http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/149.html
click the left button of the three button group on the bottom for the full gilyon
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The Parsha Questions Project
Nechama Leibowitz would mail questions about the weekly Torah portion to anyone who was interested. These questions are now available online. This space is dedicated to thoughts about her questions and potential answers.
ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE PAGE WITH THE QUESTIONS THERE ARE LINKS TO THE DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF THE GILAYON. YOU CAN ONLY SEE THE FIRST SECTION BY DEFAULT!!!
ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE PAGE WITH THE QUESTIONS THERE ARE LINKS TO THE DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF THE GILAYON. YOU CAN ONLY SEE THE FIRST SECTION BY DEFAULT!!!
Posts
In the exciting/bizarre פרשה that is נח, I never really stopped to even think about this 'פס and how strange it is. My thoughts on this גליון are highly influenced by a course I took this summer called "Coping With Loss." One of the concepts we covered in this course is the tragedy of coping with the loss of a child, how it goes totally against natural expectations of the life cycle and therefore is a difficult situation to wrap one's head around and cope with. When I read רש'י the first thought that came to mind was that not only was the death of הרן a punishment for his lack of 'בטחון ואמונה בד , but it also seems to be a punishment for תרח. This bothered me because I could not think of a reason why תרח should be punished like this.
ReplyDeleteOne possible answer I thought of is that תרח was being punished for raising a child like הרן , someone that just goes with what benefits him at the time as opposed to what he truly believes in. But that answer does not sit well with me.
Clearly there are events that occur in life that we just do not understand why they happen. Perhaps that is the lesson in all of this. In these moments of despair in life the natural thought process is to feel abandoned by Gd. It is at these moments, however, where it is most important to strengthen our בטחון ואמונה בד.
I think that it is clear that תרח did indeed strengthen his trust and faith in Gd after this tragic event. After the death of הרן the next action the תורה recalls תרח taking is picking up the pieces of his family and taking them toward כנען. This is before 'ד told אברם to head in that general direction, but I do not think it is a coincidence that תרח decided to go that route. Perhaps תרח felt some sort of spiritual/Gdly connection to כנען that would only become apparant to future generations later on. Perhaps תרח felt he needed to stregthen his relationship to Gd after the tragedy of his son's death and felt that the best place to truly feel connected to Gd was in כנען.
I know I didn't really answer the questions Nechama Leibowitz put forth, but I just wanted to share. Feel free to comment on what I wrote or just answer the questions like we were supposed to :)
oh, i should prob mention that this was all a comment on מעשה אברם ונמרוד - שאלות ברש"י
ReplyDeleteAnswers to first section (Rashi)
ReplyDelete1. In front of/at the hands of
2. The phrase al pnei usually refers to a physical relation between two nouns
3. If you make theological decisions based solely on practicalities, or what makes you successful you will fail. There needs to be an aspect of Leshma
4.It didn't want to speak at length about idol worshippers
@ Esti.
ReplyDeleteIt certainly does seem that there is a connection between the death of Haran and the family's move to Canaan. But why did they stop? Perhaps Terach's idea was שנוי מקום שנוי מזל, he just wanted to get away. He arbitrarily picked Canaan, but when he got to a new place he was satisfied. Avram also left with him in order that Sarai give birth. Either Lot was under the charge of his grandfather and had no choice, or he was dealing with the death of his father. Nachor, though, was content with his life.
Interesting take on it Avi. Maybe תרח wanted to go all the way to כנען but he was too old and died on the way. At the end of פרשת נח it seems as though אברם is content on staying in חרן, but needs the extra push from Gd. Maybe you're right with the whole שנוי מקום שנוי מזל thing. I think there has to be something about כנען though that was pulling תרח, why would he choose כנען? It seems like a horrible place to go with your family, all we hear about is all the famines there, why would he choose to go there?
ReplyDeleteAnswers to the second section
ReplyDelete1.ואת לות בן הרן, בן בנו
2. a.it says "אתם" and not "אתו". This implies that not only terach took them.
b. Rashi puts Terach and Avram on equal footing. The Ramban puts Avram on a higher level. The problem with Rashi is that he does not explain the switch from 3rd person singular to 3rd person plural. The Ramban, on the other hand, reads a whole lot into the pasuk
c.They all went with one another. In a unified manner.
3. Perhaps this signifies that this part is not a new journey, but a completion of what was originally intended.
Gilayon Parashat Noach 5725
ReplyDeleteSection 3
Background:
a. Terach is 70 when Avraham is born—Beraishit 11:26
b. Avraham is 75 when he leaves Charan to go to Canaan—Ibid. 12:4 Terach is 145.
c. Terach is 205 when he dies—Ibid. 11:32 Terach continues to live in Charan for 60 years following Avraham’s departure.
d. Is Avraham guilty of negligence towards his father?
Considerations:
1. Respecting parents does not number among the Noachide Commandments—Sanhedrin 56a ff.
2. However the story of Dama ben Nesina (Kiddushin 31a) suggests that while not obligated, Kibud Av VaEim was practiced among non-Jews, perhaps as a Lifnim MiShurat HaDin principle. If so, shouldn’t Avraham have been concerned about doing likewise?
3. Avraham was to have fulfilled all of the Tora’s Commandments, despite his not having received Revelation—Mishna Kiddushin 4:14.
4. If Terach was an idolater, perhaps Avraham was not obligated to offer him respect? Yet the principle of Kiddush HaShem would seem to apply not just to other Jews, but to non-Jews as well, and perhaps, in particular! This would have appeared to have been Avraham’s “stock in trade.” See the end of my paper, “Abraham: Pioneer Religious Educator; Paradigm for Contemporary Teachers of Judaism” in Haskel Lookstein Jubilee Volume, Rav Chesed (Ktav, New Jersey, 2009). (Attached to this document.) If so, he was concerned about Kiddush HaShem in order to impress others, but not his own father?
5. Rabbinic tradition claims that Terach repented at the end of his life—RaShI on Beraishit 15:15. If #3 above is true, then at what point did Terach repent precipitating Avraham’s obligation to reassert itself, if it did?
6. Is this a case of a conflict between Kibud Av and Kavod HaMakom, whereby the latter wins out, as in RaShI on VaYikra 19:3? i.e., when it is possible to fulfill both of these values, then one should; however where a choice has to be made, as in e.g., Aseh Docheh Lo Ta’aseh (Yevamot 3b) or Kavod HaBriyot vs. Kavod HaMakom (Berachot 19b).
Answers:
1. Why is Terach’s death noted by the Tora 60 years prior to its taking place?
2. In light of Consideration #1 above, “Acher” cannot refer to Bnai Noach, but rather to descendents/students of Avraham. The expectation is that Avraham will impart his values and practices (see Consideration #3 above) to his family and students—see Beraishit 18:19. However, his “violation” of Kibud Av VaEim will possibly brand him a hypocrite when he encourages his descendents and students to act in this manner. If the “idolater”
exemption is accepted, then this would not take place for several generations with respect to students. However, in terms of his own family, it would seem to immediately come into play. Two particular examples of early Biblical figures who are dunned for their apparent lack of Kibud Av VaEim are Yaakov, who prolongs his sojourn with Lavan in order to acquire wealth instead of returning to his parents, and ending up never seeing his mother Rivka again—see RaShI on 35:8; and Yosef who fails to inform Yaakov that he is alive, even once he no longer is enslaved and has assumed an important government position in Egypt—(see Sota 13a for a parallel indication that Yosef was not careful about Kibud Av.)
ReplyDelete3. RaMBaN suggests that the Tora stating a father dying before it actually happens in order to go into detail regarding the lives of his offspring happens on a number of occasions, rendering the case of Terach as unexceptional.
4. a) Yered, father of Chanoch—
5:18 Y. 162 when C. born.
5:19 Y. lives additional 800 years.
5:20 Y. lives 962 years total and dies..
5:21 C. 65 when has first child Y. 227
5:22 C. lives another 300 years Y. 527 at death of C.
b) Lemech, father of Noach—
5:28 L. 182 when N. born.
5:30 L. lives additional 595 years.
5:31 L. lives 777 years total and dies.
5:32 N. 500 when sons born L. 682.
5+6.From 5:3-31, the pattern for each person is a) age when fathers first child, b) how many years afterwards does the individual continue to live, and c) the total number of years of the individual’s life, finalized by the observation that he died.
From 10:1-32, the pattern is discontinued and only the names of the subsequent generations are mentioned.
From 11:10-25 the pattern resumes, with the omission of the statement that the individuals die at the end of their lives.
With respect to Terach, 11:32 not only states how long he lived, but also that he died, and where he died, i.e., Charan. Consequently the Midrash attempts to account for these divergences.
7. It seems to me that the question of the Gur Aryeh is on RaMBaN, but not on the Midrash and RaShI. The latter two mention the metaphysical principle that evil-doers are considered “dead” already during their lifetimes. Consequently, technically, if Terach is “dead”, Avraham is not responsible to honor him in the same way as he would have to do vis-à-vis a person who is fully alive. Therefore, aside from the Marit Ayin consideration, Avraham is not in violation of Kibud Av VaEim by leaving his father 60 years early. RaMBaN does not mention this perspective and simply states that the text is constructed for those who will not look into the matter carefully. Consequently it would appear that he is open to Gur Aryeh’s critique.
ReplyDelete8. a) Since in my view, Gur Aryeh’s question specifically applied to RaMBaN, then it is this difficulty that he is addressing. (The fundamental difference between his approach and that of the Midrash and RaShI is the question of who has broken with who? i.e., if we emphasis the Rishut of Terach, then it is Terach who is “dead” and no longer deserving of Avraham’s ministrations, whereas according to G.A. it is Avraham who is the “new creation”, in effect the Ger who is like Tinok SheNolad, and has no Yichus, no relationship to even his biological family.) According to G.A. 11:32 could be understood in the sense that vis-à-vis Avraham’s development as a monotheist, it was at that time that at least figuratively Terach died (the recourse to the original pattern, in contrast to 11:10-25 where “VaYamot” does not appear) because he did not share his son’s views. Therefore the text was entitled to state what it did.
b) Yevamot 48b; 62a. Ger SheNitgayer KeKatan SheNolad Dami.
c) G.A. is anticipating the disdain with which the approach of the Midrash might be met, i.e., there is an assumption that people will not carefully look into this matter and therefore a “cover-up” is being effected. Consequently, if someone does not understand the underlying concept, he is to blame rather than the Rabbis who composed the Midrash.
9. As stated in 7. above, the concept of Resha’im being considered metaphorically dead during their lifetimes serves as the key to justifying what otherwise would appear to be simply misleading and potentially inspiring the ire reflecting in the G.A.’s question.