לקוטי שיחות חלק ל׳ - וירא ג

Parshas Vayeira

1. On the verse, “And Avraham lifted his eyes and saw, and behold, a ram… and he offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son,” Rashi explains: “‘Instead of his son’—since it already says ‘and he offered it up as a burnt offering,’ the verse lacks nothing. What is meant by ‘instead of his son’? For every act of service that he performed with it, he would pray and say: ‘May it be Your will that this should be considered as if it were done with my son—as if my son were slaughtered, as if his blood were sprinkled, as if he were flayed, as if he were offered up and turned to ashes.’”

And we need to understand:

Earlier, on the verse “Please take your son… and offer him there as a burnt offering,” Rashi comments: “‘And offer him’—He did not say ‘slaughter him,’ for the Holy One, blessed be He, did not desire that he be slaughtered, but rather that he be brought up to the mountain to make him into a burnt offering, and once he brought him up, He said to him: ‘Bring him down.’” And this matter was made known by G‑d to Avraham afterwards, as brought in Rashi on the verse “And He said: Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, nor do anything to him, for now I know…”—that G‑d said to Avraham: “‘I will not violate My covenant, nor alter the utterance of My lips’—when I said to you ‘take,’ I will not alter the utterance of My lips; I did not say to you ‘slaughter him,’ but rather ‘bring him up’; you brought him up, now take him down.”

And since Avraham already knew “that the Holy One, blessed be He, did not desire that he be slaughtered, but rather that he be brought up”—and it was impossible for it to be otherwise, for “I will not alter the utterance of My lips,” and G‑d had promised Avraham “for through Yitzchak will offspring be called to you”—it needs clarification: how could Avraham offer the ram “instead of his son,” such that “he would pray… as if my son were slaughtered, etc.”, when G‑d “did not desire… that he be slaughtered”?

And it cannot be answered that from the fact that the ram appeared to him at that moment, he understood that G‑d wanted him to offer it on the altar—for this is proof that G‑d’s will was to offer it on the altar, but not to innovate a new desire to offer it “instead of his son.”

Moreover: From Rashi’s words—“and he would pray and say: ‘May it be Your will that this should be considered as if it were done with my son’”—it is clear that Avraham did this (offering the ram “instead of his son”) not because of a command from G‑d (nor because he understood that this was G‑d’s will), but rather that this was Avraham’s own desire (and “innovation”), and therefore he needed to pray to G‑d that this offering be accepted “as if it were done with my son.”

And the question remains: G‑d said to Avraham, “‘I will not alter the utterance of My lips; I did not say to you ‘slaughter him,’ but rather ‘bring him up,’” and yet Avraham wanted and strove to add an offering “instead of his son”?!

2. Some explain that this was “in exchange for what was in his heart to slaughter his son, along the lines of ‘and speaks truth in his heart,’” for since “he intended to complete the act… he thought he was obligated to give in its place a ransom and substitute, one in place of the other.”

That is: Although the command of G‑d was only “bring him up” and not “slaughter him,” nevertheless, since Avraham had resolved in his heart to slaughter his son, he was obligated to fulfill what was in his heart (at least—through a substitute), because of “and speaks truth in his heart.”

But it is very forced to explain this in Rashi—for 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 could say Rashi need not write it explicitly (because the student would arrive at it on his own)—for there is room to say the opposite: that in this case, the principle of “and speaks truth in his heart” does not apply at all, for since “the Holy One, blessed be He, did not desire that he be slaughtered,” there is no place to say that Avraham should strive to fulfill his previous thought (even in the manner of “as if” his son were slaughtered), for this is not G‑d’s will.

Therefore, even if we were to say that Rashi holds there is room for this explanation, he should have written it explicitly (and as has been discussed many times, Rashi wrote his commentary in clear language, so that the student need not search for an explanation in the commentators in order to understand his intent).

3. This will be understood by first introducing another difficulty in these verses—one that we do not find Rashi resolving:

In the verses it is recounted that when “Avraham stretched out his hand… to slaughter his son,” an angel of G‑d called to him, saying, “Do not stretch out your hand against the lad… for now I know that you are a G‑d-fearing man, and you have not withheld your son, your only one, from Me.” And after Avraham saw the ram and “offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son,” the angel of G‑d called to him “a second time from heaven, and said: ‘By Myself have I sworn, says the L‑rd, 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 offspring… and through your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed…’”

And this is not understood (as the commentators have asked):

Why was it necessary for the angel to call to him “a second time from heaven” to deliver all the blessings due to him “because you have done this thing and have not withheld your son, your only one,” and did not say all this in the first call?

And the implication of the verses is that even though Avraham was blessed with these blessings “because you have done this thing and have not withheld your son, your only one,” nevertheless, he was not actually blessed with them until after the offering of the ram—and this requires explanation.

4. The explanation of this can be said as follows:

The novelty in these blessings—“I will greatly multiply your offspring like the stars of the heavens and like the sand… and your offspring shall inherit… and through your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed”—even though Avraham had already been blessed with similar content several times previously (as recounted in Parshas Lech Lecha)—is (as is explicit in the verse) that here G‑d swore regarding them—“By Myself have I sworn, says the L‑rd, because… I will surely bless you…” (and through this oath it was assured that nothing would ever nullify these blessings).

Accordingly, there is no need to wonder why Rashi does not explain the reason that the oath came specifically in the “second” call, after the offering of the ram—for this is understood from what is recounted in the Torah regarding G‑d’s oath the first time:

In the verses after the Flood it says, “And Noach built an altar to the L‑rd… and offered burnt offerings… and the L‑rd smelled the pleasing aroma and said… I will not again curse… nor will I again smite…” And Rashi explains: “‘I will not again… nor will I again’—the matter is doubled as an oath, as it is written, ‘which I have sworn that the waters of Noach should no more go over the earth,’ and we do not find an oath there except for this.” It is explicit, then, that G‑d’s oath not to bring another flood came as a result of the pleasing aroma from Noach’s offerings.

And so it is in our case: that G‑d swore regarding the blessings came as a result of Avraham’s offering (—the offering of the ram). Therefore, this oath came only in the “second” call, after the offering of the ram.

And this is also the reason why Avraham wanted to offer the ram “instead of his son”—because in order for his offering to effect that the blessings for the test of the Akeidah (which are fundamental matters for the existence of the Jewish people) would be assured to him by oath, there needed to be a connection and bond between the offering and the test. Similar to what we find regarding Noach’s offerings (which effected G‑d’s oath “I will not again [bring a flood]”), that in addition to the fact that he offered them immediately after leaving the ark (in proximity and as a continuation to the Flood), the offerings themselves were from the animals that had been saved from the Flood—so too in our case, that in order to connect this offering with the Akeidah of Yitzchak, Avraham offered the ram “instead of his son.”

5. According to this, we can also understand the lengthiness in Rashi’s commentary on the verse “instead of his son”—“For every service that he performed with it, he would pray and say: ‘May it be Your will that this be considered as if it were done with my son’ (and he goes on to specify each of the services—) ‘as if my son were slaughtered… his blood sprinkled… flayed… offered up and turned to ashes’”—for this greatly emphasizes the connection between the offering of the ram and the act of the Akeidah, that through the offering of the ram “instead of his son,” Avraham effected that Yitzchak himself would be in the category of a sacrifice.

That is to say: regarding the intent of the verse that the offering of the ram was “instead of his son,” one might have explained that the offering of the ram was in place of offering his son—that through the offering of the ram, the status of “offering” was removed from “his son” and transferred to the ram. But Rashi innovates that the meaning of “instead of his son” is the opposite: that through the offering of the ram, “it is as if it was done with my son,” and thus the status of an offering is applied to Yitzchak. And this—that the status of an offering is applied to Yitzchak through the offering of the ram—was Avraham’s own innovation, and therefore he needed to pray to G‑d for this: “May it be Your will that this be considered as if it were done with my son.”

The explanation of the matter is as follows: The intent of G‑d in the act of the Akeidah was, seemingly, only to test Avraham (as is explicit in the verse), that he should be completely prepared to offer his only son to G‑d, but not that Yitzchak should actually become an offering in practice (for, on the contrary, “I will not alter the utterance of My lips,” and therefore He said “bring him up” and not “slaughter him,” because “G‑d did not desire that he be slaughtered”).

But Avraham, who wished to effect G‑d’s oath (through the “pleasing aroma” of offerings, as explained above), strove that the status of an offering should apply to Yitzchak, so that in the act of the Akeidah there would also be the advantage of an “offering” (and thereby the blessings for the act of the Akeidah would be assured to him in the form of an oath). Therefore, he offered the ram “instead of his son,” and prayed to G‑d: “May it be Your will that this be considered as if it were done with my son.”

[According to this, the continuation of the verse “By Myself have I sworn… because you have done this thing and have not withheld your son, your only one” is also sweetened, for its implication is that (also) the oath that follows the offering of the ram is “because” (a result of the fact) that “you have done this thing and have not withheld your son, your only one”—for (also) through the offering of the ram, Avraham demonstrated that he did not withhold his only son from G‑d, since he prayed then that “this be considered as if it were done with my son.”]

6. However, there is still something lacking in the explanation: It is true that we find regarding Noach that G‑d’s oath came through the “pleasing aroma” of the offerings—nonetheless, in our case, how can it be said that the test of the Akeidah itself, in which Avraham revealed that he was prepared to offer his only son to G‑d, was not sufficient to effect G‑d’s oath, and only the offering of the ram “instead of his son” is what brought about G‑d’s oath?

The explanation may be as follows:

Although in the act of the Akeidah Avraham revealed that he was ready and prepared to give over his only son to G‑d, nevertheless, this is not yet in the definite category of an offering, for it did not come to actual offering in deed. For even after the wholehearted decision, and all the preparations he made to offer Yitzchak as a sacrifice, that “he suppressed his compassion” in order to give him over to G‑d—still, since he did not actually do anything to him and this offering did not come to fruition in practice, it is not definite. And it is obvious and simple that the suppression of compassion in the preparations “to slaughter his son” is not at all comparable to the suppression of compassion required at the moment of actual deed.

[This is similar to the advantage of a person who actually gives up his life for G‑d, compared to one whose self-sacrifice is only in potential (even if he has resolved in his mind to be ready (should the situation arise) to give up his life for G‑d). For when a person must actually give himself over, he must arouse within himself a much greater strength and intensity than the strength he arouses to be ready for this in thought alone, as is obvious and simple.]

Therefore: regarding the test of the Akeidah, it was sufficient that Avraham “suppressed his compassion” in his preparation, for with this already “now I know that you are a G‑d-fearing man,” etc.—however, this still does not contain the advantage of an offering, an actual offering to G‑d (in deed).

7. And this is also the reason that when the angel said to Avraham, “Do not stretch out your hand against the lad,” Avraham said, “Let me inflict a wound and draw a little blood from him”—for, seemingly, what benefit is there in drawing a little blood, since even with this he would not be fulfilling the command of “bring him up… as an offering”? Rather, it is because through this, the aspect of actual self-sacrifice would be felt in him.

Therefore, when the angel answered him, “Do not do anything to him,” “Do not inflict a blemish upon him”—and Avraham desired that the act of the Akeidah should possess the advantage of an offering—he brought the ram “in place of his son,” and with every service he performed with the ram, he prayed and said, “May it be Your will that this should be considered as if it were done to my son.”

When Avraham slaughtered the ram, he thought and felt in his soul that he was slaughtering Yitzchak (and likewise with the other services he performed with the ram), in such a way that through offering the ram he actually aroused within himself the trait of “suppressing his compassion” in action, for at the moment of the slaughter it was felt in his thought that he was slaughtering Yitzchak.

And for this Avraham prayed, that through this thought and arousal it should be considered “as if it were done to my son,” the advantage of an actual offering.

And to this came G‑d’s response (through the angel): “By Myself have I sworn, says the L‑rd, because you have done this thing… I will surely bless you and greatly multiply your offspring… and your descendants will inherit the gate of their enemies,”

and this will be fulfilled in its entirety “in the future redemption for us,” speedily in our days, literally.

(From a talk of Shabbos Parshas Vayeira, 5737)

Key Lesson

Even after G‑d made clear that He did not want Yitzchak slaughtered, Avraham was not content with having passed the test in intent alone; he sought an actual offering "instead of his son," and that offering is what brought G‑d's oath that the blessings would never be undone. Readiness for self-sacrifice is great, but actual deed accomplishes more. A Jew should not rest on good intentions: translating them into concrete action is what secures lasting blessing, for himself and for the generations after him.