מיזרעאל עד לא-עמי

 

פרק א' בהושע פותח במיקום נבואת הושע בציר הזמן התנ"כי. הכתוב עושה זאת מכיוון שחשוב להבין את התקופה בה מתנבא הושע: תקופה של גאווה ומותרות, ושגשוגה של העבודה הזרה ברחבי הארץ. לאור תקופה זו נצטרך להבין את הפנים השונות של נבואות הושע.

עיקרו של הפרק מציג תהליך: ראשית, נושא הושע אשת זנונים, הנמשלת לעם ישראל, הזונה אחרי אלוהים אחרים ואינו שומע בקול ה'.
הבן הראשון, הנמשל למצבו של עם ישראל, הוא עדיין בוודאות בנו של הושע  - "ותהר ותלד לו בן". ובנמשל: עמ"י עדיין עובד את ה', אף שעובד גם עבודה זרה, עדיין יש לו ייחוס לה'. הבת, שכבר לא בטוח שהיא בתו של הושע ("ותהר עוד"- לא ברור ממי), נקראת "לא רוחמה" - ה' לא ירחם על עמ"י כמקודם, כפי שלאב קשה לרחם על בת שאינו בטוח שהיא ממנו. בשלב זה עדיין יש קשר בין עמ"י לה'. על אף שה' לא מרחם עליהם, עדיין ישנה אהבה, גם אם לא מושלמת.
לאחר תקופה, נולד הבן הנוסף. לבן הזה כבר ברור שאין קשר וייחוס עם הושע. ובנמשל - כבר מתנתק לגמרי הקשר בין עמ"י לה', עד כדי כך שהושע קורא לו "לא עמי"(ניתן להנגיד ל'בן עמי' של בת לוט). ומבהיר כי הניכור הוא מוחלט.

אם כן, כהקדמה לספרו פותח הושע ב"הטלת פצצה" על עם ישראל. כדי לזעזע אותם ולהביא אותם להבנה של מקומם הרוחני הקשה, שמחריף והולך עד כדי ניתוק של "אתם לא עמי".

 

הכותבים במדור זה הינם חברי ארגון נח"ת - נוער חובב תנך, המהווה בית ללימוד התנך בידי הנוער.

Volver al capítulo

Hineni: Prepared for Prophecy and for God's Command

  The final section of Parashat Vayera tells the famous story of akeidat Yitzchak, when God tested Avraham by commanding him to slaughter his son, Yitzchak, as an offering.  God eventually withdrew the command after seeing that Avraham was prepared to proceed with this ritual to fulfill God’s will.

            When God first spoke to Avraham to issue this command, Avraham replied, “Hineini” (“Here I am” – 22:1).  Commenting on this word, Rav Avraham ben Ha-Rambam writes in his Torah commentary, “It seems that underlying his (of blessed memory) response of ‘Hineini’ is the fact that he was prepared at the time of the calling, preparation which testifies to the understanding he had before the calling…”  Following the teachings of his father, the Rambam, Rav Avraham works on the assumption that nobody can receive prophecy without prior rigorous intellectual preparation.  Avraham’s declaration of “Hineini” immediately upon hearing God call to him reflects his preparedness for prophecy, the fact that his mind had been ready to receive a prophetic message.  Rav Avraham proceeds to note the distinction between Avraham’s response and that of Adam, when God spoke to him in Gan Eden after he partook of the forbidden tree.  Whereas Avraham responded, “Hineini,” Adam responded, “I was frightened, for I am naked, and so I hid” (3:10).  Avraham lived in a state of preparedness, ready to receive and obey God’s word; Adam, however, was caught off guard, and was frightened upon hearing God’s voice.

            Rav Avraham ben Ha-Rambam’s comments relate to the specific context of the preparations required for prophecy, but they may convey a broader message, as well.  We must live our lives in a state of constant preparedness, ready to fulfill God’s commands.  We never know what circumstances might arise, what kind of unexpected tests will come our way at any moment, and what obligations and responsibilities will suddenly fall upon us without warning. When Adam heard God speak, he was caught off guard, and thus felt frightened and intimidated.  By living each day with a sense of mission and obligation, standing prepared and ready to accept any obligations God sends our way, we will be able to respond, as Avraham did, with the declaration of “Hineini.”  We will be able to rise to even life’s most difficult occasions with confidence and resolve, and meet all the challenges that come our way.

Volver al capítulo

Sedom and Avraham's Home: Two Different Worlds

Parashat Vayera begins with the story of the three angels who visited Avraham and informed him that he and Sara would soon have a child, and the parasha then continues with the story of the destruction of Sedom.  The transition between these two events occurs in the following verse: “The men arose from there [Avraham’s home] and set their sights upon Sedom…” (18:16).

            Rav Shimshon Raphael Hirsch detects within this verse an allusion to the stark contrast between the two settings – Avraham’s home, and Sedom.  The angels left “from there,” from the hospitality, graciousness and kindness that characterized their experience in Avraham’s tent, and headed toward Sedom, which the Torah has already described as a corrupt, immoral society (13:13).  The Torah tells of the angels making their way toward the condemned city with the verb “va-yashkifu” (“they set their sights upon,” or “they looked down upon”), which Rav Hirsch interprets to mean, “they looked down to the plains of Sedom with criticizing gauging consideration.”  Their experience with Avraham contrasted so sharply with the way of life in Sedom that they looked upon the city in disgust and revulsion.  Off the background of Avraham’s selflessness and piety, Sedom’s debasement appeared especially repugnant.

            Rav Yitzchak Menachem Abrahamson of London, in his work Be’er Mayim (London, 1919), offers the precise opposite interpretation of this verse.  He, too, detects an emphasis on the contrast between Avraham and Sedom.  In his view, however, the angels specifically endeavored not to allow their experiences with Avraham to affect their perspective as they headed toward Sedom.  The Torah tells, “Va-yakumu mi-sham ha-anashim” (“The people arose from there”).  Rav Abrahamson reads this phrase to mean not only that the angels physically took leave of Avraham’s home, but also that they diverted their minds from his home, as well.  They headed toward Sedom in order to rescue Lot and his family, and also held out hope that God would reverse His decree against the rest of the population.  They wanted to help Sedom, to find its redeeming quality, to expose within the rampant corruption a ray of moral light which could perhaps rescue the city.  To this end, they “arose from there,” they diverted their minds away from Avraham.  As the angels made their way down the hills of Chevron toward the Jordan River Valley, they had to change their frame of reference.  They could not view and assess Sedom off the backdrop of Avraham’s unparalleled kindness; it would be unfair to judge Sedom according to the towering standards which they had just experienced.

            In order to judge other people favorably, if we want to find and bring out the best in others, we need to alter our frame of reference.  We cannot hold people to the strict standards to which we hold – or should hold – ourselves and those with whom we associate and identify.  Chazal famously comment that a person should always ask himself, “When will my actions reach [the level of] the actions of my patriarchs?”  But this demand should be made only of oneself, and not of others.  In dealing with other people, we should not insistently expect the standards of Avraham Avinu.  We should instead look upon them kindly, favorably and compassionately, hopeful and confident that they, and all of us, will indeed one day succeed in meeting the lofty standards set by our righteous forebears.

Volver al capítulo

Akeidat Yitzhak: The Anguish of Avraham

The Torah in Parashat Vayera tells the famous story of akeidat Yitzchak, God’s command to Avraham to offer his son, Yitzchak as a sacrifice, and Avraham’s preparedness to comply with the command until an angel ordered him to withdraw his sword.

            Among the more overlooked nuances in the story of the akeida is God’s calling Avraham by his name: “…God tested Avraham, and he said to him, ‘Avraham!’ and he said, ‘I am here’” (22:1).  Later, too, when the angel appeared to Avraham as he stood near the altar, and instructed him to withdraw his sword, the angel said, “Avraham! Avraham” (22:11).  God had spoken to Avraham on numerous occasions before this incident, but never introduced His prophetic message by calling Avraham’s name. (The one possible exception is the prophecy of berit bein ha-betarim, which God introduced by saying, “Do not fear, Avram, I will be your shield…” – 15:1.)  What might be the significance of God’s calling Avraham by name, and why is this unique to the command of the akeida?

            Rav Yehuda Amital zt”l (http://vbm-torah.org/archive/sichot/bereishit/04-57vayera.doc) explained that very often, a person who devotes himself to a certain goal or mission, especially one involving an idealistic vision, loses his personal identity and individuality.  He is no longer himself, as his definition is overtaken by the goal he pursues.  Rather than being a person, a private individual, he is an instrument, or a peg in the machine that works to produce a certain result.  A person devoted to community service, for example, is likely to lose his personal identity and view himself as solely a servant or messenger of the community.

            Prima facie, the command of the akeida, the sacrificing of his beloved child, required Avraham to reject, or to eliminate, his personal feelings and self-identity.  On the surface, the akeida was an exercise in self-negation, in transforming oneself from an individual to an object, to a lifeless instrument, to a mechanical robot programmed to obey God’s command.  But this is not what God wanted.  He introduced His command by calling, “Avraham,” which Rav Amital zt”l explained to mean, “Return to yourself, to your natural emotions, to your feelings, to your family.  From within all of this – and only from within it – you are commanded to ‘take your son, your only son....’”  God did not want Avraham to look at his son upon the altar as a kohen looks upon a sheep offered as a sacrifice, or, for that matter, as a Jew looks at his lulav on Sukkot.  Avraham was to look upon Yitzchak as his son, the child for which he spent decades of his life praying, the embodiment of his lifelong dreams, hopes and aspirations.  Even as he held the knife in the air over his son tied upon the altar, Avraham was to see himself as Yitzchak’s father.  Even at this moment, of the greatest possible expression of self-sacrifice and blind obedience, God wanted Avraham to act as a human being, with human feelings and emotions.  He offered his son as a sacrifice not as a machine whose button was pressed, but as a thinking and feeling person.

            Indeed, as Rav Amital zt”l often noted, the Midrashim depict Avraham in a state of sheer torment and anguish as he made his way to the akeida.  He did not respond to this command robotically, like a computer executing the programmer’s instruction. The command of the akeida is referred to as a “test” precisely because Avraham was human – a loving father, and a sensitive, humane person.  God’s commands are intended to be fulfilled within the framework of ordinary, human life.  We are expected to serve God as human beings, with all our frailties and weaknesses, rather than try – in futility – to become angels.

            The call of “Avraham!” is thus directed to each and every one of us, reminding us that God’s commands are for us, for ordinary, flawed human beings – as this is precisely for whom the Torah and its obligations were intended.

Volver al capítulo

Avraham and the King of Sodom: No Partnership Here

We read in Parashat Lekh-Lekha of Avraham’s successful attack against the armies of the four eastern powers that had plundered the region of Sedom, taking the residents – including his nephew, Lot – captive.  Avraham defeated the forces of the four kings, rescuing the captives from Sedom and the surrounding cities, along with their property.  After the battle, we are told, the king of Sedom met Avraham for a victory celebration, in which he began “negotiations,” expecting Avraham to demand at least a large share of the people and property that he had liberated.  The king offered Avraham the retrieved property and asked that he be allowed to keep the people as his subjects.  Avraham, however, declared on oath that he would not take anything from the property of Sedom, “so that you don’t say, ‘I made Avraham wealthy’” (14:23).

            We might wonder why Avraham was concerned about such a claim being made by the king of Sedom.  Why did it matter to him if the king took credit for his wealth?

            Rashi, citing from the Midrash Tanchuma, explains, “For the Almighty promised me that He would make me wealthy.” Meaning, if the king of Sedom took credit for Avraham’s fortune, people would deny that it was God who provided Avraham with his wealth.  Chizkuni similarly writes, “When I left my homeland, the Almighty promised to make me wealthy.  It is preferable for me not to take anything of yours, so that when I become wealthy I will attribute the wealth to He who grants wealth and stature.”

            One might, however, question why Avraham’s acceptance of spoils from Sedom would undermine the recognition of God as the source of his wealth.  After all, Avraham was exceedingly wealthy well before he embarked on this military campaign.  And besides, Avraham had defeated the armies of four large nations with a group of 318 men.  This was clearly a miraculous victory, and it would thus be evident that the property Avraham received as a result of this battle was given to him through the Almighty’s supernatural intervention.

            We might therefore suggest that Avraham declined the king’s offer for a different reason – to avoid appearing as his partner or ally.  Lot’s capture at the hands of the four eastern powers placed Avraham in a difficult predicament.  He felt obligated to do what he could to rescue his captured nephew, but this required him to fight on the side of Sedom and the surrounding kingdoms, which were renowned for their corruption and immorality.  In order to save Lot, Avraham had to save the city that represented the antithesis of everything he taught and stood for.  We can easily imagine Avraham’s cynical detractors ridiculing his involvement in this war, saying, “So, Avraham is really on Sedom’s side.  So much for his preaching about loving kindness!”  Avraham had to put his reputation and hopes of disseminating ethical monotheism on the line for the sake of Lot.  Indeed, Rav Yehuda Amital zt”l once suggested that Malkitzedek, the king of Jerusalem at the time, came to celebrate with Avraham in order to express support and approval.  Avraham’s decision to join the war was a controversial one, and Malkitzedek, the “priest to the Supreme God” (14:18), came to congratulate Avraham and give his official endorsement to his unpopular move.

            For this reason, perhaps, Avraham needed to avoid giving the appearance that he received wealth from the king of Sedom. The problem lay not in the wealth itself, but rather in the implication that he and Sedom collaborated in the war effort as allies. Avraham had to keep a formal distance from the king of Sedom even as he fought on his side.  Therefore, even though he endured the rigors and trauma of warfare together with the king, he refused to share in the benefits ultimately reaped by this campaign, in order to make it clear that he had not entered into any kind of formal partnership with the wicked kingdom of Sedom.

 

Volver al capítulo

Hagar: Where are You Going?

   The Torah in Parashat Lekh-Lekha (chapter 16) tells the story of Hagar, Sara’s maidservant.  Sara, who had been unable to conceive, asks Avraham to marry Hagar so she would beget children which Sara could then raise.  Hagar conceives immediately after marrying Avraham, and her quick pregnancy – contrasted with Sara’s ongoing infertility – causes her to look disparagingly upon her mistress.  Sara responded by “tormenting” Hagar, and Hagar flees to the desert, where she meets an angel who asks her where she is coming from.  After Hagar explains to the angel that she has fled from Sara, the angel urges her to return to Sara and accept the harsh treatment, and assures her that she would beget a son.

            At first glance, the angel’s opening question to Hagar – “Where are you coming from, and where are you going” – is simply an introduction to begin the conversation for the purpose of ultimately instructing her to return to Sara.  Abarbanel, however, detects a deeper message within the angel’s question.  The angel was actually admonishing Hagar, “Why would you leave the house of Avraham and Sara?”  This was not simply the question of where she was coming from, but rather an exhortation to reexamine her decision to leave her post.  Hagar lived and worked for two wealthy, kind and righteous individuals, in an environment of nobility and Godliness.  If she had the good fortune to serve in the home of Avraham and Sara, why would she leave?  Hagar therefore answered, “I am fleeing from my mistress, Sarai.”  She explained that she recognized the greatness of Avraham’s home, but she was fleeing from Sarai, who mistreated her.

            The story of Hagar perhaps teaches us not to be so quick to “escape” generally beneficial situations even if they entail a degree of difficulty.  According to some commentators, Sara did not actually “torment” Hagar.  Ha-ketav Ve-ha’kabbala, for example, explains that Sara slightly increased her demands, intensifying Hagar’s workload, as a necessary measure to counteract Hagar’s feelings of superiority over Sara and attempts at asserting her independence.  In a similar vein, Rav Hirsch interprets the verses to mean that Sara “humbled” Hagar by repeatedly reminding her of her status of servitude.  (By contrast, the Ramban famously claims that Sara indeed mistreated Hagar, a crime for which her descendants were, and are, punished.)  If so, then the angel’s admonition to Hagar is one to which many of us can relate.

  We oftentimes feel an instinctive desire to “escape” situations that we find have become difficult, without considering the long-term benefits of remaining.  Hagar had much to gain by enduring the slightly harsher conditions to remain with Avraham and Sara.  The angel urged her to take a step back and consider the broader picture, rather than making far-reaching decisions based on relatively minor difficulties.  Not every turn for the worse undermines the benefit of the whole enterprise.  Sometimes it is worth going through a bit of additional “torment” for the sake of reaping the rewards that the situation offers us.

Volver al capítulo

Lekh Lekha: Promptness vs. Pragmatism

 

  A number of writers noted a seeming redundancy in the Torah’s description of Avraham’s journey to Canaan.  The Torah writes that after God instructed Avraham to leave his homeland, “Avram left as God told him…” (12:4).  In the very next verse, however, the Torah tells us again that Avraham embarked on this journey: “Avram took his wife, Sara, and his nephew, Lot, and all their property that they had amassed…and they left to travel to the land of Canaan…”  Why does the Torah mention Avraham’s journey twice?

            Netziv, in his Ha’amek Davar, suggests that Avraham’s journey to Canaan occurred in two stages.  The first was Avraham’s immediate departure after receiving the divine command.  Avraham, joined by his nephew, left as soon as God commanded him to, without delaying the journey to make the necessary preparations.  He left behind Sara and his servants, and they made the normal arrangements that are done before relocating – selling property, choosing which items to bring along, and so on.  Netziv explained that Avraham had to balance two conflicting interests: the value of zerizut – promptness, completing assigned tasks without delay; and the legitimate concern for one’s material possessions.  Avraham understood the importance of responding to the command of “lekh lekha” promptly, but also recognized the need to care for his belongings and property to secure financial stability in his new land.  He therefore set out immediately, and after he was well on his way to Canaan, he stopped to give Sara and his servants a chance to catch up.  Once they were reunited, they continued the journey together to Canaan.

            Netziv concludes his discussion by noting that Avraham’s conduct in this regard serves as an example for us to follow in our mitzva observance: “This is a fundamental rule that should be learned regarding the proper approach to mitzvot.”  He does not elaborate, but we may reasonably assume that he refers to both aspects of Avraham’s conduct in this context.  First, we learn of the value of zerizut, but specifically the importance of “getting started.”  Avraham’s immediate departure did not accelerate the process; he still had to wait for his affairs to be completed back home so his household could join him.  But he understood that until things get “off the ground,” there is a risk that they will never happen.  Avraham insisted on “getting the ball rolling” immediately to guarantee that the end result would be achieved.

Additionally, the Netziv draws our attention to the fact that concern for material possessions is legitimate and should be taken into consideration even in the context of mitzvot.  In this discussion Netziv references several passages elsewhere in his Torah commentary (Bereishit 13:3 and 33:17, Devarim 3:19), where he writes that protecting one’s possessions often overrides midat chasidut – measures of piety that are not strictly obligatory.  Though there are exceptions – Netziv writes in Herchev Davar (Bereishit 33:17) that each case must be assessed independently – additional measures of piety are often suspended out of concern for one’s property, because protecting property is a valid area of concern recognized by Halakha.  Netziv thus views Avraham’s response to the command of “lekh lekha” as exemplifying the balance that must be maintained between idealism and pragmatism, between striving for the highest standards of avodat Hashem while not neglecting our material needs.

Volver al capítulo

Sara, Hagar, and the Egyptian Oppression

We read in Parashat Vayera of the banishment of Hagar and Yishmael, after Sara noticed Yishmael’s mistreatment of Yitzchak.  Avraham did not favor the idea of sending away his son, until God spoke to him and instructed him to honor his wife’s request (21:12).

            The Ba’al Ha-turim (21:10) notes the use of the word “garesh” (“send away”) in the context of the banishment of Hagar and Yishmael, and also in the context of the Exodus from Egypt, when Pharaoh “sent away” the Israelite slaves (“garesh yegareish etkhem mi-zeh” – Shemot 11:1).  To explain the connection between the two events, the Ba’al Ha-turim writes, surprisingly, “Because Sara sent Hagar away from her home, she was punished, and her descendants were subjugated and had to be sent away from there.”  The Ba’al Ha-turim finds fault in Sara for sending away her maidservant and her son, going so far as to attribute the Egyptian bondage to this offense.  As a number of later writers noted, however, this viewpoint seems very difficult in light of God’s explicit sanction of Sara’s demand.  How could we criticize Sara for her decision if God instructed Avraham to grant the request and send away Hagar and Yishmael?

            One possible direction to take in defending the Ba’al Ha-turim’s comments is to associate them with the more famous comments of the Ramban, in Parashat Lekh-Lekha (16:6), claiming that Sara and Avraham were punished for the mistreatment of Hagar before Yishmael’s birth.  When Hagar conceived, she began acting disrespectfully toward Sara, in response to which Sara treated her harshly, prompting her to escape.  Hagar would eventually return and submit to Sara’s harsh treatment, as she was instructed by an angel.  The Ramban claims that Sara acted wrongly in this regard, as did Avraham by allowing Sara to mistreat her maidservant, and this sin is what resulted in the suffering inflicted by the descendants of Yishmael upon Benei Yisrael.  It would seem that the Ba’al Ha-turim, in his comments, refers not specifically to the banishment of Hagar, but more generally to the tensions surrounding Hagar and Yishmael that ultimately necessitated their expulsion from the home.  The Ba’al Ha-turim, following the Ramban’s view, held Sara at least partially responsible for the resentment and anger that brewed within Hagar and her son, which resulted in the situation whereby they could not live in the same household as Yitzchak.

            Indeed, this understanding of the Ba’al Ha-turim’s comment makes his analogy to the Egyptian bondage more compelling. The Egyptians oppressed Benei Yisrael, and as a result of this mistreatment they were severely punished to the point where they had no choice but to drive the slaves from the country.  Similarly, in the case of Sara and Hagar, Sara oppressed Hagar (“va-te’aneha” – 16:6), which may have led Yishmael to act resentfully toward Yitzchak, to the extent that Sara was forced to drive them away from the household.

            Thus, the Ba’al Ha-turim perhaps found fault not in the decision to banish Hagar and Yishmael per se, but rather with the general situation which Sara created, or in which she played a role in creating, by mistreating Hagar and thereby breeding resentment within Yishmael.

Volver al capítulo

Lot's Hospitality and Hyperbole

The Torah in Parashat Vayera tells of the experiences of the angels in Sedom after being invited into Lot’s house.  The city’s residents surrounded Lot’s home and demanded that he send out the two visitors.  Lot refused, whereupon the people of Sedom said, “Go away; this person came and is giving judgment!  We will now hurt you more than them!” (19:9).

            The phrase “ha-echad ba la-gur va-yishpot shafot” (“this person came and is giving judgment”) is a difficult one, both in terms of syntax and with regard to it contextual meaning.  The commentators generally explain this phrase as referring to Lot, a newcomer in Sedom, whom the townspeople now accuse of judging them.  It is not entirely clear, however, why they accused him of rendering judgment during this incident.  This sentence was said in response to Lot’s refusal to hand over the guests, when he said, “Please, my brothers, do not cause harm.  Look, I have here two daughters who have not slept with a man; I will bring them out to you and you can do to them as you please, but do not do anything to these men, once they have entered under the protection of my roof.”  Lot’s words do not, on the surface, appear to be casting any judgment.  He merely pleaded with the people not to hurt his guests, going so far as to offer them his two young daughters in their place.  Why did the mob respond by accusing Lot of “judging”?

            Rabbi Menachem Leibtag suggested a novel explanation of this verse by reinterpreting Lot’s remarks to the people of Sedom.  It is clearly startling to read that Lot offered his daughters as prostitutes for the sake of protecting two strangers, a point noted by the Midrash Tanchuma in its comments to this verse: “Normally, a person allows himself to be killed for his daughters and his wife…and this one [Lot] gives over his daughters to be abused.”  The Midrash observes the astonishing gravity of Lot’s offer, and proceeds to comment that the later episode of Lot’s intoxication and relations with his daughters came as a kind of punishment for offering them as prostitutes.   Others, however, reinterpreted this verse such that it does not actually refer to an offer of prostitution.  Derashot Ibn Shuib (cited in Torah Sheleima to this verse, note 44), citing Rabbenu Chananel, explained that Lot was offering all his possessions and property to the people for the sake of his guests, and he euphemistically expressed this offer through a reference to his daughters.

But Rabbi Leibtag suggested a different theory, one which also explains the response of the people of Sedom.  Perhaps Lot was not actually offering anything in exchange for his guests’ protection, but was rather expressing the vehemence of his commitment to their safety.  He was, in essence, saying, “I would sooner give you my two young daughters than hand over my guests who have sought lodging in my house.”  In other words, Lot was lecturing to the residents of Sedom.  He wanted to impress upon the people the notion of hospitality and dedication to guests in need of lodging.  And he utilized the graphic, hyperbolic example of handing over his daughters in order to emphasize how strongly he felt about the need to care for guests.

This novel reading easily explains the response of the people, angrily chiding Lot for judging them.  He was, in fact, moralizing, and in an especially strong and emphatic way which aroused their ire.  After his brief “lecture” about the importance of caring for guests, the Sedomites retorted by cynically asking, “Who’s this fellow who just moved in and is already preaching to us?” Lot had indeed preached to them about the topic of treating guests, and they were enraged, ready to proceed to harm not only the guests, but Lot, as well.

Volver al capítulo

Akeidat Yitzhak: Connection to an Intangible God

Several scholars throughout the ages have addressed the question of why it was necessary for God to impose upon Avraham the test of akeidat Yitzchak.  A number of Midrashic sources pointed to a need to dispel doubts that arose concerning the extent of Avraham’s devotion to God, in the wake of either his failure to offer a thanksgiving sacrifice after Yitzchak’s birth (Sanhedrin 89b), or his treaty with Avimelekh (Seder Eliyahu Rabba, as we discussed yesterday).  Others, including the Rambam (Guide for the Perplexed 3:24), noted the philosophical principles established by the akeida, such as proving the clarity of prophecy.

Rav Yehuda Amital zt”l suggested that the test of the akeida was necessary to demonstrate the possibility of serving an invisible, intangible God with limitless devotion.  Although paganism certainly strikes us as intellectually odd, we can nevertheless acknowledge the appeal of the belief in a deity that one can see and experience with the senses.  The tangible quality of idols, as opposed to the notion of a non-physical God, is what helped fuel the pagans’ passion in their religious service.  As they saw their “god” right in front of them – either in the form of a statue of natural phenomenon – it was easy for them to feel religious fervor and submit themselves wholeheartedly to the service of these deities.  Avraham’s theory of monotheism “suffered” from the disadvantage of requiring people to devote themselves to the will of a Being they cannot see, imagine, perceive or experience in any tangible way.  The question thus arose, can people be truly committed to such a Being?  How far can we go in seeking to please a God to whom we are unable to connect with any of our five senses? 

 The test of the akeida was thus necessary to prove that it is, indeed, possible for a human being to be unconditionally committed to a Supreme Being whom he cannot see or physically sense.  Even though we believe in a God with no physical attributes, which we therefore cannot see, hear, smell or touch, we are nevertheless able to live our lives in complete submission to His will.  This, Rav Amital suggested, was the great message of akeidat Yitzchak, the vital lesson that established the validity of Avraham’s faith and the level of commitment it can and must engender.

Volver al capítulo

Pages

x

Lee el Tanaj cómodamente. ¡Instala nuestra App en tu pantalla de inicio!

📲 Instala nuestra App

Toca el botón de Compartir (el icono de un cuadrado con una flecha hacia arriba) en la barra de Safari, desliza hacia abajo y selecciona 'Agregar a la pantalla de inicio'.