The Midrash (BaMidbar Rabbah 16) quotes R’ Acha haGadol’s derush on the pasuk “Yaveish chatzir naveil tzitz u’dvar Elokeinu yakum l’olam,” (Yeshayahu 40:8):
למה הדבר דומה? למלך, שהיה לו אוהב והתנה עמו ואמר לו: לך עמי ואני נותן לך מתנה. הלך עמו ומת. אמר המלך לבנו של אוהבו: אעפ"י שמת אביך, איני חוזר בי במתנה שאמרתי לו, בוא וטול אתה! כך הדבר, המלך, מלך מלכי המלכים הקב"ה. והאוהב זה אברהם, שנאמר (שם מא): זרע אברהם אוהבי. אמר לו הקדוש ברוך הוא: בא לך עמי (בראשית יב): לך לך מארצך וממולדתך ומבית אביך. התנה עמו, שיתן לו מתנה, שנאמר (שם יג): קום התהלך בארץ. וכן הוא אומר (שם): כי כל הארץ אשר אתה רואה לך אתננה. אמר לו הקב"ה למשה: אעפ"י שהתנתי עם האבות ליתן להם את הארץ ומתו, איני חוזר בי,
The Midrash reassures us that we still have a claim on Eretz Yisrael despite the fact that it was promised originally to Avraham and he is long dead. Why this affirmation now? Avraham Avinu had been dead already for hundreds of years by the time Bnei Yisrael left Egypt, ostensibly with the goal of settling Eretz Yisrael. Furthermore, wasn’t the land originally promised to Avraham in trust for his descendents, not as a personal gift – what is the hava amina that Hashem should not deliver?
The answer (as explained by the Shem m’Shmuel) is that there is little bit of Avraham Avinu that lives on inside each and every one of us. Avraham Avinu thus theoretically had the ability to personally collect on the promise of Eretz Yisrael through us.
The tragedy of the meraglim was that Bnei Yisrael disassociated themselves from this legacy of the Avos and their love of the land. That little piece of Avraham within was no longer alive, it no longer had meaning to the generation of the midbar. That ability of Avraham to personally collect was lost.
What right then did we have to the land? The Midrash answers that Hashem’s promise is irrevocable -- even if we fail to live up to the model of the Avos, Eretz Yisrael is ours.
I think this Midrash more generally addresses the inevitable rift that emerges between generations. Not only Avraham Avinu, but the spirit of all fathers and grandfathers eventually dies off, as children go their own way and pursue their own dreams and destiny. Does that mean that ideas and values are lost? Does that mean that the promises made to and by our forefathers have no meaning? Not necessarily. The dor hamidbar was not a dor of Avraham Avinu’s, but Hashem nonetheless was willing (and I don’t think the Midrash means begrudgingly) to reaffirm his promise of Eretz Yisrael. Despite there being differences between our generation and that of our parents or grandparents, and our generation and that of our children, there is a sense of continuity to yahadus which cannot be extinguished.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The tragedy of the meraglim was that Bnei Yisrael disassociated themselves from this legacy of the Avos and their love of the land.
ReplyDeleteIf this is the reason for the Hava Amina( that haShem had reason not to give the land, promised to Avraham, to his descendants), why is this particular Midrash brought for a Pasuq( שלח לך אנשים) preceding the going-out of the Meraglim ?
It would seem, form the placing of the Midrash, that it is supposed to help explain why haShem kept his promise even before the Meraglim had a chance to nulify their "little piece of Avraham within".
That little piece of Avraham within was no longer alive, it no longer had meaning to the generation of the midbar. That ability of Avraham to personally collect was lost.
How does that explanation fit in with the Midrash who makes no distinction, in the Mashal, between a son who retains "that little piece" of his father, and a son who does not ?
Why doesn't the king mention that it is the unworthiness of the son that would have prevented him from receiving his father's present ?
I have another problem with the Midrash. It says, at the end:
ReplyDeleteאמר לו הקב"ה למשה: אעפ"י שהתנתי עם האבות ליתן להם את הארץ ומתו, איני חוזר בי.
That infers that, hadn't they died, he would have given the land to the Avot themselves( the connection to the Mashal seems to suggest the same thing). Is this so ?
If it is, how does that fit with Bereshit 15:16-17:
ואתה תבוא אל-אבתיך, בשלום: תקבר, בשיבה טובה.
ודור רביעי, ישובו הנה ...,
suggesting haShem already planed the land not to be given in Avraham's lifetime( or even his son's or grandson's) back at the Berit bein haBetarim.
Also, as far as the whole Midrash goes: what about the next Pasuq, that says: "ביום ההוא, כרת יהוה את-אברם--ברית לאמר: לזרעך, נתתי את-הארץ הזאת" ?
Hadn't haShem already promised Avraham that his decendants could collect his Matana without him ?
Second part first -- your question is exactly what the Sm"S is answering. The plan was to give it to Avraham's descendents because they were the embodiment and equal to Avraham himself. No stira between a promise to Avraham directly and a promise to his offspring because haynu hach. It's only because of cheit that we inherit b'toras yerusha.
ReplyDeletePart I. Firstly, I don't think the fact that the derash starts Shlach means anything. The midrash preceding this one speaks about Kalev's response to the meraglim, which is obviously later in the parsha. The Midrash is associated with the theme of the story, not the specific pasuk.
ReplyDelete>>>who makes no distinction, in the Mashal, between a son who retains "that little piece" of his father, and a son who does not ?
The Midrash does draw this distinction. That's exactly what it means by "Avraham meis." Obviously Avraham had been dead for hundreds of years. Therefore, the Sm"S interprets this metaphorically as a death of an ideal, a vision.
Chaim B.( 7:40 AM): ... The plan was to give it to Avraham's descendents because they were the embodiment and equal to Avraham himself. No stira between a promise to Avraham directly and a promise to his offspring because haynu hach.
ReplyDeleteThat would hold true if the last Pasuq I quoted said "leZar'akha Eten Et ha'Ares haZot", but it said "leZar'akha Natati Et ha'Ares haZot" - meaning he had already given it to them, only they hadn't received it yet.
Chaim B.( ibid.): It's only because of cheit that we inherit b'toras yerusha.
Yerusha ? From who( the Avot, according to the Midrash, weren't given it) ?
Chaim B.(7:46 AM): Firstly, I don't think the fact that the derash starts Shlach means anything.
ReplyDeleteO.K., so where does "אמר לו הקב"ה למשה: אעפ"י שהתנתי עם האבות ליתן להם את הארץ ומתו, איני חוזר בי" refer to ?
On the other hand, it is a Peticha(ר' אחא הגדול פתח), and within the section there is no reference to the Pasuq. Problem is there is no reference to the whole Parasha either. So how do we know this Derash is referring to anything more specific than Benei Ysra'el's right to the land ?
Chaim B.(ibid.): The midrash preceding this one speaks about Kalev's response to the meraglim, which is obviously later in the parsha. The Midrash is associated with the theme of the story, not the specific pasuk.
Yet, unlike the others, our Midrash doesn't make reference to the story at all.
Chaim B.(ibid.): The Midrash does draw this distinction. That's exactly what it means by "Avraham meis." Obviously Avraham had been dead for hundreds of years. Therefore, the Sm"S interprets this metaphorically as a death of an ideal, a vision.
"Obviously Avraham had been dead for hundreds of years", but not so obviously does haShem keep his word to him, and that's why he mentions it.
Wait a minute !
You mean to say that the Avot dying is referring to the death of the part of Avraham that is within each of us ?
If so, you could have been a little clearer, saying "That little piece of Avraham within died" instead of "was no longer alive".
I'll concede that metaphors of that kind are beyond my understanding
But, if haShem was giving the land to them in spite of the the losing of the Avraham within( in Parashat haMeraglim), why was that generation forbidden to enter the land, left to die in the desert ?
So what you're saying is that the Meraglim felt no connection to Avraham Avinu, and if they were disassociated from Avraham Avinu, their getting the land is not a fulfillment of the promise to Avraham, so they were not confident of siyata dishmaya in the conquest on their own zechusim. Ka mashma lan, that the promise to Avraham is not conditional on his descendants' sense of connection with him.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, while that may be true as far as the initial conquest, the promise to Avraham sure didn't guarantee that once we've conquered it we can keep it forever. Veha raya, we've been out almost twice as much as we've been in.
So they may have been wrong vis a vis the conquest, but they were right as far as keeping it afterwards.
Anyway, what do you think: is yerushas ha'aretz only a boon because of the special mitzvos, or is it also a nationalistic thing, to have a homeland? Maybe the former is a function of the latter? Maybe the latter is shamefully gashmiusdik, since our life is Torah, not an attachment to a piece of real estate?
>>>their getting the land is not a fulfillment of the promise to Avraham,
ReplyDeleteNot exactly. They could get the land in one of two ways: 1) b'toras yerusha as zera avraham 2) directly as Avraham mamaseh. They ended up with the former instead of the latter.
>>>is yerushas ha'aretz only a boon because of the special mitzvos, or is it also a nationalistic thing, to have a homeland?
First sentence of Orot: having a homeland is not a means to an end (even a noble end such as shmiras hamitzvos) but is a goal in its own right.
I hope Bezalel Naor, the preeminent translator and interpreter of the Orot, doesn't read this blog. He and I were in NIRC at the same time, and I really ought to have purchased and read his work.
ReplyDeleteAnother possibility: the meraglim were very literal minded (or you may say Yekkish) about the promise to Avraham. After all, he was told 400 years and it was not a full 400 years from the time Yisrael came down to Mitzrayim yet. I know of the cheshbon from Yitzchak's birth, but they may have considered the early departure to not yet qualify them to enter E"Y as promised to Avrahm.
ReplyDeleteChaim B.( 7:46 AM): Part I. Firstly, I don't think the fact that the derash starts Shlach means anything. The midrash preceding this one speaks about Kalev's response to the meraglim, which is obviously later in the parsha. The Midrash is associated with the theme of the story, not the specific pasuk.
ReplyDeleteMidrash Tanchuma, Parashat Shelach 13:3:
שלח לך אנשים
רבי אחא הגדול פתח:
יבש חציר נבל ציץ, ודבר אלהינו יקום לעולם (ישע' מ ח).
משל למה הדבר דומה?
למלך שהיה לו אוהב, והתנה עמו ואומר לו: בא ולך עמי ואני נותן לך מתנה.
הלך עמו ומת.
אמר המלך לבנו של אוהבו: אף על פי שמת אביך, איני חוזר בי במתנה שאמרתי ליתן לו, בוא וטול אותה.
המלך, זה מלך מלכי המלכים הקדוש ברוך הוא.
אוהב, זה אברהם, שנאמר: זרע אברהם אוהבי (שם מא ח).
אמר לו הקדוש ברוך הוא: בוא לך עמי, שנאמר: לך לך מארצך וגו' (ברא' יב א). התנה עמו שהוא נותן לו במתנה את ארץ כנען, שנאמר: קום התהלך בארץ וגו' (שםיג יז).
וכן הוא אומר: כי את כל הארץ וגו' (שם שם טו).
מת אברהם ויצחק ויעקב. אמר לו הקדוש ברוך הוא למשה: אף על פי שמתו האבות, התניתי עימהן ליתן להם את הארץ, איני חוזר בי, אלא שלח לך אנשים. הוי, ודבר אלהינו יקום לעולם
If you accept the equivalence of the Midrash Tanchuma here to the Bamidbar Raba you brought, then the words I highlighted show that the Drash refers to haShem saying to Mosheh "Shelach Lecha Anashim" which happens before the Meraglim had a chance to lose the "little bit of Avraham Avinu that lives on inside each and every one of us", as I said( in part I).
Even if they're not equivalent: if haShem was giving the land to them in spite of the the losing of the Avraham within( in Parashat haMeraglim), why was that generation forbidden to enter the land, left to die in the desert ?
>>>if haShem was giving the land to them in spite of the the losing of the Avraham within( in Parashat haMeraglim), why was that generation forbidden to enter the land, left to die in the desert ?
ReplyDeleteThere is a difference between the nation retaining an entitlement to the land (with no promise of which dor gets it) and a specific dor being worthy of cashing in on that promise.
Without getting involved in the Midrash, you can ask m'mah nafshach: if it was the proper time for the promise to Avraham of 'dor revi'i yashuvu' to be fulfilled, why the 40 year delay; if it wasn't yet the time for the promise to be fulfilled, then what was the hava amina to enter eretz yisrael right away? See Chasam Sofer who discusses.
Chaim B.( 9:27 AM): There is a difference between the nation retaining an entitlement to the land (with no promise of which dor gets it) and a specific dor being worthy of cashing in on that promise.
ReplyDeleteSo what do you mean to say: that, in the Midrash, haShem told Moshe that this generation( that left Misrayim) lost their "entitlement to the land", that they would have had on account of "little bit of Avraham Avinu that lives on inside each and every one of us"( which they lost), retained their "entitlement" through haShem giving it( the "entitlement") to them anyway, but still are prevented from "cashing in on that promise" ?
Where does the "Bo veTol Atah(בוא וטול אתה)", that is explicit in the Mashal and implicit in the Nimshal, fit in to this explanation ?
Chaim B.( ibid.): Without getting involved in the Midrash, you can ask m'mah nafshach: ...
I don't understand what this question has to do with the subject of discussion: I understand that the Midrash( through the Shem miShmu'el's interpretation you brought) is assuming that those who lost their "little piece of Avraham within" were to have received the land hadn't it "died", because for them it was promised.
Had the land not been promised to be given( specifically) to them, what would their having lost the "little piece of Avraham within" signify ?
Chaim B.( ibid.): if it was the proper time for the promise to Avraham of 'dor revi'i yashuvu' to be fulfilled, why the 40 year delay; if it wasn't yet the time for the promise to be fulfilled, then what was the hava amina to enter eretz yisrael right away?
Why does it have to be the Dor Revi'i that arrives back in the land ?
As long as the Dor Revi'i are those who leave Misrayim, what does it matter, for the fulfillment of the promise, whether they or their decedents are those who arrive ?
The Pasuq says 'Yashuvu', not 'Yagi'u'.
Chaim B.( ibid.): See Chasam Sofer who discusses.
Where ?
( or, conversely)
What does he say ?