Why does the Torah mention Avraham’s journey twice?
Netziv, in his Ha’amek Davar, suggests that Avraham’s journey to Canaan occurred in two stages. Avraham had to balance two conflicting interests: the value of promptness, completing assigned tasks without delay; and the legitimate concern for one’s material possessions.
A number of writers noted a seeming redundancy in the Torah’s description of Avraham’s journey to Canaan. The Torah writes that after God instructed Avraham to leave his homeland, “Avram left as God told him…” (12:4). In the very next verse, however, the Torah tells us again that Avraham embarked on this journey: “Avram took his wife, Sara, and his nephew, Lot, and all their property that they had amassed…and they left to travel to the land of Canaan…” Why does the Torah mention Avraham’s journey twice?
Netziv, in his Ha’amek Davar, suggests that Avraham’s journey to Canaan occurred in two stages. The first was Avraham’s immediate departure after receiving the divine command. Avraham, joined by his nephew, left as soon as God commanded him to, without delaying the journey to make the necessary preparations. He left behind Sara and his servants, and they made the normal arrangements that are done before relocating – selling property, choosing which items to bring along, and so on. Netziv explained that Avraham had to balance two conflicting interests: the value of zerizut – promptness, completing assigned tasks without delay; and the legitimate concern for one’s material possessions. Avraham understood the importance of responding to the command of “lekh lekha” promptly, but also recognized the need to care for his belongings and property to secure financial stability in his new land. He therefore set out immediately, and after he was well on his way to Canaan, he stopped to give Sara and his servants a chance to catch up. Once they were reunited, they continued the journey together to Canaan.
Netziv concludes his discussion by noting that Avraham’s conduct in this regard serves as an example for us to follow in our mitzva observance: “This is a fundamental rule that should be learned regarding the proper approach to mitzvot.” He does not elaborate, but we may reasonably assume that he refers to both aspects of Avraham’s conduct in this context. First, we learn of the value of zerizut, but specifically the importance of “getting started.” Avraham’s immediate departure did not accelerate the process; he still had to wait for his affairs to be completed back home so his household could join him. But he understood that until things get “off the ground,” there is a risk that they will never happen. Avraham insisted on “getting the ball rolling” immediately to guarantee that the end result would be achieved.
Additionally, the Netziv draws our attention to the fact that concern for material possessions is legitimate and should be taken into consideration even in the context of mitzvot. In this discussion Netziv references several passages elsewhere in his Torah commentary (Bereishit 13:3 and 33:17, Devarim 3:19), where he writes that protecting one’s possessions often overrides midat chasidut – measures of piety that are not strictly obligatory. Though there are exceptions – Netziv writes in Herchev Davar (Bereishit 33:17) that each case must be assessed independently – additional measures of piety are often suspended out of concern for one’s property, because protecting property is a valid area of concern recognized by Halakha. Netziv thus views Avraham’s response to the command of “lekh lekha” as exemplifying the balance that must be maintained between idealism and pragmatism, between striving for the highest standards of avodat Hashem while not neglecting our material needs.