II Kings 4:13 Jewish Thought: Akeidat Yitzchak & Duties

It is a well known fact that whenever someone makes extraordinary efforts to accomplish something, that something is of exceptional importance to the person making such a supreme effort on its account. If the Shunamite woman whose house the prophet Elisha used to frequent, built a private apartment for his use, then it is not surprising that the prophet tried to figure out the real reason she had gone to such trouble. When he failed to find the obvious answer such as acting as her attorney at the king's Court, he asked his assistant Gechazi. The latter noted that the woman was childless and had an aging husband. (Kings II chapter 4) After the sin of the golden calf, Moses used the argument that in order to justify all that G-d had done to release Israel from bondage in Egypt, His objective must have been extremely important, else why go to such trouble? To abandon such an objective and to annihilate Israel, would make all of G-d’s efforts look foolish, and this would diminish rather than enhance G-d’s image in the eyes of mankind. G-d relented and accepted that argument. The same argument may lead to our undeserved redemption in the future (Ezekiel chapter 36) to justify G-d’s "name," i.e. to justify the historic existence of the Jewish people throughout the many centuries of exile. At Mount Sinai then, all G-d’s preparations prior to the revelation, all the thunder and lightning accompanying the revelation must have had as its objective something completely beyond anything man had ever experienced. Seeing that the ten commandments do not contain any new philosophic insights, and in fact, most of these commandments could easily have been legislated by human legislators of average intelligence interested in a well functioning society, one wonders wherein lay the great purpose that produced such extraordinary effort. One might have expected answers to the mysteries of the universe, but they do not contain anything of the sort. Even the first two commandments stipulating the uniqueness of G-d etc., are matters easily arrived at by the human intellect as demonstrated by Maimonides chapter thirty three second section of his "Moreh." This in spite of the fact that these two commandments were heard by all the people directly from the mouth of G-d. Similarly, the fact that the tablets were G-d’s own handiwork as well as the inscriptions on them, all suggest that the purpose of the revelation must have been an all encompassing one. If it was not its purpose to teach new philosophical insights, what was its purpose? It was first and foremost to disabuse people of false philosophies, many of which were circulating freely. Although the vast majority of mankind may acknowledge the existence of G-d as the Creator, they deny His ability or willingness to guide the fate of man or the history of the universe. It was that kind of the denial of G-d’s role that the plagues in Egypt had targeted. It was also what the revelation at Mount Sinai was to impress upon Israel. The purpose was simply to demonstrate the presence and involvement in the personal fate of each and every Jew by G-d. This was demonstrated for all future generations to remember. It was not hearsay, historic fable or legend, but a living experience shared by the entire nation. Henceforth that truth could no longer be denied by speculative reason. The constant nagging doubt "is the Lord in our midst?" was stilled once and for all. A major reason for the reluctance of many Israelites to leave Egypt had been their doubt if the G-d of Israel in all His majesty would concern Himself with such trivial matters as the safety of a people on its march through the desert. Therefore they had preferred the authority of the Egyptian state and civilisation, whose acknowledged task it was to look after its subjects. If, in fact, G-d had indulged Moses at Mount Sinai in answering all the philosophical arguments, the result would have had meaning, at best, for that generation, whereas future generations would have each had to have its own revelation. Therefore G-d addressed Himself exclusively to the fears that lurked in people's minds, and demonstrated that G-d’s Providence did indeed extend to each one of them in whatever circumstances they might find themselves. He stressed the love He had demonstrated for them by releasing them from bondage to the cruel and arrogant Egyptian kingdom. He stressed that He wanted them to retain their freedom from any other deity by not worshipping such deity nor building altars or idols for them etc. Lastly, He demanded the honour due Him by not bandying about His name in idle oaths, and positively observing the Sabbath as a day of rest, emulating Him, since He had rested on the Sabbath. After that, He turned His attention to domestic problems between man and fellow man. When the Midrash discusses anthropomorphical problems such as G-d’s "right" and G-d’s "left," the writing on the tablets with G-d’s "finger" etc. it is dear that all these descriptions are allegorical. Let us take a closer look at the ten commandments themselves.

It is clear then that the conclusions arrived at by a human mind need confirmation of its findings by G-d before they can be considered reliable. Our sages tell us that when Yitro advised his son-in-law Moses about the kind of judiciary system Moses was to introduce, he told him to consult with G-d in order to obtain confirmation. "If the Lord will so command you, you will be able to endure" (Exodus 18,23). If the unreliability of our mind is a fact concerning matters that the mind has been specifically equipped to deal with, how much more is this true when the mind is confronted by heavenly visions, to understand which it even lacks basic yardsticks? Moses asked G-d to provide him with such yardsticks, but was told that the human intellect must subordinate itself to heavenly instructions to the point where we apply the words of Isaiah 55,8, "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are My ways your ways." Quite frequently this may result in objective truth being the very reverse of what we think it is. Sometimes, the very willingness to subordinate one's mind makes that mind receptive to matters undreamed of. Jacob is an example of such an attitude. After his dream, he was able to exclaim, "Indeed the Lord is in this place, although such a thought had been furthest from my mind" (Genesis 28,16 approx). This newfound insight had been contradicted by Jacob's thought processes on several accounts. A) The assumption that G-d is subject to physical dimensions as we humans use the term had been quite alien to Jacob. He was amazed to learn that G-d has a permanent residence on earth. B) The idea that G-d moves from place to place accompanying people, would never have occurred to him, had this fact not been revealed to him. C) The thought that G-d’s movements, as it were, could be brought about by outside influences, i.e. were not completely self-induced, had likewise been beyond Jacob's wildest imagination. In theology, the points just mentioned were thought completely impossible; Jacob would not have dared think of the Creator in those terms. G-d did not mean to demolish the theories Jacob had believed in; He wanted merely to broaden Jacob's spiritual horizons. The concept of hashgachah peratit, personal Providence by G-d, was the idea conveyed to Jacob in his dream. Philosophy, though it succeeds in arriving at many valid conclusions about G-d, about His uniqueness, His existence etc., nevertheless misses a great deal, as discussed in Chapter seven and forty-eight. Isaiah Chapter 66 verse 1 summarizes the lesson Jacob was taught in his dream in the following words, "Thus says the Lord; the heavens are My throne and the earth is My footstool." On the one hand, the infinite dimensions of G-d are described in a manner that precludes us from imagining G-d as bound by space, since anyone who can consider the whole earth as His footstool can hardly be contained by man-made structures such as the temple. On the other hand, if such a Being exceeds the whole earth in size, how can such a Being move from place to place since it already occupies more than all the space available? Also, how could such a Being be in need of anything, seeing it has proclaimed, "Mine is the universe and all that is therein" (Psalms 50,12)? Therefore, G-d asks, "What kind of house can you possibly build for Me?" G-d asks rhetorically, "Why did I command building a temple to dwell therein? Surely not for My need, but for your sake!" Man's logic would not have dared presume all this, had it not been revealed to him. When a king moves his residence away from the capital to one of the country's rural centers, he does so for the benefit of his subjects in that region who will reap economic and cultural advantages by harboring royalty in their midst. However, it is important that his subjects realize what is being done for them, and that they be made aware of their former inferior status. This is the reason G-d says, "I will look towards the poor and low-spirited who relate to My word with a feeling of awe," (Isaiah 66,3) "the ones who are aware of their limitations and wish to uplift themselves, deserve My special attention." Only when we realize the limitations of our powers of perception, grieve over it, and long to expand our spiritual horizons, will G-d grant us greater insights. How does all this relate to Jacob's dream? Over a period of time, Jacob had acquired concepts of the grandeur of G-d, His uniqueness, His power, His being the prime mover of history, to the extent that an unassisted human intellect is able to perceive all this. At the end of Parshat Toldot, we have already read that Jacob went to Padan Aram. We hear now that he first went to Beer Sheva, to inform us, as our sages relate, that he spent fourteen years studying, preparing himself to the extent that such preparation is possible without Divine inspiration.

(1) Since fulfilment of the commandment to circumcise himself and all the male members of his household simultaneously could put his whole household in jeopardy in the event of a hostile attack, Abraham might have decided to temporarily move close to his allies Aner, Eshkol, and Mamre, in order to discourage any attack. Therefore, it is reported where G-d spoke to Abraham. Even though Abraham was only in temporary quarters, he qualified for the vision. That Abraham had greatly risen in stature is clear from the fact that he did not have to move from his seat when G-d spoke to him, as he had on previous occasions. Our sages say that G-d came to visit Abraham on the third day of his being sick due to the effects of the circumcision (Baba Metzia 86). Since Abraham and Sarah hosted what looked like very ordinary individuals in such a generous fashion, it was fitting that the reward for such hospitality should be announced by one of the guests himself. (2) This is the reason why all the details of this act of hospitality are worth recording. Abraham could have skipped having dinner guests this once, in view of his state of health; he could have withdrawn into his tent long before the travellers had a chance to reach him. Instead, he ran forward, imploring them, as if they were doing him a favor by dining with him, instead of his doing them a favor by inviting them. (3) He begged one of them to interrupt his journey, so as not to be guilty of detaining all three of them. However, the hospitality offer was extended to all three of them, so that they would not misinterpret his first statement as "Please do not pass by." The dot on the word "my lord", indicates that what these men were going to say to Abraham later, would be a message from the Shechinah, the Divine Presence. Abraham offered little, to prove that he did not mean to delay his guests unduly, knowing that had they really been interested in food, they would not have chosen to take a route that bypassed population centers with ample food supplies. However, he emphasized the quality of the bread which, since it refreshes the heart as proven in many other places in the Bible, restores one's spirits also. By rushing about personally and attending to all the details, he caused his guests a minimum of delay. The angels followed the talmudic dictum, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" (Bereshit Rabbah 48). When Moses went to heaven, he did not eat or drink; when the angels came to earth, they ate and drank. The fact that their eating is especially mentioned teaches that one is to conform with local customs. Their purpose in eating, of course, was to derive the spiritual nourishment contained in the food. Just as abstinence from certain types of food is prescribed because of the negative influence of such food on our spiritual equipment, so consumption of the right kind of food at the right time and in the correct amount is of benefit to our spiritual equipment (compare Chapter 32). Further details about this can be found in Numbers Chapter 28, in connection with the daily offerings. (4) The fact that Abraham is described as standing in a position enabling him to wait on the travelers and to observe them in detail, is to show that they really did eat the food served to them. (7) After all these efforts on Abraham's part, the angels enquire after Sarah. They want Abraham present for the message, so that from the criticism they will voice about Sarah's attitude, Abraham will realize that he himself should have been subject to similar criticism from G-d at the time G-d had made the promise to him, although at that time G-d had not voiced such criticism. When the prophet Elisha asked the woman what he could do for her (Kings II Chapter 4), he had been inspired by the tidings Abraham and Sarah had received in our Parshah in return for their hospitality. He assumed that the woman and her husband would qualify for a similar reward, just as later proved to be the case. (5) We must assume that Abraham had indeed not told Sarah about her becoming a mother, in order for G-d to tell her directly. Perhaps he felt that if she heard such a promise only second hand, she would be even more incredulous than he himself had been when G-d had told him directly. G-d had reserved this moment to criticize Abraham, and that is the reason he was asked, "Why did Sarah laugh?" Her denial may be understood as follows. When one's conduct is questioned by someone superior to oneself, it is seemly to appear bashful and to ask rhetorically and deprecatingly "Could I really have been guilty of such a misdemeanor?" Sarah's "denial" then and the "fear" mentioned is the reverence Sarah felt for the words of the angels. Or, as Maimonides says, the fact that she had no idea that these men were angels made her discount their words. Only after she realized that these men had been able to read her mind did she become afraid. She denied only having laughed at the fact that the prediction had been made in the name of G-d. When the angels departed, Abraham accompanied them, unaware that he was in fact impeding their task in Sodom. The angels on their part refrained from discussing their mission until G-d said, "Shall I hide from Abraham etc." Thereupon they began to discuss it, no longer concerned if Abraham was listening. (8) Two preconditions are needed to allow one to be present when the judge makes his judgment. 1) An intimate relationship with the accused, such as being father, mother, master, servant etc. 2) An individual who is truly searching for justice. In the first case, the father is allowed to be present since he could assist in the defense of his son; in the second case, such a third party would learn moral lessons from the judgments imposed and instil those lessons in his own environment. In Abraham's case, he qualified on both counts. He was destined to become the father of a multitude of nations, and thus had a paternal interest in other human beings; also as a truth-seeking individual, he would instruct his household and environment in ways to apply the judgments he had observed in the making. G-d decided to view Abraham in this role, because having made all the promises to Abraham, his involvement in the decision-making process about the punishment for the people of Sodom etc., would ensure further that all G-d’s promises concerning Abraham's seed would be fulfilled. The expression yadativ, for I know him, instead of hikartiv, is not accidental. The latter expression is used when one knows someone intellectually, understands how his mind works; the former refers to knowing how someone's heart, someone senses work. It is clear that when G-d speaks, He always uses yadati, since He has such intimate knowledge of all of us. The difference between G-d’s "knowledge” and our "knowledge" is that man arrives at an understanding of a whole only after having comprehended the parts and then combining knowledge of the parts to obtain an overview of things. The reverse applies to G-d. He has a knowledge of man's whole personality. Only on special occasions does He examine the constituent parts of man. In this instance, G-d was well aware of the character and actions of the Sodomites. (9) This knowledge was reinforced by the complaints of the victims of the Sodomites. G-d still had to check if these complaints constituted exceptions to the general behavior of the Sodomites within their city. If so, i.e. "as its outcry that has come to Me," if indeed all the Sodomites participated in that kind of behavior, that would mark their end, their destruction. If not, other kinds of retribution might be in order. The test then would be the way the Sodomites would treat the angels that had come to Lot (strangers to the townsfolk). Contrary to the view held by some, that nissayon, test, is designed to make the meritorious person emerge victoriously from such test, and that those unable to prove themselves, G-d does not bother to test at all. I do not believe that that is the function of tests. When G-d gave the Israelites the man, heavenly bread, the Torah writes, "In order to test them if they will walk in My teachings or not" (Exodus 16,4). We observe in that instance that some people failed the test. Similarly, the case of the false prophet, the appearance of which is described by the Torah as a test of the people's true faith (Deut. 13,4). We know that numerous people failed such tests when confronted by false prophets at various times in our history. Here, too, the arrival of these strangers at Lot's house is made the final test of the population's attitude. This will be discussed in greater detail in the next chapter. (10) When Abraham overheard the conversation between the angels, and they had departed from him, he decided to remain standing before G-d to approach Him on behalf of the people who appeared doomed. Since the angels had obviously had permission to discuss their mission in Abraham's presence, Abraham felt obliged to engage G-d in conversation about it. His opening remarks were as follows, "Since You obviously will not destroy the righteous together with the wicked, if by chance there are fifty righteous people, will You really rather destroy than save the place on account of the fifty righteous people within it?" The few innocents left to themselves, especially if minors, would ultimately suffer the same fate as the adults that had been killed, and thus G-d’s justice would appear as not having distinguished between the guilty and the innocent (the example of Nineveh being saved on account of the innocent children who needed parents to look after them is discussed in Chapter 13 in a slightly different context). Abraham referred to two possibilities: a) chalilah, unthinkable, to kill both the guilty and the innocent simultaneously; b) It would not appear just even if the innocent would die merely because their environment had been destroyed and they had been left to fend for themselves in impossible circumstances. (11) Abraham chose the number fifty as an opening gambit, because on the one hand, forced migration by such a group of people is a major hardship, whereas a larger number of people form a self-contained unit and can easily form a new community. Fifty are not yet enough to survive comfortably on their own strength and resources. (12) When Abraham saw that G-d concurred readily, he surmised that there simply were not fifty good people in Sodom; therefore, he lowered the target figure gradually. The justification "since I have started to speak already," signifies that he is aware he has already overstepped the bounds of propriety, that he is asking lifnim mishurat hadin, something beyond the demands of justice. As the numbers get smaller, and removal of so few people from the city is less of an upheaval, Abraham each time justifies his continued pleading on behalf of the innocent. Once it had become clear that there was only Lot that could be saved, saving him rather than saving the city became the easier solution. The mention of G-d departing from Abraham indicates that, for the moment, Abraham's prophetic powers had ceased to be operational. False prophets, however, never experience the difference between the time G-d is in contact with them and when they have been tuned out.