Genesis 18,1. “Hashem appeared to him (Avraham) in the groves of Mamre.” Since we have been told that G’d had departed from Avraham in 17,23, we would have expected the verse here to mention the subject Avraham by name. Why does the Torah only write לו, “to him?”G’d, i.e. aspects of the אין סוף, G’ds Essence, dispensed different amounts of שפע, “original light,” eventually converted in the lower domains of the universe into matter of varying degrees of physical densities.
Every such שפע, represents a distillation, צמצום, “shrinkage, of this original light. [If I understood the concept correctly, Ed.] This process is reflected already in the different names we have for G’d, the letters in these names reflecting varying degrees of G’d’s having restricted His manifestations to His creatures in order to make it compatible with what His creature can tolerate.This principle applies not only to creatures in the lower part of the universe, i.e. our planet, but also to the different categories of “angels,” disembodied servants of the Lord in the celestial spheres, according to the spiritual level attained by the creature, angel, or human being, as the case may be.
When such a human being has been given a “name” by its Creator, this “name” reflects the degree to which this person is able to absorb G’d’s “light,” without being harmed by it. When a human being serves his Creator out of awe, יראה, by totally negating the limitations imposed on a soul while it is constricted by the body it inhabits, it may be considered as having “disrobed,” shed the restrictions his body imposed upon the free, upward, heavenward motion of his soul.
When we express this concept in terms of the meaning of the letters in our G’d-given names, this means that we have divested ourselves of our “names.”Avraham, at the time of his life that the Torah speaks about here, had not yet freed himself from the limits imposed upon him (by dint of the letters in his name) prior to his having been circumcised. This state of flux, a temporary situation, in which Avraham found himself at the beginning of this portion, is reflected in the Torah referring to him only by a pronoun, instead of by his full name. Genesis 18,2. “when he looked out, here three men were standing practically on top of him.”
The Zohar I, 98, identifies these three “men” as “Avraham, Yitzchok, and Yaakov.” Clearly, we must try and understand what the Zohar meant by this, since the same “Avraham” is reported in the very same verse as running to meet these three “men”.We have explained earlier that normally Avraham served the Lord from feelings of love, whereas in submitting to the circumcision, he had switched to serving G’d from feelings of יראה, awe, i.e. by totally negating the interests of his earthbound personality.
By destroying his foreskin, a symbol of limitations and hindrance to spiritual development, known generally as קליפה, “husk,” in kabbalistic parlance, (compare writings of Ari z’al) he had attained a new and higher level of spirituality. He had now mastered both the ability to serve the Lord on two levels, אהבה (attribute of חסד) and יראה, attribute of גבורה). The latter attribute is the one that his son Yitzchok would symbolize for us in the future.It is part of our tradition that whenever the attributes of אהבה and יראה, i.e. אש, and מים, “fire and water,” in terms of our terrestrial part of the universe, are present simultaneously, due to the fact that these two attributes are opposites of one another, we require the presence of a third attribute one that harmonizes between these two opposite attributes.
This third attribute is known as תפארת, harmony; the third of our patriarchs, Yaakov, is perceived by our sages as having characterized the attribute “harmony.” It follows that at the time of Avraham’s circumcision this third attribute had been present also, i.e. it had a part to play in the performance of that commandment. When the Torah speaks of what Avraham “saw,” it referred to Avraham’s having become aware at that moment that these three attributes, all of which can be part of מצוה performance, had had a part in his having circumcised himself at the command of G’d.
The word: נצבים, describes the “presence” of all these three attributes during Avraham’s recovery from the physical effects of the circumcision. Genesis 18,2. “when he saw, he ran towards them;” Avraham had still been suffering from the pains of his circumcision. A sick or ailing person is usually the recipient of the loving concern of the attribute of Mercy; Avraham, instead of indulging himself was overcome with the attribute of גבורה, overpowering courageous energy, so that he was able to run to meet these men.
He was suddenly possessed of the characteristic (the author has “soul,”) that would distinguish his not yet conceived son, Yitzchok. We explained in the previous paragraph that this resulted in his also being endowed with the attribute תפארת, harmony, so that he combined all the three characteristics that distinguished the three patriarchs. Another aspect of the line: וירא וירץ לקראתם. A tzaddik is able to judge the character of a person by merely looking at that person’s face.
When encountering a wholesome person, he is suddenly filled with light, whereas when he does not feel his features suddenly exuding brightness, this is a warning to him that he is looking at an evil person. In this instance, the Torah prefaces Avraham’s running to meet these men with the words: וישא עיניו וירא, “he raised his eyes and saw;” this meant that he felt himself reacting positively to the appearance of these men as soon as he set eyes upon them. Genesis 18,3. “do not just pass by your servant.”
Avraham was overcome with a sense of prophecy as soon as he saw these men. We have a tradition (Rashi, Baba Metzia 114) according to which the prophet Elijah was a priest; and that when Pinchas avenged the insult to G’d (Numbers 25,1-9, 11-15) perpetrated by Zimri and the people at Shittim, his soul linked up with those of Nadav and Avihu (who had been priests) and the letters in the word נא in our verse allude to the first letters in the names נדב, אביהו, so that he became henceforth identified with the prophet Elijah, who similarly was jealous on behalf of G’d.
The words: תעבור מעל עבדך, “pass by your servant,” are an allusion to Elijah’s traditional role of briefly attending every circumcision of a Jewish baby, as a symbol of the importance of that covenant between the Jewish people and G’d. Genesis 18,5. “for this is why your journey has brought you to the house of your servant.” On the face of it, this is a very unusual manner of extending an invitation to passing strangers to partake of a meal with the host.
The commentators explained that angels are recipients of the largesse provided by G’d for the Jewish people who have performed G’d’s commandments. In other words, it was G’d Himself, Who let the sun out and thus Avraham, personally, was not able to perform his duties as an attentive host due to his not yet having recovered from the effects of the circumcision and from the weather. Under normal circumstances, these men would have been denied his hospitality. He therefore explains that due to his having fulfilled the commandment of circumcision, they would in fact be partaking of a meal provided by G’d Himself.
They had been sent to him so that he could take credit for hosting them.We have to elaborate somewhat on the tradition that Avraham had been observing, voluntarily, all of the commandments that would later on be found in the Torah. The only exception he had made was the commandment of circumcision. In light of the fact that this commandment was the cornerstone of G’d’s covenant with the Jewish people, why would Avraham purposely have neglected to perform this commandment until being told to observe it? Midrash Tanchuma Tazria 5 relates that Turnus Rufus the wicked, engaged in an argument with Rabbi Akiva, concerning whose works are more impressive, G’d’s or Man’s? Rabbi Akiva, sensing a trap, promptly replied that man’s works are more impressive.
Turnus Rufus, feeling outwitted, thereupon asked Rabbi Akiva since when “man” was able to create heaven and earth. Surely this was proof that G’d’s works are more impressive! Rabbi Akiva retorted that the subject under dispute did not concern the celestial regions, a domain to which man did not have access, but it dealt with works performed in the terrestrial regions. Thereupon Turnus Rufus questioned why the Jews circumcise themselves.
Rabbi Akiva said: “I knew right away that you would raise this question, as in your mind this looks as if we criticize G’d as having made an imperfect creature when He made man, and we are ‘repairing’ G’d’s ‘oversight.’” He added that this was precisely why he had said immediately that man’s works are more significant. Rabbi Akiva then proceeded to show Turnusrufus a freshly baked roll, and some wheat kernels.
He pointed to the wheat kernel as an example of G’d’s (nature’s) work, whereas the roll he described as an example of man’s works. He challenged Turnus Rufus to tell him which of the two he preferred. Thereupon, feeling outwitted, Turnus Rufus asked that if G’d did indeed prefer man without a foreskin, why did He equip him with a foreskin in the first place? Thereupon Rabbi Akiva asked, that according to Turnus Rufus argument, why is a baby born with an umbilical cord, which was to be cut off for the baby to start living outside the mother’s womb?
If man was born with a foreskin, this was in order to enable his father, or himself, to circumcise himself and thus fulfill a commandment by His Creator.From Rabbi Akiva’s answer to Turnus Rufus we learn why Avraham had waited for the commandment to circumcise himself, seeing that this is a commandment that can be fulfilled only once in a lifetime, the foreskin not growing back. It is a greater credit for man to perform G’d’s commandments when having been told to do so, than to merely do so because one assumes that this is what the Creator would want him to do. [Compare Baba Kamma 38 Ed.] Genesis 18,5. “let me take a piece of bread so that you can refresh yourselves,……he presented it to them and they ate.”
The true meaning of this verse has been best explained by the Or Hachayim, according to whom even the highest ranking angel, Michael is on occasion referred to as “High Priest,” whereas on other occasions he is known by another name. [Not in my edition of the אור החיים. Ed.] The point of this is to alert us to the fact that the standing, or even existence, of the angels in the celestial spheres, is affected by the mitzvah performance of the Israelites in the terrestrial part of the universe.
When Israel is meticulous in the performance of G’d’s Torah, then the most senior of the angels in the celestial spheres assumes the title: “High Priest.” When Avraham spoke about a פת לחם, instead of merely פת, bread, he alludes to both the written and the oral Torah. The word פת refers to the written Torah, whereas the word לחם refers to the oral Torah. The word לחם in psalms 78,25 i.e. לחם אבירים, is an allusion to the Torah.
According to the Talmud Menachot 34, the word פת amongst the Africans means “two.” [The latter half of the word: טוטפת. Ed.] The word is used as an allusion to Torah also in Proverbs 9,5, לכו לחמו בלחמי, “come and partake of My bread.” [Compare Alshich, pages 171-172, my translation of Proverbs. Ed.]
When Avraham is now described as serving the angels, we may see in this the reward both for Avraham‘s having performed the circumcision on himself, as well as reward for the angels, their being hosted by a person of Avraham’s standing. [Perhaps the mitzvah of hospitality shown the angels by Lot in the following chapter was a factor in his being saved, whereas his wife was not. Ed.] When Avraham, in verse 8, is described as standing next to the angels while the latter were seated while eating, the “tree” mentioned in that verse may be a reference to the tree described as “tree of life” in Proverbs 3,18, i.e. an allusion to the Torah.
This brings me to Bereshit Rabbah 49,4 where we are told that it was Avraham’s custom after having served his guests a meal to ask them to give thanks to the Creator of the universe. Why did Avraham not ask them to pronounce a benediction before they commenced eating, as is customary among Jews, and even among many gentiles? The reason may be that before eating these people were pagans, and how could they pronounce a blessing that implied that they had accepted the yoke of serving the one and only Creator?
Having eaten, they had performed a commandment through conferring upon their host Avraham the merit of fulfilling the duty to be hospitable; having done so, they themselves had been given a merit by dint of having contributed to Avraham’s merits, so that now when they pronounced a blessing thanking the Lord Who provides food for all of His creatures, they were not mouthing empty phrases. This is why the Midrash continues by relating that if Avraham’s guests would refuse to recite a blessing to the Lord, he would demand that they return to him what they had eaten, etc, etc. The embarrassment caused the guest when he realized that he had partaken of what had not been intended for him, would usually cause the guest to reconsider.
Avraham had explained to the guest that unless they provided him with the merit of having performed the commandment of being hospitable, they would in fact have robbed him of something that was his. While on the subject of the meal Avraham prepared for these heavenly guests, we need to understand why he served them meat instead of fish. The motivation may have been to afford his guests to perform many commandments in short order; in the terrestrial regions, nowadays, before being able to consume a meat meal many more commandments must be fulfilled than before preparing a fish meal.
This is in contrast with the world to come, where, according to our tradition, G’d will present the righteous with a meal consisting of the Leviathan. There are many more commandments associated with the preparation of a meaty meal than with the preparation of a “fish meal,” i.e. Leviathan. (Baba Metzia 86) According to the Talmud, Avraham slaughtered three calves in order to be able to offer each of his guests a tongue and mustard (as seasoning), considered the choicest meat of the animal.The Talmud Eyruvin 53 relates that when Rabbi Yossi bar Avion wished to say something that only people familiar with him would understand, he would say: ”עשו לי שור במשפט בטור מסכן;“ he deliberately used some Hebrew words, שור, במשפט, which have a different meaning in Aramaic.
Similarly, the word חרדל used by our sages for the seasoning Avraham provided for his guests is really a translation of the words הר דל, “a low hill.” In short, the Rabbi making excuses for the errors committed by the Jewish people, referred to the evil urge as an almost insurmountable obstacle, a tall mountain, whereas the urge to do good given to every human being, appeared like a low hill, so that it is not surprising that many Jews many times found it difficult to climb over the tall mountain in order to avoid sinning.
When the sages spoke of the “seasoning” Avraham served his guests, this is merely a euphemism for saying that he tried to provide his guests with merits by the type of food served that would make it relatively easy to overcome the temptations offered by the evil urge. When the angels would reflect on this, they in turn, in the future, would tone down their accusations against sinful Jews, having realized through their visit on earth how difficult it is to fight these temptations.
We need to explain the absence of the expression: ויעש להם משתה, “he made a festive meal for them.” We find such an expression even when Lot served the angels a meager meal (Genesis 19,3) consisting primarily of unleavened bread of indeterminate age. We also find it when Esther prepared a sumptuous meal for her husband King Ahasverus (Esther 4,4, as well as 7,8) to which she had invited the wicked Haman, also.
In that instance, it is clear that quantities of wine were served, hence the word משתה, which suggests liquid refreshments. We have a rule that when a righteous person shares a meal with a wicked person, the wicked person’s spiritual status will become enhanced thereby. This is the moral justification for the joy at such a meal. During such a meal the tzaddik is able to elevate the sparks of the Shechinah which had descended into the terrestrial domains as a result of man succumbing to the seduction of the serpent. [Compare what we wrote on page 21-22.Ed.]
The word משתה is basically a variant of the word שמחה, joy, so that when Lot offered the angels a meal which the Torah described as משתה, it was not a reference to the number of courses served, but to the atmosphere that prevailed during that meal. In that instance it was Lot’s moral status that became elevated due to the company of celestial beings at his table. As a result of the angels having eaten at his table, (and their having rescued him from Sodom) the soul of the messiah, that had lain dormant within Lot, was awakened somewhat so that he could become the father of a child whose descendant, Ruth, eventually became the ancestor of David, who in turn is the ancestor of the messiah.
The joy generated at the meal Esther served the King and Haman, resulted in the salvation of the Jewish people at her time, due to her having elevated some of the sparks of the Shechinah that had lain dormant within her husband. Since Avraham was on a far higher moral/ethical level than either Lot or Ahasversus, there was no need for a משתה to bring the participants’ spiritual qualities to the fore.
Hence there is no mention of this word, although Avraham had spared not effort to make it a tasty repast. Genesis 18,8. “He remained standing next to them while they ate.” We have a rule that the host should not visibly display physical satisfaction greater than that enjoyed by his guests. The reason for this rule is to avoid causing the guest to become jealous of the host.
A tzaddik is also known as a מהלך, “a person constantly on an upward spiritual move,” [compare Zecharyah 3,7. Ed.] Angels, by comparison, are considered עומד, “standing still,” not ascending in a spiritual sense (as they do not have an evil urge to overcome). Avraham was anxious that his guests, the angels, should not become jealous of him; this is why he made a point of standing still. Genesis 18,13. “the Lord said to Avraham: ‘why did Sarah laugh and say…that I am too old?”
Our sages in Yevamot 65 point out that in this case G’d, i.e. His angels, deliberately misquoted what Sarah had said, by quoting her as describing herself too old to bear a child, whereas actually, she had described her husband as being too old. The Talmud uses this example to teach that a “white lie” is justified when it serves the purpose of preserving harmonious relations between husband and wife.
It is difficult to understand this example as Avraham himself had described himself as being too old to sire a child, when he said: הלבן מאה שנה יולד, “is a 100 year old man going to have child born for him?” (Genesis 17,17) Why would it bother him if his wife would merely confirm what he himself had already said? We may have to understand what Sarah said as being slightly different from what is commonly perceived.
Sarah’s reaction to the angel’s prophecy [at a time when she was not even aware that he was an angel. Ed.] had referred to the miracle she had just experienced, i.e. אחרי בלותי היתה לי עדנה, “after I have stopped having the periods of women, I have suddenly been rejuvenated!” Her comment about her husband’s old age simply meant that as long as she had not observed a similar process of rejuvenation in her husband, how would her own rejuvenation alone contribute to the fulfillment of the prophecy? She may also have meant to imply that if G’d had wanted her to bear a child, why had He waited until after she had become too old for this to happen unless He performed a miracle?The subject has been discussed in Yevamot 64 where one answer is that G’d is so anxious for the tzaddikim to pray to Him, that He will wait and delay His timetable, in order to be able to give credit to the tzaddikim who have turned to Him in supplication.Sarah being an extremely humble person, never considered herself as being on the level of a tzadeket, a righteous woman, so that it never occurred to her that almighty G’d would feel in need of her prayers of supplication.
On the other hand, she was not entitled to think that her outstandingly righteous husband had not seen fit to pray for children, so that when she referred to him as “old,” she meant that in spite of his prayers he had not been granted children, and that by now it was too late for this. If her real words had been reported to Avraham, this would have caused him anguish, so that the Torah, (G’d, i.e. His angel) decided to substitute the word אני for אדוני.
A person’s humility must not be carried to the extent that he is humble on someone else’s account. This is the reverse of ‘humility,’ and borders on arrogance. Genesis 18,17. “and the Lord had said: ‘shall I conceal from Avraham….seeing that I have singled him out, that he may instruct his children and his posterity to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is just and right in order that the Lord may bring about for Avraham what He has promised him;”Why does the Torah write twice: למען, “in order that, etc,” in this verse?
There are numerous additional details in this verse which I do not wish to dwell on at this time due to their requiring lengthy answers.Basically, the root of the problem G’d is addressing here is that the verse addresses the righteousness of Avraham seeing that all of Avraham’s devoted service to G’d originated in his love for G’d and his outstanding intellect. Due to his outstanding intellect, he realized that whatever he had done was very little compared to the vast amount of loving attention and miracles G’d had already showered upon him at various times in his life.
As a result, Avraham did not for a moment consider that he had reciprocated sufficiently for what G’d had done for him. When pondering this dilemma, Avraham realized that the only way in which he could improve the quality of his service of the Lord was by being instrumental in getting others to follow his example. As long as he was not able to accomplish this to the extent he hoped for, he decided to view his service to G’d as being performed also on behalf of the entire Jewish people.
He knew that it is within the power of someone given the title אב, “father,” or better, “patriarch,” to act as the High Priest of others in his service of the Lord. Having realized this, he not only intensified the performance of the Torah’s commandments that his intellect had convinced him would be part of the text of the Torah when it would be revealed, but he even understood what kind of safeguards the sages would surround Torah laws with in order to insure that Biblical laws would not be violated by the Israelites in the future.When the sages tell us that Avraham even observed the halachah of ערוב תבשילין, (Yuma 28) precautionary preparation of food for the Sabbath following immediately after a festival, they merely wanted to illustrate that these laws were based on application of intelligence, and the sages’ ability to divine the reasons behind the basic legislation. How else would Avraham have been inspired to think of this?
The sages chose this example to illustrate Avraham’s performance of the commandments, as when we nowadays, perform this commandment, we include in our benediction a statement that includes all of the people in our town as being included in our having performed this commandment. This Rabbinic ordinance has remained an illustration of how easy it is to include others in the performance of G’d’s commandments by having them in mind and acting as a branch of the tree planted by the first Jew, Avraham.
Having explained this, we can now understand a statement by the sages [Tanna D'vei Eliyahu 25] according to which every Jew is to critically examine his mitzvah performance by asking himself; “when will I attain the level of serving G’d demonstrated by the patriarchs Avraham, Yitzchok, and Yaakov?” On the face of it, this seems to be an impossibility, as some of the commandments performed by the patriarchs are so unique that they can never be emulated in the true sense of the word! [Avraham’s offering his son Yitzchok on an altar, for instance.
Ed.]Our sages did not mean for this statement to be understood literally. They meant that our mitzvah performance, instead of being based primarily on our having seen our mentors performing the commandments, or in some cases, performing the commandments almost as a reflex movement, should be based on the kind of thoughts that prompted the patriarchs to perform these acts. Once we try and relive what must have gone through Avraham’s mind before he performed these commandments, we will have attained the proper frame of mind to perform the same acts, and it will be accounted as if we had done no less than the patriarchs did. [Some of these words are mine.
Ed.]Having said this, we can now better understand why G’d before carrying out judgment on the wicked people of Sodom and district, felt that He had to take Avraham into His confidence, i.e. Genesis 18,17 “How can I conceal from Avraham….seeing that I have known him intimately and want to encourage him to command Torah observance to his offspring, etc., etc.” This introductory verse is G’d’s way of demonstrating His love for Avraham to the whole world.
He is not so much concerned with Avraham “ordering” his descendants to keep these commandments, as no one knows better than G’d that such “commandments” by a grandfather or great-grandfather, are usually observed in the breach, seeing that even HIS direct commandments are more often ignored than observed. The word יצווה in this verse is akin to צוותא, חברותא, friendly association, i.e. performance of G’d’s commandments collectively in a spiritually oriented community, each member of such a community drawing inspiration and additional strength form the other.The fact that the words ושמרו דרך ה' לעשות צדקה ומשפט, are phrased in the past tense, i.e. “so that the generations following Avraham drew on his shining example in the past when performing righteousness and justice,” are G’d’s way of saying that when Jews in the future will act as Jews, a large part of the credit goes to their founding father Avraham.
Avraham’s having had all of his descendants in mind when he performed G’d’s commandments, enabled them in later generations to emulate their ancestor. Seeing one’s father perform charitable deeds, i.e. showing that one considers oneself as merely an administrator of the wealth granted by Hashem, makes it easier for the son to follow in such footsteps. Turning to the second half of this verse in which G’d apparently links fulfillment of His promises to Avraham to the latter’s implanting his convictions in their hearts, i.e. למען אשר יצוה את בניו ואת ביתו אחריו, “in order that he will command (by testament) his sons and household after him, etc.,” how precisely are we to understand this?When a person sincerely believes that G’d derives satisfaction from being given a reason for disbursing some of His largesse on the Jewish people, any blessing requested by an Israelite in his prayers is itself a source of pleasure for G’d, seeing that it reflects the Israelite observing the Torah and its commandments.
The words: למען הביא ה' על אברהם, “in order that G’d can bring upon Avraham, etc.;” mean that the recipient of these blessings will perceive that Avraham is being rewarded when his offspring receives the blessings, both material and spiritual, from G’d. When this occurs, the Israelite who had prayed to G’d and had kept the commandments, will not be perceived as having done this so that he receives a reward for it. Yet another approach to the above verse.
In this verse the Torah speaks of the performance of righteousness preceding the performance of justice, i.e. לעשות צדקה ומשפט, whereas elsewhere we find the reverse order of עושה משפט וצדקה. [Actually, in connection with G’d we do not find that order anywhere, we only find the sequence of עושה חסד, משפט וצדקה,“performing deeds of loving kindness, justice and righteousness,” in that order.
David, on the other hand is described as:ויהי דוד עושה משפט וצדקה, “David used to mete out justice and righteousness.” Ed.] It is a rule that G’d always dispenses His largesse to the Jewish people, this being His only pleasure. The fact that the Jewish people are the recipients of His goodness gives Him satisfaction.
Our sages in Pessachim 112 phrased it thus: “the mother cow is more desirous of suckling her calf than the calf is anxious to drink her milk.” [I am omitting the balance of this paragraph, as I have not understood it. Ed.]We know that Yitzchok personified the characteristic/virtue of גבורה, steadfast bravery in face of overwhelming odds. We also know that G’d in His love for the Jewish people, arranged for the “cure” before the onset of the disease. (Megillah 13) (Compare Rashi who describes the period of the Jews’ exile and bondage as having commenced with the birth of Yitzchok. Exodus 12,40) The Torah’s describing the birth of Moav and Ammon, even before the birth of Yitzchok, is another example of the redemption being prepared by G’d even before the onset of exile, seeing that the messiah will be a descendant of Moav, Ruth in David’s maternal ancestry. We know that Yitzchok personified the characteristic/virtue of גבורה, steadfast bravery in face of overwhelming odds.
We also know that G’d in His love for the Jewish people, arranged for the “cure” before the onset of the disease. (Megillah 13) (Compare Rashi who describes the period of the Jews’ exile and bondage as having commenced with the birth of Yitzchok. Exodus 12,40) The Torah’s describing the birth of Moav and Ammon, even before the birth of Yitzchok, is another example of the redemption being prepared by G’d even before the onset of exile, seeing that the messiah will be a descendant of Moav, Ruth in David’s maternal ancestry. Genesis 21,1.
“Hashem took note of Sarah as He had promised, and He did for Sarah as He had said.” Bereshit Rabbah 53,4 understands this verse as reflecting the truth of what the psalmist said in psalms 119,89 לעולם ה', דברך נצב בשמים, “The Lord exists forever; Your word stands firm in heaven.” The author of the Midrash queries, rhetorically, if David meant that G’d’s word does not stand firm on earth?
He explains that what the psalmist had in mind was that the promise G’d made to Avraham He had made in heaven, i.e. when the angel announced that Yitzchok’s birth would occur at a time prearranged in heaven. (In Genesis 15,5, long before the angel announced Yitzchok’s impending birth, G’d had take Avram outside his tent and had make him look at the heaven telling him that he would father children and that the would be as numerous as the stars in the heaven.)
For our sages in B’rachot 7 the verse is understood to make the point that even when G’d makes a conditional promise, He will keep it. The Talmud there uses as its proof Deuteronomy 9,14 where G’d had suggested that He would trade the Jewish people who had made the golden calf for a new Jewish people founded by Moses. Our author proceeds to tackle the problem from another angle. In order to get to the root of the matter we must remember that the word פקד and the word זכר, both loosely translated as “to remember,” are not interchangeable.
The Zohar explains that the word פקד is used in connection with the feminine parts of the emanations, whereas the word זכר belongs to the masculine side of these emanations. It follows that the word פקידה, implies that the party remembered had previously “received” something [as the feminine is always perceived in terms of being a receptacle. Ed.] The “root,” i.e. origin of all promises received is G’d.
When G’d gives a promise to Israel we rely on this promise absolutely. We have no doubt that He will shower His largesse upon us at the appropriate time. It is also clear that when G’d promises to do something for us, that this “something” is still securely under His control. At the same time, we need to remember that due to G’d being eternal, i.e. timeless, He does not think in terms of “past” and “future.” Concepts such as “past” and “future” are relevant only to the potential recipients of the promises made by G’d.
For the recipients of the promise, it remains in the realm of the potential rather than actual. For them, the time when such a promise will be fulfilled is something concealed, i.e. it exists only in the “future.” The period that elapses between the promise being made and its fulfillment is what we call אמונה, “faith.” Since a tzaddik never doubts that the promise will be fulfilled, the period during which he expects fulfillment bonds him to his Creator on an ongoing basis.
G’d considers this period as one in which the tzaddik displays his faith. When David in psalm 119,89 says: he means that G’d’s word, promising to do good things for Israel, refers to the period during which the “promise” is in limbo in heaven awaiting being converted into reality. [The word עולם, derived from נעלם does not only mean “forever,” but primarily “hidden,” seeing the distant future is hidden from us.
Ed.] When used as “forever,” by David, it means that our faith in G’d fulfilling His promise is unlimited, our patience inexhaustible. When David, in verse 90 adds the words כוננת ארץ ותעמוד, “You have established the earth and it stands,” he refers to G’d having created the appropriate vessel designed to reveal this principle in the person of Avraham.When we find the Torah using the expressions פקד and זכר respectively to describe different nuances of remembering, we find the expressions דבור and אמר, as similar nuances of “speaking,” or “saying.”
The word אמירה, אמר is used when the statement made by one’s mouth was made discreetly, not publicly, whereas the word דבור,דבר is used when the spoken word was said in public. Rashi already refers to the fact that the expression אמר when used in the verse above refers to Sarah’s being pregnant, something private not seen by everybody, whereas the word דבר applies to Sarah having given birth, something very public.
By that time Sarah had become the instrument used by G’d to show to one and all that He fulfills His promise. A different approach to understanding the verse וה' פקד את שרה כאשר אמר, ויעש ה' לשרה כאשר דבר, “G’d remembered Sarah as He had said, and He did for her as he had stated.” Why is it necessary for the Torah to state twice that G’d kept His promise? Who had doubted it? The Talmud Taanit 20 states that when G’d goes out of His way to perform a miracle for an individual, this is used to deduct from the merits that individual had accumulated up to that point.
If G’d had performed a miracle for Sarah and made her become pregnant and bear a son, this would have been held against her accumulated merits. In order to avoid this, G’d announced to Sarah and Avraham beforehand that they would have a son, etc., so that when the time came for Sarah to give birth, this was first and foremost not a miracle, but G’d was simply fulfilling a duty, a promise He had made previously. This is why the story of Yitzchok’s birth is prefaced by the verse above in which the Torah reminds us of the promises G’d had made concerning that subject.
The line commencing with ויעש ה', “G’d carried out, etc.” is a reminder that what follows is merely the fulfillment of something that had been promised much earlier. Once we appreciate this we can also understand why in parshat Lech lecha prior to Avram being commanded to circumcise himself, G’d promised him that he would father a son from Sarah. (Genesis 17,15-16) This meant that the reward for all the commandments Avraham would perform subsequently would not be offset against accumulated merits in respect of miracles G’d would perform for him.
These “miracles” would be viewed as fulfillment of what G’d “owed” him, i.e. promises made but not yet fulfilled. Genesis 21,6. “G’d has made laughter for me.” Sarah realized that if G’d had granted her children in her old age instead of during her child-bearing years, He had multiplied the joy she experienced by this birth. Had she given birth in her younger years the pregnancy and subsequent birth would have been periods of discomfort and pain for her.
Now, that she had not become pregnant until she was close to 90 years old, every day of that pregnancy had been filled with joyful expectation, and even the birth itself was not felt by her as an excruciatingly painful experience. Instead of thanking G’d in His capacity as Hashem, as we might have expected, she thanked Him in His capacity as אלוקים, the attribute of Justice, realizing that during all the years she had felt deprived of the joys of motherhood, the attribute of Justice seemingly being applied to her, had enabled her to exult in joy at this time.This feeling of Sarah is reflected in psalms 118,21:אודך כי עניתני ותהי לי לישועה, “I wish to thank You, for You have afflicted me/answered me.
For through my affliction my salvation has come.” The same thought is repeated in a different nuance, when David continues (verse 22) אבן מאסו הבונים היתה לראש פנה, “the stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone.” David adds, that it has become clear to him that all of this had been planned by G’d in advance, i.e. (verse 23) מאת ה' היתה זאת היא נפלאת בעינינו, “this is the Lord’s doing; it is marvelous in our eyes.”
David too, is aware that it is far more rewarding to experience these blessings from G’d in one’s mature years than in one’s early youth. When a youth experiences all these blessings, he does not even recognize them as blessing bestowed by G’d, but credits them to chance or other circumstances. Having experienced G’d’s salvation at a relatively late stage in one’s life makes one doubly grateful to Hashem, i.e. זה היום עשה ה' נגילה ונשמחה בו, “this is the day that the Lord has made, let us exult and rejoice on it.”When examining the manner in which G’d shares out His largesse, we must distinguish between two categories of recipients.
One category enjoys the material benefits provided by Hashem for what they are worth, i.e. they consider the material part as the essential part, not considering them as a means to an end. The second category of recipients are the sages and the pious people who perceive these “gifts” as proof of the caring supervision exercised by G’d over all of His creatures, and they see in it an encouragement to never forget that there is a benevolent King Who rules over us.
This is what David referred to when he said in the above-quoted hymn:זה היום עשה ה' נגילה ונשמחה בו, “this is the day that the Lord has made let us rejoice and be happy in Him.” They see in the word בו at the end of this verse a reference to G’d, not to the day. When Moses, in Deuteronomy 32,2 describes G’d as וזרח משעיר למו הופיע מהר פארן, “the Lord shone upon them from Seir, He appeared from Mount Paran,” every intelligent person must ask that Esau and Yaakov had been separated already prior to their respective births, and that the two represented two totally opposite perceptions of what life and the world is all about, one deciding in favour of worldly goods, whereas Yaakov decided in favour of spiritual values, so what point was there in G’d offering the Torah to the descendants of Esau?
At the same time, since when do we the descendants of Yaakov, expect to have a share in G’d’s largesse on this earth? Does the Talmud Kidushin: 39 not teach us not to expect a reward for serving the Lord while we walk on this earth?The answer to this question is this: Every Israelite is obligated by being part of the covenant between Israel and G’d, to serve the Lord enthusiastically and meticulously with all his soul at all times.
Just as G’d supervises his well being every minute of every hour, so, in turn he is obliged to serve the Lord. When G’d on occasion supplies a Jew with material benefits, these are not to be understood as part of the reward for his mitzvah performance. It may be understood as an encouragement to the person concerned, to serve the Lord with even greater devotion and intensity. When Moses speaks of מימינו אש דת למו, “from His right side the fire had turned into law,” he meant that if G’d decided to give the Jewish people, or some of the Jewish people, part of the material comforts that had originally been allocated to Seir, i.e. Esau, He referred to G’d’s “right side”, the side exuding love.
G’d intended that by doing so even the ordinary Jew who is not steeped in Torah learning will respond to G’d’s Torah with more enthusiasm when he feels that G’d had singled him out for loving care.This is one of the reasons why Avraham called his son Yitzchok, the name reflecting the joy he felt at being granted this son by Sarah. If Yitzchok developed into a personality symbolizing יראה, awe, this was because he was rooted in שמחה, joy, and joy‘s root in turn is fire. [If I understand the author correctly, the joy described as “fire” is the enthusiasm, almost ecstasy, with which such a person serves his G’d.
Ed]. The characteristic יראה is not one that is manifest in the person who possesses it all the time, as it is in the nature of being a response to certain stimuli, in this instance the external “cause” is G’d Himself. This characteristic becomes manifest in response to external stimulants. This is what Solomon had in mind when he said in Kohelet 7,12 ויתרון דעת חכמה תחיה בעליה, ”and the advantage of knowledge is that it adds an additional dimension to the life of him who possesses it..”It is significant that the letters in the word מחשבה, “thought,” are the same as in the word בשמחה,”with joy.”מחשבה is an attribute that is both primary and constant.
If a person reduces himself to the אין, negating all interest in the physical part of the world, having done this he is able to attach himself to the source of all “Life.” When this has occurred, a new “LIFE” is bestowed on him, a life in a different world, one in which he is elevated to be close to Eternal G’d. This concept is portrayed in the Torah in Leviticus 27,10 where the subject is the person who donates to הקדש, G’d’s representative on earth, his “net worth,” as defined according to his age.
Having done so, the Torah there describes him as והיה הוא ותמורתו יהיה קודש, “then both he and his substitute will be holy.” Concerning this procedure the sages in the Jerusalem Talmud B’rachot 2,4 said: the messiah was born on the 9th day of Av, he being the exchange for the Jewish world which had been destroyed on that day (when the Temple was burned). We find an allusion to this negating the physical world and being “reincarnated,” when Avraham before proceeding to offer his son Yitzchok as a total burnt offering, tells the servants attending them, that “we will go, and prostrate ourselves and return to you.” (Genesis 22,5) Rabbi Yitzchok in Bereshit Rabbah 56,2 comments on this as follows: “the only reason that Avraham was able to keep his promise to the lads that he would return from Mount Moriah (alive), is that he prostrated himself there before the Lord, [something beyond what the Lord had asked of him when He commanded him to offer his son Yitzchok as a burnt offering.” Ed.]
This is why hundreds of years later his descendants were redeemed from Egypt, as G’d explained to Moses in Exodus 3,12 and as the Israelites did in Exodus 4,31. This השתחויה, “prostration before the Lord,” symbolized that the person doing so abandoned any claim that he might have had to the material benefits that life on earth offers. This is also what enables G’d to “sweeten” i.e. remove the sting, of any judgments man is subjected to by the attribute of Justice.
Avraham’s example of reducing himself to אין or אפס, “nothing,” paved the way for his descendants to emulate him and to be redeemed from the yoke of the Egyptians who had effectively reduced them to a similar state of having to negate the attractions this world offered to others.The Torah itself was only given to the Jewish people because they voluntarily repeated this השתחויה, prostrating themselves before the Lord, as we know from Exodus 24,1 where all the elite of the Jewish people are reported as having prostrated themselves some distance away from Mount Sinai. [That chapter, though written after the revelation, describes events that occurred before the revelation, Ed.]
The elite negating their claims on the material benefits this world has to offer, made it possible for coming so close to G’d during the revelation that He addressed them as if He were speaking to an equal. In psalms 99,9 when Moses (the author of this psalm) says: רוממו ה' אלוקינו והשתחוו להר קדשו, “Exalt the Lord our G’d and prostrate yourselves at the Mountain of His holiness;” similar verses are found in Isaiah 27,13, and Samuel I 1,19 where the wording is almost identical.
Rabbi Yitzchok concludes by saying that the resurrection when it will occur, does so only in recognition of these voluntary prostrations of the Jewish people on various occasions when they demonstrated their absolute submission to G’d and His will. If we needed proof of this we find in in Isaiah 27,13 where we read והיה ביום ההוא יתקע בשופר גדול ובאו האובדים בארץ אשור והנדכים בארץ מצרים והשתחוו לה' בהר הקודש בירושלים, “it will be on that Day, when a great ram’s horn will be sounded, and the strayed who are in the land of Assyria, and the expelled who are in the land of Egypt, shall come and prostrate themselves on the holy Mountain in Jerusalem.”
Genesis 21,8. “Avraham made a great feast on the day Yitzchok was weaned.” The דעת זקנים מבעלי התוספות comments on this verse that the words ביום הגמל may be broken up into several parts, i.e. ביום ה ג מל alluding to the fact that the letter ה had been added to Avram’s name on the day of his circumcision. The letters ה and ג also allude to the eighth day on which a newborn is to be circumcised.21,8.
“Avraham made a great feast on the day Yitzchok was weaned.” The דעת זקנים מבעלי התוספות comments on this verse that the words ביום הגמל may be broken up into several parts, i.e. ביום ה ג מל alluding to the fact that the letter ה had been added to Avram’s name on the day of his circumcision. The letters ה and ג also allude to the eighth day on which a newborn is to be circumcised. Genesis 21,25.
“Avraham rebuked Avimelech on account of the well, etc.” Avimelech rejected the accusation, claiming he had not known about what his servants had done.Normally, we have a rule that when a tzaddik engages in rebuking someone, he points out that the trespass committed by the wicked concerned was a sin against G’d and His Torah.In this instance, Avraham accused Avimelech of having committed a wrong when it had been his servants who had stolen the water from Avraham.
He reminded Avimelech that G’d created the world, and that He gave us laws by which to conduct ourselves, and that robbery was definitely forbidden. The person violating G’d’s law receives a warning in the form of the tzaddik rebuking him. The letters in the words uttered by the tzaddik when he rebukes the sinner light up in the face of the guilty party, thus affording him an opportunity to immediately do penance.One of the names of G’d is: מי, as we know when Pharaoh challenged Moses by saying: מי ה'?
This is what Avimelech meant when he said to Avraham לא ידעתי מי עשה את הדבר הזה, “I do not know of this מי who has done this;” i.e. “I have never heard of a Creator who has created the universe, hence I do not know of a prohibition to steal or rob.” Another one of G’d’s names is the word זה, as we know from Exodus 15,2 זה א-לי ואנוהו, “זה is my G’d and I will glorify Him.” We also find the word as a reference to one of G’d’s names when Isaiah 25,9 said זה ה' קוינו לו, “we have been hoping for the Lord זה.”
Avimelech tells Avraham that he had heard of all this theology only from the mouth of Avraham, he had never previously been informed of this. He adds that even now he has not heard or “seen” the letters that make up the alphabet of the Torah from Avraham’s mouth, i.e. גם אתה לא הגדת לי. The word הגדת, derived from גד, is similar to גד גדוד יגודנה in Genesis 49,19, where it refers to “good fortune,” similar to what Gad’s mother proclaimed בגד, viewing herself as having good fortune seeing that she had born 6 of the twelve tribes. (Genesis 30,11) The word is a simile for good fortune in the sense of מזל טוב.
Avimelech had not yet seen the letters that would trigger his doing teshuvah for the wrong he had been guilty of. The word אתה is an allusion to the letters from א to ת in the Hebrew alphabet, the letters of the Holy Tongue.When Avimelech adds: וגם אנ��י לא שמעתי בלתי היום, “and I also have not heard about all this until this day,” he uses the word אנכי, the first word of the Ten Commandments with which G’d revealed Himself at Mount Sinai, as meaning that on this day G’d’s sovereignty was revealed to him, and he could now perceive these letters of the Holy Tongue.
On that day Avimelech had learned from Avraham about three aspects of G’d, i.e. מי, זה, אנכי. Going back once more to Genesis 15,8 when Avraham himself had asked a question not i.e. revealing that He had not quite understood G’d, as a result of which he was granted better understanding, just as Avimelech here had concluded with understanding and acknowledging the dimension of G’d as אנכי, the Talmud B’rachot 7 states that when Avraham posed the question of במה אדע, he had become the first person ever to address G’d as א-דני, “My Lord;” He had implied by this that G’d in His capacity of א-דני was able to annul decrees.
Noach had not been aware that G’d could do this, and this is why he had not bothered to appeal to G’d to annul the decree to annihilate mankind. His predecessor Sheth, third son of Adam, himself a tzaddik had also not known about this and therefore he had remained silent when a third of the inhabited area of the globe had been flooded in his day. The power of addressing this dimension of G’d was given to Avraham as a reward for having recognized G’d as possessing this dimension.
It was Avraham’s genius to recognize this quality of G’d although he addressed Him as “My Lord.” Genesis 22,1. “It was after these events that G’d subjected Avraham to a trial, saying to him: ‘Avraham!’” We must try and understand why at this point G’d addressed Avraham by calling out: ”Avraham,” once, whereas in verse 11 of this chapter the angel addressing Avraham calls out to him: “Avraham, Avraham!”
Another nuance that deserves our attention is why, on the first occasion (verse 12) G’d compliments Avraham on not having tried to withhold his beloved son from Him, ולא חשכת את בנך את יחידך ממני, whereas in verse 16 when the compliment is repeated, the word ממני, “from Me,” is absent. This may be understood when we consider that according to Rashi on verse 11 repetition of the name indicates that the party addressed by G’d is especially beloved by G’d.
We find in Samuel I 3,10 that when G’d called on Samuel, He always repeated his name when addressing him. In the case of Avraham, his very name reflects the fact that he was beloved by G’d. Here when G’d called upon him seeing that He wanted him to perform a commandment, He deliberately refrained for indicating how fond he was of him, as this call had not been designed to make him go through with slaughtering Yitzchok.
However in verse16, when we became aware that Avraham was not to slaughter his son, this had become the מצוה. By commanding Avraham not to harm Yitzchok in any way, He displayed His true love for him. He did so by repeating his name when He called him. As to the word ממני in verse 12, this was the angel speaking (although in the name of the Lord) Bereshit Rabbah 56,5 understands the angel as hinting to Avraham that seeing the angels in heaven have shed tears when they heard that Avraham had been asked to sacrifice his son Yitzchok, G’d cancelled the decree.
The angel wanted Avraham to know that he had had a share in Yitzchok’s surviving the akeydah. In verse 16, when G’d is speaking to Avraham without intermediary, there was no reason to add the word: ממני, “from Me.” Genesis 22,7. Concerning Yitzchok’s question of “here is the fire and the kindling, but where is the lamb for the burnt-offering?,” it seems that Yitzchok’s question implied that seeing the principal purpose of his father’s trial was to see if he was prepared to slaughter his son, what need was there for fire and kindling, seeing that after he had been slaughtered surely it did not matter to G’d if his remains would be burned up!
Yitzchok wanted his father to know that the kindling and the fire had nothing to do with him, as the intended victim. He wanted to know if there was going to be another offering, i.e. a lamb, as usual. If so, where did his father expect to find it at short notice? When we understand Yitzchok’s question as suggested, we can understand why he did not ask a question concerning the knife to be used in the slaughter.
Avraham’s reply, saying that G’d would select who should be the “lamb,” meant that as far his relationship to G’d was concerned, his own son was as valuable to him as if he would burn up an actual lamb for G’d in order to demonstrate his love for Him. Genesis 22,12. “He (the angel) said to him: ‘do not touch the lad, and do not harm him in any way;’….for now I know …and you have not withheld your only son from Me.”
We need to examine why in this verse the word ממני has been added, as well as why this word is omitted when G’d speaks about the oath He has sworn to Himself in verse 16. Before answering these questions, let us look at Shabbat 63 where the Talmud states that כל העושה מצוה כמאמרה אין מבשרין לו דבר רע, “when someone performs one of G’d’s commandments in accordance with its halachot, one (heaven) does not sadden him by informing him of bad news.
The Talmud bases this on Kohelet 8,5 שומר מצוה לא ידע רע, “he who will obey the commandments will know no evil.” The word כמאמרה in the Talmud poses a problem. The Talmud means that both study of Torah and performance of the commandments must be based on one’s desire to carry out G’d’s wishes. If one studies Torah to pass an exam, this is not accounted true Torah study.
If one blows the shofar on New Year’s day in the synagogue, however expertly, but in order to earn the fee one has been promised, the promise that such people will be spared bad news is not applicable.Furthermore, even having performed the mitzvah according to the halachah and exclusively in order to fulfill G’d’s wish, one must not congratulate oneself for having carried out one’s Creator’s wishes and have pleased him.
If one thinks along these lines, one’s performance of the commandment will not please the Lord.It is related in Chagigah 15 that it happened once that Rabbi Yoshua ben Chananyah (one of the leading scholars in his time) was standing on one of the steps leading up to the Temple Mount, [the Temple had already been destroyed, but the Mount had not yet been levelled by the Romans, Ed.] when he saw ben Zoma in front of him, and the latter did not rise in acknowledgment of the presence of his teacher.
Rabbi Yoshua asked ben Zoma what subject he was so deeply immersed in that he had not noticed the presence of his teacher. The latter replied: “I was contemplating the significance of the difference between the “upper waters,” and the “lower waters,” (Genesis 1,7) and he had discovered that the distance between them was only three fingers’ breadth.” He claimed that the proof was founding Genesis 1,2 where the spirit of the Lord is described as hovering above the surface of the waters.”
He considered the word מרחפת, used by the Torah there as describing the act of “hovering” as a reference to a pigeon hovering above its young without touching them. Upon hearing this, Rabbi Yoshua commented to his other students: “ben Zoma is still on the outside.” He meant that ben Zoma had not yet become privy to hidden aspects of the Torah. [The reader will note that ben Zoma, in spite of sayings of his being quoted in the tractate Avot, is never referred to as “Rabbi.” Ed.]We learn from this passage that even if a person performs the commandments in a manner which affords G’d satisfaction as the worshipper had reduced himself to negating earthly concerns, this does not automatically mean that he has attained the level of awe of the Creator that would overcome him when he enters the palace of a King.
He may have attained the awe that a visitor to the King’s palace experienced when entering the vestibule of the palace, but not the awe that overcomes people who enter the inner sanctum of the palace. The closer the visitor approaches the presence of the king, the more profoundly will he be impressed with the aura of glory and power surrounding his majesty. Recognition of this obligates him to prostrate himself, this act being an expression of his being aware how totally inadequate anything that he had done to honour his king really was.
When we examine the meaning of the word מצוה, commonly translated as “commandment,” this is quite inadequate, as the deeper meaning of the word is derived from צוותא, a word describing companionship. In other words, the performance of a מצוה is meant to establish a degree of companionship between man and his G’d. When the Talmud Shabbat 63 had stated that anyone who performs a commandment, כמאמרה, “in the true sense of its meaning,” will be spared disagreeable news, it is this “companionship” with G’d achieved by the performance of the commandment that the Talmud refers to.There are commandments, the performance of which does not afford the person performing it the slightest physical satisfaction.
To mention just a few examples: putting on phylacteries, attaching the fringes, tzitzit, to a four-cornered garment; on the other hand, there are commandments the performance of which entails pleasurable sensations, such as consuming three meals on the Sabbath, or Kiddush, reciting the benediction over wine and drinking same. The awareness of the expense involved in order to perform these commandments represents a major aspect in an ordinary individual’s מצוה performance, it contributes to the feeling that he has done something “for G’d.”
As long as such considerations are part of one’s מצוה performance, one has not attained the level of מצוה performance described in the Talmud as כמאמרה, “in the full sense of its meaning.” When we keep this in mind we can understand the nuances in verses 12 and verse 16 in which G’d compliments Avraham. When G’d commands: אל תשלח ידך אל הנער...כי עתה ידעתי...ולא חשכת את בנך ממני, He compliments Avraham for not having had any selfish thoughts when offering Yitzchok as an offering, it had been done totally לשם שמים, for the sake of heaven, i.e. Avraham had not withheld anything personal from G’d, by feeling he had done something for G’d.
This had been performance of a מצוה כמאמרה in the parlance of the Talmud Shabbat 63.Now, that this part of the עקדה, was over, and G’d saw that even after Avraham had been spared the need to go through with what he had thought, he did not react with relief but continued to endeavour to perform the commandment in a different way, he had shown G’d that he had been motivated not only by love for G’d, but by totally unselfish awe of Him; there was therefore no need for the Torah to repeat the word ממני, “from Me.” Genesis 22,12. “for now I know that you are G’d fearing, seeing you have not withheld your only son from Me.”
It appears, based on this verse, that there are two types of fear of the Lord. One type is based on a person’s understanding the meaning of the commandment that he performs, i.e. it makes sense to him. The second type of fear of the Lord is shown when he fulfills commandments whose purpose he had not been able to understand. When someone performs commandments without knowing their meaning, his level of fearing G’d is on a higher rung than the person who does so because he believes that he understands the reason why G’d has demanded fulfillment of that commandment, and he “agrees” with G’d.
When the latter person observes a commandment, it is not clear that he does so out of love for G’d, as he may be doing so because he feels he is doing himself a favour, as the commandment is logical, and clearly in the interest of mankind as a whole.Before the angel said to Avraham: “do not touch and harm the lad,” people had thought that surely the reason why Avraham set out to do this was because he thought he understood G’d’s reason for issuing such a commandment.After he was now commanded not to proceed, it would be clear to everybody that Avraham had not understood the reason for G’d’s command, as if he had been correct in what he thought, G’d could not have cancelled the command.
What had been a valid consideration could not suddenly have become an invalid consideration! Therefore it had emerged retroactively that when Avraham had begun to carry out the commandment to offer Yitzchok as a burnt offering, he had been motivated only by his love for G’d, and how could he possibly refuse the command given by a G’d Whom he loved!? By cancelling His command G’d had demonstrated that there had never been a rationale for such a command.
The trial of Avraham had consisted in his performing even a totally irrational command.The only reason for issuing such a command was the desire of G’d to prove that Avraham would not be deterred by the absence of a valid reason for Yitzchok having to die on the altar. All of this is implied in the angel saying: “now I have seen, etc.;” it does not mean that G’d had not known up to now. It means that this was the only way in which G’d had been able to demonstrate to the world what He had known about Avraham’s potential to perform such an act for no other reason than that He loved Gd.
Our author understands the word ידעתי as being in the hiphil, causative mode, i.e. as if the Torah had written הודעתי, “I have made known;” the normal hiphil mode of the root ידע. Avraham’s “love” for G’d was demonstrated by his performing an act that reflected “fear of the Lord” on the highest level. This “fear” is the fear of disappointing the loved one by not responding to his will as he had hoped you would.
If there had been any need to prove that G’d abhors human sacrifice, He demonstrated this not by never having commanded it, but by having commanded it and cancelled the command before it could be executed.