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?"
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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment