Parshas Toldos
1. On the verse[1] "Sojourn in this land," our Sages say[2] that Yitzchak was not permitted to leave Eretz Yisrael for outside the land, because he was an unblemished burnt offering. "Just as a burnt offering, if it goes outside the curtains, is disqualified, so you, if you go outside the land, are disqualified."
And as commentators[3] explain, all of Eretz Yisrael "is regarded by him like the courtyard," and outside the land "like outside the courtyard." Therefore, being an unblemished burnt offering, "which is kodesh kodashim," he may not leave Eretz Yisrael, just as "kodesh kodashim may not go out of the courtyard."
The reason why Yitzchak has the holiness of an unblemished burnt offering, such that "if it goes outside the curtains, it is disqualified" — for seemingly the holiness comes only after the burnt offering is offered on the altar, whereas a live unblemished burnt offering cannot become disqualified by going out[4] — is understood from the words of our Sages[5] on the verse[6] "And he offered it up as a burnt offering in place of his son": the offering of the ram was in place of Yitzchak ("in place of his son"), and it is as if Yitzchak himself had been the offering that was offered. In the words of Rashi,[6*] "as if my son were slaughtered… his blood sprinkled… my son flayed, as if he were burned and made into ashes." And since it is as if all the services were done with Yitzchak, offering him on the altar, he became sanctified with the holiness of an unblemished burnt offering, which is disqualified by going out.
According to this, however — that Yitzchak has the status of an offering already offered on the altar — an explanation is needed. Regarding the merit of the Akeidah, our Sages say in several places[7] that "the ashes of Yitzchak are as if heaped on the altar." From the precise wording of our Sages, "heaped on the altar" — and not (as in Rashi's wording elsewhere[8]) "heaped and standing for atonement" (and the like) — it is proven that the merit of the Akeidah is connected with the fact that "the ashes of Yitzchak" (remain) on the altar.
[Even more: the Gemara says in Zevachim:[9] "How did they know the altar (how did they know, at the building of the Second Temple, where the place of the altar was)?… They saw the ashes of Yitzchak lying in that place" — from "the ashes of Yitzchak" they knew how to establish the place of the altar.]
This is not understood: the place of the "ashes" that remain from an offering — whose parallel (in Yitzchak's case) is "the ashes of Yitzchak" (which have the same status as the "ashes" of the ram[10]) — is not "on the altar," for there must be the separation of the ashes and the removal of the ashes.[11] How then can it be said that the ashes of Yitzchak are "heaped (and lying[12]) on the altar"?[13]
2. The explanation of this, simply (along the lines of the revealed Torah), is that in the offering of the ram there were no matters of separating the ashes or removing the ashes:
Separating the ashes did not apply, for the service of lifting the ashes concludes with "and he shall place it beside the altar,"[14] and at the Akeidah (which has the law of a small private altar[15]) there is no reality of "beside the altar" — if it is not on the altar, it is in the category of "outside."[16]
Also, the reason for removing the ashes is (as Rashi[17] says) that "there is no place for the arrangement of wood": if the ashes are not taken down from the altar, there will be no place for the next arrangement.[18] For the altar Avraham built for the binding of Yitzchak, this reason of course does not apply.
[Since there was no obligation to take the ashes down from the altar, it stands to reason that the ashes remained on the altar. For the law is that "whatever touches the altar becomes holy,"[19] and "even a disqualified offering that went up on it… shall not come down."[20] Consequently, when there is no obligation (and reason) to take down the ashes, "it shall not come down." (See below, section 3.)]
Therefore "the ashes of Yitzchak" too (like the "ashes" of the ram) are "heaped on the altar."
But an explanation is still needed: the above explanation is only a reason why "the ashes of Yitzchak" could remain and did remain "heaped on the altar." But from the fact that our Sages connect Yitzchak's merit with "his ashes… heaped on the altar," the implication is that this is connected with the merit of the Akeidah itself.
We must say that although the "ashes" of a burnt offering must (in general) be taken down from the altar (even though a burnt offering is wholly for G‑d), the "holiness of a burnt offering" of Yitzchak (through the Akeidah) is such that his "ashes" remain "heaped (and lying) on the altar."
3. This may be explained by first noting: a) In general it is proven, also from practical halachah, that when something becomes ash, it is no longer its previous existence.[21] For example, regarding the burning of chametz, according to the view that chametz is destroyed only by burning:[22] although ash remains after the burning, this is a new existence.[23]
b) The effect (the pleasure Above) of a burnt offering, whose offering concludes with its burning on the altar, comes through its being a pleasing fragrance ("And the L‑rd smelled the pleasing fragrance"[24]), that is, while it is burning and becoming ash, but not afterward.
According to this it does not sit well to say that the merit of the Akeidah endures for generations using the expression "the ashes of Yitzchak": "ashes" emphasizes the opposite, that the Akeidah (and the action of the offering) no longer exists!
Therefore it appears to me, by first noting that there are several ways in which the merit and effect of a mitzvah operate afterward:[25]
a) A merit that came about (and was completed) in the past. That is, doing the mitzvah produces a merit that stays with the person for later (always), but the cause of the merit took place entirely in the past.
b) The doing of the mitzvah (and its merit) was in the past, but the effect of the mitzvah is a continuing thing, and consequently also its merit: it extends later, including into the time when the merit is needed.
c) The earlier deed is (afterward) continually renewed, in such a way that it is exactly as if the mitzvah were being done now.[26]
With this we understand what is related of King David:[27] "When David entered the bathhouse and saw himself standing naked, he said, 'Woe is me that I stand naked without a mitzvah.' And when he remembered the circumcision in his flesh, his mind was set at ease…"
For seemingly, there was certainly discernible in David's mind and heart "the subjugation of the heart and the mind"[28] from his earlier putting on of tefillin (and the like). Why then did he see himself "naked without a mitzvah"?
The explanation of this: the subjugation of heart and mind is a continuing effect of his earlier putting on of tefillin, but the doing of the mitzvah itself he did not have now. But the mitzvah of circumcision[28*] is renewed at every moment,[29] and consequently it is as if he had just now been circumcised.
This is also the novelty of the Akeidah: the merit of the Akeidah is such that it is as if Yitzchak is now (at every moment) burned anew[30] on the altar. Consequently "the ashes of Yitzchak… are heaped on the altar": he is now being burned on the altar and is now "a pleasing fragrance."[31]
4. In man's service it may be explained: the explanation of "ashes" in man's service is:[32]
Ash in itself (not from the standpoint of the cause and state that made it ash) is the ultimate of physicality. As the Alter Rebbe explains in Tanya,[32*] the ash that remains of "wood that is burned" is the element of "earth in it, which descends below and over which the fire has no dominion… Earth is more material than all of them (the other elements)."
And this is the matter of the ashes of the altar: the part of the offering that is burned on the altar hints at the refined matters of the world, which can entirely be raised and included in holiness. In general, these are the worldly things with which a mitzvah is fulfilled,[33] articles used for a mitzvah, articles of holiness[34] and so on.
But the ash that remains of the offering is a hint at the lower things of the world, which cannot be included in the fire of the altar (cannot become entirely holy). In general, these are the permitted matters with which a Jew occupies himself.
Therefore the ashes cannot remain on the altar — the ultimate of holiness.
Within this there are two levels:[35]
a) The "ashes" with which the separation of the ashes is done, which remain at least "beside the altar." b) The ashes that are taken out "outside the camp."
It may be said that this is the difference between the two modes of service[36] of "All your deeds should be for the sake of Heaven"[37] and "Know Him in all your ways":[38]
"All your deeds should be for the sake of Heaven" means that when he does the deeds, they remain for him "your deeds," permitted matters, only he does the permitted matters for the sake of Heaven, for the sake of holiness.[39]
A higher mode of service (with permitted matters) is "Know Him in all your ways": not that through doing them he will later come to "know Him," but in them themselves ("in all your ways") — "know Him." They are indeed "your ways," permitted matters, but the permitted matters themselves become a matter of holiness.
It is like the separation of the ashes, which cannot remain on the altar itself (it is "your ways"), but "he shall place it beside the altar": it remains next to the altar and is absorbed in its place.[40]
5. According to this we will understand why "the ashes of Yitzchak are as if heaped on the altar":
The accomplishment of the binding of Yitzchak is the matter of actual self-sacrifice, the giving of the body in the plain sense. When Avraham was thrown into the fiery furnace (in Ur Kasdim[41]), it was not actual, for the fire did not touch him at all.[42] But with Yitzchak, at the time of the Akeidah "the soul of Yitzchak flew away and left,"[43] and afterward he underwent the revival of the dead.[44]
The level of self-sacrifice derives from the very essence of the soul, which cleaves to and is united with G‑dliness in utter unity, until this permeates all parts of the person equally, including "the matter of the body."[45] And that is why it is expressed in giving the body as well for G‑d.
Therefore, through the Akeidah, Yitzchak became sanctified in such a way that (also) his body became entirely holy. Consequently even Yitzchak's physical matters were elevated to the level of a burnt offering, wholly for G‑d. His physical matters were so nullified to and united with holiness that he did not "feel" their "physicality"[46] at all; their whole substance was only the service of G‑d.
6. As was discussed at length once[47] regarding the interpretation of what is stated in Pirkei d'Rabbi Eliezer[48] on the verse[49] "And Yitzchak sowed": "Did Yitzchak sow grain, G‑d forbid? Rather, he took a tenth of all his wealth and sowed charity to the poor, as it says,[50] 'Sow for yourselves in charity.'"
A verse never departs from its plain meaning,[51] so Yitzchak sowed grain in the plain sense, and this was his wealth from which he took a tithe and so on. But G‑d forbid to say that the content of his "sowing" was a matter of sowing grain. Rather, his "sowing grain" was "Sow for yourselves in charity."
It should be noted, according to another saying of our Sages: Yitzchak instituted tithes,[52] and since a tithe is only from one's own produce,[53] he therefore (and only for that reason) sowed grain, in order to separate a tithe.
It may be said that they amount to the same thing: the root of the mitzvah of tithes and the like is charity.[54]
7. That is why "the ashes of Yitzchak… are heaped on the altar." Through the Akeidah Yitzchak became sanctified to such a degree that there is no place for the "mundane" (which belongs outside): even "his ashes" (his physical matters) are "heaped on the altar," entirely — wholly for G‑d.[54*]
And this is also the reason why the merit of the Akeidah is expressed specifically with the word and concept of "ashes": the merit of the Akeidah consists in the manner of Yitzchak's self-sacrifice — the elevation of his self-sacrifice lies in the accomplishment of "his ashes… heaped on the altar," as above.
8. The directive from this for the service of each and every person:
One of the reasons why the section of the Akeidah is said every day is "to subdue one's nature to serve G‑d, just as Yitzchak gave his life."[55] One must know that the subduing must lead to this, that the "ashes" (physicality) of a Jew should be "heaped on the altar."
The explanation of this:
"Prayers were instituted to correspond to the daily offerings,"[56] and the daily offering is a burnt offering, wholly for G‑d. For the completeness of prayer is that a Jew should give himself over entirely to G‑d.[57]
But the self-nullification and self-sacrifice of prayer gives "room" for a Jew, after prayer, to go "outside the camp" and occupy himself with physical matters. It is true that the service of prayer brings it about that this should be only "to a pure place" — "all your deeds for the sake of Heaven" — but it is still outside the camp.
On this comes the clarification that the reason for removing the ashes is that "there is no place for the arrangement of wood." But if there is "a place for the arrangement," the ashes are not taken down. The "permission" to occupy oneself with physical things (in the mode of "outside the camp") is only if it brings benefit to the next arrangement: through this one will be able to pray better tomorrow.[58]
The place of a Jew must be, and is, inside. Yes, he is a soul in a body and has physical needs — it is enough if his involvement in physicality is "beside the altar." But to go out "outside the camp" is not the true place of a Jew. Even when he does his permitted matters for the sake of Heaven, it is a lesser service: he is not "pouring a cup for his master," but "cooking a pot for his master," and he must change his "garments"[59] (the "cooking" of his deeds, speech and thought[60]).
That is why the recitation of the section of the Akeidah comes before all the matters of the day, for to feel this requires the self-sacrifice of Yitzchak. The self-sacrifice during prayer must be such that it "carries along" his body and all his physical matters, until he feels that for him there is no "outside the camp," and his physicality is entirely permeated with holiness.
And then, even when he goes out (after prayer) "outside the camp" to occupy himself with the matters of the world, "conduct yourself in them in the way of the world,"[61] he feels that his being found "outside the camp" is only external. His inner core, and especially from the standpoint of his soul, the level of Yitzchak in him, is also "his ashes… heaped on the altar."
And by this power, his involvement with physical matters is such that his entire intent in it is only for the benefit that will result for his service of G‑d, in the place of the arrangement.
(From a talk of Shabbos Parshas Behar-Bechukosai, 5728)
Key Lesson
Normally the ashes of an offering must be removed, but "the ashes of Yitzchak" stay on the altar: his self-sacrifice reached even his physical side. So too each day: morning prayer should carry the body along with the soul. Then even when a Jew goes out to the world, he is outside only externally; within, his whole involvement is aimed at the next day's service of G‑d.