You Know Sometimes Words Have Two Meanings By Rabbi Joshua (multi- dimensionally known as The Hoffer) Hoffman
The Torah, in this week's parsha, relates that when God was planning to destroy the cities of Sodom and Amorah, he decided that He had to inform Avrohom about this decision before bringing it to fruition. The reason He gave is, "… for I have known, because he commands his household after him that they keep the way of God, doing charity and justice, in order that God night bring upon Avrohom that which He had spoken" (Bereishis 18:19).The Rambam, in his Mishneh Torah, (Hilchos Deos 1:7), derives from this verse that Avrohom followed the middle path, the approach to conduct in the realm of character traits that the Rambam says is a fulfillment of the Torah's command to walk in God's ways. Rabbi Moshe Einstadter, in his book Yesodos, explains that the Rambam derived this from the fact that the verse mentions charity and justice. In any given situation, these two elements may be in opposition to each other, and it is necessary to find some balance between them. This is, he adds, the idea behind peshara, or a compromise solution, which the Talmud recommends as the preferred way to decide a judicial dispute between two parties. What Rabbi Einstadter does not deal with is the question of why the Torah teaches us this fact about Avrohom at precisely this point in his career. To answer this question, we need to take another look at the simple translation of the verse.
The word for "I have known him,"- yedativ - comes from the word 'yadoa' - to know - but is actually explained by Rashi to mean, 'loved.' Rashi writes that the essential meaning is 'to know,' for a person who loves someone draws him close and knows him.' However, continues Rashi, it cannot be translated simply as 'to know' in this verse because it would not fit in well with the word 'lema'an' - in order that - which follows. The fact remains, however, that the Targum does translate the word as 'to know,' and explains the verse to be saying, "for it is revealed before Me that he will command his children etc." Rabbi Bezalel Ashkenazi, editor of the well-known compilation of commentaries on the Talmud, Shitah Mekubetzes, writes, in a homiletical essay, that there is an additional difficulty with the Targum's translation, besides the objection raised by Rashi. Why, he asks, did the Torah need to tell us that God knew that Avrohom taught his household the path of charity and justice? Isn't it self-understood that God knew? Rashi therefore explains the word differently. To explain the Targum's position, Rabbi Ashkenazi refers to the opinion of Ramban, that God's providence, until the time of Avrohom, was over the species of man. However, in regard to individuals, for the most part He allowed things to take their natural course. However when it came to people who the Ramban terms as 'chasidav,' God's pious people, He watched over the events in their lives in detail, and provided His assistance when necessary. Since Avrohom was certainly one of God's pious people, He watched over everything he did, and therefore we are told that He knew that Avrohom taught his household the ways of God.
Thus, both explanations of the word 'yedativ,' that of the Targum and that of Rashi, contribute to our understanding of the verse, and, moreover, each seems to shed light on the other. God needed to inform Avrohom of His impending judgment of Sodom in order for him to understand God's ways, which he would teach to his household. God's knowledge of Avrohom's teaching efforts was connected to the fact that God loved Avrohom and decided to make him a forefather of the nation of Israel. God told Avrohom about His judgment of Sodom directly after the visit of the three angels who informed Avrohom and Sarah of the future birth of a son to them. This son, Yitzchok, would constitute the beginning of the next generation, and continue in the process of setting the foundations for the future nation. The judgment of Sodom was a particularly apt one for Avrohom to use as an example of divine justice and walking in God's ways. Although Avrohom always tried to exhibit kindness, to others, and pleaded the case of Sodom, he eventually understood that they could not be defended, and deserved to be destroyed. He thus learned that there is a limit to God's exercise of charity, or mercy, and that man, too, must at times suspend his exercise of this trait. The Talmud tells us that, sometimes, exercising the trait of mercy can result in cruelty. God is the ultimate arbiter of when mercy is or is not appropriate, as Avrohom was further taught in the test of the Akeidah. Interestingly, the Midrash Rabbah on parshas Shelach relates that, after the Akeidah, when God's angel told Avrohom to take Yitzchok down from the altar, Avrohom asked, if so, was the command of "take your only son 'given for naught? The answer he received was that its purpose was to make Avrohom's character known to the world, as it says, "for I have known him because he commands… "Following our analysis, this midrash seems to indicate that Avrohom's ultimate fulfillment of teaching his household the proper path of conduct, following in God's ways, came with the test of the Akeidah.
Please address all correspondence to the author (Rabbi Hoffman) with the following address - JoshHoff @ AOL.com.
To subscribe to Netvort, send a message with subject line subscribe, to Netvort@aol.com. To unsubscribe, send message with subject line unsubscribe, to the same address.