YITZCHAK THEN BROUGHT HER INTO THE TENT OF HIS MOTHER SARAH, AND HE TOOK RIVKA AS HIS WIFE. YITZCHAK LOVED HER, AND THUS FOUND COMFORT AFTER HIS MOTHER'S DEATH.

(Bereishit 24:67)

 

 

SARAH'S BURIAL, YITCHAK AND RIVKA,

AVRAHAM AND KETURA/HAGAR - CLOSING THE CIRCLE

 

"Yitchak had just come back from the vicinity of Beer-lahai-roi" - For he had gone to bring Hagar to Avraham his father, so that he should wed her.

(Rashi, Bereishit 24:62, as per Bereishit Rabba)

 

"From the vicinity of Beer-lahai-roi... and he took Rivka as his wife, and he loved her, and thus found comfort after his mother's death... Avraham took another wife, whose name was Keturah"

In the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda (Bereishit Rabba 61:4), Keturah was Hagar, the very same woman that Sarah, in her time, had brought to Avraham. How pure and humane was this attitude in the eyes of our Sages, even though the denouement was unfortunate and saddening. Yitchak, they said, went to the well in the desert, and brought Hagar from there to Avraham; he himself brought his "stepmother". And he had so loved his mother! And he went there, even though he had not yet been comforted over the loss of his mother! Be these words understood as historical fact or as an instructive derasha, in either case we learn about the weltanschauung which characterized our sages. In contrast to them, how much has our generation declined; tension - if not outright hatred - exists between adult progeny and their fathers as a result of second marriage!

(Rabbi Shimshon Rafael Hirsch, Bereishit 25:1)

 

...The midrash says that after the demise of his mother Sara, Yitzchak went to return his stepmother to his father. He went to Beer-lahai-roi to bring Hagar, who had been banished by his mother, to return her to his father and to correct the injustice. Aggadic narrative is replete with praise of Hagar, who is identified with Keturah: "Why is she called Keturah? Because her actions were pleasing, as incense (ketoret)". This flowery explication testifies to the degree which our great thinkers reflected upon the actions of our fathers, noting every blemish and fault they had, and considered their repair. The generations have much to learn from this. It is wrong to idealize all that occurred; we should see things as they were, trying to understand them, judging them and pondering their rectification

 (Y. Leibowitz: Remarks on the Weekly Parasha, p. 23)

 

 

"I AM A RESIDENT ALIEN AMONG YOU"

Elisheva Baumgarten

In our parasha we meet Avraham approaching the end of life. W have followed the many and varied events which befell him, from the outset of his journey from the land of his birth as an emigrant bound for a strange land, until his old age, fully at home in his new land. It may be said that in this stage of his life, Avraham has reached a period of calm and tranquillity, living in comfort, not having to worry about his spiritual, social, or economic status. The emigrant who left his birthplace and moved to a distant land has managed to settle, to beget children, to find his place among the inhabitants of the land and to receive an explicit promise from the God to which he cleaves, that this land, the Land of Canaan, will be given to his descendents. This promise is given to Avraham on a number of occasions throughout the preceding parshiyot, and certainly after the trial of the Akeida he should have felt secure in this promise and in his right to the land. Despite this trust, examination of Avraham's actions in this parasha not only provides a picture of proper comportment, but also offers a detailed lesson on the manner in which people coming from afar to a place already inhabited by others should behave towards their surroundings - even when the new arrivals know that this land was promised them by God. It seems that Avraham's main actions in this parasha - the burial of Sarah and the seeking of a spouse for his son Yitzhak, are a direct continuation of his actions throughout his life, and they provide direction for future generations.

The parasha opens with Avraham's weeping and eulogizing his wife. One would not expect moments of mourning to be times for consideration of others, and certainly not of those outside the close family circle. Avraham, as recipient of the promise of the land, could have decided to bury Sarah wherever he saw fit, without prior arrangement or official appeal to any authority. Upon study of the story of the purchase of cave of Machpelah, however, we find an example of how Avraham opens friendly negotiations for the acquisition of a plot containing the cave. Avraham does not assume that the Lord's promise grants him the right to do in the Land as he sees fit. Addressing the Hittites, he emphasizes: "I am a resident alien among you, sell me a burial site among you, that I may remove my dead for burial." Avraham presents himself as an alien and a resident, and the commentators explain that he is actually emphasizing: "I came from a foreign land to dwell here, and I settled among you, subsequently, I have no family burial plot here, permit me to purchase land here, and allow me - you citizens of the town - to bury the deceased of my family, for there can be no family plot without the permission of the inhabitants of the town." (Rashbam, Bereishit 23:5).

With these words, Avraham explains his foreignness and his need to seek something which, were he a local dweller, he would not have had to seek in this fashion. It can be assumed that in his moments of mourning Avraham senses intensification of his loneliness and his otherness; the death of Sarah, who had accompanied him on his long way from Harran to the Land of Canaan, certainly left him with a feeling of isolation and aloneness. Despite this, the reaction of the people of Chevron attests to a certain degree of surprise at Avraham's request. Their answer "Hear us, my lord, you are the elect of God among us. Bury your dead in the choicest of our burial places" indicates how much Avraham had integrated among the inhabitants of the town. But, despite their reaction, Avraham insists upon demarcation of the area purchased and upon summarization of the details, so as to be certain that the deal not be subject to future question. Even though it would seem that Avraham could easily have come and set up a gravesite without the permission of the natives or any sort of local authority - and there would have no overt criticism - Avraham is careful to maintain proper and orderly relations with his neighbors. The deal is concluded at the town gate, with Efron publicly proclaiming his willingness to give Avraham the field.

Avraham's action and the Hebronites' reaction reflect the neighborly and peaceful relations which Avraham was careful to nurture throughout his years in the Land of Canaan. These relations began with his relative Lot, when Avraham shared the grazing lands with him. As in the case of the Machpelah purchase, there, too, Avraham was concerned that the other party to the agreement be satisfied with the agreement. Avraham does not exploit his authority as recipient of the divine promise, but rather permits the other party to be a partner, thus guaranteeing that life together be conducted without conflict. Such is also the case with the wells at Beer Sheva, and the treaty cut with Avimelech. In this case, too, Avraham seeks to ascertain that Avimelech agree that his claim has substance. Avimelech's reaction "I do not know who did this; you did not tell me, nor have I heard of it until today" (Bereishit 21:26) is indicative of civil relations between the two, Avimelch stressing that he would never had done such a thing, for they had entered into a covenant.

Avraham's spirit of consideration of others is so pronounced that even his servant is guided by that principle in arranging the marriage of Avraham's son, a matter which Avraham wished to settle before his demise, immediately after Sarah's passing. Avraham does not explain to the servant how to determine whether or not he has found the suitable wife. He only commands him to find a woman who will agree to come to a strange land. Such a woman will fulfill Avraham's requirement that Yitzchak not wed a local girl (such girls being unsuitable - in Avraham's eyes - for Yitzchak). It will be seen that it is essential for her to know how to live in a foreign land, behaving accordingly. Avraham does not give the servant specific orders, but the latter knows how to find the appropriate bride. The test he will administer at the well symbolizes those values of hospitality and concern that all, local and alien alike, feel at ease with him. Rivka does not know the servant, nor does she ask questions. Despite this, and notwithstanding the physical difficulty of watering stock (as can be determined from other Biblical narratives - Yaakov and Rachel, Tsipporah and Moshe), she does not hesitate to give drink to the servant and his camels, and to invite them to her home. Her behavior is in the spirit which Avraham intended to impart to his progeny; her Harran behavior will accompany her to the new land in which she will feel different and alien, despite the divine promise of the land for future generations.

It would seem that there is no better expression of Avraham's success in effecting good and proper relations with his social environment - both within his family and among his neighbors - in making all feel at ease, than that which is described at the end of the parasha. Avraham is buried alongside Sarah in the Machpelah Cave, and the Bible points out explicitly that no one questions Avraham's ownership of the plot - right in the middle of the field of Efron ben Tsohar the Hittite. No one in the town was angry about Avraham's settling among them. Yet more, Avraham is buried by his two sons, Yitzchak and Yishmael, potential contenders for the birthright and the right to the Land. Instead, we see the two - together - burying their father, thereby observing his legacy of good and proper relations among themselves.

To summarize, Avraham's behavior during his life and at the time of Sarah's interment is a guide as to how a newcomer should behave upon coming to a place where others already live. The division of the land between the shepherds of Avraham and of Lot, the division of the wells - a basic need for existence of normal life - and Avraham's concern, when setting aside for himself an area for his personal needs, that the arrangement be acceptable and agreed upon by the local population, all these can serve as an example of the way in which we should conduct our relations with our surroundings. We should learn from Avraham, who, despite the divine promise given him, did not establish faits accomplis, but rather developed a considerate and mutual set of relationships with the inhabitants of the land, and passed this legacy on to his daughter-in-law and his son... and, hopefully, to generations after them.

Dr. Elisheva Baumgarten teaches in the Medieval History in the Faculty of Jewish History and in the program for gender studies in Univ. Bar-Ilan.

 

 

 

 

We are publishing the following letter, sent to us by our member Prof. Uriel Simon, a founder of Oz V'Shalom - Netivot Shalom and a member of the Moatza, because it touches upon two issues of major concern to us: The legitimate boundaries of Torah commentary, and our belief in a single and uniform morality for all men created in the Image.

 

An Open Letter to Shammai Leibowitz

Uriel Simon

The dividing line between sanctification of the Name and its desecration is, of course, as fine a hairline. The best of intentions can yield results contrary to those intended.

According to the reports in "Haaretz" (4.10.2002), in a speech in court, you likened Marwan Barghouti to Moshe our teacher, and the State Prosecution to Pharaoh. Both comparisons are Biblically flawed and morally reprehensible. Moshe Rabeinu was not "a freedom fighter", and he did not kill the Egyptian in order to undermine the Egyptian subjugation. All he did was to save a Hebrew from an Egyptian who had risen to kill him, by killing the would-be killer (the law of 'rodef"): "... when Moshe had grown up, he went out to his kinsfolk and witnessed their labors. He saw an Egyptian smiting a Hebrew, on of his kinsman. He turned this way and that and, seeing no one about, he smote down the Egyptian and hid him in the sand (Shemot 2:11-12).

The use of the root h'k'h (to smite) with regard to the actions of both the Egyptian and of Moshe makes clear that in both cases it refers to smiting with the objective of killing (a very common Biblical usage, such as in Bereishit 4:15, Samuel I, 18:6), and that Moshe's action was justified (measure for measure).

In contrast to this, Barghouti justified indiscriminate murder as an acceptable means of fighting the occupation. I have heard him on a number of occasions declare (in Hebrew on Israel TV): "As long as the occupation continues, there will be no security for Israel's towns."

The comparison between the prosecution and Pharaoh is even more gratuitous. Moshe did not flee to Midian because he feared he would not get a fair trial, but because he knew that he would be put to death without a trial: "When Pharaoh learned of the matter, he sought to kill Moshe, but Moshe fled from Pharaoh." Pharaoh was unable to put Moshe on trial only because he had managed to escape, not because "he understood that he had no authority to judge the leader of a people seeking freedom." Pharaoh is described in the Torah and etched in our consciousness as a murderous tyrant ("you shall throw every son born into the Nile"), yet you are prepared to pass him off as an enlightened and far-sighted thinker, only so that you can publicly announce that even Pharaoh was better and wiser that the Israeli prosecution. Something very serious has happened to your judgement, Shammai.

But let us put aside the Biblical analogy and turn to the main issue - the moral significance of the public affection that you bestowed upon Barghouti in the courtroom. Your words and your actions call for one conclusion - that in a battle for freedom everything is legitimate, and that there is no place to demand - in the name of morality in war and political wisdom - any self-restraint and weighing of measures.

The most terrible thing about Palestinian terror is that its goal is not convincingly limited to self-emancipation; for many it includes the aspiration to be transformed from conquered to conqueror. Its methods know no restraint (mass murder, which was to have reached it apex in Pi Gelilot). Now here a person such as yourself, who passionately argues against the Israeli side, that the (security) goals should not in any way justify all means, while you afford Barghouti moral support and reinforcement of his loathsome doctrine that the (national) goal does indeed justify all means! By doing so, not only are you guilty of a double moral standard (permitting them that which you deny us), but you also take upon yourself responsibility for strengthening their hand in the shedding of innocent blood ("Even a Jew like Shammai Leibowitz justifies our actions"). The denunciation of Israeli wrongs is not made any stronger by the covering up of the sins of Yishmael; it is weakened by it. Morality is singular and must be uniform, otherwise it loses its validity.

Marwan Barghouti is entitled to full and skillful legal defense, but not to moral backing and ideological support.

Dear Shammai, you have stumbled into a blind alley. For your sake and for ours, you must find the courage and spirit to extricate yourself from it.

(Prof. Uriel Simon, a founder of Oz V'Shalom - Netivot Shalom, taught in the Bible Department of Univ. Bar-Ilan. This letter appeared - with slight changes - in "Haaretz" (14/10/02).

 

 

 

Editorial Board: Pinchas Leiser (Editor), Miriam Fine (Coordinator),Itzhak Frankenthal and Dr. Menachem Klein

Translation: Kadish Goldberg

This weekly publication was made possible by private donors

 

To our readers:

We will be happy to have you actively participate in "Shabbat Shalom" by:

·      Publication of Divrei Torah (in coordination with the editorial board)

·      Letters to the editor

For details, contact Miriam Fine (053-920206)

If you enjoy Shabbat Shalom, please consider contributing towards its publication and distribution.

• Hebrew edition distributed in Israel $1000
• English edition distributed via email $ 100

Issues may be dedicated in honor of an event, person, simcha, etc. Requests must be made 3-4 weeks in advance to appear in the Hebrew, 10 days in advance to appear in the English email.

US or British tax-exempt contributions to OzveShalom may be made through the New Israel Fund or through P.E.F. Israel Endowment Funds, Inc.

Contributions should be marked as donor-advised to OzveShalom/Netivot Shalom, the Shabbat Shalom project.

New Israel Fund, POB 53410, Jerusalem 91534 (Please include Israeli address and telephone number)

New Israel Fund, POB 91588, Washington, DC 20090-1588, USA

New Israel Fund of Great Britain, 26 Enford Street, London W1H 2DD, United Kingdom (British tax exemption)

P.E.F. Israel Endowment Funds, Inc., 317 Madison Ave., Suite 607, New York, New York 10017 USA

 

About us:

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom is a movement dedicated to the advancement of a civil society in Israel. It is committed to promoting the ideals of tolerance, pluralism, and justice, concepts which have always been central to Jewish tradition and law.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom shares a deep attachment to the land of Israel and it no less views peace as a central religious value. It believes that Jews have both the religious and the national obligation to support the pursuit of peace. It maintains that Jewish law clearly requires us to create a fair and just society, and that co-existence between Jews and Arabs is not an option but an imperative.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom's programs include both educational and protest activities. Seminars, lectures, workshops, conferences and weekend programs are held for students, educators and families, as well as joint seminars for Jews, Israeli Arabs and Palestinians. Protest activities focus on issues of human rights, co-existence between Jews and Arabs, and responses to issues of particular religious relevance.

9,000 copies of a 4 page peace oriented commentary on the weekly Torah reading are written and published by Oz VeShalom/Netivot Shalom and they are distributed to over 350 synagogues in Israel and are sent overseas via email. Our web site is www.netivot-shalom.org.il.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom's educational forums draw people of different backgrounds, secular and religious, who are keen to deepen their Jewish knowledge and to hear an alternative religious standpoint on the subjects of peace and social issues.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom fills an ideological vacuum in Israel's society. Committed both to Jewish tradition and observance, and to the furthering of peace and coexistence, the movement is in a unique position to engage in dialogue with the secular left and the religious right, with Israeli Arabs and with Palestinians.

Our activities are funded by donations and are organized by one part time employee.

OzveShalom/Netivot Shalom                Tel./Fax 972-2-5664218

Pob 4433                                             Email: ozshalom@netvision.net.il

Jerusalem 94310, Israel                        www. netivot-shalom.org.il