Pensamento Judaico sobre Gênesis 24:52

According to Bereshit Rabbah 39, Abraham reportedly said to G-d, "Did not Noach become the founding father of seventy nations?" G-d however, replied that the nation of which it would be said "Who is such a great nation?" (Deut 4,7) will be descended from Abraham. The need to state that those who curse Abraham will be cursed, is ample proof of his erstwhile unpopularity, and of the fact that Abraham had to suffer greatly for his beliefs. Henceforth, however, his detractors would be cursed, and he himself would be visibly blessed. In fact, his very existence would promote blessings for the rest of mankind. (4) Abraham departed Ur Kasdim and Charan, thereby fulfilling G-d’s command. By retaining his wife and nephew however, the separation from his "birthplace" and "father's house" was less than complete. Also, he was careful to take along his material wealth. He not only did not protest the company of Lot etc., but he actively solicited that company, i.e. vayikach, he took. (5) This is why the Torah mentions the presence of those people three times. Abraham proceeded unimpeded until Shechem, notwithstanding the fact that the Canaanite was at that time in the process of driving the Semites out of the country. In such troubled times, a newcomer like Abraham could have expected to suffer at the hands of both adversaries in the struggle for possession of that country. (6) At that time, G-d promised Abraham that the present turmoil would not produce permanent ownership of that land by the Canaanites, but that this land would ultimately belong to a nation yet to be founded by Abraham. In fact, had it not been for the conquest by the Canaanites, taking the land from the Semites and giving it to one family, i.e. the descendants of Abraham, would have been difficult to justify. Gittin 38 explains the justification for Israel's conquest of the land of Sichon and Og in a similar fashion, i.e. the illegal conquest of most of Ammon and Moab by Sichon and Og had paved the way for Israel dispossessing Sichon and Og eventually (in a war started by Sichon). (7) In response to that promise by G-d, Abraham built an altar, but could not very well proclaim his true belief in G-d and call for others to follow him until near Bet El; he settled down in a peaceful atmosphere. Proclaiming the sovereignty of G-d there would be more likely to produce positive results, away from the turmoil of war in other parts of the country. (8) Perhaps because he was still in the company of Lot and other less idealistically inspired fellow travellers, as well as lacking the benefits of circumcision, he decided to ride out the famine in Canaan in neighbouring Egypt. For that reason, he may not have received direct guidance from G-d on the subject. Probably, Abraham considered the certainty of impoverishment, animosity, and likely attack by surrounding tribes, as outweighing the possible dangers in Egypt. Jacob was moved by similar considerations when he complained about his sons' delay in travelling to Egypt to secure a food supply. The appearance of being affluent was in itself capable of inviting attack from those less fortunate (Genesis 42). Similarly, the four outcasts in Kings II Chapter 7 considered any chance of survival in the enemy camp as offering a better chance than certain death by famine in the city or in their primitive place of refuge. No doubt, Abraham had instructed Sarah to assume this brother/sister relationship even before they arrived in Egypt, since he could not reasonably have expected the Egyptians to make enquiries about Sarah's marital status. Surely, the normal thing was for a man to travel with his wife. (9+10+11) Therefore, the brother/sister relationship had to be demonstrated at the outset, so as to prevent any danger to Abraham. He assumed that either his goodwill would be sought actively, i.e. "so that I shall benefit on your account," or that at the very least his survival would be assured i.e. "I shall remain alive on your account." David's conduct in Gat (Samuel I Chapter 22) was motivated by the same considerations. In view of the fact that the Egyptians would most likely react to Sarah's physical beauty, Abraham referred to the fact of her beauty as something that had, of course, been known to him for a long time, but not until then had it been a factor to be considered in their public behavior. (12) He also realized that in the event of his own death, Sarah would consider her own survival under such circumstances as a fate worse than death. Therefore, the entire household maintained the fiction of Abraham and Sarah being brother and sister, so that when Pharaoh later said, "She also said he is my brother," he meant that Sarah had only confirmed the facts which he had already ascertained. There could not therefore be a question of him having stolen another man's wife. The Torah testifies that there had in fact been no need to deny the husband/wife relationship in order to protect themselves against Pharaoh. After Abraham had used all the intellectual faculties at his command to survive the trip to Egypt, G-d now intervened to prevent Pharaoh from forcing his attentions on the presumably single Sarah. G-d’s intervention had become necessary to prevent Abraham and Sarah having problems as a result of their machinations, not despite their machinations. Pharaoh was obviously smitten by G-d in a way that made him impotent, and demonstrated to him that the punishment inflicted upon him was related to his attempt to rape Sarah. Pharaoh did not blame Abraham for having taken precautions to protect himself and his wife, knowing full well that these precautions were justified. What Pharaoh did object to was that Abraham had not at least told him privately, i.e. lee (the word is used repeatedly), what the true relationship between Sarah and him had been. The fact that he had to issue a command to his people not to molest Abraham (Genesis 12,20) proves that Abraham's estimate of the morality of Pharaoh's subjects had been quite accurate. That Abraham could not use the argument he was later to use with Avimelech was obvious, since Pharaoh had challenged Abraham concerning Abraham's evaluation of himself, and not his evaluation of his people. Just because his people were more law-abiding in matters of morality than the Egyptians, Avimelech could challenge the fact that Abraham had seen fit to use deception, and construe it as an insult against his people. The events that occurred in Egypt at this time serve to disabuse us of two erroneous attitudes. 1) The belief that if only human intellect, effort and caution is employed, success is guaranteed. 2) That since everything is in the hands of G-d anyways, our efforts to alter that which seems in store for us are futile and doomed to failure. Therefore, a life of passive acceptance of all dangers ought to be the only path to follow. Abraham had employed all his wits, had made extensive efforts, taken precautions, all to no avail; only then did G-d intervene to smite Pharaoh at the critical moment. Isaiah 50,10-11 conveys a similar lesson. In verse 10, a person relying on G-d is depicted as walking in darkness, relying solely on G-d to provide light. In verse 11, however, those who rely on their own light exclusively, are also scored by the prophet. When the following verse (Isaiah 51,2) states, "Look towards Abraham and Sarah," the message is clearly that the proper way to behave can be learned only by studying what happened to our two ancestors who were called upon to act and whose actions and efforts were blessed by G-d. The Torah proceeds to tell us that Abraham returned to where he came from, that he accumulated material wealth. Though he returned greatly enriched materially, his spiritual path only took him back to Bet El, he had not made notable progress in that area of his life. This may have been due to his having kept Lot, whom he should not have taken along in the first place, at his side. He should have observed G-d’s original command in its entirety. (13) Under the circumstances, G-d now began to prepare the scenario that would lead to the separation of the two men. The scenario was provided by the fact that the land could not support their combined wealth. The company of Lot was no longer suitable for the tzaddik. The mention of the Canaanites as well as the Perusites being in the land of Canaan which they were in the process of conquering from the descendants of Shem, provided the contrast to the rift that developed between the shepherds of Lot and those of Abraham. Abraham realized that the quarrel between the shepherds would lead to an estrangement between their respective masters and, though he was the senior, offered Lot the choice of the areas available. He could have driven Lot away by force, but refrained, thereby demonstrating that material possessions were not uppermost in his system of values. Lot was unabashed in choosing the most fertile land, ignoring the fact that its inhabitants were the most sinful people, more sinful than the ones G-d had bidden Abraham to part company with when He had ordered him out of Ur. Abraham's essential strength of character was displayed clearly in this event, and this is one of the reasons why immediately upon the departure of Lot, we read about the explicit promise of G-d regarding the future ownership of the land of Canaan. This time G-d is much more specific in the promise, seeing that Abraham had renounced material wealth as a primary consideration in his thinking. Also, the apparent success of the Canaanites wresting more of the land from the Semites as evidenced by the two Canaanite tribes already settling there made it necessary for G-d to point out that such possession by the Canaanites would be temporary. We also observe that as long as Abraham remained in the company of Lot, he suffered the temporary absence of his wife, i.e. he was imposed upon. (14) Immediately after his separation from Lot, he becomes capable of defeating the mightiest four kings of their time when he liberates Lot and secures a great deal of booty. No doubt the sequence of these events is to teach that Abraham's spiritual growth had been impeded by the physical proximity of Lot, and could now resume its normal progress. The details about the exploits of these four kings serve to underline their power and the greatness of Abraham's achievement in defeating them. Also, although Abraham had heard about Lot's capture only by implication, he had reacted promptly. The palit, escapee, in 14,13 probably only related to the fact that the five kings had lost the battle and that any survivors had been captured. Abraham having "heard" must be understood in a sense similar to Genesis 23,16, when Abraham had not really "heard" with his ears. Or, like in Esther Chapter 4, when Mordechai is reported as having "heard" about the plot to assassinate the king. That, too, may not have been "hearing" in the literal sense of the word. Despite those quite imprecise reports, Abraham mobilized the forces at his command to engage in a war in order to rescue his nephew. Even at this stage, Abraham had not ceased to feel brotherly responsibility for the safety of Lot. (15) During the encounter with Malki Tzedek, who appeared while Abraham was discussing the spoils of war with the king of Sodom, who himself had been a prisoner rescued by Abraham, the former acknowledged that the spoils rightfully belonged to Abraham. Abraham, however, demonstrated his attitude towards material possessions even more clearly on this occasion. The king of Sodom had the nerve to offer Abraham the spoils, though they were not even his to dispose of. Abraham swore an oath that he would not allow the king of Sodom to lose even a shoelace, except for the food which had been consumed by Abraham's soldiers during the campaign. Abraham was not motivated by haughtiness; he simply did not want his attitude to material wealth to be compared to that of the king of Sodom. He did not want the Sodomites to think that if part of his wealth had its physical origin in the former belongings of the Sodomites, the whole of his wealth must be of similar caliber. He wanted to emphasize that whereas the purpose of the Sodomites was to accumulate wealth in this world, he himself was interested in accumulating wealth in a higher world. In an allegorical sense, one may see in the king of Sodom's invitation the lure of Satan who says to the warrior who has risked his life to amass the spoils of war, "Give me your soul and take for yourself the material things in life." This, of course, is the path which will leave man eventually bereft of both material and spiritual values when he dies. Abraham's response to all those who follow in his footsteps throughout the ages has been, "I have raised my hand to G-d, I will not benefit in the least from the material gains of this struggle, I will not sell my soul except to the extent that physical comforts are instrumental in ensuring my success in my efforts to attain spiritual maturity." This too is the attitude towards wealth expressed by Solomon in Kohelet 5,18. "Also when the Lord gives a man wealth and properties, and He gives him the power to enjoy those and to benefit from his toils, all this is a gift from the Almighty." Since perfection of the human being is unattainable without the help of G-d, and is achieved only gradually, step by step, it is fitting that Abraham from hereon in makes further progress on the ladder of spiritual achievements.