Bereshit 32:8 (Va-yishlach) - The two camps of Yaakov

Bereshit 32:8 records that Yaakov divided the people with him into two camps. Yet, the Torah does not record what the division of the family into two camps. Who was in which camp? It is also unclear whether Yaakov ever split his camp into two.

After Yaakov sent the gifts to Esav, Yaakov took his entire family over the Yabbok River, 32:23. Rambam (on 32:23) seems to claim that this was the splitting of the camp and the text was written out of chronological order. Yet, everybody was taken over the river, so we do not see any split in the family.

Abravanel (2007, p. 604) makes the interesting suggestions that the division was all of Yaakov’s family in one camp and Yaakov’s wealth with his servants in the other camp. The idea was that Yaakov put his “wealth” camp on the side of the river that he thought that Esav would approach first, and he hoped that Esav would have been content to get his wealth. However, Esav ended up approaching the camp with the family, and only after this episode ended did Yaakov rejoin his “wealth” camp. While this suggestion is interesting, we never read of the “wealth” camp in the Torah. Also, it seems unlikely that Esav was after Yaakov’s wealth since even if Esav got Yaakov’s wealth he would have continued to track down Yaakov.

My guess is that the split was all of Yaakov’s family and possessions (except for the gifts to Esav) in one camp and Yaakov by himself in the second camp. First, Yaakov sent ahead his second set of messengers with large number of animals, who were to meet Esav before Yaakov would meet Esav, 32:14-22, 33:9. Then, Yaakov crossed his family over to the northern side of the river to move them further away from Esav, who was coming from the south, 32:23,24. After crossing his family, Yaakov crossed back to the southern side of the river to be the second camp all by himself, with his messengers far ahead of him, and his family on the opposite of the river, 32:25. 32:8 should be understood that Yaakov revealed to the family that he was going to separate from them, but he waited to actually do the split until the nighttime.

The idea of this split was that Yaakov would face Esav by himself in the morning since the fight was a personal fight between the brothers. Yaakov hoped that even if he lost, Esav would have been satisfied with defeating him, and would then leave his family alone. To a great extent this plan worked since I believe that Esav fought with Yaakov in the middle of the night when Yaakov was alone, see our discussion on 32:25-31, 33:10 "Who fought with Yaakov?" At the end of the fight, regardless of who was the assailant, Yaakov was victorious so he knew that he no longer had to split his family (see Netziv on 32:8 and 33:1). Furthermore, the fight left Yaakov injured, 32:32, so in the morning his family re-crossed the river, and joined Yaakov to meet Esav on the southern side of the river.

This split answers another question. 32:25 records that Yaakov was alone. Why should he have been alone? Rashi (on 32:24, quoting from the Talmud Hullin 91a) explains that after he crossed his family, he went back to look for some small jars. Silbermann and Rosenbaum (1934, p. 159, note 2) explain that as 32:24 recorded that Yaakov had already taken all that was his across the river, there could only be some small relatively unimportant items left. This idea is incredible. Yaakov was worried that he might die in the morning, and his concern is to find small jars? Why did his sons not help him with the final small items? The simpler explanation is that the split of the camps was Yaakov by himself in one camp and the remainder of the family in the other camp. Yaakov wanted to be alone since this was how he wanted to meet Esav.

Berreshit 28:15-22 – Yaakov's vow after waking up from his great dream: On the run

Bereshit 28:15 record that when Yaakov was running away from Esav, he had a dream in the middle of the night in which G-d promised to watch over him and ensure that he would return safely to the land of Israel. 28:20-22 then records that Yaakov made a vow that if G-d would protect him and if he would return safely home, then he would make a “house of G-d.” Yaakov’s vow is surprising since it repeats some aspects of G-d’s promise in the dream. Why did Yaakov make this vow after he had already been promised the conditions of the vow?

Bereshit Rabbah 70:4 quotes two approaches to understanding the vow from R. Aibu and R. Jonathan. One opinion maintains that the narrative is recorded out of order, that really Yaakov made the vow before he heard the dream, while the other opinion suggests that Yaakov was worried that he would sin and then he would not be worthy of receiving the promises of the dream.

Abravanel proposes a third answer that because the promises were conveyed in a dream, Yaakov was not sure if the promises were a real prophecy or a regular dream that had no meaning. Thus, the conditions of the vow were to learn that the promises were a prophecy and not a dream.

There are two proofs for Abravanel’s approach. One, J.P. Fokkelman (1991, pp. 66,67) points out that in the morning Yaakov was attempting to recreate the dream. Yaakov built a masseva, pillar, 28:18, and not an altar, since in the dream the sullam was depicted as being musav towards the land, 28:12. Furthermore, Yaakov poured oil on the top of the masseva since in the dream the top of the sullam reached the heavens. These attempts to recreate the dream were to actualize it that it was not just a dream.

A second proof is that Yaakov really had two reactions to the dream. 28:16,17 record that Yaakov woke up immediately from this powerful dream and he stated that he was in a place of G-d. Afterwards, 28:18 records that he got up in the morning, built the pillar and made the vow. It seems that the dream startled Yaakov. He woke up in the middle of night immediately after hearing/ seeing the dream, and then he was sure that the dream was a true prophecy. However as it was nighttime, there was nothing for him to do, so he probably stayed awake for a while thinking about the dream. After several hours, he began to doze off, and then in the morning when he woke up a second time, he was no longer sure whether the dream was a true prophecy or just a regular dream. 

A possible reason why Yaakov was in doubt concerning the prophecy is because he doubted whether he was really worthy of receiving his father’s blessings. After he tricked his father and had to run away, he might have thought that really Esav was to be the chosen brother. The last element of the conditions of the vow was that G-d would be his G-d, 28:21. Yaakov was in doubt whether G-d accepted him, and hence the fulfillment of the conditions of the vow would tell Yaakov that he was truly the chosen brother and that G-d had accepted him.

Bibliography:

Abravanel, Yitzhak (1437-1508), 2007, Commentary on Bereshit, Jerusalem: Horev.

Fokkelman, J.P. 1991, Narrative Art in Genesis: Specimens of Stylistic and Structural Analysis, second Edition, JSOT Press.

Bereshit 29:18-30 (Va-yetse) – Yaakov's marriages : The switch

Bereshit 29:18-30 records that Yaakov agreed to work seven years for Rahel, but on the night of the wedding Lavan switched Rahel and Lea and Yaakov ended up initially marrying Lea. How did this occur? To answer this question, we need to speculate as to the reasons for the actions of the four participants, Lavan, Lea, Rahel and Yaakov.

Why did Lavan not keep his deal with Yaakov? In 29:26, Lavan claimed that the younger daughter could not be married before the older daughter. It is difficult to accept this argument at face value since Lavan had initially agreed that Yaakov would Rahel. Maybe he thought that Lea would have gotten married in the seven years so there would have been no problem with Yaakov marrying Rahel. However, if this was really the custom Yaakov should have known about it as he had lived in the area for seven years, and certainly Rahel would have know of the custom. However, maybe Yaakov knew the custom but he thought that his deal with Lavan nullified the custom. Yet, then Yaakov should have made this claim when Lavan told him of the custom of the area.

Another possibility is that Lavan was punishing Yaakov for stealing the blessings from his older brother. Many have noted (see Nehama Leibowitz, 1976, pp. 323,324) that Lavan's reference to older and younger, echoes Yaakov's conflict with Esav. Yet, why should Lavan care that Yaakov tricked Esav? Maybe, he thought that Yaakov was a whippersnapper he needed to be taught a lesson. It is also possible that Lavan realized that Yaakov was a good worker and he wanted to get Yaakov to work for another 7 years. However, he could not have known that Yaakov would have agreed to work more years. Yaakov could have demanded Rahel and left.

The most likely explanation is that Lavan was afraid that Lea would never marry. (James Kugel, 1997, p. 221, quotes this idea in the name of Ephraem, a 4th century commentator of Syriac Christianity.) The idea here would be that Lea was not attractive and Lavan just wanted her to be married without any concern whether she would be happy in the marriage. According to this idea, Lavan's reference to the younger and older was just to stop Yaakov from complaining since Yaakov could not complain of being tricked once he had tricked his father.

Why did Lea participate in tricking Yaakov? She had to be a willing participant, but she must have guessed that this would not endear herself to Yaakov. Also, she was hurting her sister? Maybe that was the point, she was jealous of her sister and acted to spite her sister. Maybe she just wanted to be married and she also thought this was her only chance to be married. Maybe her father forced her to go to Yaakov’s tent and then she was too embarrassed to tell Yaakov. More likely, she really loved Yaakov and even though he did not love her, she thought that with time she would win Yaakov’s love.

Did Rahel agree to be switched? Rashi (on 29:25) quotes Megillah 13b that Rahel and Yaakov had arraigned special signs and that Rahel gave these signs to Lea in order that Lea would not be embarrassed. This would mean that in the end she agreed to the switch. Maybe she also thought that Lea could not marry and she wanted to help her. Yet, this is unlikely, if she really loved Yaakov. My guess is that Lavan had her locked up and she was physically unable to contact Yaakov. (James Kugel, 1997, p. 219, quotes this as the opinion of the Testament of Issachar 1:10-13.)

Why was Yaakov fooled? It clearly was dark which meant that he could not see Lea, but still how could he not have recognized the different voices? Torah Temimah (on 29:25, footnote #4) writes that that Rahel and Lea were exactly the same including their voices except for their eyes. This is a strong assumption, as even sisters who do not look alike can have similar voices. Yet, one would still have to say that Lea’s mannerism, behavior and even what she said would not have tipped off Yaakov.

Josephus (Jewish Antiquities 1:300-301, 2006) writes that Yaakov had been drinking at the party that Lavan made because certainly Lavan would have encouraged him to drink. Yet, this does not accord with Yaakov's character, and it is unlikely that would have allowed himself to get drunk. 

Bekhor Shor suggests that maybe he did not speak too much with Rahel during the seven years, but this seems unlikely. Bekhor Shor, Hizkuni and Radak also speculate that maybe Yaakov and Lea did not speak during the night because of modesty. Yet, on the wedding night, they would not speak at all? 

Nosson Scherman (1993, p. 151) quotes Rav Aharon Kotler that Yaakov had “his spiritual antenna” which told him that he was with the partner who was destined for him and that is why he detected nothing wrong. This cannot mean that he knew it was Lea since 29:25 records that Yaakov was surprised in the morning, va-hene, see Rashbam (on 29:27). Does it mean that due to his spirituality he was oblivious to what was happening? This also does not accord with Yaakov’s character. In addition, if he realized that this was what was meant to be, why was Yaakov upset that he was tricked, he should have thanked Lavan!

My guess is that Yaakov was worried that with the marriage he would have to return to face Esav. Fokkelman (1991, p.128) notes the same words used in 27:44 and 29:20 "a few days," teaches us that Yaakov was expected to return home after he had married Rahel and worked the seven years. Yaakov's fear of returning to face Esav is why he initially agreed to work for seven years, and why after the switch he agreed to work another seven years. These years delayed him from having to return to face his brother. Thus, Yaakov had very mixed emotions that night. He was getting married, but the marriage meant that he was to return home. Accordingly, he was pondering his future, uninterested in small talk, and certainly Lea would not have spoken on her own. Possibly he had doubts as to the identity of his wife, but due to his mixed emotions he was absorbed in his own problems and did not bother to investigate. This would make this situation parallel with Yitzhak who had doubts whether he was really blessing Esav but continued nevertheless. Maybe Lavan knew that Yaakov was worried about returning to face Esav, and this gave him the confidence to pull his ruse.

Bibliography:

Fokkelman, J.P. 1991, Narrative Art in Genesis: Specimens of Stylistic and Structural Analysis, second Edition, JSOT Press.

Josephus, Flavius, 2006, Jewish Antiquities, London: Wordsworth Editions.

Kugel, James L. 1997, The Bible As it Was, Cambridge, Mass: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Leibowitz, Nehama (1905-1997), 1976, Studies in Bereshit, translated by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.

Scherman, Nosson, 1993, Art Scroll/ Stone Edition Chumash, Brooklyn, NY: Mesorah Publications.

Bereshit 27:1-4 – Yitzhak's fear of imminent death prior to wanting to bless Esav?

Bereshit 27:1-4 records that Yitzhak told Esav that he wanted to bless him before he died. This fear of death is a little surprising since we know that Yitzhak lived at least another 20 years, as Yaakov saw Yitzhak after he had been away from home for 20 years, 35:27. Of course, there is no reason to believe that Yitzhak knew that he would live 20 more years, as who knows when they are going to die? Yet, was there a specific reason that led Yitzhak to fear his imminent death? 

Rashi (on 27:2) quotes from the Midrash that Yitzhak was 123 and thus he was within five years of his mother's death. (Rashi's calculation is based on the Midrash that Yaakov studied at the school of Ever for 14 years after he left home, see his comments on 25:17.) 

Radak (on 27:1) suggests that it was the onset of blindness that caused Yitzhak to fear that he would die shortly. 

Maybe, there is another possibility. If Yaakov did not study at the school of Ever, then Yitzhak was 137 at the time of the blessing. Immediately after the blessings, Yaakov left for Paddan-aram, 27:43, and Yaakov was 77 when he came to Paddan-aram (47:9, 45:11, 41:46, 30:25: 130-9-30-14=77). We also know that Yitzhak was 60 when Yaakov was born, 25:26, which means that Yitzhak was 137 when he wanted to bless Esav. This age was significant since this was the age when Yitzhak's older half-brother Yishmael died, 25:17. Thus, when Yitzhak was 137, he feared that his death was imminent. 

Bereshit 27:41– Esav creating an alibi to enable him to kill Yaakov

Bereshit 27:41 records that Esav said in his heart that he would only kill Yaakov after Yitzhak died. I understand that the phrase “speaking to the heart” means talking out loud to one’s self since otherwise how could Rivka have known that Esav wanted to kill Yaakov. Yet, why did Rivka send away Yaakov immediately, 27:43, if Esav only threatened to kill Yaakov after Yitzhak died? What was the great urgency?

Esav had a problem since he wanted both to kill Yaakov and to get the blessings. However, if he killed Yaakov when Yitzhak was alive then there was a good probability that Yitzhak would not be willing to bless him. But, he was not willing to wait for Yitzhak to die to take his revenge on Yaakov, and hence he decided to set up an alibi that would exonerate him from being a suspect if Yaakov had an "untimely" death. The alibi was that he started the rumor that he was only going to take revenge after Yitzhak died, and then he could kill Yaakov without being a suspect. Rivka realized that Esav really intended to kill Yaakov at his first chance without waiting for Yitzhak to die, and hence she immediately sent Yaakov away to her family to protect him from Esav.

Bereshit 28:3,4 (Toledot) – Yitzhak's second blessing to Yaakov: Endogamy

בראשית כח: ג,ד "וקל שקי יברך אתך ויפרך וירבך והיית לקהל עמים. ויתן לך את ברכת אברהם לך ולזרעך אתך לרשתך את ארץ מגריך אשר נתן אלקים לאברהם."

Bereshit 28:3,4 record that Yitzhak blessed Yaakov a second time when sending Yaakov away to Haran to marry. Why did Yitzhak bless Yaakov twice? Why was first blessing not sufficient? Why did he not combine the blessings, and give both at the same time? Also, Yitzhak seems to have been angry with Yaakov for fooling him, as he told Esav that Yaakov deceived him, 27:34, so why would Yitzhak give Yaakov a second blessing? Finally, after Esav learned that Yaakov had received the blessing that he was supposed to receive he asked Yitzhak for another blessing, and Yitzhak said that he had no other blessing to give, 27:34-37. Why did Yitzhak not give Esav, the second blessing that he gave to Yaakov?

One approach is that the second blessing was to confirm the first blessing. For example, Sarna (1989, p. 195) writes, “by this act (the second blessing), Yitzhak confirms Yaakov’s title to the birthright independently of the deception.” Similarly, Robert Alter (2004, p. 147) argues, “Yitzhak, whatever misgivings he may have about Yaakov’s act of deception, knows that his younger son has irrevocably received the blessing, and he has no choice but to reiterate it at the moment of parting.” Yet, the second blessing appears to be completely different than the first blessing. The first blessing relates to which brother would be dominant, while the second blessings relates to the blessing of Avraham. How could the second blessing confirm the first blessing if it is not related to the first blessing?

Cassuto (1990, p. 208) suggest a second approach. This approach minimizes the significance of the second blessing. Cassuto writes that the second blessing was specific to the trip that Yaakov was about to embark on. Yaakov was going to find a wife, so Yitzhak gave him a blessing that he would have children, and as Yaakov was leaving the land of Israel, Yitzhak blessed him that he would return to the land. However, the second blessing seems to be more than just good wishes before the trip, as Yitzhak blessed Yaakov that he should receive the blessing that G-d gave to Avraham.

A third approach is that the two blessings were independent from each other. The first blessing was a material blessing, and the second blessing was a spiritual blessing. With this approach, Yitzhak intended to give the first blessing to Esav, while the second blessing was for Yaakov, see Hirsch 1989, p. 444, Luzzatto on 27:1, Netziv introduction to chapter 27 and on 27:19, and N. Leibowitz, 1976, pp. 275-279.  Accordingly, even after Yaakov received the first (material) blessing he also had to receive the second (spiritual) blessing.  

This approach makes Yitzhak’s desire to give Esav the blessing in chapter 27 more understandable, but makes Rivka and Yaakov's actions even more problematic as now they tricked Yitzhak to get a material blessing. Moreover, I think this approach is based on a selective reading of the first blessing. While the first part of the first blessing refers to material possessions, 27:28, the second part of the first blessing, 27:29, refers to which brother would be dominant. In addition, when Esav asked Yitzhak for another blessing, 27:37, Yitzhak responded that once Yaakov had become the dominant brother there was nothing else he could give to him, and all Yitzhak could do was to try and limit Yaakov's dominance, 27:40. We see that the point of the blessings was would be the dominant brother. If the blessing that was mistakenly given to Yaakov in chapter 27 was only a material blessing, then there was no reason why Yitzhak could not have still blessed Esav with material success. The material success of one brother did not have to preclude the material success of the other brother.

In addition, this approach to split the blessings of chapter 27 and 28 into material and spiritual blessings also assumes the incorrigibility of Esav that he could not possibly get the spiritual blessing. Instead, one might wonder why Yaakov should deserve to receive the spiritual blessing after he deceived his father.

In order to understand the relationship between the blessings of chapters 27 and 28, we have to determine what was the point of the fight between Yaakov and Esav? Their fight began in utero, 25:22, continued with the sale of the soup, 25:29-34, with the first blessing in chapter 27, and only ended with their encounter when Yaakov returned from Haran, 32:22-33:17. What was the point of this conflict? Did it have cosmic implications or was it just a personal feud? Was it related to the question who would be part of the covenant or was it just another example of two brothers who did not get along? If the fight was about the covenant, then the blessings of chapters 27 and 28 are connected, but if the fight was a personal feud, then the two blessings are independent of each other, that either brother could have received either blessing or even that both brothers could have received the second blessing.

The conflict between the brothers focused on who would be the firstborn, the dominant brother, and there is no mention that they were fighting about the covenant. It seems that some people assume that only the firstborn son would be a part of the covenant, but both brothers could have been included in the covenant, as occurs by Yaakov’s children. Furthermore, just as Yaakov’s children fought due to sibling rivalry, so too the fight between Yaakov and Esav was a personal fight between brothers.

Accordingly, the blessings of chapter 27 (the one that Yaakov received and the one that Esav received) focused on the personal fight between the brothers, with no implications towards the covenantal process that began with Avraham.

On the other hand, the blessing of chapter 28 is the covenantal blessing, and this was open to both brothers regardless of who was the dominant brother. The only qualification to receive the covenantal blessing was to marry within the family, Terah’s family. The blessing only became relevant when Yaakov said he was going to Haran to marry, and this made him eligible for the blessing even though he had deceived Yitzhak in chapter 27. Yaakov could have left earlier to go to Haran to find a wife, but then this would have meant losing his personal fight with his brother. He only agreed to leave when his life was in danger, and even then only with Rivka’s prompting. With this understanding, Yaakov received the covenantal blessing due to his desire to marry within the family, and not because he sold the soup to Esav or tricked his father.

Esav could have received the covenantal blessings by marrying within the family, but he chose not to. Lavan had two daughters, Leah and Rahel, and hence both Esav and Yaakov could have married with the family of Terah. Yitzhak would have given Esav the covenantal blessing if Esav said he was willing to marry in the family, but Esav married two Hittite wives, 26:34, and then Mahalat, Yishmael’s daughter, 28:9.  These marriages did not disqualify Esav from receiving the blessing of chapter 27, since the question of who was to be the dominant brother was independent of who was to be in the covenant. Yet, the marriages did mean that Yitzhak was unable to give Esav the covenantal blessing of chapter 28.

This approach also explains Rivka’s statement to Yitzhak after she learned that Esav intended to kill Yaakov. Rivka told Yitzhak that Yaakov had to leave to find a wife, and she did not mention the threat to Yaakov’s life, 27:46. Cassuto (1990, p.208) explains that she did want to mention this second reason in order not to upset Yitzhak that Yitzhak should not know that Esav wanted to kill Yaakov. Yet, maybe also if she told Yitzhak that Yaakov was leaving to save himself from Esav, then Yitzhak would not have given the second blessing to Yaakov since the blessing was to the person who would marry within the family, and not to one who was running away to save his life.

Bereshit 24:3,4,7 – Avraham's instructions to his servant to find a wife for Yitzhak: All in the family

Bereshit 24:3,4 record that when Avraham commissioned his servant to find a wife for Yitzhak, Avraham told him go to his (Avraham’s) land and moladeti to find a wife and that Yitzhak could not marry a Canaanite woman. The servant went to Haran where Avraham’s family lived and he chose Rivka, Yitzhak’s cousin. Later, 24:38-41 records that the servant told Rivka's family that Avraham had told him to take a wife from Avraham's family (mishpacha) and from his father's house. Was it Avraham’s intention that Yitzhak’s wife be from his family or was this just a coincidence? Was the servant lying?

The answer to this question depends on how one understands the word moladeti in 24:4 and 24:7. Rashi (on 24:7, also Radak and Ibn Ezra on 24:4) explains that moladeti refers to a person’s birthplace which he explains means Ur Kasdim, as that was where he believes Avraham was born. This implies that in 24:4, Avraham was telling his servant to go both to Haran (Avraham’s land) and to Ur Kasdim (Avraham’s birthplace) to find a wife for Yitzhak. However, once the servant was successful in Haran, he did not have to go onto to Ur Kasdim.

Cassuto (1964, pp. 274,275, see also Ramban and Rashbam on 24:7) argues that the word moladeti means extended family and he explains that Avraham was sending his servant to the land of his family, which was Haran. According to him, 24:4 and 24:7 would mean the land of my kinsman, (a hendiadys), see Sarna 1989, p. 162. Among the proofs that Cassuto brings is that Bereshit 43:7, 48:6 and Megillat Esther 8:6 (also see Vayikra 18:11) show that the word moledet means family and not birthplace. 

N. Leibowitz (1976, pp. 214-222) argues that Rashi’s interpretation of the word moladeti, birthplace and not family, must be correct based on the behavior of the servant. The servant devised a test to choose a wife, and this test was apparently for all the women of Haran. How could the servant have used such a test, if the wife had to be from Avraham’s family? Accordingly, N. Leibowitz argues that it was a coincidence that Rivka was from Yitzhak’s family, and she reviews several reasons why the women of Haran were more suitable for Yitzhak than the women of Canaan. Yet, if really the servant could have chosen anybody, then the choice of a family member seems too coincidental. Furthermore, Yitzhak later would tell Yaakov to marry from his family (28:2) and if it was just coincidence that Yitzhak married within the family, why was Yaakov told to marry within the family? Finally, 22:20-24 tells us of the birth of Rivka and that this information was told to Avraham. If Avraham was not concerned if Yitzhak married within the family, why did the Torah have to tell us that Avraham learned of Rivka’s birth? (See Seforno on 22:23, I thank David Barrett for this source.)

As I discuss on Bereshit 24:12-61 "All the world's a stage,"  I believe that the test devised by the servant was not a random test. The servant had already chosen Rivka and the test was staged to get the family’s agreement to the match. The servant ran to Rivka, he gave her presents before he asked her name, and he referred to her as Rivka without ever being told her name. The servant’s test was not open to all the women of Haran, and the test is no proof that Avraham was willing for his son to marry anybody from Haran.  Thus, the word moledet means extended family, as argued by Cassuto. The servant was not lying when he recounted Avraham's instructions, but his use of the word mishpacha, did imply a smaller circle of family members than Avraham had told him.   

Why did Avraham want Yitzhak’s wife to be from his family? Yehoshua in his final address to the people reviewed their history and he stated that Terah and Nahor, Avraham’s family, were idol worshippers, Yehoshua 24:2, what made a member of Avraham’s extended family more suitable for Yitzhak than anybody else? My guess is that relatively the people in Avraham’s extended family were less idol worshippers than other people.

There are two proofs for this assertion. One, the whole family of Terah was part of the initial journey from Ur. 11:31 even records that Terah was the initiator of this trip. This journey was not simply a normal migration, but rather the beginning of the mission of Avraham. Therefore, it is likely that the whole family and not just Avraham had some notion of G-d, see our discussion on Devarim 32:10, "Who did G-d find and protect in the desert?"

Secondly, when the servant came to speak to the family, Lavan said, “Come in, O blessed of G-d” (24:31) and after the servant finished speaking, Lavan and Betuel stated “the matter came from G-d” (24:50) both times using the personal name for G-d. Presumably, only one who has some idea of G-d would make such statements. This relative belief in G-d explains why Yitzhak wanted Yaakov to marry within the family. However, over time these religious ideas and feelings started to wane, as evidenced by 31:53, where Lavan distinguished between the G-d of Avraham and the G-d of Nahor. Accordingly, we do not know that any of Yaakov's children went back to the family of Nahor to find wives.

Bibliography:

Cassuto, Umberto (1883-1951), 1964, A commentary on the book of Genesis, part two: From Noah to Abraham, Jerusalem: Magnes Press.

Leibowitz, Nehama (1905-1997), 1976, Studies in Bereshit, translated by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.

Bereshit 24:12-61 - Avraham's servant and choice of Rivka to be Yitzhak's wife: All the world's a stage

Bereshit 24:12-61 records the efforts of Avraham's servant (traditionally Eliezer) to find a wife for Yitzhak. He devised a test to choose the wife, that he would say to a maiden, please let me drink from your jar of water, and she was to respond "Drink, and I will also water your camels," 24:14. Immediately after the servant stated this test, Rivka, Yitzhak's cousin, appeared by the well. The servant ran to her and asked to drink water from her jar, 24:15-17. Rivka told him that he should drink and after he drank, she then said she would give water to his camels, 24:19. Rivka provided water to the camels, and the servant then proceeded to get her family's permission for her to marry Yitzhak, 24:28-61. This test of Rivka is quite surprising since it seems to be a very haphazard means for choosing a wife, and R. Yochanon (Ta'anit 4a) states that the servant acted inappropriately.

I believe the most popular understanding of the servant's action is that the request for water was a character test to select a wife for Yitzhak (see for example N. Leibowitz, 1976, pp. 223-229). The idea being that if Rivka offered to give water to the camels on her own then this showed that she was a kind and considerate person, and this would make her an excellent choice for a wife for Yitzhak. However, this approach is problematic.

First, one act of kindness is not enough proof that a person is a suitable wife. Maybe the test was a fluke. Maybe she was willing to provide water for the camels since she saw the wealth that the servant had brought with him. Would you marry somebody based on their answer to one question?

A second problem, as mentioned by the Radak (on 24:14, see also the Midrash Leviticus Rabbah 37:4), is that maybe the person who passed the test would be a slave and hence not a possible wife for Yitzhak. After Rivka gave the camels water, the servant asked whose daughter are you? Rivka told him that she was daughter of Betuel, 24:22,23 and from this information the servant would have learned that she was not a slave. Yet, this answer was insufficient since there could have been other social problems (married, engaged, going out seriously, etc.), that would have made her ineligible for Yitzhak that could not have been ascertained by just knowing who her father was. For example, 24:16 records, from the perspective of the "narrator" that Rivka was a virgin, as apparently this fact was important for the match, but the servant could not have learned this information from the test.

A third problem is that before the servant asked Rivka about her father, he gave her numerous presents, 24:22. Thus, before he knew that she was not a slave, he already had given her presents, which would have been forgone if she was a slave. In order to answer this problem, Ramban (on 24:22) explains that 24:22 only means that he took the presents out, but he did not give them until she told him that she was the daughter of Betuel. Ibn Ezra (on 24:14) writes that the verses are recorded out of chronological order, as according to him, the events described in 24:22, the giving of the presents, occurred after Rivka answered the servant's question, 24:23,24. These answers are difficult. The simple reading of the Torah is that the servant gave Rivka the presents before she told him who was her father.

A fourth problem is that it is not clear if Rivka's offer of water to the camels was such a generous offer. 24:32 records that water was brought to the men who accompanied the servant to enable them to wash their feet. While it seems obvious that the servant had men with him since he took ten camels (24:10), this is the first time these other men are mentioned. Were these men with the servant when he tested Rivka at the well? If yes, then it is odd that she offered water to the camels and not to the men. More likely, when the servant went to the well the other men stayed behind. The servant would then only have had a few (two?) camels with him when he made the test. If this is true, then Rivka did not have to give water to ten camels, which made the test easier for Rivka since she just had to offer and give water to a few camels.

Finally, there are many coincidences in the story. Of all the possible choices for a wife, it seems quite coincidental that the test would just happen to be done to Rivka, Yitzhak's cousin. Furthermore, 24:15 records that just when the servant finished stating the test, Rivka appeared. If she would have come to the well fifteen minutes later, would Yitzhak have married somebody else?

A second (and I believe the older) approach to understanding the actions of the servant is that this is a case of divination (see comments of Rav in Hullin 95b and Rambam, Mishnah Torah, Laws of Idol Worship, 11:4.) Divination is when a person acts based on some arbitrary sign, and here the sign would have been Rivka's statement in response to the servant's request for water. With this approach it makes sense why the servant gave Rivka the presents before finding out about her background since with divination one is relying on the sign, and no other information is necessary (see Kesef Mishnah on Rambam 11:4).

However, the divination approach is also difficult. 24:21 records that while Rivka was providing water to the camels, the servant wondered whether he would succeed in his mission of finding a wife. What was the doubt if she had already passed the test? Furthermore, by divination the sign must be exact, and Rivka did not exactly pass the test. The test was that she would say "Drink and I will waters the camels too," but she said drink, gave the servant water and only after the servant drank did she offer to water the camels, 24:18,19. She was supposed to immediately respond to the servant with an offer to give water to the camels, and not to wait until after the servant had drunk water. While this lapse might seem nitpicky, by the case of divination, due to the fact that the sign is arbitrary, one must pass the test exactly as stated, and when the servant repeated the incident he changed the order of events that Rivka offered to give the camels water prior to giving the servant water, 24:46.

Both of these approaches are based on the premise that the servant had no idea who Rivka was when he did the test, but the Torah gives many indications that he knew who she was along. One, 24:17 records that he ran to her. Why did he need to run to her and not ask the first girl who came to the well? Clearly, the servant wanted to do the test on Rivka. Two, as mentioned above, 24:22 records that the servant gave her the gifts before asking her about her family and this was because he knew who she was. Three, 24:23, records that when the servant asked Rivka who her father was, he did not wait for her answer, but he also asked if he could stay by her father's house for the night. We see that he desired to talk about the marriage even before she told him of her lineage, and this was because he knew who she was and her lineage. Four, the Torah never records that the servant asked Rivka her name or that he was told her name, but in 24:45, when recounting their meeting, the servant referred to her as Rivka, which again proves that he knew who Rivka was before the test.

I have been asked how could the servant have known who was Rivka? The answer is that the Torah records that he went to the well prior to meeting Rivka, 24:11. At the well he was able to learn who she was, just like Yaakov later learned who was Rahel when he came to the well, 29:4-6. In that case, the Torah specifies that the people at the well pointed out Rahel to Yaakov, while here this information is not recorded, but here there was no need for the Torah to mention this information since afterwards, as I mentioned above, the Torah makes it obvious that the servant knew that he was testing Rivka.

Rivka, Yitzhak's cousin, was always the destined wife since she was from the family of Terah, see 22:20-23 and our discussion on 24:4, "All in the family" (https://lobashamayim.blogspot.co.il/2009/11/bereshit-244-hayyei-sara-all-in-family.html). Avraham did not refer to Rivka when he commissioned his servant since if she would not have agreed to come to the land of Israel, then the servant could have chosen other members of the family. Even if one believes that the choice of a wife was really open to all, still a wife from Avraham's family would have been the preferred choice.

However, just knowing the desired wife did not make the mission simple since the servant had to get the family to agree to the match, and he had a problem that the prospective groom, Yitzhak, was not with him. Not only would the family not meet Yitzhak before the wedding, but due to the great distances between Nahor and the land of Israel, it is likely that they would never ever meet Yitzhak or see Rivka again. How could he get the prospective girl and her family to agree to the match without seeing Yitzhak? This apprehension is evident when the servant spoke to Avraham about the mission. He wondered what to do if the woman did not agree to come to the land of Israel, 24:5. The servant did not question whether he would be able to find a wife, but rather whether he would be able to convince her to come back to the land of Israel. Avraham told him that in such a case he would be exonerated from his oath, but it unlikely that the servant was completely reassured.

Accordingly, the servant devised a plan to get the family's permission for the marriage. His plan was that he would stage a test which would make it seem that her selection was destined from G-d. He was relying on the family's belief in divination, and in 30:27 we see that Lavan had this belief even after this incident. With this idea, we can understand the flow of the test.

When the servant reached Nahor, he stopped at the well, 24:11, where he learned who was Rivka. (Did he also learn the information recorded in 24:16?) The servant then prayed to G-d, both as a prayer for assistance and to set the test as a sign for G-d, and stated the test, 24:12-14. The servant timed his declaration of the test with Rivka's appearance at the well, and then just as he finished stating the test, he ran to her, 24:15,17.

The servant asked Rivka for water and she gave him water, and then she offered to give water to the camels, 24:17-20. As mentioned above, the delay in offering water to the camels was a small failure, but this was immaterial because the servant would be able to fix the small discrepancy when he would speak to the family. When Rivka was giving water to the camels, the servant wondered whether he would succeed in his mission (24:21) since the main part of his mission was not to find Rivka, but to convince her family to agree to the match, and this was the next stage of his mission. The servant was wondering whether G-d had decided to help him that his staged test would convince the family. (This reference to G-d might refer to his prayer in 24:11, but more likely refers to Avraham's declaration that G-d would help the servant in 24:7.)

The servant then gave Rivka the presents to get her approval to the match even before she told him that she was Betuel's daughter since he already knew this information, 24:22. He then asked here who was father and could he stay at her family's house, 24:23. Rivka answered that she was Betuel's daughter, she was a descendant of Nahor (the son of Terah), and that he could stay at their house, 24:24,25.

The servant then bowed to G-d, and said, "Blessed be G-d, the G-d of my lord Avraham…" 24:26,27. This prayer marks the completion of the first part of the mission which was to get Rivka's approval to the match. An almost identical phrase occurs in Ruth 2:20, when Naomi is thankful that Ruth had successfully been introduced to Boaz. In both cases, the crucial issue was the ensuing act, here the servant meeting Rivka's family, and there, when Ruth would go to Boaz in night. In both cases, the thanking of G-d was also a prayer for the successful fulfillment of the second and more difficult part of the mission.

Once the servant met the family, he immediately told them about the test without even eating first, 24:33. The servant began his re-counting of their meeting by mentioning that Avraham had been blessed, and that that Avraham had told him to pick a wife from his father's family, 24:34-38. Perry (2007, p. 302) wonders why the servant told Rivka's family this information since if the wife had to be from Avraham's father's family, there was no point to doing the test by the well. Did the servant slip-up? My guess is that this addition was to demonstrate to the family how Rivka was destined to be Yitzhak's wife. Not only was she Avraham's choice, but also when he did the test, which in theory was open to everybody, Rivka was chosen.

The servant then re-told all the narrative from 24:5-27, 24:39-59. The Torah records his recounting of the test at length since this was the crucial part of his mission. In his recounting of the test, the servant corrected Rivka's action as he said that Rivka told him that she would provide water for the camels before she gave him water to drink, 24:46, the exact version of the test, and that he gave her the presents after finding out about her lineage, 24:47.

When the servant ended his recounting of his meeting with Rivka, he demanded an immediate answer from the family whether they would agree to the match, 24:49. This need for an immediate response was because the effect of the supposed divination would start to diminish with time, and the family could begin to question the story.

The servant's plan worked perfectly. Rivka's brother and father, Lavan and Betuel, responded to the servant by stating that since the selection of Rivka was from G-d, they agreed to the match, 24:50,51. Note 24:50 first refers to Lavan and Betuel in the singular to indicate that each on his own believed that the match was from G-d.

This agreement meant that the servant had succeeded in his mission, and he left early the next morning, 24:54-61, before the family would change their mind and/ or learn that the test was staged. My guess is that the servant would have even wanted to leave immediately after he had the agreement, but it was too late at night to start the journey home.

Bibliography:

Leibowitz, Nehama (1905-1997), 1976, Studies in Bereshit, translated by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.

Perry, Menachem, 2007, Counter-stories in the Bible: Rebekah and her bridegroom, Abraham's servant, Prooftexts, 27, 2007, pp. 275-323.

Schein, Andrew, 1997, The test of Rebecca, Tradition: A journal of Orthodox Jewish thought, 31:4, pp. 28-33.

Bereshit 22:1 (Va-yera) - Is there a connection between chapters 21 and 22 in the book of Bereshit?

Bereshit 22:1 begins by recording that the akedah occurred “after these things, devarim.” Was this just a technical opening to a new incident or do these words signify that the akedah was related to some previous events? With the latter possibility, the question is to what events?

Rashi (on 22:1) quotes two explanations from the Talmud (Sanhedrin 89b) based on the idea that word things, devarim, here really means speech. One, the akedah was in response to the words of Satan who claimed that Avraham did not offer any animal sacrifices (though he did build altars to G-d, 12:7,8, 13:18, and 15:9,10 was a type of sacrifice). Two, the akedah was in response to Yishmael's taunting of Yitzhak that Yishmael had agreed to be circumcised when he was 13. With this second possibility, Yishmael could only have taunted Yitzhak when he was living with them, and then the akedah would relate to the banishment of Yishmael which was "two stories" before the akedah.

This idea that the akedah relates to the banishment of Yishmael is supported by 21:22 which records that the story of Avraham's treaty with Avimelekh was at the same time as the banishment of Yishmael. Thus, when 22:1 records that the akedah was after these things, it could refer to either event. Furthermore, as pointed out by the Or Hachayyim (on 22:1), the phrase "your only son" which appears three times (in 22:2,12,16) in the akedah refers to Yitzhak as Avraham’s only son, and this could only be stated after Yishmael was banished. 

In addition, it has been noted by many (see for example Sarna, 1989, p. 150) that there are several parallels between the akedah and the banishment of Yishmael in chapter 21. In both cases, a child is saved by divine intervention in critical moments and there is a fortuitous discovery. In both cases there are journeys and in the end a promise of future blessing. Both 21:14 and 22:3 record that Avraham got up in the morning, once to banish Yishmael and once to go to the akedah. By the banishment of Yishmael, Hagar endangered the life of her son, by getting lost in the desert and wasting the food that Avraham had given her, 21:14, while by the akedah Avraham endangered the life of Yitzhak.

The Bekhor Shor (on 22:1) revises the first interpretation recorded by Rashi to make it accord with the simple reading of the Torah. He writes that Satan or anybody could have claimed that Avraham believed in G-d since he had it so good, proof of which is that kings (Avimelekh) wanted to make a treaty with him in chapter 21. The Bekhor Shor notes that this would be similar to the claim against Job, and with this explanation, the phrase "after these things" in 22:1 would refer to the story immediately preceding the akedah, the treaty of Avraham and Avimelekh.

The Rashbam, who was Rashi's grandson and a contemporary of the Bekhor Shor, also relates 22:1 to Avraham's treaty with Avimelekh, but he explains that the connection is that Avraham sinned by making this treaty and hence the akedah was a punishment for Avraham. It appears that the basis for the Rashbam's explanation was his desire to explain why G-d would test Avraham, see Sara Japhet (1994). I doubt the Rashbam's explanation for seven reasons.

One, if making a treaty with Avimelekh was such a terrible sin, why did Yitzhak make another treaty with Avimelekh (26:28-31)? Obviously, Yitzhak thought it was fine to make a treaty with Avimelekh.

Two, the main (the only?) proof for the Rashbam's explanation is that the akedah is recorded after the treaty of Avraham and Avimelekh in 21:22-30, and 22:1 states that the akedah was "after these things." However once 21:22 states that the incident with Avimelekh was contemporaneous with the banishment of Yishmael, 21:9-20, then one could cogently argue, as the Or Hachayyim did, that the phrase "after these things" refers to the banishment of Yishmael.

Three, if one claims that the phrase "after these things" must refer to the immediately preceding event to the phrase, then the treaty with Avimelekh could not be its reference since this was not the immediately preceding event to the akedah. 21:31 records that after Avimelekh left and before the akedah, Avraham planted a tree and gave it some religious connation as he called out to G-d by the tree. This action is quite questionable since Devarim 16:21 records that one is prohibited to plant an asherah, which is a tree that is worshipped, see our discussion on Devarim 16:21,22 "Asherot and matzevot in the Torah." Thus, if the akedah was because Avraham sinned as the Rashbam claims, then maybe it was because he planted this tree.

Even after Avraham planted this tree, and before the akedah, 21:32 records that Avraham lived in the land of the Philistines many days. Was this land part of the land of Israel? If no, then Avraham was living outside the land of Israel, and this could have been a "sin" according to the Rashbam's logic.

Four, it is not clear how Avraham sinned by making the treaty. Was the land of Gerar, Avimelekh's land, part of the land of Israel? 10:19 indicates that the land of Gerar was not part of the land promised to Avraham, see Ralbag on 20:1. Thus, Avraham could have made a treaty with Avimelekh since Avimelekh's land was not yet part of the Promised Land. Furthermore, even if it was, as pointed out by Japhet (1994, pp. 355,356) the treaty was only until Avimelekh's fourth generation, and the promise of land was only beginning from Avraham's fourth generation (15:16) so there was no overlap (one generation?). Instead, it seems that the Rashbam thinks Avraham's sin was that he was being haughty when he made the treaty. Yet, there is no indication in chapter 21 that Avraham was being haughty.

Five, if Avraham really sinned by making the treaty, how did the akedah rectify the sin, as there is nothing in the akedah that relates to the treaty with the Philistines. Even if Yitzhak had been killed, the treaty would still have been in effect since the treaty was with Avraham and not Yitzhak. Possibly it is this problem that forces the Rashbam to imply that Avraham's sin was that he was being haughty, and then the akedah could have lowered his haughtiness. Yet, if this was really the problem, then why in the end did G-d bless Avraham at the end of the akedah, 22:17,18, since this would only further increase his haughtiness?

Six, if the akedah was really a punishment, then there is a much more serious sin than the treaty with Avimelekh. The sin could be that when G-d told Avraham about the impending birth of Yitzhak, Avraham laughed, 17:17. When this information was told to Sara, she also laughed, 18:12. G-d then questioned Avraham why Sara was laughing and G-d stated that there is nothing that beyond G-d's powers, 18:13,14. This shows that the laughing was a sign of a lack of faith, see our discussions on on 22:1, "Why was Avraham tested?" 

In conclusion, I highly doubt the Rashbam's explanation of the phrase "after these things" but I accept his idea that the akedah could have been a punishment, though for a different sin. With regard to the question how to understand the reference to the phrase "after these things" in 22:1, I would follow either the Or Hachayyim's idea that it relates to the banishment of Yishmael since that made Yitzhak, Avraham's only child, which made the test of the akedah even more agonizing. (Could it also be that the act of banishing Yishmael but knowing that everything would work out, helped Avraham accept the idea to kill Yitzhak?) Or, the Netziv's (on 22:1) idea that "these things" refers to all the events in Avraham's life from the first go forth in 12:1 to the second go forth in the akedah 22:2, that all of Avraham's trials and tribulations were a preparation for the ultimate test, the akedah.

Bibliography:

Japhet, Sara, 1994, Rashbam's commentary on Genesis 22: Peshat or Derash," in The Bible in the light of its interpreters: Sarah Kamin Memorial Volume, edited by Sara Japhet, Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, Hebrew University, pp. 349-366.

Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1989, The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.

Bereshit 22:1 (Va-yera) – Why was Avraham tested?

Bereshit 22:1 records that G-d tested Avraham by telling him to sacrifice Yitzhak. What was the point of the test? It surely was a frightening experience both for Avraham and Yitzhak.

The Rambam (Moreh, 3:24) suggests two reasons for the test. One, is was to show what it means to love and fear G-d, and two, it showed that the prophets considered their prophecy from G-d since if Avraham had any doubts of the prophecy he would not have attempted to kill Yitzhak. Radak (on 22:1) seems to follow the Rambam's first approach, but notes that there was nobody around to learn this lesson about love and fear of G-d. Thus, he writes that the lesson was for those people who believe in the Torah. Yet, the Rambam's approach is difficult since the lesson would have been greater had he killed Yitzhak, and even then there are numerous cases of people killing their children. For example, Suleiman the Magnificent, who ruled the Ottoman Empire from 1520-1565, is considered to have been a very just ruler, and he killed all his sons except one. Furthermore, according to the Rambam, the point of the test was for others to learn from it,  while 22:12 implies that the lesson was something between G-d and Avraham.

The Ramban (on 22:1,12 also see Seforno on 22:1) writes that the point of the test was to "convert something from the potential to the actual." This would refer to Avraham's faith, but why was there a need for this actualization of Avraham's faith? One answer (see Ibn Ezra and Luzzatto on 22:1) is that it was to give Avraham more rewards since G-d would only give rewards for actions and thoughts. Yet, did Avraham really receive so many rewards for the akedah? Except for the blessing that his children would inherit their enemies, 22:17, all the other blessings told to Avraham at the akedah repeat previous blessings. Furthermore, this approach that G-d makes people suffer in order to reward them later is difficult conceptually.

N. Leibowitz (1995, p. 24) writes that the reward here in reference to Avraham is not to material rewards or to spiritual rewards in the next world but "to the uplifting of one being tested, who attains perfection through realizing his potential for good." Yet, Avraham already demonstrated his faith in G-d by leaving his home and coming to the land of Canaan, 12:4, and circumcising himself at the age of 99, 17:24.

The Rashbam (on 22:1) argues that the test of the akedah was a punishment for Avraham for making a treaty with the Philistines, but as we discussed above on 22:1, "After what things?" I believe there was no sin in making this treaty. Instead, my guess is that the test was a punishment for Avraham's laughing when he was told about the Yitzhak's birth, 17:17, since this laughing showed a disbelief in G-d’s powers, see 18:14 and our discussions on 18:9-14, "A foil." If Avraham had really killed Yitzhak, then G-d would have had to perform another miracle for Avraham and Sara to have another child to fulfill G-d’s promises, when Avraham and Sara were even older. Thus, by attempting to kill Yitzhak, Avraham was showing his faith in G-d that he no longer had any doubts about G-d’s power.

The idea that the akedah was a punishment is difficult according to the Jewish tradition that invokes the akedah as a reason for G-d to have mercy on the people by various prayers, such as selihot and on the High Holidays. However, maybe one can understand that the Jewish tradition is referring to Yitzhak's ordeal, "ha-ben ha-nekad, the son who was bound," while the punishment was for Avraham.

Bibliography:

Leibowitz, Nehama (1905-1997), 1995, Torah Insights, translated by Alan Smith, Ahva Press: Jerusalem.

Bereshit 22:2 (Va-yera) - Hearing at the akedah

Bereshit 22:2 records that G-d told Avraham to take Yitzhak and to offer him as an olah sacrifice. Does the word sacrifice mean to kill? Did G-d really tell Avraham to kill Yitzhak?

Rashi (on 22:2,12) based on Bereshit Rabbah 56:8, writes that the text does not say to kill Yitzhak because G-d only wanted Avraham to prepare him as an olah sacrifice. (Jerome I. Gellman, 1994, writes that this was also the opinion of Saadiah Gaon. Also see Ibn Ezra, Bekhor Shor, and Ralbag.)

This explanation of Rashi answers one of the questions of the akedah, that how could G-d command Avraham to kill Yitzhak, but at the same time it makes the actions of Avraham incomprehensible. Luzzatto points out that if there was the slightest doubt in Avraham’s mind as to what he was commanded by G-d, then his attempt to kill Yitzhak was an act of unmitigated cruelty since he then would not have known if G-d wanted Yitzhak to be killed. It must be that Avraham understood G-d correctly that the command to sacrifice meant to kill Yitzhak.

Gellman (1994) discusses what he calls the problem of hearing. How was Avraham sure that it was G-d commanding him to kill his son? Immanuel Kant (sources in Gellman) wrote that “Avraham should have replied to the putative divine voice: That I may not kill my son is absolutely certain. But that you who appear to me are G-d is not certain.” Gellman notes that this question would not arise if Avraham accepted that G-d’s command was ethical which could be either due to Avraham’s recognition that his understanding was limited or that Avraham’s accepted that by definition anything commanded by G-d is ethical. Gellman also quotes Martin Buber’s answer to Kant’s question that “Avraham could not confuse with another the voice which once bade him to leave his homeland and which he recognized as the voice of G-d.” The idea being that Avraham must have known with absolute certainty that G-d was in fact speaking to him since this was not the first time that G-d spoke to him.

If Avraham knew that the command was from G-d and it was to kill Yitzhak why did Avraham not protest as he did by Sedom, where he challenged G-d, “shall the Judge of all the earth not do justice? (18:25)” If Avraham attempted to defend what he thought were innocent people of Sedom, why did he not defend his son who he knew was innocent? Yeshayahu Leibowitz (1990, also see Netziv on 22:12) writes that the Midrash regards Avraham’s silence as the highest level of faith. Leibowitz attempts to differentiate between the case of Sedom and the akedah by arguing that these cases concern two different issues. With regards to Sedom, the question was of justice so Avraham was able to protest. However, by the akedah, the question is of faith and by faith there is no debate. Yet, even if one claims that for Avraham the akedah was a question of faith but still for Yitzhak it was a question of justice.

My guess (see our discussion on 18:17-22:19 "Human knowledge and the theodicy question") is that Avraham’s understanding of G-d’s justice changed due to his challenge by the destruction of Sedom. Prior to the challenge, Avraham thought that man could judge G-d and thus he could challenge G-d as to the justice of destroying Sedom. Yet, during this argument it became clear that Avraham’s knowledge was not comparable to G-d’s knowledge. Avraham thought he knew the people of Sedom, and he thought for sure that there were ten innocent people in Sedom. Yet, 19:4 shows that the people were evil, which shows that even though Avraham thought he knew the people, he really did not. This taught Avraham that man cannot judge G-d, and hence by the akedah, Avraham did not protest. This silence was then an indication of his acceptance of G-d’s judgment.

From all the above, we understand why Avraham attempted to kill Yitzhak. The command was from G-d, it was to kill and Avraham was no longer able to judge G-d. Yet, was Yitzhak obligated to let Avraham kill him? Or, if there had been another person present would he have had been obligated to stop Avraham?

The question here is the authority of a prophet with regard to other people. Talmud (Sanhedrin 89b) explains that Yitzhak (and presumably a 3rd party) had to accept Avraham’s action since Avraham was an established prophet. Yet, still an established prophet cannot violate the Torah, and Devarim 13:2-6 records that a person is considered a false prophet worthy of death if he tries to convince other people to act contrary to Jewish law. Talmud (Yevamot 90b) explains that a prophet can violate the law if the law is only temporarily abrogated, horaat shaah. Rambam (Fundamental Laws 9:3-5) codifies the law that one must follow an established prophet who tells one to temporarily violate a law except by idolatry.

Zevi Hirsch Chajes (1805-1855, Torat ha-Neviim chapter 3,4) argues that the Rambam also requires that the violation of the law lead to some positive benefit for the nation. He explains that by the akedah, Avraham was only temporarily abrogating the law not to kill and there was a positive benefit to the killing of Yitzhak. Accordingly, Yitzhak and any 3rd party would have been required to follow Avraham’s instructions. Yet, what positive benefit to the nation could have resulted from Avraham killing Yitzhak? Chajes quotes the Rambam (Moreh 3:24) who suggested two reasons for G-d testing Avraham. One, Avraham’s actions showed how far a person must go in their love and fear of G-d and two, it shows the truth of prophecy, as Avraham only would have attempted to kill Yitzhak if he was convinced that the command was from G-d. While this seems reasonable, people have killed their children (Jamestown?) and we think the people are crazy and not demonstrating any great religious truths.

Accordingly, my guess is that Yitzhak and any third party would have been required to stop Avraham. This understanding would accord with Ibn Ezra’s (on 22:5) argument that Yitzhak was a young boy who was not a willing participant. Also 26:5 records that Yitzhak was blessed because Avraham listened to G-d. Yet, why was he not blessed because of himself? The implication is that he had not yet done anything significant to be worthy of G-d's blessing, which implies that he was a child by the akedah and not a willing participant. Furthermore, prior to ascending the mountain to sacrifice Yitzhak, Avraham told his attendants to remain at the base of the mountain since had they gone up they might have tried to stop Avraham.

Bibliogrpahy:

Gellman, Jerome I. 1994, The Fear, the Trembling, and the Fire: Kierkegaard and the Hasidic masters on the binding of Isaac, Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America.

Bereshit 22:7,13 - The akedah: The ram in the thicket

Bereshit 22:13 records that after the malakh told Avraham not to kill Yitzhak, Avraham saw a ram caught in a thicket and sacrificed it instead of Yitzhak. This ram has remained the symbol of the akedah. The Talmud (Rosh Hashanah 16A, see also Shulchan Arukh, Orah Chayyim 586:1) quotes R. Avahu that we blow a ram’s horn on Rosh Hashanah to remember the akedah. Also, the finding of this ram was considered so miraculous that there is an opinion in the Mishnah (Pirkei Avot 5:8, see also Pesachim 54a) that the ram was created on the eve of the first Shabbat. In addition, it is likely that the finding of the ram is the basis for Avraham’s name for the place where the akedah occurred. After Avraham sacrificed the ram, 22:14 records, “Avraham called the name of that place: G-d sees (yireh), and Shalom Spiegel (1993, pp. 67,68) notes that the name G-d sees refers back to 22:8, which records that Avraham told Yitzhak that “G-d will see to the substitute for the offering,” which was the ram.

What is the importance of the ram? After Avraham had been told not to kill Yitzhak, why he did he need to sacrifice a ram? Why could Avraham have not simply come down from the mountain without sacrificing the ram?

The Bekhor Shor, Rashbam and Radak (on 22:13) note that Avraham saw this ram caught in the thicket immediately after the malakh told him not him not to kill Yitzhak. This fortuitous conjunction of events led Avraham to understand that this was a sign that G-d wanted him to sacrifice the ram. R. Yaakov Liebermann (personal correspondence) explains that the offering of the ram was to thank G-d for saving Yitzhak. I wonder if maybe there is another explanation based on the connection between 22:8,14.

22:7 records that Yitzhak asked Avraham, “where is the lamb for the sacrifice?” Avraham responded by saying that “G-d would see (yireh) to the lamb for the sacrifice, my son,” 22:8. Why did Avraham imply that he was going to sacrifice a lamb when he knew that Yitzhak was to be the sacrifice? Rashi (on 22:8) explains that Avraham was hinting to Yitzhak that he was the intended sacrifice, as if G-d did not show them a lamb, then Yitzhak was to be the sacrifice. This is a difficult reading since it forces a break between the words lamb and sacrifice. Ibn Ezra (on 22:1) writes that Avraham was hiding from Yitzhak the fact that Yitzhak was to be the sacrifice, since had he told Yitzhak the truth, Yitzhak would have run away. Spiegel (above), following this latter approach, notes that while “Avraham’s purpose was to put Yitzhak off,” still these words became a prophecy when he later found the ram in the thicket.

The Ralbag (on 22:8) suggests that Avraham’s response should be understood as a prayer. When Avraham heard G-d’s command to sacrifice Yitzhak, 22:2, he must surely have been perplexed. When G-d first told Avraham about Yitzhak, G-d said specifically that the covenant would be with Yitzhak and his descendants, 17:19. Later, when Sara wanted Yishmael to be banished, G-d told Avraham that his descendants would be from Yitzhak, 21:12. Thus, at the time of the akedah, Avraham must have wondered how these previous promises of G-d could be fulfilled if he really sacrificed Yitzhak. Even if Avraham would have had another child with Sara who was also named Yitzhak, this still would have contradicted G-d’s statement in 17:19. Yet, notwithstanding these questions Avraham did not hesitate to fulfill G-d’s command to sacrifice Yitzhak but surely he must have hoped for G-d to rescind the command to sacrifice Yitzhak. This hope can be found in Avraham’s answer to Yitzhak that his response was a prayer, that G-d would provide a lamb which could be offered instead of Yitzhak. Similarly, Benno Jacob (1974, p. 145) writes that there are several ways to understand Avraham’s answer and one is that, “it may even be a wish and a prayer: May G-d provide the lamb.” Also, Kass (2003, p. 343) writes, “Just as there are faint tinges of fear in Isaac’s question, so are there faint tinges of hope in Avraham’s answer: hope in the Lord to find a way out of this.”

Avraham’s prayer was fulfilled when the malakh stopped him from sacrificing Yitzhak, and the ram was so fortuitously caught in the thicket. Thus, Avraham had to sacrifice the ram since this was what he had prayed for. Furthermore, because the ram was the fulfillment of his prayer, Avraham named the place of the akedah after his prayer, as mentioned above. (Note, Avraham had referred to a lamb, as Yitzhak had mentioned a lamb, but the ram was a better choice since due to its horns it got stuck in the thicket. Also, Kass, 2003, p. 346, quotes Bill Rosen that the lamb is the child which symbolized Yitzhak who was not sacrificed, while the ram, the lamb’s father symbolized Avraham who sacrifices himself to G-d.)

Accordingly, Avraham, the man of faith, followed G-d’s command to sacrifice Yitzhak, even though he could not fully understand the command. Yet, he also prayed that G-d would switch a lamb for his son, and when he saw the ram in the thicket, this was the fulfillment of his prayers. This meant that he had to sacrifice the ram, and he named the place after the fulfillment of his prayers. Thus, the use of the ram’s horn on Rosh Hashanah, is particularly appropriate since the shofar is a type of prayer to G-d, and just like Avraham’s prayer was fulfilled through the ram, so too our prayers with the ram’s horn should also be fulfilled.

After writing this explanation, Rabbi Ari Zivotofsky communicated to me the fascinating suggestion that this understanding could be the meaning of the Mishnah Ta’anit 4:2.

The Mishnah lists six extra blessings and seven additional biblical references that are to be added to the Shemoneh Esrei on a fast day. The seven references are Avraham at the akedah, the Jewish people by the Red Sea, Yehoshua by Gilgal, Shmuel by Mispeh, Eliyahu on Mount Carmel, Yonah in the fish, and David and Shelomo in Jerusalem, and for each case the Mishnah states that just like G-d answered the person’s prayer so too G-d should answer the prayer of the person who is fasting. (This prayer has been enlarged with more biblical references in our selihot prayer.)

A difficulty with these biblical references is that for six of them there is a biblical verse which indicates that the person prayed to G-d (Shemot 14:10, Yehoshua 5:10-6:16, Shmuel 7:9, Kings I 18:36,37, Yonah 2:2, Shmuel II 7:18-29, (Kehati commentary on the Mishnah - Shmuel II 21:1) and Kings I 8:12-54) but for Avraham there is no apparent reference to him praying by the akedah. One cannot say that the Mishnah is just assuming that Avraham prayed as then many other cases could have been included where one assumes that a person prayed, as for instance why not assume that Yitzhak prayed at the akedah? It must be that the Mishnah thought that there was some biblical reference to Avraham praying by the akedah, but the only statements we have from Avraham prior to when the malakh told Avraham not to kill Yitzhak is when he spoke to the servants, “stay with the donkey,” 22:5, and his response to the Yitzhak, 22:8. 22:5 is not a prayer, and hence it is likely that 22:8 is the reference of the Mishnah as suggested by Rabbi Zivotofsky.

Bibliography:

Jacob, Benno (1869-1945), 1974, The first book of the bible: Genesis, commentary abridged, edited and translated by Earnest I. Jacob and Walter Jacob, Hoboken City, NJ: Ktav Publishing House.

Kass, Leon, 2003, The Beginning of wisdom, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Spiegel, Shalom (1899-1984), 1993, The Last Trial, Woodstock, VT: Jewish Lights.

Bereshit 22:14 – Where was the akedah?

Bereshit 22:14 records that Avraham called the place where the akedah occurred, "G-d sees," and the end of the verse records, "As the saying is today: On G-d's mountain, G-d will be seen.” The phrase "as the saying today" is problematic. When is "today?" It does not seem to be in Avraham's time since the verse is referring to what people say after the time of Avraham. Who was calling the place of the akedah, "G-d's mountain, where G-d will be seen?" Ibn Ezra (on 22:14) refers to his comments on Devarim 1:2, where he groups this verse among a series of difficult verses.

With regard to the word “today,” Radak (on 22:14) notes that the akedah is traditionally thought to have been the place where the Bet ha-Mikdash would be built, and he suggests that in the Bet ha-Mikdash the people would remember the events that happened there on this day, i.e. the akedah. With this explanation the word today does not relate to when the saying was said but is a prediction of what the people would say in the future.

Seforno (on 22:14) seems to explain that the phrase in 22:14 "as they say today" means that on the day of the giving (writing) of the Torah, the people will refer to the mountain where the akedah happened as the place where in the future G-d will be seen. He writes that this was actualized in the time of King David.

Hoffmann (1969, p. 351) writes that the word today also refers to the time of Moshe, but the phrase was not understood as referring to the future. The idea here is that the people in Moshe's time knew the story of the akedah and they referred to the mountain where it transpired, as the place where G-d would be seen. Yet, how could the Jewish people at the time of Moshe have known where the mountain was and talked about it, if the akedah was in Jerusalem, and they had never been to the land of Israel? Is the verse referring to non-Jews who knew the story of the akedah?

This verse is only difficult if we assume that the akedah was in Jerusalem on the spot where the Bet ha-Mikdash or the altar in the Bet haMikdash would be built. This is the traditional understanding (see Rambam, Laws of Bet haMechirah 2:1,2), but it is not recorded in the Torah. 22:2 records that G-d told Avraham to go to the land of Moriah, but in the Torah this place is not identified. Chronicles II, 3:1, writes that Shelomo built the Bet ha-Mikdash on Mount Moriah, but with this understanding 22:14 is problematic.

The simple explanation of 22:14 is that the akedah was on Mount Sinai. 22:14 refers to the mountain where the akedah took place as the mountain of G-d and Shemot 3:1, 18:5, 24:13 and Bemidbar 10:33 refer to Mount Sinai as the mountain of G-d. (This idea is stated by Rashi, mora le-ovdie kokhavim, and Tosafot, har sh-yatsah, on Talmud Bavli, Ta'anit 16a.) Furthermore, the phrase in 22:14, “G-d will be seen” occurred on Mount Sinai not just by the Decalogue, but also in the ceremony of establishing the covenant, where the people at the base of the mountain saw some image of G-d’s powers on the mountain top, Shemot 24:10,11, see our discussion of the verses, “The great vision by the ceremony to establish the covenant at Sinai.”

An additional (minor) proof is that it has been noted that there are numerous literary connections between the ceremony establishing the covenant at Mount Sinai after the Decalogue and the akedah (Friedman 2003, p. 252, and Grossman 1996). Some examples are: The word merachok in Shemot 24:1 and in Bereshit 22:4, the word shevu in Shemot 24:13 and Bereshit 22:5, and the ne'arim in Shemot 24:5 and in Bereshit 22:3,5,19. One could add some connections with the Decalogue itself: on the third day, Bereshit 22:4 and Shemot 19:16, and both events showed or were to lead to the fear of G-d, Bereshit 22:12 and Shemot 20:17.

Accordingly, when Moshe was writing the Torah (in Shemot 24:7?) in 22:14 he was noting that in his time the Jewish people would say about the place where the akedah occurred (Mount Sinai), that it was the mountain of G-d and that it was the place where G-d would be seen, as Moshe knew from Shemot 24:1,2 about the vision to be in Shemot 24:9-11.

With this idea, the akedah, the incident of the burning bush (see Shemot 3:1,12) and the Decalogue all took place in the same place, Mount Sinai.

Could the akedah have occurred at Mount Sinai? At the time of the akedah, Avraham was living in Be'er Sheva. Prior to the akedah, 21:34 records that Avraham lived in the land of Philistines and 22:19 records that after the akedah, Avraham returned to Be'er Sheva. Be'er Sheva is located in the northern section of the Negev. Avraham walked two full days from his home to get to the mountain where the akedah transpired, and on the third day (in the morning?) he saw the mountain where the akedah was to take place from afar, 22:4. In two days, Avraham, traveling by donkey, could have gone approximately 20 miles a day, plus a few more miles on the third day which means that Mount Sinai was/is around 40-50 miles from Be'er Sheva. This would allow Mount Sinai to be in the central, western Negev or the eastern part of the Sinai Desert, but not in the southern section of the Sinai Desert. 

Bibliography:

Friedman, Richard Elliott, 2003, Commentary on the Torah with a new English translation and the Hebrew text, New York: HarperSanFrancisco.

Grossman, Yonatan, 1996, "He saw the place from afar,' – The binding of Isaac as background for the covenant of the basins and other stories," Megadim, Vol. 25, pp. 79-90.