Trials

Rabbi Moshe Ben-Chaim

A major theme of the High Holidays is Abraham's perfection in his trial of sacrificing his son Isaac. During our prayers we blow the ram's horn associated with the sacrifice of Isaac and that ram, through which God considers our value of Isaac's sacrifice as if we sacrificed ourselves (Rosh Hashanna 16a). It is then appropriate and behooves us to focus on Abraham's trials in general and understand the primary lessons.

Abraham endured severe difficulties through which he remained loyal to God. But why should he remain loyal? Is it because the trial exposes Abraham to his shortcomings and then he conquers them? Thus, trials are situation that Abraham or others could not produce on their own, nor think about on their own and therefore require God's intervention to help them reach a higher level otherwise unattainable.

For example, Rabbi Chait explained that the trial of being faced with a famine addressed a misconception Abraham harbored: when following God’s directives, all should go well. But this is a baseless assumption about how God operates, which no man can know. When confronted with that famine while following God's mission, Abraham immediately recognized this idolatrous type of thinking and conquered that emotion. He discovered that man can never know how God will operate. In contrast the sacrifice of Isaac was not a trial regarding misconceptions, but about his attachment to God compared to his love for his son. Here, Abraham demonstrated how man can be more devoted to God than to his own child. Man is capable of being more attached to the ideas than to the emotions, and to the greatest degree as in sacrificing one's own child.

What was the trial when Sarah died after learning that Isaac was almost sacrificed? And what was the trial of Pharaoh taking Sarah? In all trials we must identify what element of Abraham’s personality was improved, or what misconceptions he ultimately rejected as false due to the trial. 

Even though it was the only choice for survival, choosing Egypt over definite starvation in Canaan was still a life risk due to the Egyptians’ primitive behavior. Perhaps the trial was whether Abraham would opt for divine intervention and remain in Canaan, or follow natural order and seek food even at the risk of life. This precisely is the dispute between Ramban and Rav Moshe Feinstein. God's directive was that Abraham go to Canaan. A foolish view would be to take that as an unconditional command and remain, even if it meant certain death due to famine. But an intelligent view would be to consider the circumstances and even to argue with God's directive if circumstances were threatening. Rabbi Chait said that a prophet does not blindly follow as God says, but uses his mind to think into it. Even after God gives a directive the prophet must still use his mind and follow what it is intelligence says. We see many prophets like Jonah, Samuel, Abraham and Moses who argued with God. Thus, the trial is whether a person will blindly follow God without question, or reason with God until his mind complies.