Lech Lecha: Avraham Avinu – a Vial of Perfume in a Cemetery

This week's article is part Mishlei, part midrash, and part insight into the pshat of the parashah - all thanks to Rabbeinu Bachya's introductory drashah, which centers upon a strange analogy.

Nov 08, 2024

Article voiceover

1×

0:00

-10:50

This week’s Torah content has been sponsored by Yael Weiss. I forgot to ask her for a dedication message in advance, but in the meantime, I’ll dedicate this Torah content to the entire Weiss family: Rabbi and Sara, Yael and Esti, Eli and Benji, with a special shout-out to Rabbi Weiss Sr. Thank you for supporting what I do and for being part of my learning life, each in your own way!

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this article.

Adobe 3.0’s response to the prompt: “painting of a very small, slim, glowing vial of fragrant perfume sitting in a dark and gloomy graveyard with fog on the ground, shot from a distance”

Lech Lecha: Avraham Avinu – a Vial of Perfume in a Cemetery

Rabbeinu Bachya ben Asher introduces each parashah with a drashah (homiletical exposition) on a verse from Mishlei, connected to the parashah’s themes. For Lech Lecha, he uses one of the verses I often teach in my high school Mishlei curriculum: הוֹלֵךְ אֶת חֲכָמִים יֶחְכָּם וְרֹעֶה כְסִילִים יֵרוֹעַ. The most straightforward translation is: “One who walks with the wise will become wise, but one who is a companion to fools will be broken” (Mishlei 13:20).

On a basic level, this teaches that we are deeply influenced by those with whom we associate. Merely “walking with” the wise—spending time with them, observing their ways, learning from their actions—promotes intellectual and ethical growth. Likewise, those who spend time in the company of fools will inevitably adopt their character, thinking, and decision-making, gradually sinking to their level. Eventually, these unfortunate individuals will suffer the consequences that await every fool.

However, the phrase הוֹלֵךְ אֶת חֲכָמִים can also mean “one who follows the wise,” and רֹעֶה כְסִילִים can similarly be translated as “one who leads (literally, shepherds) fools.” Rabbeinu Bachya (Bereishis 12:1) adopts this second translation:

Shlomo ha’Melech cautions in this verse that a person is obligated to strive to associate with the wise and to distance himself from the company of fools. He says, “follows” because one who consistently follows the wise, attaches himself to them, makes himself secondary to them, and views them as his leaders—such a person will, without a doubt, become wise. But one who associates with fools and becomes their leader will be broken. This verse illustrates both the harm that comes from associating with fools and the benefit that comes from associating with the wise: the former will be broken, but the latter will become wise.

One might think that a chacham (wise person) who ends up in a position of leadership would be at a disadvantage, but Rabbeinu Bachya clarifies that this is not the case:

It is known that one who befriends a chacham will derive benefit, yet the chacham loses nothing. This is why the Torah is compared to a candle, as David said: “Your word is a candle for my feet and a light for my paths” (Tehilim 119:105), because anyone can kindle a flame from a candle without diminishing its light at all.

This illustrates a remarkable quality of chochmah (wisdom): unlike physical goods, which are often a zero-sum game, chochmah benefits everyone without anyone needing to lose anything. Rabbeinu Bachya continues:

Based on this, the Sages said in a midrash: “To what can this be compared? To a person who enters a perfumery and absorbs the fragrance of the perfume: when he leaves, all his clothing is fragrant, even though he didn’t buy anything from the perfumer. This is the meaning of, “One who walks with the wise will become wise, but one who leads fools will be broken.” Associating with fools brings great harm; such a person not only damages themselves but also causes harm and loss to others. This is the opposite of what happens when one associates with the wise. The upshot is that association with fools brings harm without benefit, but association with the wise brings benefit without harm.

Rabbeinu Bachya clarifies that “ksilim” (fools) here does not refer to those who lack intelligence or have low IQ—an assumption common among students new to Mishleic terminology. He provides the following clear definition:

The term “fools” here refers to those who choose reprehensible qualities and physical desires and scorn intellectual matters. They are the ones whom it is not worth rebuking … Just as the company of the wise greatly facilitates and encourages a person to uphold and maintain avodas Hashem (service of God) and consistency in it, so too, the company of fools and the wicked facilitates abandonment of [avodas Hashem].

What does all this have to do with Avraham and Lech Lecha? Rabbeinu Bachya explains:

Avraham Avinu wanted to fulfill the matter of Torah and avodah … but he needed to be cautious of the company of his wicked contemporaries, who would have been the cause of the negation of bechirah (free choice). Therefore, the words of Hashem came to him, [instructing him] to distance himself from them and not be tainted by them, to leave his land and his birthplace for the land He would show him. Thus, it is written: “Hashem said to Avram, ‘Go forth from your land, from your birthplace, and from your father’s house to the land that I will show you.” Chazal (Tanchuma: Lech Lecha 3) expounded [saying that] Avraham was like a vial of perfume kept in a cemetery, where its fragrance went unnoticed. What did He do? He took it and moved it to a place where its fragrance could be known to the world. Similarly, Avraham dwelled among idolaters. Ha’Kadosh Baruch Hu said to him, “Go forth, distance yourself from them, and do not become tainted by association with them.”

When I read this, I was a bit shocked—not only by the unusual metaphor, but by Rabbeinu Bachya’s assertion that Avraham might have been influenced by the citizens of his homeland. Doesn’t Avraham’s greatness lie in his independence from the beliefs and values of his birthplace? Don’t we call him “Avraham ha’Ivri” because, as Chazal (Bereishis Rabbah 42:8) teach, “the entire world was on one eiver (side) and he was on the other”? Of all the figures in Tanach to whom our Mishlei verse could apply, Avraham seems like the least likely candidate!

Indeed, others interpret this midrash differently. The version of the midrash in Shir ha’Shirim Rabbah 1:3 states:

When Ha’Kadosh Baruch Hu said to Avraham, “Go forth from your land, from your birthplace,” to what was this analogous? To a vial of perfume that was placed in a corner and its fragrance did not diffuse until someone came and moved it from its place, allowing its fragrance to spread. So too, Ha’Kadosh Baruch Hu said to Avraham, “Avraham! You have many good deeds and many mitzvos! Move about in the world and your name will be exalted in My world.” “Go forth.” What is written afterwards? “I will make you a great nation.”

The Eitz Yosef (ibid.) offers two explanations for this version of the analogy:

For your good oils to give off a pleasant aroma, you must be exiled. Just as oil releases its scent when poured from one vessel to another, so too, your name will become magnified through your exile. This also alludes to the fact that just as oil does not become more praiseworthy by being transported, but rather its fragrance only becomes more widely known, so too, Avraham did not need to be exiled from his land to fulfill the mitzvos. Rather, what he gained was that his name would become known and renowned by all. This is why the midrash concludes, “You have many mitzvos! Move about in the world and your name will become great in My world. Go forth!”

According to the Eitz Yosef, Avraham would have been just fine had he continued to live in Ur Kasdim! Hashem’s command to “Go forth” from his land was not for Avraham’s benefit, but for the sake of his influence on the world. How can Rabbeinu Bachya imply that Avraham would have become tainted by the fools in his homeland?

Perhaps an answer lies in an alternative version of the original perfumery analogy cited by Rabbeinu Bachya. Midrash Mishlei (13:20) begins the same way, comparing one who walks with the wise to one who enters a perfumery and whose garments absorb the fragrance. But then the midrash adds a parallel: one who associates with fools is like someone who enters a tannery. Even without buying or selling anything, when he leaves, its stench will follow him; his garments will be soiled, and he will stink. That’s when the midrash takes a turn:

So too, if one walks a chacham—anyone who sees him will say, “If this person weren’t a chacham, he wouldn’t be associating with a chacham!” And anyone who walks with a fool—those who see him will say, “If not for the fact that this person were a fool, he wouldn’t be keeping company with a fool.”

According to this version of the midrash, it’s not that the fool will directly influence those who spend time with him. Rather, their reputation is tarnished by association. People will assume they are no different than the fools they associate with. Likewise, if they befriend a chacham, people will assume they, too, are a chacham.

Perhaps this is why Avraham needed to leave his homeland—not because he would have been personally influenced by the idolaters there, but because his ability to spread knowledge of Hashem and His avodah to the world would be compromised if people associated him with the barbaric, immoral citizens of Ur Kasdim: Mishleic fools “who choose reprehensible qualities and physical desires and scorn intellectual matters.”

I believe a case can be made for reading Rabbeinu Bachya in this light. First, this explains why he translated Mishlei 13:20 as “one who follows the wise” and “one who leads fools” instead of the more conventional “one who associates with the wise” and “one who is a companion to fools.” His comment on the second half of the verse, “one who associates with fools and becomes their leader will be broken,” applies to Avraham: if Avraham had remained in Ur Kasdim and attempted to lead his compatriots to belief in Hashem, he would have been broken—not because he would have reverted to idolatry, but because the entire mission of promoting “the way of Hashem to do righteousness and justice” (Bereishis 18:19) would have failed.

Likewise, when Rabbeinu Bachya wrote that Hashem commanded Avraham “to distance himself from them and not be tainted by them,” he didn’t mean that Avraham would be influenced by their character; rather, Avraham’s “brand” would be tarnished by association with people who stood for values antithetical to his own.

This also explains why Rabbeinu Bachya chose only half of the perfumery analogy: if he had intended to convey that Avraham would be corrupted by living among Mishleic fools, he would have included the tannery analogy instead. Similarly, the analogy of a vial of perfume stored in a cemetery wouldn’t make sense if the concern was that Avraham might be dragged down by his countrymen, since the dead in the cemetery have no impact on the fragrance of the perfume! His citation of that midrash shows that he never thought Avraham was subject to these societal influences.

The only part of Rabbeinu Bachya’s claim that remains problematic is his statement that Avraham “needed to be cautious of the company of his wicked contemporaries, who would have been the cause of the negation of bechirah.” If my interpretation is correct, the only possible explanation is to understand this as follows: it was not that the wicked people of Ur Kasdim would negate Avraham’s bechirah, but that Ur Kasdim’s society would negate the bechirah of its own citizens, rendering them unfit to be Avraham’s followers.

Is this a plausible reading of Rabbeinu Bachya’s drashah? You tell me! But even if it’s not, I hope it demonstrates sound methodology: even when in the realm of drash, statements about tzadikim must be taken seriously and must align with what we know of their character.

What do you think: is this a valid reading of Rabbeinu Bachya’s drashah?

The Rabbi Schneeweiss Substack

Discussion about this post