Musar su Genesi 22:26

There is little point in looking for moral ethical messages in this portion when the entire portion is literally filled with such messages. In fact the same can be said of most of the Book of Deuteronomy. Moses' principal purpose in writing this book called משנה תורה, review of the Torah, was to ensure that the new generation would relive in their minds what the previous generation had actually experienced, and that they would draw the appropriate moral conclusions from all this and engrave it on their collective memories.

This particular act of הכנסת אורחים on the part of our patriarch Abraham involved three profound truths, and during the meal Abraham and Sarah were already alerted to the eventual עקדת יצחק, binding of Isaac on Mount Moriah. When Rashi in Genesis 22,2 mentions three different reasons why the Mountain is called Mount Moriah, these three names reflect the three truths revealed to Abraham during that meal. Rashi personally equates Moriah with Jerusalem, quoting Chronicles II 3,1 as his source. Bereshit Rabbah 55,7 describes the name as indicating the site whence הוראה, (moral) instruction to Israel originates. This is also the site from which reverence for. G–d emanates. Onkelos sees in the name a reference to the incense-offering which contains מור, דרור and other spices.

The fourth quality: The pious man’s love for all the good things in the world is considered as nothing by him when compared to his love of God, blessed be He. Behold, the Creator, blessed be He, said to our father, Abraham, peace be upon him, (ibid., 22:2), “Take now thy son, thine only son, whom thou lovest, even Isaac.” And He said “whom thou lovest” in order to show men that Abraham rejected and abandoned him whom he loved exceedingly because of his love of the Creator, blessed be He.

All three commentators address themselves to the three truths surrounding the commandment to Abraham to offer Isaac as a total offering. The commandment to Abraham to offer Isaac as a sacrifice is terribly difficult to understand. Especially so the fact that it is called מאכלת, "something that feeds," i.e. that the people of Israel still "feed" on the merit accumulated by our patriarch Abraham who took his only son and pre-ordained successor in order to slaughter him with his own hands because G–d had commanded him. Also the merit accumulated by Isaac who went along with this cheerfully, viz: Genesis 22,8: וילכו שניהם יחדו, is totally astounding. Thus it appears to anyone who reads the text of our story. If you examine the text carefully, however, you will find that both Abraham and Isaac made efforts to escape this particular death, as has been pointed out by our sages. When Abraham answers his son's question "where is the lamb for the offering? by saying: G–d will select the lamb for Himself, my son," this is to be understood as a prayer to G–d to select a different offering (22,7-8). We must read the verse as: "If G–d does not select a different lamb, then לעולה בני, "my son will be the offering." Thus we find that Abraham prayed for a miracle by G–d. Because of Abraham's prayer and the fact that G–d responded favorably, we say nowadays in our סליחות prayers that "May the One who answered Abraham at Mount Moriah, also answer our prayers." In view of all this, why does the Torah heap so much praise on Abraham? Do we not have a statement in Sifra Vayikra 22,32 that if someone undergoes martyrdom for the sake of the Holy Name of G–d hoping that G–d will save him by some miracle, no miracle will occur? Even if such a miracle does occur, such a person can certainly not be considered as having become a martyr for the sake of G–d's name!

All three commentators address themselves to the three truths surrounding the commandment to Abraham to offer Isaac as a total offering. The commandment to Abraham to offer Isaac as a sacrifice is terribly difficult to understand. Especially so the fact that it is called מאכלת, "something that feeds," i.e. that the people of Israel still "feed" on the merit accumulated by our patriarch Abraham who took his only son and pre-ordained successor in order to slaughter him with his own hands because G–d had commanded him. Also the merit accumulated by Isaac who went along with this cheerfully, viz: Genesis 22,8: וילכו שניהם יחדו, is totally astounding. Thus it appears to anyone who reads the text of our story. If you examine the text carefully, however, you will find that both Abraham and Isaac made efforts to escape this particular death, as has been pointed out by our sages. When Abraham answers his son's question "where is the lamb for the offering? by saying: G–d will select the lamb for Himself, my son," this is to be understood as a prayer to G–d to select a different offering (22,7-8). We must read the verse as: "If G–d does not select a different lamb, then לעולה בני, "my son will be the offering." Thus we find that Abraham prayed for a miracle by G–d. Because of Abraham's prayer and the fact that G–d responded favorably, we say nowadays in our סליחות prayers that "May the One who answered Abraham at Mount Moriah, also answer our prayers." In view of all this, why does the Torah heap so much praise on Abraham? Do we not have a statement in Sifra Vayikra 22,32 that if someone undergoes martyrdom for the sake of the Holy Name of G–d hoping that G–d will save him by some miracle, no miracle will occur? Even if such a miracle does occur, such a person can certainly not be considered as having become a martyr for the sake of G–d's name!

The Yalkut on Bereshit (22,9) וישם אותו על המזבח describes both Abraham looking at Isaac, and Isaac looking towards Heaven. Both were crying. The Yalkut presents a most moving picture of the great quantity of tears which covered Abraham from head to toe. All this in order to implore G–d to save Isaac. Abraham told his son that seeing he had wept so many tears, G–d has provided a different offering in his place. At that moment Isaac broke out in bitter cries proclaiming: "I raise my eyes towards the mountains, whence will my salvation come?" (Psalms 121,1). All this proves that both Abraham and Isaac had been willing to go through with the sacrifice, but how could they have been described as having served the Lord with joy, as is required?!

Another difficulty is the commentary of our sages quoted by Rashi on 22,5, where Abraham said to the lads accompanying him ואני והנער נלכה עד כה, "I and the lad will go until there." This is interpreted as a severe criticism of G–d by Abraham who queried, "I want to see where is G–d's promise of כה יהיה זרעך, thus (i.e. so numerous) will be your descendants" (Genesis 15,5). At first glance it appears as if Abraham questioned that G–d would fulfil His promise. How do we reconcile this with G–d's reported rebuke to Moses in Exodus 6,2 describing G–d as having appeared to the patriarchs as א-ל שדי, meaning that G–d did not have any need to justify Himself, seeing that the patriarchs accepted all of G–d's commands without the slightest question (compare Shemot Rabbah 6,4). G–d's comment that He is sorry that the likes of the patriarchs no longer exist seems totally out of place in view of Rashi's interpretation of the words עד כה!

By following this approach we can also understand the Midrash in Eichah Rabbati, 2,6, on Lamentations 2,3: "He has cut down in blazing anger כל קרן ישראל, all the might of Israel." The Midrash comments that there are ten קרנות, i.e. "strongholds" termed Keren. Abraham is one such קרן; he is referred to in Isaiah 5,1, as כרם היה לידידי בקרן בן שמן, "My beloved had a vineyard on a fruitful hill." Isaac is also known as a קרן, in Genesis 22,13 נאחז בסבך בקרניו, "caught in the thicket by its horns." We find a reference to Joseph as קרן in Deut. 33,17 where his קרן is described as וקרני ראם קרניו וכו' "He has thorns like the horns of a wild ox." Moses is referred to as קרן in Exodus 34,29: כי קרן עור פניו, "for the skin of his face emitted rays (like a horn)." The Torah is also described as קרן, since we read in Chabakuk 3,4: קרנים מידו לו, "it gives off rays of light in every direction." Priesthood is referred to as קרן, in Psalms 112,9, קרנו תרום בכבוד, "his horn is exalted in honor." (Possibly the word כבוד, used here which is also used in connection with the garments of the High Priest, is the reason the Midrash interprets this verse as alluding to the priesthood.) The Levites collectively are referred to as קרן in Chronicles 1 25,5: כל אלה בנים להימן חוזה המלך בדברי האלוקים להרים קרן. [The chapter traces the genealogy of the tribe of Levi Ed.] Prophecy is called קרן, in Samuel I 2,6: רמה קרני בה'. (Hannah prophesies about Samuel's future). The Holy Temple is also described as קרן, as in Psalms 22,22: מקרני רמים עניתני. Israel itself is also described as קרן in Psalms 148,14: וירם קרן לעמו. Some people add that the קרן of the Messiah should also be included, per Samuel I 2,10: ויתן עוז למלכו, וירם קרן משיחו. The Midrash continues that all of these "horns" were placed on the heads of the Jewish people, but they forfeited them due to their sins. This is alluded to in the verse we quoted earlier from Lamentations 2,3 that in His blazing anger G–d cut down every קרן of Israel. These "horns" subsequently were given to the Gentile nations, as is written in Daniel 7,20: ועל קרניא עשר די בראשה ואחרי די סלקת ונפלו מן קדמיה. "About the ten horns which were on its head, and the other one which came and fell." In verse 24 of the same chapter Daniel speaks about ten kings and kingdoms arising from the fallen horns. Provided Israel repents, G–d will restore these horns to their rightful place viz. Psalms 75,11: "And I will cut off all the horns of the wicked, but the horns of the righteous will be lifted up." This refers to the horns that the “Righteous One of the world,” i.e. G–d, had cut off. When is the time that He will restore them to their righful position? It is when G–d will raise the horn of His anointed: "He will raise the horn of His anointed" (Samuel I 2,10). Thus far the Midrash in Eychah Rabbati.

And now let us consider the other forefathers. It is known that Isaac, our father, was thirty-seven years old at the time of the akeidah (Bereshith 29:20). And if he had not acquiesced in the akeidah, the aged Abraham could certainly not have forced him into it. But, certainly, Isaac did this with full acquiescence, as it is written (Bereshith 22:8): "And the two of them went together" — with one heart. And Isaac, who acquiesced in this, would certainly not flout the will of the Holy One Blessed be He for [relatively] minor considerations. If so, we, who always bring his merits to remembrance [(for our sake)], how much should we walk in his ways, not to abandon Torah and mitzvoth for anything!

The midrash tells us, for example, that this is what happened to Avraham because he did not invite any poor people to the feast that he made upon Yitzchok’s weaning. Commenting on the verse, “And after these matters” (Bereishis 22:1), the midrash explains that it was in response to the Satan’s indictment that the Holy One Blessed is He subsequently commanded Avraham, “Take, now, your son, your only one, Yitzchok … and offer him there for a burnt offering” (Bereishis 22:2).

The midrash tells us, for example, that this is what happened to Avraham because he did not invite any poor people to the feast that he made upon Yitzchok’s weaning. Commenting on the verse, “And after these matters” (Bereishis 22:1), the midrash explains that it was in response to the Satan’s indictment that the Holy One Blessed is He subsequently commanded Avraham, “Take, now, your son, your only one, Yitzchok … and offer him there for a burnt offering” (Bereishis 22:2).

When the Torah (16,16) commands that these pilgrimages have to be made on three occasions annually, this is an allusion to Isaac, an unblemished total offering. In connection with the עקדת יצחק the Torah mentions the word Yireh or Yera'eh three times (Genesis 22, 8-14-14). "Three times a year every male of yours shall be seen by the Lord your G–d in the place G–d will select," corresponds to Genesis 22,8: "G–d will select for Himself the lamb as the total offering my son." This is because the words in Exodus 34,23 "את פני האדון ה' אלוקי ישראל" are an expression of a decree by G–d the "Master" Who decreees that He wants to see them together in one spot. "Three times as year every one of your males shall be seen by the Lord your G–d" (Exodus 23,17), corresponds to the second time the word is used in connection with the עקדה. The third directive to make the pilgrimage to Jerusalem is in our verse here and corresponds to the third time the Torah used the expression יראה in connection with the binding of Isaac. It is a reference to the Mountain of G–d, Moriah. The warning השמר לך (12,13) in this portion not to offer sacrifices anywhere else, corresponds to similar words used by Abraham in his instructions to Eliezer (Genesis 24,6) not to bring Isaac back to Ur Kasdim whence Abraham had emigrated to the land of Canaan. The common denominator to all this is that Isaac, as an unblemished total offering, was not allowed to leave ארץ ישראל.

Concerning Abraham, our father, in the account of the sacrifice of Isaac, it is said : "And Abraham rose in the morning" (Gen. 22:3). Even though it was difficult for him to offer up his only son, he nevertheless did the will of the Creator with zeal, arising early in the morning. He who performs his deeds with zeal demonstrates convincingly that he loves his Creator as a servant who loves his master and hastens to do His will. For zeal depends upon the heart of a man, as when a man cleanses his heart of all other thoughts that may be in it and clings to one thought only, then he makes himself alert and will no doubt succeed. Thus did Abraham do when he removed the love for his son from his heart and carried out the will of his Creator, nullifying his love for his son before his love for the Creator. Therefore, he made a point of rising early, for there was in his heart a great love for the Creator. Therefore, the Holy One, Blessed be He, swore to him that He would remember the binding of Isaac. For a man may do a very difficult thing for one he loves, although his heart troubles him in the doing. But Abraham and Isaac both acted out of the desire of their heart, for the degree of love that they felt for God was very great. Both of them cleaved unto the Lord in their thoughts until they were joined in a great unity. For their sole intent was to spread throughout the world the knowledge of the Unity of the Creator and to train mankind to love Him. As they lovingly performed the service of the Lord, may He be Exalted, and fulfilled His commandments, their physical nature was overcome; their minds cleaved to their love of the Creator of the world. Therefore, both of them acted with zeal.

The Midrash continues: G–d called to Moses whereas G–d did not call to Abraham. How are we to understand this in view of Genesis 22,15: ויקרא מלאך ה' אל אברהם; Clearly G–d did call to Abraham. We must answer that it is no disgrace for the king to speak with his innkeeper. When G–d spoke to Moses He did not do as He did when He spoke to Abraham, but the angel first called to Abraham (to tell him G–d was about to speak to him). Rabbi Avin says that G–d said: "I am the caller and it is I who is speaking." We know this from Isaiah 48,15: אני אני דברתי אף קראתיו והביאותיו והצליח דרכו, "I, I have spoken, I called him; I have brought him and make him successful in his mission." Thus far the Midrash.

Let me explain the plain meaning of this section of the Midrash before concentrating on the allusions contained therein. One can ask why does the Midrash raise the problem of G–d also speaking to Adam, Noach and Abraham? Why should this bother us? Our verse in Leviticus did not state that Moses had an exclusive on being called upon by G–d? Furthermore, why did the Midrash quote a verse in which Abraham was addressed by G–d through an angel instead of bringing a verse from an earlier incident (Genesis 22,11) when the angel is specifically mentioned as calling from Heaven? Another difficulty is that the statements seem self-contradictory. First the Midrash says that G–d did not call upon Abraham, whereas immediately afterwards it qualifies the manner in which G–d called upon Abraham! If G–d never called upon Abraham, how can the Midrash qualify the nature of such a call?

Let me explain the plain meaning of this section of the Midrash before concentrating on the allusions contained therein. One can ask why does the Midrash raise the problem of G–d also speaking to Adam, Noach and Abraham? Why should this bother us? Our verse in Leviticus did not state that Moses had an exclusive on being called upon by G–d? Furthermore, why did the Midrash quote a verse in which Abraham was addressed by G–d through an angel instead of bringing a verse from an earlier incident (Genesis 22,11) when the angel is specifically mentioned as calling from Heaven? Another difficulty is that the statements seem self-contradictory. First the Midrash says that G–d did not call upon Abraham, whereas immediately afterwards it qualifies the manner in which G–d called upon Abraham! If G–d never called upon Abraham, how can the Midrash qualify the nature of such a call?

We also find that the preamble of קריאה was used prior to the actual message in the case of the angel speaking to Abraham. What special proof of fondness does this expression indicate here in Leviticus where the Torah does not even link this form of address to some form of express compliment to Moses in contradistinction to the compliment paid to Abraham in Genesis 22,15 where the use of the word ויקרא is followed by an acknowledgment of why Abraham qualified for this special fondness G–d displayed for him? In that instance G–d explains that He swore an oath acknowledging Abraham's outstanding act of obedience.

We also find that the preamble of קריאה was used prior to the actual message in the case of the angel speaking to Abraham. What special proof of fondness does this expression indicate here in Leviticus where the Torah does not even link this form of address to some form of express compliment to Moses in contradistinction to the compliment paid to Abraham in Genesis 22,15 where the use of the word ויקרא is followed by an acknowledgment of why Abraham qualified for this special fondness G–d displayed for him? In that instance G–d explains that He swore an oath acknowledging Abraham's outstanding act of obedience.

Concerning the fourth expression of endearment listed, the use of the word אליו, this too had been used in connection with Abraham (Genesis 22,11), and one cannot answer that it did not represent an expression of fondness since it was not coupled with וידבר לאמור. The absence of the extra word לאמור in Genesis 22,1, is more than compensated for by the repeated use of Abraham's very name! The answer is that Abraham had to personally prepare himself spiritually in order to receive a communication from G–d. Moses did not need such spiritual preparation. He was ready at all times to perform his task as a prophet. We know this from Numbers 9,8 where some of the people asked Moses why people who had been ritually impure through no fault of their own could not perform the Passover sacrifice at the appointed time. Moses told the people: "Stand by and let me hear what G–d will command concerning situations such as yours!" There was no need for Moses to prepare himself to speak to G–d. We now understand the abbreviated form of the קריאה reported at the opening of the book of Leviticus, i.e. why the Torah did not even bother to identify the caller, and immediately wrote: "He called." Had the introduction "G–d called" been used by the Torah, there would not have been room for error, no one could have argued that it was the angel Mattatron who had addressed Moses and invited him to ready himself spiritually, that it was not G–d Who had addressed him directly. Why then did the Torah take a chance and omit defining who called Moses? We are forced to conclude that the Torah used this form of introduction to demonstrate how fond G–d was of Moses, that G–d was both the caller and the speaker, as distinct from Abraham where the fourth endearing term אליו is used in G–d's address (Genesis 22,11). This is the plain meaning of the paragraph in the Midrash.

Concerning the fourth expression of endearment listed, the use of the word אליו, this too had been used in connection with Abraham (Genesis 22,11), and one cannot answer that it did not represent an expression of fondness since it was not coupled with וידבר לאמור. The absence of the extra word לאמור in Genesis 22,1, is more than compensated for by the repeated use of Abraham's very name! The answer is that Abraham had to personally prepare himself spiritually in order to receive a communication from G–d. Moses did not need such spiritual preparation. He was ready at all times to perform his task as a prophet. We know this from Numbers 9,8 where some of the people asked Moses why people who had been ritually impure through no fault of their own could not perform the Passover sacrifice at the appointed time. Moses told the people: "Stand by and let me hear what G–d will command concerning situations such as yours!" There was no need for Moses to prepare himself to speak to G–d. We now understand the abbreviated form of the קריאה reported at the opening of the book of Leviticus, i.e. why the Torah did not even bother to identify the caller, and immediately wrote: "He called." Had the introduction "G–d called" been used by the Torah, there would not have been room for error, no one could have argued that it was the angel Mattatron who had addressed Moses and invited him to ready himself spiritually, that it was not G–d Who had addressed him directly. Why then did the Torah take a chance and omit defining who called Moses? We are forced to conclude that the Torah used this form of introduction to demonstrate how fond G–d was of Moses, that G–d was both the caller and the speaker, as distinct from Abraham where the fourth endearing term אליו is used in G–d's address (Genesis 22,11). This is the plain meaning of the paragraph in the Midrash.

Concerning the relevance of the number of Israelites required to assure a permanent Presence of the Shechinah, we will appreciate the following: Although we have a rule that anything subject to numbers and measures does not attract ברכה, blessing, this rule applies only when the number or measurement in question is intrinsically physical, part of this material world. Such numbers, by their very definition, do not bode well, since they are intended to stress individuality in the sense of separateness. Each item is counted separately. It also suggests limitation. Even if we say that "the number of the children of Israel will be as the sands of the beaches of the sea," an apparent blessing (Genesis 22,17), the presumption still is that eventually this is a limitation, that the number is finite.

G–d answered Satan at that time, that Abraham already had offered such a sacrifice at the time he circumcised himself and again when he circumcised Isaac, seeing that circumcision rates as a major sacrifice. When he did this he fulfilled the commandment of Leviticus 1,2: אדם כי יקריב מכם קרבן, "when someone offers a sacrifice it should be part of you," i.e. part of your very self. We have an allusion to this in Genesis 12,11 ויהי כאשר הקריב לבא מצרימה, when the use of the word הקריב instead of קרב, indicates that he brought himself closer to G–d (see our commentary page 80). G–d compensated the Jewish people for Abraham's devotion at the appropriate time. We know that circumcision itself rates as a major sacrifice from the boast of Ishmael to Isaac that whereas he, Ishmael, had submitted voluntarily to that painful procedure at the age of thirteen, Isaac as an eight day old baby had not suffered, nor had he accumulated a merit for consenting to that act. Isaac responded that if G–d were to ask him to sacrifice his entire body he would be prepared to do so (compare Sanhedrin 89). According to this last version the words אחר הדברים האלה in 22,1 refer to this conversation between Ishmael and Isaac. We will demonstrate that both approaches are true and reflect valid Torah viewpoints.

Rabbi Elazar explained that every morning the influence of Avraham’s lovingkindness is reawakened, as it is written, “And Avraham arose early in the morning” (Bereishis 22:3). For this reason it is a very favorable hour, so much so that even the bedridden find relief in the morning through the agency of the angel Refael who reveals himself every morning. When the angels appointed to bring infirmity and sickness upon people behold the angel Refael, they take fright and flee. Then Refael extends healing to the invalid. And just as there is a favorable time to pray for physical healing, so is there a favorable time to pray for the sicknesses of the spirit and soul, that is, one’s sins, transgressions and iniquities. The time for this is also in the morning. And since it is a time of favor, even if in light of his deeds the supplicant is not worthy of being answered, nevertheless the Holy One Blessed is He regards him as a penitent and instructs the court not to open an inquest. For lovingkindness and grace are the prerogatives of the Holy One Blessed is He, and the morning is the time that Avraham’s lovingkindness is recalled. Therefore the Holy One Blessed is He accepts prayers of the morning in a spirit of lovingkindness.

This is described in verse 14 where the prophet says: כאשר שממו עליך רבים כן משחת מאיש מראהו ותוארו מבני אדם. "Just as the many were appalled at him, so marred was his appearance, unlike that of man, his form beyond human semblance." The מראהו מאיש the appearance unlike man that the prophet speaks of refers to Moses. The תוארו, "semblance" refers to Moses after his forehead radiated light. Alas, during the many generations which form the subject of the verse described by the prophet he was אחד מן העם, just like one of the common people. The whole of chapter 53 in Isaiah commencing with מי האמין refers to Moses and graphically describes his experiences; he even shared a grave outside the Holy Land as did the wicked people of the generation of the Exodus. When verse 12 speaks of: לכן אחלק לו ברבים this is an allusion to Moses' being involved in the סוד העיבור "the secret of possible existence" [my translation. Ed.] of all these generations who were "wicked people" compared to him. Moses will receive some reward in respect of each of these generations because of his share in whatever merits any generation accumulated. This is how we must understand the Mechilta Beshalach 15,1: that Moses was "equal" to all of the people of Israel. He provided spiritual input into every generation following him because G–d involved him in the סוד העיבור. When Isaiah 53,12 speaks about: ואת עצומים יחלק שלל, "He shall receive the powerful ones as his spoils," the meaning is none other than that G–d directly will give Moses his reward, whereas the other righteous people will receive it by way of Moses. The prophet goes on to say: תחת אשר הערה למות נפשו, "because he exposed himself to death," i.e. in each and every one of the generations since he died until the advent of the Messiah. Perhaps the fact that G–d repeated his name during their first encounter at the burning bush (Exodus 3,4) [unlike when the angel called to Abraham in Genesis 22,11, where the Torah has a line separating the two names i.e. אברהם৷ אברהם. Ed.] maybe an indication that there will be a "Moses" in every generation. When Isaiah continues: ואת פשעים נמנה, והוא חטא רבים נשא ולפשעים יפגיע, "and he was numbered among the sinners, whereas he bore the guilt of many and made intercession for sinners," this means that the final forgiveness of these sinners will be achieved through Moses' intercession. Thus far the comments in the writings of Rabbi Chayim.

It is quite possible that the altar that he built on that mountain was exactly on the site on which the Jewish people later on would offer the incense-offering in the inner sanctum of the Holy Temple. This would be most appropriate, seeing that of all the sacrifices the incense-offering is the one most beloved by G–d. Similarly, the offering of Isaac was the act to which G–d responded with more love than any other before or after. When discussing the meaning of 22,11: "An angel of the Lord called to Abraham from the Heaven and said …do not touch the lad," a Midrash explains that the angel's voice came from between the "two cherubs," i.e. the traditionally holiest spot within the Inner Sanctum. It is evident from this that Isaac is perceived as having been bound on the מזבח הפנימי, the altar within the Sanctuary. The angel's voice then called out to him from very nearby. Put differently, this means that "Heaven" was very nearby. Every offering, when accepted, is described as being ריח ניחוח, "a sweet smelling fragrance for G–d." We also find that when the Tabernacle was consecrated that G–d's voice did not penetrate beyond the walls of that structure.

The answer may be that all other acts of מצוה performance originate outside ourselves, such as the building of a סוכה or the purchase of a לולה, and most of the other 248 positive commandments. When it comes to the offering of an animal sacrifice, however, the person offering it is the עובד, or better עבד, servant, so that the service which an עבד, servant, performs is accurately called עבודה, service. One may view the servant as the "service." We know that such an animal sacrifice is an expression of the mystical dimension נפש תחת נפש, "One life-force in exchange for another life-force," such as in Exodus 21,23 et al, and that when the guilty party slaughters the animal he is keenly aware that his own life should have been offered to G–d in expiation of his sin. The same applies to what the guilty party feels when the blood of the animal is sprinkled on the altar. The owner confesses his sin and resolves not to repeat it. When all this, including the burning of the flesh of the animal on the altar, is the result of animal sacrifice, then the servant has truly become the "service." The first time this happened was when Abraham slaughtered the ram on the altar after G–d had told him not to slaughter Isaac in Genesis 22,12. [In the case of Isaac, he had not been personally guilty; hence how could his death expiate for a crime of his? Ed.] As a corollary, other sacrifices such as wine, bread, oil, etc., accomplish a similar function; they substitute for man offering his own body to G–d, because all the products mentioned are forms of nourishment that keep the human body alive, and therefore are able to serve as a substitute for the human body. In spite of the fact that this service involves an external object, i.e. the animal in question, the thought behind it is strictly internal. The external object enables the sinner to look inward into his own personality. עבודה is called קרבן because the person offering the animal sacrifices his own personality to G–d who in turn has entrusted him with the keeping of his body. When this service is performed according to הלכה, the person offering the sacrifice experiences an elevation of his soul; he approaches ever closer to G–d.

Balak and Bileam were both very clever and learned people who used their knowledge to evil purpose. They were both well aware of the close relationship that existed between Israel and its G–d. Balak was even wiser than Bileam. He was privy to the great chain of the dynasty of David and how it would eventually result in the Messiah's descent from David. He knew that this very strength of Israel was rooted in himself, i.e. עצום ממני, as we have outlined. The reason he was afraid was that he realized that purity can emerge from an impure source, that the good can have an evil source, in order that the מלאך רע would have to say אמן, as we have explained above. This is why his mind worked overtime to devise a plan to sever this close relationship between Israel and its G–d. He wanted to reverse the relationship. He thought that if he were to succeed all the deeds of valour that would be performed by David in the future would accrue to his own people instead of to Israel. This is why the paragraph starts by telling us "Balak son of Tzippor saw all that Israel had done to the Emorite." The three names by which Balak refers to Israel represent three distinct merits or advantages of Israel. He called them עם, because they were very numerous, since G–d had blessed them to become as "numerous as the stars in the sky" (Genesis 22,17). The description בני ישראל, implies an even closer relationship with G–d. When Balak referred to Israel as ישראל he described their highest level, the level that we hope to attain when we all qualify to be the elite. The word בני, "sons of," implies that we are only branches of something just as children are branches, offshoots of their parents. ישראל on the other hand is the trunk that these offshoots come from, the place in which the image of the original Israel, the fighter for G–d, our patriarch, is engraved, the throne of G–d Himself. That is the source from which all souls are "hewn" as from a quarry. As mentioned, Balak was well aware of the cosmic forces and the role Israel played in that constellation. In order to loosen the bond between Israel and G–d he wanted Bileam to curse them at the precise moment in time when G–d is "angry." The significance of a curse is to reinforce the voice of the accuser who brings Israel's iniquities to G–d's attention at that moment when G–d allows Himself to become angry, i.e. the רגע של זעם. Since Bileam was a יודע דעת עליון, privy to G–d's mind, he knew the right time and he also knew how to present an unfavorable picture of someone. He was the ideal man for this task. Balak had a vision of an imminent sin Israel would commit, as proved indeed the case when they sinned shortly thereafter by becoming seduced by the daughters of Moab. This is why he urged Bileam ועתה לך ארה לי, "curse them for me now," seeing that their punishment by G–d would follow almost immediately. Balak had seen the expression of G–d's closeness to Israel by the many miracles G–d had performed for that people. All this is reflected in the Torah's stating וירא בלק את כל אשר עשה ישראל לאמורי, "Balak saw all that Israel had done to the Emorite." He realised that only a people who enjoyed such a lofty spiritual status as indicated by the name ישראל, could have accomplished that feat. Although Balak had witnessed the defeat of the Emorite, seeing that he had been one of the princes of the Emorite, his people had not seen it, had only heard about it. Hence when describing the feelings of his people, the term used for Israel is simply "העם." Nonetheless, even the people of Moab were aware that there existed a special relationship between Israel and its G–d; hence ויקץ מואב מפני בני ישראל. When the Moabites discussed what to do with the elders of Midian who were not aware of the special relationship between G–d and Israel, they emphasized the numerical strength of the Jewish people by referring to them as קהל, meaning that every individual tribe qualified for the description עם, and that they were as described in Genesis 35,11, גוי וקהל גוים ממך יצאו, "a nation as well as a community of nations will come out of you." The expression קהל then emphasizes the twelve tribes that between them made up this nation.

This is the mystical dimension of the first words of Kohelet where Solomon cries out: הבל הבלים הכל הבל, that in this world everything is no better than הבל! He bemoans the fact that in this world Divine guidance must be based on the attribute of חסד! a testimony to man's inadequacy. Solomon clearly implies that the way G–d deals with the present world is הבל, totally inferior to the way G–d will be dealing with the world of the future when He will be able to employ the yardstick of גבורה. This is what our sages meant when they said in in Midrash Kohelet 11,12 "the Torah (insights) which man studies in this world is הבל when compared to the Torah of the Messiah." What our sages had in mind is that the Torah which we learn in this world is based on the intelligence of the emanation associated with הבל, whereas the Torah of the Messiah will be based on the wisdom garnered from the emanation of גבורה, i.e. the domain from which Cain originated. Our own eyes behold regularly that a person whose origin is in the domain of גבורה is apt to be strong and valorous whereas people whose origin is in the domain of חסד are apt to be sensitive and weak. The relationship between חסד and גבורה is not unlike the relationship between silver and gold. Even among the קליפות, the spiritually negative forces, we find that the force גבורה equals אריה=216, whereas the force חסד is equivalent to חמור (donkey, symbolic of all that is earthly). This is the mystical dimension of Genesis 22,3: ויחבוש את חמרו, where Abraham is described as saddling his donkey on the way to the binding of Isaac. The word חמרו is spelled defective (without the letter ו) to indicate that by the act of saddling the donkey, symbol of everything material, Abraham assumed dominance over it. The numerical value of the letters in the name of אברהם is the same as the numerical value in the letters of the word חמר, =248. Abraham had to establish his authority over this קליפה so that it should not hinder him in executing G–d's command to offer Isaac as a sacrifice. He arose early in the morning (Genesis 22,3) in order to "awaken" i.e. to anticipate the emanation חסד and to subdue the קליפה aspect associated with it. Rabbi Akiva represented the type of personality based on גבורה, the domain Cain came from after the emanation גבורה i.e. had already been "sweetened." This is why Moses had suggested to G–d that, since He already knew there was going to be a man of such caliber, it would be appropriate to give the Torah to the Jewish people by means of a man such as Rabbi Akiva. Thus far the Arizal. Since Cain represented darkness it is no more than appropriate that light when it comes should originate in darkness.

In order to appreciate the dimension of holiness Isaac represented, it is fitting that we first see what the Zohar says on the subject of the עקדה. When Abraham was about to slaughter Isaac, the latter's soul flew away to be replaced later by a holy spirit from the Celestial Regions. It follows then that Isaac's life after the עקדה, was the life of a human being who had not originated from a drop of semen. We must view Isaac as someone re-born in consequence of that experience: a totally new creature. G–d had applied the strictest yardstick to him by letting him die, and subsequently by infusing him with a new soul. He had also sanctified his body; from that time on Isaac's body resembled that of אדם הראשון, also not the product of a drop of semen. Now we understand also why the ram which Abraham sacrificed in lieu of Isaac was not the product of natural procreation, i.e. through semen, but was created during the period of dusk on the sixth day of Creation as reported in Avot 5,6. When Genesis 22,13 describes this ram as והנה איל אחר נאחז וכו' "and here a ram after was caught, etc.," this means that this ram was created after all the other mammals had already been created and had procreated. The word אחר therefore is to be understood in the same sense as the same word when Abraham said to the angels אחר תעבורו. Isaac teaches us about G–d's very first objective when He set out to create this universe which would develop to become as perfect as He envisaged it.

It is a custom of Israel to begin blowing the shofar on the first day of the month of Elul, that is, thirty days before Rosh HaShannah. This can be likened to a debtor whom the court grants thirty days to raise the funds to pay his creditors. In the same way the Heavenly court grants a person thirty days to repent so that he may clear himself in their eyes through acts of penitence, prayer and charity, which together avert the evil decree. The shofar is meant to awaken us it because reminds us of the horn of Israel and the horn of the Binding of Yitzchak, as it is written, “There was a ram behind him entangled in the thicket by its horns” (Bereishis 22:13). According to the Midrash (Yalkut Bereishis 101) this indicates that although Israel are entangled in sin they are destined to be redeemed by the horns of this ram, as it is written, “On that day He will blow upon a great shofar” (Yeshayahu 27:13). Thus Avraham observed the ram freeing himself only to become entangled once more. He observed its suffering [symbolizing the suffering Israel was to endure in the course of the four exiles]. Hashem said to him, “This ram represents Your children who will become free of the kingdom of Babylon only to become entangled in the kingdom of Media. Then from Media they will pass to Greece and from Greece to Yishmael and Edom. Yet they are destined to be redeemed by the horns of this ram, as it is written, ‘And Hashem, God, will blow upon a shofar; Hashem of Hosts will protect them’ (Zecharyah 9:14- 15).” Therefore, whoever trembles at the word of Hashem must also tremble when he hears the sound of the shofar. Let him shudder and quake with fear of Hashem and His exalted majesty.

The first method of exegesis is based on an understanding of איזהו חסיד? המתחסד עם קונו, Who is a pious person? He who practises piety with His Maker (Zohar Mishpatim 114). This means that such an individual performs the commandments of G–d with more love and goodwill than he is obliged to. Abraham demonstrated this by binding Isaac in anticipation of slaughtering him as a sacrifice. Abraham could have based himself on strict legality, and challenged G–d's command by saying that he believed in the promise of G–d that 15,5) כה יהיה זרעך), as well as on 21,12 or 17,19, both of which promise that Isaac would have seed and that his seed would perpetuate Abraham's name. In order to make certain that G–d's earlier promise would indeed come true, Abraham could have argued that he was under orders not to slaughter Isaac. Bereshit Rabbah 56,10, commenting on why Abraham called the site of the Akeydah. 22,14) ,ה' יראה) i.e. "G–d will see," quotes Rabbi Yochanan: O G–d, at the time You told me to take my first born, the one I love, I could have remonstrated saying that You Yourself had told me only "yesterday" that my seed would be perpetuated through Isaac. I carefully refrained from becoming guilty of such an argument. I rather suppressed my natural feelings of pity for my son than not to comply with Your will."

We shall demonstrate that both the view which interprets 22,1 as referring to Satan's accusation, and the view that the test was caused by Isaac's provocative boast to his brother Ishmael that he would be willing to offer his entire body to G–d, are true and totally compatible with one another. We must understand that anything which is due to Satan or a malignment by Satan, has its origin in the סטרא אחרא, the side of the emanations which is separate from sanctity. On the other hand, the statements ascribed by our sages to Ishmael, who boasted of his having demonstrated genuine obedience to G–d, originates in the side of the emanations that contains קדושה, sanctity. Abraham was not sure whether the entire נסיון, test, was because G–d had heeded Satan's malignment of him or whether the test was due to the words of Ishmael and Isaac's reply that he was willing to sacrifice body and soul for G–d. When we consider that Abraham and Isaac rose early in the morning to undertake this journey to Mount Moriah, and that Abraham personally saddled his donkey instead of leaving this chore to one of his servants (compare 22,3), and when the Torah immediately afterwards describes Abraham and Isaac as "going together," the meaning that they both rejoiced in planning to fulfill G–d's will becomes clearly apparent.

The truth is that this test was due to Ishmael's and Isaac's dialogue, a competition who could serve the Lord better. Such a dialogue certainly reflected the "right" side of the emanations. Rabbi Yossi the Galilean describes the matter in Bereshit Rabbah 55,5 when he says that the words והאלוקים נסה את אברהם must be understood as "G–d placed Abraham on a high mast, like that on a ship." His meaning is that G–d simply wanted to demonstrate to the whole world the devotion of an Abraham to the most difficult demand G–d could make upon him. Nonetheless, there is no denying that Abraham had found a detractor in Satan, and we have it on the authority of the Zohar that any accusation leaves some impression that G–d has to address Himself to, even if He does not do so immediately. In such a situation G–d hands someone else to Satan as a ransom, as alluded to in Isaiah 43,4: ואתן אדם תחתיך, "I give men in exchange for you." Abraham was afraid that the effect of Satan's accusation against him might have negative effects on Isaac's descendants. This is why G–d told him immediately after the binding of Isaac (Genesis 22,21) that the ransom had already been assigned to Satan: עוץ בכורו, "Utz the first born of Nachor," otherwise known as job, as we know from Job 1,1 "there lived a man in the land of Utz, Job was his name." We know that G–d delivered the fate of this man into the hands of Satan (ibid.). The mechanics of how this ransom works are discussed at length in the Zohar.

The truth is that this test was due to Ishmael's and Isaac's dialogue, a competition who could serve the Lord better. Such a dialogue certainly reflected the "right" side of the emanations. Rabbi Yossi the Galilean describes the matter in Bereshit Rabbah 55,5 when he says that the words והאלוקים נסה את אברהם must be understood as "G–d placed Abraham on a high mast, like that on a ship." His meaning is that G–d simply wanted to demonstrate to the whole world the devotion of an Abraham to the most difficult demand G–d could make upon him. Nonetheless, there is no denying that Abraham had found a detractor in Satan, and we have it on the authority of the Zohar that any accusation leaves some impression that G–d has to address Himself to, even if He does not do so immediately. In such a situation G–d hands someone else to Satan as a ransom, as alluded to in Isaiah 43,4: ואתן אדם תחתיך, "I give men in exchange for you." Abraham was afraid that the effect of Satan's accusation against him might have negative effects on Isaac's descendants. This is why G–d told him immediately after the binding of Isaac (Genesis 22,21) that the ransom had already been assigned to Satan: עוץ בכורו, "Utz the first born of Nachor," otherwise known as job, as we know from Job 1,1 "there lived a man in the land of Utz, Job was his name." We know that G–d delivered the fate of this man into the hands of Satan (ibid.). The mechanics of how this ransom works are discussed at length in the Zohar.

Our third approach to the meal Abraham offered the angels is that this meal is to be considered an allusion to the meal in the distant future that G–d will serve to the righteous, and that the message Abraham received during that meal was that it would be Isaac through whom such eventual idyllic circumstances would become possible at a time when G–d's original plan for the universe would be realized. We have stated that Isaac's holiness was due to his being the first human to be circumcised on the eighth day as prescribed by the Torah. At that time his body would become as holy as possible. When G–d asked Abraham to offer such a human being as a total offering, Abraham rejoiced. Isaac also rejoiced seeing he had been found worthy to become a total offering to G–d during his lifetime, a privilege which had not been granted to any other righteous human being until after death, at which time their souls would be "sacrificed" on a celestial altar by the archangel Michael; we have mentioned this previously.

When G–d said to Abraham after the 22,12) ,עקדה) "Now I know that you are G–d-fearing," this is what is meant. We find in Sotah 31 that this expression of "G–d-fearing" is supposed to mean that Abraham served G–d out of love. This seems paradoxical. Why would the Torah use the word "fear," when what is meant is "love?" The Talmud there is at pains to justify this statement by citing that G–d called Abraham “אוהבי, “the one who loves Me," in Isaiah 41,8. There are actually three levels (in ascending order) in which one relates to G–d. There is fear which eventually results in love; there is love which eventually results in reverence, another level of "fear." I have explained all this at length in my treatise בעשרה מאמרות נברא העולם. Briefly, the lower level of fear is the fear of punishment. The higher level of יראה, fear, is a kind of reverence, i.e. the fear to do something displeasing to G–d irrespective of any consequences. The mere idea of being unworthy is something abhorrent. This latter "fear" is one that is the result of having developed a love for G–d. It is this fear that Abraham was being complimented on by G–d after the successful trial of the עקדה. The Talmud therefore is quite correct in associating that fear with "love," seeing it was the product of love. The fear that Abraham entertained during the steps leading up to the binding of Isaac was that somehow his own and Isaac's performance might not be optimal, i.e. whole-hearted and joyful.

Abraham's prayer was that Isaac's body should qualify as the קרבן. When he said: אלוקים יראה לו השה לעולה בני, he meant that Isaac's body should be like a lamb, ready for this close relationship with G–d. Rashi's comment on these words is quite in place, since Abraham wanted Isaac to know that if he, Isaac, was not able to rise to that spiritual level which he as his father prayed for, then לעולה בני, he would still serve as a sacrifice, but that such a sacrifice would not transport him to the highest degree of closeness to G–d. G–d listened to Abraham's prayer benevolently, and Isaac's soul achieved the prayed for degree of closeness with G–d's Essence. He received an additional input of Holy Spirit, and represents the deeper meaning of אדם ובהמה תושיע השם (Psalms 36,7) that his body too remained intact, and that G–d invited a ram to serve literally in lieu of Isaac, as we will explain.

When G–d told Abraham in 22,12 אל תשלח ידך אל הנער ואל תעש לו מאומה, "do not raise your hand against the lad and do not do anything to him," Abraham was stunned, fearing that maybe Isaac was found blemished, not worthy as a sacrifice. It was then that G–d took Abraham into His confidence, explaining that when He had said in 21,12 כי ביצחק יקרא לך זרע, "for through Isaac your seed will be known," that had only referred to part of Isaac, i.e. ב. Now, after the עקדה, however, when Isaac has been cleansed of any unworthy parts, My promise refers to כל יצחק, all of Isaac, i.e. Isaac's entire personality qualifies to be your descendant. When Abraham receives a "second" message from G–d in 22,15, this is merely to assure him that G–d will certainly not change or qualify any promise He had made to him, and that the soul that inhabited Isaac's body now was שנית, a second one, his original soul having ascended to Heaven. It was because of the ריח ניחוח of the ram that Abraham slaughtered that Isaac's soul could ascend to Heaven, seeing that that ram had been a heavenly creature having been created at dusk of the sixth day of creation, as we know from Avot 5,9. The physical body of Isaac, who had been born of semen, was also replaced with sacred flesh. This is why he was forbidden to leave the holy soil of the land of Canaan.

I have explained earlier how Abraham is the source of the fulfilment of G–d's Name becoming י-ה-י-ה instead of י-ה-ו-ה, and how this is alluded to in the name Abraham called Mount Moriah, i.e. השם יראה.

Since we are already on the subject of verse 22,14, let me tell you something interesting. The expression יראה is employed here twice; once it is vocalized Yireh, the other time it is vocalized Ye-ra-eh. I have already mentioned that a great promise is contained in this verse. We have also a promise in Isaiah 52,8 כי עין בעין יראו בשוב ה' ציון, that G–d's return to Zion will be witnessed visually. I believe that the two words יראה in our verse are an allusion to a statement by our sages in Chagigah 2 that בדרך שבא לראות כך בא לראות, "just as one sees with both eyes so one is seen with both eyes." The Talmud uses our verse to draw a comparison between the way G–d sees us and the way we see Him. It concludes that if someone is blind in one eye he need not make the pilgrimage to Jerusalem on the holidays since the Torah requires him to be "seen," i.e Ye-ra-eh.

The second introduction needed to understand the whole issue is the fact that Esau and Jacob were twins inside Rebeccah's womb, and that she was the mother of both of them. This means that she was like the crucible within which Jacob was refined, whereas Esau at the same time absorbed all the residual polluted material of the original serpent that had still cleaved to Rebeccah in her capacity as Laban's sister. Esau inherited all the falseness of Laban. This left Jacob like pure, refined silver. That is what our sages had in mind when they referred to Jacob's beauty as equaling that of Adam (before his sin). The fact that Esau had absorbed all the negative residual elements within Rebeccah had enabled Jacob to become the pious person he was. Rebeccah loved Jacob; Isaac loved Esau more. The deeper reason for this is, as we have already explained, that there was some affinity between Isaac, whose root was the emanation of דין, the same emanation as the one the serpent=Satan=Esau was rooted in. Rebeccah, on the other hand, loved Jacob, seeing that her appearance was just like that of her mother-in-law Sarah, as we have explained. When Sarah is described in Genesis 20,3 as בעולת בעל, the Talmud Ketuvot 61 describes this as meaning that her husband was in a state of ascension at the time. The Torah compliments Sarah by testifying that together with her husband she ascended to higher spiritual regions. Rebeccah experienced something similar. We know that Isaac was described as עולה תמימה, an unblemished total offering [ עולה in the sense of something that ascends Ed.], at the time he was bound on the altar at Moriah. Our Rabbis say that nonetheless Isaac was like a קרבן עולה ויורד, in the matter of the עקדה, meaning that at different times he was at different spiritual levels. While he was bound on the altar, for instance, he was on a higher spiritual level than when he descended from the altar, aware that he was not to be sacrificed after all, seeing that G–d had appointed an alternative offering in his stead, namely the ram that was caught in the thicket by its horns (Genesis 22,13). Jacob was called an איש תם, the word תם referring to his spiritual ascension. Esau, on the other hand, though from a holy source as we explained when we described his head as being cradled by Isaac , was of the caliber that was liable to descend rather than to ascend spiritually.