Noach Answers

Noach 5725  Sections 1&2

Alef.

1.  According to the Midrash, על פני connotes “as a result of” in this case Haran died as a result of Terach’s actions.

2.  Perhaps RaShI felt the impetus to quote the Midrash because according to the simple meaning of the text, there is no apparent reason for the Tora informing us that Haran died in the presence of his father. It does not figure into the narrative in any manner, aside from the apparent tragedy of a father having to confront the death of his child. Since we knew nothing of Haran previously and we learn very little about Terach subsequently, RaShI deemed it necessary to illustrate some sort of cause-and-effect which might then account for why Terach moved the family out of Ur Kasdim (11:31.) Whereas if he felt responsible for his son’s death, it might have influenced him to relocate, simply because his son died in his presence would not provide an alternate rationale for the move.

3.  The Midrash illustrates that the position of the agnostic will not earn for Haran Divine Intervention when his life is in danger, as opposed to the believer, embodied in Avraham, that does gain such Divine Protection when thrown by Nimrod into the fiery furnace.

4.  The reference to RaMBaN in Gilayon Lech Lecha 5716:

ב.	"והיה ברכה"

פסוק ב'

"וְאֶעֶשְׂךָ לְגוֹי גָּדוֹל וַאֲבָרֶכְךָ וַאֲגַדְּלָה שְׁמֶךָ וֶהְיֵה בְּרָכָה"

רמב"ן:

ד"ה והיה ברכה: והנה זאת הפרשה לא ביארה כל העניין, כי מה טעם שיאמר לו הקדוש ברוך הוא: עזוב ארצך ואיטיבה עמך טובה שלא הייתה כמוה מעולם, מבלי שיקדים שהיה אברהם עובד אלוקים או צדיק תמים, או שיאמר טעם לעזיבת הארץ, שיהיה בהליכתו אל ארץ אחרת קרבת אלוקים? ומנהג הכתוב לומר: "התהלך לפני ותשמע בקולי ואיטיבה עמך" – כאשר בדוד ובשלמה ובעניין התורה כולה: "אם בחקותי תלכו", "אם שמוע תשמע בקול ה' אלוקיך". וביצחק אמר: "בעבור אברהם עבדי" – אבל להבטיחו בעבור יציאת הארץ, אין בו טעם.
אבל הטעם מפני שעשו אנשי אור-כשדים עמו רעות רבות על אמונתו בהקדוש ברוך הוא, והוא ברח מהם ללכת ארצה כנען ונתעכב בחרן, אמר לו לעזוב גם אלו ולעשות כאשר חשב מתחילה, שתהיה עבודתו לו וקריאת בני אדם לשם ה' בארץ הנבחרת, ושם יגדל שמו ויתברכו בו הגויים ההם, לא כאשר עשו עמו באור כשדים, שהיו מבזין ומקללין אותו ושמו אותו בבור או בכבשן האש, ואמר לו שיברך מברכיו ואם יחיד יקללו יואר.
וזה טעם הפרשה, אבל התורה לא תרצה להאריך בדעות עובדי עבודה זרה, ולפרש העניין שהיה בינו ובין הכשדים באמונה, כאשר קיצרה בעניין דור אנוש וסברתם בעבודה זרה שחידשו.

     RaMBaN believes that Avraham’s leaving Ur Kaskim was not due to only Nimrod’s threat to his life, but rather repeated indignities levied against him for his monotheism by the residents of this city-state.

Beit.

1.  The term בן בנו is modifying “Lot”, not “Haran.”

2.  a.  The phrase ויצאו אתם (and they went out with them) is problematic because it is unclear who the antecedents of the verb and the direct object pronoun are. Furthermore, the original verb in the verse is singular—ויקח—while later in the verse there is a plural verb—ויצאו. How can the divergent person of these verbs be reconciled?

      b.  RaShI: the singular ויקח describes the action perpetrated by Terach vis-à-vis Avraham. Lot and Sara were secondary in importance, and therefore only went along with Avraham and Terach.

 Weakness: The syntax of the sentence states that Terach took out not only Avraham, but also Sara and Lot. If they are all subsumed under the original ויקח, then about whom is ויצאו אתם referring?

           RaMBaN: Although Terach was only interested in taking out Avraham, since Avraham was more important than Terach, Sara and Lot came along, following the path taken by their husband and uncle, rather than Terach. Therefore Terach does the initial taking out, but in the eyes of Sara and Lot, both Terach and Avraham went out, leading S. and L. to go with them.

 Weakness: If S. and L. were following Avraham’s lead, then the verse should have stated ויצאו אתו (they went out with him) rather than אתם (with them), since it was only Avraham whom they were following.

      c. 

בראשית פרק כד

(ד) כי אל ארצי ואל מולדתי תלך ולקחת אשה לבני ליצחק:

(י) ויקח העבד עשרה גמלים מגמלי אדניו וילך וכל טוב אדניו בידו ויקם וילך אל ארם נהרים אל עיר נחור:

The reference ויצאו אתם could be a reference to the other family members and people making up their household. Therefore along with the four, i.e., Terach, Avraham, Sara and Lot, there went everyone else as well. For this reason Aram Naharaim was known as Nachor’s land. Obviously, then, he did not remain in Ur Kasdim, and although he did not proceed all the way to Canaan, he travelled part of the way. 

Section 3

Background:

1. Terach is 70  when Avraham is born—Beraishit 11:26
2. Avraham is 75 when he leaves Charan to go to Canaan—Ibid. 12:4 à Terach is 145.
3. Terach is 205 when he dies—Ibid. 11:32 à Terach continues to live in Charan for 60 years following Avraham’s departure.
4. 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?¹
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.)
3. 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 childà Y. 227

            5:22  C. lives another 300 yearsà 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 bornà 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.

8.   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.