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.
No comments:
Post a Comment