R. Jack Bieler's answers to the lech lecha gilayon

1.

              Background consideration:

The relationship between R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish is a storied one. See Bava Metzia 84a wherein is described how R. Yochanan influenced Reish Lakish to return to a life of learning and observance, as well as the fatal fallout that separated the two forever. Reish Lakish’s experiences as a gladiator/highwayman cannot do other but inform at least his Aggadic comments, if not his Halachic experiences as well, at least his areas of expertise, as the passage in B.M. implies. Consequently, it is perhaps relevant even to look at the disputes in the Midrash through such a lense.

1+3 R. Yochanan: Noach needs support; Avraham is self-sufficient. The Mashal in both cases is not about assisting HaShem, but rather how the respective individuals function. Furthermore, the image of Noach needing to be propped up in order that he not fall is reminiscent of RaShI’s comment on Beraishit 5:24 concerning Chanoch, i.e., that he was a Tzaddik but “Kal” in his thinking vis-à-vis becoming a Rasha —hence God’s “Taking him” before there is a chance for that to happen. This in turn calls to mind the comment regarding the Ben Sorer U’Moreh (Devarim 21:18) who is judged “Al Shem Sofo”. With respect to pristine freedom of choice, why should these individuals be subject to Divine Intervention? Kayin was told in Beraishit 4:7 that it was all up to him and his choices! When does God Intervene and when does He Allow the individual to make his own way?

      Reish Lakish: Not only is Avraham independent and not in need of support, he also assists God, KaVeyachol. Noach, on the other hand, is not only unsteady on his feet, he is sinking in a kind of quicksand and needs to be extracted (a reference to Reish Lakish’s condition prior to R. Yochanan’s intervention?)

2. One could reach the conclusion that Noach in fact is on the higher level since the Tora describes Noach as walking with God, implying that Noach has come to do this on his own, whereas with respect to Avraham, God Commands him in Beraishit 17:1 to walk before Him. Would Avraham have come to do this on his own had he not been Divinely Commanded? Although we say (Kiddushin 31a)  “Gadol HaMetzuveh VeOseh MiMi SheEino Metzuveh VeOseh”, that is with reference to a person who is not Commanded to perform a Mitzva to take it on anyway, as opposed to reaching an existential conclusion re how to conduct one’s overall life.

2.    Assumption: A similar consideration that is reflected in the dispute in the earlier passage in Tanchuna Yashan can be seen to underlie the perspectives listed in this Midrash.

1.   R. Yochanan: Although the sheep walk in front of the shepherd, they are essentially helpless and without his guidance, they would lose their way and suffer all sorts of dangers and hardships.So too Avraham, despite his walking in front of God, he is still in need of God’s Guidance and Protection.

              Reish Lakish: If the sheep are in need of the shepherd only in times of emergency, then essentially, for the most part, the sheep have no essential relationship with the shepherd. He takes them out in the morning, brings them back in the evening and makes sure that they are not attacked or pilfered, but they do nothing for him. God’s Relationship with Avraham and vice versa is much more intrinsic. Not only does God Provide Avraham with protection and guidance, but Avraham is God’s “advance man”, sharing his understandings of monotheism with whomever he meets via his Ohel (Beraishit 18:1) and Eishel (Ibid. 21:33).

2.    Beraishit 17:1 states: “Hithaleich Lefnai VeHeyeh Tamim.” The implication is that these two elements are interdependent, i.e., that by means of Avraham’s walking before HaShem, he will also gain in self-perfection. Consequently, it would be insufficient for the latter to happen if Avraham would simply talk about God with others. The manner in which Avraham is to walk before God, according to Onkelos and RaShI is by engaging in public worship of God, which will not only influence others, but himself as well.

3.   Methodology: While there is nothing wrong with trying to address a question that is posed by a Meforesh like the Abrabanel on one’s own, (the question is the 8^th of the questions that he lists in the section that begins with Beraishit 17:1) thereby allowing for coming up with an answer that differs from that of the commentator, it is also perfectly fine to look at the answer that the commentator provides, once one has thought about the question.

  1.  Since the verse in Nechemia 9:7 is inherently historical, summarizing the stages of Avraham’s development, to refer to his original name does not constitute a violation of the principle recorded in Berachot 13a.

  2.  Abrabanel contends (p. 99b in my edition) that since Avraham’s original name was conferred by Terach, an idolater, and he is given his new name at the time of the requirement for Berit Mila, this is essentially a process of Geirut. Consequently, it would be wrong to refer to him subsequently by his pre-conversion name. Yaakov, on the other hand, was given his name by Yitzchak, whose credentials are unquestionable, and it was a Malach that stated the alternate name, neither of these names reflecting a change in essential status, but rather were descriptive of particular moments, the former that Yaakov was holding on to Eisav’s foot as he emerged from the womb, the latter because Yaakov more than held his own in his struggle with the Angel.

4.  Additional source: RaMBaM not only takes this positon in Mishna Tora, but also in his well-known letter to Ovadiah HaGer—see Igrot HaRaMBaM, Vol. 1, ed. Yitzchak Shilat, Ma’aliyot, LeYad Yeshivat Birkat Moshe, Ma’aleh Adumim, Yerushalayim, 5747, pp. 231-2.

1.  Yerushalmi Bikurim posits that Avraham’s change in status conferred upon him the role of being the spiritual leader of all nations in terms of their connection to monotheism and the values that Avraham represents. Consequently, his relationship is not just a matter of biological progeny, but also his “students”, converts to Judaism from whichever nation and tradition thereby included. RaDaK takes a narrower view in the sense that since Avraham will have literal descendents who do not follow his spiritual path, nevertheless these are to be considered his children, offspring, implying that he must assume some form of responsibility for them as well. If we understand that Avraham’s intervention on behalf of the residents of Sodom and Amora was not only because Lot and his family lived there, but because Avraham took his position as father of a multitude of nations seriously, then it would appear to be a support for the Yerushalmi in opposition to RaDaK.

2.   It would appear that the term Av in the verse is being used figuratively rather than literally. While a number of nations do descend from Avraham, could they be categorized as a “multitude”? In Beraishit 9:18, when taken in light of 10:7, and 10:21 in relationship to 10:24, would suggest that we are not describing a biological relationship, but one of culture, orientation and personality.