Parshat Vayeira
October 26, 2002

After the cities of the plain were destroyed, Avraham removed himself to the Negev. Finding himself in the Philistine city of Gerar, he fears for his life, as he once did in Egypt (Bereishit 12:10-20), and says that Sarah is his sister. The king of Gerar, Avimelech, takes Sarah, but before he comes near her, G-d warns him (in a dream) that he will die if he does not return Avraham’s wife.

And Avimelech arose early in the morning and he summoned all his servants, and he spoke all these matters in their ears. And the people were very fearful (VAYIRU). And Avimelech summoned Avraham and said to him, “What have you done to us? And how have I sinned against you that you brought a great sin upon me and upon my kingdom? You have done with me things that are not done!”  And Avimelech said to Avraham, “What did you see that you did this thing?” And Avraham said, “Because I said, ‘However (RAK), there is no fear of G-d (YIRAT ELO-HIM) in this place, and they might kill me because of my wife.’ Furthermore, she is in fact my sister: she is my father’s daughter, although not my mother’s daughter; and she became my wife. And it was, when ELO-HIM made me wander (HIT’U OTI) from my father’s house, I said to her, ‘This will be your kindness that you will do with me: everywhere we come, say of me, He is my brother’” (20:8-13).

Unlike Rashi, Ramban and Chizkuni (R. Chizkiya ben Manoach, mid 13th Century) argue that Avraham’s suspicions regarding the sinfulness of the Gerarites were unfounded: They were innocent, G-d-fearing people, and the king would never have taken Sarah had Avraham not offered the misleading information first.

In the course of his explanation, Avraham speaks of his wanderings, when he might encounter many people of questionable ethics:
And it was, when ELO-HIM made me wander (HIT’U OTI) from my father’s house . . .

The words HIT’U OTI ELO-HIM pose particular problems of translation:
• Does ELO-HIM refer to G-d? If so, why is the verb HIT’U in the plural?
• Perhaps ELO-HIM should be understood, as it sometimes is, as “judges, leaders.”
• Or, could our Patriarch Avraham be referring to Avimelech’s “gods”?!
• What difference, if any, is there between HIT’U, the causative form of the root (???), TAV-AYIN-HEI, and the root (???), TET-AYIN-HEI, which means “to err”?
• Could Avraham be imputing, before Avimelech, that G-d led him astray?
As R. Chanin, declares in exasperation in Bereishit Rabbah (52:11):
If only we could expound this verse in three ways, and [perforce] fulfill our duty [to find the truth]!

The majority view of our Sages is that ELO-HIM refers to G-d (Shavuot 35b), and so does Rambam rule (Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 6:9). In order to accommodate the plural verb, however, the sentence is parsed differently and the verb is connected with “error” (???):

They [the nations] would have led me astray, had it not been for G-d . . . (Sofrim 4:6; Yerushalmi Megillah 1:9).

Onkelos also punctuates and interpolates differently:

When the nations strayed after the works of their hands, and G-d drew me near to His worship . . .

But Rashi considers this too removed from the plain meaning.

Rashi agrees that ELO-HIM means G-d, and then defends the use of the plural verb by showing examples elsewhere (e.g., Shmuel II 7:23). Rashi further argues that HIT’U OTI has nothing to do with error:

And it was, when G-d made me wander (???) . . .

Those who concur with Rashi’s explantion include Saadiah Gaon (882-942), Rashbam and Ibn-Ezra.

Nonetheless, there is a minority view among the Sages that ELO-HIM here is not holy (Sofrim and Yerushalmi Megillah, loc. cit.). Consequently, there is room for other translations.

Chizkuni says ELO-HIM refers to Nimrod and his cohorts, the “judges” of the land who challenged Avraham and forced him into exile.

Sforno (R. Ovadia ben Yaakov Sforno, c. 1470-c.1550) renders ELO-HIM as “the gods,” but renders Avraham’s explanation in ideological terms:
And it was, when the “gods” [which I rejected] caused me to roam . . .

Radak (R. David Kimchi, c. 1160-c. 1235), like Rashi, insists that Avraham is thinking about G-d when he describes his wanderings, and even cites additional verses to defend the use of the plural verb (e.g., Tehillim 149:2). However, Avraham purposely uses the name ELO-HIM and the plural form of the verb because Avimelech would be thinking of his “gods.”

[This is particularly surprising in view of the fact that the One G-d spoke to Avimelech in a dream the night before, and Avimelech even addressed Him directly, in a manner strikingly similar to that used by Avraham himself in arguing for the people of Sodom. Compare:

And (Avimelech) said, “L-rd (ADO-NOI)! Will You even kill a righteous nation?” (verse 4)

and:

And (Avraham) said, “Will You even destroy the righteous with the wicked?” (18:23).]

Similarly, Haamek Davar (R. Naftali Tzvi Yehudah Berlin, 1817-1893) argues that the word ELO-HIM can be sacred and profane simultaneously! He explains: Since the nations of the world worship their gods, G-d commanded Avraham to wander from place to place and teach them the truth.

Hirsch (Rabbi Shimshon Raphael Hirsch, 1808-1888) agrees to this double entendre, and adds a rationale for Avraham’s and Sarah’s deception:
Perhaps also, through his known opposition to heathenism it was more dangerous for him than for anybody else not to acquiesce to any objectionable custom sanctified by heathenism and this made it more imperative for him to impose this rule.

Again, the bitter irony is that, in Gerar, Avraham has chanced upon the first place that this rule was uncalled-for.

We might have thought that this is not a shining moment for Avraham. Actually, the opposite is true: Unbeknownst to Avraham, some people have progressed from “the gods” to “G-d.” Avraham’s success in spreading the word of G-d has been greater than even he knows.

OU Torah Insights Project Archives

Torah Insights is brought to you every week
as a service of the Community and Synagogue Services Department
of the Orthodox Union

Your comments are always welcome

www.ou.org