|
Reciprocity and Role Division
Translated from Hebrew by S.
NAthan
l'ilui nishmat Esther bat mordechai
“ ‘Why is this, that Sara has laughed. Is there anything that is beyond
God?’ And she said, ‘I did not laugh,’ because she was in awe.”
Avraham is lesser than Sara in prophecy, yet nevertheless Avraham laughs in
great wonder, and Sara laughs because she does not believe: “After I have
withered I will have the cycle of youth? And my lord is old…”
“And He said, ‘no, for you did laugh.’” It seems He does not agree with
her, from Avraham’s, or from the malach’s reaction. Nevertheless
this non-agreement does not seem to be accompanied by any sanctions or
blame. Sara seems to be not yet aware of the scope of the reciprocity that
is contained in the new free choice, of the fact that it is capable of
freeing the new chooser from nature’s shackles.
It is only after the good news had been brought to her by the malachim,
and after she has – after withering – been restored to her cycle of
youthfulness, that she believes, and laughs no more “because she was in
awe,” due to her new seeing of the new relationship between the Holy One
and herself, a relationship of reciprocity that leaves man open-mouthed with
happiness and fearful wonder, as in “exult in trembling.” “And He said:
‘No, for you did laugh’” as a continuation of this new education, to show
the importance of man’s constantly working on his new free choice – an
effort that never ends, and that demands never-ending self-renewal.
“Do I conceal what I am doing from Avraham?” This too follows the new
approach of reciprocal relations: God comes down to the level of human
existence, in order to see the situation and to judge it according to man’s
– His ally’s – perceptions. And Avraham dares to argue with his Creator
about the nature of the value of Divine justice. A perception so
audaciously daring as the Torah’s perception of the man/God relationship has
no like or equal anywhere, among any of the religious conceptions ever
invented by man, common to all of which is the one-sidedness of the man/Lord
relationship: The all-powerful Lord – and man, with his zero capacity.
The Torah perception: Man as partner, responsible even for the dimension of
moral and spiritual values. “God forbid that You should do such a thing.
Shall the Judge of all the earth not do justice?” And elsewhere, “ ‘the
owner shall approach the Elohim’, meaning the judge,” for it is the judge
who determines and creates justice by his judgement.
“ ‘And God tested Avraham’…with ten tests, in order to purge him, to the
point where he would be separate from nature, and would be totally Godly.”
(Maharal in Derech HaHaim 5:44)
This principle seems to apply to Lot’s two daughters as well; Hazal condemn
Lot for his act with his daughters, but his daughters are not condemned.
They appear to have intended their act for the good, in that they saw
themselves as belonging to the new brand of independent free choice, in
which they could not allow themselves to rely on anyone other than
themselves, in order to produce progeny, to continue the generations that
had all been wiped out, so they believed.
“God has made me a laugh.” “God has made me into a source of laughter and
joy: Many barren women were remembered along with [Sara], many sick were
cured on that day, many prayers were answered with her, and much laughter
was in the world.” (Rashi, Bereshit Raba.) Sara, through the new free
choice, had turned into a source of blessing.
“And Sara saw the son of Hagar, the Egyptian woman, making jest.” Negative
reciprocity. He too had turned into a source – of negative influence, of
jest and irresponsibility, of kalut rosh, a negative correlation to
Sara’s laughter of joy.
“And God heard the voice of the youth” – who, too, later turned into a Godly
source.”
“And Avraham planted a tree in Be’er Sheva”. The source of all blessing.
Akeidat Yitzchak, The Binding of Yitzchak
“Sit you here, with the donkey.” Maharal draws a parallel between Avraham
and Bilam. Here one went with his two servant boys, and there one went with
his two servant boys. Only here – “he harnessed his donkey”, and with Bilam,
he went “with his female donkey,” a relationship of receiver and giver.
While with Avraham, he stands above the donkey, opposite the donkey.
(Donkey – hamor, signifies homar, physical matter.)
“ ‘God will see to his own lamb for a burnt offering, my son,’ and” – even
though Yitzchak understood that he was walking on to be slaughtered – “they
both walked on together.” “With one and the same heart.” According to the
new system of free choice, Avraham and Yitzchak prepared the akeida,
and God merely gave them the conditions with which to express their choice.
This is indeed the substance of this test, of this nisayon, as in
nes lehitnosais, a banner waving high: “As is said today: ‘In the
Mountain of God Will Let be Seen’.” God enables whatever is said (intended)
by the human being in today’s new free choice, to be seen.
A free choice that is utter and absolute results in a promise that is utter
and absolute and eternal. “And behold this is a perfect promise, of the
redemption in store for us.” (Ramban) The test of the akeida
expresses the absolute ability to choose one’s existence, to substitute
creativity for self-preservation, to choose to live for one’s ideal’s sake
instead of for one’s selfish ego’s sake.
Comparing Avraham’s moral attitudes: When deciding to send Hagar away as per
Sara’s demand; when requesting of his wife: “Say please that you are my
sister so that good will be done me for your sake”; and in Akeidat
Yitzchak.
In his attitude to Sara, Avraham relates to the moral imperative
that obligates him in relation to himself. After all, ishto kegufo,
“one’s wife is as one’s own body”, and sometimes one must refuse oneself,
sacrifice one’s personal life, deny one’s own needs.
As to the akeida, Avraham had to confront the supreme moral
imperative, rather than just his own personal morality. The difference
between the two lies in one’s level of understanding of and agreement with
the moral imperative. When matters concern one’s personal life, it is
easier to understand, and to agree to renounce personal life in order to
personally identify with the moral imperative. When the moral imperative
touches on the dimension of Godly values, personally identifying is not
sufficient. One must free oneself entirely of the personal, to sacrifice it
on the altar of the absolute qualitative self, which has no interest in the
personal whatsoever.
Go To
Top
|