For anyone who has a son in the army that thought is very powerful. Sending him off at the same time makes all the sense in the world, but no sense at all. They are indeed looking at death in the eyes. They will also never leave that altar. The heart breaks as it also bursts with pride.
Rabbi Sacks formulates the question as follows: "As Jews – indeed as humans – we must reject Kierkegaard’s principle of the 'teleological suspension of the ethical.' This is an idea that gives carte blancheto religious fanatics to commit crimes in the name of God. It is the logic of the Inquisition and the suicide bomber. It is not the logic of Judaism rightly understood. God does not ask us to be unethical." See Rabbi Sacks's answer to the question here: https://www.rabbisacks.org/covenant-conversation/vayera/the-binding-of-isaac/
But that suspension is EXACTLY how many chareidim interpret the Torah. When God says kill, or wipe out Amalek even the innocents, that is moral. If God had Abraham carry through that would have been moral as well.
Dennis Prager writes as follows: "Virtually every ancient society about which we have data had human sacrifice -- the killing of human beings to propitiate their society's god(s). Only if we understand this can one understand why God would test Abraham in this way: 'Are you, Abraham, willing to do for Me what all other human beings are prepared to do for their (false) gods?' [...] All the preceding notwithstanding, the ultimate message of this story is that human sacrifice is morally unacceptable to God. The good God introduced to the world by the Torah abhors child sacrifice." (The Rational Bible)
In my opinion, given that God chose Abraham so that he might become the father of a special monotheistic people, and given that the idolatrous peoples used to immolate their sons and daughters as offerings to their gods, and given that such acts are an abomination before God, Who never intended to command His people to do such things, commanding them instead not to do any of them – God saw that the lack of such sacrifices would be considered a disgrace and a great blemish upon His Torah and those who upheld it. The nations would say to Israel, “Where is your love for your God?” Even the Israelites themselves might view their religion as valueless because of this lack.
Therefore, God tested Abraham (whose heart He already knew to be able to stand the test) early on, in order that both Israel and the other nations might clearly recognize that faithful servants of God would not find it too hard to do this and even more (as is the slaughter of an only son born to his father’s and mother’s old age) if God were to ask this of them, but that a true God would not desire such sacrifices and would in fact despise them. And for this test, which was for the purpose of glorifying the Faith and its believers, God chose Abraham, the father of the believers, so that the true Faith should not be held in disparagement, lacking its splendor and glory, even for one generation.
Rabbi Hertz former Chief Rabbi of England, stated that Abraham made a .mistake. G-d said, to take Yitzhak to the mountain and there, ןהעליהו שם לעולה. Not that Yitzhak should be a sacrifice rather there a sacrifice should be made. Given Abraham's moral and religious greatness he should have discerned the difference or at least raised the question. We learn Abraham's greatness as he was willing to make the sacrifice and that G-d does not want human sacrifice. I would add that it is not enough to be zealous about serving G-d one has to understand what one is doing and its moral religious implications.
Years ago I saw a suggestion that Yiftach wasn't so much upset that a human being came out to greet him, but that it was his daughter. He anticipated it would be a servant of some kind, and it would have been a human sacrifice.
What say you, O Bible reader and cranky mizrachnik (excuse me, DLnik)?
Yiftach's Neder was invalid since it could not bind another person. Also the Neder could be canceled.He was influenced by the pagan idea that sacrificing your so or family shows your dedicated to G-d.
1. I don't understand why you are writing in an insulting language.
2. I don't understand what point you are trying to make regarding Yiftach.
In any case, Yiftach was the least exemplary of the judges. The sages contrast Yiftach to Samuel who was very exemplary. Yiftach lived in proximity to Ammon and Moab and thus learned from their bad ways, as the Psalm says "They mingled themselves with the nations, and learned their works" (106:35). Nevertheless, God sent His deliverance through Yiftach.
1. You dont understand, b/c I wasn't speaking to you. Cranky conservative curmudgeons, even in disagreement, know its a lighthearted term of endearment. You dont need to understand.
2. I know who Yiftach was, thank you. I referred to a certain opinion arguing that Yiftach fully intended to offer a human sacrifice, just not his daughter. This is a very non-traditional viewpoint, and I was curious to hear Nachum's opinion, as a Bible guy.
2. Yes Yiftach intended to offer a human sacrifice! Yiftach grew up under the influence of Ammon+Moab culture, and thus he thought that offering a human sacrifice to G-d as thanksgiving for the victory was a good thing to do. This is how Daat Mikra explains the topic.
I didnt know Daas Mikrah also interprets this way, thank you. (I saw this idea once many years ago in a pretty out-of-the way source. The traditional understanding is that he thought an animal would exit his house first.)
I would challenge the assumption that Prager (who is neither a historian or academic) is correct in saying: "VIRTUALLY every ancient society about which we have data had human sacrifice" - and on that basis his argument fails. Furthermore, animal & organic sacrifices (even to single deities) DID predate & continue through Abrahamic times - and so proto-Judaism did not really distinguish itself from other societies in sacrificial METHOD - only INTENT/PURPOSE. It's far more likely that human sacrifice was a societal aberration rather than the norm - and that many societies in the region had already abandoned such sacrifices.
It's not always a "potential" sacrifice. R' Amnon Bazak points out this week- and he's hardly the first- that while Hashem did not want Avraham to sacrifice his son, he was sending a message that sometimes, being a Jew will mean that children will be sacrificed. I trust I don't have to bring examples.
You actually DO have to be mystical to read the text this way, your first sentence is just a classic case of the lady doth protest too much. As though you feel a need to justify a mystical point of view, when you claim to be so rational. When you finally realize that ALL believing Jews take into account both the rational and mystical, you might then finally understand how one can believe fully in the protective power of Torah, while still acting prudently in the heat of war.
You stole my thought. All religions are irrational. Not that they are mistakes but they all require believing counterfactuals. I get a kick out of modern orthodox y themselves any more rationale than ultra orthodox - they study and believe in the sane texts and doctrines including mamzer and aguna and they both believe that God made adulterous women’s stomach blow up and that the earth swallowed Korach and his kids. We could go on .
Unfortunately, the Central Bureau of Statistics website is blocked in non-Israel countries because of the war so no way to check the source direct. I would very much love to see any other sources you can bring that say otherwise.
I personally subscribe to another approach. The Akeda was a test for Avraham Avinu, but he failed it.
How can the same man who opposed the divine decree against Sodom and the other cities, accept to sacrifice his innocent child without a question.
Is that the relationship HaKadosh Barukh Hu wants with us? After all we are B'nei Israel and not B'nei Avraham.
When after the Akeda Hashem says that now he knows Avraham's faith is unquestionable and he is ready to even give up his son, I don't necessarily read it as an only positive response.
After all we see around us how utterly ungodly are the B'nei Yishmael, ready and happy to sacrifice their children.
Do you have anyone (I mean anyone reputable in Jewish ethics) in history who says like you. I'm pretty sure it's ultra-unanimous that Avraham passed, and the pesukim strongly suggest it as such...
The storyline (narrative) was used against the pages worship of the day. There are 2 ultimate messages we can take. 1 Abraham will follow Hashems command even at the expense of his Future if need be. 2 Hashem eschews any type of Child sacrifice. The results that Yishaq returns alive is what is Wanted and Warrented by Hashem .He wants us to choose life and not feed the gods as others surely committed Molekh. I myself see this clearly and am not bothered at all reading this great saga
Why was Joyous banned? Martial law?
For anyone who has a son in the army that thought is very powerful. Sending him off at the same time makes all the sense in the world, but no sense at all. They are indeed looking at death in the eyes. They will also never leave that altar. The heart breaks as it also bursts with pride.
Rabbi Sacks formulates the question as follows: "As Jews – indeed as humans – we must reject Kierkegaard’s principle of the 'teleological suspension of the ethical.' This is an idea that gives carte blancheto religious fanatics to commit crimes in the name of God. It is the logic of the Inquisition and the suicide bomber. It is not the logic of Judaism rightly understood. God does not ask us to be unethical." See Rabbi Sacks's answer to the question here: https://www.rabbisacks.org/covenant-conversation/vayera/the-binding-of-isaac/
But that suspension is EXACTLY how many chareidim interpret the Torah. When God says kill, or wipe out Amalek even the innocents, that is moral. If God had Abraham carry through that would have been moral as well.
That is not the chareidi interpretation, that is the Torah itself. Sorry.
For more on why wiping out Amalek was ethical, and why that we won't necessarily have an opportunity to perform that mitzvah even in Messianic times, see Rabbi Yaakov Medan here: https://rationalbelief.org.il/%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%91-%D7%99%D7%A2%D7%A7%D7%91-%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%9F-%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A1%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%AA-%D7%A2%D7%9E%D7%9C%D7%A7/
I typically am suspicious of Rabbi Medan, but at first glance he seems to be saying something reasonable here.
Dennis Prager writes as follows: "Virtually every ancient society about which we have data had human sacrifice -- the killing of human beings to propitiate their society's god(s). Only if we understand this can one understand why God would test Abraham in this way: 'Are you, Abraham, willing to do for Me what all other human beings are prepared to do for their (false) gods?' [...] All the preceding notwithstanding, the ultimate message of this story is that human sacrifice is morally unacceptable to God. The good God introduced to the world by the Torah abhors child sacrifice." (The Rational Bible)
Shadal preceded him :
In my opinion, given that God chose Abraham so that he might become the father of a special monotheistic people, and given that the idolatrous peoples used to immolate their sons and daughters as offerings to their gods, and given that such acts are an abomination before God, Who never intended to command His people to do such things, commanding them instead not to do any of them – God saw that the lack of such sacrifices would be considered a disgrace and a great blemish upon His Torah and those who upheld it. The nations would say to Israel, “Where is your love for your God?” Even the Israelites themselves might view their religion as valueless because of this lack.
Therefore, God tested Abraham (whose heart He already knew to be able to stand the test) early on, in order that both Israel and the other nations might clearly recognize that faithful servants of God would not find it too hard to do this and even more (as is the slaughter of an only son born to his father’s and mother’s old age) if God were to ask this of them, but that a true God would not desire such sacrifices and would in fact despise them. And for this test, which was for the purpose of glorifying the Faith and its believers, God chose Abraham, the father of the believers, so that the true Faith should not be held in disparagement, lacking its splendor and glory, even for one generation.
Rabbi Hertz former Chief Rabbi of England, stated that Abraham made a .mistake. G-d said, to take Yitzhak to the mountain and there, ןהעליהו שם לעולה. Not that Yitzhak should be a sacrifice rather there a sacrifice should be made. Given Abraham's moral and religious greatness he should have discerned the difference or at least raised the question. We learn Abraham's greatness as he was willing to make the sacrifice and that G-d does not want human sacrifice. I would add that it is not enough to be zealous about serving G-d one has to understand what one is doing and its moral religious implications.
Years ago I saw a suggestion that Yiftach wasn't so much upset that a human being came out to greet him, but that it was his daughter. He anticipated it would be a servant of some kind, and it would have been a human sacrifice.
What say you, O Bible reader and cranky mizrachnik (excuse me, DLnik)?
Yiftach's Neder was invalid since it could not bind another person. Also the Neder could be canceled.He was influenced by the pagan idea that sacrificing your so or family shows your dedicated to G-d.
1. I don't understand why you are writing in an insulting language.
2. I don't understand what point you are trying to make regarding Yiftach.
In any case, Yiftach was the least exemplary of the judges. The sages contrast Yiftach to Samuel who was very exemplary. Yiftach lived in proximity to Ammon and Moab and thus learned from their bad ways, as the Psalm says "They mingled themselves with the nations, and learned their works" (106:35). Nevertheless, God sent His deliverance through Yiftach.
1. You dont understand, b/c I wasn't speaking to you. Cranky conservative curmudgeons, even in disagreement, know its a lighthearted term of endearment. You dont need to understand.
2. I know who Yiftach was, thank you. I referred to a certain opinion arguing that Yiftach fully intended to offer a human sacrifice, just not his daughter. This is a very non-traditional viewpoint, and I was curious to hear Nachum's opinion, as a Bible guy.
1. Ah OK.
2. Yes Yiftach intended to offer a human sacrifice! Yiftach grew up under the influence of Ammon+Moab culture, and thus he thought that offering a human sacrifice to G-d as thanksgiving for the victory was a good thing to do. This is how Daat Mikra explains the topic.
I didnt know Daas Mikrah also interprets this way, thank you. (I saw this idea once many years ago in a pretty out-of-the way source. The traditional understanding is that he thought an animal would exit his house first.)
I would challenge the assumption that Prager (who is neither a historian or academic) is correct in saying: "VIRTUALLY every ancient society about which we have data had human sacrifice" - and on that basis his argument fails. Furthermore, animal & organic sacrifices (even to single deities) DID predate & continue through Abrahamic times - and so proto-Judaism did not really distinguish itself from other societies in sacrificial METHOD - only INTENT/PURPOSE. It's far more likely that human sacrifice was a societal aberration rather than the norm - and that many societies in the region had already abandoned such sacrifices.
Prager gives this reference: https://www.livescience.com/59514-cultures-that-practiced-human-sacrifice.html
It's not always a "potential" sacrifice. R' Amnon Bazak points out this week- and he's hardly the first- that while Hashem did not want Avraham to sacrifice his son, he was sending a message that sometimes, being a Jew will mean that children will be sacrificed. I trust I don't have to bring examples.
You actually DO have to be mystical to read the text this way, your first sentence is just a classic case of the lady doth protest too much. As though you feel a need to justify a mystical point of view, when you claim to be so rational. When you finally realize that ALL believing Jews take into account both the rational and mystical, you might then finally understand how one can believe fully in the protective power of Torah, while still acting prudently in the heat of war.
Shabbat Shalom, ה' ישמור ויגן
As long as you don't believe in mystical ideas that run counter to the 13 Ikarim of the Rambam.Otherwise you may believein שיתוף or other pagan
You stole my thought. All religions are irrational. Not that they are mistakes but they all require believing counterfactuals. I get a kick out of modern orthodox y themselves any more rationale than ultra orthodox - they study and believe in the sane texts and doctrines including mamzer and aguna and they both believe that God made adulterous women’s stomach blow up and that the earth swallowed Korach and his kids. We could go on .
Dear Ezra. The Torah does not think your way . The second Mal'akh from Hashem praises him for not holding back and gives him Berakhot.
"The father hears the voice of God, but its the son that gets sacrificed" - R. Elly Fisher
I am from Brooklyn and currently living at the Jersey Shore
Got it nice to meet you:) have a wonderful shabbos!
There are midrashim that say Isaac was indeed sacrificed. https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/67097?lang=bi
Yet it's the Abraham of 2023 who held back his son whos offspring is greatly increasing....
The religious DL community holds back their sons?
The Charedi society is by far the fastest growing.
No, I believe the actual Torani DL community have just as many kids. I am not talking about the modern ones.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/haredim-are-fastest-growing-population-will-be-16-of-israelis-by-decades-end/
Unfortunately, the Central Bureau of Statistics website is blocked in non-Israel countries because of the war so no way to check the source direct. I would very much love to see any other sources you can bring that say otherwise.
I personally subscribe to another approach. The Akeda was a test for Avraham Avinu, but he failed it.
How can the same man who opposed the divine decree against Sodom and the other cities, accept to sacrifice his innocent child without a question.
Is that the relationship HaKadosh Barukh Hu wants with us? After all we are B'nei Israel and not B'nei Avraham.
When after the Akeda Hashem says that now he knows Avraham's faith is unquestionable and he is ready to even give up his son, I don't necessarily read it as an only positive response.
After all we see around us how utterly ungodly are the B'nei Yishmael, ready and happy to sacrifice their children.
Just another possible reading.
Do you have anyone (I mean anyone reputable in Jewish ethics) in history who says like you. I'm pretty sure it's ultra-unanimous that Avraham passed, and the pesukim strongly suggest it as such...
[edit] just seeing Nahum says similar below
The verses there (22:15-18) make it plain that Avraham indeed passed the test and that he will be rewarded accordingly
"How can the same man who opposed the divine decree against Sodom and the other cities, accept to sacrifice his innocent child without a question."
He wasn't commanded to destroy סדום. He was told it would happen.
The storyline (narrative) was used against the pages worship of the day. There are 2 ultimate messages we can take. 1 Abraham will follow Hashems command even at the expense of his Future if need be. 2 Hashem eschews any type of Child sacrifice. The results that Yishaq returns alive is what is Wanted and Warrented by Hashem .He wants us to choose life and not feed the gods as others surely committed Molekh. I myself see this clearly and am not bothered at all reading this great saga
Are you from Mexico? Moshe's son?