Chasidut do Rodzaju 22:26
Kedushat Levi
Another way of looking at our verse is that of the Ari’zal, who sees in the words כי ביצחק in Genesis 21,12 a reference to the “feminine” side of Yitzchok in the diagram of the 10 emanations, i.e. the earthly element, seeing that the angel had said to Avraham (Genesis 18,10) והנה בן לשרה אשתך, “and here your wife Sarah will have a son.” [The angel emphasized Sarah as predominant in Yitzchok’s birth, not his father Avraham. Ed.] However, subsequently he would receive a soul contributed by Avraham, Avraham representing the masculine element of the chart of the emanations. This point is made by the Torah here repeating what otherwise would be assumed, that Avraham begot Yitzchok. The Ari’zal’s comment also coincides with the meaning of Bereshit Rabbah 58,5 in which the Midrash, referring to Genesis 23,3 where Avraham is reported as “arriving” in order to bury Sarah, asks: “where did Avraham arrive from? Where had he been previously?” One of the answers given by the Midrash is that Avraham came from Mount Moriah. The Midrash adds that Sarah died as a result of the anguish she experienced when told that Yitzchok had been slaughtered. She had found this incompatible with G’d’s promise to Avraham that ברך אברכך והרבה ארבה את זרעך, “I will continuously bless you and greatly multiply your descendants” which G’d had said to Avraham in Genesis 22,17.
At this point the author attributes to this Midrash a third answer to the question whence Avraham came to arrange Sarah’s funeral. I have not found this in any of my editions, although this is the answer that would tie in with our verse above. The Midrash supposedly views as Avraham “coming” i.e. contributing the soul to Yitzchok as alluded to in the words (Genesis 21,12) כי ביצחק יקרא לך זרע.
At this point the author attributes to this Midrash a third answer to the question whence Avraham came to arrange Sarah’s funeral. I have not found this in any of my editions, although this is the answer that would tie in with our verse above. The Midrash supposedly views as Avraham “coming” i.e. contributing the soul to Yitzchok as alluded to in the words (Genesis 21,12) כי ביצחק יקרא לך זרע.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
Deuteronomy 28,8. “the Lord will ordain blessings for you for your barns.”
Seeing that it is G’d’s custom to dispense largesse and blessings for His people Israel, the method G’d employs to do this varies according to circumstances. It may be גלוי, manifest, i.e. it becomes immediately clear to all the onlookers that an act of great benefit for the Jewish people has been performed by G’d. Often this takes the form of a miracle being performed. On the other hand, when G’d uses covert means to dispense His largesse for His people, it may often not appear to be such at the outset, although in the course of time it will prove to have been planned as such by G’d already much earlier than the effect being felt.
When Moses speaks about G’d ordaining (nature) to bestow its blessings on the Jewish people, he refers to blessings due to the Jewish people themselves having roused themselves spiritually, as a result of which their barns filled with produce at harvest time. Moses refers to something, whose benefit to the recipient does not become apparent (at the time when he ploughs and sows) but only after most of a year has passed at harvest time. When G’d asked Avraham to offer him his beloved son, Avraham was not immediately aware of the great benefits that would result from this. [At the time he may have considered the “test” by G’d as having been masterminded by the attribute of Justice rather than the attribute of Mercy. Ed.] It was only after the successful conclusion of that “test,” that he recognised in it the hand of Hashem rather than the hand of elokim. Compare Genesis 22,14.
Seeing that it is G’d’s custom to dispense largesse and blessings for His people Israel, the method G’d employs to do this varies according to circumstances. It may be גלוי, manifest, i.e. it becomes immediately clear to all the onlookers that an act of great benefit for the Jewish people has been performed by G’d. Often this takes the form of a miracle being performed. On the other hand, when G’d uses covert means to dispense His largesse for His people, it may often not appear to be such at the outset, although in the course of time it will prove to have been planned as such by G’d already much earlier than the effect being felt.
When Moses speaks about G’d ordaining (nature) to bestow its blessings on the Jewish people, he refers to blessings due to the Jewish people themselves having roused themselves spiritually, as a result of which their barns filled with produce at harvest time. Moses refers to something, whose benefit to the recipient does not become apparent (at the time when he ploughs and sows) but only after most of a year has passed at harvest time. When G’d asked Avraham to offer him his beloved son, Avraham was not immediately aware of the great benefits that would result from this. [At the time he may have considered the “test” by G’d as having been masterminded by the attribute of Justice rather than the attribute of Mercy. Ed.] It was only after the successful conclusion of that “test,” that he recognised in it the hand of Hashem rather than the hand of elokim. Compare Genesis 22,14.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Flames of Faith
It was at the moment of his final trial of faith248Abraham was tested with ten trials of faith. For the final test, God commanded that Abraham bind his son Isaac to the altar and offer him as a sacri-fice. See further Ethics of the Fathers 5:3 and Genesis 22. that he fully inter- nalized the level of yechidah. That is why his last test mentioned the word yechidah: Kach na es bincha es Yechidcha, “Please take your son, your only one, and offer him as a complete offering” (Gen 22:2).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Flames of Faith
Abraham had waited one hundred years for the birth of Isaac, the son who was suitable for the continuation of Abraham’s mission. When the Almighty asked for the sacrifice of Isaac, He was requesting that Abraham take all of his dreams and hopes and sacrifice them joyously for God. Abraham was not to merely give up his most beloved son; he was to perform this task with ecstatic joy, devotion, and a sense of connection to the Divine.249God never told Abraham where to offer Isaac. Abraham, as a result, had to be in a state of mind that would allow for prophecy in order to hear from God where to bind his son. A prophet must be overwhelmed with ecstatic joy in order to commune with the Divine. Since Abraham had to be ready for proph-ecy, God was demanding from him ecstatic joy. See further Shem Mi-Shmuel, Mo’adim pg. 13. Abraham fulfilled the challenge. Despite losing all sense of spiritual inspiration,250It is written, Va-yar es ha-makom me-rachok, “He saw the place from afar” (Gen. 22:4). The Zohar explains that ha-makom is really a reference to God. Abraham saw God from a distance because he lost all sense of inspired spirituality. Abraham reached to his depths and performed the binding of Isaac with joy. As a result yechidah entered him fully.251Shem Mi-Shmuel, Mo’adim, pg. 13. In Abraham, yechidah was an or penimi (inner light) and not merely an or makkif (a transcendent light). Our patriarch bequeathed this level of soul to all of his descendants—the Jewish people.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Sha'ar HaEmunah VeYesod HaChasidut
It seems quite clear from several places that the Rambam had possession of a clear tradition of the mysteries of the Torah. Another example is the following. He wrote in the Guide in chapter 45 of the second section, that the eleventh level of prophecy involves, “seeing an angel speaking to one in a vision, as experienced by Avraham Avinu during the binding of Yitzhak. In my opinion this is the highest of the degrees of the prophets – with the exception if Moshe Rabeynu - whose states are attested by the prophetic books, provided he has, as reason demands, his rational faculties fully developed.” In this the Rambam is saying that the level of prophecy experienced by Avraham is the highest degree of prophecy. It follows that the prophecy (of Avraham) recorded in the Torah is of the highest degree known to mankind, save that of Moshe himself, who possessed the absolute highest prophetic perceptions ever. This is what is meant when God describes Moshe by saying (Bamidbar, 12:8), “I will speak to him mouth to mouth,” which attests to the fitness and worthiness of Moshe’s soul. The Mishnah Torah further explains the difference between the prophecy of Moshe and all other prophets.113See Mishnah Torah, Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah (7:6), which spells out the difference between Moshe and other prophets. According to the Rambam, the difference lay in the degree to which the imaginative faculty played a role. When other prophets experienced God speaking to them, they did so through the power of the imagination. Moshe, however, had a direct, intellectual perception of the Divine, without the intermediary of the imaginative faculty, as the verse implies: “And God spoke to Moshe face to face…” (Shemot 33:11) When studying the passages of the Torah concerning prophecy, it is understood that the highest level of prophecy is that which is emanates from the supreme source of prophecy. This is in line with the following passage in the Zohar (Idrat Nasso, 130a), “We have leaned that the name of Atika (the Ancient Holy One)114Atika is one of the highest of the Divine Partsufim (modes of God’s governance) representing absolute and total compassion, beyond the distinctions of good and evil. is hidden above all the rest. It is nowhere explained in the Torah save one place. This is in God’s promise to Avraham (Bereshit, 22:17), where the Lord says, ‘I swear on Myself, saith the Lord.’ Myself is Atika, meaning Ze’ir Anpin115Ze’ir Anpin is the lower more accessible of the Divine Partsufim. It is a level where God’s concealment is broken only through the performance of Mitsvot, prayer, and ethical behavior. swore on Atika.” This is explained in the Beit Yaakov (haKollel, parshat Vayeira, sec. 57).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
An alternate approach to the paragraph commencing with: וירא והנה באר בשדה, “he looked, and here there was a well in the field, etc.;” The Talmud Pessachim 88 draws attention to Avraham, Yitzchok, and Yaakov each using a different simile when trying to condense their concept of G’d. Avraham saw G’d in terms of a הר, “mountain,” i.e. something far above our level towering above man. Yitzchok perceived him as שדה, a field, covering huge expanses of earth, but sharing earth with man. Yaakov perceived Him as בית, i.e. an intimate term, viewing G’d as if He were at home with human beings. A major difference between Yaakov’s concept of G’d and that of his forefathers, is that the former did not view G’d as being “at home” permanently on earth, whereas Yaakov did perceive Him as constantly accompanying man, much as a house is the symbol of a permanent presence. [The scriptural verses this is based on are: Genesis 22,14 בהר ה' יראה, “on the Mountain of Hashem, He may be seen.” Genesis 24,63 ויצא יצחק לשוח בשדה, “Yitzchok went out into the field to meditate.” In Genesis 28,19 the Torah quotes Yaakov as naming the site ביתאל, “house of the Lord”. Yaakov felt that the time had come when G’d could have a permanent home on earth. However, this had been a vision brought about by his dream/prophetic insight. After awakening he realized that down on earth, where greed, envy and jealousy were still prevalent, to wit the huge rock making the water of the well inaccessible accept when all the interested parties were assembled simultaneously, that the time was not yet ripe for G’d to feel at home in such an environment. By removing the rock, Yaakov wanted to demonstrate to the shepherds that a better future could be in store for mankind. I have reworded the thought expressed by the author somewhat, and have omitted the comparison to the portion of קן צפור in Deut. 22,6. Ed.]
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
When Moses, in Deuteronomy 32,2 describes G’d as וזרח משעיר למו הופיע מהר פארן, “the Lord shone upon them from Seir, He appeared from Mount Paran,” every intelligent person must ask that Esau and Yaakov had been separated already prior to their respective births, and that the two represented two totally opposite perceptions of what life and the world is all about, one deciding in favour of worldly goods, whereas Yaakov decided in favour of spiritual values, so what point was there in G’d offering the Torah to the descendants of Esau? At the same time, since when do we the descendants of Yaakov, expect to have a share in G’d’s largesse on this earth? Does the Talmud Kidushin: 39 not teach us not to expect a reward for serving the Lord while we walk on this earth?
The answer to this question is this: Every Israelite is obligated by being part of the covenant between Israel and G’d, to serve the Lord enthusiastically and meticulously with all his soul at all times. Just as G’d supervises his well being every minute of every hour, so, in turn he is obliged to serve the Lord. When G’d on occasion supplies a Jew with material benefits, these are not to be understood as part of the reward for his mitzvah performance. It may be understood as an encouragement to the person concerned, to serve the Lord with even greater devotion and intensity. When Moses speaks of מימינו אש דת למו, “from His right side the fire had turned into law,” he meant that if G’d decided to give the Jewish people, or some of the Jewish people, part of the material comforts that had originally been allocated to Seir, i.e. Esau, He referred to G’d’s “right side”, the side exuding love. G’d intended that by doing so even the ordinary Jew who is not steeped in Torah learning will respond to G’d’s Torah with more enthusiasm when he feels that G’d had singled him out for loving care.
This is one of the reasons why Avraham called his son Yitzchok, the name reflecting the joy he felt at being granted this son by Sarah. If Yitzchok developed into a personality symbolizing יראה, awe, this was because he was rooted in שמחה, joy, and joy‘s root in turn is fire. [If I understand the author correctly, the joy described as “fire” is the enthusiasm, almost ecstasy, with which such a person serves his G’d. Ed]. The characteristic יראה is not one that is manifest in the person who possesses it all the time, as it is in the nature of being a response to certain stimuli, in this instance the external “cause” is G’d Himself. This characteristic becomes manifest in response to external stimulants. This is what Solomon had in mind when he said in Kohelet 7,12 ויתרון דעת חכמה תחיה בעליה, ”and the advantage of knowledge is that it adds an additional dimension to the life of him who possesses it..”
It is significant that the letters in the word מחשבה, “thought,” are the same as in the word בשמחה,”with joy.”מחשבה is an attribute that is both primary and constant. If a person reduces himself to the אין, negating all interest in the physical part of the world, having done this he is able to attach himself to the source of all “Life.” When this has occurred, a new “LIFE” is bestowed on him, a life in a different world, one in which he is elevated to be close to Eternal G’d. This concept is portrayed in the Torah in Leviticus 27,10 where the subject is the person who donates to הקדש, G’d’s representative on earth, his “net worth,” as defined according to his age. Having done so, the Torah there describes him as והיה הוא ותמורתו יהיה קודש, “then both he and his substitute will be holy.” Concerning this procedure the sages in the Jerusalem Talmud B’rachot 2,4 said: the messiah was born on the 9th day of Av, he being the exchange for the Jewish world which had been destroyed on that day (when the Temple was burned). We find an allusion to this negating the physical world and being “reincarnated,” when Avraham before proceeding to offer his son Yitzchok as a total burnt offering, tells the servants attending them, that “we will go, and prostrate ourselves and return to you.” (Genesis 22,5)
The answer to this question is this: Every Israelite is obligated by being part of the covenant between Israel and G’d, to serve the Lord enthusiastically and meticulously with all his soul at all times. Just as G’d supervises his well being every minute of every hour, so, in turn he is obliged to serve the Lord. When G’d on occasion supplies a Jew with material benefits, these are not to be understood as part of the reward for his mitzvah performance. It may be understood as an encouragement to the person concerned, to serve the Lord with even greater devotion and intensity. When Moses speaks of מימינו אש דת למו, “from His right side the fire had turned into law,” he meant that if G’d decided to give the Jewish people, or some of the Jewish people, part of the material comforts that had originally been allocated to Seir, i.e. Esau, He referred to G’d’s “right side”, the side exuding love. G’d intended that by doing so even the ordinary Jew who is not steeped in Torah learning will respond to G’d’s Torah with more enthusiasm when he feels that G’d had singled him out for loving care.
This is one of the reasons why Avraham called his son Yitzchok, the name reflecting the joy he felt at being granted this son by Sarah. If Yitzchok developed into a personality symbolizing יראה, awe, this was because he was rooted in שמחה, joy, and joy‘s root in turn is fire. [If I understand the author correctly, the joy described as “fire” is the enthusiasm, almost ecstasy, with which such a person serves his G’d. Ed]. The characteristic יראה is not one that is manifest in the person who possesses it all the time, as it is in the nature of being a response to certain stimuli, in this instance the external “cause” is G’d Himself. This characteristic becomes manifest in response to external stimulants. This is what Solomon had in mind when he said in Kohelet 7,12 ויתרון דעת חכמה תחיה בעליה, ”and the advantage of knowledge is that it adds an additional dimension to the life of him who possesses it..”
It is significant that the letters in the word מחשבה, “thought,” are the same as in the word בשמחה,”with joy.”מחשבה is an attribute that is both primary and constant. If a person reduces himself to the אין, negating all interest in the physical part of the world, having done this he is able to attach himself to the source of all “Life.” When this has occurred, a new “LIFE” is bestowed on him, a life in a different world, one in which he is elevated to be close to Eternal G’d. This concept is portrayed in the Torah in Leviticus 27,10 where the subject is the person who donates to הקדש, G’d’s representative on earth, his “net worth,” as defined according to his age. Having done so, the Torah there describes him as והיה הוא ותמורתו יהיה קודש, “then both he and his substitute will be holy.” Concerning this procedure the sages in the Jerusalem Talmud B’rachot 2,4 said: the messiah was born on the 9th day of Av, he being the exchange for the Jewish world which had been destroyed on that day (when the Temple was burned). We find an allusion to this negating the physical world and being “reincarnated,” when Avraham before proceeding to offer his son Yitzchok as a total burnt offering, tells the servants attending them, that “we will go, and prostrate ourselves and return to you.” (Genesis 22,5)
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
[There follows a paragraph that I have not been able to follow completely, so that I am not able to translate into English without possibly misrepresenting the author’s meaning. Ed.]
An alternate approach to the verse: “Yitzchok went for a stroll in the field close to evening, when he raised his eyes and beheld camels approaching” The Talmud (B’rachot 26), when commenting on this line says that Avraham, (compare Genesis 19,26) composed the daily morning prayer, the word ויעמוד “he stood,” meaning that he stood engaged in prayer, whereas Yitzchok composed the daily afternoon prayer, מנחה. According to the Talmud, the word שיחה when used in the Torah always refers to prayer, תפלה. [It does not occur again in the Torah, although it does occur in psalms 102,1.Ed.] Yaakov, the third of the patriarchs, introduced the evening prayer, מעריב. This is based on Genesis 28,11 ויפגע במקום וילן שם כי בא השמש, “he met G’d there as the sun was about to set and spent the night there.” [The word המקום, meaning G’d, is not unusual. Ed.] We need to examine why a prayer is called מנחה, “gift.” The morning prayer being called שחרית, is easy to understand as the word שחר means morning, when the sun begins to shine. Calling the evening prayer מעריב is also easy to understand as it is offered in the evening, ערב. But naming the afternoon prayer מנחה appears somewhat difficult. Tossaphot Yom Tov, already recognized this anomaly and answers it by referring to the period when it is recited as מנוחת השמש, “when the sun rests.”
I propose a different explanation. I believe the root of the word מנחה is simply “gift,” not “rest.” This prayer is presented at a time, when man does not think that he has to either thank the Lord for having awoken well from his sleep, or after having completed the day’s chores without problems and entrusting our soul to G’d once more when we lie down, confident that He will restore it to us in the morning. Neither of these considerations motivates us to devote time to prayer in the middle of our daily activities. If we take time out to pray during the day nonetheless, G’d may consider this as a gift from us to Him.
An alternate approach to the verse: “Yitzchok went for a stroll in the field close to evening, when he raised his eyes and beheld camels approaching” The Talmud (B’rachot 26), when commenting on this line says that Avraham, (compare Genesis 19,26) composed the daily morning prayer, the word ויעמוד “he stood,” meaning that he stood engaged in prayer, whereas Yitzchok composed the daily afternoon prayer, מנחה. According to the Talmud, the word שיחה when used in the Torah always refers to prayer, תפלה. [It does not occur again in the Torah, although it does occur in psalms 102,1.Ed.] Yaakov, the third of the patriarchs, introduced the evening prayer, מעריב. This is based on Genesis 28,11 ויפגע במקום וילן שם כי בא השמש, “he met G’d there as the sun was about to set and spent the night there.” [The word המקום, meaning G’d, is not unusual. Ed.] We need to examine why a prayer is called מנחה, “gift.” The morning prayer being called שחרית, is easy to understand as the word שחר means morning, when the sun begins to shine. Calling the evening prayer מעריב is also easy to understand as it is offered in the evening, ערב. But naming the afternoon prayer מנחה appears somewhat difficult. Tossaphot Yom Tov, already recognized this anomaly and answers it by referring to the period when it is recited as מנוחת השמש, “when the sun rests.”
I propose a different explanation. I believe the root of the word מנחה is simply “gift,” not “rest.” This prayer is presented at a time, when man does not think that he has to either thank the Lord for having awoken well from his sleep, or after having completed the day’s chores without problems and entrusting our soul to G’d once more when we lie down, confident that He will restore it to us in the morning. Neither of these considerations motivates us to devote time to prayer in the middle of our daily activities. If we take time out to pray during the day nonetheless, G’d may consider this as a gift from us to Him.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Sha'ar HaEmunah VeYesod HaChasidut
I called this book, Beit Yaakov (The House of Jacob) based on what is mentioned in the Talmud (Pesachim, 88b), “Said Rabbi Elazar, what is the meaning of the verse (Isaiah, 2:3), ‘And many people shall go and say, Come, let us ascend the mountain of God, to the house of the God of Yaakov, and He will teach us his ways…’ The verse says, ‘the house of Yaakov,’ but not the house of Avraham or the house of Yitzchak. That is to say, not like Avraham, who is associated with a mountain, as it is said (Bereshit, 22), ‘as it is said to this day, God is seen on the mountain.’ And not like Yitzchak, who is associated with the field, as it is said (Bereshit, 24), ‘and Yitzchak went to meditate in the field.’ Yet as Yaakov, who is called a house, as it is said (Bereshit, 28), ‘and he called the name of the place, Beit El, the house of God.’ “
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
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 22,1. “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 22,7. Concerning Yitzchok’s question of “here is the fire and the kindling, but where is the lamb for the burnt-offering?,” it seems that Yitzchok’s question implied that seeing the principal purpose of his father’s trial was to see if he was prepared to slaughter his son, what need was there for fire and kindling, seeing that after he had been slaughtered surely it did not matter to G’d if his remains would be burned up! Yitzchok wanted his father to know that the kindling and the fire had nothing to do with him, as the intended victim. He wanted to know if there was going to be another offering, i.e. a lamb, as usual. If so, where did his father expect to find it at short notice? When we understand Yitzchok’s question as suggested, we can understand why he did not ask a question concerning the knife to be used in the slaughter. Avraham’s reply, saying that G’d would select who should be the “lamb,” meant that as far his relationship to G’d was concerned, his own son was as valuable to him as if he would burn up an actual lamb for G’d in order to demonstrate his love for Him.
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