expected, after Avraham was addressed so gently, that there would be: Avraham said to Avimelech, or to him – since, after this speech, it is evidently permitted to address Avimelech directly. But all it says here is “Avraham said” – similar, one might say, to the way Pharaoh addressed Avraham.

“For I said, only there is no fear of God in this place, and they will kill me for my wife.” Well, Avraham, now that you've said what you thought, surely you will apologize. But no, I have nothing to apologize for, says Avraham, and while I'm at it I have something to say to you. As far as saying she is my sister goes – I'm covered: “And also truly she is my sister on my father's side, though not on my mother's side, and she became my wife.” This is what might be called hair-splitting. Avraham insists that he did not lie, he was perfectly straightforward and aboveboard. But according to the Ramban, he was a bald-faced liar. And how does Avimelech react? |He could have said: I don't understand what you're talking about, I was given to understand that she is your sister, not your wife, so want do you want from my life? But in fact he says nothing. Avraham continues with a bit of background for Avimelech's benefit. “And when God led me away from my father's house, I said to her: 'This is the favor that you will do for me, every place we arrive at, please say for me that you are my sister.” With these words, Avraham explains why Sarah herself claimed to be his sister. But of course, the explanation proffered before covers her as well; she is his sister on his father's side, and therefore she, too, is not a liar.

“Avimelech took sheep and cattle and manservants and maidservants and gave to Avraham, and returned to him Sarah, his wife. Avimelech said, 'Here is my land before you, settle wherever you see fit.'” This is very nice of him. “And to Sarah he said, 'Here I have just given a thousand coins to your brother.” He's your brother; you're his wife. I don't know what's going on and I'm starting to wish I'd never been born. You said there is no fear of God in this place, and now I turn out to be the bad guy.

“And to Sarah he said, 'Here I have just given a thousand silver coins to your brother, here he is for you a blindfold, for everyone who is with you.” This is a very difficult verse; all the commentators find it problematic. I don't understand how Avimelech said it. “Avraham prayed to God, and God healed Avimelech and his wife and his maids and his children.” Why such a terrible punishment? “For God had sealed all the wombs in Avimelech's house because of Sarah, Avraham's wife.”

This segment requires fuller understanding, and I maintain that the two parallel narratives need to be learned in conjunction with each other, to understand the process undergone by Avraham, and indeed the process he undergoes throughout his life. First, though, I want to mention a huge chiddush that I saw in Rav Hirsch. (I think he's great, and it's beyond me why his explanations aren't followed more often.) I purposely opened with the words of the Ramban who accused Avraham of sinning by leaving Sarah at the mercy of evil Pharaoh. Rav Hirsch has a wonderful comment: “The events in Egypt and in the land of the Philistines hint at the depraved behavior there (and one might find parallels in a certain European nation of today). A single woman is better protected than a married one, especially a foreign one. Sarah is in danger either way, but sevenfold as a married woman, for they would kill the man and take the woman.” We remember Avraham's warning, “They will kill me and leave you alive.” Yet we still don't understand why he would leave her, when he could have fled, or prevented the trouble in some other way.

Now Rav Hirsch turns everything upside down. “This was not the case with a single woman accompanied by a brother: they would hope to win the woman by pleasing the brother. In any case, this was a longer route and one could buy time – help might come from heaven.” This is completely opposite to the Ramban. Says Rav Hirsch: a person must strive on his own behalf, and what could Avraham do here? If he said they were man and wife, the outcome was clear. It seems, at this stage, that Avraham was acting primarily to preserve his life. But Rav Hirsch says no: “For the sake of Sarah he chose the second option,” – not for his own sake at all. “As a married woman she had no chance at all, while as a single woman she still had hope. But Sarah, in her modesty, was unable to believe in the extent of the danger. She didn't know she was beautiful. Therefore he said: Well I, at least, realize that you are beautiful, and when the Egyptians see you, they'll kill me – and here Avraham glosses over the brute reality – and leave you alive. If they did kill you, that would be preferable to the life of degradation you would be forced to live if you were spared. Therefore it is best for you to say you are my sister, so that they will attempt to please me in order to get to you.”

Avraham said, referring to his wife's beauty, “I realize.” The word “na” is used, indicating that there had been a prior discussion, (similar to “Talk, please, in the ears of the nation” – there, too, the word “na” is used). This was apparently a conversation the two of them had had before, with Sarah resisting the idea that she was beautiful enough to cause any problems, and Avraham arguing back.

Do you think this is farfetched? If you do, please recall one of the subsequent Pharaohs: “Every son that is born, throw into the Nile, and every daughter keep alive.” Was it for humanitarian reasons that he commanded that the girls be kept alive? No. His intention was to destroy the Jews, whom he perceived as a threat. He said as much. But instead of doing the whole job straightforwardly, murderously, he decided to kill the boys and assimilate the girls. He decided to kill the boys in a sophisticated manner, the likes of which our generation can relate to. He realized it would cause less of an uproar if he simply had the midwives kill the Jews at birth – silently, secretly, without the world taking notice. No need to destroy proofs, to burn down camps.

Why, then, spare the girls? It would certainly involve effort to keep them alive. After all, he did not say you don't need to kill them, he said you must keep them alive. The answer is – and let us not fear saying this aloud – that this was genetic selection. Pharaoh wanted the girl babies kept alive for breeding purposes, for a lifetime of shame.

Says Rav Hirsch, this is what Avraham meant. If they kill him, then he can no longer protect Sarah, and then, heaven forbid, they will keep her alive. With all that entails, death is preferable. “That it may go well with me on your behalf.” The word “ba'avurech” – on your behalf – generally signifies the purpose, the end goal, as it says, “On behalf of (ba'avur) Avraham, my servant” – means “for his sake”: the important thing is Avraham, my servant. So, too, here: Why do I wish that it may go well with me? For your sake! Because if I stay alive then we can buy time, and I can use that time to try and save you. This explanation is a very deep one, its depth reflecting the depth of the challenge Avraham takes on. And it will perhaps help us explain our two parshiot.

I didn't read the parasha the way I did in order to now go back and say it is actually opposite. (Which, in fact, Rashi does.) No, I believe it is to be read the way the Ramban alludes to when he says, “Avimelech was innocent and just, and his people were good.”

The first verse of our segment reads: “Avraham journeyed from there to the region of the Negev.” From where did he journey? The preceding segment is a very long one – chapters 18 and 19 of Vayera. As Avraham sits in the entrance of his tent in the heat of the day, angels appear to him and inform him and Sarah of the impending birth – Sarah being “in the tent” – and they inform him, as well, of the destruction of Sodom, which takes place in chapter 19. At the end of chapter 18 he entreats God: if there be fifty tzaddikim, forty, thirty, twenty, ten. Avraham goes back to his place. Then comes a description of the destruction, after which “Avraham arose early in the morning to the place in which he stood before God. He looked out over Sodom and Gomorrah and on all the land of the plain, and he saw – behold – the smoke of the land was like the smoke of an oven.” This is Avraham's last appearance. Then Lot leaves his home, and his wife turns into a pillar of salt. Sodom and Gomorra, Lot and his daughters, Ammon and Moab… and then “Avraham journeyed from there to the region of the Negev.”

Clearly, as Rashi points out, “from there” is not a geographical statement, but rather a conceptual one. The significance is clear. Avraham is journeying away from Sodom-ism, from destruction, from fire and brimstone, toward a place of calmness. Rav Hirsch has a wonderful comment to make here. Avraham has, after, just been told that he is about to have a son. Where will he raise him, in the center of the land of Canaan? So he travels to the place ruled by the most moral man in the area; that's where he wants to raise his child. He goes, along with Sarah, little Ishmael, and the prophetic news of Sarah's impending childbirth. He signs a treaty with Avimelech and with Pichol, his chief of staff, using seven sheep. (This is the portion we read on Rosh Hashana.) How does this interlude end? “And Avraham sojourned in the land of the Philistines many years.” That is the only place where it is written that Avraham stayed many years. According to Rashi's calculations, he stayed there twenty-six years.

“Avraham journeyed from there” – he is impatient to reach a place where his life can be different. Shortly will begin the central family argument over Yitzhak's education and Ishmael's influence upon him. It's clear that through Yitzhak, Avraham will be able to continue his life's work of calling in the name of God. He spent time with Aner, Eshkol and Mamreh, he influenced souls in Haran, he's now 100 years old and his wife is 90, and it's time to settle in a place like Gerar, where – though there is still work to do – one can converse with a king who is innocent and just, and his people good. And yet, Avraham still asks Sarah to say she is his sister. He says to her: How far this is from Egypt, how many years have passed, what a different moral outlook there is here, how crude it was there and how polite and kind it is here. And yet, I make of you the same request I made back when God led me away from my father's house. (Perhaps that was at age three, perhaps when he met Sarah. After all, when did God lead him away from his father's house? When he was a child.) I still ask of you the same request.

After Avimelech asked Avraham: “What did you do? How did I sin to you?” in verse 10 he asks a seemingly similar question, but deeper and in fact opposite. “What did you see to do such a thing?” Avraham said to Avimelech, I could apologize a thousand times, but that's beside the point. There is no question that Avraham treated Avimelech nicely; we see that at the end of the chapter: “Avraham prayed to God…” Avraham takes care of Avimelech and honors him very much. But that comes later; first we must understand the central point, which is: fear of God. You know why in Lech Lecha Avraham does not answer Pharaoh? It's because Pharaoh was stuck on the “What did you do?” question. The “why didn't you tell me?” Most likely Avraham did say he was sorry in that instance, but it's not recorded because it's not important – not everything needs to be recorded. But Avimelech was different. He was innocent and just. This king wanted to understand Avraham, to get to know him. After all, God told him: This Avraham whom you've heard of – he's a prophet, listen to what he has to say, and listen well. Therefore he inquires, “What did you see that you acted in such a way?” This continues to demonstrate his innocence and justness. It wasn't God who made him ask this. He could have just said to Avraham, take Sarah and go. It also wasn't God who made him say, “My land is before you…” All God told him was that he is a prophet, and you must return his wife. The rest is pure Avimelech – his sense of morality, his interest and desire to hear about God.

Avimelech asks Avraham, “What did you see that you acted?” and Avraham answers the only relevant answer there is. He says: Listen Avimelech, you've got philosophy here, you have innocence, justice, morality, and the kind of natural awe testified to by “The people feared greatly.” I'm very grateful to have the chance to live around here, and will do so another twenty-six years. But all that doesn't change the fact that one key thing is missing here: the fear of God. A world without fear of God is a world without God. God can exist only a dream. King Shlomo said early on in the book of Mishlei: “The fear of God is the beginning of knowledge, wisdom and morality are scorned by fools.” All the knowledge, all the wisdom, as long as they are not built upon fear of God, can lead to the worst kind of destruction.

By the way, knowledge in the modern world is clearly not built upon fear of God, because one who really has fear of God can't push himself to the forefront; he stays modestly in the background. King Shlomo turns it all upside down in Mishlei. The very next verse is one that is extremely strange to the modern world: “Listen, my son to the morality of your father, and do not abandon the teachings of your mother.” In the modern world, this should have stated: Don't listen to the morality of your father; that will make you old-fashioned, you'll still be using the machines of 200 years ago. And please forget as quickly as possible the teaching of your mother, or you'll be stuck with folklore, tradition – bubbemeises.

“The fear of God is the beginning of knowledge.” The concept “fear of God” tells us that if there is one thing that prevents the revelation of wisdom, it is when one doesn't allow the Holy One to be the basis of everything. When you truly grasp the nothingness that is within you, the fact that your entire self comes from the Holy One, when you fear only God, your entire perception of morality changes. Avraham says: Avimelech, sir, in a kingdom like yours in which there is no fear of God, there will of necessity be some other god to fill the gap instead. In a world declaring atheism and communism, maybe it will take fifty years until the truth will come out – that there is a Stalin waiting in the wings to play God. If it's not you, then it'll be your son. The mentality of this place requires it. By the way, it really did turn out to be his son – the one who persecuted Yitzhak at Be'erot, as if there were no agreement between them. How do I know that he really was evil? Because it was a time of drought, and this man went and filled up Yitzhak's wells. He didn't appropriate them for the use of his own men. In other words, he was willing, for the sake of his “intifada,” to deprive his own hungry and thirsty people of this well water, simply because of his hatred of Yitzhak. This is a warped form of playing God. Avraham says: I will not be a partner in a place without proper fear of God.

“He sojourned in Gerar.” Where is Gerar? “Between Kadesh and Shur.” What was so important about the community of Gerar that it merited to have its location described in such detail? Even about Jerusalem it doesn't say that it was between such-and-such places, and that people sojourned there. What's extraordinary here is that in all this time, Avraham only “sojourns” in Gerar. What does Avimelech request of him at the end? “Here is my land before you, settle where you see fit.” Please settle here, he asks, but Avraham will not. Chazal teach: “Fortunate is the man who does not walk with the plan of the wicked” – that is the generation of the Tower of Babel; “and in the path of sinners he does not stand” – that is Sodom; “and in the meeting place of the scoffers he does not sit” – that is Avraham and Avimelech who requested “Here is my land before you, settle where you see fit,” but he did not comply, as it says, “He sojourned in Gerar.”

This is incredible. Avraham says: Avimelech, you don't grasp what I went through with Pharaoh, and with you, and with any place that doesn't have the fear of God. When there is no fear of God, someone else usurps His role, Heaven forbid. And when someone usurps this role, I'm much more worried for my wife to remain alive without me than for both of us to be dead, for I have no trust in your “keep alive all the daughters.” Avimelech doesn't respond after Avraham says “They will kill me because of my wife.” He doesn't proclaim his innocence. He knows that Avraham is right about the fear of God.

What does God say to Avraham at the end of Vayera? “Now I know that you are a God-fearer.” You know why I choose you, Avraham, and your descendants after you? Because you will never attempt to replace Me. When I told you to bind your son, the thing that is most opposite to the nature of our forefather Avraham – after all, he fought on behalf of Sodom, he fought on behalf of Lot, he fought on behalf of Ishmael – but when it came to your own son, you didn't hesitate, you didn't ask any questions. The difference between that and Sodom is that in Sodom, I told you why I was going to destroy them – because they were sinners. So you, as a kind, God-fearing person, said there must be some point of goodness that is worth fighting for. And in truth, in the end, even though Avraham lost the argument, he won, because Lot was the point of goodness who came out of Sodom, and thorough him Ammon and Moab, and Ruth the Moabite, and King David and the Messiah.

But the binding of Yitzhak, was that, God forbid, because he sinned? Because if there was anything that was entirely opposite to Avraham's character, and opposite to God's promise to him, and opposite to logic, it was this act. God had promised him, “Such will be your seed,” but Avraham was able to say, does this son truly belong to me? Do I truly belong to myself? Therefore I can take and destroy everything about me that can make me think of myself as divine: my good traits, my logic, my intellect, my justice. All of it I put aside – not just put aside, but I annul it, because in this world there is only You. If I try to place myself alongside You, the world is finished.

I'm going to say something harsh now: Avraham would rather carry through the sacrifice of Yitzhak than live in a world without God. Avraham himself is a pure, just, righteous man, but he teaches us that without God, there will inevitably come someone who will usurp that position, and then the whole world will fall. This is the tremendous lesson that Avraham teaches us: how one can reach this pinnacle of God-fearing. Avraham himself reached it step by step.

In the previous parasha we encountered for the first time the concept of “He believed in God.” This is actually the point of the trial of Lech Lecha: “God said to Avraham, 'Go for you from your land, from your birthplace, from your father's house.'” To where? It doesn't say to the land of Israel, to the land you love, to the land you learned about in Zionism class, to the land to which you sang Hatikva. It just says “to the land which I will show you.” If you want to be a believer, you must leave everything you thought had strength and go to place with no strength. The strength in it is just because I told you to. Leave everything behind.

Then comes the next trial. “There as a famine in the land.” I don't think people realize the extent of this trial. It's not just that there was a famine. “The Canaanites were then in the land.” Ramban, who points us to the peshat in these parshiot, explains the significance of the Canaanites. Do you think they came to greet him at Ben-Gurion International Airport with a marching band? No, it was a time of war, and Avraham showed up with all the “souls they had influenced in Haran.” This wasn't just two old people wandering around on camels, filling up little bottles with colored sand. Avraham comes with a lot of people, and starts building altars and calling in the name of God as ruler of the world. This is Canaan we're talking about – as in, “Cursed be Canaan, a slave of slaves will he be to his brothers” – this is a place of idols, and he comes and starts with his stories: builds his altar, pitches his tent, calls in the name of God. And then as soon as he starts talking about God, a famine begins. This irritates the king: Well done, thanks a lot for this Holy One you have brought into our lives. Everything was fine before you came with your ideas. What did you come here for?

You see what the trial was? It was that the calling in the name of God didn't succeed. He called, he prayed, and the answer was: No! What a desecration of God's name. In Haran, disasters like this didn't happen. We broke idols, we shattered myths, we wrote books, then we came to Israel and the climate did us in – there is famine and drought. This is a whole other category of trial. It's not just that there is a famine and they have to travel. What about all those new believers who came with him, according to the Rambam? So what do the Canaanites do? They sit and mock the whole idea of calling in the name of God. What have you done to us? Did you come to sink our ship like a Jonah? Get out! A difficult trial indeed.

Noah had a son called Ham, who ruined the whole post-flood enterprise after the planting of the vineyard. Ham had four sons: “The sons of Ham, Cush and Mitzrayim and Put and Canaan.”

Put disappeared. He reappears in Yehezkel as an adjunct to Mitzrayim, where the commentators debate if he is the same Put or not. But he doesn't appear anywhere else of significance. Who is the important son of Cush? “Cush sired Nimrod.” This was Avraham's first trial: his battle with Nimrod. Nimrod returns to the Sodom area with another name: Amraphel the king of Shin'ar [the one who told Avraham: Fall (pol) into the fiery furnace]. Avraham was commanded to elevate the world that Ham destroyed. The first to be dealt with was Cush, through Avraham's confrontation with Nimrod.

Who's next? Mitzrayim and Canaan (Put having disappeared). So where does Avraham have to go? To Canaan, and when there is a famine there – to Egypt (Mitzrayim). Who does he become entangled with? Avimelech, the king of the Philistines. Where did the Philistines come from? From Egypt: “Patrusim and Casluhim, from whom descended the Plishtim (Philistines).” Parashat Noah teaches us clearly that Philistines came from Egyptians.

Amazing. All of Avraham's struggles are with Ham, and we, his children, struggle with Ishmael, who is half Egyptian, on his mother's side: “An Egyptian maidservant whose name is Hagar.” Avraham's journeys are the journeys toward the revelation of God. He has to elevate the world, just as we, his children, have to deal with Egypt – the material goods, the “Keep alive every daughter,” the “Throw every boy that is born into the Nile,” the “They will kill me and leave you alive.” Then we will have to deal with the part of Egypt that made its way here – for after all, what is Egypt but the mentality that says, Who is God that I should listen to His voice, I know no God – therefore I will not let Israel go.

Who are Ham and Canaan? It is those who see the nakedness of their father, the most reprehensible kind of immorality. This immorality – of a man and his son together with his father: “Noah awoke from his drunkenness” – this is what Avraham our forefather needs to correct. He goes down to Egypt and needs to correct the situation there. God forbid he should leave Sarah alive in such a situation without him. One must always beware of a “Hammite” world, in which there is no fear of God and God is replaced by others. The world must be embraced within the tents of Shem This battle that Avraham engages in when he calls in the name of God, ruler of the world – when he goes down to Egypt the sinful, and in the wicked Sodom, and even in the just and righteous Gerar – teaches us that the battle for fear of God belongs even to an enlightened and civilized world, no less than to the world of Canaan and Egypt. With this battle, Avraham – who was the first to coin this phrase – establishes for us the concept of fear of God.

Home | Contact Us | Keren Yishai | Rav Mordechai Elon
Learn the Mekorot | Read the Shiur