English translation — וירא ג

Sicha 3<pg>76</pg>

A.

"And He said, 'Do not send your hand to the boy and do not do anything to him, for now I know that you are a G-d-fearing man, etc.'"<sup>1</sup>,

And in Rashi on "for now I know"

(beginning with the word "this")

he brings the statement of Rabbi Abba<sup>2</sup>

"Abraham said to Him, 'I will explain before You my conversation: yesterday You said to me<sup>3</sup>

for through Isaac will your seed be called, and You then said<sup>4</sup>

Take now your son. Now You say to me, Do not send your hand to the boy.' The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, 'I will not profane My covenant, and the utterance of My lips I will not alter.<sup>5</sup>

When I said to you, Take, the utterance of My lips I will not alter; I did not say to you, Slaughter him, but rather, Bring him up. I brought him up — bring him down.

[You brought him up — bring him down]

."

And already the commentators wondered<sup>6</sup>

:

A)

From where does Rashi have all this in the plain sense of the verse<sup>7</sup>?

Where is it hinted in "for now I know" that Avraham wondered "yesterday You told me etc. and You retracted and said etc.",

and the Holy One, blessed be He, answered him that "the utterance of my lips I will not change,

I did not tell you to slaughter him etc.".

b)

Why was Avraham astonished only when he was commanded "Do not send your hand etc.",

and not before that — immediately when he was commanded "Please take your son"

(which is a contradiction to the promise of the Holy One Blessed be He "For through Yitzchak will your seed be called")?

Also one should be precise:

The source of this article is in Bereishit Rabbah⁸,

but there in our text,

in addition to that which was brought in the name of R. Acha⁹

(and not R. Abba),

with further changes of language¹⁰

— there is also a fundamental change in content:

In the Midrash it states: "R. Acha said: Avraham began to wonder,

these words are nothing but words of wonder,

yesterday You said etc.'",

meaning that Avraham wondered about the conduct of the Holy One, blessed be He.

And also according to the version¹¹

(which is close to the language of Rashi)

"Even You have before You conversations

(in wonder)

",

behold the intention in this is,

as it is written in the commentary on Midrash Rabbah attributed to Rashi

(and likewise it is in Yalkut¹²)

"Avraham said: as it were, You have before You conversations like human beings who change their speech";

But not so in Rashi's version the text "Avraham said to Him, 'I will explain before you my conversation'" — that this language is not an expression of wonderment directed upward,

and it does not refer to "conversations"

(words)

of the Holy One, blessed be He,

but rather to the words of Avraham

("my conversation").

And it is necessary to understand

(a)

why Rashi chose specifically this version.

(b)

what is the content of the introduction<pg>77</pg>

This,

which at first glance is superfluous language,

And why did he not begin immediately with the essence of the matter, "Yesterday you said etc."?

(c)

Which "conversation" of his did Abraham come to explain¹³?

B.

And it seems to me that indeed this is Rashi's intention in quoting this language

("I will explain before you my conversation"),

to clarify,

that the intention of our father Abraham in these words of his was not to wonder at the words of the Holy One, blessed be He

[For according to the simple meaning of the verse, one cannot say that our father Abraham reflected upon the attributes of the Holy One, blessed be He.

And as explained in Rashi above<sup>14</sup>

that the Holy One, blessed be He, tested Abraham "whether he would reflect upon the words of the Holy One, blessed be He, who told him to go to the land of Canaan and now causes him to leave it" — for even though they are contradictory things,

nevertheless he did not reflect

(even)

"upon the words of the Holy One, blessed be He".

And so we find in Rashi below

(at the end of the portion of Shemot<sup>15</sup>)

regarding our subject,

that this was the virtue of Abraham over Moses our teacher,

that the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses "You reflected upon My attributes,

not like Abraham, to whom I said 'For in Isaac shall your seed be called'<sup>3</sup>

and afterwards I said to him 'Offer him up as a burnt offering'<sup>4</sup>

and he did not reflect upon My attributes"

(That is,

that not only was there no weakness in Abraham in the actual fulfillment of the command,

but even in his thought no reflection arose<sup>16</sup>

"upon My attributes")<sup>17</sup>.

And therefore certainly,

also at the end of the matter,

when the contradiction grew that "now You say to me 'Do not send forth your hand'" — Abraham did not reflect upon the attributes of the Holy One, blessed be He

(and all the more so to express his wonder in speech)],

But rather to explain before the Holy One, blessed be He, his intention

(of Abraham)

in his words preceding this<sup>18</sup>.

<pg>78</pg>

For behold, in the discourse before this, Rashi explains "Do not send forth — to slaughter,

He said to him, if so, I came here in vain,

I will make a wound in him and draw from him a little blood,

He said to him, do not do anything to him,

Do not make a blemish in him",

That is,

That there were here exchanges of words between Abraham and the angel,

That Abraham wanted to make a wound in Isaac

(For otherwise, it would be found that "I came here in vain"),

And to this the angel answered "Do not do anything to him,

Do not make a blemish in him",

And after this, Abraham explained this conversation of his,

That this that he wanted to make a wound in Isaac was because "Yesterday you said etc. and you retracted and said etc.",

And to this came again the response

(The Holy One, blessed be He,

through)

of the angel "For now I know etc."

(And there is no need even for a wound),

As follows.

3.

Explanation of the matter:

After Abraham said "If so, I came here in vain, I will inflict damage on him etc.",

And he was answered in the negative

("Do not do anything to him"),

Abraham thought,

That perhaps the reason he was commanded "Do not send your hand etc."

(the opposite of the command "Take now etc.")

Is because he is not worthy of this and did not stand in the trial as required,

For his heart is not whole with him

(For although he is ready to fulfill this command in practice,

Nevertheless,

He is pondering His attributes etc.),

And therefore they do not allow him to fulfill the command of "Take now etc."

And Abraham thought that this is also the reason that his request was not accepted, "I will make a wound in him, etc.,"

because in this he "admitted" that in truth he is not ready to fulfill the command of "Take now your son," and therefore he asks that at least he can fulfill it partially

(by means of wounding and drawing blood),

so that his coming here should not be "in vain" — and therefore he was answered in the negative;

And to negate this supposition, Abraham continued to argue — "I will lay out before You my speech,"

that his request "I will make a wound in him, etc." after he was commanded "Do not send your hand to slaughter,"

was

(not to detract from the fulfillment of G‑d's command,

a request that he could fulfill at least in "part" of the "Take now, etc.,"

but rather)

because in his opinion it became clear then that this was from the outset the intent of the command "Take now" — not that he should slaughter his son,

but that he should draw blood in order to sprinkle it on the altar.

And the reason that he thought that this was the command from the outset — he explained in his saying "Yesterday you told me that in Yitzchak will be called your seed and you returned and said Take now your son now you say to me Do not send your hand to the lad",

That is: initially indeed Avraham did not understand how two utterances of Hashem could be fulfilled

(for in Yitzchak etc. and Take now etc.)

contradicting

(except that since he was explicitly commanded "Take etc. and offer him up etc." he fulfilled this without pondering the attributes of the Holy One blessed be He)

; but now that he was commanded "Do not send your hand to slaughter",

behold it is possible to decide between the two verses and fulfill both<sup>19</sup>

— by means of making a wound and drawing blood

(and throwing it upon the altar).

And this was Avraham's claim "I will make a wound in him etc.",

by which he could fulfill Hashem's command in its completeness,

and all three utterances of Hashem would be fulfilled — "

(Yesterday you told me)

for in Yitzchak etc."; "Take now etc."; "

(now you say to me)

Do not send etc.".

And regarding this he answered that "now I know that you are a G‑d-fearing person etc.",

and there is in him no deficiency — because it was not prevented from him to fulfill the command of the Name,

since initially "I did not say to you to slaughter him but to bring him up,

I raised him up, I brought him down"

(and this is the reason that there is no contradiction between the two matters of "for in Yitzchak etc." and "take please etc.")

— and it is found that Avraham fulfilled the command of the Name

("bring him up")

in its perfection.

<pg>79</pg>

4.

Based on this is resolved simply the necessity of Rashi on this explanation,

that there were here additional exchanges of words between Avraham and the Holy One Blessed be He

("yesterday You said etc. the Holy One Blessed be He said to him I will not profane My covenant etc.")

— that the necessity is from the words of the Holy One Blessed be He to Avraham "for now I know"

(regarding which he wrote his explanation).

And the explanation of this:

At first glance, it requires explanation,

for what purpose did the Holy One, blessed be He, need to say to Avraham, who had stood in the test,

(even without the slaughter of Yitzchak)

“And now I know that you are a God-fearing man”?

For just as Avraham Avinu did not ponder over the attributes of the Holy One, blessed be He, when he was commanded “Take now your son,” but rather hastened to fulfill the command without seeking reasoning and excuse for this command,

surely when the Holy One, blessed be He, again commanded him “Do not send forth your hand,”

there was no need to explain to Avraham the reason for this

(that even without the slaughter of Yitzchak he had already stood in the test and “I know that you are a God-fearing man, etc.”),

for Avraham did not ponder over the attributes of the Holy One, blessed be He

[And especially that surely he could understand on his own²⁰

that all this was only a test²¹

and there is no need for the Holy One, blessed be He, to say to him explicitly “For now I know, etc.”].

And it must be said that the words of the Holy One, blessed be He, "For now I know, etc." did not come

(only)

to explain to Avraham the purpose of the test of the Akeidah,

but that this was also a response to Avraham's words,

lest he err to say that he is not G-d-fearing and the purpose of the test was not fulfilled,

but rather "Now I know that you are a G-d-fearing man."

That is,

as above,

that when Avraham heard the command "Do not send forth etc. and do nothing to him,"

even though the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded him "Take now your son etc. and offer him there as a burnt offering" — he concluded from this,

that perhaps the reason the Holy One, blessed be He, does not allow him to fulfill the command of "Take now etc." is because he is not worthy of this — and to this the Holy One, blessed be He, answered him "

(Do not send forth etc.)

For now I know that you are a G-d-fearing man etc.",

that this that He commanded him "Do not send forth etc." is not because of a deficiency, heaven forbid, in Avraham,

that on the contrary,

"Now I know that you are a G-d-fearing man",

but this is because "I did not say to you to slaughter him but to offer him up."

5.

And behold, in this way will also be settled what Rashi cited there, the author of the maamar²²,

And in this itself he specifically took the version Rabbi Abba

(and not Rabbi Acha — as in Bereishis Rabbah before us²³).

According to the above it can be said,

that Rashi's intention in citing the name of Rabbi Abba is to hint,

that this that Rabbi Abba stated that Avraham's words "yesterday you said to me etc." were not said as a complaint against the words of Hashem

(but only to explain his conversation,

that he wants to fulfill the command of Hashem completely)

— because he follows his own method:

In tractate Chagigah²⁴

we learned: "Whoever does not have regard for the honor of his Maker, etc.,"

And in the Gemara there²⁵

— "What is it?

Rabbi Abba²⁶

said: This is one who looks<pg>80</pg>

In the bow..

As it is written²⁷

Like the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud on a rainy day, so is the appearance of the surrounding radiance; this is the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord.

And behold,

Although simply the intention of Rabbi Abba is,

that looking at the rainbow is like looking at the likeness of the Shechinah

(Because “the appearance of the rainbow…

so is the appearance of the brightness around [Him]”)²⁸,

Nevertheless we find²⁹,

that the prohibition of looking at the rainbow also applies to the sign of the rainbow that there will not be another flood

(Therefore one recites a blessing upon seeing the rainbow “Blessed is He who remembers the covenant”³⁰,

as brought in the continuation of the discussion there³¹).

6.

And this will be understood by prefacing the precision of the expression “he who looks at the rainbow”,

that the intention in this is not mere seeing — for on the contrary,

the Sages instituted a special blessing upon seeing the rainbow — but rather looking in a manner of contemplation³²

and reflection³³.

And we must explain the precision in this: the connection between the rainbow and the honor of his Creator is because of "the appearance of the rainbow" that Yechezkel saw in the Merkavah

("like the appearance of the rainbow etc., so was the appearance of the surrounding radiance"),

and particularly according to the story in the Gemara there before this³⁴

that when Rabbi Yehoshua expounded on the Maaseh Merkavah "the heavens were interwoven with clouds and there appeared something like a rainbow in the cloud",

from which it is understood even more,

that the appearance of the rainbow is related to the Maaseh Merkavah.

And this is the content of the prohibition to look at the rainbow,

because this hints at the looking and contemplation on matters of Maaseh Merkavah,

which is the opposite of the honor of his Creator,

because these matters must be specifically in concealment³⁵

(in the language of the verse³⁶

"the honor of God is to conceal a matter"),

since they are above the comprehension of human intellect and contemplating them will lead to questions and doubts etc.

[and according to this the two matters in the Mishnah³⁷

—

(a)

the prohibition to expound on Maaseh Merkavah even with an individual "unless he was wise etc.",

(b)

"whoever did not have regard for the honor of his Creator"

(which according to Rabbi Abba refers to one who looks at the rainbow)

— their content is one].

And according to this we can say,

that the content of this prohibition also applies to the sign of the rainbow,

because from the aspect of "the honor of his Creator" it is not fitting to look and contemplate the content of the matter of the rainbow,

since through this a question can arise³⁸

and a difficulty on the conduct of the Holy One, blessed be He,

that in the continuation of Elijah the sign of the rainbow was given.

Behold the reason that there will no longer be a flood upon the earth

(about which comes the sign of the rainbow)

is explained in the verse³⁹

"I will no longer curse the earth because of man, for the inclination of man's heart is evil<pg>81</pg>

from his youth",

And behold this very reasoning itself served as the reason for bringing the flood,

as it is said⁴⁰

"And the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great upon the earth, and every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the day."

And what is different that at first this reasoning obligated to bring the flood,

and afterwards it was reversed that this very reasoning itself obligates not to bring any more flood upon the earth⁴¹?

!

And additionally: since the Holy One, blessed be He, created man from the outset in a manner that "the inclination of man's heart is evil from his youth",

surely it was known before Him, blessed be He, that ultimately he would come to a state that "the inclination of the thoughts of his heart is only evil all day long",

and nevertheless the Holy One, blessed be He, created His world,

and what was newly added afterwards that because of this "and He regretted⁴²

the Lord that He had made man"?

And this is what Rabbi Abba says, that one who looks at the rainbow — i.e., one who examines and contemplates the content of the rainbow — this is in the category of "he has no regard for the honor of his Maker"⁴³,

because this contemplation can cause in him doubts about the conduct of the Holy One, blessed be He.

And R' Abba according to his method,

that certainly Avraham did not intend to question the contradiction in the words of the Holy One, blessed be He — "Yesterday You said etc. and You retracted and said etc." — contrary to the conduct of "one who is careful about the honor of his Creator",

but his intention was solely to explain before the Holy One, blessed be He "my speech",

as above at length.

(From the sicha of Shabbos Parshas Vayeira 5748)