1) The Gemara in Bava Basra (91a) teaches that Avraham Avinu was imprisoned for ten years.
The Rashbam explains that Nimrod imprisoned him. However, he adds that he saw a Medrash stating that Terach, Avraham’s father, imprisoned him because he was destroying his idols.
The Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer (Perek 26), when enumerating the ten tests endured by Avraham, states:
“The second test was that he was placed in prison for ten years... as it is said: ‘I am Hashem Who brought you out of Ur Kasdim.’”
See the Ramban (11:28) who explains where we see in the pasukim that Avraham Avinu was in prison for ten years.
The Gemara brings a machlokes as two where exactly Avraham Avinu was imprisoned over these ten years. Rav Chanan bar Rava said in Rav’s name:
Avraham Avinu was imprisoned for ten years, three in Cusa and seven in Kardu. Rav Dimi of Nehardea taught the reverse (seven years in Cusa and three in Kardu).
The Radal points out that the expression used when Avraham finally left Ur Kasdim is “asher hosasicha” ( אשר הוצאתיך ), which is made up of ten letters in total and split into two words made up of three and seven letters each, hinting to the fact that in one place he was held in prison for three years and in another place for seven.
Regarding what he did there the Derashos of Rabbi Yehoshua Ibn Shuib (Parshas Lech Lecha) writes that whilst Avraham Avinu was in prison he compiled the sefer known as “Avodah Zarah d'Avraham Avinu”. The Gemara mentions this sefer in Avodah Zarah (14b) and writes that it contained 400 Perokim.
2) i) The Tiferes Tzion, in his commentary to Medrash Rabbah, explains that Avraham maintained a separate tent in order to engage in hisbodedus and personal Avodas Hashem. This private space enabled him to devote himself to contemplation, tefillah, and spiritual growth without distraction.
ii) Another explanation is that Avraham and Sarah each played a unique role in spreading awareness of Hashem. Avraham taught and inspired the men, while Sarah influenced and guided the women. As their tents frequently welcomed visitors, maintaining separate quarters was necessary for reasons of tznius and propriety, allowing each of them to fulfil their respective missions with dignity and modesty.
3) The Ran, in his commentary to Yoma (85a), raises a well-known question. Why is it permissible to perform shechitah on Shabbos so that a dangerously ill person may eat kosher meat, if non-kosher meat is readily available? Would it not be preferable to violate the lesser prohibition of eating non-kosher food rather than the more severe prohibition of desecrating Shabbos?
The Ran answers that although performing shechitah on Shabbos is undoubtedly the more serious transgression, it is done only once. Feeding the patient non-kosher food, by contrast, would involve repeated violations with every k'zayis
~ 24 ~
consumed. While each individual act is less severe, the cumulative effect is greater. Therefore, it is preferable to perform one act of shechitah on Shabbos and thereby avoid numerous transgressions.
Based on this principle, the Daas Zekeinim asks: if Avraham believed that the Egyptians would refrain from adultery with a married woman, why was he not equally confident that they would refrain from committing murder?
The Chanukas HaTorah explains that Avraham understood the Egyptians' mindset. If they desired Sarah, they would choose the course that minimised the overall extent of their transgression. They could either commit adultery repeatedly every time they were with a married woman, or they could commit the one-time crime of murdering Avraham, thereby rendering Sarah unmarried. Although murder is unquestionably the graver sin, it is a single act. Applying the same reasoning as the Ran, they would view the single transgression as preferable to repeated violations.
Recognizing this logic, Avraham feared for his life. The Medrash Pliah therefore draws a parallel between Avraham's reasoning and the halachah of a dangerously ill patient on Shabbos: when faced with the choice between one severe transgression and numerous lesser transgressions, it is preferable to commit the single act and thereby avoid repeated violations.
4) The Tiferes Yehonasan of Rav Yehonasan Eibeshitz reveals a fascinating custom practised by earlier generations.
He writes that when men went out to war, they would often bring their wives with them. To prevent others from gazing at the women, their faces would be covered with a dark substance so that their beauty would not attract attention. Upon returning home, the coating would be removed.
According to the Tiferes Yehonasan, Avraham Avinu followed this practice when travelling to Mitzrayim. Aware of Sarah’s exceptional beauty, he sought to conceal her appearance and shield her from unwanted attention.
However, Sarah Imeinu was no ordinary woman. Possessed of extraordinary spiritual greatness and blessed with Ruach HaKodesh, her beauty could not be hidden. Even beneath the dark covering, her radiance remained evident.
This, explains the Tiferes Yehonasan, is the meaning of the pasuk:
"Vayiru osah sarei Pharaoh, vayehalelu osah el Pharaoh" – “Pharaoh’s ministers saw her and praised her to Pharaoh” (Bereishis 12:15).
The ministers of Pharaoh were astonished that even with her face concealed, Sarah’s beauty still shone forth. Realising that such an extraordinary woman belonged in Pharaoh’s palace, they reported her to Pharaoh, who subsequently had her brought to his house.
So, the answer to our question is Sarah Imeinu.
5) The Moshav Zekeinim, citing a Medrash, teaches that HaKadosh Baruch Hu Himself served as the sandak for Avraham Avinu.
Furthermore, HaKadosh Baruch Hu presented Avraham with a remarkable gift: the Land of Canaan and the inheritance of its seven nations. This is alluded to in the pasuk:
"V'karas imo habris laseis es Eretz HaKena'ani" – “He made a covenant with him to give him the land of the Canaanite."
The Moshav Zekeinim concludes that this Medrash serves as a source for the custom that a sandak should present a gift to the baal ha'bris. Just as HaKadosh Baruch Hu, the sandak of Avraham Avinu, bestowed a gift upon him, so too it is fitting for a sandak to honour the occasion with a meaningful present.