Heshy Berenholz created the topic: Musings on Parshat Vayeira
Following are some of the ideas, insights and interpretations that emerge from our weekly Chumash learning group at the Young Israel of Oceanside, Long Island. We cite sources when possible. Some of our interpretations derive from ideas we may have seen elsewhere, possibly without attribution. Or we may simply have forgotten the source. For this we apologize. We invite your comments, observations and participation.
Avraham: A Man of Faith, Compassion and Moral Outrage
Lessons in Good Manners (bikur cholim and hacnosas orchim)
Lot in Sodom
The Lonely Shalshelet
On Human Sacrifice
Innovative ways of understanding the Akeida (binding/tying)
Analyzing the Text of the Akeida
Avraham performs true chesed (kindness): having empathy for others and avoiding judgmental and extreme positions
Avraham’s hospitality to the three unexpected visitors
Avraham, the courageous man of justice, pleads with God to find a way to save the community of Sodom. “As long as a requisite number of people reside in a place there is hope that they can influence and transform the evil ones” (Rabbi J. Telushkin)
God punishes Sodom and Gomorrah by raining down fire and brimstone
Lot and family escape from Sodom
Incestuous origin of the nations of Ammon and Moav: Lot has relations with each of his two daughters
Avraham prays for King Avimelech of Gerar, the first mention of prayer in the Torah
Birth and circumcision of Yitzchak
Avraham’s ninth test: expulsion of Hagar and Yishmael from his home
Avraham’s alliance with Avimelech
Avraham’s tenth test: the Akeida (Binding) of Yitzchak
Brief genealogy of Avraham’s brother Nachor, including birth of Rivkah
Avraham: A Man of Faith, Compassion and Moral Outrage
Following are excerpts from Passion for Compassion by Rabbi Marc D. Angel:
“The opening paragraph of the Amidah, recited as the central prayer of our daily liturgy, refers to the “God of Abraham, God of Isaac and God of Jacob.” And yet, when the blessing is actually recited at the end of this passage, it praises God as “the Shield of Abraham.” Only Abraham’s name is mentioned. Why?
One explanation is that Abraham is identified in rabbinic tradition with the quality of Hesed, compassion. While both Isaac and Jacob had other important qualities associated with them, Abraham is the special exemplar of kindness. By singling out Abraham in the first blessing of the Amidah, our sages were thereby underscoring the unique importance of Hesed.
This week’s Parasha begins with the story of Abraham’s remarkable hospitality to three strangers (who later turned out to be angels!). Abraham not only instructs the members of his household to prepare a meal for the guests, but he himself rushes around to see that things are done properly. Abraham demonstrated that Hesed is manifested in good intentions and more especially in actual deeds of kindness.
Rabbi Hayyim Yosef David Azulai (1724-1806) referred to the quality of Hesed as a vital principle of halakhic decision-making. Proper halakhic rulings take into consideration the human predicament, how halakhic rulings will impact on people’s lives. Halakha is not a cold, hard system of inflexible laws, but is a meaningful framework for happy and constructive living.
Hesed entails empathy for others. It eschews judgmental and extreme positions.
What is severely missing in much of modern-day Orthodox Judaism is Abraham’s example of Hesed. A prevailing view seems to equate strictness and exclusionary attitudes with true religiosity. If people dress the dress and shuckle the shuckle, they are deemed to be “frum;” otherwise, they are thought to be somehow deficient in their religiosity.
Rabbi Rafael Aharon ben Shimon, a great rabbinic figure of the early 20th century, wrote: “Our fathers and rabbis have taught us a great principle: to hide one’s deeds if they are in the category of excessive piety. One may act as he pleases in the privacy of his own home, and may take on stringencies and pious niceties. But when he is among friends, he should blend in with them….”
External shows of excessive piety may often be the result of egotism, or abject conformity to the “frum” crowd. A truly pious person serves the Lord as humbly and inconspicuously as possible. The quality of Hesed motivates a pious person to want to associate lovingly with others, not to stand out and separate himself/herself from the community.
When we recite the Amidah, we need to focus a bit more on the first blessing that singles out Abraham as a religious exemplar. The quality of Hesed is at the core of piety and righteousness.”
Lessons in Good Manners (bikur cholim and hacnosas orchim)
God comes to “visit” Avraham when he is recuperating from his painful circumcision. This is the first instance of Bikkur Cholim (visiting the ill)
• Avraham interrupts this Divine visit to invite in and attend to the needs of the three travelers who pass by his tent (home) in the hot desert
• Avraham himself rushes to the cattle and chooses a tender choice calf (which he gives to a male attendant to prepare). He then serves cottage cheese (or yogurt) and the prepared calf to his guests who sit in the shade of a tree
• When his guests are leaving he “sees them out” as they resume their journey
• When informed by God that He is planning to destroy Sodom, Avraham pleads with Him to find a way to save the community
• Lot insists that the two strangers visiting him in Sodom spend the night in his home, town laws notwithstanding
Lot in Sodom
When Lot and Avraham parted ways, Lot elected to settle in the city of Sodom because it was a lush, well-watered area. But the residents of the city, located near the southern end of today’s Dead Sea, appeared to have adopted the type of behavior and attitude characteristic of society in the pre-flood days:
• Lawlessness prevailed
• Visitors were suspect and mistreated
• Anyone who offered food to a stranger was punished
• Sexual deviances were rampant
• The residents were unwilling to share with others. The Midrash describes how the streets were paved with gold, but the inhabitants flooded the approaches to their city thereby effectively keeping strangers away and restricting immigration.
• The people were haughty
• No one raised his voice in protest. “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” (Edmund Burke)
Before making His decision regarding the future of Sodom, God “descends” to examine up close the very low level of morality to which that society had sunk. He needs to “see” for Himself and to collect all the facts by investigating firsthand the deterioration in society and evaluating the long-term implications of this behavior. [Note: Rashi points out the lesson to be learned is that judges deciding a capital case must scrupulously examine the facts before rendering a decision. The Midrash adds that one must not judge his fellow man until he first sees things from the other’s viewpoint.] God dispatches two angel/people to save Lot and his family from the imminent destruction of Sodom. Avraham, the courageous man of justice, pleads with God to find a way to save the community (but not the wicked people) of Sodom. But because there are not even ten like-minded concerned, decent, righteous men (the necessary minimum to effect change), there can be no avoidance of Sodom’s impending destruction.
Lot keeps his sense of hospitality and his decency toward visitors; he insists that the two visiting strangers stay with him. Even when mobs gather round his home and demand that these two male visitors be turned over to them so that they may “know them” (a euphemism for sexual relations) Lot refuses. His two visitors acknowledge that they are God’s emissaries to save him and his family from the destruction of Sodom. Lot hesitates momentarily. His two son-in-laws don’t take the threat seriously. Only Lot, his wife and two daughters flee the city to higher ground. God rains down sulfurous fire (or fire and brimstone) on Sodom. Lot’s wife, who disobeys the instructions to not look back, is covered in this sulfurous material and becomes a pillar of salt.
The Lonely Shalshelet
In his exhaustive summary of the art of cantillation, Chanting the Hebrew Bible, author Joshua R. Jacobson explains that the Yiddish word trop is derived from the Greek tropos or the Latin tropus, referring to a mode of extended melody in church music of the Middle Ages. How this Christian term became associated with synagogue ritual is unknown, but Rashi does use the Hebrew word trop to describe a sweetened chant which some speculate was referring to the practice of chanting the Priestly Blessing.
Cantillation is derived from the Latin cantare meaning to sing, according to the author.
The Talmud refers to the need to read Scripture with a melody. The notes/accents that guided the singing are ancient. The Talmud cites an opinion that the vowels and melodies were transmitted from Moshe. During the ninth century the Ben Asher School in Tiberias developed a system for notating vowels and punctuation like kamatz, segol, dagesh. They also introduced thirty symbols (Ta’ame ha-mikra/trup) that are used in the text to indicate melody; to indicate which syllable is to be accented; and to serve as a system of punctuation. Their text became known as the Masoretic Bible.
A scribe named Solomon b. Buya wrote the consonantal text of the entire Bible on a codex. (A codex consists of separate leaves that are gathered and bound together on the same side in multiple pages; a scroll consists of sheets sewn together to create a long horizontal roll.) Aharon Ben-Asher added the notations (nekudot and te’amim) to be a prototype text from which all subsequent texts would be derived. This book was kept in Jerusalem until 1009 when it was seized by the Crusaders. Several decades later it was brought to Cairo where Rambam studied it and urged that it be accepted as the most authoritative Masoretic text (at least about paragraph endings). The codex was transported to Aleppo, Syria some hundreds of years later where it was carefully guarded for centuries by the Jewish community there, and came to be known as the “Aleppo Codex”. In 1947, rioters burned down the synagogue where it was kept. The Codex disappeared, and then re-emerged in 1958, when it was smuggled into Israel. On arrival, it was found that parts of the codex had been lost. The Aleppo Codex was entrusted to the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.
One of the rarest of the trup is the shalshelet (“chain”), which appears only four times in the Torah: First in this week’s parsha; twice more in Sefer Bereshis and once in parshas Tzav. This cantillation calls our attention to an internal struggle or crisis in progress. After the angels urged Lot to flee from Sodom, “lest you be swept away in the iniquity of the city” the Torah tells us “but he [Lot] lingered”. The shalshelet (“chain”), which appears over the Hebrew word, underscores the age-old internal conflict he must have experienced— “your money or your life”. Or perhaps he worried about the safety of the two married daughters who remained in Sodom.
On Human Sacrifice
Human sacrifice is the ancient act of killing one or more human beings as part of a religious ritual is an attempt to …
Commune with a deity
Appease the gods
Predict the future
Bring luck and prosperity
Bring success in warfare
Enable the King’s servants to continue to serve him in the next life by killing them now
Human sacrifice had been practiced in various cultures throughout history. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, the burning of children seems to have occurred in Assyrian and Canaanite religions. Archaeological discoveries and ancient texts support the historical authenticity of the burnt offering of children in Canaan and Israel. Charred skeletons of children discovered at Gezer, Ta’anach, and Megiddo are like hundreds of urns containing the charred remains of children found at Carthage sites. In Mesopotamia and Jerusalem, scholars have found sources that record the practice. North Mesopotamian texts of the tenth-seventh centuries B.C.E. document the burnt offering of male children in honor of the god Hadad. A Syrian inscription indicates that people burnt their children for the gods Adrammelech and Anammelech.
In ritualistic Baal worship, adults would gather around the altar of Baal. Infants would then be burned alive as a sacrificial offering to the deity. Amid horrific screams and the stench of charred human flesh, participants – men and women alike – would engage in sexual orgies. The ritual was intended to produce economic prosperity by prompting Baal to bring rain for the fertility of “mother earth.”
Molech, the national deity of the country of Ammon, was an ancient fire deity that was worshiped throughout Canaan. It was a huge bronze statue with the head of a bull in which a fire burned in its hollow inside. Children were placed on the hands of the statue and, through an ingenious mechanical system, the hands were raised to the mouth (as if Molech were eating) and the children fell into the fire where they were consumed by the flames. The people gathered before Molech danced to the sounds of flutes and tambourines whose purpose was to drown out the screams of the innocent victims.
Some recent studies have concluded that human sacrifice was more about maintaining power than about religious belief. In societies where social hierarchies were taking shape, ritual human sacrifices targeted poor people in order to demoralize the underclass and instill fear. The powerful elites’ aim was to maintain and build control of the lower classes and keep them in their place—all in the name of religion.
The Akeida (binding/tying) of Yitzchak
Rabbi Dr. J. H. Hertz views the Akeida story as “the opening of the age-long warfare of Israel against the abominations of child sacrifice which was rife among the Semitic peoples as well as their Egyptian and Aryan neighbors … God abhorred human sacrifice.” In that age, he continues, “it was astounding that Abraham’s God should have interposed to prevent the sacrifice not that He should have asked for it…The valley of Ge-Hinnom, where these abominable rituals were practiced became a synonym for Hell.”
Alternatively, the Akeida story may be a saga of the extraordinary man named Avraham whose God-given conscience ultimately prevails and stops him from slaughtering his own son. It is a story about Avraham’s internal struggle and its resolution. It is a tale that draws our attention to the very human and natural conflicts in life that get resolved without resorting to miraculous divine intervention. God exists in the world through the medium of Nature.
The “calling” to slay his son does not come from God Himself but from an entity named Ha’elokim, an unusual word which, according to Rav Sadya Gaon means “an angel of God” (as when it appears earlier in the story of Avimelech and Avraham). I understand the concept of “an angel of God” to mean a specific internal force or human emotion ultimately emanating from God (Yayetzer Harah, Satan). Elokim is the Divine name used to refer to Midas HaDin, strict and harsh judgment aspect of God that also exists in all of us. On his own, Avraham concluded that Monotheism exists, but Polytheism does not. But he might have had the idea that human sacrifice was an acceptable way of worshiping God based on what he saw around him. Thus, the “harsh calling” to offer up his son as a sacrifice. Or perhaps he was experiencing some psychotic, delusional episode in which he is being driven to perform the cruel act of killing his son.
God Himself never appears in the story, only His messengers, i.e., the emotional forces that drive our behavior. Benno Jacob notes that in the first nine verses the appellation used to describe God’s directives is elokim, the harsh Satanic force in the world, but from the time Avraham decides not to slaughter his son, not to engage in child sacrifice the text switches to describe the messenger as being of the Tetragrammaton name of God, the powerful positive force encapsulated in the four letters (yud, hay, …). It is an indication that universal goodness only exists when human sacrifice does not.
At the end of the story the angel blesses Avraham because he “did not ‘chasachtah’ your son, your only one.” The word chasachtah is traditionally translated as withhold. Avraham is being praised for not withholding Yitzchak when God directed him to offer up his son, as painful as it was.
But chasachtah has the same three letter root as the Hebrew root word for darkness (choshech) which can be used as a euphemism for death or dying. Understood this way, Avraham is being praised for his having resisted the original calling by deciding on his own to not take his son’s life (“Lo chasachtah”). For this he is blessed. [Or perhaps this praise is to be understood as a peek into Avraham’s psyche: his feeling good about having resisted the initial urge to slaughter his son.]
This interpretation, which focuses on the internal emotional dynamics of a person and not on a miraculous divine intervention, is predicated on…
An alternate translation of some of the words in the text, as indicated
The fact that it is only forces emanating from God (called malachim, angels/agents of God) that appear in the story, but never God Himself
Rambam’s observations that “the sages did not believe that God miraculously alters Nature on a regular basis”
The opinion of many scholars including the Netziv that the discovery of new phenomena in the natural world in every generation enhances the truth of the Torah and its Creator
Rav J.B. Soloveitchik’s conclusion that one may come to a recognition of God when realizing “the wondrous and miraculous quality of the very laws of Nature themselves”. The workings of natural law are no less miraculous than the negation of these laws that we call miracles.
A willingness to accept a non-literal interpretation of the Torah words, a point of view expressed by many traditional great Torah scholars including the Rashba, Ralbag, and Rabbi Isaac HaLevi Hertzog
When Avraham receives this calling from Ha’elokim (force/agent of God) to immediately take his son, the one he loves, Yitzchak, and to go away to Moriah (Jerusalem) area where his son will be brought as an offering, he does not seem surprised and voices no objection. This behavior demonstrates either …
His ultimate trust in, belief in and obedience to God. He is the father of believers, the “knight of faith” (a term coined by the Danish philosopher Soren A. Kierkegaard) or
His shock to a point of speechlessness both because this was a complete reversal of God’s promise of offspring and nation and because Avraham had already come to the realization of the evil of child sacrifice or
His mental turmoil, disappointment and possibly depression
The next morning, he wakes up early and keeps busy (nervous energy?) by saddling his donkey by himself and by chopping wood by himself for the offering. With two young men to accompany him, he sets out on his journey.
Father and son travel together silently for three days during which only one brief conversation takes place, when Yitzchak inquires about a lamb for the offering and his father assures him that “God will provide”.
Upon arriving at their destination, Avraham behaves in a robotic-like state. In quick order he…
Builds an altar
Arranges the wood on it
Binds his son
Places him on top of the wood
Reaches for a cleaver [more frightening and deadlier than a mere knife because it “eats through”] to slit his son’s throat
At the last moment a malach Hashem tells him not to harm the boy because God knew all along that Avraham would never take his own son’s life (my translation). This victory of conscience is one of Avraham’s greatest moments. It is meant to be a lesson and message for all Mankind.
Avraham sees a ram behind him, offers it up on the altar and then is blessed again by a Heavenly messenger/force, malach Hashem.
The Akeida is referred to as Yitzchak’s experience (and not Avraham’s test) because his was the more frightening, traumatic near-death experience. On the High Holy Days, we plead for God to recall the Akeidas Yitzchak with compassion. We are reminding God that just as Avraham reversed his initial behavior we, too, have the ability and the desire to change for the better.
Each of us should be inspired by Avraham who had the strength of character to withstand the pressures of the surrounding pagan world. Child sacrifice is a powerful, insidious Evil in the world that must be eradicated if nations and families are to flourish. Sandra Gottesman notes that child-sacrifice is rampant even today in the Arab world where mothers sacrifice their sons in the name of religion (Allah). Members of these poverty-stricken societies misdirect their energy and talent away from productive endeavors by embracing a religion that encourages fanatical, violent and counter-productive behavior.
Yehuda Valladares thinks that, in psychological terms, Avraham may be experiencing an unconscious desire to dominate and/or eliminate his emotional competitor, his son Yitzchak. He is the dominant father of a submissive son whom he needs to “sacrifice” to his own parental plans and hopes. But God is there to rein in this urge. Yitzchak, 37 years old at the time of the Akeida, and in awe of his well-known and respected father, may never have been given the chance to act independently by what most likely were doting and protective parents. The Akeida, the first time we hear Yitzchak speak, may have been a painful but necessary first step in his path to maturity as he experienced parental separation. On the negative side, the trauma (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) of his near-death experience affected his behavior and hurt his inter-personal relationships later in life. A related psychological approach sees the Akeida incident as an assertion of the need for God/religion to reign in our deep-rooted murderous, unconscious drives
Jonathan Elkoubi offers a completely different approach. Beneath Avraham’s seemingly calm appearance, he is angry and just wants to be done with the trials, tests and psychological challenges he has experienced throughout his life. Maybe binding Yitzchak on the altar was his way of showing that he would go so far as doing the unthinkable rather than experience more challenges because the nine previous tests had drained him physically, mentally, financially and mostly psychologically. Perhaps the reason it is angels that communicate with him and not God Himself is because they are closer to Man and understand Avraham’s pain and frustration. In fact, the Akeida turns out to be the final "challenge" of faith that Avraham undergoes.
Rabbi Jonathan Sacks notes that ancient civilizations considered the family to be the fundamental social and religious unit. The head of the family had absolute authority. Children were considered property rather than human beings. In Rabbi Sacks’ view, God’s commanding Avraham to give up his son was an expression of His desire that Avraham renounce ownership of his son, establishing the non-negotiable principle of Judaism that children are not the property of their parents. “The test was not whether Abraham would sacrifice his son but whether he would give him over to God”, concludes Rabbi Sacks. If the parents believed they owned their children, concept of the individual could not be born.” Parenthood is guardianship, not ownership. As soon as children reach the age of maturity they “become independent moral agents with their own dignity and freedom”. Kayin’s name is based on Eve’s statement “with the help of God I have acquired [kaneti] a man”. If one seeks to own one’s children, they may may rebel and turn violent. Moreover, elaborates Rabbi Sacks, the Akedah story makes clear that the reason that Jews condemn child sacrifice is not based on lack of courage because Avraham demonstrated they he had courage. “The reason that they do not do so is because God is the God of life, not death”. Death is not sacred. Death defiles.The Torah wants us to know that having children is an act of Divine Will beyond a natural outcome of a biological process. [Three of the four matriarchs required a miracle to conceive.]
Rabbi David Friedman thinks the most important take away from the Akeida story is that sacrifice will always be part of the Jewish nation’s historic experience much as it was for Avraham. “Maasey Avos Siman Lebanim”— “the experiences of the Patriarchs are a preview of what their offspring can expect”.
1 And it happened after these things that God “Nisa” Abraham and said to him, "Abraham," and he replied, "Here I am."
2 And He said, "Please take your son, your only one, whom you love — Isaac—and go to the land of Moriah; bring him up there as an offering upon one of the mountains which I shall tell you."
3 So Abraham woke up early in the morning and he saddled his donkey; he took his two young men with him and Isaac, his son; he split the wood for the offering, and stood up and went to the place of which God had spoken to him.
4 On the third day, Abraham raised his eyes and perceived the place from afar.
5 And Abraham said to his young men, "Stay here by yourselves with the donkey, while I and the lad will go yonder; we will worship, and we will return to you."
6 And Abraham took the wood for the offering, and placed it on Isaac, his son. He took in his hand the fire and the cleaver, and the two of them went together.
7 Then Isaac spoke to Abraham his father and said, "Father —” And he said, "Here I am, my son. “And he said, "Here is the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for the offering?"
8 And Abraham said, "God will seek out for Himself the lamb for the offering, my son." And the two of them went together.
9 They arrived at the place of which God had spoken to him; Abraham built the altar there, and arranged the wood; he bound Isaac, his son, and he placed him on the altar atop the wood.
10 Abraham stretched out his hand, and took the cleaver to slaughter his son.
11 And an angel of HASHEM called to him from heaven, and said, "Abraham! Abraham!"
And he said, "Here I am."
12 And he said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad nor do anything to him for now I know that you are a God-fearing man, since you have not withheld your son, your only one, from Me."
13 And Abraham raised his eyes and saw — behold a ram! — afterwards, caught in the thicket by its horns; so, Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up as an offering instead of his son.
14 And Abraham called the name of that site "HASHEM Yireh,"as it is said this day, on the mountain HASHEM will be seen.
15 The angel of HASHEM called to Abraham a second time from heaven.
16 And he said, "By Myself I swear — the word of HASHEM — that because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only one,
17 that / shall surely bless you and greatly increase your offspring like the stars of the heavens and like the sand on the seashore; and your offspring shall inherit the gate of its enemy.
18 And all the nations of the earth shall bless themselves by your offspring, because you have listened to My voice."
19 Abraham returned to his young men, and they stood up and went together to Beer-sheba, and Abraham stayed at Beer-sheba.
Translating the word nisa is critical in understanding the unfolding drama. There exists a wide range of possible definitions for what God did to or for Avraham including some of the following cited by Rabbi B.J. Jacobson in his Meditations on the Torah:
• God wanted him to experience. Sforno sees this as experiential, a Divine desire to permit the actualization of Avraham’s ability to imitate God’s Goodness
• God tested. Ramban observes that the test is for the benefit of the one tested and not the tester. Avraham would accrue additional merits by his good and righteous behavior.
• God made him witness to an idea. Rambam thinks the word means “sign”. Avraham would become an attestation to the entire world of “the indubitable validity of prophetic truth”.
• God attested. Abravanel, too, maintains that the word nasa is related to the root NS—lifting, raising—and is a testimonial for the nations of the world to see.
• God reproved. Rashbam, who had an ardent love for Eretz Yisroel, thinks Avraham is being punished for yielding a part of the Promised Land to Avimelech as part of a mutual non-aggression pact, as described in a preceding story.
• God tested his reaction. Benno Jacob notes that the expression “And it happened after these things” always indicates a surprising turn of events. Like Job whose domestic bliss was suddenly and unexpectedly interrupted, Avraham is learning by experience that there is no permanence in worldly matters. God wanted to show the world what Avraham’s reaction would be.
• God performed a miracle in creating all Mankind with an enormous reservoir of strength of character when confronting moral and ethical issues.
• God tempted. Mendy Saidlower reasons that although God's order to Avraham seems to us to be cruel and bizarre, we can never know what God’s thinking is. Perhaps He is interested in evoking Avraham’s uncomprehending but blind faith and total obedience. Franz Rosenzweig, cited by Rabbi Günter Plaut, proposes a similar approach. In his view, the only way one can truly believe, is if one has no clue or understanding of God’s actions. Only then can one experience sincere and true faith and trust. Some have speculated that God wanted Avraham to challenge Him about child sacrifice just as he wanted him to change His mind about destroying the community of Sodom. Rabbi Plaut concludes that what is being “tested” is Avraham’s faith in God’s not going back on his word (for Avraham to have offspring) and Avraham’s total submission to Divine will.
The Daas Mikrah commentary notes that Avraham is the first person to be summoned by name to fulfill a Divine command.
Professor Uriel Simon reasons that by letting us the readers (but not Avraham) know that what is about to happen is only a test, “we intuit that all will end happily”.
"Please take your son, your only one, whom you love — Isaac—and go to the land of Moriah”. The Hebrew for “go to” is Lech Lecha, the same phrase appearing in (and naming) the previous Parsha. Then Avraham was asked to abandon family, geography and familiar environment. Now he is being directed to “go outside of himself”, to separate himself from his fatherly love, and sacrifice his child. Both are bitter separations, first from familiar surroundings and now from his son.
Some translate the phrase “bring him up there as an offering” to mean “along with an offering”, or “in lieu of an offering” meaning that Yitzchak was never meant to be offered up, only to be there with his father. God did not command that Yitzchak be slaughtered, only that he be brought up the mountain. Had the intention been for Yitzchak to be sacrificed, God would have said something like “bring him up there as an offering for Me”. Furthermore, the Hebrew word employed is L’olah,” for an offering”. But in a section when the Torah discusses donation of animals to the Temple, the “L” prefix means that one need not bring the specific animal pointed to, but can bring another in its place. The ambiguity here may mean that by bringing Yitzchak to Mt. Moriah it would be as if a burnt offering was presented. “Bring him up” means that Yitzchak should physically go up on the mountain and to be “elevated” spiritually by a willingness to surrender himself to God. A Midrash cites one view that Avraham misunderstood what was being asked of him.
The destination Moriah sounds like the Hebrew word r’ay to see, and to perceive. This Hebrew root recurs often pointing to insight, enlightenment and understanding about the evil of human sacrifice as the key theme permeating this Parsha.
Unlike in the previous story of Sodom, when he argued with God about the unfairness of what He was about to do, here where his beloved son’s life is imperiled Avraham remains silent. In the earlier incident, when God had explained His rationale for destroying Sodom, Avraham found an opening to argue with His decision. But here, theorizes Rabbi Telushkin, because He offered no rationale for the command Avraham must have felt that there was nothing he could say to change God’s decision… Or perhaps Avraham saw nothing unusual in God’s request since the surrounding nations exhibited their religious belief by sacrificing their children…Or perhaps he was unable to think clearly because of his emotional involvement…Or perhaps the text is giving us a peak into Avraham’s psyche. He assumed and/or imagined that God was asking him if he was as devoted to his God as were his neighbors.
Avraham gets up early (to avoid waking and telling his wife Sarah about what he was about to do?) and rather than leaving it to his servants, he himself cuts the wood and saddles the donkey. “AHHava mekalkeles es hashura”— intense love (like hate) disregards dignity and alters behavior.
There must be no rash action. A three-day period for meditation and deliberation often precedes important decisions.
“And Abraham said to his young men… we will worship, and we will return to you” suggests that Avraham’s plan (or wish) was that his son would not die.
Yitzchak carrying the wood conjures up the image of a convicted prisoner having to “bear his own cross”—carry the wood that was be used in his hanging. Suspense builds as father and son journey together physically yet appear to be worlds apart emotionally, each wrapped up in his own thoughts and not saying a word to one another. Anxiety and dread fill the air. Father and son walk together without speaking.
Verses 7 & 8
The silence is broken when Yitzchak has a question to ask his father, to which Avraham answers “here I am” ready to respond. Yitzchak asks where the lamb to be slaughtered is, to which Avraham replies “God will see to a lamb for an offering, my son”. This is a poignant scene in which they are referred to one another as father and son. Earlier, Avraham had referred to his son as “the lad”, perhaps to distance himself from the agony he felt by denying that it was his son that he was commanded to slaughter.
The staccato description of his behavior suggests that when Avraham arrived at the mountain he robot-like rapidly and anxiously attacked the tasks of building the altar, of laying out the wood, of binding his son, of laying out his son, and of picking up the cleaver to slaughter. Others interpret this to mean that he calmly went about his tasks. The speed reflected his desire to fulfill his mission as expeditiously as possible.
Every word breathes terror: Slaughter…Cleaver. The Hebrew word used here for a knife is maacheles, not the more familiar sakin. Maacheles contains the root word “eat”. Slaughter with a maacheles involves a powerful thrust that “eats through” anything in its way-- layers of skin, muscle and bones. Despite the terror he must have felt, Yitzchak offers no resistance to his aging farther.
The voice heard comes from an entity, or force or Avraham’s conscience, deriving from God and His four-letter name of Mercy. David Gleitman thinks that it was necessary to call Avraham’s name twice to snap him out of what seemed to be a hypnotic state and to “bring him back down to earth”.
“Atah yadati”, says Rav Sadya Gaon, means God always knew Avraham was faithful and moral but now, He is asserting that it also will be obvious to all.
As pointed out earlier, the word chasachtah has the same three letter root as the Hebrew root word for darkness (choshech) which can be used as a euphemism for death or dying. Understood this way, Avraham is being praised for resisting the original calling by deciding on his own to not take his son’s life (“Lo chasachtah”) from before God.
Some maintain that Avraham did, in fact, slaughter his son who then was immediately and miraculously revived.
An altar should not be built in vain. A ram is offered in place of Yitzchak; every animal offering is a substitute for a human. The message is repeated that only animals-- and not humans--are suitable for offerings to God. Replacing the raysh in Hebrew achar (behind) with the similar-looking daled changes the word’s pronunciation to echad (one); i.e., Avraham saw one ram. The entangled ram’s horns links to the reading of the Akedah story on Rosh Hashana —the Holy Day when we blow the shofar (ram’s horn) and pray to God to remember us for good, just as Yitzchak was saved from death. [Note: It is possible that Avraham saw the ram roaming around, but did not take it immediately, out of concern that it belonged to somebody. It was only afterwards, when he saw the ram become trapped by its horns, that he understood this odd occurrence as a sign that he should bring it as an offering.]
Hashem yireh—God, who will select this place to “live” (temple Mount in Jerusalem) and to rule His universe, always will be omniscient. The Vilna Gaon thinks that because of his actions, Avraham could begin the process of God’s Presence “descending” to the universe, for us to interact with and to form a relationship with Him.
B’har hashem yaraeh—on this mountain a major religious epiphany took place: permanent elimination of child sacrifice in Judaism. On this mountain, where the Holy Temple will be located, future generations will be seen by God (i.e., appear before Him) during the Three Festivals of Pilgrimage. My friend Rabbi Aaron Fruchter A”H pointed out that the additional separation between the pagan world and the deepening faith of Avraham and his followers now will be elevated for all to see.
“/ shall surely bless you and greatly increase your offspring like the stars of the heavens and like the sand on the seashore…” This repetition of blessings God already gave to Avraham earlier is re-enforced now that Yitzchak’s life has been saved. [If this represents a peek into Avraham’s mind, it means that he is reminding himself that his decision to not slaughter his son was the correct one, given the fact that he had been promised an “increase in your offspring”.]
Sand presents a completely different imagery than stars. Each grain of sand is surrounded by and in contact with enormous number of other grains of sand which creates tremendous closeness. Stars stand alone and separate from one another. Rabbi Angel sees in this double imagery the tension that exists between one’s yearning to be part of a crowd (like the sand) and the desire to retain one’s own unique and personal ideas, ideals, values and ethics (stars). When God promises that Avraham would father a new, large nation He also assures him that his offspring will include individuals who will have the wisdom and courage to not succumb to the power of the crowd. They will have the ability to resist when the mob starts committing atrocities, murdering innocents and spewing hatred. They will have the power to heal and to bring harmony and mutual respect to a nation being torn apart. They will be the ones to create consensus and unity.
The verse makes no mention of Yitzchak returning with his father Avraham possibly because…
o The focus is entirely on Avraham
o After this traumatic experience Yitzchak avoided his father and chose an alternate route home
o The Torah is underscoring that Yitzchak had finally “cut the apron strings” and became his own independent man, no longer dominated by his father