Malchizedek appears in Breishis 14:18, where he comes to greet Avraham after the battle of the 5 kings vs. the 4 kings. His role is somewhat unclear, but he is clearly someone of great importance. He is introduced as both King of Shalem and Priest to G-d the Most High. Some sources say that his actual identity was Shem, son of Noach. The 3 pesukim concerning Malchizedek are as follows:
יח וּמַלְכִּי-צֶדֶק מֶלֶךְ שָׁלֵם, הוֹצִיא לֶחֶם וָיָיִן; וְהוּא כֹהֵן, לְאֵל עֶלְיוֹן.
יט וַיְבָרְכֵהוּ, וַיֹּאמַר: בָּרוּךְ אַבְרָם לְאֵל עֶלְיוֹן, קֹנֵה שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ.
כ וּבָרוּךְ אֵל עֶלְיוֹן, אֲשֶׁר-מִגֵּן צָרֶיךָ בְּיָדֶךָ; וַיִּתֶּן-לוֹ מַעֲשֵׂר, מִכֹּל.
This is the only explicit mention of him in the Torah, but there are a lot of midrashic materials about him. He is the first to refer to G-d as אֵ-ל עֶלְיוֹן, and Avraham is obviously impacted by this because he immediately mirrors Malchizedek's phrasing a few pesukim later:
כב וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָם, אֶל-מֶלֶךְ סְדֹם: הֲרִמֹתִי יָדִי אֶל-יְהוָה אֵל עֶלְיוֹן, קֹנֵה שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ.
The Rabbis taught that Melchizedek handed down Adam's robes to Abram (Numbers Rabbah 4:8).
Zechariah experienced a vision of "4 craftsmen" appearing to him (Zechariah 2:3):
ג וַיַּרְאֵנִי יְהוָה, אַרְבָּעָה חָרָשִׁים.
The gemara in Sukkah 52b expounds:
And the Lord showed me four craftsmen. Who are these ‘four craftsmen’? — R. Hana b. Bizna citing R. Simeon Hasida replied: The Messiah the son of David, the Messiah the son of Joseph, Elijah and the Righteous Priest.
In Tehillim 110:4, it states:
ד נִשְׁבַּע יְהוָה, וְלֹא יִנָּחֵם-- אַתָּה-כֹהֵן לְעוֹלָם;
עַל-דִּבְרָתִי, מַלְכִּי-צֶדֶק.
4 The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent: 'Thou art a priest for ever after the manner of Melchizedek.'
Showing posts with label Avraham. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Avraham. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Monday, March 19, 2012
3 traits
From Rabbi rosenfeld
"Whoever possesses the following three traits is of the students of our father Abraham, and [whoever possesses] a different three traits is of the students of the wicked Balaam. [Those who have] a good eye, a humble spirit and a 'lowly' soul [are] of the students of our father Abraham. [Those who have] an evil eye, an arrogant spirit and a desirous (lit., 'wide') soul [are] of the students of the wicked Balaam. What is the difference between the students of our father Abraham and the wicked Balaam? The students of our father Abraham enjoy this world and inherit the World to Come, as it is said, 'There is for those who love Me to inherit [in the World to Come], and their storehouses [in this world] I will fill' (Proverbs 8:21). But the students of the wicked Balaam inherit Gehinnom (Hell) and descend into the pit of destruction, as it is said, 'And You, G-d, will bring them down to the pit of destruction, men of blood and deceit; they will not halve their lives. But I will trust in You' (Psalms 55:24)."
This week's mishna contrasts the qualities of Abraham with those of Balaam, finding them as antithetical as can be. We read of Balaam in Numbers 22-24. He was a Gentile prophet of G-d who lived during the time of the Exodus. However, rather than using his prophetic spirit as a tool for Divine awareness and communion, he perverted it into a weapon to be used for his own selfish ends. He would use his extrasensory powers to place curses and destruction upon others -- for the right price, that is. Heads of state would regularly hire him to curse enemy armies and nations.
In Numbers 22 we read of Balak, King of Moav, who hired Balaam to curse Israel and drive them away. G-d, however, foiled their plans, turning Balaam's curses into blessings.
The differences between Abraham and Balaam are evident in the stories of their lives. Whereas Abraham refers to himself as dust and ashes (Genesis 18:27), Balaam makes every effort to avoid admitting his shortcomings (see the commentator Rashi to Numbers 22:13). Whereas Abraham refuses any of the spoils of his battle against the five kings (Genesis 14:23), Balaam's appetite for wealth and pleasures (of all kinds) was insatiable (Rashi to v. 18). In addition, Abraham was of "lowly soul," which Rashi explains to mean he did not consider himself above others. In spite of his greatness, he was quite at home serving strangers and passers-by, waiting on them hand and foot (Genesis 18:1-8) and bowing before the people of Chais (23:6). Balaam, however, with his false air of superiority, exhibited all of the smallness and pettiness of arrogance, insulting and belittling others in vain attempt to inflate his own ego (see for example Rashi to Numbers .22:13 and 23:18).
Last and perhaps most important, Abraham had a good eye. He viewed favorably all of mankind and as we shall see, the entire universe. He admired others for their good qualities and rejoiced over their good fortune. Balaam, however, just did not see the world in a positive light. He was so rankled by lust, jealousy and smallness that he could not look favorably upon the world around him. The "evil eye" of his twisted perception and world view was such that his very stare would bring harm and destruction to the world around him -- a fact he readily exploited to his selfish advantage (Rashi 24:2).
Our mishna presents us with what would seem to be the very simple choice of whose example we should follow. And as the Tiferes Yisrael commentary observes, the decision is not presented to Israel alone. We are not dealing with the 613 commandments -- the possession of the students of *Moses*. We are dealing with the possession of *Abraham's* students -- the simple and wholesome qualities of this "father of a multitude of nations" (Genesis 17:5). It would appear obvious to us which path brings not only spiritual happiness but, as our mishna attests, physical well-being as well.
Yet perhaps our mishna is not so "obvious". A more careful study of the precise evil of Balaam will reveal that his wickedness is not something one naturally and readily rejects out of hand. In fact, in a way it is very much in vogue today. Let us look more closely.
Balaam is actually an intriguing, if unsavory, personality. On the one hand, he was prophet of the L-rd, who both knew G-d and regularly communicated with Him. He clearly knew of the great and mystical forces which direct and invigorate the universe. Could one have a relationship with G-d without recognizing the superiority of the spiritual world over the physical? Yet he lived his life in empty pursuit of the most fleeting of physical pleasures -- in fact misdirecting his spiritual powers towards material gain. Perhaps an ignoramus sees physical pleasure and ignores the world of spirituality which only the discerning eye can see. But how could Balaam be so wise yet so small and shortsighted?
A second issue is that the Sages often contrast Balaam with Abraham, here as well as in many other places. On his way to curse Israel, Balaam, in his anxiousness to perform his wicked deed, saddled his donkey himself, not waiting for a servant to do it for him. To this G-d retorted: "Wicked one! Abraham their father already preceded you (on his way to sacrifice Isaac), as it says 'And Abraham arose in the morning and saddled his donkey' (Genesis 22:3)" (Midrash Tanchuma 8).
What do the Sages have in mind with the comparison between Abraham and Balaam? We know, of course, that the one was good while the other evil. But there must be some common denominator between these two individuals -- that in which Abraham excelled Balaam failed. What exactly is it?
A final question is based upon a fascinating passage in the Talmud (Brachos 7a). In Numbers 24:16 Balaam refers to himself as one who "knows the knowledge of the Most High." To this the Talmud asks, How could he know the knowledge of G-d above? He did not even know the knowledge of his own animal! (He did not know why his donkey refused to follow his orders -- Numbers 22.) Rather, answers the Talmud, he knew the one moment in the day in which G-d becomes angry (and he attempted to curse Israel at that precise moment).
"Whoever possesses the following three traits is of the students of our father Abraham, and [whoever possesses] a different three traits is of the students of the wicked Balaam. [Those who have] a good eye, a humble spirit and a 'lowly' soul [are] of the students of our father Abraham. [Those who have] an evil eye, an arrogant spirit and a desirous (lit., 'wide') soul [are] of the students of the wicked Balaam. What is the difference between the students of our father Abraham and the wicked Balaam? The students of our father Abraham enjoy this world and inherit the World to Come, as it is said, 'There is for those who love Me to inherit [in the World to Come], and their storehouses [in this world] I will fill' (Proverbs 8:21). But the students of the wicked Balaam inherit Gehinnom (Hell) and descend into the pit of destruction, as it is said, 'And You, G-d, will bring them down to the pit of destruction, men of blood and deceit; they will not halve their lives. But I will trust in You' (Psalms 55:24)."
This week's mishna contrasts the qualities of Abraham with those of Balaam, finding them as antithetical as can be. We read of Balaam in Numbers 22-24. He was a Gentile prophet of G-d who lived during the time of the Exodus. However, rather than using his prophetic spirit as a tool for Divine awareness and communion, he perverted it into a weapon to be used for his own selfish ends. He would use his extrasensory powers to place curses and destruction upon others -- for the right price, that is. Heads of state would regularly hire him to curse enemy armies and nations.
In Numbers 22 we read of Balak, King of Moav, who hired Balaam to curse Israel and drive them away. G-d, however, foiled their plans, turning Balaam's curses into blessings.
The differences between Abraham and Balaam are evident in the stories of their lives. Whereas Abraham refers to himself as dust and ashes (Genesis 18:27), Balaam makes every effort to avoid admitting his shortcomings (see the commentator Rashi to Numbers 22:13). Whereas Abraham refuses any of the spoils of his battle against the five kings (Genesis 14:23), Balaam's appetite for wealth and pleasures (of all kinds) was insatiable (Rashi to v. 18). In addition, Abraham was of "lowly soul," which Rashi explains to mean he did not consider himself above others. In spite of his greatness, he was quite at home serving strangers and passers-by, waiting on them hand and foot (Genesis 18:1-8) and bowing before the people of Chais (23:6). Balaam, however, with his false air of superiority, exhibited all of the smallness and pettiness of arrogance, insulting and belittling others in vain attempt to inflate his own ego (see for example Rashi to Numbers .22:13 and 23:18).
Last and perhaps most important, Abraham had a good eye. He viewed favorably all of mankind and as we shall see, the entire universe. He admired others for their good qualities and rejoiced over their good fortune. Balaam, however, just did not see the world in a positive light. He was so rankled by lust, jealousy and smallness that he could not look favorably upon the world around him. The "evil eye" of his twisted perception and world view was such that his very stare would bring harm and destruction to the world around him -- a fact he readily exploited to his selfish advantage (Rashi 24:2).
Our mishna presents us with what would seem to be the very simple choice of whose example we should follow. And as the Tiferes Yisrael commentary observes, the decision is not presented to Israel alone. We are not dealing with the 613 commandments -- the possession of the students of *Moses*. We are dealing with the possession of *Abraham's* students -- the simple and wholesome qualities of this "father of a multitude of nations" (Genesis 17:5). It would appear obvious to us which path brings not only spiritual happiness but, as our mishna attests, physical well-being as well.
Yet perhaps our mishna is not so "obvious". A more careful study of the precise evil of Balaam will reveal that his wickedness is not something one naturally and readily rejects out of hand. In fact, in a way it is very much in vogue today. Let us look more closely.
Balaam is actually an intriguing, if unsavory, personality. On the one hand, he was prophet of the L-rd, who both knew G-d and regularly communicated with Him. He clearly knew of the great and mystical forces which direct and invigorate the universe. Could one have a relationship with G-d without recognizing the superiority of the spiritual world over the physical? Yet he lived his life in empty pursuit of the most fleeting of physical pleasures -- in fact misdirecting his spiritual powers towards material gain. Perhaps an ignoramus sees physical pleasure and ignores the world of spirituality which only the discerning eye can see. But how could Balaam be so wise yet so small and shortsighted?
A second issue is that the Sages often contrast Balaam with Abraham, here as well as in many other places. On his way to curse Israel, Balaam, in his anxiousness to perform his wicked deed, saddled his donkey himself, not waiting for a servant to do it for him. To this G-d retorted: "Wicked one! Abraham their father already preceded you (on his way to sacrifice Isaac), as it says 'And Abraham arose in the morning and saddled his donkey' (Genesis 22:3)" (Midrash Tanchuma 8).
What do the Sages have in mind with the comparison between Abraham and Balaam? We know, of course, that the one was good while the other evil. But there must be some common denominator between these two individuals -- that in which Abraham excelled Balaam failed. What exactly is it?
A final question is based upon a fascinating passage in the Talmud (Brachos 7a). In Numbers 24:16 Balaam refers to himself as one who "knows the knowledge of the Most High." To this the Talmud asks, How could he know the knowledge of G-d above? He did not even know the knowledge of his own animal! (He did not know why his donkey refused to follow his orders -- Numbers 22.) Rather, answers the Talmud, he knew the one moment in the day in which G-d becomes angry (and he attempted to curse Israel at that precise moment).
Akedah and Story of Bilaam - Striking Lingual Similarities
The following are certain passages concerning the Akedah (Breishis, Chapter 22) and the story of Bilaam's attempt to curse the Jews (Bamidbar, Chapters 22-24). There are many identical phrases and many with slight variations:
Breishis 22:3:
ג וַיַּשְׁכֵּם אַבְרָהָם בַּבֹּקֶר, וַיַּחֲבֹשׁ אֶת-חֲמֹרוֹ, וַיִּקַּח אֶת-שְׁנֵי נְעָרָיו אִתּוֹ, וְאֵת יִצְחָק בְּנוֹ; וַיְבַקַּע, עֲצֵי עֹלָה, וַיָּקָם וַיֵּלֶךְ, אֶל-הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר-אָמַר-לוֹ הָאֱלֹהִים.
Bamidbar 22:21:
כא וַיָּקָם בִּלְעָם בַּבֹּקֶר, וַיַּחֲבֹשׁ אֶת-אֲתֹנוֹ; וַיֵּלֶךְ, עִם-שָׂרֵי מוֹאָב.
Again, Breishis 22:3:
ג וַיַּשְׁכֵּם אַבְרָהָם בַּבֹּקֶר, וַיַּחֲבֹשׁ אֶת-חֲמֹרוֹ, וַיִּקַּח אֶת-שְׁנֵי נְעָרָיו אִתּוֹ, וְאֵת יִצְחָק בְּנוֹ; וַיְבַקַּע, עֲצֵי עֹלָה, וַיָּקָם וַיֵּלֶךְ, אֶל-הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר-אָמַר-לוֹ הָאֱלֹהִים.
Bamidbar 22:22:
כב וַיִּחַר-אַף אֱלֹהִים, כִּי-הוֹלֵךְ הוּא, וַיִּתְיַצֵּב מַלְאַךְ יְהוָה בַּדֶּרֶךְ, לְשָׂטָן לוֹ; וְהוּא רֹכֵב עַל-אֲתֹנוֹ, וּשְׁנֵי נְעָרָיו עִמּוֹ.
Breishis 22:11:
יא וַיִּקְרָא אֵלָיו מַלְאַךְ יְהוָה, מִן-הַשָּׁמַיִם, וַיֹּאמֶר, אַבְרָהָם אַבְרָהָם; וַיֹּאמֶר, הִנֵּנִי.
Bamidbar 22:32:
לב וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו, מַלְאַךְ יְהוָה, עַל-מָה הִכִּיתָ אֶת-אֲתֹנְךָ, זֶה שָׁלוֹשׁ רְגָלִים; הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי יָצָאתִי לְשָׂטָן, כִּי-יָרַט הַדֶּרֶךְ לְנֶגְדִּי.
Breishis 22:12:
יב וַיֹּאמֶר, אַל-תִּשְׁלַח יָדְךָ אֶל-הַנַּעַר, וְאַל-תַּעַשׂ לוֹ, מְאוּמָה: כִּי עַתָּה יָדַעְתִּי, כִּי-יְרֵא אֱלֹהִים אַתָּה, וְלֹא חָשַׂכְתָּ אֶת-בִּנְךָ אֶת-יְחִידְךָ, מִמֶּנִּי.
Bamidbar 22:34:
לד וַיֹּאמֶר בִּלְעָם אֶל-מַלְאַךְ יְהוָה, חָטָאתִי--כִּי לֹא יָדַעְתִּי, כִּי אַתָּה נִצָּב לִקְרָאתִי בַּדָּרֶךְ; וְעַתָּה אִם-רַע בְּעֵינֶיךָ, אָשׁוּבָה לִּי.
Again, Breishis 22:12:
יב וַיֹּאמֶר, אַל-תִּשְׁלַח יָדְךָ אֶל-הַנַּעַר, וְאַל-תַּעַשׂ לוֹ, מְאוּמָה: כִּי עַתָּה יָדַעְתִּי, כִּי-יְרֵא אֱלֹהִים אַתָּה, וְלֹא חָשַׂכְתָּ אֶת-בִּנְךָ אֶת-יְחִידְךָ, מִמֶּנִּי.
Bamidbar 22:38:
לח וַיֹּאמֶר בִּלְעָם אֶל-בָּלָק, הִנֵּה-בָאתִי אֵלֶיךָ--עַתָּה, הֲיָכֹל אוּכַל דַּבֵּר מְאוּמָה: הַדָּבָר, אֲשֶׁר יָשִׂים אֱלֹהִים בְּפִי--אֹתוֹ אֲדַבֵּר.
Breishis 22:4:
ד בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי, וַיִּשָּׂא אַבְרָהָם אֶת-עֵינָיו וַיַּרְא אֶת-הַמָּקוֹם--מֵרָחֹק.
Bamidbar 24:2:
ב וַיִּשָּׂא בִלְעָם אֶת-עֵינָיו, וַיַּרְא אֶת-יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֹׁכֵן, לִשְׁבָטָיו; וַתְּהִי עָלָיו, רוּחַ אֱלֹהִים.
I'm not sure what to make of this, but there clearly seems to be some kind of connection between these incidents.
Breishis 22:3:
ג וַיַּשְׁכֵּם אַבְרָהָם בַּבֹּקֶר, וַיַּחֲבֹשׁ אֶת-חֲמֹרוֹ, וַיִּקַּח אֶת-שְׁנֵי נְעָרָיו אִתּוֹ, וְאֵת יִצְחָק בְּנוֹ; וַיְבַקַּע, עֲצֵי עֹלָה, וַיָּקָם וַיֵּלֶךְ, אֶל-הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר-אָמַר-לוֹ הָאֱלֹהִים.
Bamidbar 22:21:
כא וַיָּקָם בִּלְעָם בַּבֹּקֶר, וַיַּחֲבֹשׁ אֶת-אֲתֹנוֹ; וַיֵּלֶךְ, עִם-שָׂרֵי מוֹאָב.
Again, Breishis 22:3:
ג וַיַּשְׁכֵּם אַבְרָהָם בַּבֹּקֶר, וַיַּחֲבֹשׁ אֶת-חֲמֹרוֹ, וַיִּקַּח אֶת-שְׁנֵי נְעָרָיו אִתּוֹ, וְאֵת יִצְחָק בְּנוֹ; וַיְבַקַּע, עֲצֵי עֹלָה, וַיָּקָם וַיֵּלֶךְ, אֶל-הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר-אָמַר-לוֹ הָאֱלֹהִים.
Bamidbar 22:22:
כב וַיִּחַר-אַף אֱלֹהִים, כִּי-הוֹלֵךְ הוּא, וַיִּתְיַצֵּב מַלְאַךְ יְהוָה בַּדֶּרֶךְ, לְשָׂטָן לוֹ; וְהוּא רֹכֵב עַל-אֲתֹנוֹ, וּשְׁנֵי נְעָרָיו עִמּוֹ.
Breishis 22:11:
יא וַיִּקְרָא אֵלָיו מַלְאַךְ יְהוָה, מִן-הַשָּׁמַיִם, וַיֹּאמֶר, אַבְרָהָם אַבְרָהָם; וַיֹּאמֶר, הִנֵּנִי.
Bamidbar 22:32:
לב וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו, מַלְאַךְ יְהוָה, עַל-מָה הִכִּיתָ אֶת-אֲתֹנְךָ, זֶה שָׁלוֹשׁ רְגָלִים; הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי יָצָאתִי לְשָׂטָן, כִּי-יָרַט הַדֶּרֶךְ לְנֶגְדִּי.
Breishis 22:12:
יב וַיֹּאמֶר, אַל-תִּשְׁלַח יָדְךָ אֶל-הַנַּעַר, וְאַל-תַּעַשׂ לוֹ, מְאוּמָה: כִּי עַתָּה יָדַעְתִּי, כִּי-יְרֵא אֱלֹהִים אַתָּה, וְלֹא חָשַׂכְתָּ אֶת-בִּנְךָ אֶת-יְחִידְךָ, מִמֶּנִּי.
Bamidbar 22:34:
לד וַיֹּאמֶר בִּלְעָם אֶל-מַלְאַךְ יְהוָה, חָטָאתִי--כִּי לֹא יָדַעְתִּי, כִּי אַתָּה נִצָּב לִקְרָאתִי בַּדָּרֶךְ; וְעַתָּה אִם-רַע בְּעֵינֶיךָ, אָשׁוּבָה לִּי.
Again, Breishis 22:12:
יב וַיֹּאמֶר, אַל-תִּשְׁלַח יָדְךָ אֶל-הַנַּעַר, וְאַל-תַּעַשׂ לוֹ, מְאוּמָה: כִּי עַתָּה יָדַעְתִּי, כִּי-יְרֵא אֱלֹהִים אַתָּה, וְלֹא חָשַׂכְתָּ אֶת-בִּנְךָ אֶת-יְחִידְךָ, מִמֶּנִּי.
Bamidbar 22:38:
לח וַיֹּאמֶר בִּלְעָם אֶל-בָּלָק, הִנֵּה-בָאתִי אֵלֶיךָ--עַתָּה, הֲיָכֹל אוּכַל דַּבֵּר מְאוּמָה: הַדָּבָר, אֲשֶׁר יָשִׂים אֱלֹהִים בְּפִי--אֹתוֹ אֲדַבֵּר.
Breishis 22:4:
ד בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי, וַיִּשָּׂא אַבְרָהָם אֶת-עֵינָיו וַיַּרְא אֶת-הַמָּקוֹם--מֵרָחֹק.
Bamidbar 24:2:
ב וַיִּשָּׂא בִלְעָם אֶת-עֵינָיו, וַיַּרְא אֶת-יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֹׁכֵן, לִשְׁבָטָיו; וַתְּהִי עָלָיו, רוּחַ אֱלֹהִים.
I'm not sure what to make of this, but there clearly seems to be some kind of connection between these incidents.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
What Really Happened to Yitzchak at the Akedah?
Rabbi Louis Ginzberg touches on this concept in The Legends of the Jews, Volume I, and it is articulated beautifully in a post from curiousjew.blogspot.com. Here is the post in its entirety:
Isaac Died: The Alternative Version of Akedas Yitzchak
The Last Trial is a fantastic book. (And it's available at YU)
It is the English translation of a work (actually, a sixty-seven page introduction to a poem titled 'The Akedah,' written by Rabbi Ephraim ben Jacob of Bonn) by Shalom Spiegel titled Me-Aggadot ha-Akedah, literally, "From the Aggadot on the Binding of Isaac." Anyone able to read beautiful, rich Hebrew ought to read it in its original form. With that in mind, I still owe the translator, Judah Goldin, a debt of gratitude- I would never have been able to read this book otherwise.
Spiegel traces the various ideas, legends and lore that grew up around the Akedah, the Binding of Isaac, and notes their sources and interpretations, including an approach that I very briefly touched upon in 11th grade and always wanted to know more about- that Isaac died.
~
The question begins with the famous verse, Genesis 22: 19.
Avraham returned to the young men.
But where was Isaac?
One of the interpretations was that he was in Paradise. And why was he in Paradise? He was being healed. Why was he being healed? Because of his wound. What wound?
Avraham hurt Yitzchak? Isaac was being healed "from the incision made in him by his father when he began to offer him up as a sacrifice?" [Hadar Zekenim 10b (=Bet ha-Midrash, ed Jellinek, V. p 157) and Minhat Yehudah, Toledot, Gen 25: 27; cf. Hizkuni ad Gen 22:19.]
Apparently the answer is yes.
But that is only a wound. I said that Isaac died. Well, then, how did he die? There are several different midrashim as to how this occurred.
So here we see an approach that Isaac died of fright and was resurrected.
But then we find a:
The Midrash goes on to say that this is the reason that the "ministering angels began to recite, Blessed art Thou, O Lord, who quickens the dead."
In this case, it appears that Isaac was burnt- he was reduced to ashes.
Note that Avraham does not necessarily slay him here. As Spiegel takes care to point out, if one operates under the assumption that Avraham did everything in accord with the Torah, and later on the Torah gives very specific instructions as to the bringing of a korban or sacrifice, specifically in Leviticus 1: 7:
Note the order: First one places fire on the altar, then wood.
Similarly, by Avraham- Avraham would have lit the fire, then placed wood, and then placed Isaac upon the wood. This idea is completely corroborated by Genesis 22: 9
In this case, then, Spiegel suggests,
This is a completely plausible approach- in this case Abraham does not actively kill Isaac, he does not cut him or hurt him, but Isaac dies nonetheless because he is burned to death.
However, Spiegel now cites in a footnote the whole and correct version of this Midrash:
In this case, Isaac was slaughtered, and Avraham slew him.
Now look to Ta'anis 16a:
Isaac's ashes, did you say! What ashes are these- are they metaphorical ashes, is Isaac likened to ash; what does this mean?
But no! For see, later in Zevachim 62a-
So these are real ashes, very real, the foundation of the altar. When God is angry, He looks upon Isaac's ashes as a reminder, and forbears from meting out just punishment.
But this is not all- because another interpretation states that Isaac left one quarter of his blood on top of the altar. (This is from the earliest selections of Mekilta de-R. Simeon ben Yohai)
To quote directly,
In fact, in a conversation with Avraham brought down in several places but perhaps most accesibly in Beraishis Rabbah p. 90, Isaac says, "Father, do not be distressed. Come now and carry out the will of your Father in heaven: may it be His will that a quarter of my blood serve as an atonement for Israel." (49)
The idea of Isaac's offering up his blood is incredibly symbolic, especially when one learns that an alternative interpretation to Exodus 12: 23, " For the LORD will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when He seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side-posts, the LORD will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you," is referencing God's seeing Isaac's blood. In fact, in Genesis 22: 14, Avraham titles the place of the Akedah, 'The Lord Seeth,' again a reference to God's seeing Isaac's blood.
So now you want to question- but what about the ram? Wasn't the ram brought in place of Isaac? Not necessarily. The word used in the pasuk is "tachat" meaning under or "in place of," but it can also mean after. Those who hold that Isaac was sacrificed and then resurrected believe that the ram was sacrificed afterwards.
The firm idea, belief and midrash that Isaac died and was resurrected has been watered-down, with the inclusion of tentative "as thoughs." It is as though Isaac's ashes are piled on the altar, but they are not actual. Of course, there are commentaries who completely hold by the literal interpretation of Scripture, in which case this makes sense. But there is also a sense of mystery...as though people would become confused if they knew the truth, and that is why only the finalities have been given- that Isaac did survive, and that Avraham passed the test. What happened before then is not mentioned or often taught, I think- there may be good reason as to why.
*
I have given you only the very tip of the iceberg when it comes to this idea, and The Last Trial is so beautiful, scholarly, logical and clever that it would be very sad if you took this post as a replacement for reading the work itself. So please, please read the book, whether in the original Hebrew or the translated English- it's fascinating and covers far more than this particular idea, referencing all kinds of thought with regard to the Akedah.
An Aside: You will note that Isaac was "like one going out to be burned and carrying on his own shoulders the wood for his pyre" (Tanhuma, ed Buber, Wa-Yera, 46, p. 114). You will also note that he left a quarter of his blood upon the altar, he was resurrected, and either his blood or his ashes act as redemption for the Jews, for God looks at them and refrains from carrying out punishment. Those who mock Christianity and consider it ridiculous or implausible because of the idea that Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected are incorrect. The religion may be flawed, but it is not wrong because of this idea, for as you see, we too believe in it, before they ever did.
It is the English translation of a work (actually, a sixty-seven page introduction to a poem titled 'The Akedah,' written by Rabbi Ephraim ben Jacob of Bonn) by Shalom Spiegel titled Me-Aggadot ha-Akedah, literally, "From the Aggadot on the Binding of Isaac." Anyone able to read beautiful, rich Hebrew ought to read it in its original form. With that in mind, I still owe the translator, Judah Goldin, a debt of gratitude- I would never have been able to read this book otherwise.
Spiegel traces the various ideas, legends and lore that grew up around the Akedah, the Binding of Isaac, and notes their sources and interpretations, including an approach that I very briefly touched upon in 11th grade and always wanted to know more about- that Isaac died.
~
The question begins with the famous verse, Genesis 22: 19.
יט וַיָּשָׁב אַבְרָהָם אֶל-נְעָרָיו, וַיָּקֻמוּ וַיֵּלְכוּ יַחְדָּו אֶל-בְּאֵר שָׁבַע; וַיֵּשֶׁב אַבְרָהָם, בִּבְאֵר שָׁבַע. {פ}
19 So Abraham returned unto his young men, and they rose up and went together to Beer-sheba; and Abraham dwelt at Beer-sheba. {P}
Avraham returned to the young men.
But where was Isaac?
One of the interpretations was that he was in Paradise. And why was he in Paradise? He was being healed. Why was he being healed? Because of his wound. What wound?
- after the incident on Mount Moriah: "And the angels bore him to Paradise, where he tarried three years, to be healed from the wound inflicted on him by Abraham on the occasion of the Akedah." [Yalkut Reubeni, Wa-Yera (Maggid, Toledot).]
Avraham hurt Yitzchak? Isaac was being healed "from the incision made in him by his father when he began to offer him up as a sacrifice?" [Hadar Zekenim 10b (=Bet ha-Midrash, ed Jellinek, V. p 157) and Minhat Yehudah, Toledot, Gen 25: 27; cf. Hizkuni ad Gen 22:19.]
Apparently the answer is yes.
But that is only a wound. I said that Isaac died. Well, then, how did he die? There are several different midrashim as to how this occurred.
- This is the version in Midrash Lekah Tob, and it is set down in connection with the verse (Gen 31: 42), "The God of Abraham and the Fear of Isaac"- "for Isaac was in the grip of fear as he lay bound on top of the altar, and his soul flew out of him, and the Holy One, blessed be He, restored it to him by means of the dewdrops for Resurrection of the dead." (32)
So here we see an approach that Isaac died of fright and was resurrected.
But then we find a:
- small Midrash on the Prayer in Shibbole ha-Leket. On the surface it seems that here have been assembled only the different haggadic strokes we have listed and outlined thus far; but its language clearly reveals that something new has been added, and now the profile of the whole midrash is suddenly transformed in a manner we could never have anticipated or dreamed of from our reading of Scripture: "When Father Isaac was bound on the altar and reduced to ashes and his sacrificial dust was cast on Mount Moriah, the Holy One, blessed be He, immediately brought upon him dew and revived him. (33)
The Midrash goes on to say that this is the reason that the "ministering angels began to recite, Blessed art Thou, O Lord, who quickens the dead."
In this case, it appears that Isaac was burnt- he was reduced to ashes.
Note that Avraham does not necessarily slay him here. As Spiegel takes care to point out, if one operates under the assumption that Avraham did everything in accord with the Torah, and later on the Torah gives very specific instructions as to the bringing of a korban or sacrifice, specifically in Leviticus 1: 7:
וְנָתְנוּ בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן, אֵשׁ--עַל-הַמִּזְבֵּחַ; וְעָרְכוּ עֵצִים, עַל-הָאֵשׁ.
7 And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar, and lay wood in order upon the fire.
Note the order: First one places fire on the altar, then wood.
Similarly, by Avraham- Avraham would have lit the fire, then placed wood, and then placed Isaac upon the wood. This idea is completely corroborated by Genesis 22: 9
ט וַיָּבֹאוּ, אֶל-הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר אָמַר-לוֹ הָאֱלֹהִים, וַיִּבֶן שָׁם אַבְרָהָם אֶת-הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, וַיַּעֲרֹךְ אֶת-הָעֵצִים; וַיַּעֲקֹד, אֶת-יִצְחָק בְּנוֹ, וַיָּשֶׂם אֹתוֹ עַל-הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, מִמַּעַל לָעֵצִים.
9 And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built the altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar, upon the wood.
In this case, then, Spiegel suggests,
- when Abraham offered up his sacrifice in accordance with the proper order for making a whole burnt offering, and he did with the wood what is done in the propr laying-out of the sacrificial woodpile, wood on top of the fire, and he put his son "on top of the wood." And if in fact he did not do anything to the lad and did not remove him speedily from the wood upon the fire that was burning, why, in a twinkling the whole pile went up in a blaze and the flames of fire had Isaac to themselves and "he was reduced to ashes" and dust. (36)
This is a completely plausible approach- in this case Abraham does not actively kill Isaac, he does not cut him or hurt him, but Isaac dies nonetheless because he is burned to death.
However, Spiegel now cites in a footnote the whole and correct version of this Midrash:
- And now, thanks to a Cambridge University Library manuscript (Or. 1080, Box I: 48), we learn that the Shibbole ha-Leket reading is indeed abridged. Perhaps either R. Zedekiah bar Abraham delli Mansi or some pious soul of an earlier generation was exercising restraint- for reasons similar to those which prompted R. Isaac Aboab to omit that haggadah entirely from beginning to end. For this MS reads: "When Abraham bound his son Isaac on the altar, and slew him and burned him, (the lad) was reduced to ashes, and his ashes were scattered on Mount Moriah; then the Holy One, blessed be He, brought down life-giving dew and revived him [...] See S. Spiegel in the Abraham Weiss Jubilee Volume (New York, 1964), pp. 553-566.]
In this case, Isaac was slaughtered, and Avraham slew him.
Now look to Ta'anis 16a:
- ולמה נותנין אפר בראש כל אחד ואחד פליגי בה ר' לוי בר חמא ור' חנינא חד אמר הרי אנו חשובין לפניך כאפר וחד אמר כדי שיזכור לנו אפרו של יצחק
Why now are ashes placed on the head of each and every one (of the participants)? There is a difference of opinion in this matter on the part of R. Levi bar Hama and R. Hanina. One says (All the participants put ashes on their heads, to indicate thereby,) Before Thee we are all [like dust and] ashes; and the other says (That is done) so that He might call to mind for our sake Isaac's ashes.
Isaac's ashes, did you say! What ashes are these- are they metaphorical ashes, is Isaac likened to ash; what does this mean?
But no! For see, later in Zevachim 62a-
- אלא מזבח מנא ידעי אמר רבי אלעזר ראו מזבח בנוי ומיכאל השר הגדול עומד ומקריב עליו ור' יצחק נפחא אמר אפרו של יצחק ראו שמונח באותו מקום
Come now, listen: When the generation that returned from the Babylonian Exile began to build the Second Temple, "How did they know what to do with the altar? Said R' Eleazar: They beheld the altar all built and Michael, the Great Prince, stood by it sacrificing on it. But R. Isaac Napha said: They beheld Isaac's ashes, that these lay on that spot." (44)
So these are real ashes, very real, the foundation of the altar. When God is angry, He looks upon Isaac's ashes as a reminder, and forbears from meting out just punishment.
But this is not all- because another interpretation states that Isaac left one quarter of his blood on top of the altar. (This is from the earliest selections of Mekilta de-R. Simeon ben Yohai)
To quote directly,
- This is the kind of midrashic exegesis that can blow the top off everything said in the Torah about the Akedah event: "A quarter of blood" did you say! So then, the father did indeed lay hand and knife to the lad, and did do what he did to extract from him a quarter of blood, which is the amount required to keep a man alive, "as that galilean taught in Rab Hisda's presence- The Holy One, blessed be He, said: Into you h ave I put a quarter of blood, on the subject of blood I have cautioned you, etc. If you obey them, fine; otherwise I'll have your lives." If, therefore, Isaac gave a quarter log of his blood on the altar, then evidently Abraham did not refrain from this mighty strange action, and wound he did, and possibly with his own hands did slaughter his son. Or in Abraham ibn Ezra's language, in his commentary (Gen 22:19) : The father acted "contrary to Scripture," "for he slaughtered and abandoned" Isaac on the altar. (47)
In fact, in a conversation with Avraham brought down in several places but perhaps most accesibly in Beraishis Rabbah p. 90, Isaac says, "Father, do not be distressed. Come now and carry out the will of your Father in heaven: may it be His will that a quarter of my blood serve as an atonement for Israel." (49)
The idea of Isaac's offering up his blood is incredibly symbolic, especially when one learns that an alternative interpretation to Exodus 12: 23, " For the LORD will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when He seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side-posts, the LORD will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you," is referencing God's seeing Isaac's blood. In fact, in Genesis 22: 14, Avraham titles the place of the Akedah, 'The Lord Seeth,' again a reference to God's seeing Isaac's blood.
- like the haggadah on "the ashes of Isaac," "the blood of Isaac's Akedah" is carefully preserved, forever to serve as atonement and advocate of Israel in every generation. And whenever Isaac's descendants are in straits, He, as it were, beholds the blood of his Akedah, and pity fills Him so that He turns away the wrath of His anger from His city and His people. That is what we have read in the annals of David's reign, when plague and pestilence broke loose in the Land: "And as he was about to destroy, the Lord beheld, and He repented Him of the evil" (I Chron. 21: 15). What did he behold? He beheld the blood of Isaac's Akedah"- and immediately His compassion conquers His anger and He redeems and delivers. (58)
So now you want to question- but what about the ram? Wasn't the ram brought in place of Isaac? Not necessarily. The word used in the pasuk is "tachat" meaning under or "in place of," but it can also mean after. Those who hold that Isaac was sacrificed and then resurrected believe that the ram was sacrificed afterwards.
The firm idea, belief and midrash that Isaac died and was resurrected has been watered-down, with the inclusion of tentative "as thoughs." It is as though Isaac's ashes are piled on the altar, but they are not actual. Of course, there are commentaries who completely hold by the literal interpretation of Scripture, in which case this makes sense. But there is also a sense of mystery...as though people would become confused if they knew the truth, and that is why only the finalities have been given- that Isaac did survive, and that Avraham passed the test. What happened before then is not mentioned or often taught, I think- there may be good reason as to why.
*
I have given you only the very tip of the iceberg when it comes to this idea, and The Last Trial is so beautiful, scholarly, logical and clever that it would be very sad if you took this post as a replacement for reading the work itself. So please, please read the book, whether in the original Hebrew or the translated English- it's fascinating and covers far more than this particular idea, referencing all kinds of thought with regard to the Akedah.
An Aside: You will note that Isaac was "like one going out to be burned and carrying on his own shoulders the wood for his pyre" (Tanhuma, ed Buber, Wa-Yera, 46, p. 114). You will also note that he left a quarter of his blood upon the altar, he was resurrected, and either his blood or his ashes act as redemption for the Jews, for God looks at them and refrains from carrying out punishment. Those who mock Christianity and consider it ridiculous or implausible because of the idea that Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected are incorrect. The religion may be flawed, but it is not wrong because of this idea, for as you see, we too believe in it, before they ever did.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Hagar and Possible Allusions to the 10 Plagues
Hagar is sent away from Avraham and Sarah twice - once while pregant with Yishmael and once after he is born. She is introduced, becomes pregant and is subsequently banished - all in Chapter 16 of Bereishis. She is first introduced as a שִׁפְחָה מִצְרִית - an Egyptian maidservant. After being introduced as an Egyptian, within the 16 pesukim in Chapter 16, the names of 3 of the plagues of Egypt are mentioned:
הַרְבָּה אַרְבֶּה אֶת-זַרְעֵךְ
וַתִּקְרָא שֵׁם-יְהוָה הַדֹּבֵר אֵלֶיהָ
הִנֵּה בֵין-קָדֵשׁ, וּבֵין בָּרֶד
הַרְבָּה אַרְבֶּה אֶת-זַרְעֵךְ
וַתִּקְרָא שֵׁם-יְהוָה הַדֹּבֵר אֵלֶיהָ
הִנֵּה בֵין-קָדֵשׁ, וּבֵין בָּרֶד
Friday, February 17, 2012
Mysteries of "Mene Mene"
Mysterious words written written on the wall by the angel in Daniel 5:25 - "MENE MENE TEKEL UPHARSIN". Based on Daniel's interpretation of the dream in Chapter 5, there's no apparent reason for the double loshon of MENE (Daniel only interprets the word once). The gematria of the entire phrase is 1118. A tanach search finds 3 phrases within one perek of each other in lech lecha with a gematria of 1118, each with double loshonot: "yada tada" (15:13), "harbeh arbeh" (16:10) and "be'er be'er" (16:14). The "yada tada" has 2 separate sequential combinations of 1118 within the same pasuk.
Also, the only other time in tanach the word "TEKEL" is used is within these perakim - Breishis 16:4.
The gematria of MENE is 91 - same as A-d-o-n-a-i Yud-Hay-Vav-Hay.
All of these pesukim in Breishis are either in the story of the Bris Bein HaBesarim or the expulsion of Hagar.
Also, the only other time in tanach the word "TEKEL" is used is within these perakim - Breishis 16:4.
The gematria of MENE is 91 - same as A-d-o-n-a-i Yud-Hay-Vav-Hay.
All of these pesukim in Breishis are either in the story of the Bris Bein HaBesarim or the expulsion of Hagar.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)