Avraham might have psychologically softened the blow of dealing with the akeidah by telling himself that even if he sacrifices Yitzchak, all is not lost. If he could miraculously have a son at 99, why not at 136, or even older? However, the Sefas Emes explains that Hashem told Avraham up front that that’s not how it’s going to work. Kach na es bincha es yechidcha… Yitzchak is the only one – there is never going to be a replacement.
An increasing number of Judaica books are devoted to “hashgacha pratis” stories, stories of people who sacrifice for the sake of Torah and mitzvos and are rewarded with things working out better than they could ever have expected. I have no problem with these books so long as they are shelved properly in the fiction section. I say that not because the stories are false, but because the idea that Hashem will necessarily reward sacrifice and commitment and make things work out is false. The akeidah is the paradigm of sacrifice. It was done with the understanding that there will be no happy ending if Yitzchak is sacrificed, no way to reconcile his loss with the promise of lineage that will carry on Avraham’s tradition.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
hooray for Chaim B., the voice of reality. you would think that by now we would be reconciled to the fact of the other half of rasha vetov lo, of geirim me'unim, of tzadikim who give people a bracha and the recipient of the bracha is found dead in her bed the next morning, but no, people insist on my pretty pony hashkafa.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is in writing the books and stories as if Olam Hazeh is the only world. Then, with that short-sighted attitude, things "have" to work out to our satisfaction in Olam Hazeh for us to feel they are right. The classic Jewish viewpoint is not like that; it understands deeply that Olam Hazeh is a portal/battleground/obstacle- course...leading to Olam Haba, where the real reward is for those who earned it.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the Sefas Emes explains that Hashem told Avraham up front that that’s not how it’s going to work. Kach na es bincha es yechidcha… Yitzchak is the only one – there is never going to be a replacement.
ReplyDeleteHow so ?
Avraham was also "told up front"( Bereshit 21:12): "Ki bheYischaq Yiqare' Lekha Zera".
If Avraham could be "told up front" that his seed would be through Yischaq, only to have that promise reneged on, why not be "told up front" that "Yischaq is the only one – there is never going to be a replacement", only to be given another son, later, after all ?
I have to say that the error is not without precedent: Nachum Ish Gam Zu's story with the box of dirt and Reb Akiva with his Kol De'avid Rachmana story of the thieves do indicate that Chazal were telling us that sufficient bitachon will yield a happy ending. But more mature thought will remind us how Nachum Ish Gam Zu ended his days.
ReplyDeleteand Reb Akiva too.
ReplyDelete>>>If Avraham could be "told up front" that his seed would be through Yischaq, only to have that promise reneged on
ReplyDeleteSimple answer is who says this Yitzchak is the Yitzchak through whom that promise will be fulfilled?
>>>Nachum Ish Gam Zu's story with the box of dirt and Reb Akiva with his Kol De'avid Rachmana story of the thieves do indicate that Chazal were telling us that sufficient bitachon will yield a happy ending.
ReplyDeleteExactly the proofs used by the Maharal to make the same point. IIRC the L. Rebbe has a sicha where he says the "tova" is b'poel mamash, not simply that we come to understand how something bad that is happening can in the end work to our benefit. However, not all the Rishonim disagree. I would like to believe (have bitachon?) that this optimistic scenario is correct, but honestly speaking, my mind and heart are in conflict on this one.
Chaim B.( 11:24 AM): Simple answer is who says this Yitzchak is the Yitzchak through whom that promise will be fulfilled?
ReplyDeleteI don't understand:
If "the Yitzchak through whom that promise will be fulfilled" is to be another son with that name, how does that fit better with the "Yitzchak[ i.e. the one to be sacrificed] is the only one" position promoted by the Sefas Emes ?
Aderaba, it poses a bigger Qushiya.
If "the Yitzchak through whom that promise will be fulfilled" is not to be his son, how does that fulfill "Ki bheYischaq Yiqare' Lekha Zera" ?
And, what advantage would that other Yitzchak be over( Bereshit 15:2-4) Damesek Eli'ezer ?
Besides, in Bereshit 15:4 Avraham is told: "haYose miMe'ekha - Hu Yirashekha".
Even if that other Yitzchak is to be one of Yishma'el's descendants, that would still be a softening of the blow.
And, if all that is not enough, here's a more explicit promise( 17:19):
אבל שרה אשתך ילדת לך בן, וקראת את-שמו, יצחק; והקמתי את-בריתי אתו לברית עולם, לזרעו אחריו
The promise is to be fulfilled through Avraham's son - Yitzchak - whether he is the one Avraham is being asked to sacrifice( and if God can take back His promise to give, He can take back His "promise" that there will be no more sons) or another with the same name( and the 'psychological softening of the blow' becomes more of a realistic expectation).
>>>If "the Yitzchak through whom that promise will be fulfilled" is not to be his son, how does that fulfill "Ki bheYischaq Yiqare' Lekha Zera" ?
ReplyDeleteAvraham would give birth to another son named Yitzchak - what is your question?
>>>And, what advantage would that other Yitzchak be over( Bereshit 15:2-4) Damesek Eli'ezer ?
The same advantage this Yitzchak has.
Hashem was telling Avraham that this will not happen -- there will be no second chance.
Chaim B.: Avraham would give birth to another son named Yitzchak - what is your question?
ReplyDeleteI read( in past tense) three possible understandings into your 'other Yitzchak' solution, and asked about two of them. The question you quote is about the second understanding: if the 'other Yitzchak' was not to be another son( or even other descendant).
Chaim B.: The same advantage this Yitzchak has.
Again, to be clear, the question you quoted was from my second possible understanding of what you said( i.e. 'other Yitzchak' is not Avraham's son). As you've clarified that you meant that the 'other Yitzchak' means another son by that name, that whole line of questions is superfluous.
Also, to be exact, I didn't ask about the advantage the 'other Yitzchak'( again, if he is not the son) himself would have, but about the advantage having him as heir would be to Avraham, over Damesek Eli'ezer.
Chaim B.: Hashem was telling Avraham that this will not happen -- there will be no second chance.
Hashem told Avraham that( wichever) Yitzchak will inherit him.
Now, just before the Aqeda, He is "telling Avraham that this will not happen".
Why is it unreasonable for Avraham to "psychologically softened the blow", and say that just as Hashem contradicted what He said earlier, and say now, just before the Aqeda, that there will be no Yitzchak to inherit him, that later he will also contradict what he says now, and give him another son, another Yitzchak, to inherit him ?
One essential part of the test was that Avraham faced an unresolvable paradox built into HaShem's command.
ReplyDelete>>>just as Hashem contradicted what He said earlier
ReplyDeleteAvraham never entertained the thought that Hashem contradicted himself -- see R' Chaim's comment in the GRI"Z al haTorah (stencil).
>>>unresolvable paradox
There are at least some Rishonim (IIRC, the Sefer haIkkarim) and meforshim who say that the paradox was resolvable, as Hashem asked (kach na...) but did not command that Avraham perform an akeidah (or, as other suggest, the suggestion of akeidah was b'ispaklarya sh'eina m'eira, and could have been dismissed as a misinterpretation on Avraham's part). The greatness of Avraham was in living with the paradox rather than accept these possible easy resolutions -- a valuable lesson.
If Avraham did not see it as a paradox, would it still have been a supreme test?
ReplyDelete