Purpose of Akeidat Yitzchak/1/en

Purpose of Akeidat Yitzchak

Introduction

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

A Test for Whom?

Bereshit 22, the story of Akeidat Yitzchak, is one of the most well known narratives in Torah, but also one of the most troubling. The chapter tells of Hashem's command to sacrifice Yitzchak, Avraham's readiness to comply, and climaxes with the angel's prevention of the deed.  What, though, was the goal of the whole experience? 

The chapter defines the episode as a test (וְהָאֱלֹהִים נִסָּה אֶת אַבְרָהָם), and the declaration at the end of the trial, "Now I know that you are God-fearing" would seem to support such a reading.  Yet, given an omniscient God, is it really possible to say that Avraham needed to undergo the binding of Yitzchak in order for Hashem to recognize the extent of his awe? Moreover, had Avraham not already proven his dedication and loyalty, regardless of this new test?  What prompted the need for a further demonstration right now? If the test was not for Hashem, though, for whom was it meant?  What lessons were Avraham, Yitzchak, or any outsiders supposed to gain from it?

Can Hashem Go Back on His Word?

Many medieval commentators are troubled by a second theological question: How can Hashem command Avraham to do one thing, and a few days later, direct him to do the exact opposite?¹  Is it possible for Hashem to retract a command?  Does not doing so pave the way for people to dismiss all Divine directives as being fickle, or to suggest, as Moslems did, that the Torah is not eternally binding and that Hashem can replace it with a new one?

What about "לא תרצח"?

A final question relates to the morality of the command, an issue which is hinted to already in Midrashic literature,² ignored by many medieval exegetes, but takes center stage in most discussions of the story in the last couple of centuries.³  How can a just and ethical God, who later in the Torah Himself prohibits murder and child sacrifice, demand of someone that they kill their child? Furthermore, why did Avraham comply without questioning the directive, as he had done when troubled by Hashem's decision regarding Sedom?  In more general terms the story makes one ask: when human conceptions of morality and especially when the Torah's own ethical system conflict with a Divine command, what is one to do?

Additional Questions

•  וַיְהִי אַחַר הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה – This opening phrase appears redundant, as the logical assumption of the reader is that a story follows the preceding one.  Why is the Torah highlighting the connection between chapters 21 and 22?  Does teh former somehow shed light on the latter?
• Avraham's feelings en route – The story is silent regarding the emotions of Avraham and Yitzchak as they trek to the mountain.  Was Avraham filled with trepidation at the act or was his heart joyful to do God's bidding?  Does the text give any hints one way or another?
• Angel versus Hashem – Why is it Hashem Himself who gives the command to sacrifice Yitzchak, but it is only an angel who prevents the act?–

¹ The question is already raised in Bereshit Rabbah55:1-656:7-8About Bereshit Rabbah, where R. Acha has Avraham wonder,  אֵין הַדְּבָרִים הַלָּלוּ אֶלָּא דְבָרִים שֶׁל תֵּמַהּ, אֶתְמוֹל אָמַרְתָּ כִּי בְיִצְחָק יִקָּרֵא לְךָ זָרַע, חָזַרְתָּ וְאָמַרְתָּ  קַח נָא אֶת בִּנְךָ, וְעַכְשָׁיו אַתְּ אָמַר לִי אַל תִּשְׁלַח יָדְךָ אֶל הַנַּעַר, אֶתְמְהָא".

² See Bereshit Rabbah56:4About Bereshit Rabbah (and in more detail in Tanchuma 4), which presents the Satan questioning Avraham, "אָמַר לוֹ לְמָחָר אוֹמֵר לְךָ שׁוֹפֵךְ דָּם אַתְּ חַיָּב שֶׁשָּׁפַכְתָּ דָּמוֹ שֶׁל בִּנְךָ".

³ This fact highlights how the issues which are burning questions for one generation of commentators do not necessarily bother another.  Cultural, historical, and polemical factors all influence not only how we understand a story but even the very questions we assume lie at its basis.  It is possible that the difference in focus in this case stems from different attitudes towards martyrdom. In medieval times, many were forced to martyr either themselves or their children. As such they were not bothered by how Avraham could comply with Hashem's request, and definitely did not view the directive as resembling murder.  In fact, they even questioned why they were not perceived as more God-fearing than Avraham. After all, Avraham in the end only brought Yitzchak as an offering, while they actually sacrificed their loved ones. They question not the morality of the command to give up one's son, but why only in the case of Avraham did Hashem intervene to stop the act. Thus, one poet of the time writes: טרם היה אזרחי כזורז יחידו לעקידה / ישמיעו מן השמים: אל תשלח ידך להשמידה / כמה עתה נשמדים בנים ובנות ביהודה / לא חש להושיע טבוחים ושרופים .על מוקדה
A second possible explanation for the difference in focus might relate to varying conceptions of morality in medieval and contemporary times.  The concept of "individual morality" is a fairly modern one.  In medieval times, it was probably much more accepted that there was no independent ethic outside of religion, and thus more obvious that whatever God declared must be just. This explanation, however, would not account for why many medieval commentaors do not address the question of how Hashem can command something which He Himself later declares unethical.