Why Did Avraham Call Sara His Sister To Avimelech?

In this week's parsha after G-D destroys Sdom but before the Akeida, we have the incident where Avraham and Sarah go to the land of Avimelech. There are some similarities here to the happenstance of when Avraham and Sarah went to Egypt, but by in large there are differences. First off, why would Avraham tell everyone that Sara is his sister here? The Ramban points out that by Egypt Avraham had to tell everyone Sarah was his sister because it was a very corrupt society, but by Avimelech's kingdom there was justness and fairness like we see from how Avimelech treats Avraham after this incident and invites him to stay in his land. This is in contrast to Egypt where Avraham was kicked out once they found out Sara was his wife. Also, the Ramban points out that even if Avraham was afraid that Avimelech would steal his wife, she was now almost a hundred years old so how could Avimelech be interested in her?


I can't find any meforshim that explain this first question, but I would like to incorporate one of my own ideas to answer this question. The Ramban says that the only reason that Avraham decided to tell Avimelech that Sarah was his sister was because Avraham was worried that Avimelech was like Pharo. It is Interesting that Avraham would not be dan likaf zechus, give Avimelech the benefit of the doubt. Maybe we can all learn a valuable lesson from this incident. Avraham knew that Pharo, a powerful man, abused his power and therefore Avraham had to protect himself from being killed. This is why Sara went along with Avraham's plan and told everyone she was his sister. However, over by Avimelech we see that Avraham was telling people that Sarah was his sister and Sara would not be the one to say it. Maybe, just maybe, this can teach us that we should not judge all people that are in the same position in the same way. True Pharo abused his power, but Avimelech was a righteous king (Ramban's words not mine). The idea of giving people the benefit of the doubt seems important and very necessary over here since Avimelech was almost killed because it was not given. This could be why Sara would not tell anyone that she was Avraham's sister and it was Avraham that had to say that she was his sister.

The answer to Sara's desirability can be answered in one of two ways. One is that just like Rashi says in the beginning of parshas Chayei Sara that when she was a hundred she was as beautiful as twenty so we see that her beauty never waned. Or you could say that since Avraham was a powerful man and rich, by Avimelech stealing his wife it would have been a power play on Avimelech's part to show his superiority. If we look at the second possibility then, for Avraham, his concern is very legitimate, but if the beauty that avimelech desired was superficial then we have our previous question.

What Friends Are For

This week's parsha of lech licha is the description of Avraham's life before Yitzchak. During this period there was a war between 5 kings, which included the king of Sdom, and the four kings. Now, when the five kings rebelled against the four kings the four kings came and defeated the five kings and took many captives including Lot, Avrahams nephew, who was living in Sdom. When a messanger came to inform Avraham the pasuk says that Avraham was dwelling in the plains of Mamrei with his friends Aner and Eshkol and the Meforshim tell us that Mamrei was there also since it was his property. However, at the begining of next weeks parsha, Vayereh, it says that Avraham was dwelling in the plains of Mamrei, but there is no longer mention of Aner and Eshkol, so what happened to these friends of Avraham? Also, the pasuk later tels us that Aner, Eshkol and Mamrei went to war with Avraham and were included in the dividing up of the booty that was captured from the five kings, so where were Aner and Eshkol now?

This can teach us a valuable lesson about friends. What happened between next week's parsha that mentions the plains of Mamrei and the war with the four kings? The commandment from G-D to Avraham of bris mila was what happened. The Midrash Tanchuma points out that Aner and Eshkol both told Avraham not to listen to G-D and that fulfilling the Mitzvah of bris mila was bad. However, Mamrei told Avraham to follow the words of G-D. In truth, Avraham was going to follow the words of G-D no matter what, but he wanted to test his friends to see if they were really righteous. He found out that only Mamrei really believed in G-D, but Aner and Eshkol were lacking in their faith in G-D. Therefore, Avraham continued to be friends with Mamrei, but Aner and Eshkol he distanced himself from.

We can learn a very valuable idea about friendship from this idea in the Midrash Tanchuma. Friends should be people who help you in your service of G-D not someone who makes you doubt your service of G-D. A friend is someone who will always point you in the right direction and that is the person with whom one should stay close to, like Avraham and Mamrei. However, A friend that takes you away from G-D, one should distance himself from this type of person and this is why Aner and Eshkol are not mentioned after bris mila.

This is not to say that someone should not be friends with non-religious or even non-Jewish people. However, if your friends are dragging you away from your service of G-D then you should be very careful with them. Avraham knew that Aner and Eshkol would have a major affect on him if he stayed with them. This would be detrimental to Avraham's budding relationship with G-D and therefore he chose, with heartache, to remove himself from this tough situation.

Ten Generations from Adam To Noach

There were ten generations from Adam until Noah and then the great flood occurred. The Bible points out a main figure of every generation. The main figures were Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mehalalel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, and Noah. All of these men were father and son. However, these were not the only people that existed between Adam and Noah, but they are the only ones explicitly mentioned for the generations between Noah and Adam. Were these men stated just as place holders or was there a greater reason why G-D specifically chose these men and their lineage?

It is interesting to note that by all of these characters the Bible mentions that they all had sons and daughters, but does not name any of them other than these ten. This leads me to believe that only the ten that were stated straight out in the Bible worshipped G-D and the rest either did not believe He was all powerful or believed in other gods. I say this because by the punishment of Cain the Bible says that Cain left the presence of G-D. How can one leave the presence of G-D, is He not all powerful and all encompassing? The pasuk means to say that Cain thought that He left the presence of G-D and by thinking this revealed that He did not believe in G-D's ultimate power.

The Bible then describes the descendants of Cain and these descendants lead to Cain's eventual punishment. It says in the Bible that Cain had a son Enoch, this is not the same Enoch mentioned in the ten generations between Adam and Noah. This Enoch then begot Irad, Irad begot Mehujael, Mehujael Begot Methushael, and Methushael begot Lamech. Lamech is the one who ultimately kills Cain, however, by mistake. Lamech had a son named Jabal, the first shepard, and the name of his brother was Jubal, the first being to play an instrument for music. The final descendant of Cain to achieve anything of worth is Tubal-cain, the first one to make tools. We see from this that the only people mentioned in the Bible are people who make important contributions to society.

In light of this we can look back at who the ten people mentioned are that make the chain from Adam to Noah. These ten people were the righteous people that lived in their generations. While everyone else ignored G-D these ten people were always looking for ways to please G-D and connect with Him. Eventually, all other people in the world, other than Noah and his family, stopped believing in G-D and the morals that He designed the world to operate with. This is why G-D had to bring the flood about, the world had become so corrupt that the Bible says even the ruling bodies of the world would sleep with whoever they chose. G-D saw that man had become a debased creature that just followed every despicable desire and lust that came to his heart. Man no longer cared for G-D, rather he desired idols and licentiousness.

The Tower of Babel, Who Else Talks ABout It?

The Bible discusses the Tower of Babel. Did this event actually take place? Well according to historians and archaeologists it did. For instance, Abydenus (a Greek historian of the mid-fourth century B.C.), as quoted by Eusebius, spoke of a great tower in Babylon which was destroyed. The record notes: “[U]ntil this time all men had used the same speech, but now there was sent upon them a confusion of many and diverse tongues” (quoted in Rawlinson 1873, 28). However, since he did not live at the time when the tower of Babel would have stood maybe he was wrong.

In his book, Chaldean Account of Genesis (1880), George Smith of the British Museum—the scholar who translated the Babylonian flood account—published a fragment which is certainly reminiscent of the Bibles record. The inscription tells of an ancient tower. “The building of this temple offended the gods. In a night they threw down what had been built. They scattered them abroad, and made strange their speech. The progress they impeded” (1880, 29).

From an archaeological standpoint the precise site of the ancient tower of Babel is a matter of uncertainty, for there are possibilities among the remnants of several ruins in the region. Many, following Jewish and Arab traditions, locate the tower ruins at Borsippa (the “Tongue Tower”), about eleven miles southwest of the northern portion of Babylon. Others identify the site with Etemen-an-ki (“the temple of the foundation of heaven and earth”), which is located in the southern sector of the city near the right bank of the Euphrates river.

It is my opinion that the Tower of babel did in fact exist. However, if one reads the text closely it was not only a tower that they were building, but an entire city. Babel is one of the most ancient of all cities and it stands to reason that, just like the ancient Egyptians had pyramids, that the babylonians built towers as well. I mean, most ancient civilizations built towers. The Egyptians built their pyramids, the Incas and the Aztecs built their pyramids and the Chinese and Hindus had their temples of worship on top of mountains. Therefore, I would say, whether you think they believed in G-D or not it seems logical that a tower was built.

Parshas Noach, The Mabul

Here are a few posts that you should read in this order if you are curious about how Noach's flood could have happened and coincide with science.

Intro

First part of the flood story with my commentary.

Second part of the flood story with my commentary.

Cain and Able- What was the problem

In the story of Cain and Able, the first children of Adam and Eve, the brothers both offer sacrifices to to G-D. Cain, a man of the land, offers G-D his leftover grains, whereas Able, a Shepard, offers G-D his most choice animal. It is interesting to note that Cain offers G-D his leftover food, but Able, unable to eat meat since it was still forbidden to man at the time, offers G-D the animal that he makes clothes from. Able does not assume that G-D requires food, but rather a symbolic sacrifice, whereas Cain assumes that G-D wants his leftover food. G-D, in turn, accepts Able's sacrifice, but not Cain's. G-D's favoritism to Able's sacrifice causes Cain to lash out and kill Able.

There are a couple questions to ask about this story: why was it that G-D accepted Able's sacrifice and not Cains and was Cain really at fault for killing his brother? The reason G-D accepted Able's sacrifice and not Cain's is because Able understood the true essence of G-D and what the point of a sacrifice is all about. A sacrifice is supposed to be something that brings one close to G-D and by sacrificing the best animal he had, Able was showing G-D that he cares about G-D more than himself. However, Cain thought a sacrifice is supposed to be like tribute that one would give to a foreign king that controls you. Cain was not interested in becoming close to G-D, but rather paying Him off and that is why he gave G-D his leftover food. This is why G-D accepted Able's sacrifice and not Cain's, because Able understood what G-D is, whereas Cain did not.

This brings us to the next question, was Cain at fault for killing Able? Think about it, Cain did not know that death was possible, no one had ever died in the world before and therefore did not realize what he was doing would kill him. This might also be why Cain was not killed himself, but rather just condemned to wander the world as a nomad. The truth is that Cain knew that to strike his brother was wicked and therefore he was exiled, but he did not realize the severity of his actions. Cain knew that striking a fellow human being was wicked since the idea of morals did exist because of Adam and Eve eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, but Cain did not know about death. Cain acted wickedly and was punished for this, but since he did not know about death could not be punished by death.

Creation According to Ralbag

I will start this topic off with a quote from the Ralbag in his famous book "The Wars of the Lord." He says, "It is necessary that we explain the terms that the Torah uses in its discussion of creation before we explain the account of creation itself, for the understanding of the terms necessarily precedes the understanding of the full sentences."

I think this is often how people think that science contradicts the Bible. I mean, is it possible since G-D can do anything that science is entirely wrong? Yeah, I think it is possible, but why would G-D do that? Why wouldn't He just follow the laws of nature to create everything? What was the point of creating nature if He wasn't going to follow it as much as possible? This is the Ralbag's idea, that whenever possible we try to describe the events in the Bible as natural occurrences.

1)The Ralbag says that the term "earth" (eretz in hebrew) is equivocal. Meaning that it does not have just one simple meaning of the planet Earth. (I believe this is how the Rambam understands it as well)

2) The phrases of Tohu Ubohu (Unformed and void) means something much deeper than astonishingly empty. The Ralbag says that Tohu means the final form. He brings a description why, but for our purposes that is unimportant. What is important is what does "final form" mean. The way it seems to be described is similar to the form of a chair that a craftsman is making, before he even starts making it. Meaning, it is the thought before any act of creation. Just like a man who wants to make something first has to figure out what it is going to look like, that is what Tohu means, the form that a thought provides for an actual physical creation.

Bohu is the first physical matter of any creation. The Ralbag uses this description because the Universe was full of eternally existent matter. It was full of chaos and disorder before creation began and this is why the Ralbag explains Tohu and Bohu this way, because G-D eternally exists, providing the Tohu (The thought of how creation should be) and Bohu eternally exists (The physical matter). This is the Ralbag's idea and if you want to understand it further just ask me to explain more deeply. He holds of the idea that creation was the creation of something from something.

3)Also, the terms of "light" and "dark" are equivocal. The Ralbag brings several quotes throughout the Bible to prove this point.

4) The Term Ruach is also equivocal. He brings many pasukim to prove this point.

5) The term Rakia refers to anything that is beaten or flattened out, but sill retains its form. In our instance it looks like Rakia refers to the heavenly body.

6) The Ralbag also says that anything that does not remain in one state is referred to as water.

7) The Ralbag says, "The generation of the Universe by G-D occurred in no time. This is why our Rabbis maintain that the heavens and the earth were created simultaneously... It is therefore evident that the description of the creation as being completed in six days is not to be construed as implying that the first day precedes the second, for example, by one [whole] day [ie twenty four hour period]. Rather, they said, this is in order to show the priority amongst various created things...Now, the elements are prior to that which is generated from them according to material priority, and the compounds of the elements are also related to each other by this kind of priority. For example, the plant is prior to the animal.

8) An amazing idea here in the Ralbag is that G-D actually created the luminaries (the sun and moon) on the first day, but their relationship to the Earth was not solidified until the fourth day. Also, according to the Ralbag, "whatever can be generated naturally according to the natur given to it by G-D is such that its creation is not attributed directly to G-D in the marvelous account of creation; for He produces such things through nature. Hence, the generation of plants and animal through putrefaction and from species other than their own[ie hybrids] is not attributable to G-D."

The truth is that the Ralbag does an amazing job describing how creation came about and how everything he says is what the text says. However, I can not quote him word for word here, otherwise that would be a copyright violation. I suggest getting the english version of the Ralbags Wars of the Lord translated by Seymor Feldman. It is an eye opening book and will answer many doubts you have about Judaism vis-a-vis science. He helps explain the text and just the fundamental belief in Judaims. Also, his commentary on the Torah is quite enlightening.

Any questions that people ask through evolution, I think, can be answered by the Ralbag's interpretation, at least indirectly. So if anyone tells you that science contradicts the Bible, just go ahead and look it up in the Ralbag and most questions will be answered.