After Sarah was returned to Avraham and Pharoah gave him all kinds of gifts, the Torah tells us (Braishis 13:1) that Avraham left Egypt to journey back to Canaan with his wife and all his possessions. Ramban comments that the Torah specifically emphasizes the fact that Avraham took his possessions with him to show that nothing was stolen from him; no one falsely claimed that Avraham got Pharoah's gifts through trickery; no one falsely claimed the gifts were given in error. Adds the Ramban, "This is a miraculous event."
Let's put this in context: Pharoah had tried to take Sarah to be his wife. As a result not only was he personally punished, but every member of his household suffered as well. It was only the return of Sarah and Avraham's prayers and forgiveness which earned Pharoah a reprieve. Do you think Pharoah or any member of his household would dare start up with Avraham under those circumstances? There were open miracles occurring on behalf of the man to ensure his protection!
What we see from this episode (see Michtav m'Eliyahu vol. 5) is that the recognition of the miraculous is no less a miracle than the miraculous occurrence itself. The reason why is simple: We see reality through the lens of our own biases and preconceived notions. It's not like BOOM, G-d does a miracle and people stand their agape and are awakened from their slumber. Instead, what happens is BOOM -- G-d does a miracle and people stand around saying maybe that BOOM is a jet plane? Maybe it's due to solar spots? Maybe we just imagined it? etc. Even the most flimsy reed of a teirutz is better than changing one's view of reality. Therefore, it was indeed a miracle that Pharoah and his country overcame all the teirutzim and recognized that indeed a miracle had taken place, and they behaved accordingly viz a viz Avraham.
We're far more theologically sophisticated than Pharoah, so we in our time can witness miracles and chalk it up to the sitra achara, we can convince ourselves that we don't have time to think about miracles because talmud torah is even doche binyan beis hamikdash (but strangely it seems to not be doche watching the superbowl or world series), etc. I don't need to belabor the musar haskel point relevant for inyana d'yoma.
"Chizkiyahu she'asisa lo kol ha'nisim ha'lalu v'lo amar shira lifanecha....?!" (Sanhedrin 94)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
" ... no one falsely claimed that Avraham got Pharoah's gifts through trickery; no one falsely claimed the gifts were given in error".
ReplyDeleteWhy would those claims be false ?
" ... and Avraham's prayers and forgiveness which earned Pharoah a reprieve".
How do you know Avraham prayed for Par'oh ?
As far as I know, only regarding Avimelekh does it say that Avraham prayed for him( Bereshit 20:17), and the case there was somewhat different from this one.
Regarding Inyana deYoma:
Personally, I don't think that the problem is one of not recognizing the miracle( at least in the sense of 'a highly improbable occurrence') that has taken place, but rather, is one of it not fitting how people believe events should have unfolded, and what the result should have been.
Without belaboring the relevance to inyana d'yoma, I'm not qualified to pasken more than elementary questions in either Eiruvin or Taharas hamishpacha. I have the good sense to know when and to whom to defer.
ReplyDeleteRelying on the psak of gedolim may not be the ultimate defense. But it's the only game in town.
If miracles are designed to get our positive attention (what else might they they be for?), isn't it likely that we are designed to detect miracles? Being able to receive the signals doesn't always stop us from ignoring them or explaining them away or putting them into some other category of phenomenon. Also, some people perceive non-miracles (e.g., the Mets' World Series victory in 1969) as miracles.
ReplyDelete(having been quietly confronted,
ReplyDeleteafter turning off the pc, by the
mishna's simple phrase, "shomeiah
OOmoseef"...)
>>> "Why would those claims be false?"
--because to deal crookedly with
the crooked is to play straight
(Shmuel2 22:27);
--because of words found a few
pesukim before those cited, in
20:12, as to "sister"(&Rashi there)
>>>Why would those claims be false
ReplyDeleteAre you suggesting Avraham Avinu was guilty of trickery??
>>>Relying on the psak of gedolim may not be the ultimate defense. But it's the only game in town.
So how do you choose whether to follow the teachings of the Satmar Rebbe, Rav Kook, RYBS, or R' Elchanan, all of which qualify as gedolim in my book, yet each of which had something very different to say about the relationship between modern zionism and Torah?
Do you mean that so long as you can find some shita from someone important to hang your hat on you are exempt from any din v'cheshbon after that?
To be honest I don't know where you draw the line between personal responsibility and deference to the authority, but don't you think there has to be elements of both in play?
>>>If miracles are designed to get our positive attention
The thwarting of Bilam and Balak's evil plan was miraculous. No one in Bnei Yisrael would have known about it had Moshe not revealed it as part of Torah.
עשה לך רב. Everyone's got to have a poseik to whom he defers in questions that he's not qualified to answer- especially when it comes to emotional issues like this, when it is so very hard to make a decision that is not post facto rationalization of an emotional response.
ReplyDelete"The thwarting of Bilam and Balak's evil plan was miraculous. No one in Bnei Yisrael would have known about it had Moshe not revealed it as part of Torah.'
ReplyDeleteAn essential part of the miracle was that its occurrence was communicated via prophecy to Moshe Rabbeinu.
( As my first try got lost somehow, I'll try again:)
ReplyDeleteAnonymous: "--because to deal crookedly with
the crooked is to play straight
(Shmuel2 22:27)";
Except for maybe the Mesudat Siyon, which parallels it with 'Iqesh, I haven't seen Titapal( or it's Tehilim 18:27 equivalent: Titpatal) given as "deal crookedly"( I've seen it translated as: "show yourself subtle", "... froward", "... shrewd", etc.). Also, the two places in the Talmud( Baba Batra 123a and Megilah 13b), that bring the Pasuq, it is to justify Ya'aqov 'Avinu acting cunningly with Lavan haRasha', but to the best of my knowledge, he never dealt crookedly with Lavan( especially not in the incident brought in those Talmudic passages).
Anonymous: "--because of words found a few
pesukim before those cited, in
20:12, as to "sister"(&Rashi there)"
I'm not sure what you're getting at.
chaim b.: "Are you suggesting Avraham Avinu was guilty of trickery""??
ReplyDeleteSo, what do you call him leading the Egyptians to believe Sarah wasn't his wife, and receiving gifts for her being taken into Pharaoh's house ?
Regarding Avraham Avinu being beyond reproach( which you seem to infer in your question), here's what Ramban had to say about him( in his commentary to 12:10):
ודע כי אברהם אבינו חטא חטא גדול בשגגה שהביא אשתו הצדקת במכשול עוון מפני פחדו פן יהרגוהו, והיה לו לבטוח בשם שיציל אותו ואת אשתו ואת כל אשר לו, כי יש באלוהים כוח לעזור ולהציל. גם יציאתו מן הארץ, שנצטווה עליה בתחילה, מפני הרעב, עוון אשר חטא, כי האלוהים ברעב יפדנו ממות. ועל המעשה הזה נגזר על זרעו הגלות בארץ מצרים ביד פרעה. במקום המשפט שמה הרשע והחטא