Komentarz do Rodzaju 11:32

וימת תרח בחרן AND TERAH DIED IN HARAN after Abram had left Haran (as related in the next chapter) and had come to the land of Canaan and had been there more than sixty years. For it is written, (Genesis 12:4) “And Abram was seventy five years old when he left Haran”, and Terah was seventy years old when Abram was born (Genesis 11:26), making Terah 145 years old when Abram left Haran, so that there were then many years of his life left (i. e. he lived many years after that — as a matter of fact, 60 years, as he was 205 years old when he died). Why, then, does Scripture mention the death of Terah before the departure of Abram? In order that this matter (his leaving home during his father’s lifetime) might not become known to all, lest people should say that Abram did not show a son’s respect to his father, for he left him in his old age and went his way. That is why Scripture speaks of him as dead (Genesis Rabbah 39:7). For indeed the wicked even while alive are called dead and the righteous even when dead are called living, as it is said, (2 Samuel 23:20) “And Benaiah the son of Jehoiada the son of a living man”.

AND TERAH DIED IN HARAN. After Abram had left [Haran, as related in the next chapter, and had come to the land of Canaan], Terah remained alive for many years after that.³⁸³Abram was seventy-five years old when he left Haran (12:4), and Terah was seventy years of age when Abram was born (11:26), making Terah 145 years old at the time Abram left Haran. Terah thus lived for sixty more years as he died at the age of 205 (11:32). Why then does Scripture mention the death of Terah before the departure of Abram? [The answer is that Scripture does so] in order that this matter [of leaving his home during his father’s lifetime] might not become publicized to all, lest people say that Abram did not show a son’s respect to his father and mother³⁸⁴“And mother.” Not in our text of Rashi. as he left his father in his old age and went his way. That is why Scripture speaks of Terah as dead. Moreover,³⁸⁵“Moreover.” Not in our text of Rashi. for the wicked, even while alive, are called dead. Thus the words of Rashi which are found in Bereshith Rabbah.³⁸⁶39:7.
But I wonder about their words for this is the customary way for Scripture to relate the life of a father, his begetting a son, and his death, and afterwards to begin the narration of the son in all generations. This is the usual manner of Scripture. Noah himself lived yet in the days of Abraham,³⁸⁷Noah lived 350 years after the flood (9:28), and the total number of years of all ten generations from Noah to Abraham was less than 300 years. Thus Noah was still alive in the time of Abraham. and his son Shem lived thoughout Abraham’s life span.³⁸⁸Shem lived 500 years after the flood (11:11). See also Baba Bathra 121 b: “Jacob saw Shem.” Now it is possible that the Rabbis came to conclusion of this Midrash because with respect to Terah, Scripture departed from the format of the entire chapter. Regarding Shem and his descendants, Scripture did not mention their death at all, nor did it total the sum of their years. But here with Terah it again follows the first order it used concerning the longevity of the people from Adam to Noah³⁸⁹Above, 5:5-31. and totals up all the days of Terah and mentions his death. In addition, it mentions the place of death as having been in Haran, the same place it had mentioned concerning Abraham, [i.e., that he had gone there, in Verse 31]. That is why the Rabbis expounded that all this was to make it easily apparent that Abraham was there with Terah when he died. Moreover, because Scripture had already begun the subject of Abraham and told how he had gone forth with his father from Ur of the Chaldees to go into the land of Canaan,³⁹⁰Verse 31 here. the Rabbis found it difficult to understand why Scripture did not systematically arrange Terah’s life and death, and write it chronologically. [That is why they made the aforementioned interpretation.]
And as for that which the Rabbis also said in Bereshith Rabbah³⁸⁶39:7. — “First you interpret³⁹⁰Verse 31 here. that the wicked, even while alive, are called dead” — this too I find surprising, for the Sages³⁹¹Bereshith Rabbah 34:4; 38:18. have already deduced from the verse,³⁹²Genesis 15:15. “And thou shalt come to thy fathers in peace. [His father was an idolater, and yet G-d informed Abraham that after death he would go to him! Clearly the verse teaches you] that He announced to Abraham that his father would have a portion in the World to Come.” Perhaps the intent of the Rabbis was that Terah repented at the time of death, but he lived all his days in wickedness and therefore was called “dead.” In the words of Rashi:³⁹²Genesis 15:15. “Scripture teaches you that Terah did repentance at the time of death.” Perhaps it may be that our Sages, of blessed memory, say³⁹³Sanhedrin 104a. that Terah has a portion in the World to Come by virtue of his son. And that was the announcement, for Abraham did not know it until he was informed of it at the time G-d told him, And thou shalt come to thy fathers in peace.³⁹²Genesis 15:15. And so I found in a Midrash:³⁹⁴Possibly Ramban refers to Vayikra Rabbah at the beginning of Chapter 7. “All kinds of wood were valid for use in the altar fire save only the wood of the olive and the vine,³⁹⁵Tamid 2:3. One of the reasons stated for this law is that it maintains the cultivation of Eretz Yisrael. for since oil and wine were offered upon the altar, the fruits save the trees. And so we find in the case of Abraham that he saved Terah, as it is said, And thou shalt come to thy fathers in peace.”³⁹²Genesis 15:15.
Lech Lecha

וימת תרח בחרן, he had not made an effort to realise his intention of moving all the way to the land of Canaan as he had set out to do in verse 31. He never even visited his son Avraham in the land of Canaan, never observing with his own eyes what a great name Avraham had made for himself and G’d there. Lot, on the other hand, did the opposite for a while at least, having joined Avraham, kept him company and this is why both he and his offspring benefited from this both immediately, such as when Lot became rich in Egypt, as well as much later when Israel was not allowed to conquer the lands belonging to Lot’s descendants, i.e. Ammon and Moav. (compare Nachmanides on Pinchas 25,18)

ויהיו ימי תרח חמש שנים ומאתים שנה. Terach lived to be 205 years. The reason the decription of Terach's age differs from the description of the other people listed in this chapter, i.e. "all the days of so and so were, etc." is twofold. It can either mean that Terach lived longer than the years originally allocated to him, or it can mean that he did not live all the years that had originally been allocated to him. Here the absence of the words "all the days of his life" most likely mean that he lived longer than the years originally allocated to him. He accumulated merit because of his extraordinary concern for the welfare of his son Abraham. One proof may be seen when we compare Terach's lifespan with that of his father Nachor. The latter had only lived for a total of 148 years (11,24-25). Terach lived 57 years longer than his father. Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 65,12) have said that when a man approaches to within 5 years (either side) of the age at which his parents died he should begin to be concerned about his own death approaching.

ויהיו ימי תרח, Terach lived for 205 years. Seeing that the Torah had told us that he was 70 years old when Avram was born, Avram was 135 years old at the time his father died. According to the report in Seder Olam, Avram buried his father two years before the death of his wife Sarah, a statement that is absolutely correct. We know that Avraham was 137 years old when Sarah died, as he had previously been reported as being 10 years Sarah’s senior. This means that Terach must have died 2 years before his granddaughter Sarah.

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.]

[People] would say, “[Avraham] did not show...” The Re’m writes: I do not understand about which time period Rashi is concerned [that “people would say”]. If it is referring to Avraham’s time period, what does it help that “Scripture refers to him as dead”? The Torah was not written in Avraham’s days! And if it is referring to the time period after the Torah had been written, why would people say Avraham “did not show respect for his father”? The next verse says, “Adonoy said to Avram, ‘Go from your land...’” Obviously, Avraham could not stay with his father and disobey Hashem’s command! It seems the answer is: It is after the Torah was written. And they would say Avraham did not respect his father because he did not take his father with him to Canaan as he did when he left Ur Kasdim. But in fact Avraham did not take his father along because his father was wicked and worshipped idols. Although Terach repented before he died, Avraham left him in Charan when he was still wicked. But it seems to me that [he who answered this] did not understand the Re’m. The whole reason Hashem said to Avraham, “Go from your land... and from your father’s house” was because He did not want Avraham to take his father with him! Hashem did not want Avraham to make himself secondary to his father as he did in the first journey, where it is written, “Terach took his son Avram...” Moreover, it is not true that Avraham took his father along when he left Ur Kasdim. On the contrary, Terach took Avraham, as we explained above. Thus, the Re’m’s question stands. (Tzeidah L’Derech) See what I cited above (v. 31) from the Nachalas Yaakov, and you will find a good reply to this rebuttal. [For the Nachalas Yaakov proves that Avraham did not truly make himself secondary to his father; he merely accorded honor to his father.]

בחרן IN HARAN — The נ is inverted to tell you that until the time of Abraham, the fierce anger (חרון) of the Omnipotent was kindled against the world.

וימת תרח בחרן, this line tells us that Terach had not abandoned his idolatry and had moved to Charan only out of love for his son Avraham. Following Avraham who had obeyed instructions given to him in a vision, did not mean that Terach changed his philosophy or lifestyle. This is why he saw nothing wrong in remaining in Charan until the time of his death. [even though his son had attained great prominence in the land of Canaan during the intervening 62 years. Ed.] If he had really done teshuvah, and returned to the G’d of his forefathers, he surely would have followed in his sons footsteps and have moved to Canaan. Possibly, Terach did keep the other Noachide laws, except for his idolatry, seeing that Avraham his son had become his guide in matters of theology as far as it concerned the dealings with is fellow man. The conviction that natural forces represent independent powers, even though they in turn might have to obey a higher law, was something he could not rid himself of, as he, as well as his contemporaries, were too deeply steeped in such a world outlook. We know that Joshua testified concerning Terach (Joshua 25,2) when he addressed the Israelites shortly before his death: ”your forefathers dwelled in the land beyond the river (Euprates), Terach the father of Avram and Nachor. They served alien deities , etc.” If Terach had indeed become a penitent and had returned to monotheism, it is inconceivable that Joshua would not have credited him with such a meritorious deed. The final letter ן in the word חרן is meluffaf, i.e. inverted, and our sages explained concerning this (Rashi and Torah Shleyma 115) that Terach died while being out of favour with his Creator, seeing that he had failed to repent his erstwhile idolatry. [Having had a son such as Avraham, his obstinacy was less forgivable than that of other idolaters. Ed.] There is, however, a different explanation offered by Bereshir Rabbah 38,12 based on G’d promising Avraham that he would die of a ripe old age before joining his fathers, etc (Genesis 15,15) This is understood as G’d telling Avraham that his father had indeed become a penitent before he died, how else could the prospect of joining his father after his death be a sort of comfort for Avraham?

Inasmuch as Terach lived many years longer than his father, the Torah reports his death in conjunction with his migration to Charan to indicate which merit added the extra years to his life. Had the Torah merely stated the usual "ויהיו כל ימי תרח, all the years of Terach were, etc., we would have assumed that G'd had originally allocated to him a lifespan of 205 years although this would have been quite wrong. There is also support from the text for the view that Terach lived fewer years than had been allocated to him originally. The Torah reports that he set out on his way to Canaan. However, the Torah also reports that he died in Charan which is on the way. Terach had failed to make good on his vow to move to Canaan and settled in Charan. G'd shortened Terach's lifespan because he did not make good on his vow.

I have had an inspiration which enables me to explain why Abraham left his father in Charan though the latter had migrated for his sake all the way from Ur Casdim. When Abraham moved to Canaan Terach was 143 years old. He was 68 years old when Abraham was born and Abraham was 75 when he moved to the land of Canaan. [I presume that verse 26 which describes Terach as 70 years old when his three sons were born must refer to his age when the youngest was born. Ed.] It seems difficult to understand that Abraham abandoned his father for so many (62) years, even though G'd had told him לך לך.

I believe the answer is simply that Abraham had good reason to expect that his father would die soon after his departure for Canaan, seeing that he was within 5 years of the age at which his grandfather Nachor had died. G'd may even have given Abraham a subtle hint when He told him לך לך, go on "your acccount." The words "on your account," were to indicate that even if Abraham's father were to live additional years he had only Abraham's merit to thank for those years. Abraham therefore did not have to blame himself for "abandoning" his aged father.