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.
No comments:
Post a Comment