God Forbid!

Well, here we go, Rabbi. Just last week, had Abraham discover God, and already he’s arguing with him.

And if you recall, what he did is he kind of last week he discovered inside of himself that he cared for that burning house and he surmised from there, there must be a greater being who cares for all of us. So it’s kind of natural, I guess, that something like this would eventually happen and we took no time at getting here. The plot moves quickly, does it not?

Adam Mintz (01:29.194)
The plot, these two partios are amazing the way the plot twists and turns with Abraham. Like you said, now he’s fighting with God. And of course, the interesting thing in this week’s parsha is he fights with God and then he seems to accept when God says, sacrifice your son. So it’s hard to figure out exactly what the issues are that Abraham’s willing to fight for. But let’s study it together and let’s try to figure it out.

Geoffrey Stern (01:55.605)
And you’re going to have to wait a year for us to discuss the Akedah because today we’re just going to focus on Sodom and Gomorrah. So that’s a tease. You got to subscribe. Anyway, we are in Genesis 18, 17. And there was this story about three angels walking by, and Abraham invites them in, and Sarah prepares a meal. And they learn that they’re going to have a baby in a year’s time. And after that story finishes,

God says I guess talking out loud now God said shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do? Since Abraham is to become a great and populous nation and all the nations of the earth are to bless themselves by him For I have singled him out that he might instruct his children and his posterity to keep the way of God by doing what is right and just

in order that God may bring about for Abraham what has been promised him.” So all of a sudden from the get-go, the definition that the way he’s talking comes right out of last week. Last week he not only said that he loved Abraham, Abraham was going to leave his homeland, but he also said you’re going to be a blessing to the nations, the nations will bless themselves by you. And now that

description or that prescription is I wouldn’t say haunting God, but it’s constraining his actions all of a sudden. He’s created by defining Abraham as his guy on earth. Now he has to start dealing with Abraham. He just got elected. He put in a new vice president and treasury secretary. He’s got to bring them into the discussion. It is kind of fascinating, is it not?

Adam Mintz (03:46.264)
It is absolutely fascinating. What’s interesting about Abraham, we see a later with Moses, is that Abraham talks to God as if they’re equals, right? That’s something that, you know, that we’re not used to. It’s always God and then it’s humans. But Abraham and God are having a back and forth.

Geoffrey Stern (04:03.749)
Absolutely. And the other thing that was fascinating to me is he says, God says, I have to do la’asot, Tzedakah u’ mishpat. I have to do what is right and just. Now, if you take out your concordance and you look for mishpat, this is the first time it’s used. So there’s a lot left unsaid here. In other words,

We have not seen in the Torah till now a description of God as necessarily being just. But it’s taken for granted. It’s pretty clear. And maybe it’s because people didn’t read this book cover to cover. They rolled through it year in and year out. So you have to assume they know what happens next. But it is interesting that we’re starting to define God. God is defining himself. He’s also defining himself by what Adam, what Abraham thinks of him. But all of a sudden we understand

Tzedekah and Mishpat apply to this newly discovered God. And he talks a little bit about Sodom and Gomorrah, and then in verse 22 it says that the agents, whether these were these angels or wayfarers, went on from there to Sodom while Abraham remained standing before God.

Avraham Odeno omeid lefne Hashem. Doesn’t seem to have much implications to it, but as the story progresses, actually everything that the text is saying is trying to say that Abraham is standing up for something. Abraham is making a move. He is presenting himself. He’s asserting himself. In verse 23, Abraham came forward.

Okay, so now he’s not only standing, he comes forward and said, will you sweep away the innocent along with the guilty? So in a sense, God decided I need to share this with him almost as a preview, but Abraham does not need any coaxing. And he asks, how can you sweep away the innocent along with the guilty

Geoffrey Stern (06:20.405)
is when you put a hay in front of something it becomes a question. So it’s, you telling me this? Then it says what if there should be 50 innocent people and we start getting into this negotiation over numbers. In verse 25 it says, far be it from you to do such a thing.

Well, the first time he says, Far be it, and we’re going to spend a little time on Halila, as I said in the intro, but here we just assume it means far be it, far be it from you, God, to do something like this. Then in the next verse it says,

Far be it from you to do such a thing, to bring death upon the innocent as well as the guilty. So he says this halila to God twice, the second time, halila l’cha, hashofet kol ha’aretz lo yaseh mishpat. Beautiful. Play on the words. How can the judge of the whole world not judge, I guess, with equanimity, with justice, all of

Adam Mintz (07:34.043)
Well, that’s the interesting thing from up in verse 19. We say God is defined as doing mishpat. And here Avraham is saying you define yourself as doing mishpat and how? .. .. you just said you do mishpat and now you’re not doing mishpat.

Geoffrey Stern (08:02.257)
It’s what is so fascinating is both by the way God prefaces it, as if we have an insight into God’s inner thought, and the way Abraham responds. The whole thing revolves around, and this is why I said in the intro it was a theological argument, how you define God, and therefore how it’s not descriptive, it’s prescriptive, God now has to act in that way. Very fascinating, you you talk about this argument.

You talk about standing up to God, but what he’s really doing is defining and standing up to his definition of God. last week, I shared with you this amazing Korin Tanakh. And so now every week I look at it and they share a Hittite document that comes close to this. And I’ll read from it and it’s 1300 BC, so it’s pretty old. And it’s the…

a calamity has occurred. And the Hittite king says, gods, what is this that you have done? You have allowed a plague into Hattie and the whole of the Hattie is dying. Whoever is a cause of rage and anger to the gods and whoever is not respectful to the gods, let not the gods, the good ones perish with the evil ones. Whether it is a single town, a single house or a single person.

gods, destroy only that one. So it’s fascinating, and I’m sure they went through a mass of documents to find something that really is similar. And what they point out is that while ancient Near Eastern people often viewed the gods as demanding that kings be just, the gods themselves did not always act justly. In contrast, Abraham expects God to act justly. The big distinction here is number one,

Abraham’s story happens before the fact. In the Hittite document, he’s complaining after the fact. But certainly what the comparative analysis of the sources do is they just emphasize what I said a second ago, which is that our scripture is defining God. It’s writing God, he or she, into a box. This is what we expect of you.

Geoffrey Stern (10:25.949)
and this is what we need to get in response. we’re going to go to… Go ahead.

Adam Mintz (10:29.213)
I just think it’s interesting. You say, expect God to be in this box. We, 2024, have spent almost a thousand years in the Maimonidean understanding of God, which is kind of this very human understanding of God. Rambam really rejects that in a lot of ways. He says you can’t understand God. But that’s the way we look at God in human characteristics.

God should do mishpat. God shouldn’t kill the righteous with the evil, because we don’t kill the righteous with the evil. But the truth, Geoffrey is how do we know that God’s bound by the same rules? And actually, if you want to be fancy, what you say is, look at the flood. God killed everybody in the flood. Why wasn’t that argument made in the flood? It couldn’t be that there was no one else except for Noah who was any good. here with Abraham,

Abraham is defined as you said Abraham is put in a box and God is also put in a box.

Geoffrey Stern (11:33.673)
I love that. And this kind of difficulty distinguishing between the two comes up in a fascinating Rashi. So I said a second ago, the angels had just left, and it says Abraham stood yet before the Lord. If you read this in context, remember it was God who was saying, you know, I just can’t leave this guy. I just appointed him to rule over the earth. I need to have a conversation with him.

So Rashi says, surely it was not Abraham who had gone to stand before him, meaning God, but it was the Holy One, blessed be He, who had come to him and had said to him, I need to talk to you. So we hear about an amazing rabbinic tool, and it’s called tikkun sofrim. And Rashi says that what the rabbis actually did is they didn’t feel comfortable.

with having God standing still in front of Adam, in front of Abraham. So they changed the text. When two weeks ago we discussed Babel, Rabbi, we said the people who did the Septuagint were in 72 rooms and they wrote the same thing. The truth is they didn’t necessarily write the same thing. They changed the same 12 verses. And this is one of the verses that they all changed. So again, but what is it teaching us?

It is teaching us that the rabbis understood the power of saying that Abraham stood in front of God. But what was more powerful from that is God felt a need to stay, linger, present his case in front of Abraham The rabbis understood the meaning and the power of these words and that they were close to heresy, I may add. And that’s why they literally had to change him. I just find that fascinating.

Adam Mintz (13:26.91)
That is absolutely fascinating and obviously to tikkun sofrim, I mean, you know, that’s almost like a rabbinic chutzpah. How did the rabbis have the right to change the words of the Torah? But the answer is that if the words of the Torah sound heretical, they have no choice but to change the words of the Torah.

Geoffrey Stern (13:43.003)
Another way of saying that is that we are standing in rabbinic tradition when we say that we are reading a text that is as much an insight into man’s thoughts as it is to God’s. The men we’re talking about, mean human beings, could be the rabbis who actually changed the text or it could be Abraham who’s making this argument.

The next Rashi gets to, I said a second ago, haaf ha’tisapab means, will thou also destroy? Because haaf means if and the hey in front of it makes it a question. Here too, the Rashi says in Onkelos the Aramaic translation, he translates ha’af as angry. Will your anger urge you to destroy righteousness?

with the wicked. So it’s not so much Abraham’s anger, although I think what it’s saying is this is a very passionate discussion, but he’s almost attributing to God. How can you act this way? Did your anger take over you? I mean, the rabbis are doing everything they can to put emotion into and parse this conversation slash argument between Abraham and his newly discovered God.

Adam Mintz (15:06.4)
I, you know, I, again, I say that and again, the, the, the, what, it’s the expectations. When you have an argument with somebody, you, you have expectations. I expect you to do something. I’m upset that you don’t do it. So I get upset with you. So the fact that Abraham questions God, it’s all based on expectations. Abraham has certain expectations of God. That’s remarkable given the fact that we have never seen that.

Geoffrey Stern (15:34.185)
Yeah, yeah. So now we’re going to get into this chalila a little bit. for those who are listening, there are sometimes, you know, it’s amazing when you look at an ancient text like this to know that up until today certain phrases are used. There are phrases like chas v’shalom, chas v’chalila, that people say they don’t even know necessarily what they mean. I think typically, Rabbi, you would agree with me.

that its most basic uses is an accident happens, a calamity, an emergency happens. Someone talks about something evil or negative and they go, chas v’sholom, it should happen to me. Chas v’sholom, should be part of reality. Here it’s a little bit different but that’s part of it. It’s trying to take it away from reality.

Adam Mintz (16:27.326)
I will take it away from me. Chas v’shalom. It distances us from the event.

Geoffrey Stern (16:34.461)
I like that, I like that. So in the Midrash Tanchuma ‘ it says, since the Hebrew word chalila, far from thee, contains the letters of the word chalala, chalala, profane, remember when we talk about holy food, kodesh, and chulen is profane or not holy things, so chulen,

In the verse, woman is a harlot, should not be profaned, this verse implies that he was suggesting, would it not be a profanation of your name if you were to act this way? So I think the Midrash Tanhumah adds this concept of a name, but I think what Abraham is saying is a radical argument.

I said in the intro it would not be God-like for you to do this, God. But what we’re saying is, if chulen means profane, if chulen means, even in modern Hebrew, a hiloni is a secular, you’re like saying to God, this is not in character. This is not part of your script. You’re becoming a godless God. It’s a powerful argument.

Adam Mintz (17:48.997)
In Yiddish, there’s a phrase pasnisht, which means it’s not becoming of you. So we never say that to God, but that’s what Avraham’s saying to God. Pasnisht, it doesn’t look good for you, God, to allow this to happen.

Geoffrey Stern (18:03.945)
Yeah, some of the other, Rashi goes on and says, Halila l’cha, and he says, usually God busies himself, he says, it is a profanation of yourself. People will say, this is what he usually busies himself with doing, retribution. The Ibn Ezra adds some more nuance to this. He says, far be it from you, Halilah,

It is not possible. I think that’s kind of in tune with the modern usage of it’s imp… Others say that chalila is to be connected to the word chalal, means empty. Chol is empty. There is a movie that came out called Filling the Void. And in Hebrew, it was l’malei et chalal. Void.

Adam Mintz (18:37.759)
Right. I think so.

Geoffrey Stern (19:02.537)
means empty. This becomes kind of fascinating that what the argument now becomes is, God, if you do this, it’s as if you’re not here. It’s as if you’ve created a void. Here, last week I just discovered you and the world is full of you and you’re caring and if you do this, halila, there’s an empty void. God is missing. I love that explanation as well.

Adam Mintz (19:32.547)
That’s a wonderful explanation. And maybe also Avraham’s trying to figure out God. Maybe that’s a reasonable interpretation, that God isn’t everywhere, that there’s a void, fill the void. And that’s what Avraham is challenging God. Are you telling me that you’re not actually everywhere? That you’re not here in Sodom because you’re killing the righteous together with the innocent? Good, I love that.

Geoffrey Stern (19:57.525)
So later on in Genesis, we’re going to fast forward to when Joseph is the visor and the brothers are there and Joseph unbeknownst to his brothers is acting like a visor and he says, you’ve stolen from me. And I believe it’s the oldest brother, Judah, who says, why does my Lord, meaning Joseph, say such things?

far be it from your servants to do anything of the kind, he uses the word, Halila l’avdach l’asot davar hazeh Rashi says it is a degradation. This is an expression denoting a shameful act. targum has la avdakha, a sparing to thy servant signifies may there be a sparing from God upon that we would not do such a thing. The expression, this is Rashi talking,

Chas v’shalom occurs often in the Talmud in this sense, forbearance and peace. Kind of interesting, because I think you and I both have heard Chas v’shalom over and over again. What does it actually mean? How old is it? Rashi here is saying it is connected. It’s been here for a while. And it basically, I think the way he’s looking at it is, I mean, chas is kind of,

to have to care about something, comfort something, and v’shalom. So it kind of is like saying the opposite. There should only be kindness and peace. This is impossible. This is not there. I think that might be the read.

Adam Mintz (21:31.831)
Forbearance is an interesting word. You wouldn’t expect forbearance and peace. I don’t know exactly what that means, but okay. We can’t spend time on that. That’s a question from the translation.

Geoffrey Stern (21:34.965)
Mm-hmm.

No, no.

Geoffrey Stern (21:44.755)
Yep, yep, yep. So, so in terms of this being used, Chalila maybe only occurs a few times in terms of the argument, but as I said before, the issue of Chilul Hashem, the issue of profaning God’s name is probably one of the key, one of the key

I guess, driving forces in the Torah in terms of keeping the commandments. However bad it is that you break the law, it becomes bader still because you are mechalel et ha’shem, you are desecrating God’s name. And I think it really comes back to this moment. It works both ways. Abraham can say to God, if you don’t act in a godly manner, you create this vacuum, but God…

mostly comes back to us, mankind says, you create this void and you shine a bad light on my holy name. That’s typically how it’s used.

Adam Mintz (22:53.476)
Right, I think that’s right.

Geoffrey Stern (22:55.421)
And again, heresy itself is, T’chalel et shem Elokov you go out and you profane something. This is a key argument. But what I love about our particular portion is Abraham is using an argument of a world without a God to God. That is striking to me.

Adam Mintz (23:17.328)
Yeah, well that’s the irony that God is making a chilol Hashem. Right? I mean, what does that mean? Usually we make the chilol Hashem, but what Abraham is suggesting to God is, God, you are making a chilol Hashem. That’s what’s so strong.

Geoffrey Stern (23:34.729)
Yeah, so I did some searching on the internet in terms of what Chas V’shalom, Chas V’chalila actually means, where it comes from, some interesting comments, and of course, God forbid, is I think the standard, and that

That translates right into English, and I think people use it all the time. It’s almost an international, or it’s certainly an international English expression. God forbid something. But some of the interesting things that I found is, number one, we talk about chulen as food that you’re allowed to eat because it’s not holy. People argue that’s the source of the Islamic halal.

Halal and Hulhulin are the same. And of course, what we see today is Halilah is very similar to a halal. So it’s fascinating when we find words that may give us insight into

Adam Mintz (24:36.645)
Does anybody actually make the connection between those words?

Geoffrey Stern (24:40.915)
Yeah, so I go to Strong’s Concordance and he has Arabic halal, Islam permissible according to Muslim religious customs. So that is a total parallel to Hulin. It’s permissible. So now we know, Rabbi now we know. He did make that connection. So, you know, this whole idea

Adam Mintz (24:47.364)
Right?

Adam Mintz (24:57.295)
Mm-hmm.

Adam Mintz (25:02.149)
That’s great. Okay, that is great.

Geoffrey Stern (25:09.561)
of a secular world, a world where God is not there. It’s an intriguing concept. It made me think of what Rav Kook thought. Rav Kook thought, and we all know that he loved the Chalutzim, he loved the pioneers, and we probably all think he loved them because he just had a big heart and he wasn’t judgmental, but he actually developed it into a philosophy. And he says that secular

thinkers, they pull Judaism and religion far away from anything that is tangible. They reject, in a sense like Abraham rejected last week, all of the idols and all that, and they have a way of purifying even religion. And he said he once went to a kibbutz and he showed up and they go, are you coming here to teach us something? And he goes, no, I’m coming here to have you teach me something. So if you look in the show notes,

It’s all there, but I think what is fascinating is that this word Hulin, this word void, this word profane or not holy comes up in this original argument and becomes this dialectic with God. And it’s not altogether clear who is the player here. If you didn’t have this argument with Abraham,

be easy to read the rest of the Torah where ch’ilal Hashem and desecrating God’s name all was man’s job or I should say hurdle to get over. But this is it makes it both on both sides and if you look at the gamut of a Jewish history where we talk about God hiding his face and us standing up or Yitz Greenberg

Greenberg talking about the third epoch where man has to fill the void. It really becomes a powerful, powerful story that continues all the way up till today. It’s rather fascinating and I think the way that the text really focuses on what God is thinking, what Abraham is projecting onto God.

Geoffrey Stern (27:28.629)
is kind of powerful. Before I finish, I was reading a book called Arguing with God, which is obviously the week to read the book. And in it, he has A piyut that we say during the Rosh Hashanah services. And there it’s trying to get God to move from the chair of Mishpat to the chair of Rachamim. From the chair of strict law

and justice to the chair of mercy and forgiveness. And it turns our verse kind of on its head. It says, listen to the chauffeur blasts from on high and exchange the seat of stern judgment for the throne of compassion. For the special son who was judged as he lay bound on the altar, that’s the Arcada we read this week, may his offspring, us, be generously spared from judgment.

Far be it from you, O God of justice, halila from you, God of justice, be reminded of Abraham’s word, should the judge of all the earth fail to judge righteously. The writer of the book says it’s a mistranslation. The way he translates it is, remember he shall not act justly. It’s not a question. It tells God to get off the seat of justice.

and to move onto the seat of Rachamim. So this dialectic never ends. Reading different sides into this story never ends.

Adam Mintz (29:02.226)
I’ll just say that that’s often true about liturgy. In liturgy, we’re willing to say things that we wouldn’t say in commentary. And in liturgy, we actually take God on and he say, God, you you need to act justly. And that’s amazing that in the Rosh Hashanah, when we need God to act mercifully with us, that we actually rephrase that. That’s great. That phrase, you know, God, you should be ashamed of yourself.

actually appears in the Yom Kippur Dovening too. So that’s a great catch to find out in the Rosh Hashana Yom Kippur Dovening.

Geoffrey Stern (29:39.347)
I love the fact that we’re ending with prayer because while we can say our scripture is unique in some ways and maybe be focused on how it is just recording this whole argument, I think in terms of Jewish prayer to have arguing with God in your prayer, you know, in the verses that we read it says, Va’yigash Abraham approached God, the traditional commentaries say he prayed.

So what you just said, Rabbi, really I think puts the icing on the cake that the continuation of this kind of argument is in the daily prayer service. And it is part of being a follower of Abraham. And that, I think, is just absolutely amazing.

Adam Mintz (30:28.169)
This was great today. This is a great parasha. Thank you so much. And we look forward to seeing everybody next week. Shabbat shalom.

Geoffrey Stern (30:36.147)
Shabbat shalom.