לקוטי שיחות חלק ל״ה - וירא ג

Parshas Vayeira

1. "And he said, 'Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do not do anything to him, for now I know that you are a G‑d-fearing man . . .'" On "for now I know" (the first comment), Rashi brings the statement of Rabbi Abba: "Avraham said to Him, 'Let me explain my words before You. Yesterday You said to me, "For through Yitzchak shall offspring be called yours," and then You said, "Take now your son"; now You say to me, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad."' The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, '"I will not profane My covenant, and what has gone out of My lips I will not alter." When I said to you, "Take," I was not altering what has gone out of My lips. I did not tell you, "Slaughter him," but "Bring him up." You have brought him up — take him down.'"

The commentators have already raised the questions:

a) From where does Rashi derive all this in the plain meaning of Scripture? Where is it alluded to in "for now I know" that Avraham wondered, "Yesterday You said to me, etc., and then You said, etc.," and that the Holy One, blessed be He, answered him, "What has gone out of My lips I will not alter; I did not tell you, 'Slaughter him,' etc."?

b) Why did Avraham wonder only when he was commanded "Do not stretch out your hand . . .," and not before — immediately when he was commanded "Take now your son" (which contradicts G‑d's promise "For through Yitzchak shall offspring be called yours")?

The wording also needs to be examined closely:

The source of this statement is in Bereishis Rabbah. But there, as we have it, besides its being brought in the name of Rabbi Acha (not Rabbi Abba), along with other differences of wording, there is also a fundamental difference in content:

The Midrash states: "Rabbi Acha said: Avraham began to wonder: these words are nothing but words of astonishment! Yesterday You said, etc." That is, Avraham wondered at the conduct of the Holy One, blessed be He. And even according to the reading (which is closer to Rashi's wording) "Are there 'conversations' before You too? (in wonder)," the meaning is, as stated in the commentary on Midrash Rabbah attributed to Rashi (and similarly in the Yalkut): "Avraham said: Is it possible that there are conversations before You as with human beings, who change their words?"

Whereas in Rashi the reading is "Avraham said to Him, 'Let me explain my words before You'" — wording which is not an expression of wonder directed toward Above, and does not refer to the "words" of the Holy One, blessed be He, but to Avraham's words ("my words").

This must be understood: a) Why did Rashi choose this reading specifically? b) What is the content of this preface, which seemingly is superfluous? Why did he not begin immediately with the matter itself, "Yesterday You said, etc."? c) Which "words" of his did Avraham come to explain?

2. It appears that this is indeed Rashi's intent in citing this wording ("Let me explain my words before You"): to make clear that Avraham Avinu's intent in these words was not to wonder at the words of the Holy One, blessed be He [for according to the plain meaning of Scripture it cannot be said that Avraham Avinu questioned the ways of the Holy One, blessed be He. As Rashi explicitly states earlier, that the Holy One, blessed be He, tested Avraham "whether he would question the words of the Holy One, blessed be He, who had told him to go to the land of Canaan and now compels him to leave it" — and although these are contradictory words, he nevertheless did not question (even) "the words of the Holy One, blessed be He." Likewise we find in Rashi later (at the end of Parshas Shemos), regarding our very matter, that this was Avraham's virtue over Moshe Rabbeinu, for the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moshe: "You have questioned My ways — not like Avraham, to whom I said, 'For through Yitzchak shall offspring be called yours,' and afterwards I said to him, 'Bring him up as a burnt-offering,' and he did not question My ways" (meaning that not only was there no weakness in Avraham's actual fulfillment of the command, but even in his thought no questioning of "My ways" arose). If so, certainly at the end of the matter too, when the contradiction grew greater, in that "now You say to me, 'Do not stretch out your hand'" — Avraham did not question the ways of the Holy One, blessed be He (and certainly did not express his wonder in speech)], but rather to explain before the Holy One, blessed be He, his (Avraham's) intent in his previous words.

For in the preceding comment Rashi explains: "'Do not stretch out' — to slaughter. He said to Him: 'If so, I have come here in vain; I will make a wound in him and draw a little blood from him.' He said to him: 'Do not do anything to him — do not make a blemish in him.'" That is, there was an exchange of words here between Avraham and the angel: Avraham wanted to make a wound in Yitzchak (for otherwise it would turn out that "I have come 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 Avraham explained these words of his: that he had wanted to make a wound in Yitzchak because "Yesterday You said, etc., and then You said, etc." To this came another answer from (the Holy One, blessed be He, through) the angel: "For now I know . . ." (and there is no need even for a wound), as will be explained.

3. The explanation of the matter:

After Avraham said, "If so, I have come here in vain; I will make a wound in him, etc.," and was answered in the negative ("Do not do anything to him"), Avraham thought that perhaps the reason he was commanded "Do not stretch out your hand . . ." (the opposite of the command "Take now . . .") was because he was not worthy of it and had not withstood the test properly, since his heart was not wholehearted with Him (for although he was prepared to actually fulfill this command, he nevertheless questioned His ways, etc.), and therefore he was not being allowed to fulfill the command "Take now . . ."

And Avraham thought that this was also the reason his request "I will make a wound in him, etc." was not accepted: because by this he "admitted" that he was not truly prepared to fulfill the command "Take now your son," and therefore requested that at least he be able to fulfill it partially (through a wound and drawing blood), so that his coming here should not be "in vain" — and he was therefore answered in the negative.

To negate this supposition, Avraham went on to argue: "Let me explain my words before You" — that his request "I will make a wound in him, etc.," after he had been commanded "Do not stretch out your hand to slaughter," was (not in order to lessen his fulfillment of G‑d's command, a request to be able to fulfill "Take now . . ." at least "partially," but rather) because in his opinion it had then become clear that this had been the intent of the command "Take now" from the outset — not that he should slaughter his son, but that he should draw blood in order to sprinkle it on the altar.

And the reason he thought that this had been the command from the outset he explained by saying: "Yesterday You said to me, 'For through Yitzchak shall offspring be called yours,' and then You said, 'Take now your son'; now You say to me, 'Do not stretch out your hand against the lad.'" That is: at first Avraham indeed did not understand how the two contradictory statements of G‑d ("For through Yitzchak . . ." and "Take now . . .") could both be fulfilled (but since he had been explicitly commanded "Take . . . and bring him up . . .," he carried it out without questioning the ways of the Holy One, blessed be He). But now that he was commanded "Do not stretch out your hand to slaughter," it was possible to reconcile the two verses and fulfill both — by making a wound and drawing blood (and sprinkling it on the altar).

And this was Avraham's argument, "I will make a wound in him, etc.": that through this he would be able to fulfill G‑d's command in its completeness, and all three of G‑d's statements would be fulfilled — "(Yesterday You said to me,) 'For through Yitzchak . . .'"; "Take now . . ."; and "(now You say to me,) 'Do not stretch out . . .'"

To this he was answered, "Now I know that you are a G‑d-fearing man . . .," and there is no deficiency in him at all — for he was not prevented from fulfilling G‑d's command, since from the outset "I did not tell you, 'Slaughter him,' but 'Bring him up.' You have brought him up — take him down" (and this is why there is no contradiction between the two matters, "For through Yitzchak . . ." and "Take now . . ."). It thus emerges that Avraham fulfilled G‑d's command ("Bring him up") in its completeness.

4. On this basis, what compelled Rashi to this interpretation — that there was another exchange of words here 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.'") — is simply resolved: the compulsion comes from the words of the Holy One, blessed be He, to Avraham, "for now I know" (on which he wrote this interpretation).

The explanation of this:

It seemingly requires explanation: why did the Holy One, blessed be He, need to tell Avraham that he had withstood the test (even without slaughtering Yitzchak), and that "now I know that you are a G‑d-fearing man"? Just as Avraham Avinu did not question the ways of the Holy One, blessed be He, when he was commanded "Take now your son," but hastened to fulfill the command without seeking an explanation or justification for it, certainly when the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded him again, "Do not stretch out your hand," there was no need to explain the reason for this to Avraham (that even without slaughtering Yitzchak he had already withstood the test, and "I know that you are a G‑d-fearing man . . ."), for Avraham did not question the ways of the Holy One, blessed be He [especially since he could certainly have understood on his own that all this was only a test, and there was no need for the Holy One, blessed be He, to tell him explicitly, "For now I know . . ."].

We must therefore say that the words of the Holy One, blessed be He, "For now I know . . .," did not come (only) to explain to Avraham the purpose of the test of the Akeidah, but were also an answer to Avraham's words: that he should not err and say that he was not G‑d-fearing and that the purpose of the test had not been achieved; on the contrary, "now I know that you are a G‑d-fearing man."

That is, as explained above: when Avraham heard the command "Do not stretch out . . . and do not do anything to him," even though the Holy One, blessed be He, had commanded him, "Take now your son . . . and bring him up there as a burnt-offering," he concluded from this that perhaps the reason the Holy One, blessed be He, was not letting him fulfill the command "Take now . . ." was because he was not worthy of it. To this the Holy One, blessed be He, answered him: "(Do not stretch out . . .) for now I know that you are a G‑d-fearing man . . ." That He commanded him "Do not stretch out . . ." was not because of any deficiency, G‑d forbid, in Avraham — on the contrary, "now I know that you are a G‑d-fearing man" — but because "I did not tell you, 'Slaughter him,' but 'Bring him up.'"

5. In this way it will also be resolved why Rashi cited there the author of the statement, and within this specifically chose the reading "Rabbi Abba" (and not "Rabbi Acha," as in Bereishis Rabbah as we have it).

According to the above it may be said that Rashi's intent in citing the name of Rabbi Abba is to allude that Rabbi Abba held that Avraham's words "Yesterday You said to me, etc." were not said in wonder at G‑d's words (but only to explain his own words, that he wished to fulfill G‑d's command in its completeness) — in keeping with his own view elsewhere:

In Tractate Chagigah we learn: "Whoever has no regard for the honor of his Maker, etc." And in the Gemara there: "What is this? Rabbi Abba said: This is one who gazes at the rainbow . . . as it is written, 'Like the appearance of the rainbow that is in the cloud on the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness all around; that was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of G‑d.'"

Now, although simply Rabbi Abba's intent is that gazing at the rainbow is like gazing at the appearance of the Shechinah (since "the appearance of the rainbow . . . so was the appearance of the brightness all around . . ."), we nevertheless find that the prohibition of gazing at the rainbow also relates to the rainbow as the sign that there will be no more flood (which is why upon seeing the rainbow we recite the blessing "Blessed . . . who remembers the covenant," as brought later in the discussion there).

6. This will be understood by first noting the precise wording "one who gazes at the rainbow": the intent is not simply seeing — for on the contrary, the Sages instituted a special blessing upon seeing the rainbow — but gazing in the manner of study and contemplation.

The precision of this may be explained: the connection between the rainbow and the honor of one's Maker is because of "the appearance of the rainbow" which Yechezkel saw in the Chariot ("Like the appearance of the rainbow . . . so was the appearance of the brightness all around"). This is especially so in light of what is related earlier in the Gemara there, that when Rabbi Yehoshua expounded the Work of the Chariot, "the heavens became covered with clouds and something like a rainbow appeared in the cloud" — from which it is understood all the more that the appearance of the rainbow is connected with the Work of the Chariot. And this is the content of the prohibition of gazing at the rainbow: it alludes to gazing at and contemplating the matters of the Work of the Chariot, which is the opposite of the honor of one's Maker, since these matters must specifically remain hidden (in the words of the verse, "It is the glory of G‑d to conceal a matter"), since they are beyond the grasp of the human intellect, and contemplating them will lead to questions and doubts, etc. [Accordingly, the two matters in the Mishnah — a) the prohibition to expound the Work of the Chariot even to a single person "unless he was a sage, etc.," and b) "whoever has no regard for the honor of his Maker" (which according to Rabbi Abba refers to one who gazes at the rainbow) — are one in content.]

Accordingly, it may be said that the content of this prohibition also applies to the sign of the rainbow. For out of regard for "the honor of his Maker" it is not fitting to gaze at and contemplate the content of the rainbow, since this can give rise to a question and difficulty regarding the conduct of the Holy One, blessed be He, in connection with which the sign of the rainbow was given.

For the reason that there will be no more flood upon the earth (for which the sign of the rainbow came) is stated explicitly in the verse: "I will no longer curse the ground because of man, for the inclination of man's heart is evil from his youth." Yet this very reasoning served as the reason for bringing the Flood, as it says, "And G‑d saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all day long." What changed, that at first this reasoning required bringing the Flood, and afterwards it was reversed so that this very reasoning required that no more flood be brought upon the earth?!

Moreover: since the Holy One, blessed be He, created man from the outset in such a way that "the inclination of man's heart is evil from his youth," it was certainly known before Him, may He be blessed, that eventually man would come to a state in which "every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all day long." Nevertheless the Holy One, blessed be He, created His world. What, then, was new afterwards, that because of this "G‑d regretted that He had made man"?

And this is what Rabbi Abba says: one who gazes at the rainbow — that is, one who studies and contemplates the content of the sign of the rainbow — is in the category of "having no regard for the honor of his Maker," since this contemplation can cause him to have doubts about the conduct of the Holy One, blessed be He.

And Rabbi Abba is consistent with his own view: certainly Avraham did not intend to wonder at the contradiction in the words of the Holy One, blessed be He — "Yesterday You said, etc., and then You said, etc." — which would be the opposite of conduct that "has regard for the honor of one's Maker." Rather, his intent was solely to explain "my words" before the Holy One, blessed be He, as explained above at length.

(From the talk of Shabbos Parshas Vayeira 5748)

Key Lesson

Avraham faced commands from G‑d that seemed to contradict each other, yet he never questioned G‑d's ways, neither in deed nor even in thought. Even when he spoke, it was only to explain his own intent, out of a desire to fulfill G‑d's will completely. Likewise, out of regard for the honor of one's Maker, a Jew does not probe matters beyond human understanding in a way that leads to doubts about G‑d's conduct. When something G‑d asks seems puzzling, we carry it out wholeheartedly, and seek to fulfill it as completely as we can.