ויאמר ה' אל אברם לך לך, “The Lord said to Avram: “go forth for yourself, etc.” Rashi interprets the words לך as meaning “for your own benefit, and for your own satisfaction.” Rashi explains this verse in this fashion, although he was aware that our sages considered this verse as introducing one of the ten trials G’d subjected Avraham to. Having to move away from his birthplace was considered one of these trials. Nachmanides does not interpret the word לך as meaning “for your own benefit,” i.e. the repetition of the words לך לך. He feels that the wording לך לך is not at all unusual, and therefore does not call for a special interpretation at this point. He quotes Song of Songs 2,11 הגשם הלך לו, “the rain has ceased,” as well as the preceding words לכי לך, “go forth,” as examples of the pronoun לך appearing without any ulterior meanings having to be looked for. Other similar examples are (Jeremiah 5,5) אלכה לי אל הגדולים, “so I will go to the wealthy, etc.” However, our sages (long before Rashi) have used this kind of syntax in order to derive additional meanings from it. (Deut. 10,1) ועשית לך ארון עץ, “make yourself a wooden ark; or Numbers 10,2 עשה לך שתי חצוצרות כסף “make for yourself two silver trumpets.” The Talmud Yuma 3 explains the word לך to mean that these trumpets were to be Moses’ personal property, and in fact they were hidden after his death so that no one else could make use of them. In view of the above, there is no reason for Nachmanides to criticize Rashi’s interpretation of the word לך in our verse. (seeing that the Tabernacle was not Moses’ personal property, the expression לך used in connection with it would not fit the interpretation Rashi gave it here, whereas the trumpets were specifically not communal property.)

מארצך וממולדך ומבית אביך, “from your homeland, your birthplace, and from your father’s house.” The trial became progressively more difficult, as separating from one’s father’s house is more difficult than separating from the land one has been born in.

אל הארץ אשר אראך, “to the land which I will show you.” It is an additional hardship to be ordered to undertake a journey the destination of which has not been revealed beforehand. Avraham considered all this as easy, as he was anxious to fulfill G’d’s request out of a feeling of love for Him. Rashi queries that this commandment was not new, seeing that Avraham had already left his homeland a number of years ago when he went to Charan with his father? He therefore explains that we must understand what G’d is reported to have said here to Avraham to make an even more drastic break with his past by leaving his father’s house. Ibn Ezra views the basic commandment as having been formulated by G’d already when G’d said to him לך לך מארצך as well as ממולדך ומבית אביך, at a time when he was still in Ur Casdim. G’d had known that Terach, Avraham’s father, would not go beyond Charan. In fact, Terach died 60 years after Avraham had continued his journey to the land of Canaan. Nachmanides disagrees, writing that if correct, the paragraph describing the move from Ur Casdim should have portrayed Avraham as the principal, instead of describing Terach as having taken the other family members with him. (11,31) Clearly, at that time Avraham followed his father’s instructions, not G’d’s. No mention had been made of G’d having communicated with Avraham as yet. Furthermore, in the verse from Joshua 24,3 G’d is quoted as having said: “I have taken your father (Avraham) from beyond the river Euphrates.” If Ibn Ezra were correct, Joshua should have quoted: “I have taken your father from Ur Casdim, etc.” Still another proof that Ibn Ezra is not correct can be found in the instructions Avraham issued to his trusted servant Eliezer when he sent him to get a wife for Yitzchok. In Genesis 24,3 Avraham instructs Eliezer to take a wife for Yitzchok from ארצי ומולדתי, “my homeland and the place where I was born.” Eliezer proceeded to travel to Aram Naharyim, not to Ur Casdim in order to discharge his master’s mission. Ibn Ezra is wrong when he interprets the words in that verse as meaning ארצי=חרן and מולדתי as Ur Casdim. How could he say here that this directive was given to Avraham while he was still in Ur Casdim? Avraham had a number of countries that he called “his country” at different times, though he had only one birthplace and one father’s house. The fact is that Charan was both his homeland, his birthplace, and the location of his father’s house.

אל הארץ אשר אראך, “to the land which I will show you.” He would be wandering until he would eventually get to the land of Canaan. Having arrived in the land of Canaan, G’d told him (verse 7) that He would give that whole land to his (non existent) descendants. When we had been told earlier (11,31) ויצאו אתם מאור כשדים ללכת ארצה כנען, “They departed together from Ur Casdim to go to the land of Canaan,” this was not a journey designed to settle in that land, as Avraham had not yet known at that time that G’d’s commandment had envisaged the land of Canaan as his ultimate destination. We have proof of this from when he explained to Avimelech (Genesis 20,13) that G’d had made him wander without a specific objective through many locations, so that he had adopted the practice of describing Sarai as his sister in all the locations where they had stopped for a period of time. It is possible that Avraham had known that the land of Canaan was G’d’s inheritance on earth, and that therefore he had been heading in that direction. He had understood that the words “to the land which I will show you” were a hint that he should head towards the land of Canaan.

והיה ברכה, “and become a blessing.” You will be the blessing by whom the nations will bless themselves when they quote you as a role model when blessing others and wishing that they should turn out to be like Avraham.

ואברכה מברכיך, “I will bless those who will bless you.” The plural ending in the word מברכיך is a hint that there will be more people blessing you than people cursing you. Some commentators say that the verse is a prophecy concerning the priests who will be descended from Avraham and whose task it will be to bless the people.

ונברכו בך כל משפחות האדמה, “and all the families on earth will be blessed through you.” Not only Avraham’s direct descendants will be blessed through him, but far wider circles, all the families on earth. Some commentators derive the expression from the causative form of the root ברך, meaning to refine through genetic improvement, מבריך. The term is applied especially to improving the qualities of certain grapes and the wine they produce. In our case it would mean that all the families of the earth would be improved through intermarriage with descendants of Avraham. Avraham having married Hagar, of Egyptian descent and siring a son from her would be a case in point. Later on, he married Keturah who was of the descendants of Yaphet and sired 6 sons from her.

ואברם בן חמש שנים ושבעים שנה בצאתו מחרן, “Avraham was 75 years of age when he emigrated from Charan.” The reason why the Torah recorded Avraham’s age at this stage was to show that he left his father in order to obey G’d’s instructions. According to the ancient historical text known as סדר עולם, Avraham undertook two emigrations, this being his second. He had gone to the land of Canaan the first time at the age of 70 where G’d had made the promises to him that are recorded in chapter 15. This is based on the Torah saying in Exodus 12,40 that the total period the Israelites spent in Egypt amounted to 430 years. Seeing that in chapter 15 G’d spoke about a period of 400 years during which his descendants were to be either strangers or strangers and slaves in a foreign country, it follows that until the birth of Yitzchok when Avraham was 100 years of age the fulfillment of that prophecy could not have commenced. Seeing that Avraham was in the land of Canaan for a brief period at that time, the countdown for the realization of this prophecy could begin from that time on. Furthermore, at the time when Avraham defeated the kings who had taken Lot prisoner he was 74 years of age. This is arrived at by the fact that he was 48 years old at the time when these city-kingdoms were founded and populated. For 12 years the political situation had remained stable with the kings of these cities paying annual taxes to Kedorleomer. Thus Avraham was 60 years old at the time when the city-kingdoms rebelled and refused to continue paying their taxes. 14 years later the four kings, including Kedorleomer, mounted the punitive expedition as a result of which Lot was taken prisoner. This means that Avraham was 74 years at the time. As the Torah reports him as 75 years of age at the time of his emigration in our chapter, he must have been in the land of Canaan previously, a time when G’d made the covenant between the pieces with him, as described in detail in chapter 15. In other words, Avraham departed from Charan twice. The difficulty with all this is that we read in the same סדר עולם that during the 5 years preceding his emigration from Charan Avraham had been in Charan. If so, he had been in Charan at the time when the war broke out, not as described in 14,13 in Eloney Mamre (Kiryat Arba nowadays). One can possibly answer this apparent contradiction by justifying the text in סדר עולם that Avraham spent those five years in Charan, and that the words והוא שוכן באלוני ממרא האמורי “he was living at Eloney Mamre,” in 14,13 refer to the פליט, the escapee who had brought him the news that his nephew had been taken prisoner. In order to make this plausible, consider why the Torah bothered to add that in Eloney Mamre there were in addition to Mamre also his brother Aner and Eshkol, all of whom had a mutual defense treaty with Avraham. Surely, the reason is to explain why the escapee brought the news to the three brothers in Eloney Mamre of whom he knew that they were allies of Avraham. These brothers in turn would relay to Avraham what they had heard about the fate of his nephew. In fact, the escapee may have chosen refuge in Eloney Mamre believing that Kedorleomer would not dare harm allies of Avraham. The weakness with this supposed scenario is that the author of סדר עולם lists as the year when Avraham left Charan permanently the same year in which these wars had been fought. If that were so, what difference would it make if Avraham was 70 years of age the first time he left Charan or not. Who needs to know? [furthermore, a more serious flaw in the sequence listed in סדר עולם is the question of when Lot took up residence in Sodom, and when did the falling out with Avraham which led to his being taken captive? Ed.] If, as stipulated, Avraham was only 70 years old at the covenant between the pieces which was reported in chapter 15, there is no alternative but to conclude that the Torah’s reports are not chronologically sequential. Another difficulty is found in the opening words of chapter 15: אחר הדברים האלה, “after these events.” If the events in this chapter occurred prior to the events related in either chapter 12 or chapter 14 what do these opening words mean? G’d reassures Avraham, (if we assume that the events of chapter 15 occurred subsequent to the events related in chapter 14) that in spite of his victory over the four kings, a victory due to G’d’s manifest assistance, his merits had not been used up so that he had reason to worry about G’d protecting him in the future.) We would have to say that the wordsאחר הדברים ,האלה, refer to the entire sequence previously related and that only the short paragraph concluding withוהאמין בה' ויחשביה לו צדקה (15,6) are related out of chronological order. That particular conversation between G’d and Avraham had taken place prior to the conquest of Sodom by the four kings.

ויעבר אברם בארץ עד מקום שכם, “Avram traversed the country (traveling in a southerly direction) as far as the site of the town of Shechem.” The location is mentioned to tell us that he offered a prayer there concerning the sons of Yaakov, who he foresaw, would encounter many problems associated with that location and who would engage in a war there in order to free their sister Dinah who had been captured and raped. This in spite of the fact that when he had described himself as ערירי, unable to sire offspring, G’d had assured him that he would not only have children but that he would found a great nation. He was concerned that perhaps due to a sin on his part, this promise would be long delayed in being fulfilled. Nachmanides writes that all the journeys of Avraham which are recorded here, as well as those of Yitzchok and Yaakov after him, are recorded to serve as illustrations of the principle מעשה אבות סימן לבנים, that the affairs of the patriarchs foreshadow experiences which occurred in the lives of their offspring during the history of the Jews as a people. The decrees announced by the prophets (the “wakeful ones,” according to Daniel 4,14) were based on their interpreting events in the lives of the patriarchs as foreshadowing the fate of their children and children’s children. When the prophets engaged in what appear to be merely symbolic actions [such as Jeremiah 51,63-64 giving instructions to Baruch, his disciple, to tie a stone to the book of Jeremiah after he has finished reading it, and to throw it into the river Euphrates and to say at that moment: “thus shall Babylon sink and never rise again, because of the disaster that I will bring upon it.”] Baruch was instructed to perform this act so as to make G’d’s decree more than just a potential judgment on the Babylonians. By performing a tangible, visible act, the decree was transformed from something merely potential to something actual, though the time for realization had not yet been determined. In a similar manner, all the stories related in detail about the patriarchs serve as the catalyst for eventual repetition in the lives of the Jewish people. We find a similar example in the days of Elisha (Kings II 13,15) who instructed King Joash to get a bow and arrows and to shoot out the window. Having shot an arrow, Elisha proclaimed this gesture to have been a symbol of victory for the people of Israel. He then instructed the king to pick up the arrows he had shot. The King complied. He was then instructed to strike the ground. The King struck the ground three times and stopped. (without having been told to stop) Elisha was very angry at the King and told him that if only he had continued another five or six times, he would have annihilated Aram. As it were, he would defeat the armies of Aram only three times. [Elisha was already sick at the time, close to death, and therefore especially frustrated by the King’s action. Ed.] The Bible does not tell us stories like this merely to embellish the study of our history. These symbolic actions are extremely important in helping certain decrees of G’d which were in the realm of the potential only, to become translated into reality. G’d provided the patriarchs with opportunities to perform such symbolic gestures, which in the course of Jewish history would prove to have been the trigger setting in motion important historic developments. This is the meaning of מעשה אבות סימן לבנים. The Torah stated והכנעני אז בארץ, that “the Canaanite was then in control of the land of Canaan,” a banal statement, for why else would the land be described as the land of the Canaanites? There is a far deeper meaning to this statement. Among other meanings, the Torah is on record that Jews had already moved around unopposed in the land of Canaan at a time when the time was not yet ripe for this people to be expelled from that land on account of what the Torah described as עון האמורי, “the sin of the Emorite.” (Genesis 15,16) It is also possible that the reason why the Torah saw fit to write the line והכנעני אז בארץ, is to explain why it took Avraham such a long time before he built the first altar dedicated to monotheism. He had been afraid, as the land was owned by the Canaanite and he could not expect that they would take kindly to a stranger publicly challenging their religious convictions. It was only after G’d had appeared to him and given him assurances that he was no longer afraid to do what he had in mind to do already previously. The promise that his children in due course would inherit this land, a promise given in verse 7, encouraged him to become an evangelist on behalf of his G’d. Elon (Moreh) (verse 6) is none other than Shechem. (Nablus in our time) The addition of the word מורה appears in connection with this location which is also defined as being opposite Gilgal and Mount Gerizim elsewhere. (compare Deut. 11,30) The meaning of the words ה-אל הנראה אליו, appears to imply that G’d instructed Avraham to build the altar at that location The word מורה, from הוראה, ”instruction,” was appended to the name of the place Elon to remind us that Avraham had received Divine instructions there. The very word אליו “directly to him,” is indicative of the fact that this revelation was of a more advanced nature than any previous communication by G’d to Avraham. There are some commentators who feel that the words והכנעני אז בארץ, were meant to stress the loving kindness of G’d towards Avraham in that He protected Avraham every step of the way in spite of the fact that the land was owned by a hostile nation [which had already succeeded in driving the Semites out of most of that land. Ed.] Avraham traversed this land with substantial herds, as if the whole land belonged to him. He was not challenged and not molested.

ויקרא בשם ה', “He proclaimed his belief in the Lord of heaven.” Onkelos translates this as Avraham simply offering a prayer there to his G’d. According to the plain meaning of the words Avraham did much more than that. He proclaimed his faith loudly for all the people to hear. We find that his son Yitzchok did something similar (Genesis 21,33). It is noteworthy that we do not find a reference in the Torah to Yaakov doing something similar. The reason is that Yaakov had many sons and that his family itself was a constant reminder to the people around them of their belief in the only G’d, the G’d in heaven, the Creator of mankind.

הנגבה, “in a southerly direction.” According to Rashi, he was traveling in the southern part of the country, the area which later on formed the territory of the tribe of Yehudah. Later on, when it came to taking possession of the land, the tribe of Yehudah was also the first to take possession of these areas.

ויהי רעב בארץ וירד אברם מצרימה, ”when there was a famine in the land, Avram descended to Egypt.” This too was an example of the principle of מעשה אבות סימן לבנים, that the activities of the patriarchs foreshadowed the activities of their offspring, their descendants. The family of Yaakov also moved to Egypt, and their move too had been triggered by a long famine involving also the land of Canaan. In both instances the motivation was simply survival. When the Egyptians eventually mistreated the Jews, they had not had any excuse to do so, just as Avraham had not given the Egyptians any excuse to abduct his wife. G’d, eventually, avenged the Egyptians’ abuse of the Jewish people just as He had punished Pharaoh for abducting Sarai and forcing her to be his slave [wives did not have civil rights in those days. Ed.] Just as Avraham was showered with silver and gold while in Egypt, his descendants, when leaving Egypt, took with them most of Egypt’s silver and gold. The Jewish experience in Egypt paralleled that of Avraham in even more details when the Egyptians who decreed the death of male Jewish babies also encouraged the survival of the female babies, clearly in order to make slaves of them in one way or another, just as they tried to do with Sarai. Just as Pharaoh expedited the departure from Egypt of Avraham after he had been chastised by G’d, so Pharaoh expelled the Jewish nation at the time of the Exodus. Nachmanides writes that Avraham sinned greatly when he moved to Egypt, seeing that he unintentionally subjected his wife to great danger. He should have had trust in G’d that He would save him from the famine. As a result of this lack of faith demonstrated by their forefather, his descendants were enslaved in Egypt at the hands of Pharaoh according to the principle that the penalty is administered at the site where the sin has been committed. (compare Kohelet 3,16) Avraham is not considered as having sinned when he described his wife as his sister; on the contrary, this was a meritorious act on his part, as it proves that he was loath to rely on miracles as long as he had not done what was humanly possible to save G’d from having to intervene by upsetting the laws of nature. The reputation of the Egyptians had been such that he had every reason to fear for his life if he had described Sarai as his wife.

והרגו אותי ואותך יחיו, “they will kill me while allowing you to live.” They will let you live thanks to your physical beauty. As a result they will feel that they have to kill me. As to why they would rather kill Avraham instead of simply sleeping with Sarai while her husband was alive, even though all of mankind had been warned not to commit murder, no less a sin than to commit adultery with someone else’s wife, the reason is psychological. Murder is committed only once on the same person, while illegal sexual intercourse and the desire to perform it is an ongoing temptation, one that will recur again and again. It was therefore easier for them to live with the knowledge of having killed than to live with the knowledge that every time they slept with someone’s wife they committed a mortal sin. Furthermore, if they were to rape Sarai while her husband was alive, they might have to face the King after Avraham had complained about his wife being violated. Once Avraham was dead, who would complain? Nachmanides writes that he does not understand what Avraham was afraid at this point more than at any time in his life previously. If it was that the Egyptians were black-skinned and more immoral than other tribes, we know that even at Avimelech’s court there was no respect for someone else’s wife if the King desired her sexually. In spite of such fears being reasonable, G’d had commanded Yitzchok not to leave the land of Israel and to proceed to the land (province) of the Philistines to wait out the end of the famine! Perhaps Avraham and Yitzchok were afraid only when they took up residence in a city, as the inhabitants of those cities were in the habit of offering any especially attractive woman to their King. They would kill that woman’s husband so that their King would not be guilty of an adulterous relationship with such a woman. This approach would be supported by what Avraham explained to Avimelech in Genesis 20,13 “when G’d caused me to wander from my father’s house, I said to her, (Sarai) ‘do me this favour: at every place we come to, say about me: ’he is my brother.’” The Torah had not mentioned this stratagem previously, except when for some reason they had to fall back on an agreement which had been practiced already repeatedly. As long as that agreement forestalled any problems, there had been no need to mention it. Yitzchok had not been afraid in his own country and had resorted to a similar stratagem only when forced to move to the land of the Philistines. When Avraham explained the planned deception as designed to benefit him personally, i.e. as potentially saving his life, (verse 13) he had in mind the entire period of the famine when he and Sarai would be forced to be strangers in a land unknown to them. He thought that this would be the way by which G’d would enable them to survive the famine which raged at that time, until a time when they could return to the land of Canaan or to flee that region altogether. It appears that the plain meaning of the text is that Sarai did not agree to the deception Avraham demanded of her. However, the Egyptians were so depraved that before even giving Sarai a chance to explain her relationship to Avraham they already abducted her, having praised her beauty to their King. They never bothered to enquire how Avraham was related to her. This is what enabled the King to exclaim afterwards: “how come you have not even told me that this woman is your wife? Why did you say “she is my sister?” The King accused Avraham of having misled both his men and himself by not revealing that Sarai was his wife. He accused Avraham of treacherous conduct after Sarai had already been abducted to his palace. According to Pharaoh, Avraham should have protested Sarai’s abduction from the very first moment instead of describing her as his sister. It was most unseemly for her to deny that he was her husband.

אמרי נא אחותי את, “Please say that you are my sister.” The word נא is an expression of an entreaty. Avraham justified the use of the white lie as he saw himself in immediate danger of being murdered. He realized that by lying he would become the beneficiary of that lie also financially.

למען ייטב לי בעבורך, “in order that I will benefit on your account (and survive).” Seeing that you have to say that you are not my wife, do it in a way that will confer benefits upon me as a direct result of your situation. By saying that you are my sister they will heap gifts upon me to secure my acquiescence.

ויראו אותה שרי פרעה, “When the ministers of Pharaoh saw her, etc.” When the local Egyptians saw this beautiful woman they said that she is suitable for highly placed ministers, etc. But even when they brought her to such ministers they were afraid to touch her themselves, preferring to bring her to the King, having decided that she was suitable only for the King himself.

ולאברם היטיב בעבורה, “He conferred benefits on Avram on her account.” Even though Avraham did not want to accept gifts from the King of Sodom (later on), here he was forced to accept the gifts or they would have realized that he was Sarai’s husband.

וינגע ה' את פרעה, “The Lord smote Pharaoh with plagues, etc.” It is difficult to understand why G’d punished Pharaoh for a crime committed inadvertently. He had not been warned not to take Sarai as a wife, as had been the case with Avimelech. Some commentators are of the opinion that Pharaoh did indeed sin intentionally as G’d had informed him that Sarai was Avram’s wife. The fact that Pharaoh reacted by saying to Avraham: “here is your wife, take her and leave,” is proof that someone had informed him. Clearly, this had been G’d, although He may not have spelled it out in these words. According to Nachmanides when these plagues struck Pharaoh and his household suddenly, he wondered what G’d had done to him and why; he asked Sarai if she could account for this and she told him the reason. Thereupon Pharaoh called in Avraham and accused him without being specific, as he was not sure that the plagues were indeed related to this matter. Alternatively, as our sages explained this, the plague consisted of Pharaoh suddenly becoming impotent so that it dawned on him that this could be related to the fact that the woman in question was someone’s wife. He accused Avraham only tentatively, questioning him, afraid to accuse him explicitly. Had Avraham said: “she is my sister,” he would not have said to him: take your wife and go.” Avraham remained silent throughout, as he was far too afraid. Pharaoh interpreted his silence as an admission, this is why he added: “take tour wife and depart!”

ואקח אותה לי לאשה, “so that I took her to be my wife.” He meant that Sarai was intended to be his queen, as opposed to her being merely a concubine. He used this phraseology in order to induce Avraham to reveal whether she was indeed his wife or not.

הנה אשתך קח ולך, “here is your wife, take her and leave” They did not part on cordial terms as in the case of Avimelech, who allowed Avraham to settle anywhere he chose in his country. (Genesis 20,15) The Egyptians knew no sexual restraints and Pharaoh was afraid if Avraham stayed there he might be exposed to further dangers on account of his wife.

וישלחו אותו ואת אשתו ואת כל אשר לו, “they escorted him and his wife and all his belongings.” Even though Avraham had treated them badly they did not take back the gifts they had given to him.”