This particular act of הכנסת אורחים on the part of our patriarch Abraham involved three profound truths, and during the meal Abraham and Sarah were already alerted to the eventual עקדת יצחק, binding of Isaac on Mount Moriah. When Rashi in Genesis 22,2 mentions three different reasons why the Mountain is called Mount Moriah, these three names reflect the three truths revealed to Abraham during that meal. Rashi personally equates Moriah with Jerusalem, quoting Chronicles II 3,1 as his source. Bereshit Rabbah 55,7 describes the name as indicating the site whence הוראה, (moral) instruction to Israel originates. This is also the site from which reverence for. G–d emanates. Onkelos sees in the name a reference to the incense-offering which contains מור, דרור and other spices.

All three commentators address themselves to the three truths surrounding the commandment to Abraham to offer Isaac as a total offering. The commandment to Abraham to offer Isaac as a sacrifice is terribly difficult to understand. Especially so the fact that it is called מאכלת, "something that feeds," i.e. that the people of Israel still "feed" on the merit accumulated by our patriarch Abraham who took his only son and pre-ordained successor in order to slaughter him with his own hands because G–d had commanded him. Also the merit accumulated by Isaac who went along with this cheerfully, viz: Genesis 22,8: וילכו שניהם יחדו, is totally astounding. Thus it appears to anyone who reads the text of our story. If you examine the text carefully, however, you will find that both Abraham and Isaac made efforts to escape this particular death, as has been pointed out by our sages. When Abraham answers his son's question "where is the lamb for the offering? by saying: G–d will select the lamb for Himself, my son," this is to be understood as a prayer to G–d to select a different offering (22,7-8). We must read the verse as: "If G–d does not select a different lamb, then לעולה בני, "my son will be the offering." Thus we find that Abraham prayed for a miracle by G–d. Because of Abraham's prayer and the fact that G–d responded favorably, we say nowadays in our סליחות prayers that "May the One who answered Abraham at Mount Moriah, also answer our prayers." In view of all this, why does the Torah heap so much praise on Abraham? Do we not have a statement in Sifra Vayikra 22,32 that if someone undergoes martyrdom for the sake of the Holy Name of G–d hoping that G–d will save him by some miracle, no miracle will occur? Even if such a miracle does occur, such a person can certainly not be considered as having become a martyr for the sake of G–d's name!

The Yalkut on Bereshit (22,9) וישם אותו על המזבח describes both Abraham looking at Isaac, and Isaac looking towards Heaven. Both were crying. The Yalkut presents a most moving picture of the great quantity of tears which covered Abraham from head to toe. All this in order to implore G–d to save Isaac. Abraham told his son that seeing he had wept so many tears, G–d has provided a different offering in his place. At that moment Isaac broke out in bitter cries proclaiming: "I raise my eyes towards the mountains, whence will my salvation come?" (Psalms 121,1). All this proves that both Abraham and Isaac had been willing to go through with the sacrifice, but how could they have been described as having served the Lord with joy, as is required?!

Another difficulty is the commentary of our sages quoted by Rashi on 22,5, where Abraham said to the lads accompanying him ואני והנער נלכה עד כה, "I and the lad will go until there." This is interpreted as a severe criticism of G–d by Abraham who queried, "I want to see where is G–d's promise of כה יהיה זרעך, thus (i.e. so numerous) will be your descendants" (Genesis 15,5). At first glance it appears as if Abraham questioned that G–d would fulfil His promise. How do we reconcile this with G–d's reported rebuke to Moses in Exodus 6,2 describing G–d as having appeared to the patriarchs as א-ל שדי, meaning that G–d did not have any need to justify Himself, seeing that the patriarchs accepted all of G–d's commands without the slightest question (compare Shemot Rabbah 6,4). G–d's comment that He is sorry that the likes of the patriarchs no longer exist seems totally out of place in view of Rashi's interpretation of the words עד כה!

G–d has given me the insight to explain these difficulties by concentrating on the three different meanings of the name Mount Moriah that we listed earlier. Before explaining the problem of the עקדה let me first explain what precisely occurred at the meal the angels partook of.

Hospitality is a practical expression of the virtue of חסד, a virtue that Abraham excelled in. We have explained repeatedly that the world is based on חסד, and the world in turn was created only for the sake of Abraham (and his descendants), as we showed based on the spelling of the word בהבראם in Genesis 2,4. The characteristic of חסד is one in which a person's inner love for G–d is expressed, and this is why G–d refers to Abraham in Isaiah 41,8 as אברהם אוהבי, "Abraham who loves Me." The Zohar Mishpatim 114 (Warsaw) defines חסיד, a pious, loving person, as someone who is on intimate terms with his Creator, as we shall explain in detail. Here too Abraham displayed such loving concern for his Maker, as we shall demonstrate. We will explain more about this when we shall discuss the banquet Abraham gave celebrating Isaac's birth.

Now to the triple significance of the word "Moriah." When Abraham saw the three men approach he was in doubt as to whether they were angels or just Arabs; it was the hottest part of the day and normal people stayed indoors; there was no escaping from G–d's heat. He therefore concluded that – if they were angels – these three men must be angels dressed up as human beings possessing a body impervious to the emanations of heat. On the other hand, if they were angels, why would they bow down to the dust of their feet? They therefore had to be Arabs bowing to the dust of their feet under the mistaken impression that the sun causes the accumulation of dust, and that therefore bowing to the dust was a form of sun-worship. Considerations such as these went through Abraham's mind. He was convinced that they could only be either angels or sun worshipers as no one else would risk being out in such a heat.

There are several difficulties in 18,2: "He raised his eyes and saw three men standing by him; he saw and ran to meet them from the entrance of the tent. He bowed down to the ground." Why does the Torah repeat that Abraham "saw?" If the men stood beside him, why did he have to run towards them? We are familiar with what the Talmud says and Rashi quoting it, but we will ignore that for the moment. According to our approach, the repetition of the word "he saw," is justified; Abraham's intellectual vision told him that these men were angels, whereas his physical vision led him to believe that they were human beings. Abraham's doubts were reinforced by the fact that he had seen angels frequently, but they had not appeared to him in the guise of human beings. The words "he raised his eyes" (heavenwards) indicate that he wondered if they were angels. The words נצבים עליו, are appropriate when one speaks of angels as we know from Daniel 7,16: "I approached one of the standing ones and asked him, etc." We also know from Zachariah 3,7 that human beings are described as מהלכים, progressing, whereas angels are described there as בין העומדים האלה, "between these stationary ones." According to Yerushalmi Berachot 1,1 המלאכים אין להם קפיצה, angels do not experience miraculous transposition from one area to another [as happened to Eliezer on his journey to Aram Naharayim for instance in Genesis 24,42, see Rashi Ed.]. Abraham afterwards saw that the appearance of these men was that of human beings. He thought that they might be Arabs, and since humans walk, move, even if they might stand still briefly, he ran towards them. When he came close to them everything that he said to them could be interpreted as appropriate both to angels and to humans. If they were angels, they would interpret what he said to them in a certain manner, whereas if they were men, they would also interpret his words as appropriate.

For instance, he said: "my lords, if I have found favor in your eyes do not pass by your servant." Our sages already are divided in their opinions as to the meaning of the word א-ד-ניי here. Some say that Abraham addressed the שכינה, whereas others say that he addressed the leader of the three strangers. If the former, the word is sacred, if the latter, it is ordinary. Both opinions present difficulties. According to the view that the word is used as an appellation for G–d's Presence, the word should have been written before "he ran towards them." If, however, the words were addressed to the leader of the three men, and the word is ordinary, the vowel under the letter נ should have been a Chirik, and not a Kametz. There is no point in assuming that our sages disagreed as to the vowel that should appear under the letter נ.

I believe that Rabbeinu Bachyah has provided the most plausible reason for the spelling with the vowel kametz. He states that the purpose of the kametz is to demonstrate that G–d is self- sufficient, and that therefore no possessive form can be used concerning Him. His words are truly inspired. There is another allusion in that vowel, however, namely that the vowel kametz is really a combination of the two vowels patach and chirik. If one were to use only the vowel chirik, the word would apply to human beings, whereas if one were to use only the vowel patach, it would apply to all three men, i.e. it would be a plural, meaning "you (all) are my lords." The vowel kametz then is a combination of the singular and the plural. Abraham's intention then was to say: "Even though there may be many 'lords,' You O G–d are my only true Lord, the Lord of Lords." Psalms 136,3 also speaks of אדוני האדונים, "the Lord of Lords."

Now we understand that even if the appellation was meant to be ordinary, addressed to humans, the vowel kametz was still in order, since, though Abraham addressed only the leader of the three men directly, the others were included in Abraham's invitation. Proof of this is the plural ending that Abraham used when saying ורחצו רגליכם, "and wash (pl) your feet" (18,4). To the leader Abraham said: "Do not go away, neither you nor your companions; you are all considered by me as my lords. But you, the leader are my special lord, seeing that you are also your companions' lord." In this manner the use of the vowel kametz is justified even though the word is not used in the sacred sense.

If we follow the view that Abraham addressed the שכינה when he said אל נא תעבור מעל עבדך, we must presuppose that he considered the three "men" to be angels. He addressed them by the name of their Master, i.e. the name of G–d. Being angels, holy beings, G–d's name hovered above them, as Nachmanides explains: We find frequently that the messenger is referred to by the name of his sender. Rashi already pointed this out when he comments on the angel saying שוב אשוב אליך, "I will surely return to you" (18,14). The angel did not refer to himself specifically, but referred to G–d whose messenger he was. G–d appeared here to Abraham in the guise of the מרכבה consisting of the angels מיכאל, גבריאל , and רפאל. G–d's Presence "rode" above those angels. It also rested on Abraham, seeing the Torah had said that He appeared to him. When the angels arrived Abraham realized that they were the מרכבה, the carriers of G–d's Presence. He therefore begged the שכינה not to depart from him until he had a chance to run towards the angels. When that occurred, we hear Abraham say one set of words from which we get two messages. The "hidden" message is that the שכינה should not depart now.

Those who understand the word א-ד-נ-י as merely ordinary, believing that Abraham at that point thought he was addressing mere mortals, understand the vowel kametz as referring to the most distinguished looking of the three men who appeared to be in charge of the other two. There is no disagreement between these views, each side agreeing that Abraham was still in doubt about the real identity of his visitors.

If these men indeed were angels, the meal that Abraham prepared for them has to be understood as an offering, whereas if they were Arabs, i.e. men, the meal represented an act of hospitality in keeping with Abraham's character. Abraham afterwards performed an act of kindness vis-a-vis his Creator, as was his wont, when he tried to introduce these strangers to the realisation that they had eaten from G–d's property, not from his, and that therefore they should say grace. Rashi quotes this view on Genesis 21,33 where the Torah describes Abraham as planting an orchard in Beer Sheba. When the Torah adds ויקרא שם בשם ה' א-ל עולם, "He called there in the name of the Lord, the Lord of the universe," this means that Abraham had asked all the people who enjoyed the fruit of that orchard to bless the Lord for His bounty. He explained to one and all that they would have been mistaken if they had thought they had partaken of Abraham's generosity; what they had partaken of was G–d's bounty since it was He who called the universe into existence. Thus Rashi. In the event these people were humans, Abraham's intention was to introduce them to the ways of G–d. We find Abraham first performing an act of kindness by offering food and drink to fellow- humans, and subsequently he performed acts of piety vis-a-vis G–d by trying to bring these people nearer to Him.

I have already discussed why Abraham thought that if these guests had been human that they must have been sun-worshipers worshiping the dust of their feet. In order to remove that dust, he asked that they wash their feet by saying: יוקח נא מעט מים ורחצו רגליכם. We need to understand why he inserted the word מעט, a little, when he referred to the water they would wash their feet with. There is a deep significance in this.

Remember that Abraham's principal attribute was his characteristic of חסד. The mystical element of חסד is found in the מים העליונים, pure unpolluted waters of the Celestial Regions. The attribute of חסד is also the mystical domain of אהבה, love, as we shall explain. Once Abraham had acquired the virtue of חסד he could enter the domain of אהבה, love, and that is why G–d called him אוהבי. We are told in Song of Songs 8,7 that even מים רבים, many waters, cannot extinguish love. The waters referred to are the מקור מים חיים, the source of truly life-giving waters. There are, however, many cisterns, broken and yet filled, which cannot retain the waters in them. In Kabbalistic jargon these are called קליפות; they are alluded to in Genesis 37,24 as והבור רק אין בו מים, "the pit was empty it did not contain any water." We know from Psalms 52,3: חסד אל כל היום, that "G–d's חסד lasts all day long," though we also have a verse in Psalms 7,12 which appears to contradict this, namely א-ל זועם בכל יום, "G–d pronounces doom each day." The answer is simply that G–d pronounces doom over these קליפות, negative forces, reducing them to impotence. This is the חסד G–d performs all day long. Ezekiel 36,25 may have alluded to this when he says: וזרקתי עליכם מים טהורים וטהרתם מכל טמאותיכם, "I shall sprinkle on you pure waters and you will be cleansed from all your impurities. These waters wash off the accumulated pollution known as קליפות, the result of sins. It is these waters which are called מעטים, little. The reason that "a little water" is sufficient is that קליפות do not increase or multiply naturally, as opposed to קדושה, which increases and multiplies naturally; that is why מים רבים, many waters, are unable to extinguish the "fire" of love, and love continues forever. The principal aspect of the virtue of kindness is deeply rooted in the mystical domain of those מים רבים discussed above On occasion some of these waters have to be used in order to rinse off the קליפות and to "humble" such outgrowths due to sins. This is why Abraham spoke about "a little water to be taken."

This also explains why this act was performed by a messenger and not by Abraham personally. Abraham represented the essence of that virtue, i.e. מים רבים. It would not have been appropriate for Abraham also to personally perform this secondary function of the waters. Even G–d provided purification for the people of Israel through an agent, i.e. the waters which came forth after Moses struck the rock, as distinct from the manna which G–d Himself supplied from the Heavenly Regions. We are taught here that man should do good and not need to be purified by waters except after he has committed sins. When man lives up to these criteria he can achieve דבקות בה' on what is known as a פנים אל פנים "face to face" basis rather than through an intermediary. This very characteristic is described in Job 28,25 as ומים תכן במדה, "He set the measure of the waters."

On 18,4 והשענו תחת העץ, Onkelos says "rest under the tree." This was appropriate in the event that these three visitors were humans. The branches of the tree would provide protection against the heat of the day.

Abraham continued by saying: "I shall take a loaf of bread, etc." We note that he prepared a great deal of bread as proved by the quantity of flour the Torah describes as being used, i.e. three סאים of fine flour. [This is the equivalent of about 432 eggs. Ed.] Since an amount of 3 סאים קמח equals the measure known as איפה, we must ask ourselves why Abraham did not specify that one איפה קמח be used. The reason is that if one measures a particular amount three times, in this case a סאה, the total that one winds up with is liable to be in excess of what one gets when measuring only a single איפה. Our Rabbis describe that little extra amount whenever one measures [so that one does not shortchange the customer] as קלבון. The Torah's point is to draw our attention to Abraham's generous spirit. Interestingly, though a great amount of bread was prepared, we do not read about any of it being served. Rashi, basing himself on Talmudic sources, writes that this was due to Sarah having unexpectedly menstruated while preparing the dough. We will follow a different approach. Seeing that only a small fraction of that amount would be served during that meal, the Torah did not consider such a fraction worth mentioning. Why did Abraham want so much bread to be baked? We can understand why he had to slaughter three oxen if we accept the view expressed in Baba Metzia 86 that he wanted to serve each guest a tongue with mustard. But why would he need so much bread? We must read the sequence as follows "He said: I shall take a loaf of bread and you can refresh yourselves. After that, you may depart." Abraham indicated that the excess bread would be given to them as provisions for the rest of their journey so that they would have refreshments also after having departed from him. This would correspond to the advice of our sages in Pessachim 112: השכם ואכול בקיץ מפני החמה, ובחורף מפני הצינה, "rise early to eat your bread, in the summer because of the heat, and in the winter because of the cold." Since it was very hot at that moment, Abraham provided bread for them to eat when it would be cooler, towards evening.

The verse continues saying that "Abraham stood over them under the tree while they ate." We must understand this as being similar to Exodus 24,11: ויחזו את האלוקים ויאכלו וישתו, "They had a vision of G–d and ate and drank." Abraham stood by them in order to introduce them to monotheism and an appreciation of the kindness and love of G–d for His creatures. While all this transpired, Abraham still had not resolved his doubts as to the true identity of his guests.

After that they told him about the forthcoming birth of Isaac, the essential feature of whom would be his allowing himself to be bound as a sacrifice. This is another aspect of displaying piety vis-a-vis one's Maker as we shall explain later. The whole episode of the עקדה would be a further step in Abraham's demonstrating to mankind how one needs to relate to G–d. Keeping this in mind, we understand the definition of הר המוריה as the site whence moral-ethical instruction, i.e. הוראה emanated.

The second method of explaining these verses is based on Abraham's speculating that these visitors were angels. Thus the meal must be understood as an offering to G–d by Abraham. When Abraham "ran to the cattle," this means he went to prepare a bull for the sacrifice. This is what Vayikra Rabbah 27,9 means when it comments on the paragraph שור או כשב או עז, Leviticus 22,27 that the entire legislation of animal as well as meal offerings and the ability to atone for our sins by means of these animal offerings is due to the patriarchs. In the case of Abraham this is because אל הבקר רץ אברהם, "Abraham ran to the cattle" to select a suitable offering for G–d. The previous verse describing Abraham rushing into the tent to give instructions to Sarah what and how she was to bake, is a reference to the קרבן מנחה, the meal offering. Instead of mentioning a libation of wine, something that usually accompanies such offerings, Abraham took milk and butter. The reason he did so is that milk is conceptually connected to the attribute of Love, חסד, whereas wine is a symbol of the attribute of justice. At this point in Abraham's life the entire emphasis is on the acts of חסד he performs.

Our sages in Baba Metzia 86, explain that the reason the bread was never brought to the table was that Sarah had unexpectedly menstruated, become ritually unclean through having become biologically rejuvenated as of that day. 18,11 which reports that Sarah had experienced her menopause some time ago, refers to her situation prior to the arrival of the angels. It was Abraham's custom not to eat anything that was not ritually pure. Still, even assuming that Abraham personally conducted himself on that basis, how could he apply such stringent yardsticks of conduct to others? One simple answer is that it is not good manners to offer guests dishes that the host himself is not prepared to partake of. Rabbeinu Bachyah answers the problem quite differently. Sarah had stopped handling the dough the moment she became aware of her condition, since she knew that otherwise her husband would not touch the bread. Abraham therefore had no need to worry about that. However, Abraham was concerned about the חמץ aspect, seeing the date of the angels' arrival coincided with the calendar date on which Passover would occur in the future. During the time in which Sarah had to make arrangements for someone else in her household to handle the dough, the dough could have become leavened and as such forbidden. The date is alluded to by Abraham saying to Sarah לושי ועשי עגות, "knead it and make into cakes." The expression עגות, occurs in connection with מצה, i.e. עגות מצות, Exodus 12,39. Since Rashi does not follow the above line, we prefer to accept the approach of the Midrash, who regards the whole procedure as sacrificial gifts. It is of course, totally inadmissible to offer as a sacrifice something that is ritually unclean, hence the bread could not be served.

The great sage Rabbi Moshe Nachmanides already alludes to the קרבן aspect of this meal when he writes as follows: "Perhaps Abraham knew that the part of the food offered first would disappear." One may infer from those words that just as Manoach experienced the sudden disappearance of his offering together with the angel (Judges 13,20), Abraham was aware of the procedure and expected the angels to disappear. It is quite clear that Manoach had not built an altar, he had only made use of an existing rock to offer an offering upon it. (ibid.) The "altar" mentioned there in the book of Judges refers to the Celestial Altar, the region the angel had descended from. This is why he had said to Manoach "do not detain me, since I cannot eat from your bread." The reason he could not do so was that it was פיגול, unacceptable in principle, seeing that one must not offer a sacrifice to one of G–d's angels or other agents. Offerings, even when acceptable, must be offered only to G–d directly. (Judges 13,16). We also have a specific verse in the Torah precluding the offering of sacrifices to an intermediary i.e. בלתי לה' לבדו, "only to G–d Himself" (Exodus 22,18)צ Assuming Abraham was aware of this, he could not have meant for this bread to be eaten, for he knew that angels do not eat. His intention had been that this bread would serve exclusively as a meal offering to G–d in recognition of the fact that G–d had appeared to him while he was awake and able to move around freely. Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 48,4 take the view that G–d's appearance was in response to Abraham having circumcised himself. G–d reasoned that just as He appears to someone who builds an altar for him and offers a sacrifice (by allowing that sacrifice to be consumed by Heavenly fire), if someone performs circumcision on his own body, such an act certainly deserves to be acknowledged by G–d appearing to such a person. Abraham understood the fact that G–d had revealed Himself to him as an outpouring of G–d's bounty, as is normal when G–d accepts someone's offering. He now wanted to offer a real (additional) offering in order to draw down still more of G–d's blessings.

It is possible that Satan's argument which is seen as responsible for the command to Abraham to offer Isaac as a sacrifice, has its basis in our story. According to Sanhedrin 89 Satan argued that Abraham's motivation in offering sacrifices had always been only in order to secure the birth of his son Isaac. As soon as that objective was attained, the Torah no longer reports Abraham as building altars and offering sacrifices. G–d told Satan that he was mistaken, that Abraham would be prepared to offer his son Isaac as a total offering if that were required of him. The weak point that Satan had found to focus on may have been that at this meal, when Abraham did offer sacrifices, he had done so initially to the angels as intermediaries. The Talmud, quoting the dialogue between Satan and G–d, has Satan stress the word לפניך, meaning that Abraham did not offer a sacrifice to G–d directly. Only after that are the spiritual forces awakened and G–d bestows of His bounty, as explained in the Zohar on פרשת ויקרא. The complaint of Satan was that no mention is made of Abraham offering anything in the nature of an offering during the feast he made on the occasion of Isaac being weaned (21,8). He added that Abraham did not even offer a sacrifice at the time he received the tidings from the angels that Isaac would be born the following year. The meal presented to the angels, though a sacrifice, should not have been offered to an agent of G–d but to G–d directly.

G–d answered Satan at that time, that Abraham already had offered such a sacrifice at the time he circumcised himself and again when he circumcised Isaac, seeing that circumcision rates as a major sacrifice. When he did this he fulfilled the commandment of Leviticus 1,2: אדם כי יקריב מכם קרבן, "when someone offers a sacrifice it should be part of you," i.e. part of your very self. We have an allusion to this in Genesis 12,11 ויהי כאשר הקריב לבא מצרימה, when the use of the word הקריב instead of קרב, indicates that he brought himself closer to G–d (see our commentary page 80). G–d compensated the Jewish people for Abraham's devotion at the appropriate time. We know that circumcision itself rates as a major sacrifice from the boast of Ishmael to Isaac that whereas he, Ishmael, had submitted voluntarily to that painful procedure at the age of thirteen, Isaac as an eight day old baby had not suffered, nor had he accumulated a merit for consenting to that act. Isaac responded that if G–d were to ask him to sacrifice his entire body he would be prepared to do so (compare Sanhedrin 89). According to this last version the words אחר הדברים האלה in 22,1 refer to this conversation between Ishmael and Isaac. We will demonstrate that both approaches are true and reflect valid Torah viewpoints.

We therefore see that this "meal" was an עולה, total offering, unaccompanied by the customary meal offering, seeing there was no bread. When Isaac lay bound on the altar, he too was a total offfering unaccompanied by a meal offering, seeing that the offering was in response to a קטרוג, an accusation by Satan as we have explained. The lamb that substituted for Isaac was also not accompanied by a מנחה. I have found that the reason the afternoon prayer, מנחה, is called by that designation, (although the other prayers also represent offerings that were accompanied by a meal offering), is because Isaac had questioned the absence of that מנחה, and subsequently introduced תפלת מנחה as a separate prayer to compensate for that missing meal-offering at the עקדה (cf Genesis 43,63 and Bereshit Rabbah 60,14). The Torah alludes to this in Leviticus 2,1 when, instead of saying ואדם כי תקריב מנחה, the Torah says: ונפש כי תקריב מנחה, hinting that מנחה is associated with someone who had offered up his own נפש.

To come back to יקח נא מעט מים ורחצו רגליכם; Kabbalists know that the angels מטטרון and סנדלפון are known as מנעל and סנדל, shoe and sandal with which the "feet" of the emanation מלכות are covered, and concerning which we read in Proverbs 5,5: רגליה יורדות מות, "Her feet descend towards death" (the reference is to an immoral woman). These shoes and sandals are a hyperbole for the קליפות around which the wicked people walk. The "tree" mentioned by Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai in the Zohar without further identification, is the tree of knowledge. All that is below the emanation מלכות, is somehow associated with that emanation. The angels themselves adhere to the essence of the tree of knowledge of good and evil in its designation as "good." The fact that that tree is also associated with "evil," is something peripheral, i.e. when wicked people try to use that tree they fail to penetrate to its essence due to their קליפות, which preclude their getting to the essence which is” good." [The last few lines are my substitution of the author who quotes on the subject from Pardes Rimonim Shaar Heychal Hatemurot chapter 7. Ed.] When Abraham invited the angels to rest under the tree, he referred to the essence of the tree of knowledge and when he said וסעדו לבכם, "refresh your heart," instead of לבבכם, "refresh your hearts," he indicated that he was aware that they were angels and therefore had only one heart, seeing angels have no evil urge.

The angels responded to Abraham, saying כן, תעשה כאשר דברת, "all right, proceed in the manner that you have said." The emphasis here is on the word תעשה, a reference to Abraham"s good deeds. They encouraged Abraham to continue in his ways of dispensing חסד and thereby opening celestial sources of blessing by means of his own soul. They realised that they would be blessed themselves through Abraham's deeds.

To get back to the point that, from the angels' point of view, the meal was considered a sacrifice to G–d. The essence of a sacrifice is that the person offering it signifies that he offers his own person to G–d. Abraham offered his own person when he circumcised himself, something from which he was still sick on this third day after the operation. During this meal which was a sacrifice, he was informed when Isaac would be born. This is a hint that Isaac represents circumcision at its best, seeing he was the first one to be circumcised on the eighth day. Circumcision on that day is considered an עולה תמימה, a total offering of perfect dimensions. Abraham was inspired with sufficient Holy Spirit to realise that there would be forces such as Ishmael and Satan which would accuse Isaac which we have quoted in connection with the introduction to the עקדה. This is why Abraham sanctified his son Ishmael by instructing him to participate in this offering by helping to prepare it (Bereshit Rabbah 48,13). He is the lad referred to in 18,7 ויתן אל הנער, "he gave it to the lad." He wanted to prevent Ishmael becoming rooted in the קליפות, so that his words would remain ineffective.

Ishmael's accusation is alluded to here when the Torah says in 18,10: ושרה שומעת פתח האוהל והוא אחריו, "and Sarah heard at the entrance of the tent and he was behind it." Targum Yonatan understands the word והוא, "and he," as referring to the נער. i.e. Ishmael. Bereshit Rabbah also understands the reference as being to Ishmael. At any rate Abraham's efforts to raise Ishmael as a G–d-worshiping son were successful inasmuch as he prevented him from sinking too deeply into the domain of the קליפות. The dialogue between Isaac and Ishmael that we have reported shows that the latter was proud of his circumcision; the dialogue also triggered Isaac's offer to be a sacrifice, and G–d giving Abraham a chance to demonstrate that his reverence for G–d exceeded his love for his own flesh and blood. Hagar, Sarah's maid servant, humbled herself and adopted at least part of Sarah's lifestyle. This is why she is called קטורה later on, meaning that her deeds were as dear to G–d as the incense-offering called קטורת. Another reason cited in Bereshit Rabbah is that even though she had been expelled she refrained from cohabiting with anyone after she had left Abraham's household. The word קטורה then is equivalent to קשר, the aramaic equivalent for קטר, knot. The Midrash uses this hyperbole to describe Hagar's chastity. When Isaac lay bound on the altar, these various deeds of Abraham and Hagar were seen to be foreshadowing future events. Abraham bound and tied Isaac on Mount Moriah as a sacrifice.

It is quite possible that the altar that he built on that mountain was exactly on the site on which the Jewish people later on would offer the incense-offering in the inner sanctum of the Holy Temple. This would be most appropriate, seeing that of all the sacrifices the incense-offering is the one most beloved by G–d. Similarly, the offering of Isaac was the act to which G–d responded with more love than any other before or after. When discussing the meaning of 22,11: "An angel of the Lord called to Abraham from the Heaven and said …do not touch the lad," a Midrash explains that the angel's voice came from between the "two cherubs," i.e. the traditionally holiest spot within the Inner Sanctum. It is evident from this that Isaac is perceived as having been bound on the מזבח הפנימי, the altar within the Sanctuary. The angel's voice then called out to him from very nearby. Put differently, this means that "Heaven" was very nearby. Every offering, when accepted, is described as being ריח ניחוח, "a sweet smelling fragrance for G–d." We also find that when the Tabernacle was consecrated that G–d's voice did not penetrate beyond the walls of that structure.

This is precisely why that Mountain is called הר המוריה, since the קטורת, the best-beloved offering in the form of Isaac was offered there, and it is from there that G–d's responses are heard. The meal that Abraham had prepared for the angels also was the kind of קרבן of which Berachot 43 says: "which is the kind of thing that the soul derives pleasure from? it is ריח, fragrance."

Abraham, who was blessed with a degree of Holy Spirit introduced Ishmael to the concept of holiness through his educational efforts, so that he could eventually become instrumental in the binding of Isaac and the offering of incense also known as ריח ניחוח, sweet fragrance, that this binding represented. We have an allusion to this in the numerical value of the name הג"ר, which is identical to the numerical value of the name יצח"ק.

Abraham received a further injection of the Holy Spirit which enabled him to neutralize the accusation of Satan, as the accuser of Isaac the צדיק. Abraham, on the other hand, "donned" the garments of a counsel for defense, and pleaded on behalf of the people of Sodom.

This may be the reason why when Abraham is reported as "sitting" in 18,1 the word Yoshev sitting is spelled defective without the letter ו. [maybe the letter ו symbolizes upright posture. Ed.] This indicates that he tried to rise. At that point G–d told him that he would be a symbol for his descendants, for G–d Himself would rise as a member of a collegiate of judges. How does the subject of "judges" enter the picture here? The meaning is that at that point G–d revealed to Abraham that the attribute of Justice was extended over Sodom. The reason Abraham was informed of this, now that he was circumcised, is that justice is something that can only be administered by people who have been circumcised, as we know from Exodus 21,1: ואלה המשפטים אשר תשים לפניהם, "These are the judgments you are to place before them. "The words "before them" are to exclude Gentiles who have not been circumcised, as we learn from Gittin 88. Being uncircumcised is not only a matter of the foreskin, but the same concept also applies to one's thinking processes. This is why we have ערלי לב, people whose hearts have remained "uncircumcised" (Ezekiel 44,7). All the Gentiles fall into that category; they therefore cannot be entrusted to administer the laws of the Torah. The Torah calls the judges א-להים, the same letters as in מילה, (allowing for the addition of the letter א for G–d), and that is also the name of G–d which represents the מרכבה. This is the meaning of Genesis 17,22: ויעל א-להים מעל אברהם, "G–d "rose" from Abraham." Judges have to be סמוכים, i.e. close to G–d, a condition that cannot be attained until after circumcision. [Nowadays סמוכים means ordained. Ed.] The letter א that the word מילה falls short of being equal to the word א-להים alludes to the fact that man, even when at his spiritually highest plateau, still remains one little bit below the spiritual level of G–d, as we know from Psalms 8,6: ותחסרהו מעט מא-להים, "You have made him a little less than divine. The same is true of the 50 levels of intelligence and insight. The most any man, (Moses), was granted was 49 levels of such knowledge and insight. Our sages in Rosh Hashanah 21b have derived this from reading the word מעט in Psalms 8,6 as מט, i.e. 49.

Let us return to our statement that G–d revealed to Abraham that the attribute of Justice was in full control of the fate of the people in the cities Sodom, etc., and that thereupon Abraham immediately began to defend them. By doing so at this time he was able to atone in the future for the accusation that would be leveled against Isaac, about whose birth he had been informed at this meal.

To sum up: all that transpired at the meal which was a sacrifice of the ריח ניחוח category, is clearly a hint of the other sacrifice of that category, the binding of Isaac on an altar that stood on the site where eventually the Jewish people would offer incense to G–d in the Holy Temple. We can therefore justify the second reason offered for the name הר המוריה, namely the place of מור and אהלות, which are part of the ingredients that made up the incense offering קטורת.

The third approach to this meal is based on the mystical dimension behind the "delicacies," מטעמים, that Isaac wanted to taste before blessing Esau in Genesis 27,4. Our sages state that this was symbolic of the meal G–d will prepare for the righteous in the World to Come. The time frame for that event: After the world will have rejuvenated itself and has reached the spiritual level it should have maintained since the time Adam was created, and would have maintained if only Adam had not sinned. At such a time matter will have been so refined that men will need to wear only the כתנות אור, the garments woven of "light," as Adam had done before G–d had to provide him with leather aprons, i.e. כתנות עור. Then indeed G–d's blessing /command in Genesis 2,16 that man could eat from every tree in the garden will be fulfilled. Abraham alluded to this condition when he said to the angels "rest under the tree." He referred to it as representing the tree of life, seeing that at that time in the future death would be banished from the earth.

The angel himself alluded to that kind of life when he said that his return would take place כעת חיה, ולשרה בן, "at a time of eternal life, when Sarah would have a son" (18,10). The news about the birth of Isaac was the message that it was through Isaac that such idyllic times would eventually return. This is also what is meant in Shabbat 89 when Isaiah 63,16 is discussed. The prophet says: "You are our father, for we did not know Abraham, and we were not familiar with Israel (Jacob); You Lord have always been our Father and Redeemer." The Talmud reported a conversation between G–d and Abraham in which G–d accuses the Jewish people as having sinned, and Abraham suggests that they be wiped out for the sake of G–d's Holy Name. Thereupon G–d says: "I shall tell this to Jacob who has understanding for the difficulty of raising children, perhaps he will pray for mercy for them." Jacob's response however, was the same as Abraham's. Finally, G–d spoke to Isaac: "Your children have sinned!" Isaac replied: "Are they only my children and not Yours?! When they volunteered to accept the Torah saying "we shall do and we shall hear" (Exodus 19), You called them "My first born son" (Exodus 4,22); now that they have sinned they suddenly are mine? Isaac continued to argue with G–d in this vein. As can be seen, in that conversation Isaac proves to be the only one of the patriarchs who defends Israel. This is what Isaiah referred to when he has Israel deny the other two patriarchs. Many readers are non-plussed by this Aggadah in the Talmud, seeing that we associate Abraham with the attribute of חסד, love, and Isaac with the attribute גבורה, justice, and we would have expected Isaac to have been rigid in his attitude and Abraham to have made excuses for his children. Jacob, who represents a mixture of these two attributes, should also have found it in his heart to come to the defense of his children in Isaiah's story. How then can we explain that the real good devolved upon the people of Israel through their patriarch Isaac?

Those who ask this question do not really display much wisdom. The very quality that enabled Isaac to be judged by the attribute of Justice is what secures Israel's eventual lofty status, its joining the ranks of בני עליון, superior beings. First we must examine the meaning of the מדרשים, Bereshit Rabbah 12,15 et al., which report G–d as having wanted to create a universe that would be administered solely by the attribute of Justice. These Midrashim report that when G–d realized that such a universe could not endure for long, He co-opted the attribute of Mercy. I have dealt with this problem at length on page 14 of this volume, where I also explained that one must not conceive of G–d as having "changed His mind," having abandoned a previous plan, seeing לא בן אדם ויתנחם, "He is not human that He should have regrets" (Numbers 23,9). All that happened to G–d's original plan is that instead of the yardstick of the attribute of Justice being applied universally, it is applied only to בני עליה, the truly righteous. To them G–d applies the most stringent yardstick. It is the application to them of the undiluted attribute of Justice which stamps them as superior creatures, בני עליה. They are but few in numbers. G–d applies a mixture of the attributes of Justice and Mercy to the vast majority of people. In the future under discussion, however, when everybody will qualify as a member of that formerly select group, everybody will be judged by the undiluted attribute of Justice and will prevail even under such scrutiny. It is impossible for people nowadays to qualify for such a status until after their bodies, i.e. the raw-material their bodies are made of, have undergone a process of refinement such as the experience of exile and other afflictions. The more of such suffering the Jewish people experiences, the greater the evidence that G–d has decided to become very exacting with us in order to prepare us for that idyllic state. When viewed under this perspective, we understand that the application of the attribute of Justice is really an expression of the greatest love, חסד, of G–d for the Jewish people.

If Isaac is usually referred to as יצחק בן אברהם, this means that Abraham, who represented the attribute of חסד, was the natural forerunner of Isaac, who achieved the status of being worthy of the מדת הדין, attribute of Justice. The power of the son in this case proves to be greater than the power of the father, seeing that the attribute of Justice is the highest form of the attribute of Mercy. G–d, so to speak, rises from the throne called Justice and sits on the throne called Mercy. At that time the name יצחק, which is synonymous with Justice, will be revealed as the source of joy, the deeper meaning of that name spelled as ישחק, as in Psalms 105,9 for instance. The Zohar sees in the letters of Isaac's name when spelled ק"ץ ח"י, a hint of the attribute of Justice, since judgment ends in death, i.e. Ketz Chay. In the future his name will symbolize joy as in Psalms 105. We have repeatedly explained how Abraham was the real reason Heaven and Earth were created as hinted in the spelling of the word בהבראם in Genesis 2,4. Isaac, however, was the spiritual equivalent of Adam before his sin, since he was the first person who was both conceived and born by parents who had sanctified themselves. The removal of Abraham's foreskin repaired the damage Adam had done by sinning and acquiring a קליפה, husk (symbol of sin). Our sages expressed this by saying that אדם הראשון משוך בערלתו, Adam pulled, i.e. disguised, the fact that he had no foreskin, as distinct from Isaac, sanctified (from birth), who became the equivalent of first man who had been formed by G–d from holy soil. This may well account for the fact that he was not allowed to leave the holy soil of ארץ ישראל (Genesis 27,2).

In order to appreciate the dimension of holiness Isaac represented, it is fitting that we first see what the Zohar says on the subject of the עקדה. When Abraham was about to slaughter Isaac, the latter's soul flew away to be replaced later by a holy spirit from the Celestial Regions. It follows then that Isaac's life after the עקדה, was the life of a human being who had not originated from a drop of semen. We must view Isaac as someone re-born in consequence of that experience: a totally new creature. G–d had applied the strictest yardstick to him by letting him die, and subsequently by infusing him with a new soul. He had also sanctified his body; from that time on Isaac's body resembled that of אדם הראשון, also not the product of a drop of semen. Now we understand also why the ram which Abraham sacrificed in lieu of Isaac was not the product of natural procreation, i.e. through semen, but was created during the period of dusk on the sixth day of Creation as reported in Avot 5,6. When Genesis 22,13 describes this ram as והנה איל אחר נאחז וכו' "and here a ram after was caught, etc.," this means that this ram was created after all the other mammals had already been created and had procreated. The word אחר therefore is to be understood in the same sense as the same word when Abraham said to the angels אחר תעבורו. Isaac teaches us about G–d's very first objective when He set out to create this universe which would develop to become as perfect as He envisaged it.

Abraham, as the progenitor of Isaac, who had removed the foreskin which Adam had been gross enough to "pull down," had managed to become the person who is fit to be the carrier of the מרכבה, the Presence of G–d, as is clearly indicated in Genesis 17,22 "G–d ascended from Abraham." This ascent occurred after G–d had concluded an eternal covenant with him, as is specifically stated here ואת בריתי אקים את יצחק, "and I will maintain My covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear for you." This is a promise that in the future the world will achieve its perfection, as always planned by G–d. In view of the above, the meal at which the timing of Isaac's birth was announced was certainly an event of spiritual significance, something not unlike the meal G–d is said to serve the righteous in the future.

The line 18,7) ,ואל הבקר רץ אברהם) may be understood as parallel to the heavenly meat that the angels are reported as having fried for אדם הראשון, as reported in Sanhedrin 59. Abraham prepared the bread but did not serve it, since the time for manna which would be ground for the righteous in the heavenly region called שחקים was not yet ripe. Since Adam, however, had already been the recipient of meat from the heavenly regions before he sinned, Abraham saw no reason not to offer meat to these guests from heaven. The bread he prepared assumed a sacred character, seeing Abraham had been feeding the poor at all times, and the reason his descendants were found worthy to feed on heavenly bread was because of their ancestor Abraham's mercy. Unfortunately, the Israelites sinned when they made derogatory comments about the manna, describing it as לחם הקלקל, "bread that is lacking in substance" (Numbers 21,5). This heavenly bread will only appear again in the future that we have spoken of. The reason that

Abraham did not offer wine, though Adam had his wine sieved by the angels while he was still in גן עדן, is that the Talmud describes that heavenly wine as something no one on earth has ever seen the like of, something משומר בענביו, "preserved within its grapes," i.e. it exists as yet only in the potential. (Berachot 34).

The milk and butter which Abraham did serve symbolize the ascendancy of the attribute of Mercy over the attribute of Justice. This ascendancy of the attribute of Mercy will be demonstrated during the life of Isaac, as indicated in Sanhedrin 89b.

The Torah provides a strong hint of the perfection of such a future world when it describes Abraham as "standing over the angels under the tree while they ate" (18,8). We read in Kohelet 11,3 מקום שיפול העץ שם יהוא, "wherever the tree will fall, there it remains." [The following is based on the word יהוא meaning יהיה-הו. At least this is the spelling of the word in that verse adopted by Avodah Zara 31. Ed.] In this instance Abraham is described as והוא עומד as opposed to having fallen. We find in Zachariah 14,9: ביום ההוא יהיה ה' אחד ושמו אחד, "on that day G–d will be One and His name will be One; this is an allusion to a perfect world when G–d's name will be complete, not as in our imperfect world where G–d appears only with half His name as we are told in Exodus 17,16 כי יד על כס י-ה מלחמה לה' בעמלך, "that as long as G–d has to make war against Amalek, a hand is raised against His throne which is described as כס instead of as כסא. Also, His name is only י-ה, instead of י-ה-ו-ה. We have explained that the first two letters in G–d's Ineffable Name represent more of the attribute of Mercy than the last two letters. In the future as described in Zachariah not only will G–d's name be complete, but the last two letters will equal the first two letters. The name will then be as if it were spelled יהיה. This is the real meaning of "on that day G–d and His name will be One."

This message is also alluded to in the wording of Genesis 1,3 where G–d gave the directive יהי אור, and the Torah reports: ויהי אור. The letters in G–d's name י-ה-ו-ה, are really only י-ה-ו, seeing that the letter ה appears twice. If Adam had not sinned, the name would have been י-ה-ו-ה. Unfortunately, the spiritual level necessary for that name never existed, not even when we merited the building of the Holy Temple, at which time the Ineffable Name of G–d was of the י-ה-ו-ה variety. This is what Solomon refers to in Kohelet 11,3 that במקום שיפול העץ שם י-ה-ו, the word שם has to be vocalised Shem, i.e. the Name will consist of the letters Yud-Heh-Vav. Genesis 1,3 hints at G–d's original plan which provided for יהי instead of יהו. When the Torah reports ויהי אור, i.e featuring the three letters of the present "full" name of G–d, this is a hint that part of the "great light" was already withheld; G–d anticipated Adam's נפילה, "fall." אדם הראשון caused that "fall"' by eating from the tree of knowledge. The meaning of Kohelet is now clear. "The place the tree fell is the cause that the letters in the name of G–d remain י-ה-ו. The world as it is cannot rise above that level of G–d's name. When G–d says of Abraham in Genesis 18, 18 that ואברהם היו יהיה לגוי גדול, we have the implied promise that in the future, as a result of someone like Abraham, that configuration described as “היו,” will eventually be changed to the configuration “יהיה.” If Abraham is previously described as standing under the "tree,” this is a hint that he "stands guard,” insures that the original design for the world will materialise: that the fall from grace due to having eaten from the tree will be reversed.

I have elaborated on this theme in my introduction to the treatise תולדות אדם. This summarizes the spiritual aspect of the meal Abraham provided for the angels and the message about Isaac that he received at that time, which in turn explains the significance of הר המוריה.

The first method of exegesis is based on an understanding of איזהו חסיד? המתחסד עם קונו, Who is a pious person? He who practises piety with His Maker (Zohar Mishpatim 114). This means that such an individual performs the commandments of G–d with more love and goodwill than he is obliged to. Abraham demonstrated this by binding Isaac in anticipation of slaughtering him as a sacrifice. Abraham could have based himself on strict legality, and challenged G–d's command by saying that he believed in the promise of G–d that 15,5) כה יהיה זרעך), as well as on 21,12 or 17,19, both of which promise that Isaac would have seed and that his seed would perpetuate Abraham's name. In order to make certain that G–d's earlier promise would indeed come true, Abraham could have argued that he was under orders not to slaughter Isaac. Bereshit Rabbah 56,10, commenting on why Abraham called the site of the Akeydah. 22,14) ,ה' יראה) i.e. "G–d will see," quotes Rabbi Yochanan: O G–d, at the time You told me to take my first born, the one I love, I could have remonstrated saying that You Yourself had told me only "yesterday" that my seed would be perpetuated through Isaac. I carefully refrained from becoming guilty of such an argument. I rather suppressed my natural feelings of pity for my son than not to comply with Your will."

The Midrash clearly means that Abraham could have legally avoided complying with this request by G–d. Abraham stressed that he had acted against his natural attribute of חסד. The Zohar understands Isaac's saying to his father in (22,7) אבי!, "Father!" as an outcry meaning "You who are my father appear now in the guise of your son who represents גבורה, דין, instead of חסד ורחמים” (compare Sullam edition Vayera page 151 approx. as quoted by author). When Abraham said in 22,5: נלך עד כה , "we shall go thus far," he meant he wanted to see (Yireh) what happened to G–d's promise of כה יהיה זרעך, "this is how numerous your descendants will become." Abraham, by later naming the site on Mount Moriah Yeraeh indicated that he had indeed been shown that G–d's promise would be kept. We must not understand the allusion עד כה, as an implied criticism of G–d, but rather as emphasizing how far Abraham was prepared to go to comply with G–d's request to offer up his son Isaac. If Abraham would not have had to wrestle with his fatherly feelings he would not have performed the מצוה in the best possible manner, just as someone who does not eat pork because he has no desire to eat it does not get the same credit for abstaining from it as does a person who really fancies pork but restrains himself only because the Torah forbids it (compare Rashi on Parshat Kedoshim 20,26).

Both Abraham and Isaac separately prayed to be spared such a death. They did not do so out of opposition to G–d's command, but in order to cause G–d to give more weight to His original promise of making Isaac the one through whom Abraham's seed would develop. Had G–d never made this promise thrice previously, the idea of prayer to escape that death would never have occurred to them.

The second approach is connected with our exegesis of the meal during which Abraham was told about the impending birth of Isaac being itself a sacrifice, since Abraham had already sacrificed himself when he performed circumcision on his own body. This was the reason that Ishmael boasted about his own מסירת הנפש, dedication to G–d, in having his father perform this operation on him without his objecting. Satan found an excuse to malign Abraham for not having offered a sacrifice during the feast he gave after Isaac was born, and also for not offering a bull and ram to G–d directly, instead of to G–d's intermediaries, the angels, during this meal after he had successfully recovered from the circumcision.

We shall demonstrate that both the view which interprets 22,1 as referring to Satan's accusation, and the view that the test was caused by Isaac's provocative boast to his brother Ishmael that he would be willing to offer his entire body to G–d, are true and totally compatible with one another. We must understand that anything which is due to Satan or a malignment by Satan, has its origin in the סטרא אחרא, the side of the emanations which is separate from sanctity. On the other hand, the statements ascribed by our sages to Ishmael, who boasted of his having demonstrated genuine obedience to G–d, originates in the side of the emanations that contains קדושה, sanctity. Abraham was not sure whether the entire נסיון, test, was because G–d had heeded Satan's malignment of him or whether the test was due to the words of Ishmael and Isaac's reply that he was willing to sacrifice body and soul for G–d. When we consider that Abraham and Isaac rose early in the morning to undertake this journey to Mount Moriah, and that Abraham personally saddled his donkey instead of leaving this chore to one of his servants (compare 22,3), and when the Torah immediately afterwards describes Abraham and Isaac as "going together," the meaning that they both rejoiced in planning to fulfill G–d's will becomes clearly apparent.

On the other hand, why does the Midrash describe both of them as shedding an ocean of tears? Why does that Midrash describe Abraham as expressing wonderment how the promise of “כה” will be fulfilled, and as praying for Isaac to be spared from death? They reasoned as follows: If the whole נסיון was the result of Ishmael's boast and Isaac's provocative response, then they were both extremely happy to be able to prove themselves adequate, seeing that the matter emanated in the regions of sanctity. If, on the other hand, this test was the result of Satan having maligned Abraham, i.e that it all originated in the סטרא אחרא, then the tears were certainly called for, as well as the prayers to be saved from a death which would have resulted from the machinations of Satan. In such circumstances a prayer that G–d's promise of כה יהיה זרעך, be fulfilled, would be most appropriate. The objective of the prayer was to enlist G–d's help in thwarting Satan's objective.

The truth is that this test was due to Ishmael's and Isaac's dialogue, a competition who could serve the Lord better. Such a dialogue certainly reflected the "right" side of the emanations. Rabbi Yossi the Galilean describes the matter in Bereshit Rabbah 55,5 when he says that the words והאלוקים נסה את אברהם must be understood as "G–d placed Abraham on a high mast, like that on a ship." His meaning is that G–d simply wanted to demonstrate to the whole world the devotion of an Abraham to the most difficult demand G–d could make upon him. Nonetheless, there is no denying that Abraham had found a detractor in Satan, and we have it on the authority of the Zohar that any accusation leaves some impression that G–d has to address Himself to, even if He does not do so immediately. In such a situation G–d hands someone else to Satan as a ransom, as alluded to in Isaiah 43,4: ואתן אדם תחתיך, "I give men in exchange for you." Abraham was afraid that the effect of Satan's accusation against him might have negative effects on Isaac's descendants. This is why G–d told him immediately after the binding of Isaac (Genesis 22,21) that the ransom had already been assigned to Satan: עוץ בכורו, "Utz the first born of Nachor," otherwise known as job, as we know from Job 1,1 "there lived a man in the land of Utz, Job was his name." We know that G–d delivered the fate of this man into the hands of Satan (ibid.). The mechanics of how this ransom works are discussed at length in the Zohar.

Isaac was "crowned" with an even higher degree of sanctity, becoming an offering of the highest degree of holiness, perfect, a sweet fragrance to G–d, seeing that the ram Abraham eventually slaughtered was to be considered as if he had slaughtered Isaac himself. Because of this offering the Mount is called הר המוריה, from the word מר, one of the principal fragrances of the incense offering called קטורת. Just as that offering is G–d's favourite, so Isaac became G–d's favourite.

Our third approach to the meal Abraham offered the angels is that this meal is to be considered an allusion to the meal in the distant future that G–d will serve to the righteous, and that the message Abraham received during that meal was that it would be Isaac through whom such eventual idyllic circumstances would become possible at a time when G–d's original plan for the universe would be realized. We have stated that Isaac's holiness was due to his being the first human to be circumcised on the eighth day as prescribed by the Torah. At that time his body would become as holy as possible. When G–d asked Abraham to offer such a human being as a total offering, Abraham rejoiced. Isaac also rejoiced seeing he had been found worthy to become a total offering to G–d during his lifetime, a privilege which had not been granted to any other righteous human being until after death, at which time their souls would be "sacrificed" on a celestial altar by the archangel Michael; we have mentioned this previously.

Abraham was very worried that Isaac might not accept death entirely willingly due to the physical pain involved. In that event he would turn out to be a blemished offering instead of an עולה תמימה, a perfect offering. This is what his prayer was all about. He was not concerned with G–d revoking His instructions, but he asked G–d's help to make the death the experience it was meant to be. Abraham simply invoked the principle הבא לטהר מסיין לו, that he who sets out to purify is entitled to a heavenly assist (Yuma 38b et al). The entire prayer was that both he and Isaac should be able to fulfil the imperative עבדו את ה' בשמחה, "Serve the Lord joyfully," as we have been taught in Psalms 100,2.

When G–d said to Abraham after the 22,12) ,עקדה) "Now I know that you are G–d-fearing," this is what is meant. We find in Sotah 31 that this expression of "G–d-fearing" is supposed to mean that Abraham served G–d out of love. This seems paradoxical. Why would the Torah use the word "fear," when what is meant is "love?" The Talmud there is at pains to justify this statement by citing that G–d called Abraham “אוהבי, “the one who loves Me," in Isaiah 41,8. There are actually three levels (in ascending order) in which one relates to G–d. There is fear which eventually results in love; there is love which eventually results in reverence, another level of "fear." I have explained all this at length in my treatise בעשרה מאמרות נברא העולם. Briefly, the lower level of fear is the fear of punishment. The higher level of יראה, fear, is a kind of reverence, i.e. the fear to do something displeasing to G–d irrespective of any consequences. The mere idea of being unworthy is something abhorrent. This latter "fear" is one that is the result of having developed a love for G–d. It is this fear that Abraham was being complimented on by G–d after the successful trial of the עקדה. The Talmud therefore is quite correct in associating that fear with "love," seeing it was the product of love. The fear that Abraham entertained during the steps leading up to the binding of Isaac was that somehow his own and Isaac's performance might not be optimal, i.e. whole-hearted and joyful.

We have to understand what the Yalkut Shimoni on 22,9 means when he quotes Abraham's prayer as telling Isaac that since he had begun to offer G–d a רביעית of his blood, G–d would find a substitute offering for him in his place. The words used by Abraham are: הואיל והתחלת, "because you have commenced." Abraham knew that up to that point Isaac had submitted not only willingly but gladly. Seeing that Isaac had commenced in the right spirit, Abraham assured him that G–d would assist him to complete the process successfully. This too is the deeper meaning of Psalms 44,23: נחשבנו כצאן טבחה, "We are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered." This means that we deliver our lives up to sanctify the name of G–d, and attach our souls to G–d so that what is left on earth is only the body like that of an animal. That body we abandon to be slaughtered.

After all it is well known that the term אדם is used for man only because of his spiritual component. The animalistic נפש within us that enables us to remain "alive" entitles us only to the description בשר אדם. This point is often repeated in the Zohar. What happened at the עקדה is quite in line with these considerations. Abraham's prayer was for Isaac's soul to cleave to G–d so that the body that would be left behind would be merely body. When Abraham promised Isaac that G–d would accept קרבן אחר, another offering in his place, the reference was not to the ram Abraham found later, but to Isaac's body devoid of his soul. Issac's essence was his soul. Once Isaac's body remained without his soul, it was someone else who served as the sacrifice. When Kabbalists describe the souls of the righteous as being נקרבים למעלה, which loosely translated means "sacrificed in the Celestial Regions," this is quite inaccurate. The expression נקרב means that something is being brought close. The souls of the righteous are being brought so close to G–d that they become an almost integral part of G–d Himself. We must appreciate that, just as there are different kinds of sacrifices, some being more beloved by G–d than others, [as we have explained about the קטורת, incense-offering, Ed.] so different souls achieve a greater or lesser degree of closeness to the Essence of G–d, depending on the degree of self-sacrifice for G–d they represent. When someone's soul has achieved this optimal closeness to G–d, the body it inhabits also achieves a high degree of קדושה, sanctity, and can become a real קרבן. When no such closeness between one's soul and G–d exists, the only part of the human entity that becomes קרבן, = closer to G–d is the soul.

Abraham's prayer was that Isaac's body should qualify as the קרבן. When he said: אלוקים יראה לו השה לעולה בני, he meant that Isaac's body should be like a lamb, ready for this close relationship with G–d. Rashi's comment on these words is quite in place, since Abraham wanted Isaac to know that if he, Isaac, was not able to rise to that spiritual level which he as his father prayed for, then לעולה בני, he would still serve as a sacrifice, but that such a sacrifice would not transport him to the highest degree of closeness to G–d. G–d listened to Abraham's prayer benevolently, and Isaac's soul achieved the prayed for degree of closeness with G–d's Essence. He received an additional input of Holy Spirit, and represents the deeper meaning of אדם ובהמה תושיע השם (Psalms 36,7) that his body too remained intact, and that G–d invited a ram to serve literally in lieu of Isaac, as we will explain.

This leaves us with the meaning of Abraham's saying עד כה, which had been interpreted as Abraham wondering how the promise of כה יהיה זרעך could now be fulfilled. Instead of understanding this as a degree of doubt on Abraham's part, we must understand this as Abraham hoping that Isaac would really be able to live up to the highest expectations one can make of human beings. He prayed that כה, "thus", i.e. of such superior calibre, would be his descendants. If G–d had meant that hyperbole in Genesis 15,5 to describe the physical dimensions of Abraham's offspring, He should have compared them to the dust of the earth or the sand on the beaches of the sea, as we repeatedly read. G–d, however, referred to the spiritual dimension, and that is why He told Abraham to look towards heaven, and chose the hyperbole of "like the stars in heaven."

When G–d told Abraham in 22,12 אל תשלח ידך אל הנער ואל תעש לו מאומה, "do not raise your hand against the lad and do not do anything to him," Abraham was stunned, fearing that maybe Isaac was found blemished, not worthy as a sacrifice. It was then that G–d took Abraham into His confidence, explaining that when He had said in 21,12 כי ביצחק יקרא לך זרע, "for through Isaac your seed will be known," that had only referred to part of Isaac, i.e. ב. Now, after the עקדה, however, when Isaac has been cleansed of any unworthy parts, My promise refers to כל יצחק, all of Isaac, i.e. Isaac's entire personality qualifies to be your descendant. When Abraham receives a "second" message from G–d in 22,15, this is merely to assure him that G–d will certainly not change or qualify any promise He had made to him, and that the soul that inhabited Isaac's body now was שנית, a second one, his original soul having ascended to Heaven. It was because of the ריח ניחוח of the ram that Abraham slaughtered that Isaac's soul could ascend to Heaven, seeing that that ram had been a heavenly creature having been created at dusk of the sixth day of creation, as we know from Avot 5,9. The physical body of Isaac, who had been born of semen, was also replaced with sacred flesh. This is why he was forbidden to leave the holy soil of the land of Canaan.

I have discussed this matter in greater detail in my sermon delivered on the Sabbath before Rosh Hashanah in connection with Deut. 30,11. Isaac then represents the מדת הדין, meaning that he is on a spiritual level that enables G–d to be as exacting with him as He had envisaged at the very beginning, before He began to create the universe. He represents what is called ראשית המחשבה.

I have explained earlier how Abraham is the source of the fulfilment of G–d's Name becoming י-ה-י-ה instead of י-ה-ו-ה, and how this is alluded to in the name Abraham called Mount Moriah, i.e. השם יראה.

Since we are already on the subject of verse 22,14, let me tell you something interesting. The expression יראה is employed here twice; once it is vocalized Yireh, the other time it is vocalized Ye-ra-eh. I have already mentioned that a great promise is contained in this verse. We have also a promise in Isaiah 52,8 כי עין בעין יראו בשוב ה' ציון, that G–d's return to Zion will be witnessed visually. I believe that the two words יראה in our verse are an allusion to a statement by our sages in Chagigah 2 that בדרך שבא לראות כך בא לראות, "just as one sees with both eyes so one is seen with both eyes." The Talmud uses our verse to draw a comparison between the way G–d sees us and the way we see Him. It concludes that if someone is blind in one eye he need not make the pilgrimage to Jerusalem on the holidays since the Torah requires him to be "seen," i.e Ye-ra-eh.

Rashi comments that the spelling is Yireh, whereas the reading is Ye-ra-eh. He says of G–d (interpreting the Talmud) that "just as He comes to see you." Tosaphot challenge this commentary by Rashi, saying that the expression "He comes to see you,” used by Rashi as applicable to G–d is inadmissible, seeing that He is omnipresent and has no need to "come” anywhere. Tosaphot argue further that the traditional reading of ייראה would precede the spelling ירשאה, not vice versa.

It seems that Tosaphot understand Rashi as applying both words to G–d regardless of the vocalization. When the traditional spelling, מסורה, is used, the Torah describes G–d as coming to see you, whereas the מקרא vocalization used by the Torah describes the manner in which man should appear before G–d. It is the former interpretation that Tosaphot challenge, saying that one cannot speak of G–d 'coming to see you." Besides, it would not be reasonable to make the מקרא secondary to the מסורה. This is the reason that Tosaphot change the version to read: Just as when man appears before G–d, he expects G–d to look at him with both eyes, so when he goes to see G–d he should look with both eyes when in possession of them. In Erchin 2b, Rashi explains our verse in the same way as he does in Chagigah, "just as G–d comes to see you." We have another place in Sanhedrin where Tosaphot reverse the version offered by Rashi in explanation of our verse. According to the traditional reading of Rashi's commentary, the allusion that we see in Abraham's naming of the site both as Yir-eh and then as Ye-ra-eh is perfectly compatible.

It appears at first glance, that Tosaphot's interpretation of Rashi is not compatible with our interpretation of this verse. Actually, if you look carefully, you will find that Tosaphot's interpretation here is compatible with our understanding of Abraham's intent here. According to Tosaphot the first word יראה is spelled with the vowel Chirik i.e. the active form "he will see," whereas the second one is read Yero-eh, i.e. passive "He will be seen.” The meaning is that man will be seen by G–d before he has a chance to "see” G–d, i.e. appear in the precincts of the Holy Temple. This agrees with the statement "as man comes to be seen, להראות, (as the שכינה sees him), so he will be seen (by man).

Since Abraham was concerned with G–d seeing man or rather Isaac, in a favorable light, it is obvious that the word Yir eh with the vowel chirik had to precede the word Ye-ra-eh with the vowel Tzeyreh.

We have now explored three ways in which the meal Abraham offered the angels can be tied in with the עקדה, something still almost 40 years in the future. The paragraph dealing with Lot's flight from Sodom also contains allusions to the עקדה, as mentioned in Bereshit Rabbah 50,10 on the verse ואת שתי בנותיו הנמצאות (Genesis 19,15). Rabbi Tuviah says that these two daughters are Ruth the Moabite and Naami the Ammonite. Rabbi Yitzchak says that G–d said "I have found My servant David. Where did I find him? In Sodom."

The experience of Sarah in Avimelech's household is an allusion to the exile of the Jewish people in the future, showing how, when that exile is over, the Jewish people will emerge with both wealth and prestige – just as Sarah did.

This is followed by the paragraph reporting Isaac's birth, which alludes to the future when Israel will say to G–d "You are our Father, etc." as we have mentioned. This in turn is followed by the report of the עקדה, a hint of the distant idyllic future when the verse in Isaiah 52,8 will be fulfilled.