Purpose of Akeidat Yitzchak/2/en

Purpose of Akeidat Yitzchak

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

For Hashem: Evaluating Avraham

Hashem tested Avraham in order to evaluate the extent of his faith. Before the trial, Hashem did not know whether or not Avraham would be willing to sacrifice his son for God.

Sources:RalbagBereshit Beur HaMilot 22:1Bereshit Beur HaParashah 22:1-5, 7-8, 10-13Bereshit Toalot 22About R. Levi b. Gershom

Meaning of "נִסָּה" – Ralbag understands the word to mean "test", a procedure established for purposes of evaluation.  Hashem was testing Avraham so as to discern his level of awe and obedience.

Hashem's knowledge – According to Ralbag, Hashem's knowledge is not complete.  While He knows all the choices open to a person, He does not know which path the individual will choose to follow.¹ As such, He did not know in advance whether or not Avraham would acquiesce to sacrifice his child upon Hashem's demand.²

"עַתָּה יָדַעְתִּי כִּי יְרֵא אֱלֹהִים אַתָּה" – Ralbag is able to explain this verse according to its simple sense; only "now," after the trial, did Hashem know with certainty how God-fearing Avraham was.³

The test – Ralbag asserts that Hashem intentionally worded His demand ambiguously⁴ so that it could be understood in one of two ways: Avraham was to sacrifice Yitzchak as an Olah offering, or Avraham was to take Yitzchak in order to sacrifice an Olah.⁵ Since the second reading is one which a person would only understand if they found the first possibility objectionable, Hashem wanted to see if Avraham was so willing to abide by Hashem's word that he would not even seek out the alternative reading.⁶

Avraham's feelings – Ralbag presents an Avraham whose love for Hashem and desire to obey Him was so strong that all else paled in comparison, enabling him to go with ease even to sacrifice a beloved son.⁷  Avraham's eagerness to comply with Hashem's words is demonstrated by his early rising to do God's bidding and lack of questioning of the command.⁸ Ralbag further claims that the fact that Avraham achieved prophecy while awake proves that even in the moment of the actual slaughter he was neither worried nor sad about the act.⁹

"אֱלֹהִים יִרְאֶה לּוֹ הַשֶּׂה לְעֹלָה בְּנִי" – Ralbag maintains that these words of Avraham constitute a prayer¹⁰ that Hashem's command to him actually turn out to mean¹¹ that a sheep (and not YItzchak) would be the Olah.  Ralbag, thus, suggests Avraham recognized that there was a second way to comprehend Hashem's words, but that, nonetheless, he was unwilling to act upon it without a direct clarification by Hashem.

How can Hashem command murder? According to Ralbag, Hashem had never intended for Avraham to actually sacrifice Yitzchak, which is why He worded the command in a way which allowed for the second (and ultimately correct) possibility that Yitzchak was brought to the mountain only to witness an Olah offering.  As such, Hashem had never commanded an immoral act.  Ralbag's reconstruction is nonetheless difficult since if Hashem intended that Avraham understand that he was to sacrifice his child (as Ralbag maintains), then the morality of the command (and Avraham's ready agreement) is still in question.

Can Hashem change His word? According to Ralbag Hashem never changed His mind, nor went back on His word.  From the beginning it was neither His intention, nor His command to sacrifice Yitzchak.

For Avraham

Avraham, rather than Hashem, was supposed to learn something new from the experience. This position subdivides regarding whether it views the test as beneficial or punitive in nature:

Means to Benefit Avraham

Acting on Hashem's directives brought Avraham to new levels of faith, and merited him rewards that he would never have received had Hashem not tested him.

Sources:R. Saadia GaonCommentary Bereshit 22:1-2About R. Saadia Gaon,¹² Ibn EzraBereshit First Commentary 22:1About R. Avraham ibn Ezra, RambanBereshit 22:1Bereshit 22:12Bereshit 22:16About R. Moshe b. Nachman, Sefer HaIkkarim4:13About R. Yosef Albo, SefornoBereshit 22:1-12About R. Ovadyah Seforno, BiurBereshit 22:1About the Biur (Netivot HaShalom), modern scholars

Meaning of "נִסָּה" – These commentators split in how they understand the word:

• Test – Both R. Saadia and Ramban explain that the word "נִסָּה" means tested, but suggest that a test need not be for the tester. It is the person being tested who gains from the experience.
• Accustom – According to R"Y Albo and the Biur, on the other hand,  the root "נסה" means to habituate.¹³  By commanding Avraham to sacrifice his son, Hashem trained his heart towards proper fear and service of God.

Hashem' knowledge – As these sources agree that Hashem gained no new knowledge from the test, the verses pose no theological issue regarding Hashem's omniscience and fore-knowledge.

What did Avraham gain from the trial? Most of these sources assert that the point of the experience was for Avraham to actualize his potential, changing his thoughts into actions.¹⁴  This accomplished two things:

• Self-development: R"Y Albo and the Biur explain that acting on a belief serves to strengthen that belief.¹⁵ Though Avraham's willingness to do Hashem's bidding and sacrifice his son was not in question, having to actively bind Yitzchak and raise the knife brought his fear of God to new levels. Undergoing a trial changes a person in a way that merely thinking can never do.¹⁶ 
• Increase reward: Ramban maintains that after the trial, Avraham could receive a reward not only for his good intentions, but also for his positive actions. R. Saadia and R"Y Albo point out that Hashem often gives the righteous many trials on earth so as to merit them redoubled reward later.¹⁷

"וַיְהִי אַחַר הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה" – According to R. Saadia the "things" mentioned refer to the previous trials that Avraham had undergone.  He¹⁸ claims that Hashem only tests a person who has proven that he will not fail.¹⁹ As such, the increased trials can serve only to reward.

"עַתָּה יָדַעְתִּי כִּי יְרֵא אֱלֹהִים אַתָּה" – These sources differ in how they understand the verse:

• Rav Saadia suggests that the word "יָדַעְתִּי" should read as if written, "והודעתי".‎²⁰ Through the akiedah Hashem announced to the world the level of Avraham's righteousness.
• Ramban
• Seforno, instead, claims that it is the angel speaking in his own name who declares, "now I know that you are more God-fearing [than me, the angel]."²¹

How can Hashem command murder?

Can Hashem change His word? Ibn Ezra asserts that this is not the only place where Hashem appears to have changed His mind, pointing to the replacement of the first-borns with the Levites as another example.  Nonetheless, he explains that in this story, the fact that the narrative opens with the words "And Hashem tested Avraham" proves that from the very beginning Hashem had no intention of Avraham's carrying through with the slaughter.  R. Saadia adds that precisely because this was a test, Hashem had to allow Avraham to think He meant one thing when He intended another or there would have been no trial.²²

Means to Punish Avraham

The experience was meant to punish Avraham for having made a covenant with the Philistines.

Sources:RashbamBereshit 22:1Bereshit 22:12About R. Shemuel b. Meir

"וַיְהִי אַחַר הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה" – Rashbam maintains that these words serve to connect our unit with the immediately preceding one, and are Tanakh's way of linking the two stories.²³  The opening, thus, suggests that Avraham's making of a treaty with Avimelekh is what prompted the command to sacrifice Yitzchak.²⁴ Hashem was upset that Avraham made peace with the Philistines since their land was included in His promise to Avraham, and thus the prohibition "לֹא תְחַיֶּה כׇּל נְשָׁמָה" applied to them as well.

Meaning of "נִסָּה" – According to Rashbam, the word "נִסָּה" in our verse means to distress or provoke rather than to test.²⁵ Since Avraham's interactions with the Philistines went against Hashem's will, Hashem punished Avraham by commanding that he sacrifice his son.  Rashbam presents the trial in measure for measure terms, having Hashem say: You were proud of your son, making a pact between him and Avimelekh's descendants, now go and sacrifice him, and see what is to become of such a treaty!²⁶

Hashem's knowledge – Since Rashbam does not understand the story as a test at all, he eliminates the question of why Hashem, in his omniscience, would need to test someone in order to know how they will act.

Avraham rewarded – The fact that Avraham is rewarded and deemed to be "'God-fearing" at the end of the experience is hard to reconcile with the view that the whole ordeal was a punishment. However, It is possible to suggest that the akeidah served not only to punish Avraham but also as an opportunity to correct his mistakes.²⁷  If the pact with Avimelekh demonstrated a lack of obedience to Hashem's will, Avraham's utter submission during the akeidah proved that he was once again God-fearing and, as such, deserving of reward.²⁸

"כִּי עַתָּה יָדַעְתִּי כִּי יְרֵא אֱלֹהִים אַתָּה"

• Rashbam understands the verse to mean that after the event, Avraham's fear of God became public knowledge, apparent to the entire world.²⁹ It was not Hashem who gained new knowledge, but rather the public.
• Alternatively, Hashem might be speaking of His own knowledge. Earlier, in his interactions with the Philistines, Avraham had not acted in a God-fearing manner, but now, once again Hashem recognizes Avraham's obedience. This is not theologically difficult, since according to this reading Hashem did not lack knowledge which was then supplied, but rather Avraham lacked fear which he then achieved.

How can Hashem command murder?

Polemical motivations – It is possible that Rashbam's interpretation is at least partially polemically motivated:

• Since Christians view the story as a prefiguration of Jesus's death on the cross, Rashbam might have wanted to cast the story in a much more negative light, suggesting that it describes not the epitome of Avraham's relationship with Hashem, but a punishment.
• Y. Bin-Nun³⁰ alternatively suggests that Rashbam might be combating the idealization of the akeidah common among those in the Middle Ages who were forced to martyr their children for God, and looked to Avraham's action as a model to emulate.³¹

For Others

The trial was intended for outsiders so that they appreciate Hashem's choice of Avraham, and understand what is the correct and desired service of Hashem.

Sources:Jubilees17:19-2518About Jubilees, Bereshit Rabbah56:7About Bereshit Rabbah, R. Saadia GaonCommentary Bereshit 22:1-2About R. Saadia Gaon,³² RashiBereshit 22:1-2, 6, 8, 12About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, Lekach TovBereshit 22:2Bereshit 22:12About R. Toviah b. Eliezer, R. Yosef Bekhor ShorBereshit 22:1-2, 12About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, Rambam3 24About Rambam Moreh Nevukhim, RadakBereshit 22:1Bereshit 22:12About R. David Kimchi, AbarbanelBereshit 22:3About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel, Keli YekarBereshit 22:12About R. Shelomo Ephraim Luntschitz, ShadalBereshit 22:1About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto, R. David Zvi HoffmannBereshit 22 IntroductionAbout R. David Zvi Hoffmann

¹ According to Ralbag, there can only be free choice if Hashem does not know what people will in fact choose to do. He, nonetheless, does not think that limiting God's knowledge makes Hashem an imperfect being, since that which cannot be known cannot be considered a lack in God. For more about Ralbag's understanding of God's omniscience, see

² Cf. Ibn Kaspi. He suggests that the Torah uses the term "test" since that is the "language of men" (דברה תורה בלשון בני אדם), but really Hashem's testing of a person and human testing are distinct, since Hashem, as opposed to humans, does know in advance what a person is thinking and willing to do.  Nonetheless, Ibn Kaspi, like Ralbag, simultaneously implies that perhaps Hashem's knowledge is not complete. He asserts that Hashem had "theoretical knowledge" (ידיעה שכלית) regarding the extent of Avraham's fear of God, but not "practical knowledge" (ידיעת ניסיון) thereof. He writes, "אע"פ שה' ידע ידיעת שכל טרם זה המעשה שאברהם היה ירא ה' הנה עתה רצה לדעת זה ידיעת ניסיון".

³ One might question how it is possible that Hashem gained new understanding; does that not mean that Hashem changed? Ralbag does not find this problematic. Since Hashem had always known that Avraham's choice was a possibility, this had always been a part of His knowledge.

⁴ Cf. R. Saadia Gaon and Ibn Janach  who also suggest that Hashem intentionally spoke ambiguously.

⁵ The למ"ד of " לְעֹלָה" can be understood to mean "as" or "for the purpose of".

⁶ In other words, Hashem tested Avraham to see if he was willing to abide by the more obviously intended command, despite having an alternative, but poorer, reading to fall back upon as an excuse.

⁷ He points out that one who is able to cleave to Hashem in the manner of Avraham will never miss other goods, because the good achieved through clinging to Hashem and following in His path so far surpasses all else.  This idea has been used to understand the theological problem posed by the suffering of the righteous.  The truly righteous never suffer, since the benefits gained by their love of Hashem are so great that all else is as if nothing.

⁸ Ralbag points out that Avraham did not even question Hashem's previous promises that Yitzchak would carry on Avraham's line.  He suggests that Avraham recognized that Hashem's promises are always conditional on merit, and therefore it is possible that they might no longer be deserved.

⁹ Otherwise, he would not have been in a state fit for prophecy. Ralbag points to Elisha's request, "וְעַתָּה קְחוּ לִי מְנַגֵּן וְהָיָה כְּנַגֵּן הַמְנַגֵּן וַתְּהִי עָלָיו יַד י"י" (Melakhim II 3:15) as proof that distress prevents one from receiving prophecy.

¹⁰ Thus, Avraham was not lying to or misleading Yitzchak.

¹¹ Ralbag claims that the word  "יִרְאֶה" is related to understanding rather than showing, as in the verse "וְלִבִּי רָאָה הַרְבֵּה חׇכְמָה וָדָעַת" (Kohelet 1:16).

¹² R. Saadia combines this approach with the next one, suggesting that in addition to increasing Avraham's reward, the test served to demonstrate Avraham's worthiness to the world.

¹³ For other verses where the word might take on this meaning, see Shemot 20:16 and Shemuel I 17:39.  See also RashbamShemot 16:4About R. Shemuel b. Meir on Shemot 16:4.

¹⁴ Or, in the words of these sources: להוציא דבר מן הכח אל הפועל.

¹⁵ This fits the idea that "אחרי הפעולות נמשכות הלבבות".

¹⁶ Rav Soloveichik focuses not on how thoughts must be actualized, but simply on what the act of self sacrifice does for man. He speaks of how every religious act must begin with the sacrifice of the self, and how this must be filled with suffering and anguish.  That suffering, however, is crucial in man's journey to find himself and for building his spiritual connection to Hashem. He writes, "the religious act begins with the sacrifice of one's self, and ends with the finding of that self. But man cannot find himself without sacrificing himself prior to the finding."  Though Avraham's trek was filled with dread, it ended with everlasting joy.

¹⁷ They suggest that this, in part, explains the phenomenon of "צדיק ורע לו".  Such a position assumes that the rewards of the World to Come are so desirable that the righteous are wiling to suffer distress in this world if it would grant them greater reward in the next. Theodicy – צדיק ורע לו for more.

¹⁸ See Ramban as well.

¹⁹ As proof, he points to the verse, "י"י צַדִּיק יִבְחָן" (Tehillim 11:5).

²⁰ See below that R. Saadia thinks that the Akeidah served two purposes - not only to increase Avraham's rewards but also to teach others why he was chosen.

²¹ In order to have the angel speak in his own name Seforno is forced to play with the syntax of the verse.  According to him the word "מִמֶּנִּי" is not attached to the phrase "וְלֹא חָשַׂכְתָּ אֶת בִּנְךָ אֶת יְחִידְךָ" (which would imply that the angel is speaking in Hashem's name) but to the phrase "עַתָּה יָדַעְתִּי כִּי יְרֵא אֱלֹהִים אַתָּה".  The verse then reads as if written "עַתָּה יָדַעְתִּי כִּי יְרֵא אֱלֹהִים אַתָּה [מִמֶּנִּי] וְלֹא חָשַׂכְתָּ אֶת בִּנְךָ אֶת יְחִידְךָ".  

²² R. Saadia deals with this question at length, offering 4 possible explanations of how Hashem did not really go back on His word.  Most of these are somewhat similar to Ralbag's reading above, and posit some ambiguity in the wording of the original command, which allows for the possibility that Hashem never asked that Yitzchak be sacrificed. R. Saadia's are explicitly polemical, retorting to Moslem claims that if God can command one thing and then retract it, it is also possible that he can command the Torah and then replace it.  See his discussion in HaEmunot VeHaDeiot 3:9 as well.

²³ He claims that every time that the phrase "וַיְהִי אַחַר הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה" appears, it serves a similar purpose.  Thus, the similar opening in Bereshit 15 links Hashem reassurance to Avraham "אַל תִּירָא אַבְרָם" with his war against the four kings described in the previous chapter.

²⁴ See Y. Bin-Nun, "עקידת יצק: עונש או ניסיון" in "פרקי האבות : עיונים בפרשיות האבות בספר בראשית", (Jerusalem, 2003): 100-119, who points to several other points of contact between the Avimelekh stories and the Akeidah:

• In Bereshit 20, we are told " וַיַּשְׁכֵּם אֲבִימֶלֶךְ בַּבֹּקֶר", matching Bereshit 22:3, "וַיַּשְׁכֵּם אַבְרָהָם בַּבֹּקֶר."
• Avimelekh asks Avraham, "מָה רָאִיתָ כִּי עָשִׂיתָ אֶת הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה", while the angel later tells Avraham, "יַעַן אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתָ אֶת הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה".
• Hashem tells Avimelekh, "גַּם אָנֹכִי יָדַעְתִּי כִּי בְתׇם לְבָבְךָ עָשִׂיתָ זֹּאת וָאֶחְשֹׂךְ גַּם אָנֹכִי אוֹתְךָ מֵחֲטוֹ לִי".  Hashem uses similar language when speaking to Avraham, "כִּי עַתָּה יָדַעְתִּי כִּי יְרֵא אֱלֹהִים אַתָּה וְלֹא חָשַׂכְתָּ אֶת בִּנְךָ אֶת יְחִידְךָ מִמֶּנִּי".
• When in Philistine territory, Avraham feared a lack of "יִרְאַת אֱלֹהִים".  After the Akeidah, Hashem says of Avraham "כִּי יְרֵא אֱלֹהִים אַתָּה".

²⁵ As evidence of such a usage he points to Iyyov 4:2. "הֲנִסָּה דָבָר אֵלֶיךָ תִּלְאֶה", and Shemot 17:7, "עַל רִיב בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְעַל נַסֹּתָם אֶת י"י" where the root is connected to weariness and strife.

²⁶ Chagai Ben-Artzi, in מבט חדש על העקידה, elaborates on Rashbam's approach and suggests that in making an oath and covenant with Avimelekh, Avraham had nullified the covenants of "land" and "seed" promised him by Hashem.  As such, Hashem demanded that he return the "seed" that was given him, Yitzchak.

²⁷ Rashbam himself does not say this.

²⁸ Chagai Ben-Artzi (see note above) explains that with Avraham's obeisance to Hashem's directive, Hashem was able to renew the covenants that had been nullified.  He thus blessed him once again with seed and conquest. Ben-Artzi suggests that it is Yitzchak who serves to totally correct his father's deeds when he insists on living and working specifically on Philistine land, despite their attempts to chase him away.

²⁹ See the many commentaries below who explain the verse in a similar fashion.

³⁰ See above note.

³¹ See S. Spiegel, "מאגדות העקידה: פיוט על שחיטת יצחק ותחייתו לר' אפרים מבונא" in "ספר היובל לכבוד אלכסנדר מארכס" (New York, 1950): 471-547, who discusses the various aggadot which suggest that Yitzchak might have actually died during the akeidah, went to the Garden of Eden and then returned,  and how these were adapted by people and poets during the Crusader period who attempted to come to terms with the mass martyrdom in their communities.

³² R. Saadia also claims that the trial was intended to increase the rewards designated to Avraham.