Considering that Terach died more than sixty years after Avraham moved to Eretz Kena'an, why does the Torah mention his death already now?
Rashi: So that people should not accuse Avraham of a lack of Kibud Av (by leaving his father and moving to Eretz Yisrael). Based on the principle, "Resha'im are considered dead even in their lifetime," the Torah [already] calls Terach dead, thereby absolving Avraham of any guilt.
Ramban: It is perfectly normal for the Torah to tell us about the life of the father, the children to whom he gave birth and his death, before proceeding to discuss the life of the son. 1
Rashi (based on Chazal) labels Terach a Rasha, "... Whereas the wicked are termed 'dead,' even during their lifetime." Ramban asks - This is difficult, because later (Rashi to 15:15), he cites a Midrash that Terach did Teshuvah, and has a portion in Olam ha'Ba (also refer to 11:27:151:1)?
Ramban #1: It may well be that Terach did Teshuvah on his death-bed, but throughout his life, he was a Rasha. 1
Ramban #2: Alternatively, when Chazal say that he earned a portion in Olam ha'Ba, it is (not because he did Teshuvah, but) on the merit of his son Avraham. 2
Gur Aryeh: During his lifetime he was called "dead;" then his death itself served as his atonement.
Maharal (Gevuros Hashem Ch.5 , p. 35): Terach did not achieve complete Teshuvah; his Teshuvah was accepted only in the merit of Avraham. 3
In fact, says the Ramban, Rashi himself writes (to Bereishis 15:15) that Terach did Teshuvah "at the time of his death" (although that does not conform with our text).
He supports this with a Midrash, which compares this to the prohibition of using the wood of grape-vines and olive-trees on the Mizbe'ach; like Terach, they are saved by their fruit (wine and oil), which are offered up as sacrifices.
This is why Avraham was not associated with his father, and was exempt from Kibud Av (refer to 11:32:2:2:2). Terach, on his own merits, was as if dead, and he merited [eternal] life only in the merit of his son - this is in contrast to all others, whose children owe their existence to their parents. (EK)
Why is the 'Nun' in "Charan" (in the Sefer-Torah) written backwards?
Rashi, Hadar Zekenim: "Charan" is like "Charon-Af," burning anger. It teaches that before Avraham there was burning anger in the world, and when Avraham came, it ceased. 1
Moshav Zekenim: It ceased due to the honor of Avraham.
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
Rashi writes: "'Terach died in Charan '- only sixty years later... Why, then, did the Torah record it here? ...." Ramban challenges this question - the Torah frequently records the events of the life of a father, then his death, and then returns to prior events relating to his son (e.g. Noach, Yitzchak). Why do Chazal find this instance unusual and expound upon it?
Ramban: In the other generations in this chapter, neither the sum total of years nor their death is mentioned - except for here regarding Terach. Additionally, the Torah has already begun the narrative regarding Avraham, and it interrupts it to inform us of Terach's death. These anomalies led to Chazal's interpretation (refer to 11:32:1:1).
Gur Aryeh #1: The Torah did not record any significant events in the life of Terach; he is merely mentioned as a generation leading to Avraham. There is no need to sum up the narrative with his death.
Gur Aryeh #2: This verse comes to emphasize that "Terach died in Charan;" he did not carry out his original plan to continue on to Eretz Kena'an (11:31). 1
See Maharal (Gevuros Hashem, Ch. 5, p. 33) for a broader treatment of this topic.
Rashi writes: "... So that the matter not be obvious to all...." Did the Torah write this verse only for those who would not bother to do the math regarding the date of Terach's death?
Gur Aryeh: The Midrash that Rashi is citing (Bereishis Rabah 39:7) in fact does not use this expression. It says only that the wicked are termed "dead" even in their lifetimes, and that HaSh-m specifically exempted Avraham from honoring his father. (Refer to 11:32:2:2:2.)
Rashi writes: "... so that people shall not say, 'Avraham did not fulfill Kibud Av; he abandoned his elderly father.'" Why would people say this? HaSh-m explicitly commanded Avraham to get up and go! (12:1)
Gur Aryeh #1: It is still unseemly when one is not performing a Mitzvah, even when exempt. 1
Gur Aryeh #2: Kibud Av is relevant when the son is associated with his father. Avraham, however, was a new beginning in the history of the world. He was not a continuation of Terach, nor was he connected to anyone who came before him. Chazal describe the first two millennia as "Tohu," astonishingly empty; Avraham began the two millennia of Torah (Avodah Zarah 9a). The Torah records Terach's death here to show that Avraham stems from Terach's departure, not from his life, just as the light pushes away the darkness. 2
It is unseemly when one is eligible to perform a Mitzvah, and then becomes exempt due to extenuating circumstances. The verse terms Terach as "dead," to show that Avraham was no longer obligated at all. [However, see Maharal (Gevuros Hashem Ch. 6, p. 38), that Avraham is deemed to have fulfilled Kibud Av, since he voiced this concern to HaSh-m.] (EK)
See Maharal (Gevuros Hashem Ch. 5, p. 34) for a broader treatment of this topic.
Rashi writes: "The righteous are termed 'alive;' whereas the wicked are termed 'dead.'" Why is this so?
Gur Aryeh: "Chayim" (living) means "unceasing," e.g. "Mayim Chayim," a flowing spring. The life of a Rasha will eventually cease. His life cannot be called "Chayim;" rather, it is one long death. 1 The righteous, however, are called living even after their passing, because they await their return to life at Techiyas ha'Mesim.
