At the beginning of this week’s parasha, Lech Lecha, Avram – on the command of Hashem – picks up and moves to Canaan. After his arrival, the land experiences a severe famine. Avram decides to travel with his wife, Sarai, to the land of Egypt in search of food.
Knowing Egypt’s reputation as a decadent and corrupt society, Avram plans a ruse with Sarai – Avram and Sarai will present themselves as brother and sister as opposed to husband and wife. Should a powerful Egyptian take an interest in Sarai, Avram would be seen as a facilitator instead of a rival. Once in Egypt, Avram’s concern came to fruition and Sarai is noticed for her beauty. Sarai is taken to Paroh. Sarai escapes the clutches of Paroh unscathed only by the grace of Hashem’s Providence.
Our mefarshim debate the appropriateness of Avram’s decision to go to Egypt in search of food. The Ramban, Nachmanides, argues that because Avram knew how morally decrepit Egyptian society was at that time, he should never have left Canaan and been forced to create a ruse with Sarai. Nachmanides criticizes Avram and maintains that he sinned, albeit inadvertently.
The Ralbag, Gershonides, argues with Nachmanides and maintains that Avram acted appropriately. He reinforces his position by making recourse to a general principle in decision making. Gershonides explains that whenever a person sees imminently approaching harm, he or she should quickly evaluate whether there are ways to mitigate the harm and choose those avenues. Gershonides emphasizes that a person should act with great alacrity in working to mitigate harm – to not be negligent and lazy. Gershonides argues that by going to Egypt to escape the famine, Avram was acting with great diligence and that he was therefore blameless.
On the surface, Ralbag’s point of emphasis seems obvious. Choose the path of less harm. However, we often see in our own experiences and in our own lives that people often do not act with the forethought that Ralbag describes and that is characterized by Avram’s choice to go to Egypt. What dissuades people from acting with alacrity in these critical moments?
The Torah and Midrash characterizes Avram as a decisive man and a man of action. Avram broke the idols of his father, Terach, when he saw the truth of monotheism. On Hashem’s command, Avram left his birthplace and moved to a land unknown to him. Later in his life, Avraham left on a mission to sacrifice his son, Isaac, with great alacrity. Avram believed in the truth of ideas and in the truth of a predictable future that has yet to have arrived.
People are often constrained by what they see in front of them – the way that things are today will be the way that they will be tomorrow. I often notice this when it comes to travelling. I often imagine that the place that I am going to will have the same weather as the place that I am currently in. To prepare for the new reality of the city that I am travelling to requires belief in a reality that I am not currently experiencing.
One reason why people fail to act with alacrity in the face of impending harm is because they are over-attached to the reality that they experience with their five senses, and, in some way, diminish the reality of the impending harm. They do not try to mitigate harm because they do not truly believe that harm will ultimately arrive. By travelling to Egypt to escape the famine, Avram models the importance of validating and acting on knowledge of a truth that is beyond the ken of one’s five senses.
Let us learn from Avram’s example to validate the truths that we know – even when they are beyond the scope of our current situation – through planning and resolute action.
Knowing Egypt’s reputation as a decadent and corrupt society, Avram plans a ruse with Sarai – Avram and Sarai will present themselves as brother and sister as opposed to husband and wife. Should a powerful Egyptian take an interest in Sarai, Avram would be seen as a facilitator instead of a rival. Once in Egypt, Avram’s concern came to fruition and Sarai is noticed for her beauty. Sarai is taken to Paroh. Sarai escapes the clutches of Paroh unscathed only by the grace of Hashem’s Providence.
Our mefarshim debate the appropriateness of Avram’s decision to go to Egypt in search of food. The Ramban, Nachmanides, argues that because Avram knew how morally decrepit Egyptian society was at that time, he should never have left Canaan and been forced to create a ruse with Sarai. Nachmanides criticizes Avram and maintains that he sinned, albeit inadvertently.
The Ralbag, Gershonides, argues with Nachmanides and maintains that Avram acted appropriately. He reinforces his position by making recourse to a general principle in decision making. Gershonides explains that whenever a person sees imminently approaching harm, he or she should quickly evaluate whether there are ways to mitigate the harm and choose those avenues. Gershonides emphasizes that a person should act with great alacrity in working to mitigate harm – to not be negligent and lazy. Gershonides argues that by going to Egypt to escape the famine, Avram was acting with great diligence and that he was therefore blameless.
On the surface, Ralbag’s point of emphasis seems obvious. Choose the path of less harm. However, we often see in our own experiences and in our own lives that people often do not act with the forethought that Ralbag describes and that is characterized by Avram’s choice to go to Egypt. What dissuades people from acting with alacrity in these critical moments?
The Torah and Midrash characterizes Avram as a decisive man and a man of action. Avram broke the idols of his father, Terach, when he saw the truth of monotheism. On Hashem’s command, Avram left his birthplace and moved to a land unknown to him. Later in his life, Avraham left on a mission to sacrifice his son, Isaac, with great alacrity. Avram believed in the truth of ideas and in the truth of a predictable future that has yet to have arrived.
People are often constrained by what they see in front of them – the way that things are today will be the way that they will be tomorrow. I often notice this when it comes to travelling. I often imagine that the place that I am going to will have the same weather as the place that I am currently in. To prepare for the new reality of the city that I am travelling to requires belief in a reality that I am not currently experiencing.
One reason why people fail to act with alacrity in the face of impending harm is because they are over-attached to the reality that they experience with their five senses, and, in some way, diminish the reality of the impending harm. They do not try to mitigate harm because they do not truly believe that harm will ultimately arrive. By travelling to Egypt to escape the famine, Avram models the importance of validating and acting on knowledge of a truth that is beyond the ken of one’s five senses.
Let us learn from Avram’s example to validate the truths that we know – even when they are beyond the scope of our current situation – through planning and resolute action.
Comments
Post a Comment