Translated by Shulamith Berman

Out of the whole great Parsha of the Flood, its causes, its complications, and its ramifications, I have chosen to concentrate on one very small and insignificant point – one man who has very little emphasis in the Parsha but a great deal of emphasis among our sages and the traditions that we received from them. yet by focussing on this one man and the verses relating to him I will return to the Parsha as a whole. By viewing the world of this man we can view the entirety. I refer to Nimrod – “Nimrod was a mighty hunter before the Lord”.

We begin by comparing the “peshat” with the “derash”. Ibn Ezra and the Rashbam stand at the head of the “pashtanim” – they are always loyal to the straightforward meaning of the text. In contrast, Rashi and the Rambam also attempt to explain the “peshat”, the plain meaning of the text, but when a difficulty arises they are perfectly capable of providing a non-literal explanation. Sometimes Rashi makes a point of telling us “this is midrash”, “this is Aggadah”, “this is “peshat”. But there are times when Rashi makes a point of not telling us. The significance here is that Rashi is actually telling us that this is how it should be understood, instead of the way one would normally expect.

We begin by looking at the literal text:

And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mozraim, and Phut, and Canaan. And the sons of Cush; Seba, and Havilah, and Sabtah, and Raamah, and Sabtechah; and the sons of Raamah; Sheba and Dedan. And Cush begat Nimrod; he began to be a mighty one in the land.

Noah had three sons: Shem, Ham and Japhet. After describing the genealogy of Japhet we are now dealing with Ham. He had four children. We are well acquainted with the fourth, Canaan. We will meet him and his son “Mitzrayim” frequently in the course of history. Phut becomes assimilated with other nations. The one we are interested in right now is Cush.

I would like to focus on a small detail which appears unimportant, but is in reality very important. Let’s look at the syntax and structure of these sentences: “And the sons of Cush; Seba, and Havila, and Sabtah, and Raamah, and Sabtechah”. Now we go on to the grandchildren: “And the sons of Raamah; Sheba and Dedan.” Suddenly we go back to another son of Cush – Nimrod. But if Nimrod is the son of Cush, why doesn’t he appear together with the others? Hechzekuni addresses himself to this question:

Cush begat Nimrod, but Nimrod was not included with his brothers because his deeds were separate

Hechzekuni says that Nimrod does not appear with the others to emphasize that he was unique. So far so good, but it still doesn’t explain the unusual phrase “Cush begat Nimrod”. What about the others? Where did they come from? Did he father them? Nimrod is distinguished from the others. Why? Furthermore, why is he mentioned after Cush’s grandsons?

The text continues to describe Nimrod:

He was a mighty hunter before the Lord; wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the Lord. And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar.

Nimrod appears here as a kind of example: “wherefore it is said”. We are familiar with this phrase in another context: “Wherefore it is said in the book of the wars of the Lord, Vaheb in Sufa” – but what is its significance?

“And the beginning of his kingdom” – he was a ruler, and his kingdom extended to other places in the land of Shinar – who did he rule over?

Three times it is mentioned that he was mighty. This repetition appears to be clumsy and unnecessary. “He began to be a mighty one in the land”, followed immediately by “he was a mighty hunter before the Lord” – why? And what is the meaning of “he began to be a mighty one”?

Rashi, faithful to the tradition of the sages, explains clearly:

To be mighty – to cause the world to rebel against the Holy One, Blessed be He, according to the counsel of the generation of the Flood.

Rashi sees a continuous process at work here. Nimrod started something, he began to bring the world to a state of revolt against the Holy One Blessed be He. While we are still wondering how Rashi came to this conclusion, he goes on to say that Nimrod was no less than the chief engineer of the Tower of Babel. He was responsible! He “began to be a mighty one”.

By the way, some of Rashi’s commentators derive this interpretation not from the word “Lihyot” (to be) but from the word “hechel” (began) which appears frequently in the sense of “secular” or “worldly” – “Then began men to call upon the name of the Lord” - not necessarily in a positive light.

By association we can understand the basis for Rashi’s interpretation. We remember that the sphere of Nimrod’s influence was in the land of Shinar. In the verses dealing with the Tower of Babel and the generation of the flood it is written:

And the whole earth was of one language and of one speech. And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.

If this is in the same period, it is reasonable to assume that the ruler of the land of Shinar played a central role in the “Tower Project”. Rashi goes on to say:

A mighty hunter – he ensnared the minds of people by his words, misleading them to rebel against the Lord. Intending purposely to provoke Him to His face. Wherefore it is said – retarding any man who brazenly acts wickedly – knowing his Master and yet of set purpose rebelling against Him – it is said: “This man is like Nimrod a mighty hunter”.

If we were asked – what is a hunter? What does he hunt? We would reply – game! But if so, why was he dangerous? He enticed people to rebel against God, yet his duty was to hunt. Therefore Rashi explains that he ‘hunted’ the minds of people, inciting them to rebel.

Note that Rashi does not give us any other explanation. How does he come to the firm conclusion that Nimrod was wicked?

Furthermore, the words “before the Lord” always appear in a positive sense. It is said of Hannah: “And it came to pass, as she continued praying before the Lord”, yet in the text before us we read: “a mighty hunter before the Lord” – how can we reconcile the two? Rashi explains: “intending purposely to provoke Him to His face” – to rebel, to revolt! Here is a man about whom very little is written, yet suddenly he is transformed into the father of all rebels – why?

We will return to Rashi a little later. For now, I want to examine the second type of commentary, that of Ibn Ezra:

Nimrod – do not seek a reason for every name, if none is written. He began to display the power of man over beasts, because he was a hunter. Before the Lord – because he built altars and sacrificed animals. This is the plain text, but the ‘derash’ is different.

Ibn Ezra says, first of all – don’t look for a reason for every name. If you do so, you will certainly find a link between the name Nimrod and the word “mered” (revolt). But then what would you make of the name Methuselah? For this reason the name of God is not plainly written, as is written of Noah: “This same shall comfort us concerning our work and the toil of our hands” – don’t look for reasons!

Why is he “mighty”? Because he taught men how to overcome animals, in the most positive sense, since he was a hunter.

What is meant by “before the Lord”? Ibn Ezra explains that Nimrod sacrificed animals to the Lord. This is the same Nimrod whom we were taught from childhood to call “Nimrod the Wicked”. We were mistaken! Here he is portrayed as the most righteous of men! Nimrod is a tzaddik – he builds altars and offers sacrifices to the Lord, he helps mankind conquer the animal kingdom – he is no mere hunter! Ibn Ezra mentions that there are other interpretations, but even so…

When we are confronted with a dispute of this nature between Rashi and Ibn Ezra, we must turn to Rambam, who quotes them both and then goes on to say:

He was a hunter before the Lord – ensnaring the minds of people by his words and inciting them to rebel against the Almighty. Wherefore it is said – of every person who stubbornly decides to rebel – he is like Nimrod (according to Rashi). Our rabbis interpret likewise. But Rabbi Abraham (Ibn Ezra) explains to the contrary, that Nimrod was stronger than the animals, because he hunted them. Before the Lord – he built altars and offered sacrifices. This does not appear to be correct, since it is a justification of wickedness – our rabbis knew he was wicked.

Rambam says to Ibn Ezra – you have made a tzaddik out of the wickedest of men, claiming that he offered sacrifices. It is good to study the plain text, our rabbis were also acquainted with it, but they accepted the tradition, handed down from father to son, that Nimrod was a very wicked man. Rambam, in his fashion, suggests that we remain faithful to the ways of our rabbis but by following the “peshat”.

In my view, he began to rule over men, and he was the first ruler, because until his day there were no wars and no kings. He prevailed upon the people of Babel until he ruled over them. After that he went out to Ashur and there did as he pleased. And he grew stronger, and there he built fortified cities in his might. That is what is meant, that the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh.

Rambam is saying that this is the first time we read in the text about a man setting up a regime of authority – a kingdom. As yet it is not clear whether this is good or bad, but one thing is clear. Nimrod is the first king in history. Nimrod uses his might to become king, and then he annexes other regions, as we read in the next verses. This is the first recorded incidence of one man is ruling over other men.

But the question remains – in what does the wickedness of Nimrod lie? From what source do Rashi and our sages, derive such a negative image?

In Masechet Hulin the Gemara deals with qualities, including the quality of humbleness. The Gemara points out that this is a particular quality of the Jewish people. Our sages quote the phrase in Deuteronomy: “The Lord did not set His love upon you, nor choose you, because you were more in numbers than any people; for you were the fewest of all people” and explain as follows: “the fewest” does not refer to actual numbers. Quite possibly there were smaller nations in existence at the time. Rather, it means, in a positive sense, “you made yourself few”. Why did God choose you? Because you made yourself small – you were humble.”

God said to Israel: I desire you because even when I affect you greatly, you humble yourselves before Me.

“I desire” is an interesting expression. Desire is the most natural form of love – it has no reason.

I gave greatness to Abraham, who said “I am dust”; to Moses and Aharon, who said “what are we?”; to David, who said “I am a worm, not a man”. But idolators are not like this. I gave greatness to Nimrod, who said “let us build a city”; to Pharaoh, who said “who is this God?”; to Sennacherib, who said “who of all the gods of the lands etc”; to Nebuchadnezzar, who said “I will raise upon my throne”; to Hiram, king of Tyre, who said “I sat on the throne of God in the heart of the seas”.

And yet, we can still discern a difference between Nimrod and the rest. The evil of Pharaoh, Sennacherib, Nebuchadnezzar and Hiram is plain to see, but what sin is Nimrod guilty of? All we know is that he “began to be a mighty hunter.”

Our sages take Nimrod one step further. He was Abraham’s greatest enemy. It was he who sought to cast Abraham into the fiery furnace at Ur Kasdim. According to the sages, Nimrod appears once again in the war of the four kings against the five. A fierce battle was waged over Lot, at Sdom. “And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar… Amraphel was king of Shinar. Shinar was the site of the Tower of Babel, and Nimrod was there. Our sages view it as part of the same story:

“And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel” – a dispute between Rav and Shmuel. One said: his name was Nimrod, so why was he called Amraphel, who cast Abraham into the fiery furnace? The other said: His name was Amraphel, so why was he called Nimrod, who enticed the whole world to rebel?

It is quite clear that in the opinion of the sages, Amraphel and Nimrod are one and the same. The only question is, what was his worst deed? Was it the incitement to rebel, or that he forced Abraham into the furnace?

Once again we must ask – where is all this written – against a background of Ibn Ezra, who sees Nimrod as offering sacrifices. Yet our sages state firmly that Nimrod is ancestor to Pharaoh, Sennacherib, Nebuchadnezzar, Hiram, and every other megalomaniac monarch who sets himself up as a deity.

In my humble opinion, we must view Parshat Noah, against the background of the Flood. Quite a long time elapses between the Flood and the Tower of Babel. But the story of the Flood and the building of the Ark, which is presented to us in minute detail, and at great length, is bordered on either side by strange incidents. Each incident is remarkable in that it is unusual. Even before the well known reason for the Flood “the earth is filled with violence”, it is written:

And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh; yet his days shall be a hundred and twenty years. There were giants in the earth in those day; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Even before the Flood, God determined that man’s life span would not be overlong, like Noah who lived for five hundred years. Why, and what has that to do with this parsha?

Regarding the “sons of God”, the commentators explain that “Elokim” in this context refers to judges and princes, so “sons of Elokim” is a reference to their sons. But the peshat is not necessarily the only interpretation. In the midrashim, Pirkei D’rabbi Eliezer Chapter 22, and other sources, an entirely different explanation comes to light:

There is a well-known midrash about two angels with rather strange-sounding names: Uza and Uzael, who argued with God in heaven, saying: Look at the mortals on earth – they cannot withstand anything! God decided to ‘test’ them. He said: Let’s see how successfully you would grapple with your evil inclination on a day to day basis. The two angels descended to earth. They saw the daughters of man, who came from the earth, and the encounter between the two was like an electrical short circuit – very alarming! I don’t understand this completely, but I do understand that this refers to the descent of angels into the realm of mortals.

An equally strange story can be found on the other side of the story of the Flood – the Tower of Babel, which portrays man’s endeavors to reach the heavens. We modern people tend to view the story with a certain tolerance towards the primitive ancient world depicted here.

Rashi says that their rationale for building a tower that would reach the heavens was as follows: They had made the calculation that ‘once in every one thousand six hundred and fifty six years (the period between the Creation and the Flood) there is a heaven-shaking, just as there was in the time of the Flood. So now let’s make supports, let’s attach ourselves to the heavens so they won’t move!’

This is very strange and quite incomprehensible, but one thing is clear – the story of the Flood is bounded by two antithetical stories. In one, heavenly elements attempt to interfere on earth, and in the other, earthly elements attempt to reach the heavens. Two entirely parallel endeavors, with the Flood between them.

Man himself is a blending of earth and heaven. Man is “of the dust of the earth, and God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life”. The Ark floated for an entire year on the waters of the Flood. A tzaddik, a righteous man, headed the inhabitants of the Ark. We have just encountered a king for the first time. Now we encounter a tzaddik, whose function is to give meaning to everything in the world by revealing that which has eternal significance, Divine significance.

You remember Rashi’s famous story that a lion devoured Noah’s leg, because Noah was late feeding him. The Torah story is full of wonder and amazement. For a full year they all lived in the Ark, two by two, man and beast. Nobody eats anybody, nobody kills anybody – because the Ark has a leader, whose duty it is to ensure that everyone gets fed. Only once, when the lion isn’t fed on time, does he attack Noah. It is man’s duty to assign a place, a duty and a name to all the creatures on earth: “whatsoever the man called every living soul, that was its name”, and if there is a malfunction, man must take responsibility.

There was a yearlong test here, in a world which was destroyed because mankind ignored the inner significance “for all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth… the end of all flesh is come before me” – not only mankind but all flesh had acted corruptly.

The concept of a beast ‘acting corruptly’ – what does this mean? Rashi describes a horrifying scene: “even cattle, beasts and fowl did not consort with their own species”. But in the Ark, the new world reigns, a world where every living creature has its own inner meaning, as revealed by man. This is the task of the tzaddik. This is the prayer of the tzaddik. From time to time he must remind me of my meaning, my significance, lest I forget. Noah is that tzaddik.

The Flood is a terrible shaking-up, and two elements, one on either side, attempt to deal with it. Perhaps angels from heaven can cope with earth’s problems, because we’re not dealing with them here. Conversely, we can try to reach the heavens with our earthly powers, by building a Tower.

The story of Noah comes to teach us that although man is from the earth, with the heavenly breath of life he can create, he can repair, he can build! He has the power to connect everything to its source. The Flood will end and the dove will fly away, never to return. Then it will be time to emerge from the Ark to a destroyed world and start again from the beginning.

Abraham comes forth from the reality of Babel in the land of Shinar, and Amraphel returns to fight him. This battle must be well understood – it was a battle for Lot!

When Nimrod decided to cast Abraham into the fiery furnace, our sages tell us that someone else was present – Haran, brother to Abraham, son of Terach. Mighty Nimrod decides to cast his subject, Abraham, into the furnace for smashing all the idols and rebelling against Nimrod’s authority.

The verse “And Haran died before his father Terach in the land of his birth in Ur Kasdim” is explained as follows by Rashi as follows:

Before his father Terach, meaning in his father’s lifetime. The Midrashic explanation is that he died through his father. For Terach accused his son Abram before Nimrod of having smashed his idols to pieces, and he cast him into a fiery furnace. Haran waited and said to himself, “If Abram proves triumphant I will be on his side; if Nimrod wins I shall be on his”.

Nowadays we would call Haran a “floating voter”. What we have here is a basic lesson in politics. If Abram wins I’m on his side, I’ll stick to him through thick and thin. But if Nimrod wins, I have my speech ready as well – naturally, I’m his man!

When Abram was saved they said to Haran “Whose side are you on?” He replied, “I am on Abram’s side”. They therefore cast him into the fiery furnace and he was burnt to death. This is the meaning of Ur Kasdim (fire of the Chaldees).

Apparently, in order to withstand the fire of Nimrod one requires one’s own inner fire.

When our sages alluded to Amraphel as Nimrod, they took the story still further. Haran had a son named Lot. The battle was now over Lot, the “floating voter”. Abraham took Lot with him, and Nimrod didn’t forget this. At some point Lot left Abraham and proceeded to Sodom. Now battle was joined over Lot.

It is written “he armed his trained servants, born in his own house”. Abraham prepared his servants for battle, and set out at their head. Who were these servants? Rashi maintains that it was Eliezer, his servant, the elder and keeper of his household, the dearest and best disciple of our father Abraham. Jonathan Ben Uziel says that he was “Eliezer the son of Nimrod”, or, alternatively, the grandson of Nimrod. Abraham takes Eliezer, who rescues Lot and returns him to Abraham.

The rescue of Lot was not the end of the story. It continued for one more night, so that from Lot the drunkard would issue Joseph, grandson to both Abraham and Lot. In other words, Moshiach ben David – he who will ultimately lead all the nations of the world to a belief in the one true God. This circle can only be completed if not one single link is missing.

Rambam perceived this circle and in effect said to Ibn Ezra: What are you doing? Why do you justify wickedness? And here we come to the very heart of the matter – Ur Kasdim.

When Abraham receives God’s promise that he will receive the land (parshat Lech Lecha, Genesis Chapter 15), God reveals Himself to Abraham exactly as he later reveals Himself to us on Mt. Sinai: “I am the Lord who brought you out of Ur Kasdim”… “to give you this land”. Rambam says “who brought you out of Ur Kasdim” – that’s when I decided that you and your descendants would receive this land. At Ur Kasdim you were sorely tried.

The Midrash has the following to say: When our patriarch Abraham was born, one star in the east swallowed four stars to the four winds of heaven. This is a very interesting story. One star in the east –signifying Abraham, swallows four stars. His wise men counseled Nimrod – here Nimrod is described like Pharaoh, with counselors and advisors. A son was born to Terach at this time who would father a nation. He was destined to inherit both this world and the world to come. Here we have a nation with dealings with both earth and heaven. If you wish it, his father will receive much gold and silver, and we will kill him. Nimrod immediately contacted his father, and said to him: a son was born to you yesterday. Now give him to me that we may kill him. By the way, this was perfectly legitimate behavior for Nimrod, because as a king, he had godlike status. Terach said to him: I will tell you a parable. To what can this be compared? To a horse to whom it was said, let us cut off your head and we will give you much grain. Said the horse: Fools, if you cut off my head who will eat the grain? And if you kill my son, who will inherit my silver and gold? The king replied: From your words I can tell that a son was born to you. The style is interesting here, it is interrogative – you have fallen into my trap and admitted you have a son. Terach said to him: A son was born to me and died. But he said to him: I speak of a live son, not a dead one. What did Terach do? He hid his son in a cave for three years. God provided him with two apertures, out of one came oil and from the other, fine flour. When he was three years old he emerged from the cave, and thought to himself: Who created the sky and the earth, who created me? For the whole day he prayed to the sun, but in the evening the sun set in the west, and the moon shone in the east. His god had vanished. When he saw the moon surrounded by stars he said: This created me, and the sky and the earth, and these stars are his servants. All night he prayed to the moon, and in the morning the moon set in the west and the sun rose in the east. He said: these have no power. They have a master over them. I will pray and worship to Him. He went to his father and said: My father, who created the heavens and the earth and me? His father replied: my gods created the heavens and the earth and all of these. Interestingly, Terach does not include “you” although Abraham insistently wants to know who created him. He wants a relevant, immanent god, a personal deity to whom he can cry. Abraham said to him: show me your gods, who had the power to create all of these. Immediately he brought his idols and showed them to him. Abraham turned to his mother and said: my mother, prepare for me a fine meal for my father’s gods. Perhaps they will accept my offering. His mother did as he asked, and he brought the meal to the largest of his father’s gods, but there was no sound and no response. He returned to his mother and requested that she prepare an even finer dish. She did so, and he brought it to his father’s idols, but there was no sound and no response. Whereupon the Divine Presence descended upon him and he called to them: they have a mouth and cannot speak; eyes, and cannot see. Then he took up fire and burned them, taking out the largest and placing the fire in its hand. When his father came to his house and found them burnt, he said to Abraham: My son, why did you burn my gods? He said: I did not burn them, but the largest waxed wroth with the others and burned them. He said to him: My son is a fool, do they have strength or life that they could do so, when I myself made them from wood? He said to him: Your ears should hear what your lips have said. If they have no strength, wherefore did you say to me that they are gods, creators of heaven and earth?

“What did Terach do?” here begins the central part of the midrash. Terach hid his son for three years so that Nimrod would not take him. Despite his loyalty to Nimrod, he hides his son away. But now He went to Nimrod and said to him: my son burned my gods and yours in the fire. Nimrod sent for Abraham and said to him: why did you do so? He said to him: I did not do so, the largest one did so. Nimrod said to him: do they have life that they would do such a thing? He said to him: Your ears should hear what your lips have said. If they have no strength, why do you leave the Creator of heaven and earth and bow down to wood. He said to him: I created the heavens and the earth with my power. Now the cat is out of the bag! You, Nimrod, have told Terach that the idols created the heavens and the earth while all the time you know that in a world without gods, you are god. You know you are lying! You are Terach’s deity. My father is in crisis because his idols have been burned, but you are actually exploiting him and tens of millions like him. It will only become apparent after many decades that you deceived everybody, that you were in reality their god. So the basic question becomes: what is the consequence of your dominion?

Here Abraham arrives at the pinnacle of the midrash, he makes a startling discovery. The debate does not concern the idols – the argument is between Abraham and Nimrod. It is a war over diametrically opposed perceptions of the world. Nimrod ruled. Nowhere is it written that he spoke like Sennacherib, Pharaoh or Nebuchadnezzar. But in the end it was apparent that King Nimrod joined the black list of kings who thought they were god. Pharaoh told his people that the Nile was god, but it took someone as perceptive as Moses to observe that when Pharaoh came to worship at the Nile he was in reality worshipping his own reflected image.

Abraham saw, in the first flesh and blood king, a servitude to man, and it was against this that he went to battle. Soon a tower would be erected with its head in the clouds. Its builders would proclaim: “Let us build a city and a tower with its head in the heavens, and we will make for ourselves a name”. Where there is no god, the deity can be the state, the city, the tower. It doesn’t matter what we call god – the wood carved by father, or the state for whom the individual must be incinerated, or the tyrant who says he has something else to offer – he, too, is enslaved to some ideology, and it may take fifty years until we see that the ideology to which he is enslaved is the gold that he has taken from me.

This is where the great debate begins: “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Eternal god made the earth and the heaven”. Nimrod will build a tower that rules over the world. “Let us make a name” – like Mother Russia, only this one will be called Mother Babel Tower, and it will become a god that must be worshipped.

If you take the deity out of the picture, you will harm the individual. You will harm the silent masses, the Terach who came to you and said: my gods were burned. You never reveal to them that his gods ceased to be your gods a long time ago. You are the father of Sennacherib, Nebuchadnezzar, Pharaoh and Hiram and all those who made themselves into gods.

We began with the sentence: And the sons of Cush; Seba, and Havilah… And Cush begat Nimrod. You were born a “son of God” yet you were born mortal, and as a mortal you will die. In the interim you can play at God, if you choose. Such is the tale of Nimrod.

Nimrod was a “mighty hunter before the Lord”. This battle continues between these two factions – the sons of God who descended and entered our world, and the mortals who aspired to seek their fortune in the heavens. Opposite them stand two tzaddikim – Noah in the Ark and Abraham who breaks out of his ark and discovers what lies beyond. These two discover that man can remain mortal, and yet repair the entire world, if he will only remember to remain connected to God in all things.

Our sages summed it up beautifully in a short midrash. Abraham says to the people who built the Tower of Babel: You have abandoned a world with both God and man at its center – because man has the ability to reveal God to the whole world, but only if He stands at the center together with man. But instead you decided to build a Tower, so that you could make a name for yourselves.

I cannot be part of such a Tower, with its “head in the heavens”, while around it people continue to dream of a new world order, always in a different guise. As Rabbi Shimshon Refael Hirsch states “You abandoned a strong tower named God” – and you lost everything.

This is the dialog between Abraham and the men of the Tower, at whose center stands one man – Nimrod. The dispute has raged from that day to this, from Abraham’s escape from Nimrod in infancy, through his victory over Amraphel at Shinar in the struggle for Lot, all the way to the present day.

This feud will end only when the son of Abraham and Lot will bring the world back to “a strong tower, the name of the Lord”, where we will stand shoulder to shoulder, all of us together, to call upon the name of the Lord.

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