<html>
<body>
<font size=3>At 11:49 AM 11/13/2008, Joseph C. Kaplan wrote:<br>
</font><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font size=2>RYL writes
about Hagar:</font></blockquote><font size=3><br>
RSRH wrote this about Hagar, not me. <br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""> <br>
</font><font size=2>"</font><font size=3>Hagar's whole behavior is
highly characteristic; it typifies the unrefined<br>
Chamite nature. A Jewish mother would never abandon her child,<br>
even if all she could do for him would be to speak softly to him, to<br>
soothe him if only for a millionth part of a second. One who
abandons<br>
a child and does nothing because "she cannot bear to see the
child's<br>
misery" does not act out of compassion."<br>
<br>
</font><font size=2>This story appears, as I recall, in the same book as
a story about a Jewish father who was prepared to slit the throat of his
own, and only, son. One could argue that the Abraham's actions
typifies the unrefined and primitive Jewish nature. Please note:
I'm not making that argument. I'm simply pointing out that perhaps
we shouldn't be making statements about the unrefined nature of other
cultures based on a single story.<br>
</font><font size=3> <br>
</font><font size=2>Joseph Kaplan</font></blockquote><font size=3><br>
Again, the "we" is RSRH, not you and me. (Parenthetically, I
find your terminology "in the same book" unusual. This is in
the Torah, which is not simply some book. Perhaps I am reading too
much into your choice of words. If so, then I apologize.)<br><br>
Perhaps Rav Hirsch's commentary on the Akeidah will clarify things. On
22: 11 - 12 <b><i>An angel of </i>God <i>called to him from heaven
and said, Avraham! Avraham! and he replied, Here I am! He
said: Do not stretch your hand toward the lad, nor do the slightest thing
to him, for now I know<br>
that you are God-fearing, since you did not withhold your son, your only
son, from Me.<br><br>
</i></b>Rav Hirsch writes: [The bold emphasis below is mine.]<br><br>
It is significant that here God sent a message through an angel,<br>
whereas elsewhere, throughout Avraham’s life, God Himself spoke<br>
with Avraham. Here, to stop the performance of a command, the<br>
agency of an angel sufficed.<br><br>
This exception to the rule gives us an indication of the deep inner<br>
struggle by which Avraham was tested.<b> *Had an angel brought him<br>
word of a command to offer up his son as an offering, Avraham<br>
would not have believed him, so glaring was the contradiction
between<br>
this command and God’s previous revelations to him — revelations<br>
generally, and regarding Yitzchak particularly. But for the
<i>retraction<br>
</i>of the <i>Akeidah</i> command, the agency of an angel sufficed.*</b>
To clarify the<br>
reason for this retraction, and to explain the whole command of the<br>
<i>Akeidah</i> as a test in which demonstrating one’s readiness to meet
the<br>
test is tantamount to having met it – <i>for that purpose </i>no
<i>extraordinary<br>
</i>revelation was necessary. <i>This retraction fit in harmoniously with
everything<br>
else that Avraham knew of God</i>.<br><br>
From this I deduce that the only reason why Avraham was willing to
sacrifice Yitzchok was because HaShem spoke directly to him and told him
to do it. <br><br>
</font><x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<font size=2>Yitzchok Levine</font><font size=3> </font></body>
<br>
</html>