Parashat VaYera

 

Rav Haim Lifshitz

 

 

 

Home

Essays

Glossary

 

 

 

Essays and Articles:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Go to Hebrew site

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

      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

Home

Essays

Glossary