Difference between revisions of "Endangering Sarai in Egypt/2"
m |
|||
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
<point><b>Why a sister specifically?</b> Radak might maintain that Avraham thought he could best watch over Sarah if others believed that they were related (but not married).  This way they could live together, and their kinship would help ensure that the Egyptians acted with at least a modicum of conscience.<fn>See above that Radak assumes that the Egyptians' embarrassment in front of others might not prevent their licentious actions, but at least would put them in check.  Abarbanel, instead, follows in the path of the Ran, asserting that Avraham planned to portray himself as Sarah's guardian, in charge of her nuptials, enabling him to prevent her from being taken by potential suitors.  For elaboration, see below.</fn></point> | <point><b>Why a sister specifically?</b> Radak might maintain that Avraham thought he could best watch over Sarah if others believed that they were related (but not married).  This way they could live together, and their kinship would help ensure that the Egyptians acted with at least a modicum of conscience.<fn>See above that Radak assumes that the Egyptians' embarrassment in front of others might not prevent their licentious actions, but at least would put them in check.  Abarbanel, instead, follows in the path of the Ran, asserting that Avraham planned to portray himself as Sarah's guardian, in charge of her nuptials, enabling him to prevent her from being taken by potential suitors.  For elaboration, see below.</fn></point> | ||
<point><b>Lying and leading Egypt to sin</b> – Most of these commentators would likely maintain that lying is not problematic if it will help save a life, and that telling the truth would not have stopped the Egyptians from sinning anyway.<fn>It would have led instead to the murder of Avraham and the subsequent taking of Sarah by force.  Though the specific sin of adultery might be eliminated, the alternatives are not better.</fn> Akeidat Yitzchak suggests that even Paroh agreed that the ruse was valid in light of the Egyptian's reputation, and that he only complained why Avraham had not told him personally the truth.</point> | <point><b>Lying and leading Egypt to sin</b> – Most of these commentators would likely maintain that lying is not problematic if it will help save a life, and that telling the truth would not have stopped the Egyptians from sinning anyway.<fn>It would have led instead to the murder of Avraham and the subsequent taking of Sarah by force.  Though the specific sin of adultery might be eliminated, the alternatives are not better.</fn> Akeidat Yitzchak suggests that even Paroh agreed that the ruse was valid in light of the Egyptian's reputation, and that he only complained why Avraham had not told him personally the truth.</point> | ||
− | <point><b>"לְמַעַן יִיטַב לִי בַעֲבוּרֵךְ" - asking for riches?</b> Radak, Akeidat Yitzchak and Abarbanel explain that this clause is parallel to and defined by the immediately following one, "וְחָיְתָה נַפְשִׁי בִּגְלָלֵךְ".‎<fn>Compare <a href="Devarim5-30" data-aht="source">Devarim 5:30</a>, <a href="Devarim6-24" data-aht="source">Devarim 6:24</a> and <a href="Yirmeyahu38-20" data-aht="source">Yirmiyahu 38:20</a> where the two phrases are similarly paired and seem to be equivalent in meaning.  The difficulty for this position is the fact that the very same words, "וּלְאַבְרָם הֵיטִיב בַּעֲבוּרָהּ", appear several verses later and are understood by these commentators to refer to the giving of riches to Avraham.</fn>  It is inconceivable that Avraham would desire to get rich off the shame of his wife.<fn>As proof of the absurdity of the possibility, Radak points to the story of Sedom where Avraham had legitimate rights to gifts and nonetheless refused them.</fn>  Moreover, he had no need of riches, being independently wealthy.  The only reason he even accepted the later gifts was his fear of displeasing Paroh.<fn>According to Abarbanel, even in the end Avraham does not accept gifts from Paroh.  He asserts that the referent of the words, "וּלְאַבְרָם הֵיטִיב בַּעֲבוּרָהּ" is actually Hashem (mentioned in the next verse) and that the verb in the clause is in the past perfect tense. One might question why the text would be sharing this information now. Abarbanel answers that the verses are simply saying that Hashem had previously given Avraham wealth due to Sarah's righteousness, and here too, He is plaguing Paroh on her behalf.</fn></point> | + | <point><b>"לְמַעַן יִיטַב לִי בַעֲבוּרֵךְ" - asking for riches?</b> Radak, Akeidat Yitzchak and <multilink><a href="AbarbanelBereshit12-10" data-aht="source">Abarbanel</a><a href="AbarbanelBereshit12-10" data-aht="source">Bereshit 12:10</a><a href="AbarbanelBereshit12-16" data-aht="source">Bereshit 12:16</a><a href="R. Yitzchak Abarbanel" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel</a></multilink> explain that this clause is parallel to and defined by the immediately following one, "וְחָיְתָה נַפְשִׁי בִּגְלָלֵךְ".‎<fn>Compare <a href="Devarim5-30" data-aht="source">Devarim 5:30</a>, <a href="Devarim6-24" data-aht="source">Devarim 6:24</a> and <a href="Yirmeyahu38-20" data-aht="source">Yirmiyahu 38:20</a> where the two phrases are similarly paired and seem to be equivalent in meaning.  The difficulty for this position is the fact that the very same words, "וּלְאַבְרָם הֵיטִיב בַּעֲבוּרָהּ", appear several verses later and are understood by these commentators to refer to the giving of riches to Avraham.</fn>  It is inconceivable that Avraham would desire to get rich off the shame of his wife.<fn>As proof of the absurdity of the possibility, Radak points to the story of Sedom where Avraham had legitimate rights to gifts and nonetheless refused them.</fn>  Moreover, he had no need of riches, being independently wealthy.  The only reason he even accepted the later gifts was his fear of displeasing Paroh.<fn>According to Abarbanel, even in the end Avraham does not accept gifts from Paroh.  He asserts that the referent of the words, "וּלְאַבְרָם הֵיטִיב בַּעֲבוּרָהּ" is actually Hashem (mentioned in the next verse) and that the verb in the clause is in the past perfect tense. One might question why the text would be sharing this information now. Abarbanel answers that the verses are simply saying that Hashem had previously given Avraham wealth due to Sarah's righteousness, and here too, He is plaguing Paroh on her behalf.</fn></point> |
<point><b>Why punish Paroh?</b></point> | <point><b>Why punish Paroh?</b></point> | ||
<point><b>Why does Avraham repeat the actions in Gerar?</b> The repeated actions in Gerar are difficult for this position as it would be hard to say that there too Avraham was taken by surprise.<fn>Radak and Abarbanel, who maintain that Sarah's beauty was only in contrast to the Egyptians, could suggest that Avraham did not think it would be a problem elsewhere.  Nonetheless, one would think that after the near disaster in Egypt, Avraham would have been wary regardless.</fn></point> | <point><b>Why does Avraham repeat the actions in Gerar?</b> The repeated actions in Gerar are difficult for this position as it would be hard to say that there too Avraham was taken by surprise.<fn>Radak and Abarbanel, who maintain that Sarah's beauty was only in contrast to the Egyptians, could suggest that Avraham did not think it would be a problem elsewhere.  Nonetheless, one would think that after the near disaster in Egypt, Avraham would have been wary regardless.</fn></point> |
Version as of 03:52, 14 January 2015
Endangering Sarah in Egypt
Exegetical Approaches
Please contact us if you would like to assist in its development.
Endangered Unwittingly
Avraham never intended to place his wife in danger and had not thought that she would be taken to Paroh's palace. This position subdivides regarding what Avraham was thinking in acting as he did:
Unaware of Danger
Avraham simply did not recognize that going down to Egypt was going to endanger Sarah until it was too late.
Hoped to Avert Danger
Avraham's actions were part of a calculated plan which was meant to protect Sarah and prevent her from being forcibly taken by the Egyptians.
- Prolong marital negotiations – Most of these commentators assert that Avraham meant to act as Sarah's guardian who could negotiate her nuptials,15 and planned to ask for such a high dowry that no one would be able to meet it. During the prolonged discussions Avraham would be able to get provisions enabling him to return to Israel before any harm was brought to Sarah.16
- Pass Sarah off as married – Chizkuni, instead, suggests that Avraham told the Egyptians that Sarah was indeed married but that her husband was overseas. Unable to kill her spouse, and fearful of committing adultery, they would thus leave Sarah alone.17
- Hide Sarah – According to Bereshit Rabbah, Tanchuma, and Rashi, Avraham was hoping to hide Sarah during their stay.18
All of these sources justify Avraham's decision, but for different reasons:
- Test from Hashem – Rashi, Ran and Malbim count the famine as one of Avraham's ten trials,19 asserting that Hashem was testing whether Avraham would complain when forced out of the land. As such, they assume that Hashem intended Avraham to leave and view his acceptance of the situation as a show of faith, not a lack thereof.20
- No reliance on miracles – R. Hirsch and Malbim maintain that one is not supposed to rely on miracles,21 but rather do whatever one can to avert disaster naturally.22
- Caring for others – The Ran suggests that had Avraham only needed to care for himself and Sarah, he would likely not have gone to Egypt, but since he felt responsible for many others and desired to continue his hospitable ways, he chose to go down.
- Plan to save Sarah – Ran points out, though, that even the necessity to escape death from famine can not explain nor justify a decision to endanger Sarah's honor, leading him to conclude that Avraham descended with a ruse which he thought would prevent such an issue.23
Self-preservation
Avraham's conduct was motivated by a desire to save himself. Placing Sarah in potential danger was justified in face of the supreme value placed on preservation of life.
- Pirkoi b. Baboi asserts that all other transgressions are overridden in order to save a life.33 Even a case of potential danger to life allows one to push off a potential case of forced relations.34
- Abarbanel instead suggests that Avraham was convinced that Sarah's being taken was inevitable. If so, nothing is gained by Avraham martyring himself and it is logical that he should try to save himself.
Avraham Sinned
Avraham's actions in descending to Egypt and endangering Sarah were problematic and Avraham was punished for them.