Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I didn't mean to denigrate that particular interpretive tradition and its meaningfulness to those who cherish it. I just question the effectiveness of appealing to Rabbinic Midrash when answering posters who clearly are not part of that tradition. I think it may have as much effectiveness as a Christian answering by equating Yitzhak with Jesus, or by a Muslim substituting Yishmael for Yitzhak. All three interpretive traditions occur outside of the text of the Akedah, and in addition and much later to it. They all make assumptions concerning the text that cannot be found in the text proper, and these assumptions will only hold validity to those already belonging to the interpretive tradition the assumptions stem from.
Which is, I suppose, an option someone may choose to make when answering someone's questions about a Biblical text. But to claim a meaning for a text, without initially noting where the interpretation comes from, gives an impression that it is equal to the "plain-sense" meaning of the text. Sure, the "plain-sense" meaning can certainly be an elusive beast to catch, but the attempt should be made when examining a text - especially when the text is being assailed by posters who care not a whit for how tradition interprets it.
Personally, I find the Midrashic explanation that Abraham misunderstood God's words - and the play on the similarity between the word for with "go up" and "burnt offering" - darkly humorous, if not overly literal. But I get that Midrash is Midrash, a very creative process that is part of a long Rabbinical tradition, and that it differs from a "plain-sense" meaning, while striving for the SOD, as you put it. Others don't understand that, perhaps, and may confuse the two. I would be more interested in how you read the text, rather than how you read the Rabbis.
I would be more interested in how you read the text, rather than how you read the Rabbis.
if there is a problem with any text for me, then it is due to my incomplete understanding and faulty perception, NOT to some lack of goodness or lack of perfection on the part of God. It shows me where there is inner work for me to do within myself, and in prayer to ask "God! help me understand this, show me the blessing in this." To stay only with a superficial reading of anything in life is, well, superficial. It has always been much more interesting and rewarding for me to unlock a treasure or solve a puzzle. And that only happens (for me) through prayer and study and doing the mitzvot.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 08-17-2015 at 08:39 AM..
if there is a problem with any text for me, then it is due to my incomplete understanding and faulty perception, NOT to some lack of goodness or lack of perfection on the part of God. It shows me where there is inner work for me to do within myself, and in prayer to ask "God! help me understand this, show me the blessing in this." To stay only with a superficial reading of anything in life is, well, superficial. It has always been much more interesting and rewarding for me to unlock a treasure or solve a puzzle. And that only happens (for me) through prayer and study and doing the mitzvot.
That's a very nice way to say it. Digging deeper is always a pleasure, and a requirement, I think. I just like my shovel to have a really firm construction and to be really sharp, and not be a hand-me-down.
1.And it came to pass after these things, that God tested Abraham, and He said to him, "Abraham," and he said, "Here I am."
Rashi's Commentary:
after these things: Some of our Sages say (Sanh. 89b) [that this happened]: after the words [translating “devarim†as “wordsâ€] of Satan, who was accusing and saying,
“Of every feast that Abraham made, he did not sacrifice before You one bull or one ram!†He [God] said to him, “Does he do anything but for his son? Yet, if I were to
say to him, ‘Sacrifice him before Me,’ he would not withhold [him].†And some say,“ after the words of Ishmael,†who was boasting to Isaac that he was circumcised at
the age of thirteen, and he did not protest. Isaac said to him,“ With one organ you intimidate me? If the Holy One, blessed be He, said to me, ‘Sacrifice yourself
before Me,’ I would not hold back.†- Cf. Gen. Rabbah 55:4.
Here I am: This is the reply of the pious. It is an expression of humility and an expression of readiness. — [from Tan. Vayera 22]
2.And He said, "Please take your son, your only one, whom you love, yea, Isaac, and go away to the land of Moriah and bring him up there for a burnt offering on one of the mountains, of which I will tell you."
Rashi's Commentary:
Please take: Heb. קַח נָא is only an expression of a request. He [God] said to him, “I beg of you, pass this test for Me, so that people will not say that the first ones
[tests] had no substance.†- [from Sanh. ad loc.]
your son: He [Abraham] said to Him,“ I have two sons.†He [God] said to him,“ Your only one.†He said to Him,“ This one is the only son of his mother, and that one is
the only son of his mother.†He said to him,“ Whom you love.†He said to Him,“ I love them both.†He said to him,“ Isaac.†Now why did He not disclose this to him at
the beginning? In order not to confuse him suddenly, lest his mind become distracted and bewildered, and also to endear the commandment to him and to reward him for
each and every expression. — [from Sanh. 89b, Gen. Rabbah 39:9, 55:7]
the land of Moriah: Jerusalem, and so in (II) Chronicles (3:1):“to build the House of the Lord in Jerusalem on Mount Moriah.†And our Sages explained that [it is
called Moriah] because from there [religious] instruction (הוֹרָאָה) goes forth to Israel. Onkelos rendered it [“the land of serviceâ€] as alluding to the service of the
incense, which contained myrrh [“mor†is phonetically similar to Moriah], spikenard, and other spices bring him up: He did not say to him, “Slaughter him,†because the Holy One, blessed be He, did not wish him to slaughter him but to bring him up to the mountain, to prepare him for a burnt offering, and as soon as he brought him up [to the mountain], He said to him, “Take him down.†- [from Gen. Rabbah 56:8]
one of the mountains: The Holy One, blessed be He, makes the righteous wonder (other editions: makes the righteous wait), and only afterwards discloses to them [His
intentions], and all this is in order to increase their reward. Likewise, (above 12:1): “to the land that I will show you,†and likewise, concerning Jonah (3:2): “and
proclaim upon it the proclamation.†- [from Gen. Rabbah 55:7]
3.And Abraham arose early in the morning, and he saddled his donkey, and he took his two young men with him and Isaac his son; and he split wood for a burnt offering,
and he arose and went to the place of which God had told him.
Rashi's Commentary:
And…arose early: He hastened to [perform] the commandment (Pes. 4a).
and he saddled: He himself, and he did not command one of his servants, because love causes a disregard for the standard [of dignified conduct]. — [from Gen. Rabbah
55:8]
his two young men: Ishmael and Eliezer, for a person of esteem is not permitted to go out on the road without two men, so that if one must ease himself and move to a
distance, the second one will remain with him. — [from Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer, ch. 31; Gen. Rabbah ad loc., Tan. Balak 8]
and he split: Heb. וַיְבַקַע. The Targum renders וְצַלַח, as in (II Sam. 19:18):“and they split (וְצָלְחוּ) the Jordan,†an expression of splitting, fendre in Old French.
4.On the third day, Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw the place from afar.
Rashi's Commentary:
On the third day: Why did He delay from showing it to him immediately? So that people should not say that He confused him and confounded him suddenly and deranged his
mind, and if he had had time to think it over, he would not have done it. — [from Gen. Rabbah 55:6]
and return: He prophesied that they would both return. — [from Avoth d’Rabbi Nathan, second version, ch. 43; Rabbah and Tan. ad loc.] i.e., Abraham prophesied without
realizing it.
5.And Abraham said to his young men, "Stay here with the donkey, and I and the lad will go yonder, and we will prostrate ourselves and return to you."
Rashi's Commentary:
yonder: Heb. עַד כֹּה, lit. until there, i.e., a short way to the place that is before us. And the Midrashic interpretation (Tan. ad loc.): I will see where is [the
promise] that the Holy One, blessed be He, said to me (above 15:5):“So (כֹּה) will be your seed.â€
and return: He prophesied that they would both return. — [from Avoth d’Rabbi Nathan, second version, ch. 43; Rabbah and Tan. ad loc.] i.e., Abraham prophesied without
realizing it.
6.And Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering, and he placed [it] upon his son Isaac, and he took into his hand the fire and the knife, and they both went
together.
Rashi's Commentary:
the knife: Heb. הַמַאֲכֶלֶת, so called because it consumes (אוֹכֶלֶת) the flesh, as it is stated (Deut. 32:42):“and My sword will consume (תֹּאכַלוּ) flesh,†and because it renders
meat fit for consumption (אַכִילָה). Another explanation: This [knife] was מַאִכֶלֶת because the people of Israel still eat (אוֹכְלִים) the reward given for it. — [from Gen. Rabbah
56:3]
and they both went together: Abraham, who knew that he was going to slaughter his son, was going as willingly and joyfully as Isaac, who was unaware of the matter. —
7.And Isaac spoke to Abraham his father, and he said, "My father!" And he said, "Here I am, my son." And he said, "Here are the fire and the wood, but where is the
lamb for the burnt offering?"
8.And Abraham said, "God will provide for Himself the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And they both went together.
Rashi's Commentary:
will provide for Himself the lamb: i.e., He will see and choose for Himself the lamb (Targum Jonathan), and if there will be no lamb, my son will be for a burnt
offering. And although Isaac understood that he was going to be slaughtered,“ they both went together,†with one accord (lit. with the same heart). - [from Gen. Rabbah
56:4]
9.And they came to the place of which God had spoken to him, and Abraham built the altar there and arranged the wood, and he bound Isaac his son and placed him on the
altar upon the wood.
Rashi's Commentary:
and he bound: his hands and his feet behind him. The hands and the feet tied together is known as עִקֵידָה (Shab. 54a). And that is the meaning of עִקֻדִים (below 30:39), that
their ankles were white; the place where they are bound was discernible (Berei****h Rabbathi).
10.And Abraham stretched forth his hand and took the knife, to slaughter his son.
11.And an angel of God called to him from heaven and said, "Abraham! Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am."
Rashi's Commentary:
“Abraham! Abraham!â€: This is an expression of affection, that He repeated his name. — [from Tos. Ber. ch. 1, Sifra Vayikra ch. 1]
12.And he said, "Do not stretch forth your hand to the lad, nor do the slightest thing to him, for now I know that you are a God fearing man, and you did not withhold your son, your only one, from Me."
Rashi's Commentary:
Do not stretch forth: to slaughter [him]. He [Abraham] said to Him,“ If so, I have come here in vain. I will inflict a wound on him and extract a little blood.†He
said to him,“ Do not do the slightest thing (מְאוּמָה) to him.†Do not cause him any blemish (מוּם) !- [from Gen. Rabbah 56:7]
for now I know: Said Rabbi Abba: Abraham said to Him,“ I will explain my complaint before You. Yesterday, You said to me (above 21:12): ‘for in Isaac will be called
your seed,’ and You retracted and said (above verse 2): ‘ Take now your son.’ Now You say to me, ‘ Do not stretch forth your hand to the lad.’†The Holy One, blessed
be He, said to him (Ps. 89:35): “I shall not profane My covenant, neither shall I alter the utterance of My lips.†When I said to you,“ Take,†I was not altering the
utterance of My lips. I did not say to you,“ Slaughter him,†but,“ Bring him up.†You have brought him up; [now] take him down. — [from Gen. Rabbah 56:8]
for now I know: From now on, I have a response to Satan and the nations who wonder what is My love towards you. Now I have a reason (lit. an opening of the mouth), for
they see “ that you fear God.†-
13.And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and he saw, and lo! there was a ram, [and] after [that] it was caught in a tree by its horns. And Abraham went and took the ram and
offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son.
Rashi's Commentary:
and lo! there was a ram: It was prepared for this since the six days of Creation. — [from Tan. Shelach 14]
after: After the angel said to him, “ Do not stretch forth your hand,†he saw it as it [the ram] was caught. And that is why the Targum translates it: “ And Abraham
lifted his eyes after these [words], i.e., after the angel said, †Do not stretch forth your hand.“ (Other editions: and according to the Aggadah,†after all the words
of the angel and the Shechinah and after Abraham’s arguments").
in a tree: Heb. בַּסְבַ, a tree. — [from Targum Onkelos]
by its horns: For it was running toward Abraham, and Satan caused it to be caught and entangled among the trees. — [from Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer ch. 31]
instead of his son: Since it is written: “and offered it up for a burnt offering,†nothing is missing in the text. Why then [does it say]: “instead of his son†? Over
every sacrificial act that he performed, he prayed, “May it be [Your] will that this should be deemed as if it were being done to my son: as if my son were
slaughtered, as if his blood were sprinkled, as if my son were flayed, as if he were burnt and reduced to ashes.†- [from Tan. Shelach 14]
14.And Abraham named that place, The Lord will see, as it is said to this day: On the mountain, the Lord will be seen.
Rashi's Commentary:
The Lord will see: Its simple meaning is as the Targum renders: The Lord will choose and see for Himself this place, to cause His Divine Presence to rest therein and
for offering sacrifices here.
as it is said to this day: that [future] generations will say about it, “On this mountain, the Holy One, blessed be He, appears to His people.â€
to this day: the future days, like [the words] “until this day,†that appear throughout Scripture, for all the future generations who read this verse, will refer
“until this day,†to the day in which they are living. The Midrash Aggadah (see Gen. Rabbah 56:9) [explains]: The Lord will see this binding to forgive Israel every
year and to save them from retribution, in order that it will be said “on this day†in all future generations:“On the mountain of the Lord, Isaac’s ashes shall be
seen, heaped up and standing for atonement.â€
15.And an angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time from heaven.
16.And he said, "By Myself have I sworn, says the Lord, that because you have done this thing and you did not withhold your son, your only one,
17.That I will surely bless you, and I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens and as the sand that is on the seashore, and your descendants will inherit the cities of their enemies.
Rashi's Commentary:
I will surely bless you: Heb. בָּר ֵאִבָרֶכְ, one [blessing] for the father and one for the son. —
and I will greatly multiply: Heb. וְהַרְבָּה אַרְבֶּה, one for the father and one for the son. — [from Gen. Rabbah 56:11]
18.And through your children shall be blessed all the nations of the world, because you hearkened to My voice."
Notice in verses 1 and 2 that G-d is speaking directly with Abraham...Also notice that G-d did not tell Abraham to take his Yitzchak up to slaughter him...
Notice in verses 11, 12, 15, 16, 17 and 18 that G-d is no longer speaking directly to Abraham but through a Messenger...
...Now consider this: Prior to the Akeidah, each encounter between God and Abraham occurs in direct one-on-one conversations. But from this point on, God never again speaks to Abraham directly. All further communication is passed through an angel. Why? Because Abraham simultaneously passed and failed the test. He showed his love of God, yes, but he employed violent means to pursue that love. The use of an intermediary – the angel – proclaims a message for future generations: Abraham really didn't listen to God’s teachings of compassion, did he? - See more at: Akeidah: Abraham Failed God's Test, but God Loved Him Anyway | Reform Judaism
Did Abraham Fail his Final Test? By Rabbi Hyim Shafner
Over Rosh Hashanah I thought a lot about the Akedah, the binding of Isaac, since the story is so central to Rosh Hashanah. The most important questions that are asked about the Akedah are what gave Abraham the right to offer his child without asking Sara, since Isaac is her child also? As the Talmud tells us there are 3 partners in everyone’s creation – a father, a mother and God.
Second, why did Abraham not speak up to protect the innocent as he did in the case of Sodom, where God made clear that he expects it of Avrohom as He says, “Avrohom is the one who will teach justice and mercy to his childrenâ€.
And third, what are we to do with the depiction of God at the Akedah that so contrasts with the God of the Torah who does not want us to hurt the innocent but protect them? Why is Abraham praised for his willingness to obey God instead of protecting the innocent and weak? Wouldn’t that be a better way of showing one’s love and fear of God?
Many classic answers are given but none that do not generate many more questions. For instance, some sages claim Abraham somehow knew both promises would come to be, that Isaac would be his seed and that he would also have to offer him up. Or in another version, that God did not tell Abraham to kill his child, only to bring him up as an offering, but of course in either case, it is no test. Or, that God’s word trumps all, but then we are left with the questions we asked above and indeed we know (from the story of Sodom earlier in the parsha) that Abraham is not someone who believes that God can
not be questioned.
Every 5 or 10 years it is reported in the news papers that someone sacrifices their child because of a command from God. Usually we chalk these up to insanity, but every few years one runs across such a story in which the father indeed is not crazy and never was, yet kills the child at what he believes is God’s command. For Jews, after the giving of the torah, halacha trumps God’s command, so an observant Jew would not be permitted to sacrifice their child or commit any other sin even if they were sure it was the command of God. However, it does beg the question of Abraham who knew from the story of Cain and Abel that killing was forbidden.
In addition as some of the anthropological writers ask, what does it mean to live in a world in which a large portion of the world’s inhabitants, Christians and Muslims, both see a story of sacrificing one’s child for God as foundational?
I concluded that none of the apologetic paths were satisfactory and that the real test was for Abraham to confront God as he did at Sodom, thus teaching his children “righteousness and justice†and ultimately to say “no†to God. Perhaps, on some level in the narrative of the Akedah, Abraham failed the test. I would suggest this is why God never speaks to Abraham after commanding him to take Isaac as a burnt offering. In the end of the story an emissary angel speaks to Abraham – but where is God? Why doesn’t God just speak directly to Abraham?
Indeed midrash after midrash depicts just such a counter narrative, Abraham crying, the angles crying and arguing with God and ultimately, Sara’s cries when she hears of the Akedah that according to the midrash are the source of the shofar’s sound.
Perhaps if we begin to see the Akedah as a test in which the right answer is to protect an innocent child rather than sacrifice him in obedience to God, our world might be a bit different, perhaps for the better.
Pure speculation Richard, even Rabbi Hyim Shafner admits as much and you expect me to believe this based on his speculation
According to the NT abe had faith that God would raise Isaac back up because of the promise God gave him concerning Isaac. Which makes a lot more sense according to the plain reading, especially when one considers some of the prophets accounts hold that God does indeed raise the dead.
That's a very nice way to say it. Digging deeper is always a pleasure, and a requirement, I think. I just like my shovel to have a really firm construction and to be really sharp, and not be a hand-me-down.
i didn't mean to denigrate that particular interpretive tradition and its meaningfulness to those who cherish it. I just question the effectiveness of appealing to rabbinic midrash when answering posters who clearly are not part of that tradition. I think it may have as much effectiveness as a christian answering by equating yitzhak with jesus, or by a muslim substituting yishmael for yitzhak. All three interpretive traditions occur outside of the text of the akedah, and in addition and much later to it. They all make assumptions concerning the text that cannot be found in the text proper, and these assumptions will only hold validity to those already belonging to the interpretive tradition the assumptions stem from.
Which is, i suppose, an option someone may choose to make when answering someone's questions about a biblical text. But to claim a meaning for a text, without initially noting where the interpretation comes from, gives an impression that it is equal to the "plain-sense" meaning of the text. Sure, the "plain-sense" meaning can certainly be an elusive beast to catch, but the attempt should be made when examining a text - especially when the text is being assailed by posters who care not a whit for how tradition interprets it.
Personally, i find the midrashic explanation that abraham misunderstood god's words - and the play on the similarity between the word for with "go up" and "burnt offering" - darkly humorous, if not overly literal. But i get that midrash is midrash, a very creative process that is part of a long rabbinical tradition, and that it differs from a "plain-sense" meaning, while striving for the sod, as you put it. Others don't understand that, perhaps, and may confuse the two. I would be more interested in how you read the text, rather than how you read the rabbis.
Pure speculation Richard, even Rabbi Hyim Shafner admits as much and you expect me to believe this based on his speculation
According to the NT abe had faith that God would raise Isaac back up because of the promise God gave him concerning Isaac. Which makes a lot more sense according to the plain reading, especially when one considers some of the prophets accounts hold that God does indeed raise the dead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard1965
Really?...Where is that in your NT?...
Hebrews 11:17-19
17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, 18 of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: 19 accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.
Yep, fair enough. Though I think our ideas of what constitutes a proper פשט are extremely different, and where are differences are coming into conflict.
Paul WAS a Jew, and fully aware of the then-current interpretations of Judaism. He has his own interesting interpretations of them, but I have never been a fan of Paul, personally.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
