Lech Lecha Answers

Lech Lecha 5725.

Alef.

1.  RaMBaN attempts to provide explanations for a number of the specific details that comprise the covenantal vision that Avraham experiences:

a. The number “3”—three types of Korbanot that Jews will offer.

b. The cutting of the animals into pieces—the Korbanot will be cut into pieces.

c. The birds were not cut into pieces—Korbanot of birds will not be cut into pieces.

d. Four words describing Avraham’s fear and trembling—four exiles/occupations, aside from the Egypt experience.

Ibn Kaspi reflects more intellectual humility in claiming that a vision from God will not necessarily be susceptible to human understanding in all its aspects.

a. The number “3”—three generations will be enslaved in Egypt. Hence the adjective “Meshuleshet” suggests the three types of four legged-animals in contrast to the birds which were not included in the same category.

b. The dismembering of the four-legged animals represents i) the method of entering into a covenant, and ii)  the harsh experience during the Egyptian exile where some people will be maimed and others will die. The birds not being cut up suggests those who will live securely and remain unaffected by the hardships of the others (the tribe of Levi?)

c.  The vultures eating from the cut up animals further suggests that harm will be inflicted upon the Jews during the Egyptian servitude.

d. Avraham’s causing the vultures to leave before they have eaten their fill represents the fact that the Jews at least as a people will not be completely destroyed, and that an individual will save them, i.e., Moshe.

In general, RaMBaN interprets the vision as having to do with how the Jews will eventually worship HaShem (sacrifices) and exiles that will come about as punishments should the Jews sin in the future.

Ibn Kaspi sees the symbolism in the vision as referring specifically to the Egyptian experience of enslavement alone.

2.  The theme מעשי אבות סימן לבנים informs much of RaMBaN’s commentary on Beraishit. Therefore the vision is representative of multiple future practices and experiences rather than a single one.

3.  i) חקוי זה—lit. this imitation/representation. The vision is clearly symbolizing something, although it is never made clear what it is. Ibn Kaspi thinks that God’s subsequent informing of Avraham regarding the Egyptian exile and redemption is in fact the explanation for the vision, but he does not believe that the explanation clarifies what each individual element in the vision represents.

ii) ואם לא פירש, די לחכימא ברמיזא—lit. If HaShem does not explicitly delineate (what the elements of the vision represent), it should be sufficient to us that He is Hinting at something. In other words, to expect that the meaning of each element in a prophetic vision will be clearly understood is unreasonable and we should be satisfied with a general rather than a specific understanding. (RaMBaM states a similar thing about the details of specific sacrifices. While we can explain the general idea of a particular sacrifice, to account for each of the myriad details associated with it would be presumptuous.)

iii) כי דע במה שזכר לו סוג הנמשל בראשי פרקים, ואינו מחוייב תמיד שיהיו כל חלקי הנמשל נרמזים במשל—lit. you should know that re HaShem’s Explanation (to Avraham) regarding the vision, are only the broad categories, and it is not always necessary that all of the elements in the explanation will be hinted at in the allegory. Ibn Kaspi is suggesting that we should realize that interpreting prophetic visions is not a rigorous discipline where we can expect a rigid correlation between what is prophetically seen and any account that is then given regarding it.

4.  The advantage of Ibn Kaspi’s interpretation is that we don’t become frustrated when we can’t establish what every detail in a vision connotes. It is sufficient to get the general gist. If a person wishes to continue to speculate as to the meaning of such details, he is welcome to do so, but should not harbor the expectation that he will be even partially, let alone completely successful.

5.  RaShI states the following regarding the cutting  up of the animals:

(י) ויבתר אותם - חלק כל אחד לשני חלקים ואין המקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו לפי שהיה כורת ברית עמו לשמור הבטחתו להוריש לבניו את הארץ כדכתיב ביום ההוא כרת ה' את אברם ברית לאמר וגו' ודרך כורתי ברית לחלק בהמה ולעבור בין בתריה כמה שנאמר להלן (ירמי' לד) “העוברים בין בתרי העגל. אף כאן תנור עשן ולפיד אש אשר עבר בין הגזרים הוא שלוחו של שכינה שהוא אש:

Perhaps Ibn Kaspi felt he had to go further in this case, although in general he avoids allegorical interpretations (he probably does not consider interpreting the vision in terms of the Egyptian exile as allegorical since HaShem Himself Appears to be Giving such an explanation to Avraham during the experience), because of the consistent number of elements, i.e., three. A Brit could be entered into using a single animal. Why in this case are there specifically three animals (Ibn Kaspi sees the number associated with the number of four-legged animals that appear in the vision)? The fact that HaShem then Invokes the number three in His Explanation, i.e., three generations, encourages Ibn Kaspi to provide an additional explanation.

Beit.

על כל אלה
נעמי שמר
מילים ולחן: נעמי שמר

שמור אלי על זה הבית, על הגן, על החומה, מיגון, מפחד פתע וממלחמה.	אל נא תעקור נטוע, אל תשכח את התקווה השיבני ואשובה אל הארץ הטובה.	על האש המבוערת, על המים הזכים, על האיש השב הביתה מן המרחקים.	על הדבש ועל העוקץ, על המר והמתוק, על בתנו התינוקת שמור אלי הטוב.
על כל אלה, על כל אלה, שמור נא לי אלי הטוב. על הדבש ועל העוקץ, על המר והמתוק.	אנא, שמור לי על כל אלה ועל אהובי נפשי, על השקט, על הבכי ועל זה השיר.	מרשרש אילן ברוח, מרחוק נושר כוכב, משאלות ליבי בחושך נרשמות עכשיו.	שמור על המעט שיש לי, על האור ועל הטף על הפרי שלא הבשיל עוד ושנאסף.

1.  The other instances of the use of the word “רכוש”:

בראשית פרק יב

(ה) וַיִּקַּח אַבְרָם אֶת שָׂרַי אִשְׁתּוֹ וְאֶת לוֹט בֶּן אָחִיו וְאֶת כָּל רְכוּשָׁם אֲשֶׁר רָכָשׁוּ וְאֶת הַנֶּפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ בְחָרָן וַיֵּצְאוּ לָלֶכֶת אַרְצָה כְּנַעַן וַיָּבֹאוּ אַרְצָה כְּנָעַן:

בראשית פרק יג

(ו) וְלֹא נָשָׂא אֹתָם הָאָרֶץ לָשֶׁבֶת יַחְדָּו כִּי הָיָה רְכוּשָׁם רָב וְלֹא יָכְלוּ לָשֶׁבֶת יַחְדָּו:

בראשית פרק יד

(יא) וַיִּקְחוּ אֶת כָּל רְכֻשׁ סְדֹם וַעֲמֹרָה וְאֶת כָּל אָכְלָם וַיֵּלֵכוּ:

(טז) וַיָּשֶׁב אֵת כָּל הָרְכֻשׁ וְגַם אֶת לוֹט אָחִיו וּרְכֻשׁוֹ הֵשִׁיב וְגַם אֶת הַנָּשִׁים וְאֶת הָעָם:

(כא) וַיֹּאמֶר מֶלֶךְ סְדֹם אֶל אַבְרָם תֶּן לִי הַנֶּפֶשׁ וְהָרְכֻשׁ קַח לָךְ:

In chapters 12 and 13, the word describes possessions that Avraham, Sara and Lot legally possessed. It is not a reference to a particular form of property, but could refer to anything that they owned. Naturally if in 12:5 it says that they took the property with them, it is describing Metaltelim rather than Karka. In chapter 14, what is at issue are the spoils of war, with the legal principle that applies is: To the victor go the spoils. Once again it does not refer to money per se, but rather whatever plunder was originally taken and then recaptured. In the instance of chapt. 15, the Jews in the future would be slaves who owned nothing, and they were not involved in a war with the Egyptians whereby spoils would be available. Consequently, it is unclear how any spoils would be involved in their leaving Egypt and RaShI attempts to explain this, i.e., they were going to despoil Egypt due to HaShem’s Instructions to Moshe, rather than because an actual war took place.

2.  Another instance "אחרי"in Beraishit which means “because of” is:

בראשית פרק מא

(לט) וַיֹּאמֶר פַּרְעֹה אֶל יוֹסֵף אַחֲרֵי הוֹדִיעַ אֱלֹקים אוֹתְךָ אֶת כָּל זֹאת אֵין נָבוֹן וְחָכָם כָּמוֹךָ:

3.  Here is the verse that HaKetav VeHaKabbala feels demonstrates the idea that he proposes:

...וע"ז אמר (ואתחנן ד' כ') "ויוציא אתכם מכור הברזל ממצרים להיות לו לעם נחלה", עמש"ש...

הכתב והקבלה על דברים ד:כ

(כ) מכור הברזל. כור הוא כלי שמזקקין בו את הזהב (רש"י) כי זה היה התכלית האמתי המכוון ממנו ית' לשעבדם במצרים, לצרפם כזהב בכור שיתפרדו הסיגי' וישאר זהב טהור לבד, חלאת הפושעי' מתו בימי החשך, ורק הנשארי' נבחרו לקבלת התורה, כי אלו הרבה את ישראל והשפיע להם טובות גדולות בלתי שיעבוד, לא היו מתרצי' לקבל עליהם התורה הזאת האוסרת עליהם כל עניני' שהיו רגילי' בהם, לכן היתה מעצת ה' לשעבדם תחת עול מלכות קשה ולסבה זו נטהרו ונזדקקו עד שהיו ראויים לקבל התורה מרצון נפשם:

Gimel.

1.  א. In the four cases when RaShI treats “גם” as a hermeneutic word that has to be interpreted, first of all the word is superfluous and the verse would have made sense without it, and secondly, there are additional possibilities to which the verse in question could and should apply, i.e., a) The text could have simply said that in the course of events, the nation that will enslave the Jews will be judged without mentioning the word “also” since there was no mention of anyone else being judged. The addition of the word “גם” implies that there are others who are liable to be judged; b) Why mention “also you” when no one else was described as judging the people from morning until night? Even if Moshe would get his assistants to help judge the people, they will still prove insufficient until their numbers are significantly augmented; c) If Moshe will be the first to publicly be perceived as receiving Divine Revelation, why does the text have to say “גם”? The precedent of Revelation and Communication between God and man cannot only apply to Moshe since he will not live forever; d) If children were the only victims of this type of child sacrifice, why does the word “גם” appear? In order to make this practice truly revolting,   the horror of human sacrifice within the context of worshipping Molech is defined as applying not only to one’s children, but also one’s parents.

In the three cases where RaShI makes no comment, the word “גם” is not superfluous:

a) Since man has now eaten from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, unless he is stopped, he will also eat from the Tree of Life; b) Hevel, following the lead of his brother Kayin, also brought sacrifices; c)  Tzeela, the second wife of Lamech, also gave birth to children as had her Tzara, Ada.

ב.  RaShI is not interpreting “גם” in this instance as he did in the first four cases brought in “א.” because it is not due to superfluity that RaShI says that the city to which Lot will flee will be saved. How else will Lot be saved unless the locale to which he intends to run will not be destroyed by lava, fire, etc.? It’s the Peshat!

ג.  RaMBaN is assuming that the reason for the Egyptian exile was because the Jews were sinful. There is no indication in the text that this was so. Therefore if the exile of the Jews was not necessarily due to sin, there is no precedent for the Egyptians being punished for their sins in this context.

2. The question is based upon the relationship between v. 15 and the two previous verses:

(יג) וַיֹּאמֶר לְאַבְרָם יָדֹעַ תֵּדַע כִּי גֵר יִהְיֶה זַרְעֲךָ בְּאֶרֶץ לֹא לָהֶם וַעֲבָדוּם וְעִנּוּ אֹתָם אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה:

(יד) וְגַם אֶת הַגּוֹי אֲשֶׁר יַעֲבֹדוּ דָּן אָנֹכִי וְאַחֲרֵי כֵן יֵצְאוּ בִּרְכֻשׁ גָּדוֹל:

(טו) וְאַתָּה תָּבוֹא אֶל אֲבֹתֶיךָ בְּשָׁלוֹם תִּקָּבֵר בְּשֵׂיבָה טוֹבָה:

Will Avraham first die only after all of the events described through v. 14 will be completed, which will mean that he will personally witness these things, or does v. 15 describe something that will have taken place previously, sparing Avraham first-hand knowledge of the course of events? RaShI states that it is the latter.