Tuesday, November 07, 2023

lessons from Avraham's treaty with Avimelech

The Torah introduces the parsha of the treaty between Avraham and Avimelech by telling us (21:22) that it happened "בָּעֵת הַהִוא," at that specific moment in time, implying that there was some prior string of events that led to this moment being ripe for what unfolded:

 וַיְהִי בָּעֵת הַהִוא וַיֹּאמֶר אֲבִימֶלֶךְ וּפִיכֹל שַׂר צְבָאוֹ אֶל אַבְרָהָם לֵאמֹר אֱלֹקים עִמְּךָ בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה עֹשֶׂה.

What the Torah does not tell us is what specifically made this THE moment.  I'm actually surprised Rashi does not tackle this question.  Two of the many answers meforshim give I think are relevant to inyana d'yoma.

Meshech Chochma writes:

הוא כי אברהם היה נעלה בהצלחתו ברצות ה׳ דרכיו וחסדו היה גדול לרחוק ולקרוב לבלי קץ, ואמנם כעת אשר ראו אכזריות גדולה מאברהם לשלוח שוכבת חיקו עם בנו הבכור אל המדבר עם חמת מים ולחם, אז פחדו ממנו שכיניו אולי בחרות אפו בם ינקום נקמתו, ועשו עצות בנפשם להקדים רפואה ולכרות עמו ברית וזה שאמר ויהי בעת ההיא ויאמר.

It was not Avraham the man of chessed that caused Avimelech to beg for a treaty, but rather it was Avraham the man who showed toughness in expelling his own son, Yishmael, out of the house, that caused Avimelech to ask for peace.  "If that's what Avraham did to Yishmael, imagine what he would do if he had a run in with us?" they thought.

Peace comes not from conciliatory gestures, but comes when we show strength.

The Midrash offers a somewhat different answer.  

 וְאִלּוּ הָיָה צַדִּיק לֹא הָיָה דוֹחֶה אֶת בְּנוֹ בְּכוֹרוֹ, כֵּיוָן שֶׁרָאוּ אֶת מַעֲשָׂיו, אָמְרוּ לוֹ אֱלֹהִים עִמְּךָ בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה עֹשֶׂה.

Seeing Yishmael banished, Avimelech and the UN, the world press, and other such clowns immediately accused Avraham of wanton cruelty.  Is this the behavior of someone who is a tzadik?

In this case, Avimelech at least came to his senses.  כֵּיוָן שֶׁרָאוּ אֶת מַעֲשָׂיו when he saw how Yishmael behaved, he realized that Avraham was in the right.  Yishmael was just a force of destruction.  

For some people, maybe, and it is a longshot, the behavior of Hamas, the behavior of people pulling down posters of kidnapped children, the behavior of campus radicals, etc. will finally open their eyes.  

2) Back in 2011 I called Obama, y'mach shemo, a disaster, and since then I am only more convinced that he is perhaps the worst president in US history.  He recently gave one of his usual say-nothing speeches where he tried to spread the blame for Hamas' massacre across the board.  We all make mistakes... blah, blah, blah. Leil Lebovitz, editor of Tablet, had a wonderful response, worth reading in full, but here are the highlights:

Nah, man. Not all of us are complicit. It's just you.

It's you, because you're the one who gave that stentorian speech about red lines in Syria and then sat by and did nothing as those red lines were crossed and Assad continued to slaughter his own people, allowing the Iranians and the Russians to creep in and fill the vacuum left by your devastating lack of leadership.

It's you, because you're the one who came up with the idea of empowering Iran, the world's premiere exporter of terrorism, Holocaust denial, and chaos, all the while telling the American people you were merely trying to stop Teheran from getting a nuclear bomb. Billions of dollars and thousands of dead later, we can all see how well this idea—which you, with the eloquence only a professor could muster, called "regional integration"—is working.

It's you, because you're the one who delivered a parting gift to the region, ending your final term as president by reversing four decades of American bipartisan support of Israel and abstaining from a U.N. vote condemning Israeli settlements, while funneling $400 million in annual payments to the despotic Palestinian Authority, which then promptly used this money to fund its pay-for-slay program, doling out large cash payments to any Palestinian who murdered Jews.

So, please, Mr. President: Spare us your opinions.   

6 comments:

  1. As you say, Obama's disgusting words exemplify the disease infecting both academia and black Americans. Dershowitz, an erstwhile friend of his, also made clear his burning anger. https://rumble.com/v3uauis-barak-obama-compares-hamas-rapes-and-beheadings-to-israels-non-occupation-o.html?start=1222

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The problem with Dershowitz is that he is a slow learner. In 2008 he endorsed Obama and claimed that he would be as good for Israel as any Republican. In 2011 I highlighted Dershowitz's misgivings, as Obama's anti-Israel animus was becoming more apparent. It still wasn't enough to completely open his eyes, since despite his reservations, he went on to endorse Obama in 2012, opining that, "Obama will be better for Israel on Iran…” Fast forward to 2015 when I quoted some of Dershowitz op-ed pieces in which he claimed Obama misled the American people. That may be so, but one as supposedly intelligent as Dershowitz should not have been the naive sucker who fell for it. Obama has always been Obama, just the shtick has worn thin and he is not able to hoodwink as many people as easily as before.

      Delete
  2. Regarding avimelech and the Meshechochma, why would avimelech see what he did to Yishmael and not the 5 kings??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You can't compare being cruel to other to being cruel to one's own flesh and blood

      Delete
  3. I'm glad you've noticed Liel Leibowitz. He is endlessly fascinating and a pleasure to read. He has his own personal odyssey as well, which I know of because I used to listen to their podcasts on Unorthodox and follow them on Facebook. (I don't follow them on Facebook any more because there was too much gustatory Judaism and the like going on there.) And who do you know has a father like his? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronnie_Leibowitz

    ReplyDelete
  4. I am not sure that treaty has been good to us in the long run. Avraham avinu makes a peace treaty with the Melekh Pelishtim, and then... Sheivet Shim'on fails to conquer their land (see, e.g. Yehoshu 19), and end up living among Yehudah. Although the pasuq says that was best for Shim'on anyway. And Dan ends up taking a second territory north of the Kineret when they fail to conquer the southern part of their territory -- which was also taken from Eretz Pelishtim. Of all of the land promised to Avraham, we had sovereignty over Azza the least -- from 1976 CE to 2005, and possibly again soon.

    But it seems to me that treaty had more power than Avraham realized...

    ReplyDelete