Why Didn’t Abraham Plead for His Son’s Life?

Question:

Why did Abraham protest so strongly on behalf of a handful of lowlife Sodomites, and yet submitted silently when commanded to sacrifice his own son?

Answer:

This is a beautiful question. In fact, my daughter asked me this question some years ago. But then, she also told me the answer.

Take a look at the way G‑d speaks to Abraham in both instances. Concerning Sodom, G‑d informs Abraham that “the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah has become great, and their sin has become very grave. I will descend now and see, whether according to the cry which has come to Me they have done; [I will wreak] destruction [upon them]” (Genesis 18:20–21).

Something similar occurs with Moses during the Golden Calf affair, when G‑d tells him, “Now leave Me alone, and My anger will be kindled against them so that I will annihilate them” (Exodus 32:10).

As Rashi puts it, was Moses holding on to G‑d, that G‑d had to say, “Leave me alone”? So Moses understood that it was his job to argue with G‑d, which he did.

Similarly, when G‑d informed Abraham of His impending judgment of Sodom, he understood what G‑d wanted of him—to argue. Otherwise, G‑d had no reason to inform him of His intended action. So argue he did.

Concerning Isaac, G‑d literally pleads with Abraham: “Please take your son . . .” (Genesis 22:2). He then understood that this was not something to argue about.

Really, it’s the same with every Jew. We have a deep relationship with G‑d. We aren’t just robots. There are times—the times of prayer—when we argue with G‑d concerning the way He runs His world. And then there are times when we need to just accept. How do we know which path is appropriate in any given situation? We know, when we are in tune with our neshamah (soul) deep inside—and the neshamah is in tune with G‑d above.

[Additionally, Abraham wanted to avert a punishment intended for the people of Sodom. The Binding of Isaac wasn’t intended as a punishment. Ostensibly it was to be a great privilege for Isaac to be sanctified as a sacrifice to G‑d.]

Rabbi Tzvi Freeman for Chabad.org

Tzvi Freeman is the author of Bringing Heaven Down to Earth and, more recently, Wisdom to Heal the Earth. Subscribe to The Daily Dose of Wisdom and Freeman Files for regular updates.

Join the Discussion

99 Comments

Newest

Oldest

Edward D Levin Chapel Hill November 7, 2025

Abraham’s Test

“Here I am” means more than blind obedience. As Abraham demonstrated, rising from pain to humbly great the visitors, and arguing with One about the justice of killing righteous with the wicked, kindness together with standing firm, even with the One, for all he saw as right, demonstrated truly that he was here. What then do we learn from Abraham’s test when called to take the son that he loved in sacrifice to the One? Abraham answered the call with “here I am” even before hearing what the request was. Upon hearing the nature of the call, he rose early with his test. Abraham went with his son, the fuel, fire and observers, determined to make the test not with words as before, but with his actions to show his righteousness, even to the point of raising the knife above his beloved son. How long did he hold up his outstretched arm? The Torah does not say. But it was long enough for the One to send a messenger to tell him to stop, that Abraham’s test had been successful. Reply

RA NY State November 5, 2025

Both Abraham and Isaac should have protested. The privilege is in living, not being sacrificed. Reply

YL November 10, 2023

why did avraham want to avoid a punishment for sodom? they were wicked people. I never understood that Reply

Edward Levin CHAPEL HILL November 10, 2023

in response to YL:

He was concerned about the fate of righteous people who might be living among the wicked>

Genesis 18:23: Will You even destroy the righteous with the wicked? Reply

John London November 10, 2023

in response to YL:

Maybe he was unable to predict that the Almighty would spare Lot by causing His angels to rescue him from Sodom before judgement fell. Maybe also, Abraham couldn't believe that there weren't even ten righteous people in Sodom. Reply

YL November 10, 2023

in response to Edward Levin:

Yes, I know, so my question to that has always been why would fine people want to live there? why did he assume that fine people lived there in the first place? by definition if they lived there does that not mean that they support everything? Rambam says to avoid living near bad people. You could say they lived there and were forced by fear of death to remain silent (which all modern quotes say is the worst sin - silence = complicity. This also is an interesting analogy to hamas - gazan relationship) but again, why not just leave the city if you are a good guy? Reply

Edward D Levin CHAPEL HILL November 10, 2023

in response to YL:

I can be difficult for even righteous adults to leave a wicked place; for young children, it is impossible. Reply

Edward Levin Durham October 31, 2023

G-d tested Abraham by requesting the sacrifice of his son Isaac. But just what was this test? Perhaps rather than a test of obedience, it was a test of Abraham’s moral sense, whether he would question the justice of sacrificing his son. If this was test, Abraham failed. Abraham had previously shown a moral sense of justice by arguing with G-d about the possible burning of the innocents with the guilty in Sodom. Why did he not argue with G-d about the planned burning of his son Isaac? He may have cynically resented G-d testing him again and thus tested G-d by proceeding in blind faith knowing that G-d would prevent him from committing the sacrifice. As was Abraham, we are tested again and again. We must continue to respond each time with our moral sense and genuine concern for justice. After this test, G-d did not speak to Abraham again. The Akeida's lesson may be that to keep in contact with G-d, what is needed is not blind obedience, but a sense of justice to work with G-d. Reply

Mark Robertson Newton Stewart November 1, 2023

in response to Edward Levin:

Agreed, just as I argued in November 2022. At that time, Rabbi Freeman dismissed my comments as essentially outside of the mesorah, which is strange because my primary source for this opinion is the Ralbag.

Anyway, Am Israel Hai! Reply

YL November 10, 2023

in response to Edward Levin:

I agree with your idea but the problem with this pshat is that Gd says he is a Gd-fearing man when it is over. Reply

John London November 10, 2023

in response to Edward Levin:

Had it been revealed to Abraham that sacrificing another human was absolutely forbidden to mankind? Reply

Tzvi Freeman November 10, 2023

in response to Mark Robertson:

Please see my response earlier. Have you looked in the commentary of Abrabenel and learned it properly? I don't see anything there of what you say. Reply

Mark Robertson Newton Stewart November 10, 2023

in response to YL:

And he clearly was, even if his reading of what was demanded of him was less than perfect
The final promises are essentially a repetition of the promises at the beginning of Chapter 12. However, unlike the promises in Chapter 12, which are made directly by Hashem to Abraham, the two divine messages in Chapter 22:12 and 16 - 18 are indirect and intermediated by an angel, which is a lower and less immediate level of communication. That fits well with my understanding. Reply

John London November 9, 2022

Miriam Esther and an anonymous contributor have already mentioned the idea of resurrection, but I'd just like to say a little more about it. The Almighty had made promises to Abraham concerning Isaac, and Abraham believed the Almighty would keep those promises, no matter what. This meant that if even Abraham plunged the knife into Isaac and killed him, the Almighty would be able to raise him from the dead, and then keep the promises. Believing this, Abraham was ready even to plunge the knife and, perhaps, go even further in the sacrificial ritual, knowing that the Almighty could raise Isaac from the dead - This idea is not original to me, or even Miriam Esther; I read it somewhere. I could add, however, that when Abraham said they would return, he might have been determining that after the sacrifice he wouldn't budge from the scene of sacrifice until Isaac was raised. Reply

Mark Robertson Newton Stewart November 9, 2022

in response to John:

The promises made previously and Abraham's debate his Hashem regarding justice in the context of Sodom and Gemorra were sufficient to show Abraham that Hashem did not desire the death of the innocent. That was Abraham's test, according to Ibn Janach, he failed. See the Abarbanel's lengthy discussion of this issue. Hashem never again spoke to Abraham after the Akedah. Reply

Tzvi Freeman November 9, 2022

in response to Mark Robertson:

Ibn Janach provides a mystical interpretation of what G-d intended and of what Abraham thought. It's fascinating, as is Abrabanel's interpretation.

Neither, however, step one foot away from the obvious meaning of the text and the accepted tradition.

Neither Ibn Janach nor Abrabanel state that Abraham failed the test. That would conflict with the conclusion of the narrative, when G-d tells Abraham that "now I know that you are man who fears G-d, for you have not withheld your only son from Me."

It would also conflict with the promise made subsequently, that because Abraham had done so, his offspring would be "as the stars of the heavens and as the sand of the sea." (Genesis 22:18)

Also, there is no tradition in classic sources that G-d never again spoke to Abraham. Does that make sense after all those promises? Reply

Mouse November 14, 2022

in response to Tzvi Freeman:

> there is no tradition in classic sources that G-d never again spoke to Abraham.

In the written Torah it's mentioned multiple times that G-d spoke to Abraham *before* the Akedah, and no mentioning at all *after* the Akedah. One conclusion one could derive was that it's so obvious that the communications continued, that Torah chose not to waste words explicitly specifying it. Another conclusion could be that the communications on that level ceased, even though all the promises were standing.

> Does that make sense after all those promises?

Sure, why not? Prophesy and Ruach HaKodesh weren't promised as part of the Covenant. Reply

Mark Robertson Scotland November 14, 2022

in response to Tzvi Freeman:

Ibn Janach states in Sefer HaRikma that it was not Hashem's intention that Yitzaak should be sacrificed. Hashem's instruction to Abraham was intentionally ambiguous. Abraham interpreted Hashem's instructions according to their common meaning, rather than their true meaning (i.e. without factoring what he knew about Hashem in terms of promises and justice?). Abraham therefore misunderstood Hashem's intention. Hashem's statement to Abraham after the Akeidah is a statement of fact, and does not address the issue of Abraham's understanding of Hashem's instructions. Chazal teach in the TB at Taanit 4a that it was never Hashem's intention that Yitsaak should die. Human sacrifice is an abomination. The absence of a tradition does not alter the fact that there is no reference to any further contact between Hashem and Abraham after the Akeidah, in Tanach.
Abraham and Yitzaak did not leave Mt. Moriah together. Reply

Tzvi Freeman November 15, 2022

in response to Mark Robertson :

If all you are saying is that G-d never intended for Yitzchak to be sacrificed--well, certainly, that's a given and should be quite obvious.

But the notion that G-d was in some way displeased with Abraham's response runs antithetical to the entirety of our tradition, as well as being in stark conflict with a simple reading of the text. Just, please, read those final promises again and ask yourself if it fits to such a reading. Reply

Mark Robertson Newton Stewart November 16, 2022

in response to Tzvi Freeman:

1. I am saying that Hashem did not intend Abraham to sacrifice Yitzchak and, following Ibn Janach, that Abraham did not understand Hashem's real intent. Of course he understood afterwards, but that intent was not just clear ex post facto but should have been clear a priori. Where in the text is it clear that Abraham understood that? He made no attempt to debate with Hashem as he did regarding Sodom.
2. The final promises are essentially a repetition of the promises at the beginning of Chapter 12. However, unlike the promises in Chapter 12, which are made directly by Hashem to Abraham, the two divine messages in Chapter 22:12 and 16 - 18 are indirect and intermediated by an angel, which is a lower and less immediate level of communication. That fits well with my understanding. How would you explain that? Reply

John London November 16, 2022

in response to Tzvi Freeman:

Tzvi, don't you mean "Just, please, read those final promises again and ask yourself if THEY fit to such a reading"?
(I think what you have to say is so important that I can't bear the thought of it being obscured by less than perfect grammar) Reply

Mark Robertson Newton Stewart November 17, 2022

in response to Tzvi Freeman:

Continuation 2:
The other view is that there is an overarching covenantal moral framework of which Hashem part. This amounts to some form of divine constriction (tzimtzum if you are of a kabbalistic bent), so that Hashem binds himself by moral imperatives. How else could Hashem judge Sodom if its inhabitants had not been warned?

BTW:

You say there is no tradition that Hashem never spoke to Abraham again after the Akeidah. The view of the Ralbag is similar to that of Ibn Janach and I recall that it is the Ralbag who remarks that Hashem never speaks to Abraham again. Please correct me if I am wrong. Reply

Mark Robertson Newton Stewart November 17, 2022

in response to Mark Robertson:

Continuation 1:
This whole issue is linked to the relationship between morality and divine truth about which there are basically two views. The first is that truth is truth because Hashem wills is so.

"when God commanded our father, Avraham, to bind up his son Yitzchak [as an offering], then it was the truth to bind him. Had He not said to him afterwards, "Do nothing to him," it would have been the truth to slaughter him." (Ha-Admor mi-Pistchena, Eish Kodesh, p. 68)

"Take now your son, your only one, whom you love, Isaac, etc." That is to say, I demand of you the greatest sacrifice. I want your son who is your only son, and also the one whom you love. Do not fool yourself to think that after you obey Me and bring your son up for a burnt-offering, I will not give you another son in place of Yitzchak. When Yitzchak will be slaughtered on the altar – you will remain alone and childless. (Rabbi J.B. Soloveitchik, Divrei Hashkafa, p. 255). Reply

Tzvi Freeman November 17, 2022

in response to Mark Robertson:

Yes, we all agree on the first point. As I wrote, that is the standard, traditional reading.

In the second point, it's clear from a simple reading of the text that G-d was very pleased with Abraham. And that is certainly the tradition.

You are free to interpret however you wish. I’m only here to present what the tradition, the Talmud, Midrash, and all classic commentaries without exception have to say: Abraham passed the test and that as stood in our merit ever since. Reply

Glenn Roback Bayside February 7, 2018

Some questions I was taught that Abraham already knew Torah before Moses transmitted it to the people. Does mean that Abraham already knew he was being tested because he read it in Genesis?

Also it seems that when Job asked G-d about his suffering, G-d says something along the lines of "where were you when I made the world?" Why was G-d allowing Himself to be directed by Abraham at Sodom but lashed out at Job for his question? I like the way G-d behaved with Sodom, but I don't understand why He gave Job such a tough answer. Reply

Tzvi Freeman February 7, 2018

in response to Glenn Roback:

To know the entire Torah before it was given means to know it in its spiritual form. The earthly form took 40 years in the Sinai Desert to unfold.

There are many questions about the story of Job. The Book of Job requires in-depth study. But the difference between his situation and that of Abraham is obvious. Job was asking for an explanation for his own suffering. Abraham was defending the lives of others. Reply

Glenn Roback Bayside February 8, 2018

in response to Tzvi Freeman:

See this is why I wish I was raised Orthodox and not Conservative. So much eludes me and its frustrating because I want to get closer to G-d, but the more I study, the connection seems to keep getting worse. Can you please explain spiritual form? Did he know the Laws of Torah? Surely if he knew the Laws in any form, he'd know that child sacrifice is abhorrent to G-d and therefore the test would be nullified because of that. Abraham must not have known G-d's stance on sacrifice. (Of course why G-d didn't stop the child sacrifice in the Book of Judges still bothers me but that's something else. It can be argued that she lived a life of solitude and didn't actually die though.)
Anyway I'm excited to see what you have to say! Reply

Tzvi Freeman March 5, 2018

in response to Glenn Roback:

Why be frustrated? Learning Torah is all about asking good questions, and the question you've just raised is a wonderful question.

First off, about "spiritual form"—that would be like studying kabbalah without halachah. So you would understand the effect of every halachah in the higher realms, and from that you would have some idea of what the halachah is. But it could come out in many different ways.

Now, to your other question: If Avraham knew the spiritual form of the Torah, he would certainly know that offering a child is not in the books. You could answer that he heard G-d telling him to do so, and so he might say this is the exception to the rule. The problem with that is that G-d only said "raise him up for an offering." Abraham should have concluded that G-d meant only to offer up his son, but not to, G-d forbid, slaughter him.

I have to think some more on this. Certainly, there must be midrashim or commentaries that deal with it, but I don't recall.

One possible answer is that Abraham knew that there was no such thing in Torah as an offering of a living being that is not slaughtered. So he would have to conclude that "raise him up for an offering" included slaughter, G-d forbid. But it turned out that this was also an exception—this was the only case where a living being could be offered without slaughter.

I'm not satisfied with that answer. If I find something better, I'll have to remember to let you know. In the meantime, keep learning, keep asking good questions. Reply

Tzvi Freeman November 10, 2014

Re: ambiguity and tests vs misdirection I can see your question, and it's very interesting. I'm a little thrown off, however, by your phrase, "uncharacteristic of Hashem."

This is really the whole point. G-d is not a definable, knowable character whose actions can be predicted. If He were, what would we need Him for? As the Rebbe once said, "If G-d were only a little smarter than me, He wouldn't be my G-d."

That unknowableness is precisely what He was demanding the same from Avraham in this instance—don't allow yourself to be defined.

At any rate, this article was meant to answer a specific question, not to deal with the motive of the Akeida. Please read "The Test", which deals directly with the issues you raise. Your comments will be very welcome there as well. Reply

Anonymous edison, nj November 10, 2014

ambiguity and tests vs misdirection Although your derasha is beautiful, I remain unconvinced because it still seems so uncharacteristic of Hashem to mislead His servants. I agree that ambiguity (such as "Lech Lecha" go to an unspecified place) and tests (such as "Kach Nah es Bincha" and slaughter your most precious son) are perfectly understandable. I can accept Avraham negotiating with Hashem to spare Sedom because the Torah obstensively recorded Hashem's statement that it would be wrong to hide His intentions from Avraham. However, where else do we find Hashem gives a deliberately misleading command that He expects the recipient to challenge? Reply

Dan Pomona January 17, 2021

in response to Anonymous:

I would also like to add, respectfully, that perhaps the test was Hashem expecting Avraham to challenge him and tell him no. First of all, it was against something Hashem already expressed being against murder in general, and infanticide, specifically to idols ("gods").

Since Hashem treats human sacrifice as an abomination, why would Hashem choose this as a test?

If Hashem only instructed Avraham to place Yitzchak on the alter, but not specifically to sacrifice him, why did Avraham take it upon himself to take the knife and start to move the knife to yitzchak's neck with the intention to slaughter him?

"How could Avraham listen to a malach tell him to stop when the instruction came straight from Hashem, and why would Hashem choose to convey the more important message to stop through a malach?
What if Avraham didn't listen because until he would hear it directly from Hashem?

How could Yitzchok allow Avraham to kill him? Yitzchak was required to save himself. Reply

ruth housman marshfield hills, ma April 23, 2013

Sacrifice and what this means Today I counseled a friend, whose son is being terribly bullied by a teacher, who refuses to see how hard he is working, and also she seems to be taking pleasure in giving him bad grades when others, feel, this is wrong, because he's a stellar student. So I have been thinking about sons, and about power and control, and how children are sacrificed, often, at the hands of others, in ways that do kill their spirit, or attempt to kill their spirit.

I think, the lessons from The Akeda, today, mean do not let anyone kill, your spirit, the joy and passion for learning, for being, the very soul that is unique and yours, and I believe, these stories are lessons in life. I do not for a moment think, G_d needed to take this boy but that G_d in thinking forward, as in a different kind of time, could see we would dialogue, continue to converse, and parse this out. It's in the fires of dialogue, and in wrestling with ethical issues, that we recreate that Divine, Moses fire. Reply

Anonymous April 23, 2013

you said that the reason g-d told Abraham about his plans of destroying sedom was purely because he wanted Abraham to argue with hime. I qoute: "Otherwise, G‑d had no reason to inform him of His intended action." But many mefarshim say that the reason Abraham was informed was because the land was promised to him, and therefor felt that he should include Abraham in his plans. Did g-d want Abraham to argue or was he simply including him in the process? After all, it wasn't necessary for him to argue with Abraham at all. He knew what he would say, and what the outcome woul be. So why bother?
' Reply

Odelia Miriam Drugu Potsdam October 30, 2012

Avraham believes in G-d Rabbi, in addition. The text says Avraham and his son were joined by servants. Avraham tells them to stay at the edge of the mountain because him and his son will go up, give an offering , and return (plural). Also, when Yitz7ak asks him where is the ram, Avraham replies that G-d will take care of that. Could it be that Avraham was the one trusting G-d not just G-d trusting Avraham? Maybe this is faith, to know that though it may seem so sometimes, G-d could never hurt us for real. Avraham believed in his heart until the last moment that G-d will stop him and they would return together at the foot of the mountain. Judaism is a two way relationship:) Reply

ruth housman marshfield hills, ma December 6, 2011

turning back I turn back often, to look down the years, down the threads of story, that do deeply connect us, and I think about all threads, and also about sewing and sowing, as seeds are sown. I know that if one throws out enough seeds, some do sprout, especially when nourished, by water, by sun and soil. And I am thinking that those among us who toss those seeds or pearls of wisdom, about LOVE itself, cannot fail, at some or any level, to achieve what "stems" from this, namely beauty, the rose itself, as a rose by any other name, is still, a rose.

I think of the beautiful purple rose cabbages this season in this respect. For me, also roses. And all that is whorled tightly, and spirals. I think within life, there is everywhere that spiral and what spirals out, has got to be, a message. Make it a spell. Make it spell LOVE.

Lately a shape known as the TORUS is getting some play. And I say, doesn't that word itself, resemble our word, Torah?

Thank You Bonnie, and Anonymous as always Reply

Anonymous December 6, 2011

Channah - Dec 5 , 2011 And thank you C for your reminder. Believe it or not all these posts are making valuable points, especially on how to think versus what to think. Sometimes we lose sight of this precious gift, how to think, when we get caught up in preaching what to think.

Your post is a reminder to have an open mind versus a closed mind, to try to be inclusive rather than ' woodenly ' ( wow at that descriptor ) exclusive. Reply

Bonnie December 6, 2011

Ruth Housman Demands that are cruel and unconsicionable are not unusual. Sometimes, you wonder if any other kind does exist.

Take your stand and do not budge. Do as you know to be right and good. Do not turn back. That is what they are really after...to make you turn back. Reply

Bonnie December 6, 2011

Ruth Housman I have no problem with questions. I am full of them and probably always will be.

But the fewer the words...the better.

There are those about you who do all they can to turn you back.
I have found that questions can be an opportunity for some to use as a tool ... or mis-direction against the person. They can lead one into foolishness.

Only trust the L-rd. Not even those with whom you broke bread are to be trusted.
Listen to David. He's been there. Reply

Anonymous December 5, 2011

Sarah's death - Dec 5, 2011 by S in GA How did Sarah die ?

Isaac was 37 years old at the Akeda.

Sarah did not know about the Akeda ahead of time. When she caught wind of it after and thought that Isaac was sacrificed, she had a heart attack. That's the connection as i understand it. Reply

Anonymous December 5, 2011

Bonnie to Ruth part 2 -Dec. 5, 2011 Bonnie, where did you get the idea that Hashem acts instantly on your spirit. i don't believe in such a G-d. For starters, for you to presume to know how Hashem acts is ill informed. Nobody knows how G-d thinks or acts, spiritually or materially.

The preachy nature of your idea seems to be to pay blind obedience to save your soul. To me it is a turn off. Again, i would not trust in such a G-d. I will walk humbly with G-d, but not out of fear for my soul.. Not fear on the lower level, nor fear at the higher level. I cannot accept a G-d who says " Fear me or else ! " We are always allowed to ask literally, " Why Hakodesh Borachu, why ? " That's the Hashem i believe in. If that right is taken away, then there is no reason for G-d having granted us Free Will.

You and i walk with the One Creator in different ways. You are comfortable with your notion and all the kudos to you. But do not expect me to agree with you.

Maybe you can give it some more thought. Reply

Channah Eibenshutz Garland, Texas December 5, 2011

Response to Sarah Y 12/5/11 Your position is very compelling and casts a reasonable doubt on Abraham ever having told Sarah. But, as someone on this thread reminded us earlier, Sarah was a prophetess. She could have known what Abraham was going to do without necessarily having been told directly. All the more reason to examine your argument that Sarah's death was in no way connected to the Akeidah. As a prophetess, she could have had the gift of knowing not just what was about to happen, but the outcome, too. I guess the real point here is that one would risk missing an important Torah lesson if one woodenly sticks to only personal favorites in the possibilities to the exclusion of the other(s). Thanks for the reminder. Reply

ruth housman marshfield hills, ma December 5, 2011

how consciousness does change
I think it's all right to question G_d. I think we are meant to do this. That is my perspective in life. Only by questioning do we arrive at answers and then we open more doors. It's an endless quest and that is part of the mystery and its joys.

I believe we are allowed to do this. This is not being a bad person. I feel we are meant to think, to expend much ink in dialogue with each other about these matters. For some, they matter, and for others, these issues are immaterial and a waste of time.

Years ago I attended the JCC in Newton for an event, to discuss the significance of a Biblical passage to our own lives. I thought this made no sense, in this day and age, and walked out, feeling rather superior. Such a waste of my time. It's humbling to be witness to my own change of heart. It seems G_d brought me full circle on a story that involves my life, and when I think back it seems all part of an ongoing journey towards something profound. It's humbling to look back down the road. Reply

Bonnie December 5, 2011

Ruth Housman As usual I have give your words some thought.
It is not always what is supreme in dealing with the Supreme, especially when plain old practical will do.
In the spirit there is no delay of justice or consquences. It's pretty much instant.
So consider the results when one decides to defy the L-rd. You will find out results immediately. A few times of that and one does get the cure or hopefully wisdom. Reply

Why Didn’t Abraham Plead for His Son’s Life?

More in this section

Join the Discussion

Classes

Hebrew School

Chai Club

The Montclair Shtiebel

More in this section

You may also be interested in...

Join the Discussion

Classes

Hebrew School

Chai Club

The Montclair Shtiebel