Letters of Light. Kalonymus Kalman Epstein
Читать онлайн книгу.
that implies that a person’s illness results from some fault of the ill person or reflects a spiritual stagnancy on the person’s part.)
The reader or listener feels that Abraham, referred to in the passage as a tzaddik, calls to mind the Hasidic holy man, who was similarly felt to convey a sense of the divine Presence and who is associated, in much of more popular Hasidic lore, with the power to heal. In the above passage, however, the pearl itself is understood only symbolically.
The concluding note in the above passage, which builds upon the detail that Abraham was sitting in the opening of his tent, is found also in Noʿam ʾElimelekh, the collection of interpretations by Elimelekh of Lyzhansk whom Kolonymus Kalman had considered to be his own teacher and master. Whereas a tent, in traditional interpretation, came to symbolize Torah-study, Elimelekh read the tent as symbolizing a life of true reverence, and he read the patriarch’s “sitting at the opening of the tent” (Gen 18:1) as indicating that in Abraham’s own eyes, he had not yet even entered the tent of the life of reverence, but had attained only the very opening steps toward that spiritual ideal.58 Following in the steps of Elimelekh’s interpretation, Kolonymus Kalman went further to suggest that it was precisely Abraham’s essential humility in his spiritual journey that made him a force for healing.
The Element of Physical Desire in Intercourse59
“Now Abraham and Sarah were old, advanced in years; Sarah had stopped having the periods of women. (And Sarah laughed to herself, saying, ‘Now that I am withered, am I to have enjoyment—with my husband so old?’ Then the Lord said to Abraham, ‘Why did Sarah laugh, saying, “Shall I in truth bear a child, old as I am?” Is anything too wondrous for the Lord?) I will return to you at the time that life is due, and Sarah shall have a son.’” (Gen 18:11–14)
It is important to grasp how our mother, Sarah, was so lacking in faith that she could not believe in the wonders of the blessed Creator who is able to give her seed even in her old age. And we will attempt to explain. It is known that sexual intercourse requires a pronounced aura of holiness and purity. However, with that alone it is not possible to draw down a pure soul from the high world to bring it into this lowly and physical world except by means of its fusing, even to some small extent, with physical delight in intercourse, even when it takes place in holiness and purity. For the body comes about through the physical aspect of intercourse, and without that bodily act it is impossible to give birth. And to do so the body requires at least some small measure of physical desire and pleasure.
Comment: The reader might well connect this passage with a rather implicit theme found within one of the passages found above, “The Function of Shabbat,” on parashat B’reiʾshit. It becomes obvious that to the mind of the Kraków master, a desirable balance between materiality and physicality, on one hand, and spirituality, on the other, is required, a delicate balance allowing a place for both. Just as the very possibility of spiritual consciousness and awareness can be devastated by the world’s becoming materialized beyond a certain point, so here the birth of a child requires that spirituality include a necessary space for physical desire and pleasure. Both poles must be accommodated. This sense of balance is one of the implied underlying themes that typify Maʾor va-shemesh.
The Poles of Mercy and Justice60
It is known that the essential quality of our father Abraham was lovingkindness (ḥesed), and his principal intention was to draw down lovingkindness to benefit all that was created. In addition, the angels who were sent to punish the men of Sodom (Gen 19) were really angels of mercy, as is made clear also in the Midrash,61 and they tarried somewhat to allow for the possibility that the wicked people might turn from their evil way, hence allowing the quality of justice to be transformed to compassion, sparing them from annihilation.
Accordingly, the Lord said, “Shall I hide from Abraham (from what I am about to do?” Gen 18:17), for Abraham is the personification of mercy, and perhaps he will draw down heavenly lovingkindness upon them, sparing them from destruction. The Blessed and Exulted One desires lovingkindness, for lovingkindness can allow for a sweetening of the judgments. And so it is said (concerning Abraham), “For I have singled him out, that he may instruct his children and his posterity to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is just and right, in order that the Lord may bring about for Abraham what He has promised him” (Gen 18:19).
Now, the word dibbur (spoke), wherever it occurs, alludes to harsh judgment, as is known.62 Its meaning in this verse is that perhaps through Abraham, who is the source of lovingkindness, the judgments might be included in mercy and be sweetened at their root. And so even though it is written, “The men set out from there and looked down toward Sodom . . .” (Gen 18:16), afterward it is said, “The men went on from there to Sodom” (Gen 18:22). Even though they had already gone, they returned and waited a while, for perhaps Abraham had spoken on behalf of the people of the cities of the plain. In other words, after they were already in Sodom, and “Abraham remained standing before the Lord” (Gen 18:22), they returned and saw Abraham who had continued standing before the Lord to awaken mercy, for perhaps he was able to extend heavenly lovingkindness upon the inhabitants for the purpose of averting their destruction.
And the Midrash alludes to this as it understood the men’s turning (vayifnu) from there to infer that angels lack brazenness (associated with ʿoref, “the back of the neck”)63 as they lack any inclination for judgment and punishment. For they are angels of compassion who do not hurriedly execute vengeance but rather wait patiently, for perhaps the people of Sodom might repent or Abraham might bring about mercy for them.64
Comment: Kalonymus Kalman constructed this passage upon various threads that the Midrash had woven together to emphasize the attribute of compassion both in regard to Abraham and to the very angels sent to destroy the cities. The preacher did not introduce innovative interpretations as much as impress upon his flock the tone of some interesting midrashic readings on this biblical episode.
The tone of this passage is in accord with emphases found elsewhere in Maʾor va-shemesh. For example, in his homilies on Lekh l’kha, he related to the saying in Mishna ʾAvot that God created the world with Ten Utterances65 (Gen 1, rather than with a single utterance) in order to increase both the reward for the righteous and the punishment for the wicked who might respectively sustain or destroy the world. But in his interpretation of that statement, Kalonymus Kalman associated the Ten Utterances with the contractions and garments involved in creation that made it more difficult to know God, hence providing a justification for evil-doers which could allow for greater leniency toward them.
In Maʾor va-shemesh, the homilies on this portion, perhaps conveniently, omit any treatment of the ʿAkedah (the binding of Isaac) with its very problematic aspects. But elsewhere in the same volume,66 the preacher related to that episode in a distinctly allegorical manner, drawing upon earlier interpretations in which Abraham represents the quality of ḥesed (lovingkindness) while Isaac represents that of din (judgment, punishment). In his treatment of the subject, the very command of the ʿAkedah is read symbolically as the triumph of lovingkindness and mercy over strict judgment: judgment is bound and hence made subservient to mercy.
52. Maʾor va-shemesh, I, 12b.
53. b. Sotah 14a.
54. b. B. Bat. 16b.