Reciprocity and Role Division
Translated from Hebrew by Dr.
S. NAthan
l'ilui
nishmat Esther bat mordechai
L'ILUI NISHMAT MEYER HIRSH BEN
LAIBEL
"See here, why did Sara laugh?
Is anything beyond God?’ But she said, ‘I did not
laugh,’ because she was afraid.”
Abraham is lesser than Sara in
prophecy, yet nevertheless Abraham laughs in great
wonder, whereas Sara laughs because she does not
believe: “After I have withered I will have the cycle of
youth? And my lord is old…”
“He said, ‘no, for you did
laugh.’” It seems he [He?] does not agree with her
from Abraham’s, or from the angel's reaction.
Nevertheless this lack of acceptance of Sara's denial
does not seem to be accompanied by any sanction or
blame. Sara seems to have not yet become aware of
the scope of the reciprocity that is contained in the
new free choice. She has not learned yet that it
is capable of freeing the new chooser from nature’s
shackles.
It is only after the good news has
been brought to her by the angels 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” ('afraid' and 'in awe' are
synonymous in Hebrew t.n.) due to her new awareness of
the new relationship between the Holy One and herself, a
relationship of reciprocity that leaves man open-mouthed
with joy and fearful wonder, as in “exult in
trembling.”
“He said: ‘No, for you did laugh’” as
a continuation of this new education, to show the
importance of constantly working on man's new free
choice – a human effort that never ends and that demands
never-ending self-renewal.
“Will I conceal what I am doing from
Abraham?” 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 Abraham 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 Elokim’; [a term normally reserved
for God, but here] this means the judge,” for it is the
judge who determines and creates justice through his
judgement.
“ ‘And God
tested Abraham’…with ten tests, in order to purge him,
to the point where he would be separate from nature, so
that he would be totally Godly.” (Maharal in Derech
HaChaim 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 good; their motive seems to have been virtuous,
in that they viewed themselves as being part of the new
brand of independent free choice, in which they could
not allow themselves to rely on anyone other than
themselves to produce progeny in order to continue the
generations that had all been wiped out, so they
believed.
“ 'God has made me laughter:'
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 brought to 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 Abraham planted a tree in Be’er
Sheva.” The source of all blessing.
Akeidat Yitzchak,
The Binding of Isaac
“Sit you here, with the
donkey.” Maharal draws a parallel between Abraham
and Bilam. The one went with his two servant lads,
and the other went with his two servant lads. Only
here, Abraham – “he harnessed his donkey”, whereas Bilam
- he went “with his female donkey,” a relationship of
receiver and giver. Whereas with Abraham, he
stands above the donkey and opposite the donkey.
(Donkey – hamor, symbolizes homaer, the
physical world - all things material.)
“ ‘God will see to his own lamb for a
burnt offering, my son,’ and” – even though Isaac
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, Abraham and Isaac prepared the akeida,
the Binding of Isaad, while God merely gave them the
conditions with which to express their choice.
This is indeed the substance of this
test, nisayon in Hebrew, as in nes
lehitnosais, a banner waving high for all the
world to see: “As they say today: ‘In the Mountain of
God Will Let be Seen’.” God enables anything said
(intended) by the human being of today's new free
choice, to be seen by all.
A free choice that is utter and
absolute results in a promise that is utter, 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
the sake of one’s ideal’ instead of for the sake of
one’s selfish ego.
Comparing Abraham’s moral attitudes:
When deciding to send Hagar away as per Sara’s demand;
when requesting of his wife: “Please say that you are my
sister so that good will be done to me for your sake”;
and in the Binding, Akeidat Yitzchak.
In his attitude to Sara, Abraham relates to the same
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 in order to sacrifice it on the altar of
the absolute qualitative self, which has no interest in
the personal whatsoever.
Go
To Top
|