September 22nd: Shabbat Shuvah
THIS WEEK IN THE TORAH
Rabbi David E. Ostrich
The following is Rabbi Ostrich’s Rosh Hashanah Evening D’var Torah:
Many years ago, the late Rabbi Steven Sager of Durham, North Carolina, was leading a sermon seminar for a rabbinic gathering, and he uttered what to him was a bold aspiration. Always daunted by the difficulty of the Akedat Yitzchak, the Binding of Isaac, he was, after some twenty years in the rabbinate, finally going to write a sermon on this challenging story. Rabbi Sager was a great scholar, a sage and inspired leader, but I was surprised and even a bit flummoxed by his hesitancy. Twenty years of leading Rosh Hashanah services and no Akedat Yitzchak sermons? I did not know we had a choice. Whether good or bad, I had been writing Divray Torah on it since my earliest days in the pulpit.
I mention this reminiscence of my late friend and mentor to remind us of the extreme difficulty of this portion. We know the tale well, but we should never let our familiarity obscure the angst we should feel at our Father Abraham’s plight. What would we do if God commanded such a sacrifice from us?
If we could calm ourselves enough for systematic thinking, we might try to subject the command to the two categories of ethical decision making. One kind is code based—officially termed de-ontological ethical reasoning. We are under the jurisdiction of various moral and legal codes, and, when a question arises, we consult the codes and see what is required and what is forbidden. Whether the codes involve traffic laws, tax laws, property laws, ethical codes for our various professions, neighborhood covenants, by-laws of our various organizations, or the Ten Commandments and Halachah, there are rules which guide us in our decisions.
The problem, in Abraham’s test, is that de-ontological reasoning would command two different and opposing responses. On the one hand, there is the religious presumption that one should follow God’s commands. When God speaks, we are supposed to be obedient. However, there is also the unwritten but furiously obvious code of parenting which says that parents should protect their children. However Abraham imagines the ethical codes that govern him, he receives two very different instructions.
The second kind of ethical reasoning is based on the results of a proposed action—a good result making the action ethical and moral, and a bad result making the action unethical and immoral. This is called teleological ethical reasoning. An example would be whether one observes traffic laws in a medical emergency. Though the speed limit should limit our velocity, we may determine that driving slowly would result in the death of the patient—clearly not a good result. Driving fast, though it is against the code, would result in the patient living—clearly a good result. In such a situation, teleological ethical reasoning counsels us to ignore the speed limits and save a life.
When it comes to Abraham’s situation, however, teleological reasoning is also conflicted. If he follows God’s command to sacrifice Isaac, the obviously tragic result would be the death of his beloved son. Such an action cannot be in any way good or moral. If Abraham disobeys God’s command, that could also bring about devastating results: God could get angry and kill Isaac anyway—and kill Abraham and everyone else he loves. Neither following nor refusing God’s command will yield a good result. What is a Patriarch to do?!
Though there are hundreds of ways to approach this tortuous situation, the Tradition is generally of two minds on the subject. One lionizes Abraham’s faith and holds him up as the epitome of an obedient and faithful Servant. The impossibility of the situation speaks to his spiritual strength and zeal for the Lord.
The other view rebels with every fiber of its collective being at the thought that God would ask such a travesty of a mitzvah. There is no way that a loving God would demand such a sacrifice. Thus, some voices in the Tradition insist that Abraham’s behavior must result from misunderstanding what God says.
Remember how the story begins.
וַיְהִי אַחַר הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה וְהָאֱלֹהִים נִסָּה אֶת־אַבְרָהָם
“Sometime afterward, God put Abraham to the test.”
What exactly is God testing?
If we follow the Tradition that God wants to know if Abraham is totally loyal and obedient, Abraham passes the test. He does God’s bidding regardless of the personal cost.
However, if the test is of a different sort, then Abraham’s blind obedience and automaton-like zealotry may not be what God is seeking at all. What if the test is of Abraham’s moral fibre? What if God wants to see if he is strong enough to say No to an unjust command? Supporting this second theory are two verses later in the portion. In the original instruction—and in many instances in Abraham’s life, God speaks directly to him. But, after Abraham almost slaughters Isaac, God never again speaks to him directly.
Look to the text. When Abraham stands over Isaac, the slaughtering knife in hand, it is not God Who stops him.
וַיִּקְרָא אֵלָיו מַלְאַךְ יְהוָֹה מִן־הַשָּׁמַיִם...
אַל־תִּשְׁלַח יָדְךָ אֶל־הַנַּעַר
וְאַל־תַּעַשׂ לוֹ מְאוּמָה...
“Then an angel of the Lord called to him from heaven...
and said, ‘Do not raise your hand against the boy,
or harm him in any way...’” (Genesis 22.11-12)
And, after Abraham sacrifices the ram in Isaac’s place, it is again an angel who speaks to him.
וַיִּקְרָא מַלְאַךְ יְהוָֹה אֶל־אַבְרָהָם שֵׁנִית מִן־הַשָּׁמָיִם
“The angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time from heaven...” (Genesis 22.15)
Abraham is a favorite of God, a “friend of God,” but, in this case, passing the test would have Abraham protesting the immoral command and refusing it. When Abraham fails the test and tries to kill Isaac, God is disgusted by Abraham’s mindless zealotry and withdraws, sending an angel to fix the mess.
Another possible explanation is that Abraham misunderstands what God means by ,וְהַעֲלֵהוּ to make Isaac go up. This is the Hebrew term for sacrificing, but there are certainly other ways to elevate the child? Physically bringing him up from Beer-sheba to Moriah and then spiritually elevating him with religious instruction is infinitely more suitable. We already know, from Genesis 14, that Moriah/Salem/Jerusalem is a place of worship and religious education. As you may remember, Abraham spends some time there after he rescues his nephew Lot in the war of the four kings against the five kings. He stops at Salem to visit King Melchizedek,כֹהֵן לְאֵל עֶלְיוֹן , a priest of God Most High.
King Melchizedek of Salem brought out bread and wine;
he was a priest of God Most High, and he blessed Abraham, saying,
‘Blessed be Abraham of God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth.
And blessed be God Most High Who has delivered your foes into your hand.’”
(Genesis 14.17-20)
According to the Midrash, this Melchizedek is actually Shem, the son of Noah, who with his grandson Eber has a school of spirituality in which the ancients learn the ways of God. This school is in Salem, identified also as both Jerusalem and Moriah, and perhaps, when God says (Genesis 22.2),
וְלֶךְ־לְךָ אֶל־אֶרֶץ הַמֹּרִיָּה וְהַעֲלֵהוּ שָׁם
“...go to the Land of Moriah and elevate him there,”
Abraham is supposed to elevate Isaac, וְהַעֲלֵהוּ, by having him educated at Shem and Eber’s religious academy.
Ultimately, Abraham may get the point, because, if you look carefully at the end of the story, Isaac does not return with Abraham and the servants to Beer-sheba.
וַיָּשָׁב אַבְרָהָם אֶל־נְעָרָיו
וַיָּקֻמוּ וַיֵּלְכוּ יַחְדָּו אֶל־בְּאֵר שָׁבַע...
“Abraham then returned to his servants, and they departed together for Beer-sheba...” (Genesis 22.19)
Perhaps eventually, Isaac gets the education God wants for him.
Another possible explanation for Abraham’s failure is that he is not adequately paying attention. Though he answers both God and Isaac, with הִנֵּנִי, “Here I am,” Abraham’s kavanah/ concentration may be less than ideal. First, he does not even listen to his own prophetic words. When Isaac asks him,
וְאַיֵּה הַשֶּׂה לְעֹלָה,
“where is the sheep for the burnt offering,”
Abraham answers,
אֱלֹהִים יִרְאֶה־לּוֹ הַשֶּׂה לְעֹלָה,
“God will see to the sheep for the burnt offering,”
but he does not act as if there is a sheep waiting up on the mountain. He ties up Isaac and puts him on the altar. Abraham is a prophet and thus speaks words from God, but the question is whether he is listening to the words he speaks. For all of us who speak the great words of our Tradition or literature, let us make sure that we are paying attention not just to the presentation but also to the message.
This, by the way, is a lesson we’ll consider on Yom Kippur in the story of Jonah. He preaches for God but fails to see God’s perspective in the hope for human improvement.
Another hint that Abraham is not paying attention is his inability to see the ram up there on the mountain. Whether devoted unthinkingly to God—or devastated by the command to kill his beloved son, Abraham is so overwhelmed and transfixed that he fails to see that God has indeed provided the sheep for the sacrifice. Only after the angel stops him does his vision seem to return.
וַיִּשָּׂא אַבְרָהָם אֶת־עֵינָיו וַיַּרְא
וְהִנֵּה־אַיִל אַחַר נֶאֱחַז בַּסְּבַךְ בְּקַרְנָיו
“When Abraham looked up, his eye fell upon a ram,
caught in the thicket by its horns.”
Devotion or holiness is no reason to be inattentive. Indeed, it is only through paying attention that we can truly see the opportunities and possibilities that God places before us.
The voices in our Tradition that speak of Abraham failing the test focus on the impossibility of God’s command. There is no way that a good and loving God would give this command, and thus Abraham’s test is on a more subtle level. His challenge is to think about what God has said, to see through the simple meaning and find the deeper truth, to pay attention to the entirety of God’s prophetic messages, and to bring forth the moral strength that God has placed within him.
We do not pass every test, but hopefully, with God’s help, we can make the necessary U-turns and הַעֲלֵנוּ, elevate ourselves as God hopes we will.