And Lot went with him. And he took Lot. Abraham departed his country, his homeland, his home in order to liberate himself from the burden of dealing with his countrymen hostile to his principles. And then Lot, lacking the proper credentials, decided to attach himself to Abraham, as a parasite, an uninvited guest. This notwithstanding, Abraham, the quintessential man of kindness, took the initiative and actively took Lot, not leaving him to languish in the role of uninvited guest.

The name Abram, without the letter heh , indicates a lack which Abraham was immersed in repairing. Both Abraham's familial and economic situations were far from the hoped for perfection, and, this notwithstanding, he obeyed G-d and took the initiative setting off in pursuit of an unclear objective: "to the land which I will show you," (Gen 12:1) toward an explicitly unspecified destination.

Herein is to be found the root of Abraham's kindness. Toil, initiative and caring for the world and for man, qua individual and qua community, coupled with the complete neglect and sacrifice of his own personal interests. Abraham did not take proper advantage of his relationship with his wife. He did not establish a successor generation with her. He was not aware of her beauty until the episode with the Egyptians. Even though he was her sole possessor, he conceded the title of husband in order to keep her out of harm's way. In the spirit of concession, not that of misrepresenting the truth, he said: "Please say that you are my sister". Abraham interacted with Lot in the same manner, allowing Lot to choose whichever realm of influence and assets he wished. Abraham conceded the possessions to the King of Sodom. He had faith in Hakadosh Baruch Hu's promises concerning his personal affairs, but even risked his relationship with Him by daring to ask for guarantees of His promise that Abraham's descendants would inherit the Land of Israel after him. He was willing to forego having a son with Sarah "O that Ishmael might live by your favor"(Genesis 17:18).

Did Abraham have aspirations for the future, long term plans? If he did, devoted and responsible paragon of kindness that he was, he was willing to forego them quite willingly to ensure or enable the other's existence here and now: "O that Ishmael might live by your favor;" "How shall I know that I [or, practically speaking, my descendants] will inherit [the Land]"(Gen 15:8). He is concerned by a future where Sarah may not give him children, but he is willing to deny himself and forgive Sarah her role as mother of his children, satisfying himself by loving her and acting responsibly toward her, adopting the pure, straight-forward responsibility of a brother to his sister. When faced with the promise that "I will give this land to your descendants" (Gen 15:18) he doubts and questions "How shall I know?"; Abraham offers Lot the whole promised land in order to prevent a quarrel: "Is not the whole land before you?"(Gen 13:9). All these actions stemming neither from a lack of serious thought nor from impatience, heaven forbid, but rather from absolute devotion to the well-being and benefit of the other here and now. Kindness to the very end! Abraham replaces "Get up and walk about the land, its length and its breadth," even though it is adjoined by the promise "for I give it to you,"(Gen 13:17) with the verse "And Abraham set up camp … and he dwelled in Eilonei Mamre … And he built an altar there for Hashem" (Gen 13:17-18). Abraham replaces walking the land with temporarily dwelling in a tent, and reacts to G-d's promise with immediate gratitude, sacrificing a thanksgiving offering to Him; Abraham even interprets faith in the future as obligating recognition and gratitude in the immediate present.

Instead of becoming intoxicated with and immersed in romantic visions of the glowing future, promised to him by the mighty and awesome G-d, who Abraham held fast to and had absolute faith in, Abraham interpreted the promise in the present filling the emptiness concretely with thanksgiving and recognition of the good done to him, as if the promise had already been fulfilled and was presently being enacted. Abraham was filled with a sense of a present filled with the promise of a perfect future, not only when facing an empty present, but even when facing present difficulties seemingly antithetical to the fulfillment of the promise. Abraham was forced to fight for survival in a life filled with famine and wars. These he handled with determination and bravery, without compromise, notwithstanding the obscure future, the smallest cloud of doubt never even crossed his mind. Abraham quickly and scornfully rejected the spoils he had legitimately won in war, even though he was not as yet a wealthy man. For in light of Hashem's promise for a rosy future, he already saw himself as obligated to the Creator, and felt that if he pounced upon the spoils he would be demonstrating a lack of absolute faith in the promised future.

The vision between the pieces (mahaze ben ha-betarim). Abraham grapples with the absurd and triumphs. His behavior, actions and reactions faithfully testify that his feelings toward the promised future make its immediate instantiation fitting. However, Abraham's feelings towards the future do not apply exclusively towards a rosy one. Abraham does not dream of a future filled with reconciliation or chock full of illusions in response to an empty present saturated with problems and difficulties. He envisions a difficult picture of the future, one that might undermine the fortitude of any mortal. However not Abraham's, suffused as he is with a sense of responsibility not only for the present-day reality but also for the fearful future. This vision does not succeed in undermining Abraham's confidence or weaken his sense of duty as the man in charge. He tries to soften the edges, repair the tears and arm himself with tools stemming from his merits in an attempt to pre-empt the harsh decree. Abraham does not even relate to G-d's singling him out, with the promise of offspring, as a compliment, an attempt to encourage him, but rather views it as another reality he must deal with and be concerned about. "And he believed in Hashem," his faith was so strong, notwithstanding the lack of evidence in the present to support it, that HaKadosh Baruch Hu, Himself, was in awe of it and appraised it as the height of giving, of kindness, of charity, of generosity, of selflessness, of overcoming the sense that everything was against him [and the fulfillment of the promised rosy future] in the present.

Within the space of a brief conversation, Abraham reveals himself to be an absolute realist, not a student of illusion, to the point where he jeopardizes his relationship with G- d, more precious and holy to him than life itself, by asking "How will I know that I shall inherit." Stubbornly, he demands guarantees that G-d will keep his promise. Abraham's stubbornness proves beyond any doubt his complete faith in the reality of the promise, faith that leads him to thoroughly investigate every aspect of the promise, and enter into negotiations with G-d as if it were a business deal about to be immediately consummated. The Creator of the World, indeed, values Abraham's serious and responsible approach and reveals to him the inner workings of the envisioned future in order to provide him with the opportunity to negotiate, ameliorate the situation, and inoculate his progeny to help them face the real events which are still hidden, as it were, in the mists of time; the four kingdoms, the overwhelming burden of living in the Diaspora, suffering and redemption.

The vision of the future becomes the source of Abraham's almost absolute control, a complete and comprehensive picture of it all, the true concretization or realization, the ideal unification of the fractured shards of time. Abraham's devotion and sense of responsibility to fulfilling the trait of kindness enable Abraham to fully realize the unification of dimension of time, the height of perfection characteristic of the whole or perfect man. The unification of past, present and future brought together through their subservience to the hero who rules over the whole of existence.

Immediately after the wonders and sublime visions came to an end the present returned with a vengeance weighted-down by personal hardships and family quarrels, expressions of the pain crying out from the verse "And Abraham fell upon his face and laughed" ; the agonizing opposition between the perfect future and the present lack. "And Sarai, the wife of Abraham, did not present him with a child, and she had a maid servant … and her name was Hagar"(Gen 16:2);The crucial determining characteristic of the father of believers' rock-solid faith – a faith which did not struggle with the basic dilemma common to most believers of whether what is promised is for real - lay in his grappling with a future completely shrouded in the mists of the absurd. He believed even though it was absurd.

Even though Abraham did not feel himself worthy of the promise, he treated it with absolute seriousness and viewed it as an established fact for he did not treat the promise as if it was intended for him personally. As a distinct person he did not take part in all that was taking place before his very eyes. He was in charge, simply playing a role, without any personal interests, as if the matter did not concern him. As if it was simply part of G-d's absolute plan for creation, a plan which he just happened to have a role in. The events did not concern him personally; rather, he himself belonged, was swallowed up by events, exclusively as the player of a responsible role. The events did not happen to him; rather he happened to be present when they took place, as if by accident. Indeed, all of Israel's giants perceived themselves and their involvement in the nation's history this way. Abraham, forefather of the nation, created and modeled this relationship for his progeny. Similarly, Moses searching for his lost lamb in the desert, "by chance" stumbled upon the burning bush.

This distancing even expresses itself when Abraham receives the extremely intimate promise of offspring: "The Lord is making tschok, merry, at my expense (literally, making laughter, or making me a laughing stock)"; laughter as in surprise; laughter stemming from humility, laughter stemming from a sense of unworthiness, of a sense that he is undeserving that such a miracle be performed on his behalf. Laughter directed at himself, not at the promise. The surprised laughter of an individual who is absolutely humble, free of any trace of selfishness. Sarah too did not expect a miracle to be performed on her behalf, so she also reacted with laughter. However, her laughter failed to distinguish between the impossible event prophesized and the question of how she could be related to it. Sarah's lack of courage, her own self-nullification, caused her to totally disregard the possibility of such an event coming to pass. Modesty distorts both the self-understanding of the humble individual and his or her sense of reality. Abraham, the great believer, had his faith put to the test by the absolute dichotomy between his perfect faith that the promise would be kept and the worm of doubt that it would find fulfillment through him, an individual completely unworthy of being the subject of such a promise.

Circumcision

G-d establishes a covenant with Abraham. The greatest of believers receives a divine response to his undying devotion to divine matters, a devotion reaching the heights of individual self-nullification. He is appropriately granted a covenant of equals with the Master of the Universe. Abraham, himself, had discovered the trait of mastery which he attributed to the Creator of the world; mastery demanding absolute subservience and enthrallment from the individual who is cognizant of the Creator's mastery and accepts the relationship to G-d of slave to master. And it is at this point that the master establishes a covenant with the slave. Why does He do this? And, what is the unique value of this sublime covenant that Noah failed to gain on an individual level, only achieving it as a representative of humanity? For Abraham is rewarded with this covenant precisely on the individual level, to the point of intimacy; a covenant encompassing the world is expressed through Abraham representative of the intimate that should be hidden from probing eyes. Abraham is the individual who represents the universal without giving up on even one iota of his private individuality. The knight of faith who maintains his private individuality, and yet who nullifies himself totally when called upon to practice hesed for others.

"O that Ishmael might live by your favor"(Genesis 17:18). With merely a few words Abraham determined Ishamel's future "success," a success which even today continues to bring untold suffering upon the Jewish people; suffering caused by a wild ass of a man whose "hand is against everyone and who has everyone's hand against him"(Gen 16:12). However we must recognize that there are two sides to the matter. The same Abraham, prophet of Hashem, father of the Israelite nation, is also father of Ishmael, faced with the tremendous responsibility for this son, to the point where he forgot his own self. Since he is responsible for Isaac's descendants as well, he requests from Hashem that they be inoculated against this evil pest and attempts to soften the blows of the wild ass of a man so that they do not cause damage to Isaac's sons which can not be repaired.

However, the troubles caused by Islam pale in comparison to the tragedies brought upon the Israelite nation by the kingdom of Edom, Esau's descendant. The situation created by these enemies of Israel would have been overcome and Israel would have gained control and even convinced the Ishmaelites to repent had it not been for Christianity. For the Ishmaelites , by their very nature, enthrall themselves to the powerful ones, believing it honorable to take shelter under their wings. Even the disputes that cause Jewish blood to be spilled by the Ishmaelites in our time may be attributed to the Christian world which breathes down the Ishmaelites' necks and encourages them. Spiritually speaking, the Christian world is also far more dangerous than the Islamic one for it penetrates into and influences the heart of Judaism, via psychology, which is essentially secularized Christianity. For example, see the ascetic approach [in psychology] that creates an imbalance between matter and spirit, and is a defining characteristic of Christianity.

A Few Words Concerning the General Notion of Ethics in Contrast to the Jewish Notion of Ethics

Philosophy differentiates between the ethical moment and the distinction between good and evil. Some philosophers, especially the post-modern ones, even go so far as to force ethics under the aegis of efficiency, judging it by the outcomes it leads to, and the patterns of behavior it engenders. Levinas, who has mastered Western thought appears to come close to the Jewish notion of ethics, but even he forces ethics onto the narrow path of the emotions where it is denuded from all sides, being forced to take into account the existential needs, on the one hand, the value-oriented dimension of good and evil, on the other, and the supernal dimension which responds to exalted considerations, and is not subservient to and remains uninfluenced by the dynamics of reality and emotions. Levinas describes a subjective conception totally given over to the whims of every and any individual, and describes a radical connection to the Other lacking any individual or value-oriented considerations and unconcerned by social order. According to Levinas and his followers, morality is behavior ruled by unfettered, unconditioned devotion to the Other; as he writes, the Other is the center to the point of obsession, of actual fixation on it. And we might add, to the point where mercy is extended to the cruel, and kindness (hesed) is withheld from the needy and dispensed to the less needy, or is dispensed to the needy one who draws upon our heart strings more cleverly than to the needy individual who is reserved. For considerations of utilitarianism are also rejected, so that the dissolute addict receives financial aid, and not the genuinely needy individual.

The Torah, as we have been taught it by Abraham, the father of our nation and the father of morality, views ethics as the meeting place between absolute supernal values and the human or social order. Halakhot deal with justice carefully investigating and analysing how absolute, supernal values are to be reflected in world run by a social order and beholden to existential needs.

The demand for justice combined with a sense of responsibility for our fellow man, a responsibility free of personal bias, and suffused with the cautious and exacting distinction between good and evil, as they are reflected in the immediate ever-changing reality. From this point to the demand for a creative morality constructed and re-created without any hesitation in every human situation, not only in interpersonal encounters but even when an individual confronts himself. Jewish ethics obligate the individual in how he relates to himself just as the commitment to values dictates both the means and aims. Responsibility to the divine goal of sanctifying reality and creating a divine presence saturated with goodness and responsibility to G-d and man, as it is written "Do what is right and good"(Deut 6:11): good in the eyes of G-d and right in the eyes of men according to R. Akiva, or right in the eyes of G-d and good in the eyes of men, as his interlocutors contended. Neither approach could envision a separation between justice and goodness. "And you will find favor and approbation in the eyes of G-d and man"(Proverbs 3:4); From these verses we learn that there is no fixed, guaranteed formula, nor is there a model or theoretical principles which guarantee ethical behavior. Ethical behavior is a work in progress, an expression of the human quality which comes to light when man encounters himself or another. Not when he encounters the Other; rather, when he encounters "your fellow like yourself"(Lev 19:18).

The Relationship between Halakha and Musar or Ethics

Halakha possesses a practical, technical nature from which stems its tendency to drag the existential sensibility from the experiential arena (of Being) to the active arena (of Doing). A tendency that endangers the continued rule of the personality's inner quality and weakens man's ability to introduce contents, values and qualities into his life. Valueless activity held in thrall by environmental influences and pressured by mechanistic factors loses its contents and quality. Halakhic man, in the best case scenario, loses his control over free will , and in a less promising scenario turns into a naval be- reshut ha-Torah , a scoundrel who only follows the letter of the law, using Torah observance as a mask for furthering his own nefarious ends and, ultimately, profaning the divine name.

Taking the step of devoting attention to values and Jewish thought and establishing a theoretical doctrine composed of principles to be studied in tandem with the world of halakhic activity will not sufficiently address the problem. There is no escape from delving into the human factor, at the same time as the pragmatic and theoretical aspects of the problem are addressed. For some reason, the human component has been ignored in favor of the other ones. The venerable, the pious Rabbi Israel of Salant, may the memory of the righteous and holy man be blessed, circulated amongst the Torah centers of his time attempting to convince the scholars to work on their character traits, to devote time and energy to increasing their awe and love of G-d. The Musar Movement penetrated into the major yeshivot in Lithuania and achieved much success. Indeed, it was too successful for the movement's redrawing of the academic map to prioritize inner subjectivity destabilized the delicate balance and endangered the wholeness to be expected from the combination of the head, hand and heart , an integration which only Judaism has been successful in realizing.

Our master, the Hazon Ish, in his Emunah u-Bitahon, opposed, what he believed, was the overly strong emphasis placed on the musar process. For he saw this coming at the expense of time devoted to exploring and investigating every single nut and bolt of halakhic technique. Out of his observations, a new conception of musar arose that adjoins musar to the halakhah and refuses to endow musar autonomy. In other words, there is no independent ethical entity, and such an entity should not be developed outside the context of reality which encompasses the meeting point between the ever-changing environmental conditions and man's situation as it relates to the environment, and between qualitative and theoretical principles which, and only which, determine the framework in which the meeting occurs. Musar, according to this conception, will act as the individual, qualitative intention of the human being who stands at the center of the point of intersection and directs the meeting between the various aspects. This qualitative intention is responsible for calculating the correct duration of the meeting based upon obedience to the principles (represented by the halakha related to the issue at hand), cautious consideration of the ever-changing reality, and the fulfillment of man's personal needs, for which, truth be told, the entire situation was created. Musar is an extraordinarily all-encompassing and sensitive or perceptive human capability, which can not be forced into any Sodomite bed of fixed dimensions. Thus, musar should not be perceived to be a method of exercising the psyche's powers or of improving them, and not even of the deepening and internalization of values no matter how holy or exalted they might be.

The Musar Movement founded by the Gaon, Rabbi Israel of Salant limited itself to the perfection of character traits, the psyche's powers, and the deepening of spiritual values and the principles of awe - awe of heaven and, especially fear of sin. Few enough succeeded in sufficiently perfecting these three aspects by focusing and limiting their attention upon the points that the Musar Movement championed and regarded as the primary battlefront. Without Torah study filling existential reality, and without a halakhic framework determining and defining this reality, worship of the personality takes the place of divine worship; a form of worship which too often divorced the musarnik (one devoted to the musar process) from surrounding reality, isolating him and forcing him onto a subjective level which devolves into a selfish, egotistical never-ending circle. Thus, the Musar Movement paradoxically created an egotistical entity immersed in self- analysis, cut off from its surroundings and emptied of both its intellectual quality and its productive human and halakhic talents.

The Torah refuses to conceive of or recognize the human entity as its own independent reality. The Torah perceives the ethical demand to be the request for a work created anew, of attention paid to detail granting without hesitation a relationship involving individual empathy , involving the desire to hold fast to the very end, of devotion and of a sensitivity toward justice, toward kindness, stemming from a sensitive and empathetic love toward the other who is part of reality. All this alongside of a careful and probing examination of the purity of intention and level of attachment to achieving the goal which brings to fruition the supreme value of the divine worshiper, sanctification of the divine name; this occurring in the course of creating anew the divine presence out of the human reality which is instantiated by and grows out of the splendiferous happening, from the longed for ideal of unifying the divine presence with humanity; as is written in Scriptures, where the good and the right are adjoined, "and you shall do the right and the good"; the good in the eyes of man (kindness) and the right in the eyes of heaven (halakha) and vice versa. The good in the eyes of Hashem (the values of holiness and halakha) and the right in the eyes of man (kindness, justice). In this way, Jewish morality or ethics is defined as the perfect, all-encompassing expression of mankind, G-d and the world which creates anew a perfect work stemming from the whole man. A man complete in his human quality and completely devoted to his role of bringing to fruition the divine presence via a reality composed of Torah study and guided by the halakha which defines every iota of reality, a reality which brings the subject (the individual) and the object together in perfect unity; by granting complete and glorious expression to the qualitative human personality of the divine worshipper, of one created in the image and the form of the Creator of the World.