1. “Ain ha’Shechina shurah elah m’toch simcha” -– simcha is a prerequisite to receiving nevuah. Shem m'Shmuel (last piece in 5671) points out that since Avraham received a revelation of a malach who told him to stop what he was doing even as he had the knife in his hand ready to shecht Yitzchak, it must mean that he was b'simcha to fulfill the dvar Hashem even at that moment!
The nisayon of the akeidah was not whether Avraham would do what Hashem asked or not. Disobeying a direct tzivuy from Hashem was not an option. The nisayon was whether he would obey b’zerizus and b’simcha or not. We all want to do mitzvos. But how are we doing them? Are they a burden, or are they something we approach b'simcha, even when it is hard?
2. Last week I circled back to a question from an old post: once the sons-in-law of Lot saw the angels smite the people of Sdom with blindness, why did they laugh when Lot told them that these same angels would destroy the city? They just saw an open miracle –- wouldn’t they at least want to hedge their bets and run?
Kli Yakar answers that when Lot spoke to his sons-in-law he told them that Hashem -– the name associated with midas ha’rachamim -– is going to destroy the city. This they thought impossible. Surely the midas ha’rachamim could not be used for an act of destruction.
To me this answer seems overly technical. If you hear that the city is going to be wiped out, is it really the time to quibble over whether the right shem Hashem was used in the announcement?
Shem m’Shmuel (5680) here too says something insightful: The sons-in-law of Lot may not have suffered physical blindness like those who attacked Lot’s home, but they nonetheless were afflicted with spiritual blindness. A person who wants to shut out the dvar Hashem can literally see miracles, but due to their own stubbornness, or their lack of mindfulness to the message, it will make no impression. Seeing requires not just open eyes, but an open heart and mind as well.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"1. ...it must mean that he was b'simcha...at that moment"
ReplyDeleteand Hagar, at 21:17?
"2."
a. the sons-in-law can easily rationalize: 'those two sorcerers [high priests, demons] who blinded the mob only did so in self-defense. as to destruction of the city Lot, you must be joking; we've done like this forever no problem: ma nishtanah ha'lielah ha'zeh?'
or b. "Seeing requires not just open eyes, but an open heart and mind as well."
closed hearts? uncircumcised minds? it gets worse: Lot's sons-in-law wore tzitzis of seven black strings and one red*, for rare reminder to ignore their own eyes if ever they glimpsed derech eretz. S'dom's own twist on the coveted tzitzis that Lot had received from his uncle Avram...
*dyed with the blood of he-goats that they'd smashed to Azazel. (or so went almost half the town, while almost half used for their dye blood from the starving poor, or from old ladies stuck at the curb. {a small third group followed both shitas, dying two strings with one blood and two strings with the other})
"1." it can be "hard" to approach a mitzvah without knowing the 'how'. when Yitzchak felt the wood touch his shoulder at 22:6, he thought to ask his father ayei ha'seh l'olah?, for the lack was obvious then. he postponed his question from a sense of simcha in exactitude: u'b'lechtecha ba'derech...
ReplyDelete