1) Rashi comments at the beginning of the akeidah:
אחר הדברים – אאחר דבריו של שטן, שהיה מקטרג ואומר: מכל סעודה שעשה אברהם לא הקריב לפניך פר אחד איל אחד. אמר לו: כלום עשה אלא בשביל בנו, אילו הייתי אומר לו: זבחהו לפניי, לא היה מעכב.
According to Rashi, the "achar hadevarim" connects back to the beginning of the previous chapter, to the party that Avraham made when Yitzchak was weaned (or had his milah). Now, 35 years later, the satan decided to pick on the fact that Avraham made a big party but did not offer any korbanos to Hashem to celebrate.
When I read Rashi, the question that bothered me is why in fact didn't Avraham offer any korbanos, like he did on other occassions? Of course if asked Avraham would give everything up for G-d, but saying woulda coulda is not the same as his actually having done so.
R' Shteinmen in Ayeles haShachar and in Y'malei Pi T'hilasecha goes in the opposite direction. He writes that since there was no question that Avraham would give everything up, the satan's complaint had no merit. The question that bothers him is why Avraham should have to do an akeidah just to prove such a ridiculous claim empty. 35 years ago he made a party and didn't sacrifice even a pigeon, so now he has to prove himself by sacrificing his son?!
In either case, you have to wonder why the satan would first raise this issue so many years after the fact.
We know that what a person is held accountable for is relative to the spiritual level they are on. G-d holds those closest to him to a much higher standard than the average person, who would not be able to stand up to such scrutiny. Not only does G-d's standard of judgment vary from person to person, but even within a person's lifetime, it can vary. As a person grows and comes closer to G-d, things that he got away with earlier now may be counted as a sin and require teshuvah. Maybe that is what's going on here with Avraham. 35 years ago, when Yitzchak was born, it was enough for G-d to know Avraham's deep love for him; Avraham didn't need to prove it with a korban. But Avraham had grown in the intervening years. Other meforshim connect "achar ha'devarim ha'eilah" to the previous episodes of Hagar and Yishmael being driven away, of Avraham's treaty with Avimelech, etc. Rashi does not directly connect it, but those serve as background -- those were events that shaped and developed Avraham's character. A kitrug which may have been meaningless and absurd years earlier takes on a different light in context of the more mature Avraham, for whom the bar is raised.
2) The gemara (Sanhedrin 107) writes that David haMelech asked G-d why we say Elokei Avraham, Elokei Yitzchak, Elokei Yaakov, but not Elokei David. Hashem answered that the Avos faced tests which they passed, but David did not have a test. David responded, "Bring it on!" Or something to that effect. So G-d tested him with Batsheva, and you know what happened.
David was not tested? What about all the hardship David had to deal with until that point? His life certainly was filled with trials and tribulations, difficulties and challenges that seem incredible.
R' Shteinman answers that a true nisayon is one that pushes a person to the brink. Life can be difficult, life can be challenging, but so long as those difficulties and challenges are within a person's capacity to deal with and withstand, they are not on par with the nisyonos faced by the Avos.
R' Dovid Povarski writes something similar in Maskil l'David. When we daven "al tivi'einu l'ydei nisayon," it doesn't mean that life should be easy and without challenges. A person needs to face challenges and obstacles in order to grow. What the Avos faced are challenges that are outside the normal derech ha'teva of normal nisyonos of life. This is what he pray that Hashem does not bring upon us.
"When I read Rashi, the question that bothered me is why in fact didn't Avraham offer any korbanos? Of course if asked Avraham would give everything up for G-d, but saying woulda coulda is not the same as his actually having done so."
ReplyDeleteYou can sharpen the question, because Avraham did indeed bring korbanos on certain occasions, as the Torah states several times he built a mizbeach. So the question is, why did he not do so for Yitzchal being born and weaned, as opposed to the other times.
thanks -- updated the post a bit to reflect that.
DeleteThat pshat is yours, not R Shteinman's, but I was wondering if it made sense until I saw something R Shteinman does say there.
ReplyDeleteMy problem was that naniach that the later Avraham Avinu was far greater than the earlier one, and what was neutral before would now be seen as a pegam. But why would he have to suffer the nisayon? Baasher hu sham, at the time of the party for Yitzchak, he did nothing wrong kefi madreigaso. So how does his growth make it need rectification? Bishlema if he did later what he had done before, that's a problem. But he didn't. At the time, it was not a chisaron at all. You shouldn't punish a man for a law that was enacted after he did the crime.
But R Shteinman says there that a tzadik needs to actually do things bepoeil;
בחסרון כל שהוא אז כדי להגיע לדרגת שלימותו לא סגי בידיעה שאברהם מוכן להקריבו, אלא דצריך הוכחה בפועל על נכונות זאת
If so, it makes sense that kefi madriegaso of later, he was missing something, because it simply had not taken place, even though at the time it was totally not necessary.
>>>Baasher hu sham, at the time of the party for Yitzchak, he did nothing wrong kefi madreigaso.
ReplyDeleteThe past leaves a roshem, so you are judged in the present inclusive of that roshem, which now is a sin. See Sefas Emes in the likutim, last piece on Rosh haShana, on this topic of baasher hu sham.
Point #3 in this post too. https://divreichaim.blogspot.com/2015/05/ves-haaretz-ezkor-that-alone-is-enough.html
I couldn't think of anything better and r' shteinman does not address it directly.