R. Amnon Bazak, associated with Yeshivat Har Etzion and Machon Herzog, in an essay entitled, “Mesiruto Shel Shliach,” in his collection on the weekly Tora reading, Nekudat Peticha: Iyunim Ketzarim BePeshuta Shel Parashat HaShavua, notes that despite Beraishit 24 being one of the longest chapters in the entire bible (67 verses), the name of the protagonist, Avraham’s representative who seeks out a wife for Yitzchak, is never explicitly mentioned. The only personal information about him in chapter 24 appears in v. 2: “And Avraham said unto his servant, the elder of his house, that ruled over all that he had…” We wouldn’t know his name at all were it not for an earlier reference (Ibid. 15:2): “…and he that shall be possessor of my house is Eliezer of Damascus.” One would think that someone whom Avraham entrusted to perform such an important function, something that would impact profoundly upon not only Yitzchak’s future, but the fate of the Jewish people as a whole, should be made known to us in detail. Furthermore, had Eliezer failed, we might understand a desire to protect his anonymity, as appears is the case at the end of Megillat Rut, when the individual who “passes” on the opportunity to marry Rut and thereby redeem her late husband’s name and lands, is referred to only as the “Go’el” (redeemer) (see Rut 3:12-3; 4:1, 3, 4, 6, 8); but Eliezer succeeds brilliantly and therefore we would expect the Tora to trumpet him and his success to all.

As an interesting demonstration of Eliezer’s true commitment to the task, R. Bazak asserts that he went beyond the task that his master, Avraham, originally assigned to him. Whereas all that Avraham had said to him before he departed on his mission, was to go back to Avraham’s homeland and find a woman for Yitzchak who was not a Canaanite: (Beraishit 24:3-4) “3…thou shalt not take a wife for my son of the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell. 4 But thou shalt go unto my country, and to my kindred, and take a wife for my son, even for Isaac,” Eliezer decided to determine the proper candidate by testing her attributes of kindness and compassion: (Ibid. 14) “So let it come to pass, that the damsel to whom I shall say: Let down thy pitcher, I pray thee, that I may drink; and she shall say: Drink, and I will give thy camels drink also; let the same be she that Thou (God) hast Appointed for Thy Servant, even for Yitzchak and thereby shall I know that Thou hast Shown Kindness unto my master.”

I suppose that one could challenge this contention of R. Bazak by claiming that Eliezer believed that God was likely Assist him in his task since He had Shown so many Kindnesses to Avraham, his master, in the past. Therefore the test that he devised was not so much to assure that the person he would choose for Yitzchak had proper Middot, but to provide God with a context by which He could Indicate to the servant whom He was Recommending. And since for God, Kindness was a paramount virtue, therefore Eliezer felt that He would Promote a woman who possessed similar qualities were she to pass the servant’s test. R. Bazak’s version assumes purer initiative on Eliezer’s part than the counter interpretation that I have proposed. In general, whenever a biblical story lends itself to an understanding whereby a particular character relies on his own judgment, as opposed to following some sort of preordained script, or form of “gaming the system” in order to not have to rely on his own powers of discernment and decision-making, I prefer the former over the latter. For example, in Megillat Esther, where God’s Name is absent throughout the book, when Mordechai and Esther make a series of fateful decisions that eventually save the Jewish people from Haman’s plotting, I always think of them doing so on their own, “rolling the dice,” not knowing how things will turn out, in the desperate hope that they are doing the right thing. I believe that in our current state of “Hester Panim” (lit. the Hiding of God’s Face; fig. an age when there is no Urim VeTumim, no Nevi’im or other means for determining directly God’s Wishes and Desires for us), we are better served by biblical models who are thought to have made up their own minds, rather than individuals who were doing exactly as they had been Told. If today we do not have the possibility of accessing the Divine Will, we need to summon up confidence inspired by the precedent of biblical personalities who found themselves in similar straits. Granted, the principle of “Aseh LeCha Rav” (make for yourself a teacher) is always relevant, and those steeped in the primary and secondary sources of our tradition are in a better position to extrapolate what the Will of God might Be in the situations in which we find ourselves; yet the certainty that could be relied upon during the age of prophets, is simply not part of our religious experience, and at best such individuals are able to advise us, but not decide for us.

R. Bazak adds that Eliezer’s insistence upon carrying out his mandate before he refreshes himself after his long journey, (Ibid. 33) “And there was set food before him to eat; but he said: ‘I will not eat, until I have told mine errand.’ And he said: ‘Speak on,’” and his reference to himself as nothing more than Avraham’s servant, (Ibid. 34) “And he said: ‘I am Avraham’s servant,” fleshes out the picture of someone truly devoted to his task, to the point where his own ego has become subordinate to what his master has asked him to do, hence the omission of his name in lieu of the description of his relationship to Avraham, i.e., his servant.

While the story is very dramatic, and provides insights into the lives of figures of the biblical period, it also serves as a model for how a representative of someone else ought to view himself. R. Bazak concludes his essay, “From here generations are taught what it means to be ‘Shluchei Tzibbur’ (leaders appointed to represent the congregation) (in prayer, Tora reading, communal leadership, etc.), that they must see themselves as both “Shluchei D’Rachmana” (representatives of God) as well as “Shluchei Didan” (representatives of us, i.e., the people they serve), and how they ought to fulfill their surrogacy faithfully and honestly.” The dichotomy between “Shluchei D’Rachmana” and “Shluchei Didan” is formally stated in the Talmud concerning Kohanim (priests):

Nedarim 35b

The scholars propounded: Are the priests (in sacrificing on behalf of those bringing sacrifices) our agents or agents of the All-Merciful? What is the practical difference? — In respect of one who is forbidden to benefit (from a priest as a result of the individual taking a vow prohibiting gaining benefit from this individual): if you say that they are our agents, surely he (the priest) benefits him (by offering up his sacrifices); hence it is prohibited. But if you say that they are the agents of the All-Merciful (by “receiving the sacrifice”), it is permitted (the priest doing something on behalf of God, rather than the individual bringing the sacrifice)…

But just as we have contended (see blog post “Partnering with God” 10/21/15) that the Talmud’s concept of serving as a partner with God in perfecting the world can be expanded from the realm of judges in which it was originally stated, to other contexts as well, so too the idea that human beings can serve in the capacities of both representatives of our fellow men as well as of God Himself, can be applied to even non-Kohanim, in the spirit of Shemot 19:6 “…and ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation.” Viewing ourselves as rather than being primarily concerned with our own needs, we have been created to serve God and others faithfully and devotedly, offers an important frame of reference for living a redeemed and meaningful life.