Bereshit (Genesis)18:24-32, 19:4 – Avraham’s request to save the city of Sodom (Sedom): The numbers: 50, 45, 40, 30, 20 and 10

Bereshit (Genesis) 18:20,21 records that G-d told Avraham that the people of Sodom (Sedom) and Gomorrah (Amora) were evil, and G-d implied that he was going to destroy the cities. 18:22 then records that the “people” who had been with Avraham, went to the Sodom, and then 18:23 records that Avraham began to plead with G-d not to kill the righteous/ innocent with the guilty.

18:24-32 record the details of Avraham’s request from G-d. 18:24,25 begin that Avraham requested for G-d to spare the city (Sodom) if there were fifty righteous people living in the city. God agreed to this request, 18:26. However, Avraham continued pleading, and he asked G-d to spare Sodom, if there were fewer righteous people, 45 people, 18:27,28. G-d again agreed to Avraham’s second request, 18:28. Yet, Avraham continued pleading with G-d, lowering the needed righteous people to 40, 30, 20 and finally 10. G-d agreed to all of Avraham's requests, but then Avraham stopped whittling down the numbers, 18:27:32.

Why did Avraham start his request with fifty righteous/ innocent people and why did he stop at ten people? Why did he not ask for G-d to spare Sodom if there was one righteous/ innocent person in the area?

Rashi (on 18:24,28,29,32) suggests that the basic principle was that ten righteous people could save an area, and the number fifty was based on ten righteous people saving five different places. The number forty-five was based on the idea of nine people in each place and adding G-d to the number in each place. The number forty was for ten righteous people in four cities to save four cities, and then the declining numbers would correspond to saving fewer and fewer areas. Finally, Rashi suggests that Avraham did not request less than ten righteous/ innocent people since he had learned from his request of 45, i.e., nine for each city, that nine righteous/ innocent people were insufficient to save a city.

Ramban (on 18:24) questions Rashi's logic. If ten righteous people were sufficient to save a place, then the Ramban wonders, why on each occasion that Avraham reduced the number of righteous people, Avraham began his request by asking for G-d's mercy. If the reduction in the number of righteous people matched the reduction in the number of places, then the request did not involve any more mercy on G-d's part since it was the same ratio as the first request of fifty righteous people. Also, the Ramban does not understand, why Avraham should not have requested for nine people for one place since this was not the same as requesting for G-d to spare five places for 45 people since maybe in one place there were nine righteous people but not nine righteous people in five different places? The Ramban concludes that he cannot understand how Rashi came to his explanation and he thinks that Avraham was always praying for five cities. Yet, the Ramban leaves the numbers of people unexplained.

Firstly, it seems that Avraham was only praying for the people of Sodom either because he knew them from chapter 14 (he saved them) or because of Lot, as in the conversation between G-d and Avraham, the Torah only refers to one city and the entire focus of the story is on Sodom. However, why the different numbers?

My guess is that basis for the numbers of people that Avraham suggested was because Sodom was a small city, more like a village than a city. Accordingly, the first number of fifty might have been because fifty people were a small majority of the number of families. For example, there might have been 90 families living in Sodom, and then fifty righteous people would be a majority per family. The next number 45, the only non-zero ending number, might have been since that was very close to being half the population. Afterwards, Avraham reduced the number since he was basing himself on having a meaningful minority which could save the city.

It could also be that initially Avraham might have thought that G-d would respond to his first request by agreeing to a higher number, say 150 people, and then they would have compromised at 100. However, G-d surprised Avraham by agreeing to 50 righteous/ innocent people as being enough to save Sodom, which indicated to Avraham that there did not have to be a large majority of righteous people to save the city. This might have prompted Avraham to continue even with having a meaningful minority of people.

Why did Avraham stop at ten? Wenham (1994) notes that, "the tone of G-d's replies conveys the feeling that He cannot be pushed much further." Or, maybe Avraham was very confident that there were ten righteous/ innocent people in Sodom. Or, maybe Avraham thought that less than ten righteous people were too small a minority to save Sodom.

A possible proof that Sodom was not very large is from the battle between Avraham and the four kings in chapter 14. 14:14 records that Avraham attacked the four kings with 318 men, which implies that the force of the four kings was around the same size or smaller since he would not have attacked a much large force. Furthermore, if the army of the four kings was around 300-500 soldiers, then this indicates that Sodom and his allies were not able to gather a much larger force since the four kings would surely have taken enough soldiers from Mesopotamia for them to be confident of winning in all of their battles against the five “cities,” 14:8,9. Finally, in olden time, when there was a war, every adult able-bodied man went out to fight, which implies that Sodom (and each of its allies) would have an army and a male adult population of around 80-100 men or less.

Note, after Lot leaves Sodom, he pleads to go to Tzo’ar, and he bases his request on the fact that it was a tiny place, 19:20. This means that Tzo’ar was even smaller than Sodom.

After discussing this idea in my synagogue, a friend, Oded Walk, suggested another proof that Sodom was a small place. 19:4 records that the whole population, old and young, surrounded Lot's house, but how can there have been enough room if the population was very large? Due to this problem, Rashi (on 19:4, see Siftei Chachamim on Rashi's comments) suggested that 19:4 does not mean literally that the entire population of the city surrounded the house, but that no one in Sodom protested the people’s treatment of Lot. It is much simpler to understand 19:4 that the population of Sodom was small, and then everybody or a majority of people (50 people?) could have surrounded Lot’s house.

The idea that Sodom was a dinky place might answer the archeological question that no cities have been unearthed that accord with the period of Avraham's approximate lifetime, 1800 BCE. A friend, Aaron Israel, suggested to me that due to the great upheaval that occurred after the conversation between G-d and Avraham, one would not expect to find any archeological remains, but people have searched. The sites that have been suggested, Bab edh-Dhra and Numeria (on the southeastern present-day Jordanian side of the Dead Sea), seemed to have been destroyed around 2300 BCE, see Rast 1987. Closer to Avraham’s likely time is that Harris and Beardow (1995) suggest that the cities were situated on the peninsula (El Lisan) which divides the two basins of the Dead Sea and the destruction occurred around 1900 BCE. On the other hand, if Sodom was just a dinky village, then one would not expect to find any remnants of large buildings that would have indicated a city in ancient times. Who knows?

Bibliography:

Rast, Walter, E., 1987, Bronze Age cities along the Dead Sea, Archaeology, 40:1, pp. 42-49.

Harris, G. M. and A. P. Beardow, 1995, The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah: a geotechnical perspective, Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology, 28:4, pp. 349–362.

Wenham, Gordan J., 1994, Genesis, Waco: Word Books.

Bereshit 5:3,4 – Longevity and the aging process in the Torah

Bereshit 5:3 records that Adam had a child when he was 130 years old, something that is not possible in the 21st century. 5:4 then records that Adam lived another 800 years afterwards. This also is not physically possible. The remainder of chapter 5 lists ten more individuals who also lived extremely long lives. Similarly, 11:10-32 lists nine more individuals who had extremely long lives. The people listed in chapter 11 lived less years than all the people listed in chapter five, except for Chanoch (5:23), but still eight of them lived more than 200 years, which again does not seem possible. Afterwards the lifespans continued to decrease, but still the Torah lists many people who lived longer than humanely possible in the 21st century, Sara, 127 years (23:1), Avraham, 175 years (25:7), Yishmael, 137 years (25:17), Yitzhak, 180 years (35:28), Yaakov, 147 years (47:9, 48:28), Levi and his descendants’, 137 years, 133 years and 137 years, (Shemot 6:16-20), Aharon, 123 years (Bemidbar 33:39) and Moshe lived 120 years (Devarim 31:2). Yosef also lived 110 years (Bereshit 50:26), which also seems incredible for the period of the Torah.

The Rambam (Moreh 11:47) writes, apparently in reference to all the people who had long lives in the Torah, that only these people lived so long, as the other people who are not named as having long lives, lived regular lives. The Rambam suggests that the long lives of these individuals could have been due to their diet and behavior or due to a miracle. The Ramban (on 5:4) rejects this approach and claims that the people listed in chapters five and eleven were not unique in their lifetime. He notes that if the Rambam’s suggestion of diet and behavior was correct, then many people should have followed their behavior. Also, he claims that not all of these people were worthy of G-d making them miracles. It seems to me that even the Ramban relies on miracles for the long lives of the patriarchs. The Ramban also seems to claim that until the period of the sin of the Tower of Bavel people would naturally live long lives, which again appears to be impossible.

A different approach is that the years listed in the Torah are not full solar years. Ha-Ketav Ve-haKabbalh (on 5:5) notes that some people claim that the years in chapter five are based on a one-month lunar cycle which he rejects. Beck (1967, pp. 25-29) suggests that a year in the Torah is a six-month period, and then the lives of the patriarchs would be half of what is recorded in the Torah.

My guess is that the years in the Torah are similar to our years, that the Rambam is correct that only those people who are listed as having had a long life, had a long life and that this was a miracle that G-d did for them. It is not clear why it was necessary for these people to have long lives, and my guess is that it is a literary way of marking a large passage of time with a relatively limited number of people.

In addition, with regard to the people who had long lives, it must be that their aging process was a much slower process than our aging in the 21st century. David Tzvi Hoffmann (1969, p. 383, introduction to chapter 25) follows this idea when discussing how old was Avraham when he had more children apparently after Sara had died, 25:2. He writes that even though Avraham was officially 140 then (if these children were born right after Yitzhak married Rivka), he was really 56 years ago. This calculation would be that 140/175, his present age divided by the age when he died, equals 0.8 and 0.8*70 = 56. Thus, he claims Avraham was able to father the children recorded in 25:2. While I think Avraham had the ability to father the children recorded in 25:2 due to a special blessing from G-d (see our discussion on 24:1, “To be virile again”), it must be that Hoffmann is correct that the aging process for the people who had very long lives in the Torah was at a proportional rate.

I think that even by the early years of the people who had long lives in the Torah that their development was at a slow pace, and then they reached puberty later than modern people. Thus, the youngest age that people in chapter five began to have children was 65. In chapter 11, the aging process had quickened to some extent compared to the people in chapter five, as the youngest age that people had children in chapter 11 was twenty-nine years (11:24), and their life span had shortened from between 400 years to 148 years, but still their aging was slower than people in modern times. Afterwards by the age of the patriarchs until, and including, Moshe, the development and aging of the people with long lives were proportional to a person who lived seventy/ eighty years.

Thus, Sara was considered beautiful when she came to Egypt (12:11,15), even though she was sixty-five years old, since she had not yet aged that much because she was going to live until 127, 23:1. Hence, she was around 35 years old based on a lifespan of seventy years. This slower proportional aging is also why the Torah had to tell us that Sara had stopped menstruating when she was 89/90, 18:11, which should have been obvious, but with proportional aging, one might have thought that at 89/90 (17:17), which was proportional to 49 years ((89/127)*70), that she was still menstruating, but she was not.

Avraham was equivalent physically to a 30-year-old ((75/175)*70) when he left Haran and fought with the four kings and not to a seventy-five year old (12:4), which in antiquity and today was/is possible, but it is very unlikely for a seventy five year old to have the strength to fight a war. In addition, Sara thought that there was a good possibility that Avraham would be able to have a child with Hagar even though he was 85 years old then, since if it was not possible, she would not have been willing for him to have another wife, 16:1-3. Also, Avraham agreed to her proposal and did not claim that he could not have a child when he was 85 since really he was physically around 34 years old (86/175)*70).

14 years later, when Avraham was officially 99 years old, both Avraham and Sara doubted whether Avraham could father another child, 17:17,24; 18:10,12; 21:1-7. 18:11 (also 21:2), which is information provided by the “narrator” records that Avraham and Sara were old when they were told that Sara was to have a child, but also adds the phrase “and advancing in years.” This phrase is qualifying the previous word, that they were old, that while they were getting older, they were not necessarily not “functioning” and then the verse continues to inform us that Sara was post-menopausal since, as mentioned above, this was not obvious. Yet, according to this theory of proportionate aging, Avraham was then equivalent to being 40 years old (99/175)*70), so why did Sara and Avraham doubt that he could have a child? Maybe Avram and Sara were considered old even in their 40s, since in those days, life expectancy was around 40, even for people who did not die at childhood. In addition, maybe Avraham’s and Sara’s doubt that Avraham could have a child just “six years” after fathering Yishmael was because they did not think that a person at Avraham’s age (physically equivalent to 40 years) would be able to recover sufficiently from the circumcision, which G-d had just commanded him to do, 17:10-14, and he had done, 17:23,24, to have a child. Maybe then, Avraham’s ability to have Yitzhak was due to a miracle. 

This idea of proportionate aging could also explain why Yishmael seems to have been small when he and Hagar had to leave Avraham’s house, even though he was 14-years-old, 21:14-20. Also, while Yishmael was officially 13 years old when he was circumcised this would have been equivalent to being six and a half (17:25; 25:17 (13/137)*70).

In addition, with this idea, Yitzhak was in modern terms around 15.5 years old when he married Rivka, (25:2, (40/180)*70)) and Yaakov was in modern terms around 40 years old when he married Lea and Rahel ((84/147)*70).

Also, with this understanding, Yosef was not mentally or physically 17 years old (37:2) when he tattled on his brothers, but around 12 years in modern terms, and he was equivalent to an 18-year-old ((28/110)*70) when Potifar’s wife tried to seduce him, 39:7-12. This might explain why Reuven also refers to him as the child, 37:30 and 42:20. This would also mean that when Yaakov sent Yosef to look for his brothers in Shekhem, 37:13, Yosef was equivalent to a ten-year old in modern times, which might be considered as being too young for such a mission. However, as we explain in our discussion on 37:3-14, “Yaakov's parenting,” Yaakov accepted that the dreams of Yosef were a prophecy, and hence he probably felt that Yosef would be protected.

This slow aging process might also help explain the conversation between Pharaoh and Yaakov when they met, 47:8,9. First, Pharaoh asked Yaakov how old he was since he knew that Yosef was not aging in the normal manner. Secondly, this proportional aging can explain why Yaakov knew that he would not reach the lives of his father and grandfather since he knew at 130 years that he was aging faster than they had been aging at the same age, 47:9. 

The net result is that since the long lifespans recorded in the Torah of various people was a miracle, the miracle was also that the development and the aging process of the different people were also a slower process than in modern times, and starting in the time of the patriarchs, the development and aging process of the people with long lives was proportional to the lifespan of each person.

Bibliography:

Beck, Samuel, 1967, From Sinai to Navo, Jerusalem: Raphael Chayyim Hacohen Publishing.

Hoffmann, David Tzvi (1843-1921), 1969, Commentary on Genesis, Bnei Brak: Nezach.

Bereshit 20:1,2 – The second abduction of Sara

בראשית כ:א,ב - ויסע משם אברהם ארצה הנגב וישב בין קדש ובין שור, ויגר בגרר. ויאמר אברהם אל שרה אשתו אחתי הוא וישלח אבימלך מלך גרר ויקח את שרה.

20:1,2,5 record that Avraham and Sara went to live in Gerar, and when they got there, they told people that they were brother and sister. This is similar to what they had said when they went to Egypt, 12:11-15, and just like in Egypt, Pharaoh’s servants took Sara, in Gerar, the king of Gerar, Avimelekh took Sara. Apparently, Sara's youth and beauty had returned to her even though she was old as part of the miracle that she would give birth at ninety (Rav Hisda quoted in Talmud, Baba Metzia, 87a).

Why did Avraham and Sara again try to conceal their marriage if Sara was abducted in Egypt when they used this plan? Why did they not learn from the previous case?

When Avraham and Sara went to Egypt, Avraham said that it was necessary to conceal their marriage to save his life, 12:12. In Gerar, was Avraham again worried for his life? 20:11 records that when Avimelekh questioned Avraham for why he concealed his marriage, he said that he was afraid of being killed. Yet, was this fear a sufficient reason for Avraham and Sara to conceal their marriage a second time? The Radak (on 12:12) justified Avraham and Sara’s actions in Egypt since a person cannot rely on miracles.  Yet, the ploy failed in Egypt. Would it not have been preferable for Avraham and Sara to say they were married in Gerar and take their chances that nobody would try to kill Avraham and abduct Sara?

The cynic might argue that Avraham and Sara learned from the case in Egypt to rely on this ploy since everything was good in the end as Avraham was not killed, Sara was returned and they received lots of gifts. This possibility must be rejected since from chapter 14 we learn that Avraham no longer wanted to receive gifts. 14:22,23 record that after Avraham defeated the five kings, he refused to keep any of the booty from the war, so that nobody could claim that they made him wealthy. In this case, Avraham did accept gifts from Avimelekh, 20:14-16, but this was after the fact and necessary to show that there were no sexual relations between Avimelekh and Sara. Also, the success in Egypt was due to a miracle, so with this approach, one would have to argue that now Avraham and Sara were relying on a miracle, that if Sara would be abducted again, then G-d would do a miracle to save her. Yet, if that is true, then they could have said that they were married and relied on a miracle that Avraham would not be killed.

A second possibility why Avraham and Sara concealed their marriage in Gerar is that Avraham and Sara thought that their plan was good and just because it failed once this was no reason to discard it. Maybe they thought that they just had bad luck in Egypt, but otherwise the plan would have succeeded. 20:3 records (see also Ramban on 12:12) that Avraham said that he and Sara always claimed that they were brother and sister, and not husband and wife, whenever they traveled and then it could be that Torah only records the places where there were problems.

Was Avraham really scared of being killed in Gerar? The Avraham of chapter 20 was not at all like the Avraham (Avram) of chapter 12. The Avraham of chapter 20 had fought a war against five kings, chapter 14, made two covenants with G-d, chapters 15 and 17, and had been able to argue with G-d about the fate of Sedom, 18:23-32. It is unlikely that Avraham would have such a great fear of mankind. Furthermore, Avraham had twice been told that he would have a son with Sara within the year, 17:21 and 18:14. Did Avraham think that G-d was promising him a son, but that he would not live to see it? It is true that in 20:11 Avraham mentioned that he was worried about being killed but this fear is mentioned after Avimelekh learned that they were married, and maybe in 20:11, Avraham mentioned this fear to turn "the tables" on Avimelekh that really the situation was Avimelekh’s fault since in his domain nobody was G-d fearing.

Independent of whether Avraham was scared of being killed, maybe Avraham and Sara had another reason to conceal their marriage in Gerar. Avraham and Sara arrived in Gerar not long after the destruction of Sedom, and even though Lot was saved, it was highly likely that Avraham was very upset by the destruction of Sedom.  Avraham had prayed fervently for the city, but G-d had ignored his pleas and destroyed the city. This despondency might explain why he concealed his marriage. 

The beginning of 20:1 records how Avraham, and apparently Sara, were roaming in the Negev (today the area of the northern Negev) prior to them coming to Gerar. This roaming could have been because of his sadness after the destruction of Sedom, and if so, then it is likely that he also wandered alone for some time. This would have meant separating from Sara now and then. However, people would begin to ask why was he alone without his wife? Therefore, Avraham and Sara said that they were brother and sister, which they were, 20:12, without revealing that they were also married, to stop people from thinking that they were having marital problems, especially as Yitzhak was supposed to be born soon. The idea was to enable Avraham to have time to be by himself. With this idea, Avraham and Sara would have known that there was a risk that somebody would abduct Sara since she was a "single woman" but they thought the risk was very low and worth the benefit of people not bothering them about their marriage.

Bereshit 18:9-14 (Va-yera`) – The second announcement of Yitzhak's birth: A foil

Bereshit 18:9 records that three visitors who visited Avraham asked where was Sara, and Avraham answered that she was in the tent. Afterwards, G-d told Avraham that Sara would have a child, 18:10. How does the question in 18:9 relate to 18:10? The visitors did not enter the tent or speak directly to Sara, as Sara only over heard what they were saying to Avraham, 18:10. The visitors did not even inquire as to Sara's welfare. Why did they ask about Sara's whereabouts?

Rashi (on 18:9) quotes from Baba Metzia 87a three answers. One, it is proper conduct that a person should ask their host about their spouse's welfare, two the question was to increase Avraham's love for Sara or three, the question was to send her the wine cup of blessing. All of these answers are difficult. They did not ask about Sara's welfare, it is difficult to see how a question concerning Sara's location would increase Avraham's love for her and there is no mention that they gave her anything.

Rashbam explains that the question, "where was Sara?" was simply a way to begin the conversation, as we see by the Garden of Eden where G-d asked where were Adam and Havva, 3:9. (Rashbam also cites Bemidbar 22:9, Kings II 20:14 and Isaiah 39:3, but the questions in these verses do not refer to a person's location.) Yet, the cases are not parallel since by the Garden of Eden, G-d spoke to both Adam and Havva, and hence the question where are you was an introduction to the ensuing conversation. However, here the visitors did not speak to Sara. How can the question "where is Sara?" be a polite opening to a conversation that did not happen?

A different idea is that maybe it was the custom in those days that visitors would not speak directly to the wives of their hosts, and if a visitor wanted to speak to the wife, then she would stand behind a curtain, or here the tent.

Another difficulty with 18:10 is that the visitors told Avraham that Sara would have a child in the following year, but Avraham already knew this. 17:16-21 records that Avraham had already been told by G-d that he was to have a son.

One answer (see Rashi on 18:2) is that the information in 18:10 was for Sara, as in 17:16-21, G-d only told Avraham and did not speak to Sara. Yet, surely after waiting so many years for a child, Avraham would have told Sara this information, see Netziv on 18:10.

Ramban (end of 18:15) argues that Avraham never told Sara about the impending birth since either he wanted Sara to hear from G-d directly or that Avraham had been too busy since he had immediately circumcised himself after hearing about the son and he was still recovering from the circumcision. Both answers are difficult. Did Avraham know that G-d was going to re-tell this information? Was there really no time at all? Avraham had time to tell Sara to make bread for the visitors, 18:6. Furthermore, the Abravanel (2007, p. 410 and Chavel, 1993, notes to Ramban on 18:16) points out that the visitors used the new name Sara and not Sari, which means that she must have learned about the change of her name and this change of name was concurrent with news of the upcoming birth.

Another question concerning this conversation, is the re-action to the announcement. After Sara overheard the news about the birth, she laughed to herself since she doubted that she and Avraham could have a child, 18:12. G-d then questioned Avraham as to why Sara was laughing, and said "Is anything beyond G-d?" 18:13,14. Yet, Avraham had laughed when he heard this same information, 17:17, and he had not been rebuked. Why was Sara rebuked for laughing when Avraham had not been criticized? Furthermore, Avraham was not rebuked even though he laughed so strongly that he fell on his face, while Sara just laughed inwardly?

Ramban (on 17:7 and 18:15) distinguishes between their laughter. Avraham laughed out loud, which he claims was a sign of happiness, while Sara laughed to herself, which he claims was a form of mocking showing her disbelief. Bekhor Shor (on 17:7) suggests a similar approach, that as Avraham fell on his face upon hearing the news of the birth this signaled a laughter of happiness. He also suggests that G-d did not want to rebuke either Avraham or Sara directly, and Sara was only rebuked since it was done indirectly.

Abravanel suggests that Avraham was not punished since he laughed by the first announcement of the birth, but Sara was punished since this was already the second time she had been told of the impending birth. Yet, if Avraham had not been rebuked for laughing the first time, why was it wrong to laugh a second time, and again Sara laughed much less this time than Avraham had laughed.

Hizkuni (on 18:13) writes that the situation is similar to a woman who wants to criticize her daughter-in-law and does so by criticizing her own daughter with the idea that the daughter-in–law will also get the message. The idea being that Avraham was also being criticized when G-d criticized Sara. (Yehuda Keel, 2000, on 18:15, quotes this idea from R. Saadiah Gaon, but I did not find it in my copy of his commentary.) The idea is that really Avraham should also have been criticized for laughing but G-d waited until Sara laughed and then the criticism of Sara was also intended for Avraham.

This idea of Hizkuni and R. Saadiah Gaon can explain why the announcement of the future birth was repeated and why the messengers asked where was Sara but did not actually go to speak to her. The answer is that since Avraham was to be rebuked for his laughing this meant that there was a need for a second announcement to recreate a situation where Avraham could be criticized for laughing. Avraham was not likely to laugh again but Sara could laugh, and then Avraham could be criticized for Sara's laughter, 18:13,14. The visitors asked for Sara not to speak to Sara but to get her attention to listen to the conversation, which would lead her to laugh. My guess is that either she heard her name being mentioned or when the visitors asked Avraham where was Sara, either Avraham or his servant went and checked that she was in fact in the tent, and this inquiry prompted Sara to listen to the conversation. However, because the goal was to criticize Avraham for his previous laughter the messengers only spoke to Avraham.

Yet, if Avraham was supposed to be criticized why did G-d have to wait for Sara to laugh? Why was Avraham not criticized immediately after he laughed in 17:17? My guess is that the delay was due to the fact that Avraham and G-d were making a covenant in chapter 17, and during the establishment of the covenant, where Avraham was circumcising himself when he was 99, it was inappropriate to criticize Avraham. However, immediately after the covenant was completed then Avraham could be criticized for laughing.

Bibliography:

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

Chavel, Hayyim Dov, 1993, Commentary of the Ramban, revised edition, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.

Keel, Yehuda, 1997, 2000 and 2003, Commentary on Bereshit: Da'at Mikra, Three volumes, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.

Bereshit 18:17-22:19 (Va-yera) - Human Knowledge and the Theodicy Question

I believe there is one theme that underlies all of the events in chapters 18–22, the question of evil in the world. This is the most difficult challenge to the belief in G-d. How can G-d allow evil to exist in the world? As the Torah is a religious document it would be surprising if this question is not dealt with in the Torah, but the question is where? Many (due to Milton?) believe that the story of the Garden of Eden is the Torah's answer to evil in the world, that mankind sinned. However, as discussed above, I believe that Adam and Chava were supposed to eat from the fruit of the tree of knowledge, and hence their sin could not have doomed mankind. Instead, it is the events of chapters 18-22 that deal with the presence of evil in the world, and this is an appropriate place in the Torah for such a discussion as it follows chapter 17, which records the religious covenant of Avraham with G-d.

The question of evil begins with the discussion between Avraham and G-d concerning the fate of Sedom. However, prior to this discussion, 18:19 records that G-d wanted to explain to Avraham what was about to happen since Avraham's children would follow the ways of G-d to do what is just and right (JPS translation). This concern is not just with the judgment of Sedom, but rather G-d wanted Avraham to understand how G-d judged the world since only with this knowledge would Avraham's children be willing to follow in the ways of G-d.

18:20,21 record that G-d informed Avraham that the people of Sedom and Amora were evil and hinted that they were to be severely punished. G-d knew that Avraham would be concerned about the fate of the people of Sedom since he had saved them from the four kings, 14:21-23. Avraham presented two separate arguments to save the people of Sedom. The first, 18:23,25 is that the righteous should be saved, and the second, 18:24, is that even the evil people should be saved on the account of the righteous people. 18:25 ends the questions with an explicit challenge to G-d, "Shall then the judge of the whole earth not do justice?" Note the first question is the stronger question, as this is the theodicy question how come bad things happen to good people.

G-d responded to Avraham that if there were fifty righteous people then the city of Sedom would be spared, 18:26. This would seem to be the end of the discussion because G-d had even agreed to save the bad people on account of the presence of the good people. However, Avraham then continued to whittle down the number of required righteous people, from 50 to 45 to 40 to 30 to 20 to 10, and each time G-d agreed not to destroy the city based on Avraham's request. Why did Avraham start at fifty and stop at ten?

Avraham knew the people of Sedom. After he liberated them from the four kings, they had traveled together from Damascus down to the Dead Sea. In addition, most likely the people of Sedom would have been very grateful to Avraham. Furthermore, their behavior was probably more restrained when traveling on the road than when they were at home. Thus, Avraham did not think that all of the people of Sedom were sinners, and he thought for sure that there were fifty people who were not evil.

Avraham might have thought that G-d would respond by agreeing to a higher number 150, and then they would compromise at 100. However, G-d surprised Avraham by agreeing to 50, and then Avraham wondered maybe he could reduce the number to be sure that Sedom would not be destroyed. He stopped at ten, as Wenham (1994) notes that, "the tone of G-d's replies conveys the feeling that He cannot be pushed much further." Thus, Avraham was uncomfortable to keep reducing the number, but as he thought that for sure there were fifty innocent people in Sedom, then he was extremely confident that there were at least ten innocent people in Sedom.

The point of the discussion is not the numbers themselves, but to show the abyss between G-d's knowledge and man's knowledge. G-d knew how many righteous people there were in Sedom while Avraham had no idea. Avraham thought he knew the people of Sedom, but 19:4 records that all were evil since they all attacked the malakhim who came to visit Lot. Avraham's challenge to G-d was based on the idea that man can judge G-d, but through this discussion G-d showed that man is unable to judge G-d since man's knowledge cannot compare to G-d. Once this fact is established, the theodicy question is effectively answered; man cannot judge G-d.

The episodes after the destruction of Sedom also continue with the theodicy question. The next episode is the encounter between Avraham and Avimelekh, and this has two parts, 20:1-18 and 21:22-34. This episode explains that some of the people who suffer only appear to be innocent. 20:2 records that Avimelekh had his servants take Sara because he had been told that she was Avraham's sister. Yet, even if Sara was Avraham's sister, he still abducted her, and there is no mention that Sara agreed to be taken.

G-d appeared to Avimelekh in a dream to warn him that he was going to die for kidnapping Sara. Avimelekh responded by claiming that he was innocent, tam levavi ve-nekayon kapay, since neither Sara nor Avraham had stated that she was a married woman, 20:3-5. G-d responded that Avimelekh had acted with tam levavecha, but as pointed out by Rashi (on 20:6), G-d did not say that Avimelekh acted with nekayon kapay (clean hands). Many translators (see for example JPS) explain that tam levavecha means blameless and then Avimelekh is understood as being innocent. However, tam here means whole (see Fox) that Avimelekh's heart was whole as he had no doubts in his heart (see Hirsch) that he was innocent. Avimelekh's logic was that as long as a woman is not married, then the ruler of the area has a right to have sexual relations with her. Thus, he believed that he was acting in an appropriate manner, and hence he was whole with his heart. However, just because he thought rape with an unmarried woman is permitted, this does not make it morally right. Thus, when G-d responded to Avimelekh's claim of innocence, G-d did not state that Avimelekh acted with nekayon kapay, clean hands, since Avimelekh's hands were not clean, as he had wanted to rape Sara. We see that human knowledge (Avimelekh's) cannot equal the knowledge of G-d.

Avraham understood that Avimelekh was a fraud, and this can be seen on two occasions. When Avimelekh questioned Avraham, Avraham responded by accusing Avimelekh of being a potential murderer and of being a leader of a lawless place, 20:11. Avraham was arguing that while Avimelekh claimed to be innocent really he was guilty since an upright person would not be the leader of an evil population. Second, in 21:22, Avimelekh came to make a treaty with Avraham, and yet at the same time his servants were stealing the wells of Avraham, 21:25. Avraham reproached Avimelekh about the theft, but Avimelekh denied all knowledge of his servants' actions since as usual he claimed he was innocent, 21:25,26.

Meir Sternberg (1985) points out that the impression that Avimelekh is innocent is enhanced by the fact that the Torah waits until the end of the incident, 20:18, to relate that immediately after Avimelekh took Sara he was punished by becoming impotent. 20:4 records that Avimelekh did not approach Sara as part of his claim of innocence. The fact that he did not force himself upon Sara might lead one to think that he was acting honorably, but in reality he did not approach Sara since he was unable physically to have sexual relations with her. As Sternberg notes "His spirit was willing enough, only the flesh turned weak," and in 20:6 we learn that it was only G-d's intervention which stopped him from raping Sara. Thus, again the story of Avimelekh is where a person appears and claims to be innocent, but in reality is guilty.

The ensuing episode is the banishment of Hagar and Yishmael in order that Yishmael would not challenge Yitzhak's inheritance, 21:1-21. The banishment caused both Yishmael and Hagar to suffer, but it is difficult to argue that they deserved this punishment since the threat to Yitzhak was Yishmael's existence in the house and not something he had done. This impression is strengthened by the fact that Torah refers to him as a child, 21:14-16, even though he was at least fourteen years old. Avraham was worried about Yishmael, 21:11, but G-d told Avraham not to worry since Yishmael would found a nation. In the end the banishment was good for Yishmael because had he stayed in Avraham's house he still would have lost out to Yitzhak and he would not have founded a nation. This is a third answer to the presence of evil in the world. It is true that people sometimes suffer, but sometimes in the end the person is led to a better situation then previously, gam zu le-tovah. Furthermore, this episode again shows the abyss between human knowledge and G-d's knowledge. Avraham was worried about Yishmael, but G-d who knows the future knew that everything would be good with Yishmael.

The final episode is the akedah, 22:1-19. In this case, while Yitzhak was not killed he must have suffered when he realized that Avraham intended to kill him, and it is a possible that his passive behavior was an outcome of the akedah. Yitzhak clearly did not deserve to be punished since G-d was testing Avraham (22:1), and we never read that Yitzhak received any rewards for the akedah, only that Avraham was rewarded, 22:17-18. In this case, the Torah gives no explanation for Yitzhak's suffering, but we know that the entire incident was orchestrated by G-d as G-d decided to test Avraham and G-d stopped Avraham from killing Yitzhak, 22:1,11. This is the final response to the question of evil that sometimes there is no explanation but still this is not grounds to question G-d's existence. Again, we see that human knowledge is not comparable to G-d's knowledge as Avraham really believed that G-d wanted him to kill Yitzhak when really it was all a test. In addition, Avraham did not protest G-d's command to sacrifice Yitzhak as he did when G-d punished Sedom since he learned that his knowledge was not comparable to G-d's knowledge. Therefore, Avraham could no longer judge or question G-d.

All four episodes discussed above answer the question that Avraham asked of G-d in 18:25, "Shall then the judge of the whole earth not do justice?" Three episodes showed that in some cases, the existence of evil with a good G-d can be understood, but the fourth episode shows that at times the existence of evil is inexplicable as R. Yannai states "It is not in our hands (to understand) the security of the wicked or the suffering of the righteous," (Pirkei Avot 4:19). However, man cannot judge G-d since human knowledge is not comparable to divine knowledge.

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.