In The Prophets, Prof. R. Abraham Joshua Heschel presents Abraham and Moses as a pair. For example, Heschel writes: “The history of Israel began in two acts of rejection: the rejection of Mesopotamia in the days of Abraham and the rejection of Egypt in the days of Moses. In both cases it was a rejection of political and spiritual sovereignty” (71-72). Further on, Heschel writes: “In the days of Abraham and Moses, as in the days of Isaiah, the repudiation of both Mesopotamia and Egypt was the very destiny of Israel” (185-186).

It would appear that this connection between Abraham and Moses – between the Exodus from Ur of the Chaldeans and the Exodus from Egypt – is suggested by the biblical text. In parashat Lekh Lekha, at the “Covenant between the Pieces”, Abraham receives this promise: “I am the Lord who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans to give this land to you as a possession” (Genesis 16:7).

In parashat Yitro, at the Covenant at Sinai, Israel hears the first commandment: “I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, the house of bondage: You shall have no other gods besides Me” (Exodus 20:2-3).

R. Shlomo Riskin writes: “The first covenant [with Abraham] emphasizes the geographical element and the blood ties…it is what establishes the Jewish nation. The second covenant, the Covenant of Horev [Mt. Sinai], was made upon God’s Torah and its commandments, and focuses upon the Bible…it is what founds the Jewish religion. The Covenant of Abraham emphasizes our national identity in the land that was promised to us as an everlasting possession, in the fact that all of Abraham’s progeny will be deemed one family…As opposed to this, the Covenant of Horev does not focus upon the national-family connection, but rather upon the religious-constitutional connection” (“Partnership Agreement,” in Opening the Week, Naftali Rothenberg, ed., 44, 48 (Hebrew)).

If R. Riskin’s analysis is correct, then perhaps we may suggest that in parashat Behar the words and concepts of the two covenants are joined into a single identity and a common purpose: “I the Lord am your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, to give you the land of Canaan, to be your God” (Lev. 25:38).

1. Might we conclude that the Exodus from Egypt begins with the verse: “The Lord said to Abram, Go forth from your native land and from your father’s house to the land that I will show you”? Did our ancestors recount the story of the Exodus from Ur before they were liberated from Egypt?

2. Is the national element (the Covenant of Abraham) or the religious element (the Covenant at Sinai) of greater importance in Jewish identity? Can the differences among various streams and movements in Judaism be attributed to the relative emphasis placed upon one covenant as opposed to the other? Is it possible to base Judaism on just one of the covenants?

3. The three verses quoted above all begin with the words “I am the Lord”. Why? Does this statement have independent theological significance, or is it intended to validate or impart greater significance to the rest of the verse?

4. Each of the verses refers to the idea of God “bringing out”: “who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans”, “who brought you out of the land of Egypt”. It is clear that God had to bring Israel out of Egypt, out of bondage in a foreign land. But does the Bible suggest any parallel need to bring Abraham out of his native land? How are we to understand that “bringing out”?

5. Is Heschel correct in describing the beginning of Israel’s history and Israel’s destiny in terms of “rejection” and “repudiation” of foreign approaches, ideas, cultures or sovereignty? Could this description of rejection and repudiation be replaced by an alternative narrative of “acceptance”? Would such an approach better reflect the idea of “covenant”? Is there a real difference between the two approaches?