The Canaanites were in the Land – Avraham’s Status in a Land Not (Yet) His Own

Parshat Lekh Lekha 

 by Rabbi Avi Billet

“And Avram passed through the land, until the place of Shechem, until Elon Moreh, and the Canaanite(s) were then in the land.” (12:6) 

The remark about the Canaanites stands out as a side comment that almost seems irrelevant to the narrative at hand. A similar side comment appears in 13:7 - “and the Canaanites and Perizites were already then inhabitants of the land” – as we watch the dispute between Avram’s shepherds and Lot’s shepherds. Rav Hirsch notes there that more nations occupying the land limits the amount of space available for foreigners to have their animals graze, hence the need for Avram and Lot to part ways. 

In our verse, many commentaries aim to extract a message from the 3 Hebrew words which tell us about the presence of the Canaanites. Most commentators quote Rashi who notes that “Canaan had arrived to conquer the land from Shem’s descendants (some of whom were still in the land, such as Malki Tzedek). God had Avram walk the land indicating to him that ‘I will be returning this land to your children, who are of the descendants of Shem.’” 

This image paints the inheritance of the land as a sort of conflict between Canaan (the son of Noach’s son, Cham) and his descendants against the descendants of Shem, Noach’s more righteous son. As a result of this significant starting point, the question of the inheritance of this land is whether in God’s eyes the “land of Canaan” is in the hands of its rightful owners in the first place, or is Canaan an “occupier” of lands not really their own? 

In the following paragraphs, we will weave together a picture based on a number of interpretations, concluding with the teaching of Rabbi Moshe Sofer (Chasam Sofer). Ibn Ezra has an interesting caveat, in the event that his interpretation (second sentence in the next paragraph) is incorrect: “If [my assertion of the meaning of the verse] is not the case, there is a secret. The one who understands it should be silent.” 

Canaanites were there for it was not yet time for the Bnei Yisrael to inherit the land (Targum Yonatan). It is logical that Canaan had taken the land from someone else (Ibn Ezra). The Canaanites were deliberately conquering the country from the Semites, and the note regarding their presence is a stark reminder to Israel to look to later (such as when they receive the Torah, such as when they are conquering the land in Yehoshua’s time…) that Canaanites were already a thorn in Avram’s side back in his day [suggesting that if they want this problem to go away they have to do a better job conquering in Yehoshua’s time) (Chizkuni). Their presence made Avram afraid to call out in God’s name until he arrived in Shechem and Eilon Moreh, where God promised him the land (Ramban). 

Indicating that the Canaanites were “then in the land” shows the deeds of God and His desires for those He loves. Avram was passing through the land with many animals. Obviously his animals grazed, but no one said anything to him. This was a tremendous miracle. Avram recognized that God was fulfilling what God had indicated to him in a blessing (Radak). Or HaChaim similarly notes Avram’s free and untroubled passage through the land, but also notes that the land was named for Canaan specifically, because he was cursed to be the servant of servants to his brothers. This way, the land is owned by a slave, and can easily be reassigned to a non-slave, Avraham. 

The Chasam Sofer puts the note about the Canaanites in a historical context. Noach divided the world as such that Shem received Asia and the Middle East, Yefet received Europe, and Cham received Africa. But everyone abandoned their lands before the dispersion when they went to the valley at Shinar to build the tower, aiming to live an existence with one language and one mindset. This move caused them all to technically give up their inherited lands, leaving the land available to whomever might come along and conquer and claim it for themselves. That’s how Canaan ended up in this area. And since Avraham was the only Semite who did not give up on this land, the Canaanites essentially stole the land from him. God therefore promised him that in due time, this land would be returned to him, he the sole descendant of Shem interested in having the deed going back to its rightful owner (Toras Moshe). 

One way or another, it seems that the presentation of the Canaanites in the land at this time is meant to be a lesson to Avraham and his descendants, either that the Canaanites were here at this time, legitimately or illegitimately, but the land was promised to Avraham for his descendants to inherit in the future, or that they should remember what it is like to have Canaanites in the land when you are living there and take the lesson that Canaanites and you don’t live together well in the long term. 

The history of land ownership throughout the world is fraught with controversy. Who owned what land “first”? Who has indigenous rights to any land? (See this video of Europe’s changing borders in the last 1000 years to see how the modern map came to be: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-2zaOhYlAM) 

Rashi and the other commentaries use the book of Bereishis as a deed indicating that the “Land of Canaan” had its ownership assigned by God at different points in history. It was His will that it be owned by the Children of Israel, even if at times they’d be exiled from it, and even if at times their behavior would anger God. He would never abandon His people, and He would always want them to be the owners and stewards of the Land we have always known to be Eretz Yisrael. (After the conquering of the land in the book of Yehoshua, the phrase “Eretz Canaan” appears in the Tanakh 5 times, while “Eretz Yisrael” appears 11 times. Otherwise it is called “HaAretz”) 

The history of the United States is certainly mired in a bit of controversy. There was a gradual conquering of a land from those who were “indigenous” (though we know little of how many wars and conquerings took place prior to the arrival of Europeans), but those who founded this country believed they were like the ancient Israelites, possessing the land that was Divinely granted to them. [We can not right what some moderns view as historical wrongs. History is filled with darkness – the task before us is to bring light to ourselves and others in our times.] 

Whether we view are ourselves as American Jews, Jewish Americans, or simply as Americans, we have a responsibility as citizens to take part in the democratic process. Sunday is the last day for early voting, and Tuesday is Election Day. Be sure to vote! 

No candidate will be endorsed here (though it is imperative to know what a candidate stands for when voting for him or her), but the need to vote on the proposed Amendments is critical. The following is a summary of the Amendments, but you should read them in detail to understand them – see a sample ballot here: https://www.pbcelections.org/Voters/On-the-Ballot 

Amendment 1: If you believe only citizens 18 and older who are permanent residents of Florida should be allowed to vote, Vote Yes. If you disagree, Vote No

Amendment 2: If you think minimum wage should be raised to $10 an hour, and increased by $1 every year until it reaches $15 an hour and subsequently adjusting annually for inflation, Vote Yes. If you disagree, Vote No. 

Amendment 3: If you would like to see the method of how primaries are done changed permanently, with everyone being allowed to vote in all primaries, regardless of party affiliation, Vote Yes. If you disagree Vote No. 

Amendment 4: If you would like to see proposed amendments to the Florida Constitution needing to go through two elections instead of one, Vote Yes. If you’d like to things to stay as they are, with proposed changes to need only one election to pass, Vote No. 

Amendment 5: Proposes to increase the period of time during which accrued Save-Our-Homes benefits may be transferred from a prior homestead to a new homestead, from 2 to 3 years. If you want this time increase, vote Yes. If you want it to stay at 2 years, vote No. 

Amendment 6: Proposes to extend tax deductions on homestead properties to widows or widowers of disabled veterans, for the length of time that they remain in the home or widowed. If you agree to giving the surviving spouse the same benefits, Vote Yes. If you disagree, Vote No. 

May we be blessed to see democracy at work, and may we accept all results from the elections. May Hashem watch over all of us, and see to it that no matter what may come November 4 (the day after Election Day), we should all be blessed with peace and goodness in the coming years.

Achdus – The Ups and Downs of Unity

Parshat Noach

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch lived in Germany from 1808 to 1888, and was at the early stages of his career around 100 years before the Third Reich came to power. Reading his commentary on the Tower of Babel and the Dispersion, one wonders if he was prophetic regarding how far mankind could go in seeking a name for a community, or if he just saw the writing on the wall because the country which was his home for his entire life showed signs of how far a desired social order could be taken. 

Sometimes when the words “unity” and “community” are bandied about, images of Fritz Lang’s German-expressionist film “Metropolis” come to my mind. The opening scenes of the “Shift change” are a little frightening to consider when we think of the importance of individuality, and the value of every human being. In 1927, Lang was demonstrating what it means when people are reduced to “workers” who no longer have a discernible identity. (see clips at the end below)

Regarding those building the tower of Babel, Hirsch writes “there was nothing wrong in the act of building a city or tower per se. The people’s sin, then, was in the purpose for which they built and in the attitude that accompanied their actions. Everything turned on their stated aim, ‘Let us make a name for ourselves!’” 

Hirsch goes on to claim that such a statement “can be directed against two parties: against God, Who is over mankind; and against the individual, who is under or subordinate to mankind.” 

When considering their motivations, he suggests they intended to make an edifice that future generations would have to continue building, through creating a structure “that would be an everlasting monument to the power of the community and its preeminence over the individual.” 

Quoting Amos 9:6, he notes that God based His world on the community. “People are different from one another, and their views are different. Their duty is to complement one another… but this [only works] if the community assumes the same attitude toward God as the individual should, that is, if it subordinates its will to God.” 

The worry Hirsch expresses is over the realization the individual will come to when he realizes that his powers are limited, while the community is not limited, and therefore the community “may easily come to regard itself as the highest goal.” This would supplant the uniqueness of the yachid. 

If the community doesn’t call out in God’s name and “if the individual is called upon to be a servant of the community, but not to serve God; if the community presents itself as an end, instead of merely as a means toward an end – then mankind’s whole moral future is lost. Man… thinks the community is exempt from serving God and from observing the laws of morality.” 

Continuing in his worry over the future of the individual, Hirsch writes “the individual is expected to sacrifice his life, and the community is expected to renounce its allegiance to morality… When the community builds its edifice of glory the toll in human life is deemed to be of no importance… The individual believes he has not lived in vain if he has sacrificed his life for the community, even if it is for a vain cause, as long as that cause brings glory to the community. Millions may die, yet the community is easily comforted and adds new layers onto the edifice of glory… From a spiritual and moral standpoint, the means becomes an end in itself.” 

And so Hirsch draws attention to when a community gets it right versus when it is morally misguided. “If a community is in sync with its true purpose, then even if it has millions of members, it will require no artificial means to hold the people together; the bond between them lies in the consciousness of every individual, and the unifying point is God. If, however, a community does not exist for the sake of the individual… then the individual members must be compelled, or enticed by artificial means, to submit and to sacrifice themselves.” 

Hirsch turns his attention to the lessons of history noting that in other times as well “the lust for glory prompted the building of a ‘tower’ and the indiscriminate consumption of all else, in order to obtain the building blocks for its own triumphs,” namely those of the power-driven authoritarian leader. Think of Egyptian pyramids and the Great Wall of China – was the goal on God, while focusing on the unique contributions of the individuals who built these structures? Or was the goal to “glorify the tyrant who knew how to exploit the energies of his community to set a laurel wreath upon his own brow”? 

Was the individual so demarcated for destruction in the Tower of Babel episode? “The future of mankind, which depends on the inalienable dignity and moral significance of the individual, was jeopardized by the plans of the generation and its leaders. This is why God’s intervention is described as the work of Hashem (using God’s name of mercy), the Divine providence that ensures the future of mankind.” (Compare this, as Ramban does, to the name Elokim which appears throughout the flood narrative.) 

And so the big problem was that “the community sought to be the individual’s sole master. This was an attack on the inalienable worth of the individual, which does not depend on the glory of the community, and which can never be reckoned in terms of mere bricks, not even those used in building the glory of the community. It was also a denial of God’s name. God summons every individual directly to His service and thereby makes every man, be he prince or slave, free and equal. The Name of Hashem tolerates no slavery! The moment the community says ‘we shall make for ourself a name’ and does not summon each individual in Hashem’s name… then God descends to see the edifice the community has been building and to assess the intent of the builders." 

 That community was a failure in many ways, and “its misuse of power sought to subjugate the individual to its rule.” This prompted God to disperse them across the globe. 

Perhaps my suggestion that Hirsch had a keen reading on what was in store for his country, starting fewer than 50 years after his passing, is now a little more clear. The dangers of people creating an edifice for a higher power were demonstrated in that expressionist film, made in Germany in 1927, and six years later, the world’s most evil dictator came to power and turned “Metropolis” into a reality in his efforts to create a master race. 

We are not living in such a time, yet community is nevertheless challenged in our times. In some ways, the individual’s identity has been removed or at the very least challenged. What, then, is the solution, and the take-home lesson? In the tower of Babel the only salvation for mankind, which was on a road to the destruction of individuality, was decentralization. People needed to move away and forge their own destinies, perhaps through starting their own nations and dynasties that would appreciate each person’s role and contribution much more than this misguided utopia could never provide, as it was, by basically all accounts, a product of the tyrant Nimrod, who lusted for power like no one else in his era. 

Our goal is supposed to be the promotion of God as King, and of realizing that no person is as free as the one who chooses to be subservient to the King of kings, the Master of masters, our Father in heaven. (Avos 6:2, and see also Talmud Brachos 17a) 

When we, as a community, can gather with that focus in mind – prayer, connection, and becoming one with Almighty in declaring His Name and in sanctifying His Name, we become worthy of our charge and our position in this world. 

We should only be blessed to see a complete return to our task, which is to gather together to declare God’s Oneness, and to be the community that celebrates each individual’s right and power to be an independent thinker, while we unite together in our devotion to the mission our forefather Avraham made his personal life goal, to call out in God’s Name, and to sanctify His Name in every way possible in the eyes of the nations.

*****************

The following are film clips from "Metropolis" (1927) by Fritz Lang. 

This is not the original music from the film

Note the reference in this clip at 3:56 (as well as the scene of Moloch before that moment)

The Meaningful Life – As Indirectly Taught by Adam and Eve

Parshat Bereishis 

by Rabbi Avi Billet

One of the more misunderstood passages in our Rabbinic texts is one of the Mishnayos we read on Friday night, from the second chapter of Meseches Shabbos. 

“There are three transgressions for which women die during childbirth: Not being careful about niddah (the laws concerning conduct during the menstrual period), taking challah [from dough], and the lighting of candles [Friday night].” 

The Mishnah cannot be understood to be teaching causality because women who do not observe these do not tend to die in childbirth in any observable pattern, and while it is thankfully uncommon today, some women who are meticulous of these laws have nevertheless passed away during or shortly after giving birth. 

How we understand this Mishnah is helped by a passage in Midrash Tanchuma at the beginning of Parshas Noach. 

“Why are women commanded these three mitzvot? God said, ‘Adam HaRishon was the beginning of My creation, and he was commanded regarding the Tree of Knowledge.’ And the verse says regarding Chava (Eve) ‘And the woman saw [that the fruit was good to eat and desirous to the eyes, and she ate from it and gave to her man who also ate from it].’ She thus caused his death and spilled his blood. It also says in the Torah ‘One who spills the blood of a person (HaAdam) with the person (BaAdam) that individual’s blood will be spilled.’ She thus has her blood spill and she must be careful of her menstruating period to atone for the blood of ‘HaAdam’ that she spilled. 

“Regarding the mitzvah of Challah? She defiled the challah of the world (this refers to Adam), as Rabbi Yosi ben Dosemka explained: Just as a woman kneads her dough in water, and then lifts her Challah, so God did with Adam HaRishon as the verse says ‘and a mist rose from the ground and moistened the earth’ which is followed by ‘And God formed man of the dust of the earth.’ 

“Regarding candles? She extinguished the candle of Adam as the verse says (Mishlei 20), ‘The candle of God is the soul of Adam (a human, but could refer to Adam the man),’ therefore she must observe the lighting of the candles. “ 

Ramban uses the near-1000 years of Adam’s life as the anchor for his depiction of the first millennium of the world described in the Torah, which he compares to the first day of creation (when light was created), as he refers to Adam as the “light of the world who best recognized his Creator.” 

Ramban notes that there was likely no turn towards any form of idolatry before Adam’s passing at age 930! Perhaps Ramban’s view is based in a simple equation that as long as people could still see the man who never had human parents, who was formed from the earth and had God breathe life directly into him, there is no doubt at all as to Who or What God is, and what His role is in the world. When that connection is gone, that idea can be forgotten by those who never knew Adam personally. The prevention of idolatry can certainly bear witness to Adam being “the light of the world,” and thus his eventual death being caused by Chava is something which needs a corrective in the form of Shabbos candles. 

Pinchas Kehati quotes a Midrash Rabba – different from the Tanchuma quoted above – which also refers to Adam as the “challah of the world.” 

While it may not be fair to point to Chava and say she killed Adam – she certainly didn’t commit murder outright – there is what to be said for her being responsible for their expulsion from the garden, which may have led directly (or indirectly, depending on how you calculate these things) to Adam’s death, which at the very least is a symbol of bloodshed. 

The Torah tells us that their banishment from the garden resulted in their being blocked from re-entering, so they may not have access to the Tree of Life. Quoting the Rabbis of the Talmud (Shabbos 55b) Ramban notes that in the garden they were supposed to live forever. This could be because their soul was in a spiritual space that would prevent death, or, from a different perspective, because they’d have access to the Tree of Life, which would provide immortality. 

Ramban specifically comments on the words “On the day you eat from the tree you will die” that “you will then become mortal and will no longer exist forever. Eating was initially simply meant to be an act of pleasure/leisure (but not a necessity for living). It is reasonable that the fruits of the garden were absorbed in the body in a perfect manner, to sustain those who’d eat them (similar to how we understand the Manna). But when man was cursed to eat the ‘grass of the field’ and ‘you’ll eat bread produced by the sweat of your brow…’ that began the deterioration of man from being a primarily spiritual being in a physical body to being more ‘dust-like’ – eating food which grows from the ground, [priming the body for the day until] when ‘to the dust you shall return.’” 

No matter how we view life and immortality pre the eating of the fruit, reality certainly changed when Chava succumbed to the pressure of the serpent herself and had Adam eat the fruit as well. Her punishment, “You will give birth with difficulty,” seems to be what the Mishnah in question is referencing when it suggests death is always lurking in the shadows with childbirth. At the same time the Mishnah gives women a formula for doing a “tikkun” (correction) to Chava’s blunder. These mitzvot are meant to serve as a tremendous merit for women, and may that blessing always be so as we see many Jewish children brought into this world, guided by their God-fearing mothers who are blessed with relatively easier birthing experiences that result in good health for all. (Amen) 

While it is probably not healthy to punish later generations for the errors of forbears or previous generations, it is important for the living to learn lessons from history, and to do what we can to not repeat past mistakes. 

The exact scenario of the Garden of Eden is not one we face, but considering the following examples, and the examples of this narrative, what are our choices? 

• When we know a behavior is wrong in God’s eyes, in the Torah, in halakha, do we nevertheless succumb to our desires and go against what we know? 
• When we know we have fallen prey to the Evil Inclination, do we do what we can to have others join us so we not feel so lonely in our disjointed path? 
• When we can specifically outline the path that has brought us to the place where we do not want to be, do we take corrective steps that specifically help us undo the damage to ourselves, to our souls, to our relationships – especially through countering the measures that brought us to this place? 
• Do we see ourselves, and our fellow humans, as beings created in the Image of God, who are worthy and deserving of respect, kindness, dignity? Do we practice that in the way we relate to others – especially those with whom we disagree, and those with whom we may have had a falling out? 
• Do we live life in such a way that our passing will be marked with sadness and feelings of loss by people beyond our immediate family? 
• Do we find ourselves following in the footsteps of Adam, of being a light for ourselves, for others, and for those we encounter? 

In these days post the Holiday season, and as we embrace the very plain, holiday-less month of Cheshvan, we have the opportunity to contemplate what the coming days, weeks, months, and year (or even years!) can look like for ourselves when it comes to answering these questions. 

In many ways the society around us is broken. In the final days leading up to the upcoming election, we are seeing the worst emerging from people – hatred, vitriol, violence. Social media (and many parts of mainstream media) is a cesspool of demonizing the other. Even Jews are hating Jews who view the world through different lenses. There are no easy answers – no one is completely wrong, and no one is completely right. 

What Adam and Chava teach us is that humanity shares the same ancestors. They remind us that we once had it made in a Garden. Our common goal is to be worthy of returning to that very special place. 

We have a responsibility to follow Adam’s lead, to be a light in the darkness, and a light for the world. Wherever we can inspire, we should inspire. Whenever we can uplift, we should uplift. However we can bring peace between peoples, we should be blessed to do so. 

In this way, we will merit the “tikkun” (corrections) the world needs, to see the light, and to return to an ideal in which serving God is our goal, and everything else is just background noise because everything is as perfect as Eden was meant to be.