Avraham, the First Revolutionary and Moral Pioneer

 

“All other civilizations rise and fall. The faith of Avraham survives." - Rabbi Jonathan Sacks

“Lech Lecha,” this week’s Parashah depicts Avraham, the first forefather of the Jewish

People, as one of the most revolutionary figures in all of human history. He is unique in

the Torah and in world history because he represents a new kind of human being, one who

has transformed the relationship between G-d and humanity, between faith and ethics,

between individual and the world. Avraham stood against almost every value that his

surrounding cultures accepted as natural.

In order to fully appreciate Avraham’s unique contribution to world civilization, one needs to see him in the context of the world he was reared in, the Ancient Near East.

Avraham was born into a world that was idolatrous and polytheistic. The dominant theology in Mesopotamia, more precisely Ur of Chaldees, the birthplace of Avraham, was paganism. Though the Torah does not discuss the early years of Avraham, Midrash (Beresheet Rabbah 38:13) paints Avraham’s father, Terach, as an idol merchant. Midrash tells us that even as a youth, Avraham challenged this system by breaking the effigies in his father’s shop to demonstrate their powerlessness.

Avraham’s Mesopotamia was highly developed. Cities like Ur and Haran were centers of commerce, astronomy and administration. However, as the Torah’s earlier chapters, especially the one narrating the experience of the Tower of Babel, show, moral decay, violence and injustice were widespread. Humanity was seeking greatness without G-d.

The Ancient Near Eastern society also believed that humans were at the mercy of fate and the will of the gods. Kings and priests claimed divine or semi-divine authority and ordinary people had little spiritual agency. Empires were built on power, conquest and heirarchy. Against this setting, Avraham refused to worship power and introduced a cultural and moral landscape by emphasizing a unique, personal relationship with a one moral and invisible G-d who governs the world. Avraham founded what Rabbi Meir Bier terms as “Ethical Monotheism.”

Some may argue that other righteous and monotheistic people, such as Noach, preceded Avraham. “Noach,”  suggests Rabbi Bier, “isolated himself from the corrupt and immoral surroundings, and when G-d decided to destroy that civilization, he saved only himself and his family. Avraham, on the other hand,” notes Bier, “proactively and positively elevated the spiritual sensitivity and the theology of those around him, spearheading a spiritual revolution of monotheism.”

Lord Rabbi Sacks takes this point one step further. “The story of Avraham,” he asserts, “can only be understood against the backdrop of the story of Noach.” G-d, notes Sacks, told both Noach and Avraham in advance that he was about to bring punishment to the world. In Bresheet 6:13, G-d says to Noach, “I am going to put an end to all people for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.” Similarly, in Bresheet 18:17-21, the Lord says, “Shall I hide from Avraham what I am about to do?....The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached Me.”

Noach did not protest and did as G-d commanded him. He accepted the verdict. Avraham, as we learn later in the Parashat Veyera, challenges G-d and tries to negotiate the Sodom and Gomorrah's potential salvation.

Avraham’s vision, moral integrity, and rejection of the traditional values of his upbringing undoubtedly earned him the title of a revolutionary. Yet, in my view, none of these achievements would have been possible without the defining qualities that guided his every step, his unwavering courage and faith.

The worldview of the Ancient Near Eastern societies, where Avraham was reared, was rooted in tribe and land. People’s identities were tied to family, tribe and geography. When G-d calls upon Avraham and tells him “Lech lecha- Go forth from your land, your birthplace and your father’s house to the land that I will show you,” (Bresheet 12:1), He does not tell him what his mission is nor his destination. G-d is directing him to break away from that entire worldview, from the comforts of his home, from the wealth he has accumulated, and create a new identity and face the unknown.

Nonetheless, Avraham responds to G-d’s call with complete trust and without any hesitation. He believes before there is proof. Avraham’s faith is not inherited, it is chosen. It is his pure faith, universal vision and moral courage which makes him the prototype of a seeker, the first spiritual pioneer and sets him on his journey from paganism to ethical monotheism, from self-interest to covenantal responsibility, paving the path for the Jewish People and for all humanity.

Primogeniture

 

One of the topics of this week’s parashah, “Toledot,” addresses is the rights of the Firstborn. In the Tanach, as was the case in the ancient Levant, those rights referred only to first born males.

“Primogeniture” is the Latin term that describes such practices. It reflects the right, by law or custom, of the firstborn male child to inherit the family estate, in preference to their siblings.

Some of the stories in the book of Bresheet surround the status of the Firstborn. We read about Cain and Abel competing over G-d’s approval of their respective sacrifices. We follow Sarah’s worries over Avraham’s inheritance, doing all that is in her power to ensure that it will go to her son Yitzchak rather than to Yishmael, his eldest son from Hagar. In this week’s Parashah, we encounter the struggle between Yaakov and his older brother, Esav, over the Birthright and the blessings of Yitzchak, their father.

In all three of the above examples, it seems that the Torah rejects the practice of primogeniture, which was prevalent in ancient times in the region, favours the younger sons and elects to endow them with that right. What, one may ask, is the purpose of such a, rather revolutionary, step?

In the first account, the decision was made by G-d. He chose Abel’s sacrifice over that of Cain.

In the case of Isaac and Yishmael, however, that preference of the former is embedded in the legal norms of that era, as reflected in the Hammurabi Code of Law, and which pertain to the inheritance rights of the son of a maid/slave, the status of Yishmael, Hagar’s son. That is this issue which is at the core of Sarah’s concern.

Article 170 of the Code states that if a man’s main wife bore his children as did his maid, the father shall bequeath all he owns to the children from his main wife, during his life. If the father passes away without declaring his rightful inheritors, his assets will be divided between all offspring regardless of who their mother was. Hagar was never the legal wife of Avraham. Sarah was. Hagar was a maid and a servant who bore a son to Avraham when Sarah thought that she was barren. Yishmael, though the eldest, was never the legal heir of Avraham. Sarah was his wife and Yitzchak, the younger son, was the legal heir.

In order to understand the choice of Yaakov over Esav, it is important to add that the term primogeniture, sometimes, also entails succession to power and office and not merely rights to tangible possessions. In other words, the Firstborn right can be onerous, demanding and carry responsibilities - a dutiful task suited for only a few selected ones. In early times, the Firstborn would substitute the father and was honoured accordingly. In ancient Egypt, for instance, Firstborns were revered and worshipped like gods. Hence the significance of the tenth plague, the plague of the Firstborn since according to our sages when G-d avenges upon a nation, He initially avenges upon its gods.

It is indeed true that when Yaakov asserts “I am Esav, your Firstborn,” (Bresheet 27:19) he not only lies, but he also commits fratricide and condemns Esav to oblivion both as a human being and his rights to inheritance as well.

Several Jewish commentators offer various justifications for Yaakov’s lie. Isaac Abrabanel, for instance, suggests that Yaakov lamented to Esav that the latter was never around the house, always roaming in the fields and not fulfilling his duties as the Firstborn while he, Yaakov, had to attend to their sick father, feed him and Esav when the latter returned from his hunting. According to Abrabanel, Yaakov went even further to suggest to Esav that if he were not ready to assume that role, he would gladly take his place and feed him as should the eldest brother address the needs of the younger one. Esav, explains Abrabanel, pondered in his heart and decided that he was better off relinquishing those duties. Yaakov took them upon himself and promptly offered Esav bread and lentil soup, as would the Firstborn do to his younger sibling.

Rabbi Shmuel Ben Meir (Rashba”m) provides a different rationale. According to him, Esav was willingly renouncing his Firstborn right claiming that his hunting activities often put him in harm’s way. Therefore, he reckoned, there was no point in him waiting for his father to die to qualify for that right.

Finally, Rabbi Sacks, who bases his interpretation on Rashi, suggests that as much as Esav tried to deceive Yitzchak, the latter “was not deceived as to the nature of his elder son. He knew what he was and what he was not. He knew he was a man of the field, a hunter, a mercurial in temperament, a man who could easily give way to violence, quickly aroused to anger, but equally quickly, capable of being distracted and forgetting. He also knew,” concludes Rabbi Sacks that Esav “was not the child to continue the Covenant.”

It is, therefore, not by accident that Yitzchak preferred Yaakov over Esav.

This week’s Parashah teaches us that leadership should not necessarily be granted to the Firstborn son but rather to the best one.

Shabbat Shalom