Kaisipang Hudyo sa Isaias 43:7: Akeidat Yitzchak, Ner Mitzvah & Guide for the Perplexed

The Midrash Ne-elam in Parshat Bereshit, tells of a man who proclaimed that a son to be born should be "holy" to elokim. Thereupon Rabbi Chiya excommunicated him. When asked what wrong a man had done who sanctified his son to G'd, (similar to Hannah, mother of the prophet Samuel), his reply was that he had used the term a-d-o-na-y. Hannah's vow (Samuel I 1,11) is quoted there as the correct formula to use. The ignorance of Manoach, who was at that moment unaware that the messenger had been an angel of G'd, makes his behaviour appear even further removed from the traditional Jewish attitude to korban, sacrifice. He appears to have laboured under the delusion that Nebuchadnezzar laboured under. (Daniel 2,46.) The latter had prostrated himself in front of Daniel, and ordered a variety of of sacrifices to be offered to Daniel, treating him as the deputy of G'd. The angel's instructions to Manoach resulted in Manoach going about the sacrifice in the correct manner, as a result of which he became aware of the true identity of the messenger. Thus the proper attitude in offering sacrifices is seen to result in greater insights and greater proximity to the shechinah. A similar result occurred with Gideon. (Judges chapter 6) He too had been unaware of the true nature of who had addressed him. First, Gideon had thought that he had been talking to a prophet, i.e. a human being. When he sought reassurance that he was in fact being addressed by a Divine being, and asked for an opportunity to offer a sacrifice, the angel agreed to wait for his return, and then instructed him how to proceed with the offering. His realisation that he had been able to communicate with a Divine being, came as a result of his having offered a sacrifice in the correct manner, with the proper intent. If the accent in discussing korbanot, sacrifices, is on the free will type of offering, the reason is that though also the sin offering is acceptable, and contributes to our coming closer to G'd, it is preferable not to have to sin, than to have to atone for the sin through repentance and sacrifice. Even the objective of closeness to G'd, can be attained preferably without having to resort to sacrifice. The prophet Jeremiah (Jeremiah chapter 7) does not tire of stressing that G'd had never demanded sacrifices from the forefathers, nor even at the time of the Exodus. Rather, what G'd had demanded was obedience. There are numerous statements in the Bible along those lines. The important thing is that once used, the institution of sacrifice must not be abused, since this would be conterproductive, would thwart its objectives. The reason that non domesticated animals are not suitable for sacrifices, may be that all wildlife is ownerless, i.e. belongs directly to G'd, as opposed to domesticated animals to which man has established a claim of ownership. Presenting wildlife as an offering would not be giving to G'd of oneself, of one's own. However, G'd says (Psalm 50,9) that if it were a question of "My needs," "I would not even accept a domestic animal from your house, since I own all of them too. The reason that I accept korban is merely that I wish to acknowledge your wish to express gratitude or let you pay your vows to Me." (see verse 14 there) The first kind of offering, Todah, connected with the word viduy, confession, is usually motivated by some occurrence as described in verse 15, "a day of trouble"; "your vows," usually is preventative. You make vows in order to ward off untoward occurrences. Verses fourteen and fifteen are closely interrelated then.

The explanation is this: it is appropriate that these four empires would be hinted and concealed within the beginning of creation. For these four empires which have dominated the world, they only exist because it would have been impossible without them. For the world is a dependent created entity of Hashem. It must that this dependent created entity must definitionally be lacking, and therefore we find within it lacks! [R' Hartman gives two reasons for this principle: 1.) A created entity cannot be on the same exact level as the creator so therefore Hashem's creation must contain within it imperfection and 2.) A created entity didn't always exist, and the void which preceded it is contained within it]. And this axiomatic lack is the four empires, for they minimize the glory of Hashem in his world. And since the world was created by Hashem, it was fitting that everything would be under the dominion of Hashem, for Hashem created everything, and therefore everything was fitting that it should be created for his glory. But since it creation is a dependent entity, it's impossible for it to be without lack. This thing [the lack] is not from Hashem, for there is no emptiness or lack within the creative act whatsoever, rather the lack is within the world for it is a dependent created entity. From this the lack is generated, that these empires should dominate in the world and detract from the glory of Hashem. And this concept is appropriately concealed and hinted within the beginning of creation itself. From the side of creation itself it was appropriate that everything should dwell under the dominion of Hashem, as it says (Yoma: 38a) 'Whatever the Holy One, Blessed be He, created, He created in His honor, as it is stated: “Everyone who is called by My name, I have created for My glory” (Isaiah 43:7)

[This Talmudic statement] means to say that after Hashem created everything, certainly he created everything for his own glory, for it's definitionally impossible for an entity to go out from Oneness which is contrary to it, for if so this entity would be a self-contradiction. The matter cannot be such, rather everything must have been created for his glory. If this is true, how could it be that these empires erase the glory of Hashem? Rather, there must be a definitional lack in the creation itself, for lack does not exist within Hashem, and this [lack] must be a cause unto itself.