The Parasha of "Lech Lecha" ends with chapter 17, the chapter of the twofold covenant between man and his God, the chapter in which the names of Avram and Sarai are changed – from here on they are to be called Avraham and Sarah. The final verses of the chapter tell of Avraham's fulfilling his commitment to God by means of the Brit Millah – "On that same day were circumcised Avraham and Yishmael his son and all his household people, whether house-born or money-bought from a foreigner, were circumcised with him." (Gen. 17:26, 27)

A cursory reading of the chapter reveals that the main speaker is God. Avraham's voice is heard only once, following the promise "I will bless her (Sarah) and I will give you a son from her, I will bless her so that she becomes nations, kings of peoples shall come from you." (Gen. 17:16). The text records two stages in Avraham's reaction to this long-awaited news . First, "But Avraham fell on his face and laughed, he said in his heart: To a hundred-year-old-man shall there be (children) born? The Lord does not react. This lack of reaction mirrors Avraham's silences in the beginning of the chapter. (Verses 3-4, 9, 15) Then comes Avraham's second reaction: "And Avraham said to God, If only Yishmael might live in your presence!" These are Avraham's final words in this chapter, and they continue to echo from then on.

In God's reaction, too, we discern two stages: At the beginning he stresses the truth of the promise just made to Avraham – "Nevertheless, Sarah your wife is to bear you a son, you shall call his name: Yitzhak/He Laughs. I will establish my covenant with him as a covenant for the ages, for his seed after him." The remainder of his words relate directly to Avraham's plea: "As for Yishmael, I hearken to you: Here, I will make him blessed, I will make him bear fruit, I will make him many, exceedingly, exceedingly – he will beget twelve leaders, and I will make a great nation of him." God seals his words with a repetition of his earlier promise: "But my covenant I will establish with Yitzhak, whom Sarah will bear to you at this set-time, another year hence."

Perusal of our medieval commentators reveals two major lines of exegesis of the Avraham–God dialogue (Avraham's request and God's reaction). One is literary, and explains the verse in the narrow context of the chapter, and in the wider context of the entire Avraham narrative. The second approach is historical-existential, attempting to decipher the verse against the backdrop of the commentator's life and society.

Most of the commentators who chose the first approach lived in Christian lands. Although there exist differences between the commentaries, all of them seem to be textually-oriented. The second approach was followed by at least four commentators who lived in different times and dwelt in different locales under Islamic rule. Let us study briefly a few commentaries from each of the schools.

Rashi saw in Avraham's words an expression of his humility – "I am unworthy of such reward" -- and of his righteousness – " . . . live in your presence – live in awe of you." In these latter words, Rashi is following the translation attributed to Yonathan, who suggests that the type of ritual was a realization of "in your presence". Radak chose a wording similar to that of Rashi with regard to Avraham's first words, but he understood "live in your presence" as a description rather than as a value statement – "a good life, with blessing and generation." Ramban explains verse 18 similarly, although he objected to Rashi's remarks about ritual, claiming that they are inconsistent with the principle of freedom of choice.

Commentaries composed under Muslim rule and influence take a different track. Rav Saadya Gaon (Rasag) "Chief spokesman everywhere" and leader of Babylonian Jewry in the first half of the tenth century, added to his translation of verse 18 a word between "will live" and "in your presence" -- the Arabic word "ma'ahu" – "with him." Thus he hints at the problematic nature of Abraham's ostensible forfeiture of the additional son just promised him by God. Yet more: Rasag, in his translation, usually takes into consideration the continuation of the Biblical narrative; since God's promise is eventually realized as Yitzhak is born, Rasag is compelled to "amend" Avraham's words here to suit the later event.

Rabeinu Hannanel, a 10^th resident of Kayrawan, Tunis, is known primarily for his commentary on the Talmud, but he also composed a commentary to the Torah. Fragments of it survived in the commentary of Rabeinu Bahya ben Asher, who lived in Saragossa, Spain, in the 13^th and 14^th centuries. Thus wrote Rabeinu Hannanel on the words "And I will make a great nation of him:"

Rabeinu Hannanel, as we noted, lived under Islamic rule, and, like many Jews of his time, he identified Yishmael with Islamic dominion. He saw in "a great nation" not a Biblical figure of speech, but an existing reality, influencing and molding his life. Assuming that God does not discard his people, Muslim rule has religious significance, and this finds expression in R"H's commentary. His work has two important strata: first, identification of the Biblical (and, by inference, the Divine) substructure of life in his time. The second, intense anticipation of realization of additional portions of the Bible – the future Redemption – for R"H had not the slightest doubt regarding the truth of the Bible and its validity.

In 1329, in Yemen, Rabeinu Netanel ben Yeshaaya composed his opus "Maor HaAfelah" (The Light in the Darkness), a midrashic-philosophical Torah commentary, written in Judeo-Arabic and Hebrew. Regarding Abraham's words

under discussion, he wrote: "He asked that Yishmael too be a king, and his request

was granted, and there ruled in Bayblonia 36 caliphs, as the word (in gematriya) "lo" -- "to him." And further on, "And I have listened to you regarding Yishmael – He revealed to him Muhammed and his band, as is written "meod meod" -- (very much) – which is, in gematriy, the numerical equivalent of "Muhammed."

Rabeinu Netanel wove into his commentary a tradition which existed in Yemen prior to the Rambam's day, and the Rambam denounced it in very sharp terms. But even the Rambam did not succeed in uprooting the popular conception according to which the Torah hints at Muhammed, and that the rule of Islam, founded by Muhammed, was the fulfillment of God's answer to Abraham's entreaty: If only Yishmael might live in your presence!"

Over a hundred years later, (1442) Rav Saadya ben David Al-Damari followed in R' Netanel's footsteps, and incorporated his remarks about the 36 caliphs into his midrashic commentary "Midrash HaBeur", adding that all caliphs ruled from Baghdad. We are not concerned here with historical accuracy ( Were there 36 caliphs? Did they all rule from Baghdad?) but rather with the position which demands the drawing of an uninterrupted line between the Biblical text and that which is happening before the eyes of the commentators and their communities, thus conferring religious significance to contemporary political and cultural events.

Questions such as "Which explanation is the valid one?" or "Which is the more correct?" are meaningless. The various commentaries presented above – and this is only a small selection – are reflections of different spiritual worlds and of diverse exegetical approaches. If the commentary is the subject under discussion, the commentaries can inform us about the cultural world of the commentator and his milieu , about their expectations, their tensions and their fears. If the focus of study is the Bible itself, these commentaries can offer the reader new perspectives for contemplation of Biblical text, and sometimes provide inspiration for new explications.

Dr. Nahem Ilan is deputy chairman of Ben Zvi Institute for the Study of Jewish Communities in the East and teaches in the Department of Arabic Languages and Literature of Tel Aviv University.

***************************************

"From my mistress Saray do I flee (Heb. borachat)." Twice in the Massoret; here and there (the second place in the Bible which this world is recorded) "At the

shout of horsemen and bowmen the whole city flees" (Jeremiah 4:29). Because Sara expelled Hagar, therefore Israel fled from him, for "bowmen" is Yishmael, as is written of him "and became a bowman". (Baal HaTurim, Bereishit 16:8)

"Will be buried at a good ripe-age." He told him (Avraham) that Yishmael will repent in his (Avraham's) lifetime." (Rashi, Bereishit 15;15, as per Berishit Rabba 38)

Here (we have a case of) "the doings of the parents are an example for the children". This is an indication that the descendents of Yishmael will, in the end of days, approach the truth and will believe in one God, and will separate themselves from the idolaters, as our rabbi (Rambam) wrote. When Yitzhak asked that Esav the scoundrel be spared, he also meant that he will leave idolatry in the end of days. God replied, "In a place of integrity, he does wrong" and therefore "He will not see the majesty of the Lord" and he will remain an idolator until "On that day the Lord will be one and His name will be One." (Reb Meir Simcha of Dvinsk, Meshech Hochma, Bereishit 15:15)

"Avram passed through the land, as far as the Place of Shakhem, as far as the Oak of Moreh. Now the Canaanite was then in the land. God was seen by Avram and said: I will give this land to your seed." - The promise, the covenant, the condition, and the choice.

The Canaanites degenerated in this land until they reaches the lowest level of moral turpitude, until the merciful God himself sentenced them to exile or extermination. Thus we see: The Holy One wished to renew mankind, to return his resting place to man's domain. To reach this end, He chose that land which was suitable for this, and those who dwell therein according to God's desire possess the potential for reaching moral heights. But then, as later, there lived inhabitants who corrupted their ways, and were condemned to annihilation. Therefore, the Torah was given in the desert – to teach us that man's improvement depends neither on time nor on place. In this place, where degeneracy had sunk to its lowest – here the Holy Presence began to return to earth. Thus we learn: True, the nature of a land does influence the nature of the nation and its attributes. But the divine component in man, the ability to earn God's proximity – these are attainable by any nation and people, in Lapland as well as in Greece. The land where Avraham dwells can also be a dwelling-place for murderers; the same land can contain both seer and assassin . . . The denizen of the land must choose between the apex of moral elevation and the nadir of brutish depravity – between blessing/life and curse/death. It is possible that these diametrically opposed alternatives are symbolized by the proximity of the two mountains, the foliated Mount Grizim alongside the barren Mount Eval. (Rabbi Shimshon Rafael Hirsch, Bereishit 12:6-7)

". . . Similarly in general affairs between people. Sons have the right to inherit their father's possessions. But the question whether or not these belongings will remain intact in the sons' hands depends not upon the sons' rights of inheritance. It is depends on what use the sons make of the legacy." (From Prof. I. Leibowitz, "Seven Years of Discussions on the Weekly Parsha", p. 8)

Home	The Movement Objectives and Principles You can Help!	What's New Activities and Current Events	Articles and Position Papers Peace Judaism and Israel

Weekly Parsha (Hebrew) Weekly Parsha (English)	Search Our Site	Links To Peace Movements

Contact Us
OZ veSHALOM - NETIVOT SHALOM
P.O. Box 4433, Jerusalem, 91043 Israel
Tel: 02-5664218, for Shabbat Shalom only call 053-920206
ozshalom@netvision.net.il
© Copyright 1997-2003 by Oz Veshalom. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.