בנסעם מקדם, “when they journeyed from Kedem.” According to Rashi this is a reference to verse 30 in the previous chapter in which mankind had been described as being in הר הקדם. Due to their increasing numbers, they began to look for a location that could comfortably accommodate all of them. Nachmanides, on the other hand, considers Rashi’s interpretation as flawed, claiming that only the descendants of Shem had resided in the region described as הר הקדם in verse 30. To the question that if so why would the dispersal of mankind be attributed only to the descendants of Shem, this raises the point why the dispersal of mankind is described as caused and applied only to the descendants of Shem and not to those of Yephet and Cham, seeing that the latter even represented the majority of mankind? Furthermore, according to this concept the descendants of Yephet remained in their habitats, and how did they come to populate the islands in the Ionic and Aegean sea? We would have to assume that G’d scattered them all across these islands. Subsequently, they would have formed nation states like the descendants of the other sons of Noach. Ibn Ezra writes that the mountain Arrarat was located in the east, and he is correct when he states that Mount Arrarat is situated east of there, and that it makes sense that the people who had lived around there had attempted to flee to the mountains in the Arrarat range to escape the deluge. When Noach descended from the ark it is no more than natural that he should have settled in that region. When his descendants became more numerous, they looked for wider spaces and moved down to the valley. It was the people who had settled in the valley who rebelled against G’d. According to the רודפי הפשט, people who are incapable of looking beyond the literal meaning of the text, these people did not intend to rebel against G’d but wanted to insure that they would not become scattered all over the world, unable to find their way back to their homes. These people claim that the fact that the Torah describes their expressed purpose in building the tower, not mentioning anything detrimental about them, is proof that they were quite innocent. If that interpretation were correct, the people of that time must have been complete idiots that they could imagine that a single city and a single tower could be sufficient for all of mankind! Did they imagine that the proliferation of the human race had concluded in their generation?? Anyone familiar with how to interpret what the Torah reveals, understands that the intention of the people building the tower is already revealed by their declared purpose of נעשה לנו שם, “let us make a name for ourselves!” One does not need to read much between the lines to appreciate that the project was a sinful one. If one needed further proof, the very penalty which fitted their crime, i.e. that they were dispersed, proves that they had intended to use their concentration in one location to assert their power vis-à-vis their Creator. Quite possibly, our sages who seize on the expression אשר בנו בני האדם, “which the descendants of Adam had built,” (verse 5) saw in these words a hint that the sin of these people paralleled the sin of disobedience perpetrated by the first human being, Adam. Why else would the Torah have to write the line in verse 5? Who would have thought that the people building the tower were not descendants of Adam? It is worth noting that in the whole episode of the deluge G’d is referred to by His attribute אלוקים, i.e. as someone sitting in judgment, whereas here throughout G’d is referred to as the Attribute of Mercy. The deluge had been decreed because the people at that time had corrupted earth, whereas here, just as in the case of Adam’s sin, the creature-Creator relationship, described by our sages as קצצו בנטיעות, undermining basic religious tenets, was the issue.

ויחי שם...ויולד בנים ובנות, “Shem lived, etc., and begat sons and daughters.” No mention is made of these people dying, as the Torah invariably stated with the ten generations preceding Noach. The reason is that the earlier generations died, decomposed and no trace of them was left after the deluge. Seeing that their memory was blotted out on account of there being no visible reminder that they had ever lived, the Torah made mention of their lives and deaths. These later generations were all buried and their burial sites remained intact. Seeing that Noach was the founder of these last ten generations, and he was also partially a member of the first ten generations, his death is mentioned, as with his death a major segment of human history had been concluded. Some commentators believe that seeing the first human being brought death into the world, the Torah not only mentioned Adam’s death but also the death of those who but for his sin might never have died. Generations subsequent to Noach were born into a different kind of universe than Adam had been placed in; therefore there was no need to stress that these people died after having lived the number of years mentioned in the Torah.

וימת חרן על פני תרח אביו, “Haran died during the lifetime of his father Terach.” Some commentators hold that until that time children did not die during the lifetime of their fathers except for Peleg (Genesis 11,18). Hence the Torah reported that this was an exception. A similar expression is used in Numbers 3,4 when the appointment of Elazar and Ittamar as priests during the lifetime of their father Aaron is reported. [I do not think the argument is sound, as Lemech, Noach’s father died during the lifetime of his own father Methuselah. Ed. (5,31)]

בארץ מולדתו באור כשדים, “in the country of his birth in Ur of the Chaldaeans.” According to Nachmanides these last words refer back only to Haran, whereas Avraham himself was not born in Ur, seeing that his forefathers were descendants of Shem, whereas the Chaldaeans were descended from the descendants of Cham. Compare Genesis 14,13 where Avraham is described as an Ivri, and not as a “Casdi.” We also have clear evidence from Joshua that the forefathers of the Israelites had originally resided on the east bank of the river Euphrates. (Joshua 24,2) If, at the time when Terach took Avraham, and Haran and family leaving Nachor behind, and settled in Charan which is hundreds of miles north east of Shinor the land of the Casdim, how could Eliezer who was bidden to seek out Avraham’s family, have looked for Rivkah in Charan rather than in Ur? The truth is that Terach and family originated in the land of Aram that is east of the Euphrates. (Ur, downstream, was immediately west of the Euphrates) When Bileam commenced his blessing in Numbers 23,7 he described how Balak had brought him all the way from Aram, which he defines as הררי קדם, the range of mountains in the east, hardly identical with the Mesopotamian valley in which Ur was situated. The Talmud (Baba Batra 91) reports that Avraham had been jailed for 10 years, 3 of them in a town called כותא. It is common knowledge that this town was in the land of the Casdim (lower Mesopotamia, near Ur) as we have a verse describing the King of Ashur as coming from Babylon and Kuta as well as from Gaza and Chamat.(Kings II 17,30) In these verses the exile of the ten tribes is described. It is clear that Kuta would not have been situated anywhere near the route described in Kings II as taken by the King of Ashur who had taken the ten tribes prisoner, and who was about to repopulate the cities of Samaria with people from elsewhere, so that the land he had captured would not become desolate. Apparently, Kuta was a town in the general region of Aram Naharayim, the town in which Nachor, grandfather of Rebeccah had made his home (compare Genesis 24,10) Kuta was a large city in those days between the land of Israel and the river Tigris. Terach had moved with his older son Avraham from there downstream to the land of the Casdim (Ur) .Haran, his younger son was born in Ur. Whereas Nachor had remained in what is referred to as עבר הנהר, the Torah testifies only concerning Haran that he had been born in Ur Casdim. This information has also been recorded independently in books dating back to ancient times as pointed out by Maimonides in his Moreh. He writes that Avraham who had been born in Kuta had disagreed with the religions of his contemporaries Most of them were sun worshippers. The king incarcerated him for his refusal to toe the theological line deemed politically correct in his time. After many years when the king became afraid that the people might adopt some of the views Avraham had spread, he exiled him to an area bordering on the land of Canaan. This occurred after he had first deprived him of all his earthly belongings. At any rate, the region still belonged to that known as Ur Casdim. Avraham experienced either a manifest miracle, by being saved from the persecution of the king, or at least he experienced what is known as a נס נסתר, a “hidden miracle,” such as a sudden unaccountable change of heart by the king not to sentence him to death and to release him from jail allowing him to emigrate to a country of his choice. Alternately, he might even have thrown him into a furnace from which G’d saved him by direct intervention in his fate. The nations of the world in those days did not record this miracle in their records as it did not suit them to publicize proof which would cause people to question their beliefs. They were not as truth-loving as Pharaoh’s advisers, the magicians who openly admitted that the G’d in heaven had manifested Himself when working the ten plagues. Moreover, even assuming that they had witnessed this miracle, they would not attribute it to Divine intervention by Avraham’s G’d, but would see in this the work of magicians, or invisible forces in nature. Do not allow Ibn Ezra to confuse you with his various questions on this subject, especially the fact that the Torah failed to mention such an outstanding miracle as G’d saving Avraham from a fiery furnace. The magicians of Pharaoh, until the third plague, that of the lice and vermin, also thought that Moses was a superior magician rather than an emissary from G’d who could call on G’d to perform miracles. Had the Torah reported on the miracle of Avraham’s survival of that experience in Nmirod’s furnace, it would also have had to devote some space reporting the refusal of the onlookers and especially Nimrod’s theologians, to acknowledge that this had proven the existence of an invisible G’d who was the Creator, and therefore able to control laws of nature. It suffices for the believers that the Torah wrote (Genesis 15,7) “I am the Lord Who has taken you out from Ur Casdim to give you this land (Canaan) as an inheritance.” The very expression הוצאתיך, “I have taken you out,” alerts the reader to the fact that the Torah refers to something supernatural, to a miracle. Ever since G’d had saved Avraham miraculously, He had had in mind to commence the process that would lead ultimately to Avraham’s descendants inheriting the land of Canaan. From that day on, both Terach and his son Avraham had intended to get away as far as possible from lands under the control of Nimrod. Their arrival in Charan must be viewed as a way station (halfway house) on the way to the land of Canaan. The advantage of Charan was the fact that they had relatives there, people who spoke their language. As a result, what was intended as a brief stopover became a prolonged stay in Charan. While he was in Charan, G’d commanded Avraham to do what had been in his mind already, namely to emigrate to the land of Canaan. He therefore left his aging father behind in Charan. Whereas Terach died in his birthplace Charan, Avraham took his wife and his nephew Lot to move to Canaan with him. This is what Joshua had in mind when he reminded the people shortly before his death of their origins, and how G’d had taken their forefather Avraham from a region called עבר הנהר, “the far side of the river Euphrates.” (Joshua 24,2-7) The reference to that region was meant to tell the people that this is where Avraham was commanded to begin his pilgrimage. G’d made Avraham traverse the entire length of the land of Canaan According to our sages (who say that Nimrod had thrown Avraham into a fiery furnace for his refusal to toe the theological line of his time) the words אור כשדים are to be understood literally, i.e. “the fire of the Chaldaens.” This expression is used in a similar sense in Isaiah 44,16חאח, חמותי, ראיתי אור, “hurrah, I am warm, I can feel the heat.” Terach had not been thrown into the furnace, so he did not need to be saved. The Torah concentrates on the principal personality in that episode, leaving out some details. The principal character was Avraham, hence it was only he to whom G’d referred to when He reminded him of the purpose for which he had been saved. Alternately, the reason why that place was namedאור כשדים, was on account of the miracle which had occurred there when Avraham was saved. We have numerous occasions when locations where the Israelites stopped on their journey through the desert were given names based on what had occurred there, such as תבערה, (Numbers 11,3; or קברות התאוה, Numbers) The verse in our portion would allude to the fact that when Avraham came out of the furnace the whole family fled from that region. This would be parallel to the use of the wordאורים in Isaiah 24,15 באורים כבדו ה' where it means: “therefore honour the Lord in the lands of the mountains where they light signal fires to communicate news items over long distances.” This would be a veiled reference to communicating the miracle that had happened to Avraham in the fiery furnace of Nimrod. The expression מאורות צפעוני, is a description of the lair of a serpent whose poison is as burning as hot fire. This serpent is also known as שרף, [from שרפה, “burning.” Ed.]

ויצאו אתם מאור כשדים, “they departed from there with them.” Rashi explains that the plural mode ויצאו, refers to Terach and Avraham, Lot and Sarai, Avraham’s wife. I find his commentary difficult to accept as he represents the major personality in the story, i.e. Avraham, as secondary to the minor player, Terach. This is something most unusual. Furthermore, according to Rashi’s interpretation why would Avraham be paired with Terach, for according to Rashi Terach was the principal in the verse, seeing that he had taken Avraham and Lot with him as well as Sarai, and the correct reading should have been: ויצא תרח אתם, “Terach departed with them.” Nachmanides writes that seeing that Avraham was a more distinguished person than his father and the other people journeying with them, the Torah employs the plural mode: “they went with them,” seeing that, as the Torah writes, Terach had taken the initiative in emigrating. To the onlookers it appeared as if Avraham had gone along with his father’s decision in the matter. The other members of the entourage continued to travel with Avraham as their leader also after Avraham had left his father behind in Charan. (Genesis 12,4)

וימת תרח בחרן, “Terach died in Charan.” According to Rashi, Terach still lived for many years, so that we must wonder why the Torah appeared anxious to report his death already at this juncture. Rashi answers that this was so that people would not accuse Avraham of having abandoned his father in his old age. Therefore, the Torah treats Terach in its report as if he had already died. Nachmanides is dissatisfied with this explanation, although it follows the opinions handed down in Bereshit Rabbahwriting that it is perfectly normal for scripture to report on the life of the father, followed by the birth of his son, followed by the report of the father’s death. Having reported the death of the father, scripture resumes the thread by informing us about important aspects of the son’s life. We know that Noach’s life overlapped with the early years of Avraham, and still the Torah had reported his death already in Genesis It is possible that the reason why the Midrash wrote in the vein quoted by Rashi, was that scripture here departed somewhat from its normal syntax when reporting on Terach. Normally, since Shem, Noach’s son, we have not heard about any of the generations’ leaders dying; the Torah had only reported the fact that they were born and for how many years they had lived, leaving the reader to conclude that at the end of the respective number of years, the person referred to had died. Terach is the first person after Noach whose death the Torah had seen fit to devote a line to. (except the premature death of Haran which was reported in Genesis 11,28) In our verse the Torah resumes speaking about Terach, although this had been interrupted with the report of the premature death of his son Haran. Not only does the Torah report on his death at the age of 205 years, but it even stresses the fact of where he died. In view of this, the sages of the Midrash looked for the reason why the Torah had changed its style here. It is also possible that seeing that the Torah had already given us some details about Avraham’s life including the fact that he emigrated from Ur Casdim with his father, intending to proceed to the land of Canaan. The Torah felt constrained to point out that as opposed to Avraham, the son, the father never did reach the land of Canaan but died in Charan. As to the comment of the sages in the Midrash that wicked people are already described as dead even while they are physically still alive, the Torah later on informed Avraham the son, that his father had a share in the world to come, seeing that G’d phrased Avraham’s own arrival in that region as “you will join your fathers in peace in a ripe old Age.” (Genesis 15,15) Perhaps G’d hinted to Avraham that his father had become a penitent shortly before his death and that therefore he had not forfeited his share in the world to come. Apparently, this is the way Rashi understood our verse. Alternatively, in accordance with a view expressed in Sanhedrin 104, Terach was rewarded with a share in the hereafter as a gift by G’d to his son Avraham. [according to that view and the view that the events in chapter 15 took place 5 years before Avraham settled in the land of Canaan (according to Rashi’s own calculations*),* G’d would have informed Avraham at the age of 70 that his father would have a share in the hereafter!. Ed.]