OK, week three, Parshah Lech L’cha, Genesis 12:1 � 17:27.
First of all, Lech L’cha, translated get thee out, is described by no less a sage than Tevye the Dairyman as the fundamental story of the Jews throughout history. Don’t get comfortable, he tells us, sooner or later the Lord tells us Get Thee Out. It’s a distressing idea, particularly when the getting out is so often done by running from an angry mob. The midrash adds an angry mob to this original Lech L’cha story, which when you think of it is even more distressing. So. On with the questions, the Moments of Decision, the counterfactuals. A juicy parshah, I think.
First of all, of course, in 12:1-4, the Lord tells Abraham (still called Avram, but it’ll be easier to refer to people by their best-known aliases, right?) to leave his country, his kin and his father. Why does he do it? Is it for the sake of the promise to make his name great and have his enemies cursed? Is it because he thinks the Lord is the true Lord, and the idols of his father just clay? That’s the midrash, but there’s no sign of it in the text. And unlike Noah, there’s no sign that Abraham is particularly favored in the eye of the Lord before he accepts the Lech L’cha bargain; would the Lord have moved on to someone else if Abraham had passed? Would declining be a Bad Thing, ethically or morally?
Again in Chapter 17 the Lord offers riches, children, and land in exchange for circumcision (and presumably obedience, but that isn’t mentioned in the text). In this case, the translations all use ‘will’ or ‘shall’ (or ‘shalt’); there is no if-then, not even the do-this-and-I-will-do-that language of chapter 12. Does he still have a choice?
What if Lot had chosen Palestine in 13:9-11, rather than going to live in the plain, when Abraham offered? Is Palestine holy because it was given to Abraham (and therefore any other land given to him instead would have been Holy Land), or was Abraham maneuvered into it because it was inherently holy? If the first, would the Law have been different if the culture had grown up in a more fertile land, or a landlocked one, or one further away from the Roman borders (in either direction)?
I suppose in the War of the Nine Kings (chapter 14), it seems as if Abraham has a chance to be a political macher, and chooses not to. What if he had? What if in 14:21-24 he takes the goods and runs?
When Sarah tells Abraham to sleep with Hagar in 16:1-4, should he not have done it? He hearkens to her (sh’ma) but let me tell you, if a wife tells you to sleep with the help, I’d be real cautious. What happens if Abraham says “Let’s adopt.” Do we have a less genetically obsessed Bible? This is, by the way, out of 15:3-4 where Abraham whines about not having fruit of his loins, and the Lord reassures him. Surely, Abraham could have, at some point, reconciled himself to childlessness and chosen either a student or a nephew as his heir.
And does Hagar even get a choice?
OK, that’s enough to be getting on with. Do y’all think one of these is better than another for discussion? Or do you have another idea? I have until Saturday, although I’d like to make a decision before getting to shul...
,
-Vardibidian.