English translation — וירא ג

Talk 3<pg>76</pg>

A.

On the verse<sup>1</sup>

"And Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw, and behold, a ram etc. and he offered it up as a burnt-offering instead of his son,"

Rashi explains: "Instead of his son,

since it is written 'and he offered it up as a burnt-offering' the text lacks nothing,

what is 'instead of his son'?

For every act of service that he performed with it<sup>2</sup>

he would pray and say: May it be His will that this be as if it were done with my son,

as if my son were slaughtered, as if his blood were sprinkled, as if my son were flayed, as if he were burned and turned to ashes."

And we need to understand:

Above on the verse³

"Please take your son etc. and bring him up there as an offering" Rashi explains "And bring him up,

He did not say to him slaughter him because the Holy One, blessed be He, did not desire to slaughter him but rather to bring him up to the mountain to make him an offering, and once he brought him up He said to him bring him down".

And this matter the Holy One, blessed be He, made known to Abraham after this,

as brought in Rashi on the verse⁴

"And He said do not send your hand to the lad and do nothing to him for now I know etc.",

that the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Abraham "I will not profane My covenant and the utterance of My lips I will not change⁵

When I said to you take, the utterance of My lips I will not change, I did not say to you slaughter him but rather bring him up,

I brought him up, bring him down".

And since Avraham already knew that "the Holy One, blessed be He, did not desire to slaughter him but to elevate him" — to the extent that it is impossible to be otherwise,

for "I will not alter that which has issued from my lips,"

the Holy One, blessed be He, promised Avraham "for in Yitzchak shall your seed be called"⁶

— it requires a sweetening how this Avraham offered the ram "in place of his son,"

that "he was praying..

as if my son is slaughtered etc.'",

behold the Holy One, blessed be He, "desired..

not to slaughter him"?

And one cannot answer,

that from this that the ram happened to him at this hour

(and especially according to Rashi⁷

"that

(the ram)

was running near Avraham")

he understood that the Holy One, blessed be He, wants that he offer it upon the altar⁸

— for this is proof that the will of the Holy One, blessed be He, is to offer it upon the altar⁹,

but not to renew a will to offer it "in place of his son"¹⁰.

<pg>77</pg>

And furthermore: from Rashi's words — "And he was praying and saying, May it be Your will that this should be as if it were done with my son" — it is proven,

that Avraham did this thing

(the offering of the ram "in place of his son")

not because of the command of the Holy One, blessed be He

(or that he understood that such is the desire of the Holy One, blessed be He),

but rather this was the will

(and "innovation")

of Avraham,

therefore he needed to pray to the Holy One, blessed be He, that this offering be accepted "as if it were done with my son."

And the question is in its place: The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Avraham "I will not change what has issued from My lips — I did not say to you 'slaughter him' but rather 'bring him up'" — and Avraham wanted and strove to add an offering "in place of his son"?

!

2.

Some explain that this was "in exchange¹¹

what was in his heart to slaughter his son,

in the manner of "and speaks¹²

truth in his heart",

since "it was in his mind to complete the act..

he thought that he was obligated to give in its place a ransom and exchange of this in place of that"¹³.

That is: although G-d's command was only "bring him up" and not "slaughter him",

nevertheless,

since Abraham resolved in his heart to slaughter his son,

an obligation fell upon him to fulfill what was in his heart

(at least — through an exchange)

— because of "and speaks truth in his heart"¹⁴.

But it is a great difficulty to explain thus in Rashi — because we do not find even a hint of this explanation in Rashi; and on the other hand,

the explanation is not so "simple" that we can say that Rashi does not need to write it explicitly

(because the student will understand it on his own)

— for there is room to say the opposite,

that in this case this principle of "speaks truth in his heart" does not apply at all,

since since "the Holy One, blessed be He, did not desire to slaughter him",

then there is no room to say that Abraham would strive to fulfill his earlier thought

(even also in a manner of "as if" his son is slaughtered),

contrary to the will of the Holy One, blessed be He.

And therefore,

even if you say that Rashi holds that there is room for this explanation,

he should have written it explicitly

(and as discussed many times,

that Rashi wrote his commentary in clear language without the student needing to seek an explanation in the commentators to understand his intent).

3.

And this will be understood by first prefacing another difficulty in these verses — that we do not find that Rashi resolves it:

In the verses it is related¹⁵,

that when "Abraham sent forth his hand..

to slaughter his son" an angel of the Lord called to him "and said, Do not send forth your hand to the lad etc. for now I know that you are a God-fearing man and you have not withheld your son, your only one, from Me",

and after Abraham saw the ram "and offered it up as a burnt offering in place of his son",

an angel of the Lord called to him "a second time from the heavens,

and said, By Myself I swear, says the Lord, because you have done this thing and have not withheld your son, your only one,

that I will surely bless you and greatly multiply your seed etc. and through your seed shall be blessed etc.".

And it is not understood

(as the commentators questioned¹⁶)

:<pg>78</pg>

Why did the angel need to call to him "a second time from heaven" to convey to him all the blessings that are due to him "because you have done this thing and have not withheld your son, your only one",

and did not tell him all this in the first call?

And the meaning of the verses is,

that although Abraham was blessed with these blessings "because you did this thing and did not withhold your son, your only one",

nevertheless,

he was not actually blessed with them until after the offering of the ram — and a reason is required.

4.

And one can say the explanation of this:

The novelty in these blessings,

"I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens and as the sand etc. and your seed shall inherit etc. and in your seed shall be blessed etc."¹⁷

— even though Avraham was already blessed with similar content several times before this

(as recounted in Parshat Lech¹⁸)

— it is

(as explained in the verse)

that here the Holy One, blessed be He, swore regarding them¹⁹

— "By Myself I have sworn, says the Lord, because etc. that I will surely bless you etc."

(that through the oath it was assured that nothing would nullify these blessings²⁰).

And accordingly, there is no need to wonder why Rashi did not explain what is the reason that the oath came specifically at the "second" calling,

after the offering of the ram — because this is understood from what is related in the Chumash regarding the oath of the Holy One, blessed be He, the first time:

In the scriptures after the flood it is said²¹

"And Noah built an altar to the L-rd etc. and offered burnt offerings etc. and the L-rd smelled the pleasing aroma and said etc. I will no longer curse etc. and I will no longer again smite etc.",

And Rashi explained "I will no longer.

And I will no longer,

the doubling of the matter is for an oath,

it is that which is written²²

that I swore from passing the waters of Noah and we do not find an oath in it except this."

It is thus explicit,

that this that the Holy One, blessed be He, swore that He would no longer bring a flood,

came about through the pleasing aroma from the sacrifices of Noah.

And it is the same matter in our subject: this that the Holy One, blessed be He, swore concerning the blessings came about through the sacrifice of Abraham

(— in the offering of the ram)²³.

And therefore this oath came only in the "second" calling,

after the offering of the ram.

And this is also the reason that Abraham wanted to sacrifice the ram&lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt;

"instead of his son" — because in order that his sacrifice should effect that the blessings on the test of the Binding

(which are essential matters for the existence of the people of Israel)

be assured to him by oath,

there had to be a connection and bond between the sacrifice and the test.

And similar to what we find regarding the sacrifices of Noah

(which effected God's oath "I will not again"),

that in addition to his offering them immediately after his leaving the ark

(in proximity and continuation to the flood),

behold, the sacrifices themselves were from these animals that were saved from&lt;pg&gt;79&lt;/pg&gt;

the flood&lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt;

— so too in our matter,

that in order to connect this sacrifice with the Binding of Isaac, Abraham offered the ram "instead of his son".

5.

Based on this, the lengthiness in Rashi on the verse "instead of his son" is also understood — "For every service that was performed from it he would pray and say, May it be Your will that this be as if it were done with my son

(And he goes on to detail all the services —)

as if my son were slaughtered..

his blood sprinkled..

flayed..

burned and turned to ashes" — because this highlights most the connection between the offering of the ram and the act of the Binding,

that through the offering of the ram "instead of his son" Abraham caused that Isaac himself be in the category of a sacrifice.

That is: In the intent of the verse that the offering of the ram was "instead of his son" it could be explained,

that the offering of the ram was in place of the offering of his son,

and that is that through the offering of the ram the category of sacrifice departed from "his son",

and fell upon the ram&lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt;

; and Rashi innovates,

that the explanation of "instead of his son" is the opposite,

that through the offering of the ram this is "as if it were done with my son",

and through this the category of sacrifice fell upon Isaac.

And this thing — the falling of the category of sacrifice upon Isaac through the offering of the ram — was Abraham's "innovation",

and therefore he was compelled to pray about this to the Holy One, blessed be He — "May it be Your will that this be as if it were done with my son".

And the explanation of the matter: The intention of the Holy One, blessed be He, in the act of the Binding was seemingly only to test Abraham

(as is explicit in the verse²⁷),

that he should be absolutely and completely ready to sacrifice his only son to G-d,

but not that Isaac should become²⁸

an actual sacrifice^*28

(because,

on the contrary,

"I will not change what has issued from My lips",

and therefore He said "bring him up" and not "slaughter him",

for "the Holy One, blessed be He, did not desire to slaughter him")

;

But Abraham,

who wanted to effect the oath of the Holy One, blessed be He

(by means of the "pleasing aroma" of sacrifices,

as above),

endeavored that the status of a sacrifice should apply to Isaac²⁹,

so that in the act of the Binding there would also be<pg>80</pg>

The advantage of "offering"

(And through this the blessings on the act of the Binding would be assured to him in the manner of an oath)

; therefore he offered the ram "in place of his son,"

and prayed to the Holy One, blessed be He, "May it be Your will that this be considered as if it were done with my son."

[And with this will be sweetened the continuation of the verse "By Myself I have sworn, etc., because you have done this thing and have not withheld your son, your only one,"

which implies,

that

(also)

the oath after the offering of the ram is "because"

(a result of this)

that "you have done, etc., and have not withheld your son, your only one" — for

(also)

through the offering of the ram Abraham showed that he did not withhold his only son from God,

since he prayed then that "this be considered as if it were done with my son"³⁰].

6.

But still lacking explanation: Indeed it is true that we find regarding Noach that the oath of G‑d came through the "pleasant aroma" of offerings — nevertheless,

in our case,

how can it be said that the test of the Akeidah itself,

in which Avraham revealed that he was ready to sacrifice his only son to G‑d,

does not suffice to effect the oath of G‑d,

and only the offering of the ram "in place of his son" is what causes the oath of G‑d³¹?

And the explanation of this is to be said:

Even though in the act of the Binding, Avraham revealed that he was ready and prepared to give over his only son to G‑d,

nevertheless,

this is not yet in the category of a definite sacrifice,

because it did not come to actual offering.

For even after the decision with a whole heart,

and all the preparations he made in order to offer Yitzchak as a sacrifice,

that he “suppressed his mercy” in order to give him over to G‑d — nevertheless,

since he did not do to him “anything”³²

and this offering did not come about in actuality,

behold, this is not definite.

And as is understood simply,

that the suppression of mercy in the preparations “to slaughter his son” is not at all comparable to the suppression of mercy required at the time of the actual deed in practice³³.

[And regarding the advantage of a person who gives over his soul to G‑d in actual deed,

compared to one whose giving over of his soul is only in potential³⁴

(even though he decided in his thought to be ready

(when it will come into his hand)

to give over his soul to G‑d).

For when a person needs to give himself over in actual deed,

he must arouse in his soul strength and powers with greater intensity and greater might than the powers he arouses to be ready for this in thought alone,

and as is understood simply].

And consequently: Regarding the test of the Binding, it would have been sufficient also the "he subdued his mercies" that was in the preparation of Avraham,

because with this already "I know that you are a G-d-fearing man"⁴

etc. — nevertheless,

still there is not in this the elevation that is in a sacrifice,

offering to G-d

(in actuality).

7.

And this is also the reason that when the angel said to Avraham "Do not send your hand to the lad," Avraham said "I will make a wound in him and take from him a little blood"³⁵

— for at first glance,

what is<p>81</p>

The benefit in drawing a little blood,

behold, even with this he will not fulfill the command³

of "offer him up..

as a burnt offering"?

— but because through this the matter of actual self-surrender will be felt in him³⁶.

And therefore,

when the angel answered him "Do not do anything to him",

"Do not make a blemish in him"³²

— and Abraham wanted that in the act of the Binding there should be the elevation of a sacrifice — he offered the ram "in place of his son",

and with every act that he performed on the ram he prayed and said "May it be Your will that this be as if it were done on my son":

When Abraham slaughtered the ram,

he thought and felt in his soul that he was slaughtering Isaac

(and likewise regarding the other services he performed with the ram),

in a manner that in the offering of the ram he aroused in himself the attribute of "he suppresses his mercy" in actuality,

for at the time of the act of slaughter it was felt in his thought&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;

that he was slaughtering Isaac.

And regarding this Abraham prayed,

that through this thought and arousal it should be considered "as if it were done with my son",

the elevation of the offering in actuality;

And upon this comes the answer of God

(through the angel)

— "By Myself I have sworn, says the Lord, because you have done this thing, etc. that I will surely bless you and greatly multiply your seed, etc. and your seed shall possess the gate of its enemies",

that this will be fulfilled and in its fullness "in the future redemption for us"³⁸,

speedily in our days, literally.

(From the talk of Shabbos Parshas Vayeira 5737)