Seeking a
God-Fearing Society
R. Yaakov
Bieler
Parashat VaYera, 5766
Following the destruction of
Sodom and Amora, Avraham and Sara
journey to Gerar (Beraishit 20:1).[1]
The sequence of events strongly parallel what is recorded eight chapters
earlier (12:10 ff.) when they were forced to
temporarily relocate to Egypt in order to escape the famine
plaguing Canaan.
Beraishit 12:10-20
20:1-18
10] …And Avram
descended to Egypt
1] …And he sojourned in Gerar.
to sojourn there…
11-13] …And it will be when the
Egyptians
2] And Avraham said concerning
see you, and they will say
she is
Sara his
wife, “She is my sister”
his wife, and they will kill me, and
…
keep you alive. Please say
that you
are my sister, in order that good
will be done for me on your
behalf,
and my soul will be kept alive
be-
cause of
you.
14-15] …And the ministers of Pharoah saw
2] …And Avimelech, king of Gerar
her and they praised her to
Pharoah
sent, and
he took Sara.
and the woman was taken to
the
house of
Pharoah.
16] And Avram
was dealt with well on her
behalf, and he had sheep
and cattle,
donkeys and male and female
servants,
and mules and
camels.
17] And HaShem sent great plagues against
3-7] And God Came to Avimelech
Pharoah and his household, because of
in
a nighttime dream, and
Sarai, the wife of Avram.
He
Said, “Behold you are
going to die as a result of
the woman that you took, since she
is married…”
…”I did this in the purity of my
heart and the cleanliness of my hands”…
“Now return the wife of this man,
who happens to also be a prophet,
and he will pray on your
behalf and you will live. And if you do not
return her, know that you and all that there is to you
will surely die.
8] And Avimelech rose early in the morning,
and he called to all of his servants, and he spoke all of
these things in their ears, and they were very afraid. 18-19] And Pharoah called to Avram
and
9-10] And he called to Avraham
he said, “What is this that
you and he said to him,
“What have done to me? Why didn’t you have
you done to us and
tell me that she was your wife...
how did we sin against you,
that you brought
upon
Now here is your wife. Take her and go!"
that you brought upon me and my kingdom this
great sin?” Although it appears that Pharoah’s
question in 12:18-19 is more rhetorical than
interrogatory since we are not apprised of any response on Avraham’s part
explaining his apparently deceitful behavior,[2]
Avimelech is given a direct answer to his virtually identical question:
Beraishit
20:11 And Avraham said: Because I said,
“There certainly is no fear of God in this place,[3],[4]
and they would kill me regarding the matter of my wife.”[5] Naturally, it is possible that the
identical rationale described in 12:11-13,[6]
i.e., an anticipated danger not based upon any direct experience was what
caused Avraham and Sara to lie the first time they arrived in
Egypt, and has now caused them to once
again misrepresent their relationship when they reach Gerar. Da’at Mikra
suggests that idolatrous societies will inherently lack a sense of moral
accountability which can be expected to be found in places where a single
Deity is worshiped. Da’at Mikra on Beraishit
20:11 The implication is an absence of
the fear of the punishment of God, Who Commanded all of the inhabitants of the
earth to adhere to His Commandments. Consequently, such a fear will be absent in
a locale where individuals engage in idolatry, where a) people “worship” themselves, (Beraishit
3:5) “And you will be like God knowing the difference between good and evil”,
b) and/or they worship their rulers who see
themselves as “the children of God”, as in (Beraishit 6:2) “And the sons of God
saw the daughters of man that they were beautiful, and they took them for wives
from all whom they chose”,[7] c) and/or they worship the products of
their imaginations. But it would then appear that an
approach that assumes that the decision to fabricate was made well
before Avraham and Sara even set foot into any and all of the
places that they frequent during the course of their wanderings, would
prevent us from learning new, unique lessons from the sojourn in Gerar, which
then becomes little more than a second instance of a series of events that have
already been played out several chapters earlier in Egypt. From the perspective
of assuming that each incident recorded in the Chumash is intended to impart
concepts and principles that will prove significant for future generations,[8]
the reader is entitled to speculate regarding what specific insight into the
actual behavior of every-day life in Gerar may have influenced Avraham to
conclude once again that stating that he and Sara were married would be
inappropriate and even dangerous in the particular social environment in which
they now found themselves. R. S.R. Hirsch suggests that
Avraham and Sara may have come to Gerar with an open mind about the level of
morality within it, eagerly wanting to be impressed how Gerar was different, but
soon sadly and fearfully concluded that there was nothing to distinguish
it from their previous sojourn in Egypt. R. S.R. Hirsch on Beraishit
20:11 In other words, Avraham and Sara
were negatively impressed not by what they saw, but rather what
they didn’t see. They had been ready to attribute what they experienced in
Egypt to an aberration, i.e.,
Egypt was atypically immoral. However,
based upon their failure to see anything in Gerar to distinguish it from Egypt
in terms of ethical behavior, they reluctantly came to the conclusion that in
every new place in which they would sojourn, because all of civilization during
their lifetimes was apparently pervaded with significant amorality, they would
have to continue to protect themselves by lying. Could God’s Purpose in
causing Avraham to be exposed to a variety of negative social arrangements and
societies have been to force him to observe how others spend their day-to-day
existences? Is the underlying Divine Strategy to inspire Avraham via having
him come into contact with negative models, to imagine, orchestrate and impart a
better and more ethical way to live among those with whom he comes into contact?
Could this be one of the reasons why God demanded that Avraham leave his
birthplace and effectively become an itinerant wanderer, his itinerary being
determined by various permutations of undesirable social mores? Does Avraham’s
ultimate aversion to the ethical standards of Pharoah, the King of Sodom and
Avimelech, and their respective kingdoms, contribute to his resolve to spread
monotheism, and thereby a return to Divine morality? Nevertheless, some commentators
assume that Avraham and Sara must have seen specific behaviors or experienced
particular treatment that led them to conclude that either Gerar was
regrettably typical (R. Hirsch) or even more corrupt than the places in which
they had lived previously. The Midrash Pesikta Zutrata[9]
speculates that there was rampant immodest behavior with respect to the most
rudimentary aspects of personal hygiene: Pesikta Zutrata on Beraishit
20:11 What did he (Avraham) see? He saw
that they would defecate one before the other, a man in front of a woman, a
woman before a man, and they would not be modest before one another.
The very first account of the
interaction between men and women in the Tora, the story of Gan Eden, already
posits a direct association between the advent of illicit knowledge of “good and
evil” and an instinctive need to be modest, at least in the presence of the
opposite gender: (Beraishit 3:7) “And the eyes of both of them (Adam and Chava)
were ‘opened’ and they ‘knew’ that they were naked. And they sewed together fig
leaves, and they made belts.” Consequently, the absence of such a sensibility as
implied by the manner in which individuals relieve themselves, could very well
suggest to a visitor that the standards of morality in such a place leave a
great deal to be desired. Yet while the correlation between personal hygiene and
sexual practices with regard to respect for or dismissal of marriage vows hardly
appears preposterous, the Midrash’s presumption that this particular observation
on the part of Avraham, let alone that the practice itself, actually took place,
can hardly be supported by the Tora text which gives no hint that the residents
of Gerar behaved in such a fashion. The most well-known interpretation
of why Avraham asserted that Gerar lacked an atmosphere of “Yirat HaShem” or
basic morality appears in Bava Kama 92a and Yalkut Shimoni, Parshat VaYera #89,
and is later paraphrased[10]
by RaShI in his commentary on Beraishit 20:11. Bava Kama
92a (Beraishit 20:7) “Now therefore
(Avimelech) return the man’s (Avraham’s) wife (Sara) because he is a prophet and
he will pray for you.” Is it only the wife of a prophet
that has to be returned, but the wife of another person does not have to be
returned? R. Shmuel bar Nachmani said in the
name of R. Yochanan: “Return the man’s wife”—in all
cases. And with regard to your
protestation, (20:4-5) “Will You (HaShem) Kill
even a righteous nation? Didn’t he (Avraham) say to me (Avimelech), ‘She is my
sister’ and she said to me ‘He is my brother’” You should know that he is a
prophet, who has already taught the world (by virtue of the manner by which he
takes in guests, as in Beraishit 18:2-8) regarding when a stranger comes to a
city, whether he is to be questioned regarding food or drink, or regarding the
woman accompanying him, whether she is his wife or sister.
From this we learn that a Noachide
may become liable to the death penalty (it is with such a punishment that HaShem
threatens Avimelech and the inhabitants of his kingdom) if he had the
opportunity to acquire instruction (with respect to the rudimentary laws of
humanity) and failed to do so (thereby leading to a transgression of such a law
due to ignorance.) Yet it would seem that R. Yochanan
too is reading a great deal into the Biblical text. Avimelech’s claim that both
Avraham and Sara made unambiguous representations to him that they were siblings
clearly indicates that specific inquiries were made regarding their
relationship. Must it be assumed that if Avimelech was in possession of such
information, it was obtained in an untoward manner? Furthermore, the comment in Bava Kama implies that efforts
were made to ascertain the nature of Avraham and Sara’s relationship as soon as
they came to Gerar. Yet, the same weakness that applies to the above-cited
Pesikta Zutrata, can be invoked in this case, i.e., there again seems to be no
textual basis for assuming that this was the very first thing that
Avraham and Sara were asked upon their arrival.[11]
If we are going to indict the
entire society of Gerar, along with its leadership, for a lack of moral conduct,
shouldn’t there be a clear basis for making such a negative evaluation before
the critique is voiced? Isn’t it possible that Avraham was being overly cautious
when he declared that Sara was his sister, and that he now is defensively
explaining his subterfuge? In my opinion, the most
interesting, subtle, and contemporarily relevant interpretations of Avraham’s
statement to Avimelech posit that what was noted in the behavior of the
residents of Gerar was not an overt incivility or modicum of crudeness, but
rather a veneer of propriety that concealed beneath it values that left a great
deal to be desired. One approach is to suggest that the term “Rak” (lit.
only; fig. an exclusionary word, or a word for emphasis), as in “…Rak Ein
Yirat Elokim BaMakom HaZeh” is coming to completely negate the presence of any
fear of God whatsoever. HaEmek Davar on Beraishit
20:11 …It is true that (in Gerar) there
is “Derech Eretz” (lit. the way of the world; fig. civility, etiquette),
but this is not due to fear of God, but rather human logic and
rationality. A person lacking in “Yirat Elokim” will be unable to repress
his/her passions and desires that will ultimately influence his /her views and
behavior... Derash Moshe (R. Moshe Feinstein)
on Beraishit 20:11 It would seem obvious that the
intent (of Avraham) was not to criticize the behaviors of the place, because
Avimelech had complained, (20:4) “…“Will You (HaShem) Kill even a righteous
nation?”[12]
But rather the statutes and laws that they had were proper. But Avraham’s
critique was not about the laws themselves, but rather that they were being
carried out not because they believed that HaShem had Commanded them, but rather
because this is what their logic led them to do. This in the end does not amount
to anything, because one’s reason can lead one to reach conclusions that
practices are permitted when they should not be, as is evidenced by most
people violating the 7 Noachide commandments,[13]
despite their being logical and understandable to the average human mind.
Therefore the statutes were worthless. A view that maintains that some
“Yirat Elokim” is present in Gerar, but not enough[14],
is suggested by Ohr HaChaim. Ohr HaChaim on Beraishit
20:11 …the reason for Avraham’s using
the word “Rak” (lit. only; fig. an exclusionary or a minimizing word), they do
have “Yirat Elokim”, but only to the degree that they will seek technically
legitimate means to carry out their desires legally, e.g., by killing me and
thereby freeing Sara to be married to another (as opposed to recognizing that
any means to achieving this improper end should be excluded by one’s “Yirat
Elokim”). Both views are supported by the
response of the people to their King’s telling them about the Divine Revelation
that he received following his taking Sara from Avraham. Beraishit
20:8 And Avimelech got up early in the
morning, and he called to all of his servants, and he spoke all of these matters
into their ears, and the men were terribly afraid. According to HaEmek Davar and
Derash Moshe, the fear that the people felt upon being informed of
Avimelech’s dreams, comes from “without”, i.e., perhaps there is
something/someone out there Whom we have failed to consider until this point and
Who will Punish us for improper conduct, and therefore we need to alter our
beliefs and actions. Ohr HaChayim could more easily suggest that there is a
realization that perhaps their personal version of “Yirat Elokim”, at
least in this immediate context, is flawed, and requires rethinking and
greater insight and reflection. ShaDaL provides an example of how either the
absence or the limited effects of “Yirat Elokim” could manifest itself in the
treatment that Avraham and Sara received, which in turn convinced them that they
could not afford to be honest about their relationship. ShaDaL on Beraishit
20:11 The intent is not that the
majority of people (in Gerar) were criminals and violent. But rather they
were not careful about how to treat a sojourner. Even if they would not
mistreat one another, this may have been due to fear of the king or the judicial
system, but the king and the judges may not have cared about how temporary
residents are treated. Loving a sojourner is the result of “Yirat
HaKeil”… The lack of judicial protection
for sojourners is proven by the stealing of the wells by Avimelech’s servants
(21:25), with Avraham not complaining
about this until Avimelech comes to him and requests that they enter into a
non-aggression pact…
Avraham’s critique can be leveled
at contemporary society as well. When we interact with our fellow man, Jew and
non-Jew alike, are we motivated by what is right in God’s Eyes, or do we rely on
our logic, thereby making ourselves susceptible to prejudice and the possibility
of engaging in a double standard? Jews have historically been sojourners in many
countries, and the treatment that we have received down through the ages should
drive home the many repetitions in Sefer Devarim, how we have to remember what
it felt like to have been sojourners and then slaves in Egypt,[15]
and treat others, particularly the weak and defenseless, accordingly. The moral
standing of a society is not reflected in how well the upper classes live, but
the manner in which the “sojourner, orphan and widow” are treated. The terrible
recent events in Europe, targeting both Jews and non-Jews, further emphasize to
us that it is important to not only assure that members of a society’s
establishment are afforded rights, privileges and opportunities, but that the
same should be assured for all who choose to live within a certain nation, city,
neighborhood. Shabbat Shalom, and let us pursue
lives and contribute to building communities filled with “Yirat Elokim” both
interpersonally and spiritually. [1] Whereas their first venture outside
of the land of Canaan was precipitated by a famine
(Beraishit 12:10), no specific reason is given for
why they relocated to Gerar. For what reason would they forsake the more settled
area around Chevron, where their allies, Mamre, Eshkol and Aner
(14:13) were living for an area that
bordered on the desert and therefore was far less developed? Da’at Mikra (p. 56)
summarizes the various hypotheses that generated Avraham and Sara’s move:
a) The upheaval that resulted from
the destruction of Sodom and Amora made the area less
suitable for habitation. b) Avraham who had a great deal of
livestock needed grazing land, and the destruction perhaps eliminated lands
suitable for this purpose. c) The elimination of the great
metropolitan areas of d) Avraham wished to distance
himself from the scandal that involved members of his family, i.e.,
e) Avraham felt guilty that he had
not been able to save f) Avraham felt the need to
continue to spread monotheism (17:1), and he sought out a new area of
g) Avraham wished to consolidate
his claim to ownership of [2] Although in 12:12, Avraham explains
his strategy to Sara, i.e., that he is afraid that when the Egyptians learn that
they are married to one another, they will promptly kill Avraham in order to
free Sara to marry someone else, he never states this to Pharoah. Is the
omission of Avraham’s response to Pharoah an indication that Pharoah was not
interested in the answer, that Avraham was too intimidated to be forthcoming in
response to the question posed to him, that the reason was so obvious that it
did not have to be stated, or could there be some other explanation for the
Tora’s silence in this regard? [3] While it might strike one strange
that Avraham ever expected to find “fear of God” in Gerar, a city inhabited by
idolaters, and it can be demonstrated that “Yirat HaShem” within this context
could apply even to individuals who may not be monotheistic in terms of their
religious beliefs. Two other times within Chumash, characters who are either
pretending to be part of the majority, non-“Abrahamic” culture, or who may
actually be part of it, describe themselves or are described as “fearers of
God”. In Beraishit 42:18 Yosef, acting as the assistant to Pharoah, and to all
appearances, a full-bred Egyptian, says of himself, “Et HaElokim Ani Yare” (God
I fear), without arousing his brothers’ suspicions. With respect to the midwives
Shifra and Puah, who refused to carry out Pharoah’s plot to kill new-born male
Jewish children, Shemot 1:17 states, “…and they feared HaShem…” While one
Rabbinic tradition insists that the midwives were actually Miriam and her mother
Yocheved, another Midrash maintains that they were
Egyptian: (Otzar HaMidrashim ed. Eisenstein,
p. 148) There are pious, converted and proper
women from among the nations of the world: Osnat, Tziporra, Shifra,
Puah, Bat Pharoah, Rachav, Ruth, and Yael. Based upon the cases of Yosef, on
the one hand, and Shifra and Puah on the other, it would seem that individuals
who “do the right thing”, i.e., don’t hold all of the brothers hostage, but
rather just one in order that the others can return and bring back Binyamin, and
don’t kill innocent babies, they are evidencing the qualities of “Yirat Elokim”.
And since Avraham did not notice such moral, upright behavior in Gerar, he
concluded that there was no “Yirat Elokim” there, and therefore he had to take
things into his own hands to protect himself. [4] It must be noted that in Parshat
VaYera alone, the term “Yirat Elokim” is used in two very different contexts. In
contrast to the “fear of God” as a form of deep religious faith and trust that
Avraham demonstrates by means of his readiness to sacrifice his son Yitzchak in
Beraishit 22:12, the “God-fearingness” that is declared lacking in Gerar has to
do with the need to adhere to strict moral and ethical principles within a
social setting. Yeshayahu Leibowitz (Sheva Shanim Shel Sichot Al Parshat
HaShavua, Chemed, Yerushalayim, 2000, p. 79) distinguishes between the two forms
of “Yirat HaShem” in the following manner: From these words of Avraham, it is
seemingly implied that that the concept “Yirat Elokim” (with regard to Gerar, in
contrast to its more spiritual context as in the “Akeida”) suggests a theoretical and practical
framework which serves as a means for preventing one person from killing
another. According to this approach,
“Elokim” is for the sake of man, since a lack of “Yirat Elokim” endangers peace
in a human society. Dostoevsky, who was also recognized as a great philosopher
among the nations of the world during the last generations, stated, “If there is
no God, everything is permitted”… [5] Avraham goes on in [6] Such a line of reasoning would also
assume that Avraham would have similarly told Pharoah that there was no “Yirat
Elokim” in [7] See, for example, RaShI’s
commentary on this verse. [8] The principle “Ma’asei Avot Siman
LaBanim” (the deeds of the Forefathers are precursors for their offspring),
i.e., what happens to the personalities in Beraishit on a microcosmic level,
will be played out on a grander scale with regard to the entire Jewish people,
e.g., just as Avraham and Sara go to Egypt because of a famine, so do the entire
Jewish people; just as Sara is taken captive by Pharoah, so too the entire
Jewish people are enslaved by the Egyptians; just as Sara is released due to
plagues that God Sends against Pharoah and his household, so too the Jews are
released because of the plagues that God Unleashes against Egypt, etc.
[9] Cited in Tora Shleima, Parshat
VaYera, p. 830, #57. [10] There would seem to be an
interesting subtle difference between the manner in which Bava Kama presents the
verse’s interpretation, and how this interpretation manifests itself in RaShI’s
Biblical commentary. RaShI writes in rather telegraphic style, obviously based
upon the Talmud: “When a stranger comes to a city,
should he be questioned regarding food or drink, or regarding his wife, “Is she
your wife or your sister?” In the Talmud, the emphasis is
placed upon how Avimelech did not learn from Avraham’s example how one is to
conduct him/herself. But RaShI omits the premise that Avraham’s example should
have served as the paradigm of hospitality, and instead suggests that such a
practice is inherently obvious, and therefore does not have to be learned from
some type of outside source. In the essay for Parshat Lech Lecha 5766, http://www.kmsynagogue.org/LechLecha2.html
the influence that Avraham had upon his neighbors was discussed; however most
sources suggest that others appreciated his successes and his outstanding
character, there was not very much material indicating that his example with
respect to religious faith and interpersonal relationships was internalized and
emulated. There were a group of people whom Avraham and Sara may have converted
to monotheism (RaShI on 12:5) and who may have become their students
( [11] A parallel instance of “reading
between the lines” with respect to the sequence of events that take place when
people interrupt their journeys and come to rest appears in Shemot 4:24-6. Moshe
is returning to [12] It could be cynically claimed that
Avimelech was either deliberately being dishonest, or even if according to his
lights, his kingdom was moral, that does not mean that held to a truly objective
standard, the practices of Gerar would be considered proper. R. Moshe, by taking
Avimelech’s word at face value, forces us to extrapolate the principle
underlying the interpretation, rather than being able to easily dismiss the
incident as irrelevant to us due to Avimelech’s personal
duplicity. [13] 1) Do not kill; 2) Do not steal; 3)
Do not engage in sexual misconduct; 4) Do not engage in idolatry; 5) Do not
blaspheme; 6) Do not remove the limb of an animal while it is still alive; and
7) set up a legal system so that criminals can be brought to justice and
disputes can be settled. [14] One could speculate as to which of
these two understandings sees the Gerarites in the more nefarious light. Are
they essentially secular rationalizers and justifiers, giving no thought to some
overarching Authority Who will hold them accountable for their actions,
or are they ready to justify their improprieties under the rubric of
“God-fearingness” in the sense that they look for ways to morally lessen the
quantity of their transgressions, if not the
quality? [15] E.g., Devarim 5:14;
You (Avimelech) had done
nothing bad to me (Avraham). I had had no special bad experience here to lead to
my behavior. There is nothing missing here; you have the same laws and rules and
order as everywhere else. Only, I could not assume that here, more than
everywhere else, the fear of God prevails, the fear of God that forbids me to
voluntarily expose my wife to dishonor, and which would forbid you to touch the
wife of a stranger, or kill him, should he dare to offer resistance to your
immoral customs…
Tziporra’s
circumcising her younger son herself.