Parshas Vayera

Hashem's Will Is The Way

“And Avraham said, ‘Because I said: There is but no fear of G-d in this place and they will slay me because of my wife.’” (20:11)

When entering Gerar, Avraham, fearing for his life, conceals the fact that Sarah is his wife, portraying her instead as his sister. Avimelech, the ruling monarch takes Sarah, against her will, to be his wife. Hashem appears to Avimelech and notifies him that he has incurred the death penalty for taking a married woman away from her husband. ¹ Avimelech confronts Avraham, asking him why he did not inform the monarch as to Sarah’s married status. Avraham answers “There is no fear of Hashem in this place.” Avraham is intimating that he was forced to conceal his true identity, for fear that the people of Gerar would murder him in order to sieze Sarah. Murder is a direct violation of the Noachide Laws to which the people of Gerar were bound. However, Avraham couches his answer in terms of their lack of “yiras Elokim” - “fear of Hashem”. The commandment of “yiras Elokim” stems from the verse “Es Elokecha tira” - “You shall fear your G-d.”² This directive is only applicable to Bnei Yisroel; it is not one of the Noachide Laws. Why is Avraham holding the people of Gerar to a standard to which they are not bound?

There are two aspects in the mitzva of yiras Hashem. The first aspect, as the Sefer HaChinuch explains it, is the notion that the fear of Hashem should be “on our faces” at all times, for feeling that we are in the presence of Hashem constantly deters us from sinning.³ The second aspect of yiras Hashem manifests itself in the manner in which we view His directives. Fear of Hashem requires that we perceive His word as absolute truth and understand that it is not subject to the manipulations of man. Society can only refer to itself as moral if it has an absolute sense of morality. This can only happen if society’s values are determined by the word of Hashem. If a society’s standards of morality are dictated by the accepted behaviors of a particular society, then every moral code is subject to change. “Do not kill” can be interpreted to allow for euthanasia or the indiscriminate practice of abortion. In the most extreme situation, a “moral” society can allow for the extermination of six million Jews.

Lacking fear of Hashem allows man to portray that which he desires as morally acceptable. When Avraham perceives that the citizens of Gerar do not fear Hashem, i.e. they do not view morality as an absolute unmitigable standard, he realizes that his life is being threatened, for if the king wants Sarah, the society in which he lives will concoct an “acceptable” way to solve the problem of her being married. A society bound by the seven Noachide Laws is also required to view the laws as immutable and absolute.

¹ 20:3
² See Sefer HaChinuch parshas Reeh #130
³ Ibid

WHOSE WEARING THE PANTS?

“And so it was, when G-d caused me to wander from my father’s house ‘...to whatever place we come, say of me: He is my brother.” (20:13)

Avraham relays to Avimelech that he did not intend to imply any negative attitude specifically toward the people of Gerar by pretending to be Sarah’s sibling rather than her husband, so as to protect himself from being killed. Rather, this was a strategy which they had been employing since they left their homeland, Charan when Hashem gave Avraham the instruction of “lech lecha”.¹ The Ramban notes that we do not find this strategy being employed until Avraham and Sarah descend to Mitzrayim in Parshas Lech Lecha.² Why then, does Avraham tell Avimelech that this strategy was already in effect since the time that they left Charan?

When professing his innocence to Hashem, Avimelech states that Avraham had told him that Sarah was his sister, and “she, also she, said ‘He is my brother’”.³One of the methods by which the Torah is expounded upon is the “ribui” - “exegetical amplification”; when certain words appear superfluous in connection to other words or phrases, they are understood to expand the scope of those words or phrases. Chazal derive from the seemingly extra expression “also she” that Avimelech also asked Sarah’s slaves, camel drivers and donkey drivers as to the nature of her relationship with Avraham, and they confirmed her claim. Why are the slaves and workers listed as functions of Sarah, as shown by the fact that the superfluous expression precedes the mention of her? It would seem more logical for the exegetical amplification, i.e. the redundant expression “also”, to be written prior to Avraham’s name, implying that they were auxiliary to Avraham, for presumably they were his employees.

In last week’s parsha, when Avraham tells Sarah to say that she is his sister, he gives two reasons for doing so; the first reason is so that he will be rewarded with gifts if she is taken away, and the second reason is so that he will not be killed.⁴ The order of the reasons implies that the primary reason for saying that she is Avraham’s sister is financial. How is it possible that monetary gain is more important to Avraham than his survival? How do we rationalize the possibility of Avraham using Sarah in this manner for financial gain? Why does Sarah agree?

The illusory relationship between Avraham and Sarah can be created in two ways, either with Avraham being the one financially responsible for the family and taking care of his sister, or with Sarah playing the dominant role in the family structure and taking responsibility for the welfare of her brother. Clearly, for the purpose of creating the ruse that they are siblings rather than husband and wife, portraying Sarah as the prominent family member would be far more effective, for generally, in a marital relationship, financial responsibility falls upon the husband.

Analyzing Sarah’s response to the question of how Avraham is related to her will identify which relationship Avraham and Sarah are utilizing. If Sarah answers “He is my brother”, she is stating that Avraham is secondary to her. However, if she states “I am his sister”, she places herself secondary to him.

From the time they left Charan, Avraham and Sarah employed the most effective strategy in portraying their relationship. Sarah controlled the wealth, giving the appearance that Avraham was a brother being supported by his sister. This is the meaning of what Avraham is telling Avimelech in this week’s parsha; since they left Charan, Sarah would say “Achi hu” - “He is my brother”.⁵ However, when coming to Mitzrayim, Avraham must ensure that he leaves with great wealth, as the Midrash teaches that the actions of the Patriarchs are a portent for their children. This would ensure that Bnei Yisroel would leave Mitzrayim with great wealth.⁶ In order to accomplish this Avraham tells Sarah to say “Achosi at” - “You are my sister”⁷, thereby portraying Avraham as the primary member of the relationship. Consequently, anyone desiring Sarah’s hand in marriage would wish to reward Avraham handsomely in order to receive his blessings. However, if she would say “He is my brother”, as was the usual protocol, then Pharoah would have no need to compensate Avraham. This strategy carries a greater risk for Avraham, for if Avraham is the one who is financially responsible, the Mitzrim may not believe that he is a sibling to Sarah. Therefore, Avraham must convince Sarah that even though she is going to say “I am his sister”, ensuring that Avraham will be richly compensated, in spite of the risk “vechaysa nafshi biglalech” - “I will still survive because of you”.⁸

It is now apparent why the Torah teaches that Avimelech asked the slaves and camel drivers, who were listed in connection to Sarah, rather than Avraham. While in Gerar, they were employing the original strategy of Sarah controlling the purse strings, and Avraham being supported by her. Therefore, the slaves and camel drivers were perceived to be her employees.

¹ 20:13 See Malbim
² 20:12
³ 20:5
⁴ 12:13
⁵ 20:13
⁶ Beraishis Rabbah 40:6
⁷ 12:13
⁸ Ibid