MarCheshvan 5762

PARSHAT VAYERA
Without Fear of G-d there is Nothing

"Avraham made a great feast on the day Yitzchak was weaned" [1] (Bereishit 21:8). What was "great" about this feast? Rashi cites the Midrash "that the great people of the generation were there: Shem and Ever and Avimelech" [2] . Shem and Ever certainly belong in the category of "gedolei hador" - they were after all prophets (see Tanna DeBei Eliyahu Rabba 24:5 and Rashi to Bereishit 10:25) as well as heads of the Beit Midrash of Yerushalayim. What makes Avimelech worthy of being on this prestigious list? Is it because of his many dealings with Avraham Avinu? Pharaoh too, dealt with Avraham, why was he not invited to this "great feast"? There is clearly a fundamental difference between Avimelech and Pharaoh.

We could have thought that the simple difference between them was geographical, that Pharaoh lived in the distant Chutz la'Aretz while Avimelech was a local resident of Eretz Yisrael (Grar). Yet, it would appear that the travel time was not the only consideration in Avraham's decision not to invite Pharaoh, there was a qualitative difference between the two. As we learn the text we will see this clearly.

Let us analyze for a moment the way the A-lmighty acted towards each one. We see that Hashem spoke to Avimelech, while He did not speak to Pharaoh at all (perhaps this is because prophecy exists only in Eretz Yisrael - see Ramban to Devarim 18:15 and Kuzari 2:13). When Pharaoh took Sarah to his house, the Torah tells us "and Hashem afflicted Pharaoh along with his household with severe plagues" [3] (Bereishit 12:17) yet not a word was spoken. On the other hand, when Avimelech took Sarah, while Hashem smote him too "for Hashem had completely closed off opposite every womb of the household of Avimelech, over the matter of Sarah, the wife of Avraham" [4] (Bereishit 20:18), He also revealed Himself to Avimelech: "and Hashem came to Avimelech in a dream by night and said to him: 'behold you are to die because of the woman you have taken'" [5] (ibid. 3). While the Minchat Shai (Bereishit 31:23) is of the opinion that based on the words of the Zohar (see chelek 3 113:1) it would appear that this revelation was not Hashem but forces of Tumah that came to speak to Avimelech (this has practical Halachic ramifications, for the word "Elokim" is no longer holy and thus may be erased and may be written without the scribe specifying that he is writing the Holy Name - see Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 266:2,12). The simple meaning of the psukim, however, indicates that Avimelech did merit some form of Divine revelation, while Pharaoh was given only afflictions.

Not only did Hashem reveal Himself to Avimelech but He even accepted some of the arguments he gave for his own defense. When Avimelech argues: "will You slay a nation even though it is righteous? Did not he himself tell me: 'she is my sister?' and she too, said 'He is my brother' in the perfection of my heart and with the cleanness of my palms have I done this" [6] (ibid. 4-5) - I was innocent! To this Hashem responds: "I too, knew that in the perfection of your heart you did this" [7] (ibid. 6). Hashem does not acknowledge any "cleanness of the palms", but "perfection of the heart there was" (in the words of Rashi "it is true that from the start you did not intend to sin, but there is no 'cleanness of palms' here, for it was not because of you that you did not touch her, rather I spared you from sin" [8] ). We see that Pharaoh was immediately smitten for his act, while Hashem speaks to Avimelech allowing him to defend himself, and He even accepts part of his defense. It appears that Avimelech's status was indeed superior to that of Pharaoh's.

Avraham Avinu's relationship with Avimelech was also different to his relationship with Pharaoh. Following the revelation that Sarah was Avraham's wife, Pharaoh demands to know "what is this you have done to me" [9] (Bereishit 12:18) to which the Torah records no response from Avraham. However, when Avimelech asks Avraham "what did you see that you did such a thing?" [10] (Bereishit 20:10), Avraham explains: "because I said 'there is but no fear of G-d in this place and they will slay me because of my wife', moreover, she is indeed my sister, my father's daughter, though not my mother's daughter; and she became my wife" [11] (ibid. 11-12). I am not really deceiving you, for in addition to being my wife, she truly is also my sister.

In actuality, Avraham did not immediately respond to Avimelech's charge. At the beginning we are told: "Avimelech first summoned Avraham and said to him 'what have you done to us? how have I sinned against you that you brought upon me and my kingdom great sin? Deeds that are not done you have done to me!'" [12] (ibid. 9). Avraham does not react. The pasuk following tells us: "And Avimelech said to Avraham 'what did you see that you did such a thing'" [13] (ibid. 10), it is then that Avraham responds "because I said, there is but no fear of G-d in this place ...". Why does Avraham not respond the first time, yet he feels that the second question is deserving of a response? The answer is that the first time Avimelech speaks to Avraham it is not a question - it was an outburst, an attack! He presents himself as clean of any wrongdoing "how have I sinned against you", with Avraham being guilty of perpetrating "deeds that are not done". Avraham feels no need to respond to such a manner of speaking - if you speak that way to me, I have nothing to say to you! The second time, however, we find a change in Avimelech's manner of speaking "and Avimelech says to Avraham - what did you see that you did such a thing". Here Avimelech is not leveling any accusation against Avraham, he simply wants an explanation for Avraham's actions "what did you see that you did such a thing?". Why did you not inform me that Sarah was your sister? Presumably you had a valid reason - a man of your stature would never do such a thing without a valid reason. To a question phrased in respectful tones, Avraham is prepared to respond - do you wish to understand the reason behind my unusual behavior? I will put it to you plainly and simply "because I said there is but no fear of G-d in this place and they will slay me because of my wife".

The reason Avraham does not respond to Avimelech's initial charge is the same reason he does not respond to Pharaoh. One who speaks in such an attacking tone is not interested in answers to his questions. Pharaoh shouts: "what is this you have done to me, why did you not tell me that she is your wife, why did you say 'she is my sister'" [14] (Bereishit 12:18-19) without waiting for an answer. His next statement is "now here is your wife, take her and go!" [15] (ibid. 19). Clearly Pharaoh was the one in the wrong, here, Hashem afflicts him and not Avraham. If so, Avraham could have responded, yet Avraham sees no need to respond to one who speaks in such a manner - he is not interested in hearing explanations. Here we see a difference between the characters of Pharaoh and Avimelech - Avimelech was willing to listen, to try to understand Avraham's behavior, while Pharaoh was not. I am not sure if we have the right to speak this way of the personalities in the Torah, but this is how my small mind understands this. Avimelech can be spoken to while there is no point in even attempting to speak to Pharaoh.

The chronicling of events highlights yet another difference in their characters. Pharaoh not only feels no need to offer Avraham any compensation, he serves him an eviction notice - "now here is your wife - take her and go". Rashi points out that there was some element of noble intention in Pharaoh's desire to send Avraham out: "for Pharaoh was afraid, because the Egyptians are steeped in licentiousness" [16] (Rashi on Bereishit 20:15) - Pharaoh feared that the Egyptians may covet Sarah. If, however, this were his main concern, he could have offered Sarah twenty four hour police protection. Regarding Avimelech, however, we are told: "Avimelech took flocks and cattle and servants and maidservants and gave them to Avraham" [17] (Bereishit 20:14). He even apologized to Sarah: "and to Sarah he said, 'behold I have given your brother a thousand pieces of silver; behold! let it be for you an eye-covering for all who are with you'" [18] (ibid. 16). (Although Chazal tell us that Avimelech cursed Sarah at this point - see Baba Kamma 93a - there are words of apology here as well). In addition, unlike Pharaoh, Avimelech suggests that Avraham remain in his land: "behold my land is before you: settle wherever you see fit" [19] (ibid. 15).

Relatively speaking, Avimelech is a decent and well mannered "goy" - one of the "gedolei hador". It is therefore fitting to invite him to the "great feast" Avraham throws on the occasion of Yitzchak's weaning. Pharaoh, as we saw, is not on the same level and thus Avraham elects not to invite him to dine with the "gedolei hador".

Given all the praises we have just given Avimelech, why did Avraham hide the fact that Sarah was his wife? "Because I said - there is but no fear of G-d in this place and they will slay me because of my wife" - you may be one of the "gedolei hador", you may have acted "in the perfection of your heart", and you may be very well-mannered and offer me a thousand pieces of silver and residence in the land of Plishtim, yet with all this in mind, you are still liable to kill me, because "there is but no fear of G-d in this place". When there is no fear of G-d, all of your manners are worthless. What guarantee is there that your manners will be able to stand up to your drives and desires? This is a matter of life and death, and I therefore had no choice but to withhold the fact that Sarah is my wife. (We are all very well aware of that most "cultured" and "civilized" nation of the past generation and how they acted towards the Jews in their country ...).

Although this ruler might be cultured and very well-mannered, and there is no doubt that his country had laws forbidding stealing and murder, the local Baga"tz (the name of the Israeli Supreme Court) could have found a chapter in their law books to justify killing Avraham and taking his wife and assets for themselves. It is all perfectly legal - Avimelech after all was a law-abiding citizen, he would not take Sarah without justification. In fact, he went around asking the slaves, camel drivers, and donkey drivers who Sarah was, and they all responded that she is Avraham's sister (see Rashi to Bereishit 20:5). Had they spoken the truth, had they responded that Sarah was indeed Avraham's wife, the Baga"tz would have found a way to justify Sarah's being taken. Avraham, after all, is a threat to national security - he will no doubt incite the entire population to destroy the idols as he did in his father's house (see Rashi Bereishit 11:28). Who knows what security problems he will have if Avraham continues to espouse such dangerous views? When there is no fear of G-d, all behavior can be justified - the Baga"tz can justify anything! (My grandfather z"l used to say to interpret the words of Tehillim: "im raita ganav VATIRETZ imo" (Tehillim 50:18) in the following manner: "if you saw a thief, he has JUSTIFICATION ('teirutz')", a thief can always justify his behavior! (the word "vatiretz" here really implies that "you agreed to be with him"). It was these fears that prompted Avraham to tell Avimelech that Sarah was his sister.

It was not only Avraham, but Yitzchak as well, who did not trust Avimelech. After all the lessons Avimelech may have learned from the past, Yitzchak still did not trust him. Many years later, when Yitzchak arrived with his wife Rivka in Grar, he too lied to Avimelech and told him that Rivka was his sister (see Bereishit 26:7). When Avimelech inquired as to why Yitzchak deceived him, Yitzchak responded "because I said that I would be killed because of her" [21] (Bereishit 26:9). Yitzchak was well aware that he could be well-mannered when speaking to Avimelech, for Avimelech had learned this lesson from Hashem, he may be a "gadol hador", yet Yitzchak understood very well that this man could not be trusted. Avimelech was not in the same category of "gadol hador" as Shem and Ever. He was the type of "gadol hador" who would be willing to kill in order to take the wife of Avraham or Yitzchak. The classification "gadol hador" it seems does not preclude one who is a thief or murderer (not Shem and Ever, G-d forbid, but Avimelech).

Avimelech's servants stole the wells that Avraham had dug (see Bereishit 21:25). Although Avimelech apologized saying "I do not know who did this thing" [22] (Bereishit 21:26), Chazal comment on the pasuk "if a ruler hearkens to falsehood his servants are wicked" [23] (Mishle 29:12), that "since the verse states 'if a ruler hearkens to falsehood all his servants are wicked', it must follow that if a ruler hearkens to words of truth, his servants are righteous" [24] (Chullin 4b). The simple reading of the pasuk tells us that a wicked ruler necessarily implies wicked servants. This does not, however, mean that wicked servants necessarily point to a wicked ruler. Chazal therefore come along and derive from the pasuk that if the ruler truly were righteous, his servants would be righteous as well. The fact that Avimelech's servants stole points to the fact that the notion of stealing is not far beyond Avimelech. If he can steal a well, who says he is not capable of stealing a wife?

Avimelech's "manners" we see, do not stand up to the test when it comes to his relationship with Yitzchak. When Yitzchak becomes wealthy, Avimelech decides to evict him from Grar "go away from us, for you have become much mightier than we" [25] (Bereishit 26:16). Why evict him? Is it not good for the society as a whole to have wealthy people among them? Yitzchak certainly would have used his wealth for acts of chesed and charity with the local population! There are so many families that Yitzchak could have supported. Avimelech, however, is looking at this from a different point of view - "you have become much mightier than we" - you have become wealthy on our account (the Germans, may their name be obliterated, also claimed that the Jews were amassing wealth at the expense of the German population). Avimelech accuses Yitzchak of having taken away their livelihood, and he therefore must leave immediately. It is all perfectly legal. It was only after a while that Avimelech realizes "we have indeed seen that Hashem has been with you" [26] (ibid. 28) - I have no choice but to enter into a covenant with you. This, however, was after the initial attempt to evict Yitzchak and rid themselves of him.

In this regard, Avimelech's behavior is even worse than Lavan's. Lavan after all acknowledged to Yaakov: "I have learned by divination that Hashem has blessed me on account of you" [27] (Bereishit 30:27). As full of deceit as Lavan may have been, as much as he tried to take advantage of Yaakov and even kill him, he acknowledges that not only did Yaakov not try to take advantage of Lavan as his children claimed (see Bereishit 31:1), but Yaakov even brought blessing into Lavan's home. Rabenu Yona (in his commentary to Mishle 21:12), writes that when we speak of an evil person we must assume that he has evil intentions and we must try to find them - even when his acts and words appear positive, if so it must be that Lavan had some malicious intent. (Some commentators explain that Lavan did not speak well of Yaakov for no reason, he had negative intent. Lavan claims to have learned that Hashem had blessed him because of Yaakov by "nichashti" - sorcery and witchcraft. Lavan thought that Yaakov would not want to benefit from any Avoda Zara and thus would not ask to be rewarded for the good he has brought Lavan. Yaakov, however, was wiser than that - he responded "Hashem has blessed you with my coming" [28] (Bereishit 30:30) - I know on my own, without your sorcery, that my arrival here has brought you blessing). Lavan's expression certainly points to an acknowledgement that Yaakov brought blessing to Lavan's home. The same applies to Potiphar. His reaction to seeing that Yoseph brought blessing into his home was "he appointed him over his household and all he had, he placed in his custody" [29] (Bereishit 39:4). There was no eviction notice, there was no accusation that Yoseph was taking advantage of Potiphar's home. Avimelech however does not understand this. He wishes to immediately remove Yitzchak from Grar.

Even upon Yitzchak's departure from Grar, Avimelech's shepherds found cause to quarrel with Yitzchak's regarding the wells that Yitzchak had dug (see Bereishit 26:19-21). In addition: "all the wells that his father's (Avraham) servants had dug in the days of Avraham his father, the Plishtim stopped up, and filled them with earth" [30] (Bereishit 26:15). Due to the intense hatred and jealousy they felt towards Yitzchak they were willing to destroy their own land. Are wells not good for the land - especially Eretz Yisrael which is in such need of water? It does not matter! They wish to eradicate any remembrance of Avraham Avinu, they stop up all the wells that Avraham's servants dug and Yitzchak must dig them up again "and Yitzchak returned and he dug the wells of water which they had dug in the days of Avraham his father and which had stopped up after Avraham's death" [31] (ibid. 18). Chazal tell us that the intent in stopping up the wells was a spiritual one - they wished to wipe out any memory of Avraham Avinu and all the influence he had on the world during his lifetime (see Zohar chelek 3, 303:2). Avraham established Batei Midrash, "he planted an 'eshel' in Be-er Sheva and there he proclaimed the Name of Hashem, G-d of the universe" [32] (Bereishit 21:33). The goal of the Plishtim was to uproot any reminders of the spirituality that Avraham planted, so much so that Yitzchak had to rebuild everything in order to continue spreading the faith. These acts were certainly carried out with the full knowledge of Avimelech yet Avimelech does nothing to stop them. We see that his manners do not stand up to the test, because "there is but no fear of G-d in this place, and they will slay me". When there is no fear of G-d they can descend to acts of murder whether physical (literally killing others) or spiritual (destroying his spiritual legacy).

Chazal tell us: "if someone were to tell you - 'there is wisdom among the other nations' - believe him" [33] (Eicha Rabba 2:13), this can even include the wisdom of the Torah - there are non-Jews who are experts in Tanach. "But should someone tell you 'there is Torah among the other nations' - do not believe him" [34] (ibid.). Wisdom, even their Torah scholarship remains an abstract concept. It does not become "Torah" (meaning a guide). There have been righteous gentiles throughout history, yet in general, the Torah remains a theoretical intellectual concept, it does not influence their behavior.

There was once a big professor of ethics whose personal behavior did not exemplify that which he was teaching. When asked how this could be so, he responded "I do not see the connection, must a math professor be a right triangle, he teaches about it, yet remains a person with two arms and two legs. The same is true with me, I may teach ethics but what I teach has no relevance to me personally, I am who I am!".

Similarly, one of the Roman sages once dictated to his servant an article he was writing condemning anger. The servant was not careful and accidentally knocked over a bottle of ink and spilled it all over the paper. The wise man got so angry that he killed the servant! Why not? What I preach is one thing and how I act is another - there is no connection between scholarship and character. Avimelech may be classified as a "gadol hador" based on his intellectual accomplishments, but there was no connection between that and his character - he was willing to kill in order to take the wife of Avraham or Yitzchak.

This disharmony between knowledge and actions can be found among Jewish people as well. It is true that a Jew has the Torah to guide him, but how often do we find him inventing "heterim" for himself. The yetzer hara is a great "lamdan" and can find a "heter" for anything, and the yetzer tov is not always aware of all the prohibitions. The yetzer hara knows very well how to find leniencies whether they are genuine or not - "this is only 'mekalkel', 'melacha she-eina tzricha legufa', 'eino mitkaven', etc." He is a great "lamdan"! What incredible "chiddushim"! Of course there are times when being lenient is called for - if being "machmir" would cause undue suffering, great loss or where "kavod habriot" - honor of our fellow man is involved. These "kulot" however must be applied only where appropriate. There were times even where pain or loss were involved that Chazal forbade leniencies. Great "yirat Shamayim" is required to determine how to act any particular situation.

I came across an example of this years ago, when I read an article in which the author claimed that when invited to someone's house, one may partake of the food being offered even though its kashrut may be questionable. Why? "Kavod habriot", it would be an insult to the host not to take his food. I find this "heter" to be on very shaky grounds. There is no doubt that embarrassing another is a very severe infraction, but where do we find that Chazal permitted us to eat non-kosher food to avoid this? In fact Yochanan Kohen Gadol's establishment of the laws of "demai" proves otherwise. Although during his time, most common people ("amei haaretz") did in fact separate the necessary tithes, because of the danger of partaking untithed food, he established a law forbidding eating the food of an "am haaretz" without removing maaser. There could have been two brothers, one a "chaver" (reliable in these areas), and one an "am haaretz". Until this decree the chaver used to eat in his brother's house. Suddenly he no longer does so. The brother, his host, could ask him - "why are you not eating, do you suspect for a moment that I did not separate the required maaser, of course I did". It does not matter, Yochanan Kohen Gadol decreed that I cannot trust you in these matters even if you testify that you did as you were supposed to. What about embarrassing his brother - what about keeping the peace, what about "kavod habriot"? According to Yochanan Kohen Gadol making sure that only kosher food enters our mouths outweighs this consideration. He went so far as to forbid food from the "am haaretz" even though it was known that most "amei haaretz" did separate the maaser, and we generally rule in accordance with the majority. We see that the consumption of non-kosher food is very serious and even takes precedence over "kavod habriot". "Kavod habriot" is not a reason to permit eating food whose kashrut is questionable!

Despite this, it is still possible to handle the situation wisely and avoid both eating the food and embarrassing your host. When Rav Eliyahu Lopian zt"l was invited somewhere where he feared that there would not be sufficient food left for the hosts, he would excuse himself saying: "the doctor forbids me to eat". The doctor he was referring to was the Rambam who ruled that it is forbidden to eat from a meal in which there is not enough food for the hosts (see Hilchot Tshuva 4:4). My Rebbe HaRav Yechezkel Levinstein zt"l once warned his students in the Yeshiva not to eat at every wedding they were invited to. Quite often there is not enough food to go around. I saw with my own eyes many cases in which there were not enough portions for all the guests or even the family. Of course, each case must be judged on its own merit, I am not saying that one should never eat at a wedding, but one must take into account whether it is appropriate to eat there or not. Of course, if the status of the kashrut is unclear then we certainly must be careful.

The following story about the Rav (HaGaon HaRav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach) zt"l illustrates just how far a person must go in trying to be sensitive to his fellow man. The Rav was once seated with his family for their Purim Seudah. One of his relatives came to bring him "mishloach manot". That relative had a daughter who had only recently broken an engagement. The man told the Rav that his daughter was waiting in the next room and wished to come to the Rav in order to receive a bracha. The Rav responded: "she may not come in here, I will go to the next room and give her a bracha over there". The relative pointed out that not only was the Rav much older than her, he was a great Talmid Chacham, he had already washed his hands and was partaking of the Purim feast with his family, why must he go to the trouble of going to her when his daughter, who was still young, could easily come into the room? The Rav refused and got up from his seat and went to the next room. He began to give the young woman a blessing and his words so moved her that she began to sob. The Rav said to her father: "would you have wanted her to cry in front of all those assembled here?" We see just how far we must go in understanding the feelings of another and in trying to estimate his reactions.

I recently read a similar story involving the Rosh Yeshiva of Manchester, one of the great "mussar" scholars, HaRav Segal. He was once participating in a Sheva Brachot when he was told that a woman wished to speak to him on the telephone regarding a particular manner. This woman was forty years old and had not yet found her "shidduch". The Rav asked his host whether there was an extension to the telephone line in another room, and he requested to talk to her from there. His reasoning was that here everyone was singing and joyous, and if she were to hear the sounds of joy, she would be very saddened over the fact that she was not yet married and has not yet merited such happiness. He wanted to at least spare her that pain.

This is the meaning of the pasuk: "Praiseworthy is he who contemplates the needy" [35] (Tehillim 41:2) - who takes the other person to heart. Do not desire to kill him in the manner of Avimelech and Pharaoh. Quite the contrary, see how you can help him, or at least avoid harming him. This is only possible when the wisdom you acquire is "Torah" - a guide to life, not an abstract concept. When one's wisdom and knowledge is not "Torah" but mere book learning, there is nothing to speak to him about. In order to reach this level of wisdom becoming "Torah", one's wisdom must be preceded by fear of G-d, because - "if there is no fear of G-d there is no wisdom" [36] (Pirkei Avot 3:17), and not only is there no wisdom, even good character traits will not last as we have just learned.