Chasidut su Genesi 22:12
וַיֹּ֗אמֶר אַל־תִּשְׁלַ֤ח יָֽדְךָ֙ אֶל־הַנַּ֔עַר וְאַל־תַּ֥עַשׂ ל֖וֹ מְא֑וּמָּה כִּ֣י ׀ עַתָּ֣ה יָדַ֗עְתִּי כִּֽי־יְרֵ֤א אֱלֹהִים֙ אַ֔תָּה וְלֹ֥א חָשַׂ֛כְתָּ אֶת־בִּנְךָ֥ אֶת־יְחִידְךָ֖ מִמֶּֽנִּי׃
E quegli disse: Non portar la tua mano sul giovinetto, e non gli fare cosa alcuna; imperocchè ora conosco che sei temente di Dio, non avendomi negato tuo figlio, il tuo unigenito.
Kedushat Levi
Genesis 22,1. “It was after these events that G’d subjected Avraham to a trial, saying to him: ‘Avraham!’” We must try and understand why at this point G’d addressed Avraham by calling out: ”Avraham,” once, whereas in verse 11 of this chapter the angel addressing Avraham calls out to him: “Avraham, Avraham!” Another nuance that deserves our attention is why, on the first occasion (verse 12) G’d compliments Avraham on not having tried to withhold his beloved son from Him, ולא חשכת את בנך את יחידך ממני, whereas in verse 16 when the compliment is repeated, the word ממני, “from Me,” is absent.
This may be understood when we consider that according to Rashi on verse 11 repetition of the name indicates that the party addressed by G’d is especially beloved by G’d. We find in Samuel I 3,10 that when G’d called on Samuel, He always repeated his name when addressing him. In the case of Avraham, his very name reflects the fact that he was beloved by G’d. Here when G’d called upon him seeing that He wanted him to perform a commandment, He deliberately refrained for indicating how fond he was of him, as this call had not been designed to make him go through with slaughtering Yitzchok. However in verse16, when we became aware that Avraham was not to slaughter his son, this had become the מצוה. By commanding Avraham not to harm Yitzchok in any way, He displayed His true love for him. He did so by repeating his name when He called him.
As to the word ממני in verse 12, this was the angel speaking (although in the name of the Lord) Bereshit Rabbah 56,5 understands the angel as hinting to Avraham that seeing the angels in heaven have shed tears when they heard that Avraham had been asked to sacrifice his son Yitzchok, G’d cancelled the decree. The angel wanted Avraham to know that he had had a share in Yitzchok’s surviving the akeydah. In verse 16, when G’d is speaking to Avraham without intermediary, there was no reason to add the word: ממני, “from Me.”
This may be understood when we consider that according to Rashi on verse 11 repetition of the name indicates that the party addressed by G’d is especially beloved by G’d. We find in Samuel I 3,10 that when G’d called on Samuel, He always repeated his name when addressing him. In the case of Avraham, his very name reflects the fact that he was beloved by G’d. Here when G’d called upon him seeing that He wanted him to perform a commandment, He deliberately refrained for indicating how fond he was of him, as this call had not been designed to make him go through with slaughtering Yitzchok. However in verse16, when we became aware that Avraham was not to slaughter his son, this had become the מצוה. By commanding Avraham not to harm Yitzchok in any way, He displayed His true love for him. He did so by repeating his name when He called him.
As to the word ממני in verse 12, this was the angel speaking (although in the name of the Lord) Bereshit Rabbah 56,5 understands the angel as hinting to Avraham that seeing the angels in heaven have shed tears when they heard that Avraham had been asked to sacrifice his son Yitzchok, G’d cancelled the decree. The angel wanted Avraham to know that he had had a share in Yitzchok’s surviving the akeydah. In verse 16, when G’d is speaking to Avraham without intermediary, there was no reason to add the word: ממני, “from Me.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
Genesis 22,12. “He (the angel) said to him: ‘do not touch the lad, and do not harm him in any way;’….for now I know …and you have not withheld your only son from Me.” We need to examine why in this verse the word ממני has been added, as well as why this word is omitted when G’d speaks about the oath He has sworn to Himself in verse 16. Before answering these questions, let us look at Shabbat 63 where the Talmud states that כל העושה מצוה כמאמרה אין מבשרין לו דבר רע, “when someone performs one of G’d’s commandments in accordance with its halachot, one (heaven) does not sadden him by informing him of bad news. The Talmud bases this on Kohelet 8,5 שומר מצוה לא ידע רע, “he who will obey the commandments will know no evil.” The word כמאמרה in the Talmud poses a problem. The Talmud means that both study of Torah and performance of the commandments must be based on one’s desire to carry out G’d’s wishes. If one studies Torah to pass an exam, this is not accounted true Torah study. If one blows the shofar on New Year’s day in the synagogue, however expertly, but in order to earn the fee one has been promised, the promise that such people will be spared bad news is not applicable.
Furthermore, even having performed the mitzvah according to the halachah and exclusively in order to fulfill G’d’s wish, one must not congratulate oneself for having carried out one’s Creator’s wishes and have pleased him. If one thinks along these lines, one’s performance of the commandment will not please the Lord.
It is related in Chagigah 15 that it happened once that Rabbi Yoshua ben Chananyah (one of the leading scholars in his time) was standing on one of the steps leading up to the Temple Mount, [the Temple had already been destroyed, but the Mount had not yet been levelled by the Romans, Ed.] when he saw ben Zoma in front of him, and the latter did not rise in acknowledgment of the presence of his teacher. Rabbi Yoshua asked ben Zoma what subject he was so deeply immersed in that he had not noticed the presence of his teacher. The latter replied: “I was contemplating the significance of the difference between the “upper waters,” and the “lower waters,” (Genesis 1,7) and he had discovered that the distance between them was only three fingers’ breadth.” He claimed that the proof was founding Genesis 1,2 where the spirit of the Lord is described as hovering above the surface of the waters.” He considered the word מרחפת, used by the Torah there as describing the act of “hovering” as a reference to a pigeon hovering above its young without touching them. Upon hearing this, Rabbi Yoshua commented to his other students: “ben Zoma is still on the outside.” He meant that ben Zoma had not yet become privy to hidden aspects of the Torah. [The reader will note that ben Zoma, in spite of sayings of his being quoted in the tractate Avot, is never referred to as “Rabbi.” Ed.]
We learn from this passage that even if a person performs the commandments in a manner which affords G’d satisfaction as the worshipper had reduced himself to negating earthly concerns, this does not automatically mean that he has attained the level of awe of the Creator that would overcome him when he enters the palace of a King. He may have attained the awe that a visitor to the King’s palace experienced when entering the vestibule of the palace, but not the awe that overcomes people who enter the inner sanctum of the palace. The closer the visitor approaches the presence of the king, the more profoundly will he be impressed with the aura of glory and power surrounding his majesty. Recognition of this obligates him to prostrate himself, this act being an expression of his being aware how totally inadequate anything that he had done to honour his king really was.
Furthermore, even having performed the mitzvah according to the halachah and exclusively in order to fulfill G’d’s wish, one must not congratulate oneself for having carried out one’s Creator’s wishes and have pleased him. If one thinks along these lines, one’s performance of the commandment will not please the Lord.
It is related in Chagigah 15 that it happened once that Rabbi Yoshua ben Chananyah (one of the leading scholars in his time) was standing on one of the steps leading up to the Temple Mount, [the Temple had already been destroyed, but the Mount had not yet been levelled by the Romans, Ed.] when he saw ben Zoma in front of him, and the latter did not rise in acknowledgment of the presence of his teacher. Rabbi Yoshua asked ben Zoma what subject he was so deeply immersed in that he had not noticed the presence of his teacher. The latter replied: “I was contemplating the significance of the difference between the “upper waters,” and the “lower waters,” (Genesis 1,7) and he had discovered that the distance between them was only three fingers’ breadth.” He claimed that the proof was founding Genesis 1,2 where the spirit of the Lord is described as hovering above the surface of the waters.” He considered the word מרחפת, used by the Torah there as describing the act of “hovering” as a reference to a pigeon hovering above its young without touching them. Upon hearing this, Rabbi Yoshua commented to his other students: “ben Zoma is still on the outside.” He meant that ben Zoma had not yet become privy to hidden aspects of the Torah. [The reader will note that ben Zoma, in spite of sayings of his being quoted in the tractate Avot, is never referred to as “Rabbi.” Ed.]
We learn from this passage that even if a person performs the commandments in a manner which affords G’d satisfaction as the worshipper had reduced himself to negating earthly concerns, this does not automatically mean that he has attained the level of awe of the Creator that would overcome him when he enters the palace of a King. He may have attained the awe that a visitor to the King’s palace experienced when entering the vestibule of the palace, but not the awe that overcomes people who enter the inner sanctum of the palace. The closer the visitor approaches the presence of the king, the more profoundly will he be impressed with the aura of glory and power surrounding his majesty. Recognition of this obligates him to prostrate himself, this act being an expression of his being aware how totally inadequate anything that he had done to honour his king really was.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
Genesis 22,12. “for now I know that you are G’d fearing, seeing you have not withheld your only son from Me.” It appears, based on this verse, that there are two types of fear of the Lord. One type is based on a person’s understanding the meaning of the commandment that he performs, i.e. it makes sense to him. The second type of fear of the Lord is shown when he fulfills commandments whose purpose he had not been able to understand. When someone performs commandments without knowing their meaning, his level of fearing G’d is on a higher rung than the person who does so because he believes that he understands the reason why G’d has demanded fulfillment of that commandment, and he “agrees” with G’d. When the latter person observes a commandment, it is not clear that he does so out of love for G’d, as he may be doing so because he feels he is doing himself a favour, as the commandment is logical, and clearly in the interest of mankind as a whole.
Before the angel said to Avraham: “do not touch and harm the lad,” people had thought that surely the reason why Avraham set out to do this was because he thought he understood G’d’s reason for issuing such a commandment.
After he was now commanded not to proceed, it would be clear to everybody that Avraham had not understood the reason for G’d’s command, as if he had been correct in what he thought, G’d could not have cancelled the command. What had been a valid consideration could not suddenly have become an invalid consideration! Therefore it had emerged retroactively that when Avraham had begun to carry out the commandment to offer Yitzchok as a burnt offering, he had been motivated only by his love for G’d, and how could he possibly refuse the command given by a G’d Whom he loved!? By cancelling His command G’d had demonstrated that there had never been a rationale for such a command. The trial of Avraham had consisted in his performing even a totally irrational command.
The only reason for issuing such a command was the desire of G’d to prove that Avraham would not be deterred by the absence of a valid reason for Yitzchok having to die on the altar. All of this is implied in the angel saying: “now I have seen, etc.;” it does not mean that G’d had not known up to now. It means that this was the only way in which G’d had been able to demonstrate to the world what He had known about Avraham’s potential to perform such an act for no other reason than that He loved Gd.
Before the angel said to Avraham: “do not touch and harm the lad,” people had thought that surely the reason why Avraham set out to do this was because he thought he understood G’d’s reason for issuing such a commandment.
After he was now commanded not to proceed, it would be clear to everybody that Avraham had not understood the reason for G’d’s command, as if he had been correct in what he thought, G’d could not have cancelled the command. What had been a valid consideration could not suddenly have become an invalid consideration! Therefore it had emerged retroactively that when Avraham had begun to carry out the commandment to offer Yitzchok as a burnt offering, he had been motivated only by his love for G’d, and how could he possibly refuse the command given by a G’d Whom he loved!? By cancelling His command G’d had demonstrated that there had never been a rationale for such a command. The trial of Avraham had consisted in his performing even a totally irrational command.
The only reason for issuing such a command was the desire of G’d to prove that Avraham would not be deterred by the absence of a valid reason for Yitzchok having to die on the altar. All of this is implied in the angel saying: “now I have seen, etc.;” it does not mean that G’d had not known up to now. It means that this was the only way in which G’d had been able to demonstrate to the world what He had known about Avraham’s potential to perform such an act for no other reason than that He loved Gd.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy