Q&A: On the Prohibition of Calling Abraham "Abram"
On the Prohibition of Calling Abraham "Abram"
Question
Have a good week, Rabbi,
In Berakhot 13a it says:
Bar Kappara taught: Whoever calls Abraham "Abram" violates a positive commandment, as it is said: "And your name shall be Abraham." Rabbi Eliezer says: He violates a prohibition, as it is said: "And your name shall no longer be called Abram."
1. Seemingly, this implies that the same act can be interpreted as a violation of either a prohibition or a positive commandment—in other words, the difference between prohibitions and positive commandments is not in the action itself but in the wording of the command (unlike the scholar you mentioned in the last lecture).
2. Why was this prohibition not ruled as Jewish law?
3. What did the tannaim mean by saying this? Is it a kind of asmachta / aggadic midrash? What is the halakhic force of this statement?
Answer
Oren, hello.
- That is exactly what Aharon Shemesh says: in earlier generations the difference was practical, and only later did they move to linguistic definitions. Bar Kappara apparently belongs to the later generations. This can also be seen in the commandments of cessation on the Sabbath and Jewish holidays, and elsewhere, as I mentioned in the lecture.
- The medieval authorities (Rishonim) apparently understood this as a literary-aggadic expression and not a halakhic determination. See a detailed discussion here: https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%97%D7%91%D7%9C_%D7%A0%D7%97%D7%9C%D7%AA%D7%95_%D7%99%D7%97_%D7%9B%D7%97
The commentators discuss whether this is an asmachta or not, but in my humble opinion there is no halakhic statement here at all. The point is to say that the conception of Abram has passed from the world, and now he is to be understood as Abraham (whatever the difference may be).
Discussion on Answer
Many thanks. Though there is room to understand that our Torah brings benefit to the other nations not necessarily because there is also value in their culture. That is, this is not necessarily universalism, but rather concern for others, and not necessarily recognition of the value of their culture and values.
Regarding 3 — here are the words of Rabbi Kook in Ein Ayah, that this is a warning because of the nullification of the universal aspect within Judaism:
For it is necessary to instill that the ultimate purpose of the nationality of Israel is not our own strengthening for ourselves, nor the conquering of nations and the like—things all nations long for out of excessive self-love—but rather because our nationhood brings blessing and wholeness to the entire world. Therefore, at the beginning of its construction, where the end of the deed is first in thought, it is for the sake of the betterment and love of all humankind.