Parashat Lech Lecha

Parashat Lech Lecha

Heshvan 11 ~ October 27, 2012

by Alex Hart

On the theme of characterization, here in Lech Lecha, we are presented with a man whose ‘life is broken’ (“Studies in the Weekly Parshah”, Rabbi Yehudah Nachshoni)

Avram follows G-d’s instructions to abandon everything; his ancestral home, family, life as he knows it. He sets out on a mission and no longer has a point of reference, not even a geographical reference; he has only his own moral compass. Avram is reliant on G-d’s words; those promising him, quite literally, fame and fortune.  And this is our progenitor. Some cynics might say, “the man’s lost it. He has taken off into the wilderness with a campervan. He’s a missionary!”

As our forefather, the man with whom it all begins, surely we can wish for an individual from whom to learn; someone we could set on a pedestal yet still be within our reach, someone to emulate, yet with whom to find some similarity, some common ground; it doesn’t appear that way.  According to Rashi, 8 of Avram’s 10 trials occur in this parsha, each more monumental than the last and so very little that matches our everyday lives the prism through which we view our hero skews our perspective. An action-packed parsha with so much to think about but with a brief pause, our lead can be brought into focus.

I found inspiration in  י:יד בראשית. The context is a period of war between the four kings and the five kings of the region, the latter of whom had taken Lot, Avram’s nephew, captive. This is the very first example of the halacha of pidyon shivuyim and, with the return of Gilad Shalit, this time last year, has had enormous coverage in recent weeks. Avram takes up arms in order to rescue Lot, having formed a coalition with the four kings and his own merry band of 318 men.  Avram had recently separated from Lot יג:ט)) why would he embroil himself in a battle? Moshe Halbertal, a philosophy professor at Hebrew University of Jerusalem helps provide an answer which transcends time: “Those things are in the DNA of the culture, it’s a sentiment that can’t be measured in exact legal or judicial terms. It plays a role in those moments of perplexity. You fall back on your basic identity. As a Jew, as an Israeli, what do I do?” (New York Times of October 21, 2011) Our protagonist is not so far removed after all.

Looking out for Lot is one of three examples in which we see Avram seemingly take unilateral action based on instinct. He proves himself forewarned based simply on a gut feel. Of the 3, it is in this example that is totally without fanfare.

Chronologically speaking, the first example of the 3 is Avram’s strategy before arriving in Egypt. (יב:יב) He anticipates that the Egyptians, upon seeing Sarah, will presume that she is bounty, with scant regard for another man’s ‘possessions’. A modern day explanation of Avram’s strategy comes from Gilad Sharon, being interviewed in advance of his recent book’s publication, ‘Ariel Sharon: The Life of a Leader’, he quotes his parents: “If you’re invited to dinner with the queen, you’d better know your table manners,”. (Plus ça change?!) Avram therefore quietly advises Sarah to anticipate the scenario and to pretend to be his sister and follow along without a stir. Instead it is Pharaoh who expresses utter consternation at Avram ( יט-יח:יב) “Why didn’t you tell me that she was your wife? Why did you say that she was your sister so that I should take her to myself as a wife?” It seems Pharaoh dislikes having his lack of mores on display.

The final example is that with Avram’s exchange with Bera, King of Sodom, one of the four kings post victory. Bera, in trying to express his gratitude to Avram for freeing his people, presents our forefather with gifts. Avram refuses most vociferously( כג:יד). Raising his hands to heaven, he says, (and this is the source for the מצוות of tefillin and that of techelet) “Neither from a thread to a shoe lace, nor will I take from whatever is yours, so that you should not say, 'I have made Abram wealthy.” This outburst appears to be a knee-jerk reaction, most unlike the Avram we’ve seen to date. Previously, it may have been noted that our character assesses the situation before him with a quiet confidence, contemplatively apprising himself of what runs through others’ core, which is best demonstrated in their treatment of others. What caused Avram to react in such a manner? We are given to understand that Bera hadn’t fought. He had hidden in a cave throughout the unrest, putting his people in danger and ahead of himself. Avram reads the King’s character and in no way does he wish to be associated. Stating abhorrence in such a manner can leave little doubt with any bystander.  

Avram is only after a peaceful life in which to serve G-d. He was content and settled before being told of Lot’s abduction (Sforno on יח:יג). He had been non-confrontational when separating himself from Lot and his shepherds who were proving themselves dishonest and, in the pursuit of happiness, he had uprooted his family in search of a place to settle. Here in Lech Lecha, we are introduced to some dastardly characters, demonstrating jealously, lust, greed and the poisonous association with those that do not have basic moral upstanding, leading to disquiet Avram’s soul.

To be taken with integrity, consistency is required, using an outburst of emotion sparingly, if at all, in order to make the desired impact. That consistency needs to run, like techelet, throughout. Be it the tone of voice, the rhetoric used, the opinions themselves, it’s the prism through which one represents oneself. Here in the parsha, Avram is looking for the mental quiet in order to serve G-d and it seemed that our protagonist was very much out of our reach. With each of these examples though, Avram demonstrates the maxim: ﬠומד  דﬠ לפני אתה מי  and wishes only to walk humbly before G-d, no pedestal required.