Akeidat Yitzchak

Sefaria · Jewish Thought > Rishonim · 1,212 sections

_.14.1.10
7) Why does the Torah say "G-d said in His heart"? Why did He not communicate this thought to Noach audibly?
_.14.1.11
8) The prophet Isaiah 54,10 refers to an oath by G-d rather than to a covenant. What is the difference, and why are different terms used for the same event? We also have a number of questions in connection with the building of the tower of Babel that require clarification:
_.14.1.12
1) On the one hand, it seems inconceivable that people could be foolish enough to try and conquer heaven, as implied in Sanhedrin 109. On the other hand, if their entire purpose had been to "let us make a name for ourselves," as reported in the text, why would G-d mind all that much? The desire to avoid being dispersed all over the globe seems a harmless enough objective!
_.14.1.13
2) Why does the Torah need to tell us in Genesis 11,3 for what purpose the clay that was fired would be used?
_.14.1.14
3) G-d appears almost reluctant when He says "now that they are one people and one language, must We not prevent them from carrying out all their designs?"
_.14.1.15
4) The actual interference with the people's plans seems far more radical than the original intent indicated in verse 6!
_.14.1.16
5) If these people sinned against their Creator, as our sages understand this, why were they not punished in a manner similar to the people of Sodom?
_.14.1.17
(1+2) The survivors of the deluge and their descendants were chastened by the occurrence of the deluge, and it was impressed upon them for many generations that corruption in man does not go unpunished. Also, henceforth, man would no longer have a common origin, but would be descended from one of the three sons of Noach, thus making complete unanimity of purpose and lifestyle among the various tribes almost impossible. (3) When G-d refers to having smelled the fragrance of Noach's sacrifice, this very improvement in man's potential is what He means. Complete agreement amongst all of mankind to act against their Creator has become genetically and environmentally almost impossible. This in turn guarantees that there will never again be a need for a deluge, i.e. simultaneous destruction of the species. (2) The reason given "that the heart of man is evil, stems from its youthfulness" (Genesis 8,21) means that the nature of man prior to the deluge was different, could all be traced to a single cause, his common ancestor. This cause had been changed dramatically. From now on, only his personal immaturity could account for man's wickedness, but he would not be weighed down by the collective wickedness of earlier generations and its hereditary impact. In other words, the burden of "the original sin" had now been removed from the post Noachide generations. Inasmuch as the creation of man as a species was not really complete until this change had occurred, we understand that G-d felt "sad" before the deluge that He had to proceed in this manner to bring about the transformation of man. (7) It is not appropriate for the Creator to "voice" that sentiment to someone else, therefore He is described as having said it "in His heart." Moreover, since G-d had referred to the inner thoughts of man, i.e. "the images produced in the heart of man," His response also would not be revealed openly. The principle of midah keneged midah, measure for measure, is at work here. Creator and creature each do their own separate planning. In order that the promise not to destroy mankind (earth) again, would not be misinterpreted to mean that there would no longer be a destruction of man, the Torah continues by saying that the seasons, planetary orbits, etc. would continue to function regularly, i.e. the laws of nature would not be suspended as such, but local destructions such as the destruction of the wicked society of Sodom etc. will continue to be possible. G-d proceeds to tell Noach and his sons the positive aspects of the new world order, implying that the deluge had been worthwhile, in view of this new development. (Chapter 9,9-17) The fact G-d addressed all of them, supports our view that each one of them represented the source of the future of mankind. He includes in the covenant the animals to make it clear that they too will not again be subject to mass destruction as had been experienced during the deluge. (4+5) G-d re-interprets the meaning of the midat hadin, the attribute of justice, to mean that collective punishment from now on is applicable only when the wicked have acted collectively rather than individually, separately. Since such conduct from now on is practically impossible due to the diversity of man's ancestry, He can reassure man by a visible sign of this state of affairs. The reference "I have given My bow in the cloud," indicates that the rainbow is not a new phenomenon. The fact that it refracts light into different colors, is parallel to the fact that from now on man, though descended from Noach, refracts into different types through the simultaneous experiences of Noach's three sons during the deluge. Each one of them will bequeathe a slightly different outlook to his respective offspring. To explain the significance of the rainbow, we must appreciate three facts.
_.14.1.18
1) Every polished object reflects the image of another object nearby.
_.14.1.19
2) If such object happens to be transparent, it does not reflect anything.
_.14.1.20
3) Generally speaking, a person with normal vision sees better than a person whose eyesight is impaired. Yet there are certain types of diseases of the eye which cause the person afflicted to see shapes and images not visible to people with normal eyesight. These shapes and images are, of course, not real, and therefore not true, yet the owner of the diseased eye is not aware that his eyes are deceiving him.
_.14.1.21
Rabbi Yitzchak proceeds to illustrate that the phenomenon we call eyesight, vision, at certain times and at certain angles, creates an image which, while known to us empirically, defies our ability to analyze and explain its cause. It therefore ranks with those phenomena which were created after sunset but before nightfall of the sixth day of creation (Avot 5,6). Scientists have concluded that the appearance of the rainbow after a downpour signifies immediate dispersal of rainclouds, clearing skies. This would be in line with the significance of the rainbow as described in the Torah. It also demonstrates that the concentration of disastrous rain was limited to a section of the earth, not its entire surface. Similarly, a rainbow over a relatively clear area of sky would signal approaching rainfall in other areas of the globe. (6) The whole ot brit, sign of the covenant would correspond to the moral lessons absorbed during the great flood. This in turn would make it unlikely that all of mankind would once more deserve terminal punishment at the same time. It is therefore the very naturalness of the rainbow's appearance that will recall to G-d the changed nature of man on earth. The Talmud in Ketuvot 77 states that in the generation of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi no rainbow was ever seen. This was due to two causes. 1) Reminders to G-d were not necessary, due to the righteousness of the leaders of that generation, a fact which was brought home to the people of that era by the absence of rainbows and the continued existence of the earth in spite of such absence. 2) Since the normal appearance of the phenomenon signifies rainfall due to G-d’s general Providence, in the generation of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi people were under G-d’s particular Providence, the proof of which was the absence of the rainbow. Rainfall in those days occurred simultaneously all over the earth at times which did not conflict with normal human outdoor activities. The verse in Isaiah 54,10 quoted earlier about no more deluges in the future does not constitute a promise which negates the attribute of justice, i.e. no undeserved preferential treatment was promised, rather it is a reference to the changed nature of man which makes the need for any future deluge obsolete. In the fullness of time and in accordance with prophetic visions, in the messianic age, all desire to deviate from the ways of the Lord will cease, and man observing G-d’s will in full will become a natural phenomenon at all times. This is what the Talmud (Shabbat 151) has in mind when it interprets "the days when I have no more desire" (Kohelet 12,1) as referring to the messianic age. One may then view the perfect state of man as something that existed or will exist at three distinct points in time. 1) At creation; at that time man was perfect, but that perfection was of an extremely fragile nature. 2) Immediately after the deluge, at that time, perfection was due to the personal experience that perfection was the only way to avoid disaster recurring. 3) In messianic times, when perfection will no longer be so fragile since it is the result of personality growth.
_.14.1.22
Upon further reflection it will be seen that the Midrash quoted at the outset views the rainbow as constituting a compromise between the attribute of justice as applied in heaven and vis a vis celestial beings on the one hand, and between the attribute of justice as applied on earth. The latter is weak and somewhat flexible, so that there is really no way of pairing the two naturally. Above, in the celestial regions, there is no forgetting, no favoritism etc. Down here on earth however, things are different. We now witness the completion of man's creation, so to speak, when these two qualities of justice are being merged by means of the rainbow, which serves as the outward symbol of this merger.
_.14.1.23
Rabbi Joshua ben Levi demands that he who sees the rainbow prostrate himself since he now acknowledges the profound wisdom of his Creator and the various stages in which He created man. In the land of Israel however, they scoffed at this idea, since the onlooker who did not know why such a person prostrates himself would think that the act of prostrating oneself was a way of worshipping the rainbow. However, there is agreement on the need for reciting an appropriate benediction. The formula for such benediction-- regardless of the various wordings suggested by different sages-- testifies to our being aware that the phenomenon is not new, but a reminder of man's merit. Describing examples of faith, David says in Psam 33,4, "For the word of the Lord is upright and all His work is performed in faithfulness.” “He stores up floods in treasure chambers" (verse 7). As a result of "who loves righteousness and faith” (verse 5), the potential destructive powers of water have been suspended (verse 7). "He who gathers the waters of the sea as a wall." The only force which keeps these walls suspended is emunah, His dependable faith,(verse 9). "For He spoke, and it came into being, He commanded and it endured." The word of G-d’s covenant decreed for things to remain the way they were (va-yehi). To allow waters on their destructive path, no word would have been needed, silence would have sufficed. (8) The prophet Isaiah has G-d not only take Israel back as a wife after He divorced her for cause, but offers additional assurance that no future divorce would occur. This is the meaning of G-d’s oath. Similarly, the rainbow is that "oath" that there will not again occur a complete break between G-d and mankind as had been the case when the deluge was decreed.
_.14.1.24
(1) The story of the tower of Babel is the corollary of this newly established covenant. On the one hand, the episode of Noach getting drunk illustrated that the attitudes of his three sons had indeed not remained identical. On the other hand, the Torah seems to stress their unity of purpose which resulted in the enterprise of building the tower of Babel. Mankind believed that their goal must be a unified one, and that all of them should reside close together. Observing the order prevailing in the heavenly constellations and the fact that they all seemed arranged around a central figure, i.e. the sun, they decided to build their civilization by emulating that system. They did this once they had moved into the valley out of their mountain caves, having learned to use rainproof bricks for building.d, in His wisdom, did not intend for mankind to remain closely bunched together. Man erred in believing that their concentration was an end in itself, rather than a means to an end. When urbanization is the means to achieve moral perfection of man, then it is laudatory. (2) Granted that stones and rocks are more enduring building materials than fired bricks, the fact that they were prepared to abandon the former in favor of the latter showed that their primary objective was the policy of clustering together, as stated in Genesis 11,5, "Lest we be scattered on the face of the earth." Having thus traded a higher moral purpose for the lower political purpose of togetherness, G-d decided to interfere before further unwelcome negative manifestations had a chance to develop. Man's collective thinking had become dangerously close to the thinking of Cain, who had excelled at being a "builder of cities" (Genesis 4,17) and who also believed that this would bring him closer to heaven. (4) G-d decided that some physical dispersal, while preserving the spiritual ideal of striving towards moral perfection intact, was preferable to mere physical togetherness. In this way, parallel to the advent of the deluge, a further step was taken towards making man concentrate on the attainment of higher objectives. (5) When G-d "descended," He examined their basic reasoning. When He found that their actions were rooted in their being united, i.e. like a regiment, single-minded and of identical modes of expression, He decided to change the course of their actions and disperse them. Thus, He caused linguistic changes due to change of habitat. Unity henceforth ought to prevail in their striving to become servants of the Lord etc., not in matters pertaining to boundaries etc. Thus, their error was of a kind that did not require further corrective action (punishment). One of the basic lessons we learn is that man must employ his speculative faculties and not remain content with remaining static.
_.15.1.2
"G-D BLESSED NOACH"
_.15.1.3
Bar Kapparah, in Ketuvot 5, explained that the deeds of the righteous are greater than the creation of heaven and Earth. It is written, "Also My hand set the foundations of the earth, and My right hand spanned the heavens.” Concerning the deeds of the righteous however, it is written, "The sanctuary of G-d which Your hands (pl) have established"(Exodus 15,17). A Babylonian by the name of Rabbi Chiyah objected, saying that it is written in Psalms 95,5, "His hands have fashioned the land masses." Rabbi Nachman explained that this refers to His fingers, since it says "When I behold the heavens, the work of Your fingers" (Psalms 8,4). Another objection was raised; it says, "The heavens proclaim the glory of G-d and the expanse of the sky, the work of His hands (Psalms 19,2). The passage means, "What tells the important work of the righteous? the skies. By what means? By means of the rainfall."
_.15.1.4
One of the wonders and axioms of nature is the fact that all things created earlier are inferior to those created later. Nature proceeds from the primitive towards the sophisticated. Man being the last in a string of creations is therefore the most perfect and the most sophisticated (Bereshit Rabbah 19). Rabbi Yehudah son of Rabbi Simon states that all things created subsequent to something else enjoy dominion over those things created prior to them. Man is therefore the most dominant creature, none daring to raise their heads against him. We do not observe fully-grown camels attack lion cubs or baby tigers, since in the order of things the species created earlier is instinctively aware of its inferior status vis a vis the products of a later stage of creation (Psalms 104,2). "How great are Your works, O Lord." The Talmud Shabbat 121 asks, "Why is it that a live baby does not need to be guarded against mice? The answer is that nature operates in such a way that even helpless, unarmed man is superior to the animals.” "The fear and dread of you will be on all living creatures of the earth." (Genesis 9,2). Natural laws apply on the assumption and with the proviso that man-- supreme creature that he is-- lives up to his purpose and abilities. Natural laws are suspended on the occasion when a miracle is performed. This can be due to part of mankind having lost "the image of G-d in which he was created," or to all of mankind having forfeited this image due to their collective sinful conduct. The miracle is in fact based on the covenant made by G-d with His entire creation that when the occasion arises, its subservience to the will of the Creator will be demonstrated by its deviating from its normal behavior. Generally, the "normal" behavior is proof that nature is not a deity, but that its conduct is controlled, not free. This "normality" is reversed on occasion in order to demonstrate the same point by nature's inverted behavior. The fact that nature, after having once "run wild," returns to its usual pattern is proof that the very deviation was due to the will of G-d. Example is Exodus 14,27, "The sea returned to its normal state at the turn of morning." There are numerous other examples of this. When nature acts totally out of character on a prolonged regular basis, that fact reflects on the state of man. When the animal kingdom has observed man acting animalistically, it ceases to show obeisance to man, and the rules we read in this Parshah concerning the natural awe that animals display for humans no longer apply. The same is true of such phenomena as wind, fire, and water, all of which demonstrate their destructive potential against man under such circumstances. Had man lived up to his destiny, those elements would not represent any danger to us, and harnessing their useful potential would not be a struggle, but they would willingly put all their power at our disposal. A king whose closest advisors act rebelliously cannot expect loyalty and obedience from the populace at large. Similarly, disobedience by man against G-d leads to corruption in other sections of the universe, right down to the basic elements. When Hillel said, "When I am present, everyone is present" (Sukkah 53), what he meant was, "When man is O.K.,every thing is O.K.," i.e. all other creatures and parts of the universe behave predictably and beneficially. When the leaders of the people behave in exemplary fashion, the population at large is apt to emulate such behavior. The reverse is true also. This is why the Talmud in Shabbat 151 interprets Psalms 49,13, "But man with all his honor will not outlast the night," to mean that under the adverse conditions man has created himself, he will not be better off than the beasts. When stating that lions do not attack humans when there are at least two humans-- and the observation is made that we know from experience that this simply is not so-- the Talmud answers that this only proves that the men who have been attacked by the lions lacked the qualities that make up the kind of person who is entitled to enjoy mastery over the beasts. The tribes of Reuben and Gad exhorted Joshua to "be strong and brave." The first time they refer to the self confidence he needs to display as a leader. The second time they refer to the mastery over inner temptations he must acquire in order to command the unswerving loyalty and obedience of the people (compare Joshua chapter 1). While he had been in the ark providing for all the animals, Noach-was protected, although the animals had previously been corrupted through the perversion of mankind. When Isaiah describes his vision of the lion eating straw, this refers to the restoration of a state of nature as had occurred after the deluge in Parshat Noach (Isaiah 11,7). When the lions fail to attack Daniel in the den, this is merely a demonstration of the natural order of things, the lions having become sensitive to the type of man who faced them (Daniel chapter 6). Daniel describes the impotence of the lion against him as being a result of his upright behaviour towards G-d and his loyal conduct vis a vis the king. Not having eaten any treyfah food or drunk prohibited wine intended for pagan libations was part of the control over the evil urge that Daniel had exercised. This had imprinted on his face the aura of being a moral man, something animals can sense. The same idea is true concerning other elements of nature that can hurt or even destroy man. Such destruction, if and when it occurs, is due only to man's corruption and nature's subsequent insensitivity to man. Chananyah and his companions were unharmed by the fire in the furnace Nebuchadnezzar had thrown them into, because they, like Daniel, represented man as envisaged by G-d. They had therefore been able to hold nature in check. The discussion cited in Pessachim 118 between the angel in charge of hail and Gabriel illustrates our point. The angel in charge of hail had volunteered to quench the fire in the furnace. Gabriel replied that this would not be meaningful since water, the natural enemy of fire, would simply have been viewed as having had the upper hand over the fire in the furnace. However, the angel Gabriel being the angel in charge of fire, would descend and, while heating the furnace from the outside, cool the inside, and thus save the three men. This would be a far more convincing miracle. When Abraham had been thrown into Nimrod's furnace, G-d handled his salvation personally, drawing a parallel between His own uniqueness and the unique personality of Abraham the monotheist. Abraham deserved to be saved by the One and Only One whom he served directly. The reverse can be true also. The wild ass that bit Rabbi Chaninah died of its bite, since it had attacked a man who had been free from sin (Berachot 33). As the latter proclaimed, "Death is not caused by the snake but by sin." Kings I Chapter 20, tells of an incident when someone not normally afraid of lions due to his superior moral level was nonetheless killed by a lion as a penalty for having disregarded the order of a prophet.
_.15.1.5
The very idea of Israel's selection as G-d’s pilot project is based on the fact that it is the part of the human species which has preserved more of the original tzelem elokim, Divine image, than any other section of humanity. G-d has described the relative standing of the Jewish people among the nations, as similar to the standing of humans vis a vis the animal kingdom. In other words, the nations of the world are aware of our dominance and are afraid of us. This is so at least as long as Jews deserve such status due to their moral superiority. We are described as treating our Canaanite adversaries as if they were "our bread" to be consumed by us (Numbers 14,9). Prior to tackling Goliath, David explains to the startled Saul that his experiences with the lion and the bear, both of which he had slain, convinced him of his chance against the uncircumcised blasphemer (Samuel I Chapter 17). David rejected armour and sword, since his victory over the beasts had also not been due to external weapons. David's enquiry about the type of reward the slayer of Goliath would receive is based on the assumption that killing an uncircumcised blasphemer such as Goliath cannot in itself be much of a heroic deed, since the "laws of nature" almost guaranteed victory to any good Jew, and the risk involved was not of the kind which would call for a major reward. The reputation acquired by such deed should in itself suffice as reward. Obviously, David's companions did not understand his meaning, as seen from their response to David's enquiry. However, Saul's advisors sensed David's meaning when David said "let no adam have fear of him." The adam David referred to was the kind of a person who had preserved his tzelem elokim, Divine image. Such a person would not have reason to fear the Philistine. Baba Metzia 114 teaches, "Israel is referred to as adam; the nations of the world do not qualify for such appellation." Upon being challenged by Saul, David detailed past events in his life as proof for his confidence. He attributed his success to G-d, and was confident that the same G-d would grant him success against Goliath. "The Philistines will be no better than one of those beasts." To emphasize our point, the book of Samuel relates that David rejected the armor, to show that his superiority did not stem from such sources, but was in the nature of things. After the battle (Samuel I 17,55), Saul wanted to know, "Who is this lad?" a strange request indeed, since his family status etc. had been common knowledge. David had performed as a regular harpist at Saul's Court (Samuel I 16,19). At that time, Saul had begun to wonder about David's ultimate destiny. In view of the fact that his own son Jonathan had performed deeds of valor of a similar nature previously, we can understand the love and mutual attraction that existed between David and Jonathan. The two shared the distinction of being adam in the full sense of the word. This is what our sages call "a love which is not based on something tangible, something material" (Avot 5, 16). The love is for the basic qualities in the other person. When the Torah says "Love your fellow man like yourself," the "yourself" referred to is that same human quality (Leviticus 19,18).
_.15.1.6
We now turn our attention to the aggadah cited in the name of Bar Kapparah at the outset of this chapter. G-d’s handiwork is being described as having been constructed with one hand, i.e. yadee, whereas the work of the tzaddikim is described as the result of yadecha, "both Your hands." The idea is that the works of "heaven and earth," i.e. "nature," are a "single" path, there is no allowance for deviations. Nature is confined to strict rules, is not allowed to alternate behavior patterns. Tzaddikim, who operate under the personal guidance of G-d, i.e. hashgacha peratit, experience happenings which, while apparently defying natural law, are in effect expressions of true natural law, i.e. the rules laid down by G-d before there had been corruption in His universe. This is what the angel Gabriel had meant in Pessachim 118 when he said, "I will heat the furnace from the outside and cool it on the inside. In this way it would be a miracle within a miracle.” When Rabbi Chiyah the Babylonian questioned Bar Kapparah saying that the Psalmist had said after all, "His hands have fashioned continents," meaning that G-d had indeed used both His hands when creating the universe, he was answered that the spelling of the word yadav is in the singular, lacks the letter yud which would indicate that it is used in the plural. Also, the plural evident in the word yatzaru (certainly a plural ending meaning "they fashioned"), referred to the hand having fingers (plural), not to two hands being used. Upon the further question "u ma-assey yadav magid harakiyah”, indicating that G-d had been using both hands, he was told that this quotation from Psalms referred to the works of the tsaddikim, not to the works of G-d Himself. Whereas nature, i.e. G-d’s creation, operates on one wavelength (yado), the tzaddikim are able to employ or activate additional wavelengths, thanks to the good deeds they have performed. Rainfall, necessary for the success of nature, is promoted by the deeds of the tzaddikim. When the tzaddik activates phenomena that appear to be anti natural, he only demonstrates the future character of nature, i.e. its subservience to G-d’s ultimate and most cherished creature, i.e. man. The two hands then represent the apparent cause of events and the real cause of events. It is this that Gabriel had in mind when he simultaneously heated the outside of the furnace while cooling its inside. The apparent cause of nature is what is observed on the outside, the true cause is what goes on inside.
_.15.1.7
Having referred to man's intellectual superiority over the animal kingdom on several occasions, the Torah turns to our physical superiority and dominion over the animals by permitting animals to serve as our food. Far from depriving even the most primitive creature of a meaningful exterior, the Torah is most emphatic that the appearance of each creature be maintained by insisting that there be no crossbreeding between species. The eating of animals had been prohibited to earlier generations in order to prevent man who had already been deeply corrupted from absorbing more animalistic characteristics, which in turn would have hastened his total corruption. When the Talmud forbids meat intake to the am ha-aretz, the ignorant person, the term means primitive man, the kind of person whom it is permitted to kill even on the Day of Atonement, even when the latter occurs on the holy Sabbath (Pessachim 49). In other words, it refers to a member of the human race who is so depraved, has lost all claim to being numbered among the human species. When someone like that eats meat, he undoubtedly destroys further whatever vestige of humanity he had still retained.
_.15.1.8
Since the deluge had been the great rehabilitation of the human race or what had remained of it, man's image had been completely restored. It was he who had insured the survival of the animals, having tended to them and fed them on a round-the-clock basis for an entire year. Man had thereby acquired the right to exercise dominion over them in greater measure than ever before. By serving man as food, the animal is actually elevated in stature, seeing that serving a master of higher stature is a promotion vis a vis serving a master of more humble stature. Of course, the need to consume meat, as opposed to the ability to digest heavenly food such as the manna, is a relative shortcoming in man. More of this in the section dealing with manna. Once the consumption of meat had been permitted, certain restrictions such as the consumption of living tissue or blood from a living animal were imposed. The reasons for this will be discussed in Chapter 64. Also, should the animals act contrary to their supposed nature, they are warned of heavenly retribution. They must know that they are not to attack and kill man, nor are they allowed to feed on human remains. In the case of man versus man, the main concern of the legislation is man killing man, since injuring him for food consumption is uncharacteristic. Possibly, the wording indicates heavenly retribution in cases where witnesses are lacking and murderous intent cannot be presumed. Only man, "he who spills the blood of man" (Genesis 9,6), is subject to retribution by a human Court of Law. Animals will be dealt with by celestial tribunal only. Only after the Torah had been given to the Jewish people do we find a law that makes beasts subject to human justice, as in the case of the bull which has gored a human being, especially if that bull was the property of a human being, who is charged with negligent supervision (Exodus 21,29).
_.16.1.2
Rabbi Yitzchak in Bereshit Rabbah 39 began to explain the verse (Psalms 45,11) "Hearken daughter and behold, incline your ear and forget your kinfolk and your father's house." This is comparable to someone who walks along the way and sees a tower go up in flames. He says to his companion, "Surely this tower has no owner." The owner of the tower immediately looks down and shouts "I am the owner." Something similar happened when Abraham said to the people, "You think the universe has no owner?" G-d immediately looked down upon him and said "I am the owner of the universe, go and leave your country etc."
_.16.1.3
Man's beginnings, i.e. the potential he is born with, call it genes or whatever, are a gift of G-d, something beyond his control. Similarly, G-d’s help is required for man to be able to bring to fruition all the potential he has been equipped with at birth. However, on the way toward the attainment of his potential, man must employ all his willpower, endurance, diligence etc. though all of these by themselves do not guarantee that he will meet with success.
_.16.1.4
In particular, all his intellectual faculties, though G-d given, do not necessarily lead him to the right conclusions. In order to progress from ignorance toward understanding the works of G-d, one must understand the laws of nature as manifest in our universe; subsequently, one may acquire some insights into the workings of the Divine. Chapter thirty in Proverbs illustrates that man without the assistance of G-d is naught. "Agur" describes himself as ignorant, possessing neither knowledge of the natural sciences nor knowledge of the metaphysical. His very name indicates that he is desirous of amassing knowledge. The same applies to his partner "Ittiel," who desires close communion with G-d. The thrust of the message is that as long as no one has offered prophetic insight, "Who ascended to heaven?" "What is my name or the name of my son?" i.e. I amount to nothing as long as I am not in possession of inside knowledge of our tradition. The entire chapter outlines the handicaps someone like Abraham labors under when he endeavors to discover truth, not having the revealed word of G-d to assist him in his quest. The only path which is guaranteed to lead to success is "the word of the Lord is refined, pure" (Proverbs 30,5). If our faculties are inadequate to reveal to us the truths about the workings of the physical universe, how much less adequate are they to make us privy to the workings of the spiritual spheres (Isaiah 44,24)? The prophet, in describing G-d’s exclusive involvement in developing the physical universe and asking "Who is with Me?" i.e. "Who helped Me?", makes it clear that man's insight into the heavenly part of the universe is even less imaginable.
_.16.1.6
Though man's original equipment is supplied by G-d, and though his eventual accomplishments are subject to G-d’s benevolent guidance or otherwise, the fact that he was created "in the image of G-d," i.e. was given free choice, has made him the master of his own destiny. This means that he can achieve whatever he is capable of achieving since the means to do so have been placed at his disposal to use at his discretion. Once man begins to travel the path towards what his natural talents enable him to achieve, he can count on the active assistance of His Maker to facilitate his progress along that route. "He who comes to purify, is extended help" (Shabbat 104). This is what Moses meant when he said (Deut.30,11-14), "This commandment which I command you this day is not too hard for you....in fact it is quite close to you." If one applies oneself properly to the truth of G-d’s revealed word, i.e the Torah, then appreciating it becomes a simple matter. From that point onwards there are no real impediments or difficulties in achieving one's aim. In this respect, the fortitude of Abraham surpassed that of anyone before him, since during the preceding generations people had become progressively more corrupt until they endangered the survival of their species. Even the few whose conduct at the time of their respective deaths merited a suspended sentence had failed to look toward heaven for inspiration to recognise their Creator. They were content merely not to question the tradition that G-d had indeed created the universe. Noach was such a person. His righteousness was tamim, whole, meaning he continued to believe what Lemech his father had believed and what both his father and his grandfather Methuselah had taught him. He made no intellectual effort to understand the basis for this belief or to develop it so that it would influence his personality development. "IN HIS GENERATIONS," i.e. through successive generations his righteousness remained static, did not become dynamic. His heart was pure, but his intellect was not involved. In Deut. 18,14, we are told, "Be whole with the Lord your G-d," that we are to accept the truths taught by our prophets. This means in particular that the request of the Jewish people at Mount Sinai to have Moses talk to them and be the intermediary between G-d and them would result in a perfect and enduring faith. The belief resulting from the experience of revelation is called emunah of a temimut quality. There are two ways of acquiring this absolute faith. The easy way is study of the Torah, a method granted to the Jewish people. The other way is via intellectual analysis, the only method available to man prior to the revelation at Mount Sinai. This method does not only require the determination of the truth seeker, but active help from G-d Himself. Those who in their search for understanding of this truth also employ all their intellectual faculties, arrive at a far deeper and lasting understanding. This is why David told his son Solomon, "Now my son Solomon, know the G-d of your father, and serve Him with a whole heart, a willing soul" (Chronicles I 28,9). Abraham's tremendous achievement was that though he did not have the tradition of a Noach since both his father and grandfather had been pagans (Joshua 24,2), he began to develop this faith through an intellectual approach. At first, he concentrated on demonstrating the complete bankruptcy of the belief held by his contemporaries. Afterwards, having travelled as far as it is possible to travel by means of one's intellect alone, with the help of G-d’s Personal Providence, he arrived at that level of faith in his Creator which the Torah describes as "He believed in the Lord, and the Latter gave him credit for this" (Genesis 15,6). Later, at the time of his cirumcision, Abraham would be asked, "Walk in front of Me," to demonstrate a degree of faith that surpasses what his intellect can comprehend. In this way, he would outclass Noach who had only "walked with G-d," his faith only keeping step with his intellectual faculties, never exceeding them.
_.16.1.7
The Midrash, according to Rabbi Yehudah, describes the difference between Noach and Abraham in the story of the king who had two sons. To the younger one the king said "Walk with me," whereas to the senior one he said "Walk ahead of me." Noach, whose faculties were limited, was told "Go with Me," whereas Abraham who possessed outstanding intellect, was told "Walk in front of Me." Rabbi Nechemyah in Bereshit Rabbah 30 views Noach as walking in clay and being rescued by G-d, whereas Abraham viewed G-d as being confined to dark alleys; he proceeded to illuminate the alleys for G-d through a window. G-d responded by suggesting that instead of illuminating a window in Mesopotamia, Abraham should illuminate the land of Canaan. Clearly, the Midrash's analysis is similar to our own, except that the two Rabbis make differences in degree. According to Rabbi Yehudah, Noach's faith was an uncritical acceptance of everything handed down by his father, and therefore caused him to walk in darkness. He needed G-d to enlighten him. Abraham, on the other hand, according to Rabbi Nechemyah endeavored to illuminate the darkness surrounding the existence and knowledge of G-d by using his mind. G-d extended His help to Abraham with both hands as it says, "For I know him, so that he will command his children and household after him to observe My commandments." This was the natural result of recognising the existence of His Creator (Genesis 18,19). As long as Abraham's actions were not the result of instructions from G-d, he is not praised, and his exploits are not specifically mentioned. Even when he sanctified G-d’s name by allowing himself to be thrown into Nimrod's furnace rather than worship him as a deity, this is not reported in the Torah, since this action demonstrated his intellectual integrity only, not his faith. Faith is something that G-d demands from us. At the time when the Torah introduces the personality of Abraham to the reader, no such demand had been made upon him, since no promise had been made to him either as compensation for demonstrating faith.
_.16.1.8
The parable mentioned at the outset describes a similar quest. The burning tower represents the light dispensed by the study of astronomy and astrology, which are central to man's endeavour to learn more about the universe. The ultimate truth discovered by Abraham was that even the apparently ultimate causes of motion in the universe-- the stars-- must have someone who was responsible for setting them in motion in the first place and who controls their orbit. This conviction, once acquired, made Abraham engage in arguments with his contemporaries. This led G-d without further ado to promise Abraham the land of Canaan and command him to leave his homeland. Although Abraham was aware by now that G-d does interfere in the fate of man, seeing he had been saved from Nimrod's furnace because he had preferred death to living a lie, the extent of G-d’s involvement in the affairs of man was not yet clear to Abraham. Perhaps he thought that G-d’s involvement in individual lives was reserved for occasions when man fought for the recognition of the truth, i.e. the recognition of the existence of G-d. Interestingly, whenever we find Abraham proclaiming the truth,"He called out in the name of G-d," we never find that he prays to be spared troubles, as his grandson Jacob was in the habit of doing later. This was no doubt due to the fact that he was still convinced of the value of astrology, and therefore considered that much of man's fate had been preordained, was not subject to personal interference by the Creator. Only after having experienced further acts by G-d, such as the events in Egypt, his victory over Lot's captors etc., did the whole concept of hashgachah peratit, G-d’s guidance of man's individual fates, unfold before his eyes. Even when apprised of the fact that his victory over the four kings had been possible only due to G-d’s help, and when promised great reward, he does not pray for children, but only complains about the ultimate futility of any reward in the absence of children of his own. When he displays faith in G-d’s promise that he will have children, this act of faith is recorded as worthy of complimentary mention by G-d. This is why immediately following Abraham's display of faith, G-d assures him that these children will ultimately attain spiritual maturity after a period of painful spiritual and physical adolescence in a country not their own.
_.16.1.9
The Midrash states that Abraham was saved from the fiery furnace through the merit of Jacob (Bereshit Rabbah 63). It quotes as its source for this strange statement Isaiah 29,22, "Thus said the Lord to the house of Jacob who redeemed Abraham." The meaning is that although Abraham did not pray for deliverance at the time he was thrown into the furnace, the fact that he was destined to have a grandson who would know how to pray prompted G-d to save Abraham, in order for such a grandson to make his debut in history in due course. This is also what Solomon meant when he said, "The crown of grandfathers are their grandsons" (Proverbs 17,6). All of the foregoing testifies to Abraham's personality developing gradually and to the fact that his eventually attaining great spiritual stature was helped by all the trials and tribulations he underwent during his lifetime.
_.16.1.10
Some problems in the text of our story:
_.16.1.11
1) Why did G-d speak to Abraham though we have not been told of a single achievement on his part?
_.16.1.12
2) Why did Abraham have to leave his homeland, seeing he had already been saved from danger in his homeland?
_.16.1.13
3) What special blessing is the "I shall make you a great nation," seeing that many of his contemporaries have also become founders of nations? Even Lot became the founding father of two nations! Why did Abraham have to be promised immunity from those who would curse him? Who would be likely to curse him?
_.16.1.14
4) Since the Torah had already stated that "Lot went with him," why did the Torah repeat "he took his wife and Lot?"
_.16.1.15
5) Why did the Torah stress that "the Canaanite was in the land," when at the same time we are told that a descendant of Shem was king there at that time?
_.16.1.16
6) Why was G-d’s promise so concise when at a later occasion, after his separation from Lot, G-d became so much more specific? Why do we need two promises covering the same subject?
_.16.1.17
7) Why did Abraham not proclaim the name of G-d at the time he erected the first altar?
_.16.1.18
8) Why did Abraham not remain in Canaan during the famine, relying on G-d’s promise, instead of involving himself in all the difficulties with the Egyptians, Sarah's marital status etc.? Why did G-d remain silent at the time and did not offer guidance? Why do we not hear of Abraham praying for guidance? Why did he not pray for children as he did at a later occasion? Why did he plan to deceive Pharaoh instead?
_.16.1.19
9) What prompted Abraham's sudden declaration "I know you are a beautiful woman?"
_.16.1.20
10) Why did Abraham not say, "When the Egyptians see you, you will say you are my wife," instead of "They will say she is his wife?" Why does Abraham seem as perturbed about Sarah's survival as about the chance of his own death? At the very least, this seems unfortunate phraseology.
_.16.1.21
11) The idea of securing favors through the practice of deception seems unethical, not worthy of a man of Abraham's calibre.
_.16.1.22
12) Since the Egyptians never even enquired about Sarah's marital status, but took her to the palace as soon as they set eyes on her, why did Abraham not use the same defense for his deception as he used later at the Court of Avimelech? He said then that "I was afraid that there was no fear of the Lord in this place." After all, Abraham had not practiced any deception until after violence had been perpetrated? What defense would Pharaoh have been able to offer?
_.16.1.23
13) Why does the Torah bother to report the arguments between Abraham's shepherds and Lot's shepherds? Why even bother to tell us that G-d communicated with Abraham after the separation from Lot?
_.16.1.24
14) Why do we need to know about the campaign the four kings waged against the kings in the valley of Sodom? If it is only to teach us about Abraham's rescue of Lot, the story could have commenced with the battle in the valley of Sidim. Why tell us who informed Abraham of Lot's capture; the mere fact would have sufficed!
_.16.1.25
15) Why was the arrival and blessing of Malki Tzedek mentioned as having occurred during the negotiations between Abraham and the king of Sodom about the spoils of war?
_.16.1.26
We consider an uncircumcised person as a human being with a severe physical defect as is evident from many verses in Scripture. Our sages describe Bileam's inability to stand in the presence of the Shechinah as due to his being uncircumcised. On the two occasions that G-d appeared to Abraham prior to his being circumcised, he is reported as having fallen down on his face. On the other hand, when he has subsequent visions or visitations by G-d, he was able to remain seated or even standing such as when the angels approached him after the circumcision. When we find conflicting opinions among the sages regarding the age at which Abraham first recognized his Creator, namely whether at the age of three or at the age of forty-eight, the conflict may be due to the mitzvah of orlah being a three-year concept in the Torah (Bereshit Rabbah 64 and Nedarim 32). Trees that are less than three years old are considered uncircumcised, their fruit is forbidden. Since man has been compared to trees, i.e. "for man is like the tree of the field" (Deut. 20,19), it may be that our sages meant that although Abraham recognized G-d while still physically an arel, uncircumcised, the number three being merely a symbolical age, the nature of his philosophical and ethical progress underwent such a change after his circumcision that anyone who referred to Abraham by his original name "Abram" is guilty of a misdemeanor, since that name had applied to a totally different personality. (1+2) All the communications between G-d and Abraham prior to his being circumcised involve a relationship short of the level of prophecy. Such communications we find addressed to others, such as Avimelech and Laban. Even the fish that swallowed Jonah received this kind of communication from G-d. Since Abraham had attained recognition of his Creator by means of his intellect, G-d wanted to remove him from an environment which was so hostile to his further moral and philosophical progress. (3) Since Sarah, Abraham's wife, had been described as barren already in Parshat Noach, the promise that Abraham would not only become a father but a founder of nations in another country, is indeed a special blessing.
_.16.1.27
According to Bereshit Rabbah 39, Abraham reportedly said to G-d, "Did not Noach become the founding father of seventy nations?" G-d however, replied that the nation of which it would be said "Who is such a great nation?" (Deut 4,7) will be descended from Abraham. The need to state that those who curse Abraham will be cursed, is ample proof of his erstwhile unpopularity, and of the fact that Abraham had to suffer greatly for his beliefs. Henceforth, however, his detractors would be cursed, and he himself would be visibly blessed. In fact, his very existence would promote blessings for the rest of mankind. (4) Abraham departed Ur Kasdim and Charan, thereby fulfilling G-d’s command. By retaining his wife and nephew however, the separation from his "birthplace" and "father's house" was less than complete. Also, he was careful to take along his material wealth. He not only did not protest the company of Lot etc., but he actively solicited that company, i.e. vayikach, he took. (5) This is why the Torah mentions the presence of those people three times. Abraham proceeded unimpeded until Shechem, notwithstanding the fact that the Canaanite was at that time in the process of driving the Semites out of the country. In such troubled times, a newcomer like Abraham could have expected to suffer at the hands of both adversaries in the struggle for possession of that country. (6) At that time, G-d promised Abraham that the present turmoil would not produce permanent ownership of that land by the Canaanites, but that this land would ultimately belong to a nation yet to be founded by Abraham. In fact, had it not been for the conquest by the Canaanites, taking the land from the Semites and giving it to one family, i.e. the descendants of Abraham, would have been difficult to justify. Gittin 38 explains the justification for Israel's conquest of the land of Sichon and Og in a similar fashion, i.e. the illegal conquest of most of Ammon and Moab by Sichon and Og had paved the way for Israel dispossessing Sichon and Og eventually (in a war started by Sichon). (7) In response to that promise by G-d, Abraham built an altar, but could not very well proclaim his true belief in G-d and call for others to follow him until near Bet El; he settled down in a peaceful atmosphere. Proclaiming the sovereignty of G-d there would be more likely to produce positive results, away from the turmoil of war in other parts of the country. (8) Perhaps because he was still in the company of Lot and other less idealistically inspired fellow travellers, as well as lacking the benefits of circumcision, he decided to ride out the famine in Canaan in neighbouring Egypt. For that reason, he may not have received direct guidance from G-d on the subject. Probably, Abraham considered the certainty of impoverishment, animosity, and likely attack by surrounding tribes, as outweighing the possible dangers in Egypt. Jacob was moved by similar considerations when he complained about his sons' delay in travelling to Egypt to secure a food supply. The appearance of being affluent was in itself capable of inviting attack from those less fortunate (Genesis 42). Similarly, the four outcasts in Kings II Chapter 7 considered any chance of survival in the enemy camp as offering a better chance than certain death by famine in the city or in their primitive place of refuge. No doubt, Abraham had instructed Sarah to assume this brother/sister relationship even before they arrived in Egypt, since he could not reasonably have expected the Egyptians to make enquiries about Sarah's marital status. Surely, the normal thing was for a man to travel with his wife. (9+10+11) Therefore, the brother/sister relationship had to be demonstrated at the outset, so as to prevent any danger to Abraham. He assumed that either his goodwill would be sought actively, i.e. "so that I shall benefit on your account," or that at the very least his survival would be assured i.e. "I shall remain alive on your account." David's conduct in Gat (Samuel I Chapter 22) was motivated by the same considerations. In view of the fact that the Egyptians would most likely react to Sarah's physical beauty, Abraham referred to the fact of her beauty as something that had, of course, been known to him for a long time, but not until then had it been a factor to be considered in their public behavior. (12) He also realized that in the event of his own death, Sarah would consider her own survival under such circumstances as a fate worse than death. Therefore, the entire household maintained the fiction of Abraham and Sarah being brother and sister, so that when Pharaoh later said, "She also said he is my brother," he meant that Sarah had only confirmed the facts which he had already ascertained. There could not therefore be a question of him having stolen another man's wife. The Torah testifies that there had in fact been no need to deny the husband/wife relationship in order to protect themselves against Pharaoh. After Abraham had used all the intellectual faculties at his command to survive the trip to Egypt, G-d now intervened to prevent Pharaoh from forcing his attentions on the presumably single Sarah. G-d’s intervention had become necessary to prevent Abraham and Sarah having problems as a result of their machinations, not despite their machinations. Pharaoh was obviously smitten by G-d in a way that made him impotent, and demonstrated to him that the punishment inflicted upon him was related to his attempt to rape Sarah. Pharaoh did not blame Abraham for having taken precautions to protect himself and his wife, knowing full well that these precautions were justified. What Pharaoh did object to was that Abraham had not at least told him privately, i.e. lee (the word is used repeatedly), what the true relationship between Sarah and him had been. The fact that he had to issue a command to his people not to molest Abraham (Genesis 12,20) proves that Abraham's estimate of the morality of Pharaoh's subjects had been quite accurate. That Abraham could not use the argument he was later to use with Avimelech was obvious, since Pharaoh had challenged Abraham concerning Abraham's evaluation of himself, and not his evaluation of his people. Just because his people were more law-abiding in matters of morality than the Egyptians, Avimelech could challenge the fact that Abraham had seen fit to use deception, and construe it as an insult against his people. The events that occurred in Egypt at this time serve to disabuse us of two erroneous attitudes. 1) The belief that if only human intellect, effort and caution is employed, success is guaranteed. 2) That since everything is in the hands of G-d anyways, our efforts to alter that which seems in store for us are futile and doomed to failure. Therefore, a life of passive acceptance of all dangers ought to be the only path to follow. Abraham had employed all his wits, had made extensive efforts, taken precautions, all to no avail; only then did G-d intervene to smite Pharaoh at the critical moment. Isaiah 50,10-11 conveys a similar lesson. In verse 10, a person relying on G-d is depicted as walking in darkness, relying solely on G-d to provide light. In verse 11, however, those who rely on their own light exclusively, are also scored by the prophet. When the following verse (Isaiah 51,2) states, "Look towards Abraham and Sarah," the message is clearly that the proper way to behave can be learned only by studying what happened to our two ancestors who were called upon to act and whose actions and efforts were blessed by G-d. The Torah proceeds to tell us that Abraham returned to where he came from, that he accumulated material wealth. Though he returned greatly enriched materially, his spiritual path only took him back to Bet El, he had not made notable progress in that area of his life. This may have been due to his having kept Lot, whom he should not have taken along in the first place, at his side. He should have observed G-d’s original command in its entirety. (13) Under the circumstances, G-d now began to prepare the scenario that would lead to the separation of the two men. The scenario was provided by the fact that the land could not support their combined wealth. The company of Lot was no longer suitable for the tzaddik. The mention of the Canaanites as well as the Perusites being in the land of Canaan which they were in the process of conquering from the descendants of Shem, provided the contrast to the rift that developed between the shepherds of Lot and those of Abraham. Abraham realized that the quarrel between the shepherds would lead to an estrangement between their respective masters and, though he was the senior, offered Lot the choice of the areas available. He could have driven Lot away by force, but refrained, thereby demonstrating that material possessions were not uppermost in his system of values. Lot was unabashed in choosing the most fertile land, ignoring the fact that its inhabitants were the most sinful people, more sinful than the ones G-d had bidden Abraham to part company with when He had ordered him out of Ur. Abraham's essential strength of character was displayed clearly in this event, and this is one of the reasons why immediately upon the departure of Lot, we read about the explicit promise of G-d regarding the future ownership of the land of Canaan. This time G-d is much more specific in the promise, seeing that Abraham had renounced material wealth as a primary consideration in his thinking. Also, the apparent success of the Canaanites wresting more of the land from the Semites as evidenced by the two Canaanite tribes already settling there made it necessary for G-d to point out that such possession by the Canaanites would be temporary. We also observe that as long as Abraham remained in the company of Lot, he suffered the temporary absence of his wife, i.e. he was imposed upon. (14) Immediately after his separation from Lot, he becomes capable of defeating the mightiest four kings of their time when he liberates Lot and secures a great deal of booty. No doubt the sequence of these events is to teach that Abraham's spiritual growth had been impeded by the physical proximity of Lot, and could now resume its normal progress. The details about the exploits of these four kings serve to underline their power and the greatness of Abraham's achievement in defeating them. Also, although Abraham had heard about Lot's capture only by implication, he had reacted promptly. The palit, escapee, in 14,13 probably only related to the fact that the five kings had lost the battle and that any survivors had been captured. Abraham having "heard" must be understood in a sense similar to Genesis 23,16, when Abraham had not really "heard" with his ears. Or, like in Esther Chapter 4, when Mordechai is reported as having "heard" about the plot to assassinate the king. That, too, may not have been "hearing" in the literal sense of the word. Despite those quite imprecise reports, Abraham mobilized the forces at his command to engage in a war in order to rescue his nephew. Even at this stage, Abraham had not ceased to feel brotherly responsibility for the safety of Lot. (15) During the encounter with Malki Tzedek, who appeared while Abraham was discussing the spoils of war with the king of Sodom, who himself had been a prisoner rescued by Abraham, the former acknowledged that the spoils rightfully belonged to Abraham. Abraham, however, demonstrated his attitude towards material possessions even more clearly on this occasion. The king of Sodom had the nerve to offer Abraham the spoils, though they were not even his to dispose of. Abraham swore an oath that he would not allow the king of Sodom to lose even a shoelace, except for the food which had been consumed by Abraham's soldiers during the campaign. Abraham was not motivated by haughtiness; he simply did not want his attitude to material wealth to be compared to that of the king of Sodom. He did not want the Sodomites to think that if part of his wealth had its physical origin in the former belongings of the Sodomites, the whole of his wealth must be of similar caliber. He wanted to emphasize that whereas the purpose of the Sodomites was to accumulate wealth in this world, he himself was interested in accumulating wealth in a higher world. In an allegorical sense, one may see in the king of Sodom's invitation the lure of Satan who says to the warrior who has risked his life to amass the spoils of war, "Give me your soul and take for yourself the material things in life." This, of course, is the path which will leave man eventually bereft of both material and spiritual values when he dies. Abraham's response to all those who follow in his footsteps throughout the ages has been, "I have raised my hand to G-d, I will not benefit in the least from the material gains of this struggle, I will not sell my soul except to the extent that physical comforts are instrumental in ensuring my success in my efforts to attain spiritual maturity." This too is the attitude towards wealth expressed by Solomon in Kohelet 5,18. "Also when the Lord gives a man wealth and properties, and He gives him the power to enjoy those and to benefit from his toils, all this is a gift from the Almighty." Since perfection of the human being is unattainable without the help of G-d, and is achieved only gradually, step by step, it is fitting that Abraham from hereon in makes further progress on the ladder of spiritual achievements.
_.17.1.2
"After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram"
_.17.1.3
Concerning the verse, "Do not be afraid, Abraham," a call to Abraham by G-d after the latter had defeated Kedorleomer and his allies, Rabbi Levi in Bereshit Rabbah 44 is quoted as saying that Abraham was afraid on two accounts. 1) That he might have killed some innocent people in battle. 2) That the kings might regroup and attack him.
_.17.1.4
Since becoming a morally perfect personality is impossible unless one is in possession of all possible virtues, it is almost impossible to encounter a morally perfect human being, since no one has been endowed with all these virtues. The only way to progress towards moral perfection then is to refine and and constantly purify one's personality. First, impure elements in one's personality have to be eliminated, then the remaining acceptable raw material has to be brought to a state high polish. Just as a mirror which has been silvered with faulty material and the backing of which has not been polished properly, cannot reproduce a true image, so a person cannot reflect Torah and truth in a proper manner unless he has perfected himself in the aforementioned fashion. In Deut. 4,9-10, Moses warns the Jewish people that if they allow the purity they had enjoyed at Mount Sinai to become tainted, they will be headed down the path of corruption. Our soul is like a mirror which reflects the images it has absorbed. Unless the mirror is kept in perfect condition, it will reflect distorted images. Even marginal failings in a person's character distort his whole personality. Maimonides points this out in Chapter seven of his introduction to the tractate Avot. Prophetic visions departed from the prophets when they were angry, i.e. when they suffered personality lapses. A perfect character can also not be attained unless it is accompanied by a high level of intellectual accomplishments. Similarly, true wisdom cannot be attained without accompanying moral accomplishments. Since we come across many people who possess either moral or intellectual accomplishments but rarely both, we must assume that what we observe are the results of natural endowment only. These endowments do not reflect the results of their owners having refined them in order to attain the maximum achievements they are capable of in either field. Only when morality is the outgrowth of one's intellect can we be sure that such morality is comprehensive and extends to a person's entire personality. This in spite of the fact that certain traits are not necessarily observable by outsiders unless the need arises to demonstrate that their owner indeed possesses such good traits. In Proverbs 20,5-12, Solomon points out that it is a common error to attribute a virtuous personality to someone who has merely displayed a few virtues, without our probing if these virtues are natural or have been acquired, i.e. developed. If these virtues are natural, they are quite meaningless in an ethical sense. Only the Lord can pronounce judgment about whose virtue has been acquired and whose constitutes a natural trait. One way of realizing that it is natural is if one sees a person practice one particular virtue, whereas in all other areas of life that person disregards most virtues. This would prove that such an individual did not come by the virtue he did practice thanks to his own efforts, but that he was fortunate enough to have been born with it. Our sages in Kiddushin 39 tell us that "He who performs one mitzvah is given credit, his lifespan is extended, and he inherits the land of Israel. He, however, who neglects to perform one mitzvah will experience the reverse." Obviously, the performance of one single mitzvah cannot qualify for all that much reward, something which is normally made contingent on the fulfilment of all mitzvot. It is equally obvious that a person who fails to perform a single mitzvah does not need to be told that he does not rate a reward for that failure. The meaning of the passage then is that he who performs one mitzvah in all its ramifications, qualifies for this great reward, because in order to do what he did, all his virtues had to be involved. The manner in which we relate to the that we have an opportunity to perform, reveals the attitude we have towards all mitzvot if we were able to perform them. The Talmud, when questioning the special reward offered those who perform the commandment of honoring father and mother, answers that anyone who performs a commandment thereby exceeding his natural inclination to do so, is in line for such special reward. Since it is natural for a person to honor his father and mother, the Torah, and subsequently the Talmud, use this mitzvah as the example to illustrate the principle involved. Similarly, when the Talmud (Sotah 3) says that if someone has commenced performing a mitzvah, one urges him to complete it. The word "a mitzvah,” is the same as "any mitzvah" or all mitzvoth. The attitude displayed when performing a mitzvah signals whether such an act would lead to the performance of other mitzvoth. The famous principle of "mitzvah gorreret mitzvah," that performance of one good deed leads to the performance of other good deeds, reflects the same thought. If any of these good deeds have been performed because of natural inclinations, such performance is no guarantee of the performance of other good deeds in the future; therefore, no credit is given to the one performing it. The Talmud in Horiot 10 tells us that the verse "The ways of the Lord are straight, the righteous can walk therein, whereas the wicked will stumble therein" (Hoseah 14,10), means that he who eats the Passover because he is hungry and wants to stuff himself is called a sinner though he complies with the ritual; this teaches us the same lesson. Abstention from pork should not be dictated by one's natural revulsion to eating pork, but should be due to the Torah having prohibited it (compare Torat Kohanim Parshat Kedoshim 89). Rabbi Akiva in Sofrim 4 relates how it happened to him that even preoccupation with a mitzvah due to a pure motivation, involved him in a sinful act, because he did not have his priorities right. He had dragged a body for six miles on the Sabbath in order to bring it to proper burial. He had been unaware that such a body, if there are no relatives whose duty it is to perform the burial rites on it, automatically acquires the ground it lies on. This would make the act of moving it on the Sabbath unnessary and a transgression against the law of carrying in the public domain on the Sabbath. The Rabbis chided Rabbi Akiva, saying that he had been guilty of a transgression every step of the way. Aristotle in Ethics Chapter four, also argues that the validity of, say, generosity as a virtue derives from the nature and personality of the donor. Therefore, he who gives to the wrong cause or for the wrong motive, cannot be described as "liberal" or "generous." This trait of "generosity of heart" was an essential ingredient in Abraham's personality, which is always in evidence in conjunction with other virtues, all of which contributed to refinement of his personality even further. No doubt, Abraham had recognized that the acquisition of material wealth could not be the ultimate purpose in life, that there had to be higher values than that. Not only that, but such knowledge could only be attained through prophetic insight. In his search for truths, of which Isaiah 64,3 has said, "No human eye has beheld them without the help of G-d," the term machazeh, vision, is most appropriate at this point. Maimonides in his Moreh, chapter forty-five section two, already pointed out that the lowest level of such prophetic insight is comprehension by means of the parable. Indeed, most of the message Abraham receives during the revelation at the "covenant between the pieces" is by means of the parable. Concerning man's natural fear of the day when the strange union of body and soul is dissolved, the day of death, G-d reassures Abraham that he should not entertain any fear. Concerning all his other worries, G-d reassures him of His continued support. He also tells him that the reward will be of quite a different calibre than is normally understood by the term "reward." G-d’s promise regarding future possession of the land by Abraham's descendants is believed. Abraham, aware of the great difficulties faced by any human being who tries to live up to these lofty principles, asks for a sign to reassure him that his heirs will be able to muster the moral strength to qualify for the fulfilment of these promises. The answer, couched in terms of the sacrifice and what it symbolized, is in accordance with both the views of Rabbi Nechemyah and those of Rabbi Chiyah as stated in Bereshit Rabbah 44. The divided animals represent the nations and their respective leaders, all headed for eventual destruction. The undivided bird, by contrast, represents the Jewish people who will endure and withstand the attack by the vultures, thanks to the merit of their ancestor Abraham. But over and above that, there are inherent values that guarantee the fulfilment of G-d’s promise in due course.
_.17.1.5
Rabbi Assi, in the same Midrash, describes it somewhat differently. Seeing that Abraham's question referred only to the chances of future generations, G-d’s answer matched the question. Rabbi Assi describes Abraham as taking a hammer and beating down on the carcasses, which, however, withstood his hammering. Thereupon Abraham used the power of repentance to chase away the vultures. The parable is that there are two ways of insuring character growth; either suffering, which is character refining, or repentance. Since suffering is limited in time, and after too long a period may become counterproductive through the victim having died before his character had been sufficiently refined, the power of someone else's merit may have to be employed by G-d to revive such a victim. G-d explained to Abraham that after four generations of suffering, designed to steel his descendants against moral decay, salvation would have to occur. The darkness Abraham saw in his vision, was the suffering of his descendants which would ensure that they would eventually inherit the land G-d had promised (after four generations). Abraham himself, would not have to undergo suffering, of course, as part of this process of readying Israel for nationhood. Abraham accepted G-d’s explanation that the power of sacrifices would be of a redeeming quality should his descendants suffer moral lapses. He was concerned, however, over what would take the place of these sacrifices during periods when, owing to the absence of a temple, such sacrifices could not be offered. Regarding this eventuality, he was shown that the experience of exile coupled with suffering would constitute the way his descendants' sins could be expiated. The concept of "who remembers the sins of the fathers to the children" revealed to Moses at a later stage (Exodus 34,7) is already embodied in the statement about the fourth generation of Jews having to wait for the fourth generation of depraved Emorites having exhausted their claim to continued existence in the land of Canaan. The covenant concluded at that time has still not been fulfilled in its entirety. Therefore, we still live on the strength of it, awaiting the total fulfilment, i.e. inheritance of the lands of all the ten tribes mentioned in the promise. "The great river" is, after all, identical with the river emanating from Eden, whose waters irrigated the entire globe. Isaiah 58,11-12 envisages Israel as the well-irrigated garden which provides sustenance for the whole of mankind, in due course. Abraham's fears about the future are thus laid to rest, as mentioned in the Midrash we quoted at the outset. Abraham, who had feared that among the soldiers he had slain in liberating Lot there could have been good persons, was thanked by G-d instead for having done the Lord's work for Him. He had removed unwanted thorns and thistles. Success in such an enterprise does not constitute reward in itself, on the contrary, it merely qualifies Abraham for even greater rewards in the future.
_.17.1.6
Some problems in the text: 1) What is the special significance of G-d appearing to Abraham in a machazeh, vision, an expression never previously used when G-d communicated with Abraham?
_.17.1.7
2) Who was Abraham afraid of? One does not usually fear inadequate reward, rather one fears some kind of disaster. Besides, what reward does one qualify for if one merely rescued one's brother?
_.17.1.8
3) Why would Abraham consider any reward which he in turn could not bequeathe to his children as not being worthwhile? Why did he repeat "You have not given me any seed?"
_.17.1.9
4) The answer "Here the word of G-d was to Abraham" seems rather oblique. Could this not have been stated in a more forthright manner such as "G-d said to Abraham?"
_.17.1.10
5) Why did G-d delay so long in granting Abraham and Sarah children?
_.17.1.11
6) What faith did Abraham display in response to G-d’s promise which he had not already displayed previously, so that this should merit special praise at this juncture? Why did he say afterwards "through what may I know that I will inherit?"
_.17.1.12
7) How does the series of offerings suggested by G-d answer Abraham's request for proof? What does the promise of ripe old age signify at this point?
_.17.1.13
8) If Sarah recognized that it was G-d who had denied her children, why did she not ask G-d just as Rebeccah would do when she found herself in the same predicament? She had, after all, invited G-d to judge between her and Hagar!
_.17.1.14
9) Since G-d was going to give Sarah a son in the end, why had it been necessary for Hagar to become Abraham's wife altogether? Why did the angel have to appear to Hagar several times? What did Hagar mean with the words "Have I even here seen Him, that He sees me?" (Genesis 16,13).
_.17.1.15
It is an accepted principle that the donor should advise the recipient of a gift so the latter can express his appreciation (Shabbat 10). The reason G-d desires the prayers of the tzaddikim, the righteous, is so that man can express his gratitude for the favors G-d does for him every single day (Yevamot 30). Even the good which man deserves because of merits he may have accumulated, contains elements of grace, since the idea that a lessee of a field who pays his dues to the owner may ask for a reward is absurd. Where would the lessee be without the owner? This is the meaning of Psalms 62,13, "When You pay man his deserts, You perform an act of kindness." This is why righteous people never demand what they deserve, and always ask only for an act of kindness, a gift. (5) G-d, on the other hand, goes far and beyond any merit man has accumulated when He recompenses him. Had G-d granted Abraham and Sarah children in their youth, they would never have been sure whether this had required G-d’s personal intervention in their fates, or whether it had been a natural occurrence. This is why G-d waited until they had become aware of their need, and would pray for it to be granted. Since Abraham still did not get around to praying, G-d had to provoke him into the comment, "See You have not given me any seed!" (2) He wanted Abraham to realize that the riches he had returned to the king of Sodom, or even the glory attained through his military accomplishments, were minor compared to the reward G-d had still in store for him, and that he had no cause to fear that the four kings would return with reinforcements. So G-d evoked the desired response from Abraham when the latter asked Him, "What can You give me, seeing You have denied me children?" (1) That is the point at which G-d took Abraham "outside," to acquaint him with the fact that considerations based on horoscopic knowledge were not absolute, that He, G-d could and would alter the fate in store for Abraham, which according to horoscopic constellations seemed to preclude his having natural issue. (3) The oblique introduction "and here,” shows that G-d had held His response in store all the time, but that He had had to wait for Abraham's complaint (statement of resignation) to be able to reveal to him that he would become a father. (6) Abraham's belief in this hashgachah peratit, G-d’s personal Providence, is what was new, and for this he deserved credit. Having established that Abraham was bothered by his childlessness to the point of speaking out about it, the Torah reports that Sarah too was upset about it, and proceeded to do what was in her power to relieve the problem. (8+9) She did this by offering Hagar as a wife to Abraham also. Although both Abraham and Sarah knew a great deal about the power of G-d, they were still under the impression that it was not within His domain to change the physical nature of barrenness. Therefore, they did not pray, since they had no reason to believe that prayer would be a key to success. Their knowledge of G-d was restricted to their conceiving of Him as the ultimate Cause, but not as the constant guardian of individual fates. Ultimately, this lack of understanding prompted the angel in Genesis 18,14 to say, "Is anything too wonderful for G-d (to accomplish)?"
_.17.1.16
The taunts Sarah suffered at the hands of Hagar prompted her to proclaim eventually, "May G-d judge between me and you," thus invoking G-d to become part of their quarrel, something almost amounting to prayer, which is what G-d had been waiting for. Once this level of prayer had been reached, prayers for the household of Avimelech, the good people in the city of Sodom etc. were merely a natural development. It was G-d’s intention, to demonstrate the difference between a son of Abraham who had been conceived after he had undergone circumcision, and the caliber of a son that was conceived before Abraham had attained that spiritual level.
_.17.1.17
Bereshit Rabbah 46 states that the line in Kohelet 3,1 "Everything has its time, there is a season for all things," refers to the day Abraham was circumcised. It says in the Torah, "The very day Abraham was circumcised" (Genesis 17,26). Abraham could just as easily have been circumcised at the age of 48, when he first recognized His Creator. Or, he could have been circumcised at the age of 70, when G-d made the covenant with him. Again, he could have been circumcised at the age of 85, before Ishmael was conceived. However, in order to show that Isaac had been conceived in purity and was therefore a different person, G-d waited with the commandment until Abraham was 99 years old. (9) When the angel found Hagar the first time, though she was not lost but at a well of water on a well marked route leading to Shur (Genesis 16,7), his question seemed to suggest that she was lost. In fact, he meant to ask her, "Are you aware that you are in danger of going from a good place to a bad place, that instead of improving your lot you will worsen it?" Hagar replied, "I cannot help myself; I am forced to flee my mistress, even though I know that I may be heading towards spiritual disaster." A fugitive concerned with what he escapes from, does not pay too much attention to where he may be headed. The angel said to Hagar, "Instead of contemplating what you are running away from, think of what you may be getting into." Therefore, subject yourself to your mistress, since I assure you that the future of the son you carry within you will make it all worthwhile." The Torah relates the entire conversation in order to show that any character weakness of Ishmael was not due to the mother's lack of character, but that Hagar had absorbed enough spiritual values in the home of Abraham to qualify to become the mother of his children. In fact, the emphasis of four times "the angel said to her," is to draw our attention to the fact that Hagar had received as many communications from G-d at this point as had Abraham himself. Surely this is to teach us that she was a suitable vehicle for bearing his child. The contents of the four conversations between the angel and Hagar roughly paralleled those between G-d and Abraham up to that date, i.e. the order to remain apart from her homeland and family, the promise of issue and its development into a nation, the difficulties that would be faced by her descendants at some time. All this resulted in Hagar gaining a deeper understanding of the Providence of G-d, realizing that He was a Personal G-d who was talking to her. When she said, "I had to reach this stage to become aware of someone who sees me," she meant that she had had to go through previous stages of cognition of the existence of G-d, only to have His power and interest demonstrated to her in such personalised fashion. Rabbi Samuel bar Nachman in Bereshit Rabbah 45 comments that the episode can be compared to a king who ordered a lady to walk in front of him. The lady hid her face out of fear of the king, but leaned on a maidservant. In this manner the maidservant beheld the face of the king, though her mistress did not. Hagar's experience was analogous. She now realized that she herself had become worthy to behold the face of the king in her own right, though up to that point her vision of him had only been through her association with her mistress. After all these visions which Hagar experienced, it is obvious that any fault in her son's character did not originate in her, but only in the fact that his father had not yet been circumcised when he sired him.
_.18.1.2
"And when Abram was ninety years old and nine"
_.18.1.3
The Talmud Nedarim 31 relates the following. Rabbi Eleazar son of Azaryah said, "The foreskin is ugly, since evil people are characterized as having it." Jeremiah 9,25 says, "For all the nations are uncircumcised." Samuel I 17,36 describes Goliath as being an uncircumcised Philistine. In Samuel II chapter one, we read about "the daughters of the uncircumcised rejoicing." Rabbi Ishmael said, "Great is circumcision for thirteen covenants were entered into on account of it." Rabbi Yossi said, "The commandment of circumcision is great since it overrides the commandment of the Sabbath." Rabbi Nechemyah said that circumcision is great since Moses was not allowed to tarry with performing it for even one hour. Rabbi Meir said that circumcision is great since Abraham was not called "perfect" until he had circumcised himself, as is written, "Walk before Me and become perfect, and I will place My covenant between Myself and you." Another thought. Milah is great because but for it G-d would not have created the universe, as we know from Jeremiah 33,25, "If not for My covenant, neither day nor night, nor the laws of heaven and earth would I have established." Rabbi Shimon said, “Milah is great since it is of equal weight to all the other commandments in the Torah as is stated (Exodus 24,8), "This is the blood of the covenant on account of which G-d entered into a covenant with you concerning all these matters."
_.18.1.4
The task of all philosophers is to explain the purpose underlying our universe. Enquiry into the reason the universe exists, is independent of one's belief in the eternity of matter or one's belief in creation ex nihilo. Whereas it would be foolish to enquire into the reason for each detail in the universe as we observe it, since this would be far beyond our powers of comprehension, enquiry into the overall purpose is not only permissible, but desirable. We who believe in creation ex nihilo certainly are entitled to examine reasons both for the creation and for man's place in the universe. It goes without saying that the world such as it is, is an expression of the will of the Creator; however, we may try to understand what the Creator had in mind when He so willed the universe to come into existence. Assuming that the world was created for the sake of man, and that man was made in order to serve his Creator, this still does not answer the question why the Creator has need of man. Indeed, in the ne-ilah prayer at the conclusion of the Day of Atonement, we state quite clearly that even our righteousness is quite unable to make a contribution to G-d’s completeness, His perfection,"If he is righteous, what does he give You?" Nonetheless, once aware of our own inadequacies plus the fact that He could have created man without the six phases of creation leading up to the ultimate creation of man, it still behooves us to try and comprehend G-d’s will in this matter. To understand why G-d took so much trouble before He created man may be put into better focus by the following parable.
_.18.1.5
A great and wise king, ruling an extensive realm, built a great and beautiful city. Inside it, he built a tower and a palace designed to inspire awe in all those who beheld its beauty. He took his eldest son, arranged for him to marry the daughter of another satellite king, brought the couple to the palace and gave it to them as a present. The couple made the palace their home. They lived there for many years until a tyrant king took the palace away from the great king's son by superior force. The king who had built the palace, restored it to the couple on two separate occasions, using his own army to defeat the tyrant king. By the third time, the tyrant king had become so powerful that he expelled the son and set fire to the palace. The great king became so angry at this, that he swore a sacred oath not to resume his own throne until he had avenged himself on the tyrant king and had restored his son to his rightful position. Having heard this story, who would enquire into the reason the great king had established his kingdom in the first place? The listener's concern would focus on the fate of the prince and on what happened to the palace. Similarly, when the Torah describes the creation of heaven and earth, this is to be understood as the setting within which man operates. There follows the story of man, his successes, his failures. From Noach-Abraham-lsaac, down to Mount Sinai when the firstborn son (Israel) was mated with the Torah (his wife), and was given the palace (the land of Israel) to live in. Twice the son has been dislodged; by the Babylonians following whom G-d restored Israel (His son) to the Holy Land. Subsequently, numerous efforts were made to dislodge Israel and to destroy the palace, until the Romans destroyed the palace and scattered the people to all parts of the globe. After G-d’s anger at His son had subsided, G-d swore an oath that His kingdom would not be complete until He had restored Israel to its homeland (Tanchuma Parshat Ki Tetze). This, and nothing else, is the subject that all prophecies past present and future deal with. From the parable it becomes clear that the universe serves man, has been created for man, but specifically for the people of Israel, who are the subject of almost all prophetic pronouncements ever made. Therefore, the statement that the world has been created for man (Baba Metzia 114) is correct, when one considers that the term "man" refers to "Israel," the only nation that on occasion has risen to the level that "man" was created for, and for whose sake the creation of the universe became a worthwhile undertaking.
_.18.1.6
When we now pursue the question of what is G-d’s goal in having man serve Him, seeing that we have established that man's efforts do not contribute to the state of G-d’s perfection, then the answer is that it is the will of G-d, not because of His need for man. Rather it is because of His generosity and kindness in affording man the opportunity to reach a level of wisdom and piety that enables him to appreciate G-d and His glory. Our sages in Avot 6,9 tell us that G-d possesses five acquisitions in this universe. They are: heaven and earth, Torah, Abraham, Israel and the holy temple. Since we have proof from scriptures that G-d owns the entire universe, i.e. "the earth is filled with Your property” (Psalms 104,24), what can be the meaning of that Mishnah? The answer cannot lie in the specific references to the word kinyan, possession, in the Mishnah. It is significant that the verses from Scripture quoted there to support the statement of the Mishnah, do not mention the term kinyan in connection with "heaven and earth." Even in the case of Israel, although one of the verses quoted mentions the term kinyan, the second verse quoted in support of the same statement does not mention kinyan. The meaning of our sages must be that G-d acquired these five possessions to serve as the instruments by means of which He can bestow His kindness and generosity on man, to let him rise to the lofty position of comprehending His greatness. G-d, as it were, "needed" these five possessions to carry out His plan for the ultimate elevation of mankind. When Solomon describes the Torah as having been "acquired by G-d" (Proverbs 8,22), this means that G-d has planned to use the Torah as a tool to implement His grand design. When Isaiah describes the function of heaven and earth as "the footstools and throne of G-d" respectively, he similarly underlines that they are merely tools in the hands of G-d. Just as acquisitions serve as a means to and end, so these five acquisitions serve as a means to the end which G-d pursued when He created man. Abraham being described as "blessed" to the supreme G-d by Malki Tzedek the king of Salem underlines the fact that, being a priest, his function was to teach the people about G-d (Maleachi 2,7; Genesis 14,18-20). We explained that in connection with the pearl that hung around Abraham's throat in chapter 4. Israel, instructed already by its forefathers who spread knowledge of G-d, is to do so in even greater measure. It will act as such tool, as will the holy temple representing the benevolent Presence of the Shechinah on this earth. Nothing could serve more directly as a tool to acquaint people with the power, generosity and splendor of G-d. Contrary to man, who is considered foolish when he fails to employ all his faculties for his own advantage, G-d is concerned with employing these five tools (faculties) to promote the advancement of His creatures rather than Himself.
_.18.1.7
After ample scriptural evidence that the Jewish people are to be viewed as a gift to the world by means of whom G-d’s Providence and power will be demonstrated, Abraham their patriarch was the human being who had found favor in the eyes of G-d to become that nation's founding father. Though the Torah had described the heroic nature of Noach in his time, and though he alone had been found worthy of saving the entire human race, G-d had not foreseen an active role for Noach, describing him merely as a tzaddik, i.e. better than his contemporaries. We have explained in chapter 16, that the temimut of Noach consisted of the fact that he followed the tradition of his father and grandfather meticulously, but that he lacked the intellectual drive to search for truths beyond the fact that G-d was the Creator etc.
_.18.1.8
Bereshit Rabbah 29 states that Rabbi Shimon said, "G-d made three finds in this world. One is Abraham, ‘You have found his heart true before You’ (Nechemyah 9,8). The second one is David, ‘I have found My servant David.’ (Psalms 89,21). The third one is Israel, ‘Like grapes in the desert, I have found Israel’ (Hoseah 9,10).” Rabbi Shimon was questioned by his colleagues who asked, “Does not the Torah also mention Noach as having been a find of G-d, seeing it says "Noach found favor in the eyes of G-d?" (Genesis 6,8). Rabbi Shimon answered "Noach found, G-d did not find." Upon examination, you will find that the three finds represented three profound principles. Abraham primarily expounded the existence of G-d. David propounded the truth of the reward and punishment principle, composing many hymns on the subject. Israel propounded the Power of G-d, be it in Egypt or many subsequent historic events involving Israel. When the prophet describes the finding of Israel as like the finding of grapes in the desert, he draws attention to the unexpected nature of the find. The emergence of Israel was almost as if it had already been despaired of ever coming about. When it did finally happen, it was unexpected. Not so David, who emerged as the result of a diligent search for just such a person (Samuel I chapter 13). Abraham, on the other hand, was like the result one obtains after refining an orebody waiting for the precious metal to distil and crystallize in the crucible. The objection of Rabbi Shimon's colleagues was, "Did not Noach also demonstrate the Power and glory of G-d through the deluge and his being saved?" The answer was that this had not been G-d’s purpose when He saved Noach; in fact, there had been no one left to prove G-d’s Power to who had not already been aware of it though personal experience. When Israel appeared on the stage of history, however, G-d proclaims that He will demonstrate His Power by punishing Egypt for its treatment of Israel (Exodus chapters 7,9,10 and 14). All these quotes prove that Israel could have been saved by many other means, but that it served as a tool for G-d to demonstrate His Power through them. Since Abraham had become the founding father of this nation, it is only proper that he should be no less vis a vis Israel than Noach had been vis a vis the human race. Since G-d had made a covenant with Noach, promising to keep the human race going forever, G-d had to make a covenant with Abraham, promising to keep Israel going forever, and for Abraham to maintain his distinctive lifestyle and to transmit it to his descendants. G-d has granted man three faculties with which to achieve the level of perfection he is capable of achieving. 1) Willingness to listen to and absorb words of wisdom by those who teach him. 2) A basic intelligence characterized by his ability to communicate his thoughts by speech. 3) The ability to reason speculatively and to arrive at ideas not presented to him by outsiders in a finalized form. Unless man possesses all these three faculties, he cannot attain his purpose. When he does possess them, he is well equipped to advance towards his perfect state. Since man is inclined towards evil from his early youth, "for the inclination of man's heart is evil from his youth on" (Genesis 8,21), and this is an impediment to his achieving his goal, G-d in His great kindness equipped Abraham/Israel with a tool to counteract this impediment by legislating circumcision of the male on the eighth day of his life. Vayikra Rabbah 25 writes, “It says ‘at eight days old.’ Where does he have to be circumcised? If at the ear, he does not hear properly yet; if at the mouth, he does not speak yet; if at the heart, he cannot think yet. So where shall he be circiumcised? Clearly it must be from part of his body. Rabbi Tanchum remarked that since there is no foreskin which is exclusive to the female of the species, the foreskin referred to must be that of the male organ.” When viewed objectively, these questions posed in the Midrash can hardly be taken at face value, since all the other areas mentioned could have been subjected to a surgical procedure. However, since a surgical procedure of the mouth for instance, would also affect the ear's ability to hear and the heart's ability to understand, the effect of such surgery would have been self-defeating. The three organs are needed to be fully operative to help man achieve his goals. Moreover, unless the organ circumcised does itself benefit through that procedure, how can it hope to improve the function of the remaining organs? This is the reason that the Midrash which describes Abraham as a High Priest, could not conceive of the same person becoming a baal mum, physically defective. Such a defect would nullify his priestly status. All of this is true despite the fact that we have scriptural proof for also the other above mentioned organs being described as arel, uncircumcised. Since the male organ is also described as "the body's summit," the point at which all the body's forces coalesce, whoever touches that area is as if he had touched the whole body, the whole person. Whoever reduces its power is as if he had weakened the whole body. We observe that surgery in the face results in a loss of hairgrowth; frequently one's voice is affected also. Similarly, surgery on the male organ leaves its mark on the whole person. When the Talmud (Baba Batra 16) states, "Woe to the person whose children are female," the meaning is that it is shameful to have children who allow the physical to dominate them like women. Surgery on the male organ then inhibits the owner from being too preoccupied with his body, makes it easier for him to concentrate on the development of mind and soul. It is clear then why this mitzvah had to be given to Abraham prior to Isaac having been conceived.
_.18.1.9
When Bereshit Rabbah 48 tells us that Abraham sits at the entrance of purgatory and prevents any circumcised Jew from being consigned to that detination, the meaning is that between the combined effects of circumcision, (physical) and Torah (spiritual), the fate that is reserved for the uncircumcised could not possibly be in store for circumcised Jews. Rabbi Eleazar in the opening statement quoted refers to the triple effect of speech, mind, and hearing, and that is the reason he quotes the three verses from scripture. The first verse refers to the lack of power of speech, someone who boasts of the wrong attributes (Jeremiah 9,22). The second, Goliath, lacks brains or he would not blaspheme (Samuel I chapter 17). The third are the daughters of the uncircumcised who refuse to listen to the voice of mussar, moral instruction, and who rejoice when they hear that the representative of moral values (Saul) has been slain (Samuel II chapter 1). As a diamond sparkles best when in a suitable setting, so the purest soul unless placed in a superior body cannot perform at optimal ability. This is why a baal mum, a physically blemished person must not perform temple service. Otherwise, his physical blemish might affect his soul, thus preventing him from drawing down from on high all the blessings that the priest ought to channel to his people. Because it is the purpose of the commandments to refine those who perform them, man was not born circumcised, so as not to deny him the effects performance of that mitzvah would have on the development of his personality.
_.18.1.11
The fact that Rabbi Ishmael draws attention to the thirteen times the word brit, covenant, is mentioned suggests that there are additional fringe benefits accruing to those who experience circumcision.
_.18.1.12
Some problems in the text: 1) Why would a ninety-nine year-old who has spent a lifetime being pious, have to be commanded, "Be perfect, walk before Me?" What else had Abraham been doing all his life? 2) Why is the fact that "he fell on his face" mentioned twice in the story? 3) The statement "As far as I am concerned, My covenant is with you...you will be a father of many nations etc.," after the statement "I will give My covenant between Me and you" also the third mention of "I will maintain My covenant etc." seems completely unnecessary! 4) Why do our sages say that anyone calling Abraham by his former name Abram is guilty of a transgression, whereas anyone calling Israel Jacob, is not guilty of a transgression? 5) Why is Sarah referred to by her new name even before we have been informed that she would be given a new name? 6) Why did G-d not seem to take offence when Abraham considered it unlikely for a hundred year-old man to sire a child, whereas when Sarah at ninety considered it unlikely that she would become a mother, G-d responds "is anything too wonderful for G-d?" 7) The very idea of one-hundred year-old people begetting seemed quite commonplace in those days, seeing that we find Abraham siring six more children from Keturah over forty years later. 8) Why would Abraham ask for Ishmael to live? Who had endangered his life? 9) Why do we have to be told the details of Ishmael's future successes and his descendants? 10) Why do we need the statement about "G-d finished speaking to Abraham and rose up?"
_.18.1.13
(1) Although Abraham had lived a life of ever increasing dedication to G-d and His presumed laws, all of this had been achieved by him employing his mental faculties and natural good traits. Specific commands enabling Abraham to demonstrate that his actions were motivated by obedience to G-d’s will had been lacking. Until this point, Abraham had assumed that G-d’s laws would not conflict with the human mind, i.e. that when such commands would be issued, they would automatically be comprehensible and make sense to him. At the covenant between the pieces, G-d had first removed Abraham's philosophy from the restrictions imposed upon it while one implicitly accepts the laws of astrology. Now, with the commandment of circumcision, He also removed the element of logic, a factor which determines true and false values. This fact is demonstrated in an even greater degree when Abraham later on will be commanded to sacrifice Isaac. This is the principle of Shaddai, that G-d tells Moses as having sufficed to secure the unquestioning co-operation of Abraham. G-d told Moses that in Abraham's generation He did not need to justify His demands on His chosen, not like Moses who had demanded that G-d justify His treatment of the Jewish people. (2) G-d, so to speak, said, "Because I am ‘Shaddai,’ do not be too sure of your philosophical convictions, but obey Me unequivocally." Seeing that Abraham still had to undergo physical changes in order to become "perfect," Abraham was overcome by a new sense of reverence. He expressed this by twice prostrating himself before the glory of G-d. He felt inadequate to stand upright before G-d until after the sign of the covenant had been performed on him.
_.18.1.14
(3) Bereshit Rabbah 47 discusses that the two occasions on which Abraham fell down correspond to the two mass circumcisions performed, one by Moses in Egypt prior to the Exodus, the other by Joshua after crossing the river Jordan. Absence of circumcision necessitates nefilah, a fall. Temporary absence of the Shechinah, Divine Presence, follows if absence of circumcision becomes a conscious shortcoming. This is why we have the re-introduction "as for Me, here My covenant is with you." This resumes the former relationship which had been interrupted by the awareness that one was still blemished and hence unworthy. The reference is to the covenant between the pieces which is still in effect. Because of that covenant, you will become the founder of many nations. Since you will now become transformed into a still more worthy and superior human being, your name will reflect the change in your status. The difference between the descendants through the son yet to be born and the ones from the son already alive (Ishmael), may have been hinted at in the promise that the latter would sire princes and a great nation, whereas Isaac would produce "kings of nations." This new covenant that "I will maintain," refers to an agreement embracing also the descendants of Abraham, not only Abraham himself, as in the previous covenant. The promise that G-d will remain accepted as G-d by Abraham's descendants throughout the generations, is the covenant of the enduring nature of the spiritual salvation granted to Abraham's descendants. As such it is the implementation of Abraham's own spiritual perfection. This would remain accompanied by material blessings until such time as the very multitude of descendants would prove the value of G-d’s promise and covenant by their very existence. Just as the granting of a title without the accompaniment of material reward becomes significant if both the recipient of the title and the one bestowing it are well known personages, so some generations, hence, that condition would apply to Jacob's descendants. 4) Meanwhile, however, the material blessings bestowed by G-d on Abraham and his descendants serve to illustrate the existence of the covenant between G-d and them. The new name of Abraham, embodying far greater blessings than the ones promised while he had still been uncircumcised, make the previous name pale by comparison, and reference to Abraham by his previous name is therefore tantamount to denial of his role in history. (3) The repeated references "you shall observe My covenant," stresses that Abraham's advanced age notwithstanding, the performance of circumcision on Abraham's body will enable Isaac to be born of hallowed seed. The statement following "this is My covenant" explains the exact nature of circumcision for now and all subsequent generations of Jewish males. The fact that the retention of the foreskin is a blemish, and therefore a voluntary blemish, has to be emphasized also; therefore, in Genesis 17,14, the negative commandment concerning Jews who refuse to remove this blemish on their bodies. The words "You shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin," emphasize the fact that retaining it is something degrading. The early age at which this has to be performed emphasizes that all the senses of a person are enhanced and liable to come closer to perfection the sooner the foreskin is removed. The "eternal covenant" which is promised as a result of observance of the commandment of circumcision is an assurance of the intimate relationship between G-d and Israel, hinted at in the words of our sages who speak of thirteen covenants as included in the act of circumcision. The negative commandment, and the exclusion from the Jewish people of those who transgress it, underlines the advantages to be gained by observing this mitzvah. The choice of the expression me-amme-ha, from its people (plural), refers to the loss of both worlds for those who wilfully neglect performance of this commandment.
_.18.1.15
(5) After all these instructions, Abraham is advised that all the blessings in store for him will be shared by his wife in equal measure; therefore, her name also is to be changed. Just as a prince's wife becomes a queen when her husband becomes king, so Abraham's change of status brought in its wake a similar change of status for his wife. Interestingly, changes of status of the wife do not automatically confer a higher status on the husband, since we do not find that the prophetess Hulda's husband became a prophet (Isaiah chapter 8).
_.18.1.16
(8) According to some, the promise that Abraham and Sarah would sire a child, made Abraham wonder if perchance Ishmael was destined to die, since otherwise his existence would have enabled G-d to fulfil His promise to Abraham to become the ancestor of a multitude of nations in a far more natural way. This consideration prompted Abraham to pray for Ishmael's continued existence. (6) When Abraham questioned G-d’s promise, his concern was legitimate, whereas when Sarah did so she had no such legitimate concern. Therefore, G-d criticized Sarah without criticizing Abraham. However, it is more likely that Abraham's remark was just as unseemly as Sarah's later, just as was that of Moses when he questioned G-d’s ability to feed all of Israel meat in the desert (Numbers 11,21). Since however, it was a day of glad tidings, a day on which Abraham had cheerfully accepted the commandment to circumcise himself, G-d did not want to spoil the occasion by criticizing him. Similarly, on the day the Torah was given, the leaders of Israel were not punished, although their conduct was deserving of punishment (Exodus 24, see Vayikra Rabbah 20). When G-d did criticize Sarah eventually for her similar lack of belief, He did so via Abraham. "Why does Sarah laugh?" (Genesis 18,13). He could have criticized Sarah without addressing Abraham on the subject. However, G-d wanted Abraham to get the message that he, too, had erred in a similar fashion on the same subject. (9) As it was, G-d’s answer was only meant to emphasize that Sarah deserved to bear a son. Ishmael's future was not in doubt at all. Abraham was to call the new son Isaac, as a reminder that he had considered his conception and birth as too amusing a flight of fancy to entertain seriously. G-d would let Ishmael become great, but the new covenant under discussion would be maintained with Isaac. (10) The statement that "G-d had finished speaking with Abraham" proves, that this whole vision had been of a superior nature compared to previous ones. This vision was more like the ones Abraham would enjoy from this point on, though in this instance we still find Abraham falling down due to the overwhelming impact of G-d’s Presence. The promptness with which Abraham carried out G-d’s commandment reflects the newly won awareness that he was as yet incomplete as a human being. Rabbi Berechya points out in Bereshit Rabbah 39 that in promising Isaac, G-d did not say, "I will place you," but rather "I will make you." This indicates a direct action on G-d’s part, similar to such actions by G-d during the creation of man. The meaning is "When I make a new creature out of you, be fruitful and multiply!" When G-d had made a covenant with Noach, the sign of which was the rainbow, He limited the power of the forces of water and assured the continued existence of man. He promised that the future of a nation based on Abraham and Isaac would be assured just as the future of mankind had been assured through the covenant with Noach. No matter what sins will call for retribution, the nation as a whole will not perish. This implies that Israel's character even amid persecutions due to its infidelity vis a vis the Almighty, will exhibit traits that will qualitfy it for eventual redemption.
_.19.1.2
And the LORD appeared unto him
_.19.1.3
Bereshit Rabbah 48 quotes Isaiah 33,15-17, "He who walks righteously," meaning Abraham, seeing that the Torah writes that he will command his sons and household after him to act righteously (Genesis 18,19). "He speaks uprightly;" this too refers to Abraham, since we read in Song of Songs 1, "The upright ones love you." "He who disdains profit gained through oppression." This too refers to Abraham, since the Torah testifies in Genesis 14,23, that Abraham refused to take as much as a shoelace from the booty of war. "He shakes off his hands in order not to hold bribes in them." This also is a reference to Abraham who said to G-d, "I raise my hand high to G-d who dwells on high"(Genesis 14,22). Rabbi Yehudah said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan, "G-d lifted him beyond the horizon, since He said to Abraham, ‘Please look at the skies.’ The term habet for ‘look’ always means to look down rather than up. Abraham was asked to look down at the sky since he had been transported beyond it.” "His fortress is his stronghold," refers to the protective clouds G-d spread over Israel in the desert. "His bread was supplied, his waters were dependable," refers to the angels whom Abraham had hosted. "The king in his beauty your eyes behold," refers to Abraham's vision of G-d after his circumcision. So far Isaiah.
_.19.1.4
Philosophers have confirmed what we are taught in Nedarim 38 that the gift of prophecy is bestowed only on those who combine wisdom, physical prowess, and material wealth. It is not a gift that one obtains accidentally; if someone lies down at night as a fool, he certainly will not awake as prophet.
_.19.1.5
The view of some that the term prophet used to be applied to whoever happened to be the person of outstanding caliber in his generation, and that the definition is therefore not subject to objective criteria, is incorrect. Those who believe that prophecy is merely confirmation by G-d of wisdom acquired previously are also mistaken. The idea that a blind man-- through frequent usage-- may know his surroundings well, and regaining his eyesight will merely find confirmation of the truth of what he had surmised, is also not correct. If the onset of prophecy would not bestow additional information on the prophet, it would not be worth having. Whoever thinks along those lines belongs to the people who wish to limit the freedom of the Creator to change preordained events. Such people are therefore not of our faith! Anyone one who thinks in these terms cannot believe any part of the Torah which involves the supernatural or the miraculous. Solomon, in Proverbs 30,7-8, asks to be spared such fallacious logic as is expressed in the four generations of the verses following (10-14).
_.19.1.8
Despite many opinions to the contrary, the events related in our verse did indeed take place. Abraham did not see all these events only in his mind's eye. True, there are occasions in the Bible when visions described very graphically-- such as Ezekiel's trip to Jerusalem (Ezekiel Chapter 8)-- were in fact merely visions. Those instances do not prove that all supernatural encounters of outstanding men were merely visions of the mind and spirit. The wealth of detail reported about these encounters, such as reports of sitting, standing, running, etc. bear out the claim that these events took place physically. There are numerous reasons for the visions and encounters Abraham was granted which are listed at the beginning of our Parshah:
_.19.1.9
1) To reward Abraham for prompt fulfilment of the commandment to circumcise himself. If it is G-d’s practice to appear to those who build altars for Him, surely those who undergo circumcision deserve so even more (The reference is to the revelation of the Divine Presence as the result of erecting the tabernacle in the desert, Exodus 40,34 to end).
_.19.1.10
2) Abraham had been concerned that the flow of visitors would stop once people found out that he had circumcised himself. He needed to be reassured on that score.
_.19.1.11
3) The incidence with the angels is to illustrate Abraham's behavior with any stranger, his loving kindness, personal involvement, ensuring that his wife in the kitchen responded equally generously. Had this whole vision only been a dream, none of these qualities of Abraham could have been proven. The reason the Torah lists only one such example of Abraham's conduct is, that once it has been recorded, it will impress itself on the reader like the engraving of stone by the king's sword will leave a permanent impression.
_.19.1.12
4) G-d used this opportunity to indirectly rebuke Abraham for having doubted that Sarah would bear a child for him, a promise made at the time Abraham had been commanded to circumcise himself. For these reasons, all these things happened to Abraham rather than to Sarah.
_.19.1.13
An additional purpose of these encounters is to acquaint Abraham with the scope of Personal Divine intervention, and how it extends both to groups of people and to individuals. It also taught Abraham about the effectiveness of prayer, when it is offered to save someone from evil decrees. The fact that G-d takes the trouble to re-examine what He had already known about the Sodomites, is the subject of prophetic revelation to Abraham, and triggers the dialogue about the manner in which the innocent should be spared. We know already from Genesis 6,5 that G-d is aware of the state of man, whether good or sinful. "G-d saw that man's wickedness upon the earth had become widespread, and that thoughts of evil preoccupied man all day long." Abraham stood facing G-d while fully awake, when he made his plea on behalf of the good people of Sodom. The reference to "was still standing" is to the continuity of prophetic insights granted to him at the opening of our Parshah. He "approached" refers perhaps to a spot from which Sodom was visible, or to a location Abraham considered suitable for prayer. For this reason, we read at the end of the dialogue that "Abraham returned to his place." The fact that on the following morning Abraham returned to the spot from which he had offered his prayer (Genesis 19,27-28), and looked down on what had been Sodom, Gomorrah etc., indicates the place at which he had prayed the previous evening.
_.19.1.14
The whole life story of Abraham reveals that he advanced step by step both morally and spiritually. At the outset he had been a "prophet" among his contemporaries, as defined by them, by virtue of the purity of his lifestyle. This is what the Midrash meant when it referred to Abraham "walking in righteousness." Then he reached the level of being a prophet in the community he lived in, by reason of his superior intelligence (compare Midrash dover meysharim). As such, he instructed the people in wisdom directly, not only by means of his lifestyle. After he had achieved the level of rejecting material wealth acquired through oppression or even gifts from oppressors and had vowed that only G-d Himself should be the One he felt indebted to, he qualified for the first level of prophecy as defined by our standards, and G-d appeared to him in a nocturnal vision (machazeh). As a result of this, Abraham overcame the limitations his belief in astrology had imposed on him. He was raised to a level beyond the "shell of the sky" (see our opening Midrash). For the first time he became privy to visions beyond the realm of the natural. From then on, due to a change in name and his circumcision, he kept advancing so that his conduct secured for his descendants the protection of the heavenly cloud cover, the travelling well, and the supply of bread from the celestial regions. All of this was achieved with the help of the mitzvah of circumcision. The ultimate purpose of Abraham's progress had been described by the Midrash in the words "he was allowed to glimpse the king in his majesty."
_.19.1.16
Some problems in the text: 1) Why did the site where G-d appeared to Abraham have to be mentioned? It seems of no consequence. Also, what was the subject matter of that vision? Even our sages seem to view it as merely bikkur cholim, a visit to the sick!
_.19.1.17
2) Why did Abraham start running towards the three men after they had already reached him, i.e. ve-hinney?
_.19.1.18
3) Why is Abraham's long winded invitation to the men reported in full? Why did Abraham first address one of the three men and subsequently the others? Why did he do so much personally, seeing he had hundreds of servants? Why did he interfere in the way Sarah managed her kitchen by issuing instructions to her as to the kind of flour she should use?
_.19.1.19
4) Why does the Torah describe Abraham as standing "over" the angels under the tree while the latter ate?
_.19.1.21
5) What was the point of the whole mission? Abraham had been told before the circumcision that he would have a son by Sarah. Surely he must have told Sarah about this vision! Why would he have concealed such a promise from her?
_.19.1.22
6) Since the angel enquired about Sarah's whereabouts, why did he turn around and tell Abraham "I shall return to you," instead of to "both of you" or "to Sarah?"
_.19.1.23
7) Why did G-d seem to mind Sarah's laughter, although He had not seemed to mind Abraham's laughter, though it is described in similar terms? If Sarah had acted improperly, why did the angels question Abraham about it? They should have questioned Sarah directly. The angel in affirming, should have said, "I shall return to her next year etc." Why would Sarah lie out of fear; on the contrary, she should have admitted the truth because of her fear!
_.19.1.24
8) Why did G-d have to give a reason for revealing the impending fate of Sodom to Abraham? He had not given any explanations to Noach before He brought on the deluge. Since G-d had remained in uninterrupted conversation with Abraham, why did the Torah report only "G-d said,” instead of "G-d said to Abraham?" Where did Abraham "approach" from suddenly? He had been standing praying to G-d immediately before this!
_.19.1.25
9) What is the real reason for G-d saying, "I will still go down and have a look?"
_.19.1.26
10) Why does the Torah have to mention that Abraham "was still standing before G-d?" Where else would he be? He surely had not taken French leave.
_.19.1.27
Abraham's prayer indicates that his original concern had only been the simultaneous destruction of good and wicked people. Later on, he seemed concerned about anyone being killed, i.e. "the whole town." What brought about this change?
_.19.1.28
11) Why was the number fifty chosen as the starting point, i.e. as the number of righteous people that would suffice to save the whole city for their sake? The usual explanation which divides the number fifty equally amongst the five towns involved does not stand up, since the singular is used when speaking about the cities, i.e. ha-ir by both Abraham and G-d. Why did Abraham reduce the number by five the first time, whereas later he lowers the target number always by ten at a time?

Akeydat Yitzchak by Eliyahu Munk. Via Sefaria (sefaria.org), Sefaria-Export. Version source: http://www.urimpublications.com Licence: CC-BY. Source.