Biblical Parallels Index – Bereshit 22

• Tanakh Lab – When comparing the story of Gan Eden with that of the Akeidah in the Tanakh Lab, it becomes evident that there are not many linguistic parallels between the two. Nonetheless, an interesting contrast can be found between Bereshit 22:17-18 and Bereshit 3:16-17.  While Avraham is told that his progeny will multiply, Chavvah is told that pain in childbirth will increase. Avraham is promised that his descendants will inherit their enemies' land since he heeded God's word, while Adam is told the land will not produce since he heeded Chavvah's (not God's) voice.

• See פרשת העקידה בהשוואה לפרשת אדם הראשון בגן עדן by Nava Gutman for comparison of the story of Adam in Gan Eden to the story of Avraham at Akeidat Yitzchak. A number of parallels between the two stories are noted, including an emphasis on the sense of sight, the above-noted parallels between the curses of Adam and the blessings of Avraham, and the image of fire and sword. Perhaps these parallels serve to indicate that Adam and Avraham are both tested as to whether they will make their choices in line with Hashem’s sight or their own; Adam fails whereas Avraham succeeds.

• Concordance – If one highlights the words "יְרֵא אֱלֹהִים" in Bereshit 22:12 and chooses the concordance from the drop-down menu, all appearances of the phrase in Tanakh will display. At a glance, it becomes evident that the only two named individuals who are so-called are Avraham and Iyyov.¹ The shared description invites a comparison between the two figures.
• Similarly, the concordance highlights that the key phrase "אַל תִּשְׁלַח יָדְךָ" (see Bereshit 22:12, is unique to these two stories.
• Tanakh Lab – Compare Bereshit 22 and Iyyov 1 in the Tanakh Lab to see a few other more minor linguistic parallels.

Several Rabbinic sources compare Avraham and Iyyov:

• R. Yehuda HaNasi in Tosefta Sotah 6:1Sotah 6:1About the Tosefta compares Avraham and Iyyov, noting that both characters are described as "יְרֵא אֱ-לֹהִים", but that just as Avraham acted out of a love of God (and not merely fear), so too did Iyyov.
• See Tosefta Bava Kamma 9:11Bava Kamma 9:11About the Tosefta, and Bereshit Rabbah 49:949:9About Bereshit Rabbah for other parallels, and Bavli Bava Batra 15bBava Batra 15bAbout the Bavli who notes that Tanakh's praise of Iyyov even surpasses that of Avraham.

• See Avraham and Iyyov for an exploration of the comparisons and contrasts between the two figures. Both Avraham and Iyyov are tested by Hashem in a way that involved mortal danger to their children and features an angelic figure, both are God-fearing, both pray for others, both have three associates, both are described as wealthy, and both are informed by a single escapee of disaster that has befallen their family members. There are also points of contrast. The divine instructions given to Avraham are more explicit, Avraham does not question God about his own test whereas Iyyov does, and Iyyov’s children actually die whereas Avraham’s does not.
• Rav Soloveitchik’s writing on Iyyov in Kol Dodi Dofek accentuates the aspects of Iyyov’s personality that are different from the legacy of Avraham. He suggests that while Iyyov was personally righteous at the beginning of his story, he lacked Avraham’s empathy for and investment in other individuals and the community as a whole.

• Use the Tanakh Lab to compare the two stories and find linguistic similarities here.

• See עקדת ישמעאל : חוויה מכוננת אחת, by Prof. Uriel Simon, for a discussion of how the banishment of Yishmael was in essence also an "Akeidah", with Avraham being asked to sacrifice both of his sons.2 Prof. Simon suggests that the fact that Yishmael and Yitzchak ultimately come together to bury Avraham indicates that they found peace in their relationship, perhaps through their shared experience of their own "Akeidot".
• For an exploration of the parallels and differences, see Vayera: Akedat Yishmael by R. Michael Hattin. The major differences between the narratives include Hagar’s apparently aimless wandering versus Avraham’s focused journey to the place Hashem commands, Hagar’s abandonment of Yishmael versus the text’s repeated statements of Avraham’s and Yitzchak’s unity, and Hagar’s ultimate inaction versus Avraham’s decisive action. These differences indicate the unique nobility of Avraham.  
• For analysis of how the two narratives reflect different approaches to challenge, see But My Covenant I will Establish with Yitzhak by R. Chanoch Waxman. This article points out that the differences between the behavior and attitudes of Avraham and Hagar also characterize Yitzchak and Yishmael. Thus, the differences between the two “Akeidah” narratives serve to explain why Yitzchak is chosen as the spiritual heir of Avraham over Yishmael.  

• Use the Tanakh Lab to find linguistic parallels between the stories.  Some notable ones are the repeated roots of "הלך", "עלה" and "ראה" in both stories, the mention of "two going together" (וַיֵּלְכוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם), and the father-son imagery.

• See (מה בין עליית יצחק (למזבח) לעליית אליהו (לשמים by Debra Spiro Applebaum, for analysis of the meaning of the many parallels between the stories of Yitzchak and Eliyahu both in the Biblical verses and in Jewish tradition.  One point of contact is the association of both personalities with the attribute of divine judgment, another is the blurring of lines between the Divine and human realms in each story.  According to some Midrashic sources, Yitzchak died and came back to life; similarly many exegetes suggest that Eliyahu ascended to the heavens, but never died.

• See Bereshit Rabbah 43:6 and Ibn Ezra and Ramban on Bereshit 14:18 who all identify Shalem with Jerusalem.

• In his lecture, Jerusalem’s Dual Election by Avraham and David,  Dr. Avraham Walfish explores the above two Avraham narratives along with two narratives from the life of David: David's request to build the Mikdash in Shemuel II 8 and the acquisition of Aravnah's threshing floor, later, the site of the Mikdash, and what these might all teach about the selection of Jerusalem. He notes two approaches to sacred space, those who maintain that certain spaces are inherently holy, chosen as such from the beginning of time, and those who suggest that historical events might impart sanctity to a place. He suggests that some of the above narratives focus on human choice and initiative, while other's focus on Hashem's determination. Jerusalem's choice exemplifies that despite the fact that humans must submit their will to that of the Divine, human autonomy and Divine authority can still coexist.⁴