Lech Lecha Answers

Lech Lecha 5724
Alef.

1. Avraham, who was at the time childless, was looking for an heir for not only his material possessions, but also his spiritual legacy. He might have thought that Lot, his closest male relative, would serve that purpose. Their parting ways effectively put an end to that possibility.

2.  The word “Aretz” appears seven times. (In v. 10, even though the word also appears, it is said in relation to the land of Egypt, as opposed to Canaan, i.e., the land of Israel, and therefore should not be considered with respect to a “guiding word” for the Parasha.) What is at stake is the inheritance of the land of Israel about which Lot demonstrates that he does not care. 

בראשית פרק יג

(ה) וגם ללוט ההלך את אברם היה צאן ובקר ואהלים:

(ו) ולא נשא אתם הארץ לשבת יחדו כי היה רכושם רב ולא יכלו לשבת יחדו:

(ז) ויהי ריב בין רעי מקנה אברם ובין רעי מקנה לוט והכנעני והפרזי אז ישב בארץ:

(ח) ויאמר אברם אל לוט אל נא תהי מריבה ביני וביניך ובין רעי ובין רעיך כי אנשים אחים אנחנו:

(ט) הלא כל הארץ לפניך הפרד נא מעלי אם השמאל ואימנה ואם הימין ואשמאילה:

(י) וישא לוט את עיניו וירא את כל ככר הירדן כי כלה משקה לפני שחת יקוק את סדם ואת עמרה כגן יקוק  כארץ מצרים באכה צער:

(יא) ויבחר לו לוט את כל ככר הירדן ויסע לוט מקדם ויפרדו איש מעל אחיו:

(יב) אברם ישב בארץ כנען ולוט ישב בערי הככר ויאהל עד סדם:

(יג) ואנשי סדם רעים וחטאים ליקוק מאד:

(יד) ויקוק אמר אל אברם אחרי הפרד לוט מעמו שא נא עיניך וראה מן המקום אשר אתה שם צפנה ונגבה  וקדמה וימה:

(טו) כי את כל הארץ אשר אתה ראה לך אתננה ולזרעך עד עולם:

(טז) ושמתי את זרעך כעפר הארץ אשר אם יוכל איש למנות את עפר הארץ גם זרעך ימנה:

(יז) קום התהלך בארץ לארכה ולרחבה כי לך אתננה:

(יח) ויאהל אברם ויבא וישב באלני ממרא אשר בחברון ויבן שם מזבח ליקוק: פ

3. Although Avraham proceeds to return to the place where he had constructed his first altar to call upon the Name of HaShem (Beraishit 13:3-4), when Lot is mentioned, who also emerged from Egypt with great wealth, no mention is made of his involvement in going back to the altar. Whereas Avraham appears to wish to pick up where he originally left off spiritually, before the famine forced him to go to Egypt, Lot has no such interest, but rather is focused upon his possessions. This is what catalyzes the split between himself and his uncle (v. 7.) Ultimately Lot’s choosing Sodom and Amora because of their material attractions (v. 10) despite the well-known spiritual limitations of the Sodomites (v. 13) confirms that it was just as well that he separated from Avraham. Perhaps it could even be surmised that the entire incident of famine, followed by descent to Egypt, followed by a return to Canaan with great wealth was orchestrated to cause a split between Avraham and Lot, which then made possible God’s Telling Avraham subsequently (v. 14 ff.) that he and his offspring (as opposed to Lot and his offspring) would inherit Canaan.

Beit.

1. Siftei Chachamim suggests that the term “Mashkeh” implies that it is “irrigated,” i.e., people distribute water to the land. Why is that necessarily a benefit? Perhaps the people have to work very hard to bring water to the various parts of the land and that is hardly a selling point. Consequently, RaShI states that the land is full of streams, implying that it is easy to irrigate the land and this is why it is considered fertile and desirable. While the comparison to Egypt would therefore not be exact, since the latter is irrigated by the overflow of the Nile, rather than being criss-crossed by streams, nevertheless the two areas are being described as equally fertile to an exceptional degree.

2.  

בראשית פרק יג

(י) וישא לוט את עיניו וירא את כל ככר הירדן כי כלה משקה לפני שחת יקוק את סדם ואת עמרה כגן יקוק כארץ מצרים באכה צער:

For maximum clarity, the phrase “KeGan HaShem” should follow immediately after “Ki Kula Mashkeh,”  i.e., it is fertile in a manner that was comparable to the land of Egypt. The confusion revolves around the difference between the general “Kol Kikar HaYardein” (the entire Jordan Valley) and the more limited and specific “Et Sodom VeEt Amora.” Even if Hashem eventually destroys Sodom and Amora, the rest of the Jordan Valley remained intact.  V. 11 states that Lot in fact chose the entire Jordan Valley as a place to inherit, so we would have to conclude that he only chose to reside in Sodom and Amora, the largest municipalities in the area, but would seek to be someone who would benefit from the agricultural virtues of the entire area.

3.  The two terms, “Gan HaShem” (the Garden of God) and “Eretz Mitzrayim” (land of Egypt) are not synonymous. The former seems to be a reference to the Garden of Eden whereas the latter is obviously a different geographical area from which Avraham and Lot had just recently returned. If the goal is to state how fertile the area was, wouldn’t either one of these terms be sufficient? Consequently, each term is understood as reflecting a different attractive quality of Sodom and Amora, i.e., trees (the Garden of Eden is described as containing all sorts of fruit-bearing trees—[1:11,12]—including of course the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil as well as the Tree of Life), and grains (Egypt, part of the “breadbasket of civilization”). When people came to Egypt to escape famines, it was not to obtain fruit, but rather grain and flour, basic food stuffs. Usually different types of ground, climate, etc. are required for these different types of crops; yet Sodom and Amora’s fields could support both types of produce, making it exceptionally desireable.

4.  a) (13:11 the verse states that Lot travelled from the east, i.e., towards the west.)

         Siftei Chachamim #80

“It is difficult for RaShI because Beit El is in the north, as it was written above, (12:8-9 After Beit El, Avraham travelled southwards. Consequently to return there, he would have to go north.) Consequently it should have said that Lot travelled from the north (as opposed to ‘from the east.’)”

b)  The same Siftei Chachamim quotes the RE”M as follows:

“R. Eliyahu Mizrachi wrote, ‘It is surprising, that with respect to the borders of the land of Israel, it appears that the Jordan Valley is on the eastern side of the country while Beit El is  in the middle of the country. Consequently someone who travels from Beit El where Avraham resided to the Jordan Valley, would travel eastwards (as opposed to ‘from the east’) and this requires study.’

And it is possible to say that the Jordan Valley is this immense area that extends all the way to Jerusalem, which is far from Beit El and it is in the midst of the land of Israel, since the Jordan Valley was close to Sodom which is not that distant from Jerusalem.”

ישעיהו פרק יז

(יג) לאמים כשאון מים רבים ישאון וגער בו ונס ממרחק ורדף כמץ הרים לפני רוח וכגלגל לפני סופה:

     The preposition “Mem” does not necessarily mean “from”  but could also be understood from the context to represent “to”  as in the case of Yeshayahu 17:13 where the phrase connotes “they ran far away” (rather than “they ran from far away.)

c) 

בראשית פרק יא

(ב) ויהי בנסעם מקדם וימצאו בקעה בארץ שנער וישבו שם:

While in the case of Lot, one could say that since Avraham had established himself as a representative of HaShem, attempting to spread monotheism, when Lot wishes to be elsewhere he is either consciously or by default removing himself from a source of religious thought and devotion, the people coming to the land of Shinar were not deliberately reacting to some religious center from which they were choosing to distance themselves. Consequently, RaShI saw no need to apply the same Midrashic interpretation that he accepts in the case of Lot.

5. a)  

בראשית פרק יג

(יב) אברם ישב בארץ כנען ולוט ישב בערי הככר ויאהל עד סדם:

בראשית פרק יב

(ח) ויעתק משם ההרה מקדם לבית אל ויט אהלה בית אל מים והעי מקדם ויבן שם מזבח ליקוק  ויקרא בשם יקוק:

It would seem that two separate issues are being dealt with in these two places: Re 13:12, the question is why should an individual have multiple tents if he is going to be living in a single place? Answers RaShI: the tents are not for Lot, but rather for people working for him. Re 12:8, the problem is the verb “VeYa’atek”which usually does not apply to the movement of a person but rather the movement of some inanimate object. Consequently, RaShI defines the subject of the verb as not Avraham himself,  but rather his tent, which is born out later in the verse where it talks about him pitching “his tent.”

b)  The phrase “VaYe’ehal Ad Sodom” does not seem to address a single entity, but rather a number of them. If there was one tent, then the preposition should have been “B’” (in), not “Ad” (up to, until).

6.  a)+b)  RaShI is trying to explain why the Tora goes out of its way to make a comment about the inhabitants of Sodom. Either this was a reflection of Lot’s indifference to moral behavior, i.e., despite his knowing that the people who lived in these cities were despicable, it did not deter him in choosing to live there, or if we assume that Lot’s sole consideration about choosing a place to reside was the quality of the land rather than the nature of its inhabitants, yet once we mention Sodom, we are required to comment on the inhabitants based upon the verse in Mishlei 10:7.

   c) The verse in Mishlei is a pejorative evaluative comment about evildoers, rather than a directive that should affect one’s behavior when he is confronted by the mention of an evildoer. RaShI, however, takes the verse in Mishlei at face value, and interprets the mention of the quality of the inhabitants of Sodom as a response to the mere mention of Sodom and Amora in general, as directed by the verse in Mishlei.  

7.  a) 

בראשית פרק יג

(יד) ויקוק אמר אל אברם אחרי הפרד לוט מעמו שא נא עיניך וראה מן המקום אשר אתה שם צפנה ונגבה וקדמה וימה:

רש"י

(יד) אחרי הפרד לוט - כל זמן שהרשע עמו היה הדבור פורש ממנו:

בראשית פרק ד

 א) והאדם ידע את חוה אשתו ותהר ותלד את קין ותאמר קניתי איש את יקוק:

רש"י

(א) והאדם ידע - כבר קודם הענין של מעלה, קודם שחטא ונטרד מגן עדן, וכן ההריון והלידה, שאם כתב וידע אדם נשמע שלאחר שנטרד היו לו בנים:

 בראשית פרק כא

(א) ויקוק פקד את שרה כאשר אמר ויעש יקוק לשרה כאשר דבר:

רש"י

(א) וה' פקד את שרה וגו' - סמך פרשה זו לכאן ללמדך שכל המבקש רחמים על חבירו והוא צריך לאותו דבר הוא נענה תחילה, שנאמר (לעיל כ יז) ויתפלל וגו' וסמיך ליה וה' פקד את שרה שפקד כבר קודם שרפא את אבימלך:

The rule that RaShI establishes is that if the verb precedes the subject, then the event being described is taking place at this point. If, on the other hand, the subject precedes the verb, then the event already had taken place at a previous point. Consequently, HaShem Begins to Speak again to Avraham only after Lot leaves; in the cases of the birth of Kayin, the birth took place at an earlier point, while Adam and Chava were still in Gan Eden. Similarly in the case of Sara’s conception, it takes place prior to when it is actually recorded in the Tora.

b) 

בראשית פרק מט

(א) ויקרא יעקב אל בניו ויאמר האספו ואגידה לכם את אשר יקרא אתכם באחרית הימים: 

רש"י

(א) ואגידה לכם - בקש לגלות את הקץ ונסתלקה שכינה ממנו והתחיל אומר דברים אחרים:

תלמוד בבלי מסכת פסחים דף נו עמוד א

דאמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש: )בראשית מט( “ויקרא יעקב אל בניו ויאמר האספו ואגידה לכם.” ביקש יעקב לגלות לבניו קץ הימין, ונסתלקה ממנו שכינה. אמר: שמא חס ושלום יש במטתי פסול, כאברהם שיצא ממנו ישמעאל, ואבי יצחק שיצא ממנו עשו. אמרו לו בניו: שמע ישראל ה' אלקינו ה' אחד. אמרו: כשם שאין בלבך אלא אחד - כך אין בלבנו אלא אחד. באותה שעה פתח יעקב אבינו ואמר: ברוך שם כבוד מלכותו לעולם ועד.

Gimel.

1. The phrase “VaYivchar Lo”  suggests that this choice would only be made by Lot, but by no one else.

2.  An objectively positive choice, as opposed to a subjective one that appeals to an particular individual’s foibles.

Daled.

1.  (Iyov 14:10) “But man dies and is ill…”

The order of the events appears reversed: Just as in Iyov 14:10, usually illness precedes death, so too in Beraishit 13:18, one comes to a place before one pitches a tent.

Apparently this is simply a poetic conceit with the ultimate result mentioned before the means by which this occurs, and since the reader will be able to figure out the context, it is not of great noteworthiness.

Heh.

1. The question on Beraishit 13:13 is why is “LaShem” after the Etnachta, which effectively separates it from the first part of the verse in which is described how the people of Sodom are evil. But they are not just evil; they are evil towards HaShem. But the Trup does not appear to support this. The rule is that the totality of the verse is made up of two portions, the first part which precedes the Etnachta, and the second part which completes the thought. The list of verses are other examples of this principle.