an interesting idea

[cellio]

Ruth Levenstein posted an interesting idea to a Jewish mailing list that I'm on.

It is generally held that the binding of Isaac (the Akeidah) was a test, and that Avraham passed the test by obeying the order to sacrifice his son. But maybe Avraham *failed* the test. Maybe passing the test would have meant protesting, as he did to protect S'dom and Gemorrah a few chapters earlier.

The story takes on a very different tone if you read it from this perspective.

Comments

[amergina.livejournal.com]

Woah. I'm gonna have to pull out my Bible (cause it and the Koran are all I have) and read that again.

I never thought of that.

[cellio]

Yeah, I've spent time thinking about the Akeidah, and I never came up with that either. But it's plausible. Note that this is the last time that the Torah tells us of God speaking to Avraham. Also (this next is Ruth's observation), God gives the initial order but He sends an angel to stop Avraham at the last minute -- He doesn't even intervene directly.

The Akeidah is in Gen 22, FYI.

Oh, and what's the next thing that happens? Sarah dies. At least some mdirash attributes this to shock from the near-loss of her son.

[blk]

For anybody interested, the relevent chapter (Gen 22) can be read here

Mentioning Sarah's death right after the sacrifice is interesting, but I don't think it came immediately after. Actually, if I look at some surrounding ages, I can get a guestimate: The passage mentions that Abraham's brother had children at the same time that Isaac was sacrificed. and Isaac married a cousin's daughter. Assuming "reasonable ages," At least 25-35 years should pass after the sacrifice before Rebekah was old enough to marry. Since Isaac was only 40 when he married, I believe he was fairly young when he was sacrificed. Sarah lived to see him reach 37, which hardly puts it soon after.

[cellio]

See also here for a text (with translation/concordance foodnotes).

I was unclear. The next thing that happens in the *text* is Sarah's death; time may have passed, but nothing that bears on the Avraham story was recorded in that time. That said, there is a talmudic tradition -- of which I do not know the details -- that in fact Sarah *did* die right after the Akeidah. Of course, there are some pretty twisted interpretations in the talmud in places, and I don't know the supporting arguments for this one.

[mrpeck.livejournal.com]

I don't see it. The verses right after the angel stops him describe the angel telling him how the Lord will bless him for his obedience.

midrash

[marlowe1.livejournal.com]

It's midrash that Sarah died because she knew saw the Akeidah but it wasn't her test so she hadn't prepared herself for the shock of it. But I feel uncomfortable relating that because it is forbidden to teach oral Torah to non-Jews. Midrash is in that grey area however.

Re: midrash

[cellio]

But I feel uncomfortable relating that because it is forbidden to teach oral Torah to non-Jews.

Where did you learn that? Many reputable institutions teach (via email) anyone who asks, such as Ohr Somayach, Yeshivat Har Etzion, Chabad, DAF, Project Genesis, and Aishdas (just off the top of my head, and sticking to Orthodox institutions).

I suspect that discussing midrash (or halacha) at the level of the typical net conversation wouldn't be what they meant, anyway. I can see not sitting down and learning for hours a day straight from the primary sources with non-Jews, though I also can't imagine too many non-Jews being interested. :-)

Time in Torah

[marlowe1.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but you have to remember that the Torah doesn't tell things in a straight chronelogical setting. It will go on about the generations of Esav in one chapter which have to go for many years, and then goes back to talk about Joseph. Or it will speak about how long Ishmael lived before getting to Isaac.

SO pretty much what happens with Abraham is that Torah wants to get all the loose ends tied up in his story before moving on to the story of Isaac (which is pretty short as he's a transitional character)

[jeannegrrl.livejournal.com]

I've heard this idea and it resonates with me. As further support for this view, I was also told that not only did G-d send an Angel to stop the sacrifice vs. intervening Himself, but after this, G-d never speaks directly to Abraham again....

[cellio]

The lack of further contact with Avraham is something I had noticed before. I get the impression that the traditional answer here is that Avraham had passed all of God's tests and/or done everything God needed from him, so there was no need for further contact. A less-traditional answer is that it was to spare Avraham -- if the last thing God asked you to do was sacrifice your kid and then God calls again, how are you going to feel? But the idea that God stayed away because Avraham had screwed up is a new (to me) twist.

Problems with the interpretation

[marlowe1.livejournal.com]

G-d does speak to Abraham again to reward him.
G-d saying do and an Angel saying don't would weigh it more heavily to G-d. There are traditions about Satan trying to stop Abraham and Satan is an angel.
Isaac was 37, Abraham was 137 - it's difficult to tie someone to a rock and sacrifice them if they aren't willing to do it.

And Abraham is talking directly to G-d. He knows that there's an afterlife. He will simply be putting Isaac there.

Two other interpretations are Rabbi Friedman's (http://www.rabbifriedman.org)interpretation that the Test was listening to the angel. And proving that this world is important. Just as important as the next.

Rav Kook saw it as a Paradox. Dogma is the premature resolution of a paradox (I think that's how it goes). Abraham passed by seeing the Paradox through to the end.

[fiannaharpar.livejournal.com]

I like that interperetation, but only because i'm big into questioning.

I have this image of a largish, white-bearded man with a stunned look on his face saying, "He did what? Oy, why did I decide that people were A Good Idea? Go stop him." then muttering under his breath, "Note to self: Don't talk to Abraham, it's just a bad idea."

Then again, the G-d that I perceive is far more fatherly, laid back, and reasonable than the Really Angry G-d(tm) that the church I grew up in told me about.

[marlowe1.livejournal.com]

Except G-d doesn't really have a body.