the binding of Yitzchak

[cellio]

On Rosh Hashana we read the Akeidah, the story of the binding of Yitzchak (Gen 22). This is challenging text for me, and this year I'm doing part of the torah reading so it's even farther forward in my mind.

There are some big questions here. After finally giving Avraham and Sarah the son they'd longed for, how could God want Avraham to ritually sacrifice him? And how could Avraham quietly go along with this? What kind of a test is this, anyway?

The idea of human sacrifice -- particularly child sacrifice -- is abhorrant to us. While we often think (incorrectly, in my opinion) of the patriarchs and (later) ancient Israelites as primitives, I think this must have been abhorrant to them too. This is not a routine act, and I don't think the placement of Sarah's death so soon after this incident is an accident. We're told that human sacrifice was a practice of other peoples of this time, and if so that's their problem but, as the torah is given to us, it does not appear to have ever been our practice.

So God gives Avraham a command that must seem abhorrant to him and what does he do? Does he argue, like he did to try to save the cities of S'dom and G'morrah? No. Does he even lodge a protest, saying "ok you're the boss, but I think this is wrong", or even ask "are you sure?"? No. He says nothing, and then early the next morning he sets out to do it.

I have heard the argument (I forget where, and if it was someone reading this please tell me) that Avraham learned from S'dom and G'morrah that God is just -- he did not, in fact, manage to save the cities, as the condition of ten righteous men was not met. So having established that, Avraham saw no need to question a later command. It's an appealing argument, but I have trouble agreeing with it. It dances too close to blind faith for me -- even if you accept the command as just, questions and confirmation are not out of line. (On the other hand, if that argument is right, then Avraham shows a degree of faith that most of us will never be able to match. I would certainly have trouble following a divine order to kill a loved one!)

Most commentaries understand that God never intended that Yitzchak actually die (he does, after all, send an angel to stop Avraham), and that this was a test of Avraham's faith. (A test, I add, that the text makes clear he passed.) For several years I have harbored an alternate interpretation. Yes, it was a test -- and Avraham failed the test of judgement that accompanied the test of faith. Faith is not sufficient on its own; we must not abandon justice, compassion, and reason while pursuing it. Avraham did pass a test of faith, but he failed a greater test.

When Avraham is about to slaughter his son, God sends an angel to stop him. When the angel arrives he cries out (vayikra, not vayomer) "Avraham, Avraham". Word repetition in the torah is unusual; our sages say that there are no unnecessary words in torah, so there must be significance to the double call. And we don't get punctuation or inflection, though the cantillation (added centuries later) gives some hints of how those interpreters, at least, read the text.

I had originally thought that this was just an intensifier -- the angel is saying "hey! stop and listen to me right now, Avraham!". (Though, I must admit, this is counter to the cantillation marks, which I had not paid attention to until preparing to chant it.) When I was discussing it with my rabbi earlier this week he pointed out a different interpretation -- a cry out followed by a question, like (these are my words now) when you call out to someone and you get no answer and ask in a questioning tone, with sort of an implied "did you hear me?". (We're going to talk more about this idea later; I'll report back.)

Let's posit that interpretation. This would suggest that Avraham is so intent on what he is about to do that even the first cry of the angel isn't enough to get his attention. This would not be the act of someone who's grudgingly going along with a displeasing order; such a person would be looking for any reason to delay fulfillment. And Avraham never delayed, as I mentioned earlier; God told him to do this and he set out to do it. Even the preparations for sacrifice are timely -- "And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built the altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar, upon the wood. And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son." (JPS translation) No delays -- not even a final conversation with his son.

Even if Avraham accepted without question the justice of God's order, should he have allowed the act to consume him so? Is that dedication to God, or is it dangerous single-mindedness? Did he focus so much on fulfilling the order that he forgot about compassion for his son? Faith is important, but is it the most important thing?

The text is pretty clear (22:15-18) that Avraham is rewarded for nearly killing his son. This reward comes in the form of blessing for his descendants, not for him directly. But I have to wonder whether a different, even greater, reward was available had Avraham had a different balance of faith, reason, and awareness.

Balancing all the factors that influence our acts is hard. Our patriarchs were fallable humans, not flawless saints, and if Avraham did fail here (which is not certain) it's because he was human. On the flip side, if even Avraham, who had more direct encounters with God than we do, could fall short, how much more mindful do we have to be of our own actions and their consequences? If we merely read this as a story about Avraham, and omit the cautionary note directed at us, we have missed the point. No, I don't think I know anyone who's likely to commit human sacrifice -- but what else might we do in the name of faith that we perhaps ought not do?

Comments

[akitrom.livejournal.com]

This is one of the central issues we struggle with in the Ethics course I teach, delineating a "Divine Command" morality (soemthing is right only because the Lord tells us it is) versus a "Natural Law" morality (the Lord created moral laws, like physical laws, seperate from His communications to us).

If Avraham was right in sacrificing his son, then how do we condemnthe schizophrenic who sincerely believes that the Lord has told him to murder his neighbor?

Cosmic Chicken

[(Anonymous)]

Maybe it's because I'm depressed, but somehow I picture this as a game of Cosmic Chicken, and God swerved. Avraham knew that God must not allow the sacrifice, and so Avraham went along with the whole thing, knowing "God must provide." Avraham knew that there would be a "plot twist" just before the sacrifice, and so he did as he was told, never expecting to actually do it.

Look at the character of Avraham. He was cagey. He bargained with God, and lived! He had some characteristics of a con artist -- characteristics the Bible presents as admirable. Avraham was not some dumb schmuck about to off his kid. He sussed the test out and turned the tables.

I just wish there was more explication about the whole deal. Over the centuries, more than a few folks have been quite willing to kill their children to prove their faith. Crazy folk look at this story and get the wrong message.

Somehow, I don't see this as a failure on Avraham's part. You could be right, but at least right now, a game of Cosmic Chicken is more comforting.

Rob of UnSpace

[goljerp]

In Sisters at Sinai, Rabbi (Jill) Hammer has a midrash, "The Switch", which is a modern midrash on the Akeidah, from the point of view of the angels. There are a lot of midrashim about the Akeidah, including several about Samael (the accuser) trying to stop the sacrifice: he trys to convince Abraham that he's crazy to kill his son (with no luck), and then he tries to convince Isaac not to go along with it -- he has a bit more luck when he tells Isaac that when he dies, Ishmael will get all his stuff. At that point, according to the midrash, Isaac wavers a bit...

But anyhow, what Hammer picks up on is that the "bad" angel is doing what we, as moderns, would like to do... and there are tantalizing indications from the text that something strange is going on with the angelic voice in Genesis 22:15. Her midrash is that Michael (angelic protector of Israel) and Samael (angelic troublemaker) switched places before the Akedah. I'm having a hard time describing the story without just telling it... so just read the story :-)

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

I'm also of the belief that Avraham failed the test. Yet Hashem was merciful enough to not let him know.

Why does Hashem tell Avraham to sacrifice his son, but sends an angel to stop it? Well, Hashem never talks to Avraham after that point.

[dagonell.livejournal.com]

Reason #1,257 Why I left the Roman Catholic church:
I was taught as a child that God _rewarded_ Abraham for his _blind, obedient, unquestioning faith_ Never question authority, just do as they say. I love the 'Cosmic Chicken' argument! :D
-- Dagonell

[aliza250.livejournal.com]

a test of Avraham's faith. (A test, I add, that the text makes clear he passed.)

No, he failed - G-d never spoke to him again.

Think about Noah - "tzaddik hayah b'dorotav" - a righteous person in [the standards of] his generation. He, too, was rewarded through his descendants.

Hm, if G-d has this habit of rewarding people through their descendants, what does that say about the childless among us?