At this past week's Shabbos table my father-in-law was discussing the Sacrifice of Issac which we had read that morning in shul.
As a parent I find the story particularly horrible. Perhaps when human sacrifice was more common it didn't sound as barbaric.
My father-in-law was trying out the various explanations offered by the sages. He liked Rashi's classic explanation that says Abraham was merely commanded to "bring him up as a sacrifice" but god didn't explicitly give the order to slaughter him!
My sister-in-law wouldn't have any of this grammatical technicality "So Dad, when you say to me 'You should clean your room' are you now saying that you don't really want me to clean it?"
Truly wonderful, the mind of a child is.
37 comments:
It does indeed say Olah and not Korban so Rashi was explaining why. G-d knew what would be and so the word Olah makes more sense as fitting the context.
Abraham was perfectly willing to murder his own son since God told him to do so. This is the most splendid example of self discipline and devotion in human history. We Jews should be, and are, immensely proud of it.
For the believing Jew, morality means doing what God says, not doing what society thinks is right.
Dear Lubab
Your blog and the comments over the past few weeks only serve to underscore that orthodoxy is a lifestyle... at best. I believe that the community members who look as they might be the most religious are in actuality the least.
I look sort of average.
We have our fair share of hypocrites, however.
JP,
Yours is the zealous, smug self-righteousness that could only be of the born-again variety.
Anon, I guess it's your immense humility which moves you to insult other people's backgrounds without signing your name.
I prefer the Ibn Ezra's general approach to pirush, that is, follow the plain meaning of the text. The context clearly implies that both Avraham and Yitzhak thought that a sacrific was to be brought. Everywhere else in the torah an "olah" is a korban. Rashi gives a lot of midrashic interpretations which, although may have a moral message, sound ridiculous in the context of the stories. (Sara died when she heard that Yitzhak WASN'T sacrificed???Come on...)
For all of you Apikorsim out there, there is a great Israeli website, run be a former Bnei Brak Rabbi and Head of Kollel, who left the fold, shall we say.
http://www.daatemet.org.il/index.cfm
It is a great collection of all of the textual errors, contradictions and anachronisms, and rabbinical inconsistencies. There's a "dvar torah" for each week. Its in Hebrew and English, but the original Hebrew is best, written in "talmudic" Hebrew.
Be warned, this is pretty heretical stuff!!
The new blogger "Email follow up comments" option has made keeping up with responses easier. However, some people are abusing the privilege of posting comments by responding to almost every post. I will be deleting comments if I get the sense that people are spamming the comment sections. Having a back and forth discussion is encouraged. Trolling will result in deletion.
JP,
Thanks for the link, I will look over what appears to be an interesting site. You can look at the Daat Emet site and judge for yourself...
But I have another direct question for you, and I hope that you can answer honestly.
You are frequenting a "kfira" blog. Your comments, rather than being logical arguments, seem to be strident restatements of your emunah.
To a beleiver they may sound fine, but to a skeptic, they sound dogmatic and irrational, and not very convincing. My question is, are you here to try to change someone's mind, OR, OR, are you, JP, having your own doubts, and by voicing extremist opinions trying to deal with your own uncertainties?
We won't tell anybody!
Reading the Chumach, I can only conclude that Abraham was a moral degenerate!
Here he is with his other son Ishmael and his slave-wife Hagar. Sarah doesn’t like her co-wife, so she asks that Hagar and her boy be sent away. So Abraham hands his infant son to his wife Hagar, with a half a day’s worth of bread, and shoos her, like used toilet paper, to the desert to die. What an asshole!
He could have, if he needed to, sent her away. He could have put her up in a nice house in a distant town. He could have paid their expenses. This way, his child would have been well taken care of. But no, he wanted his wife and his infant to die of exposure and starvation. Is this a model for us to follow?
When God came to tell Abraham that he wanted to destroy Sodom and Gemorrah, Abraham started to bargain; What if there are a 100 nice people there? So God says that he would not destroy the town if there were 100 nice people. Then Abraham bargains some more:
Abraham: How about 50?
God: No problem, 50 is good enough for me
Abraham: 20?
God: No problem
Abraham: 10?
God: Ok
Abraham: Alrighty then!
That’s it? He was doing so well. He could have gone further: “God, even if there is one innocent person, you should not destroy the town”, or “my God, please know that my nephew and his family are there. Please don’t destroy their home town”. Why did he stop? What is wrong with Abraham?
Then comes the doozy! God says to Abraham: “Go and kill your son to me as a sacrifice”. And Abraham says: “yes sir!”
I mean, what an asshole! Here he is asked to slaughter his innocent beloved son. You wouldn’t bargain? You wouldn’t say something like “God, please ask me to take my own life, please spare his life, I beg you”? Abraham bargained (weakly) for Sodom, so he wouldn’t bargain for his own son’s life?
How did he know that he heard God’s voice anyway? I mean I hear all the time stories (they mostly come from the Bronx for some reason) where some crazy guy took a knife to his family member because he heard voices telling him to do that. How did Abraham actually verify that it was God telling him to kill? I mean they say that Abraham used to “study Torah” (which in itself is a strange concept as the Torah would not be given for another five hundred years), so did he not know that a Jewish God would not ask for a human sacrifice?
How did he verify that it was not Satan asking him to do that?
And notice how he lured his son to come to the alter for sacrifice: he tells his son that they are walking up a mountain to sacrifice a goat. His son asks “dad where is the animal”. So Abraham looks at his son and leads him on “god will provide, my son”. He is literally looking at his son, and saying “you are so dead, you are going to fry!” This is our forefather?
And what is not said but is indisputable about the story is as a result of the psychological stress on Sarah on learning of her son’s impending sacrifice, she dies. Thus, God played a prank on Abraham and it was funny until Sarah died!
The story is despicable. There is not one redeeming feature about it. The story, I guess, was told to prove devotion of a man to his God, which in itself is ridiculous.
What I say is this: If a ruler, a king or a God ever asks me for the blood of my son for his amusement, I would tell him to go to hell. If I am punished in the fires of hell for defying such a ghastly godly request, then I would burn in hell with my head proudly held high!
Dr.J
Daat Emet is innacurate as far as science, history, religion etc. It is just a demogic site. You can't qoute from them and think you have anything right. You will look silly.
BR,
The point in the Torah with the Sodom and Gemorrah story is that God is just and good. That's the given reason why God tells Abraham what He's about to do and also demonstrated by Abraham's insistence that God must do right.
From then on, the stories of sending away Hagar and Ishmael and the Akeidah are given with the implicit assumption that God is good and nothing bad will happen to the people - because God in both cases promised so beforehand. And indeed, nothing bad did actually happen.
The point of the stories, I believe, is to trust in God who is good, not blind obedience to a non-moral powerful maniac. There's nothing immoral with following orders of a trusted moral authority - that's how armies operate. Soldiers just have to trust their officers. This is even more valid if we're talking about God who is perfectly trustworthy, as it were.
Granted, you may not believe the above is ontologically true, but there are more and less cynical ways of reading the same stories and the messages they intended to pass on.
One thing also is that Avraham according to the story knows when G-d speaks to him. There's nothing to verify. At the same time he is confronted with a paradox that G-d does not resolve until after.
1.G-d is all good.
2.Human sacrifice is not.
3.Through Isaac G-d assured him absolutely would come a nation.
The point is that Avraham went through believing that there can be no real paradox. It has to be resolvable. There has to be a logic. It cannot be that everything he has preached all these years is wrong. Even if he can't see how it all ties in. And indeed the resolution comes.
Gamliel and LNM;
I am baffled by your responses. If you are defending Abraham (and I am not sure if that is what you are doing) please explain the following:
1. How did Abraham verify that he was speaking to Hashem?
2. Why he did not intercede on behalf of his son as he did for Sodom?
3. Why was he not more upstanding with regards to Hagar and Ismael? I noticed you left an explanation out for this story....
Also, both of you seem to say that God tested Abraham and Isaac and all turned out to be ok. The point is that all was most certainly not OK. Isaac lost his mother in the needless ordeal. God only knows what psychologic damage was done to Isaac, a child who was brought to an alter to be slaughtered and burned by his remaining parent!
I mean from this book and from these stories we supposedly derive morality?
Bad Rabbi,
> Gamliel and LNM;
I think you have me confused with someone else.
LNM,
Sorry, I meant to write Orthoprax and Gamliel
"1. How did Abraham verify that he was speaking to Hashem?"
Did he ever do that? G-d spoke to Him in the past. G-d would have had to make sure that someone knows He is talking to him. He would make contact with Avraham's mind for sure. As for a voice in addition why should it there even be a voice?
"2. Why he did not intercede on behalf of his son as he did for Sodom?"
He knew it was a command. If he hadn't interceeded on behalf of Sodom but had for his son, I can see the critics crying foul even then.
"3. Why was he not more upstanding with regards to Hagar and Ismael? I noticed you left an explanation out for this story...."
He gave them food but life was harder to begin with in the desert. Times were different too.
The idea was to send Yishmael away. But Avraham knew that Yishmael would become the father of a mighty nation as G-d had told him. Until Yitzchak there was no paradox from G-d on His assurances.
"Also, both of you seem to say that God tested Abraham and Isaac and all turned out to be ok. The point is that all was most certainly not OK. Isaac lost his mother in the needless ordeal."
Assuming that's true G-d gives life and takes it away even after a long life. We can't do that. He can. He utilizes methods we cannot. It's called natural law.
Sarah had lived her life now the stage was set for the next generation.
"God only knows what psychologic damage was done to Isaac, a child who was brought to an alter to be slaughtered and burned by his remaining parent!"
Sarah wasn't dead yet. Also Yitzchak knew why his father did it. Also I'm not sure if he was a child. He certainly wasn't a small one and so uderstood.
"I mean from this book and from these stories we supposedly derive morality?"
If you would peer into why they were written you would. Read the Encyclopedia Judaica too. It's objective between the Believers and the skeptics.
"Lubab No More said...
Bad Rabbi,
> Gamliel and LNM;
I think you have me confused with someone else."
Oh. If I do sorry.
BR,
"1. How did Abraham verify that he was speaking to Hashem?"
You're over-reading it. The story is simply that God told Abraham to do it. You can get into absurd levels of Kierkegaardian uncertainty if you wish, but that's not the point of the story as I understand it. As far as the reader is concerned, God spoke to Abraham.
"2. Why he did not intercede on behalf of his son as he did for Sodom?"
Because he already tested God and found Him righteous. Whatever God was asking of him must have been alright, especially since God already told him He'd make a success out of Isaac.
"3. Why was he not more upstanding with regards to Hagar and Ismael? I noticed you left an explanation out for this story...."
No, I included it. Read my comment again. It's for the same reason as the Akeidah. God told him to do it and also had guaranteed to do well by them. 21:"12 But God said to him, "Do not be so distressed about the boy and your maidservant. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned. 13 I will make the son of the maidservant into a nation also, because he is your offspring."
If God Himself is guaranteeing their safety then it can hardly be considered an immoral act.
"Also, both of you seem to say that God tested Abraham and Isaac and all turned out to be ok. The point is that all was most certainly not OK. Isaac lost his mother in the needless ordeal."
That's a midrash - and you know it.
"God only knows what psychologic damage was done to Isaac, a child who was brought to an alter to be slaughtered and burned by his remaining parent!"
Psychological damage? That's a stretch. You are reading into the story to make it look as bad as you can.
>1. How did Abraham verify that he was speaking to Hashem?
This is really dumb Badrabbi. Lets just say this is the work of a human author, stop putting your present day expectations on to that author. Clearly the author is presenting a story here of man trusting God as Orthoprax states.
Your line of question can be put onto all stories. How does moshe now it was God talkign to him from a bush? Shoulden't he have checked around the rocks and see if someone was not playing a joke on him?
Stick with what the text is trying to tell you.
Holy Hyrax,
The best you can do is to call me dumb?
We read a story of a man who has been commanded to put his own son to the sword. This command has come from God. However, this command is so bizarre, it is (or it should be) so out of character from a good god, that the first thing a reasonable person should do is to verify that the command has in fact originated from God.
Assume I am dumb Holy – say I am “tom”, one of the 4 sons of the Hagadah. Explain to me how Avraham actually verified that the command actually came from God. Remember this is not a story, but an account of what actually happened.
Badrabbi: 1. How did Abraham verify that he was speaking to Hashem?
Gamliel: G-d would have had to make sure that someone knows He is talking to him. He would make contact with Avraham's mind for sure
Orthoprax: You're over-reading it. The story is simply that God told Abraham to do it. You can get into absurd levels of Kierkegaardian uncertainty if you wish, but that's not the point of the story as I understand it. As far as the reader is concerned, God spoke to Abraham.
Badrabbi: Contrary to what Holy Hyrax believes, we are not purely dumb people. If a spirit were to come to me and command me to slaughter my son, the first thing that would come to my mind is that either I am crazy, or worse, that an evil spirit has come upon me. Having doubts about God giving such an evil command is not an “over read”. Nor is it “dumb”, I don’t think. On the contrary, to hastily take my son to the alter, preparing to slaughter him, would be absurdly rash.
To say “as far as the reader is concerned, God spoke to Abraham” is convenient but unsatisfactory. As far as I am concerned, the story does not Jive. If Abraham is a man of God, if he knows God to be good, then when he is given a monumentally evil command, he should be obligated to verify that the command in fact does emanate from God, and to at least argue and pray against such a command.
More importantly, as a tool for today's prophets, it behooves the religious to work out the ways in which God's commands can be distinguished from hallucinations of a pyschopath. How does one know the difference, especially when the command is to slaughter a loved one before an alter?
Badrabbi: 2. Why he did not intercede on behalf of his son as he did for Sodom?"
Gamliel: He knew it was a command. If he hadn't interceded on behalf of Sodom but had for his son, I can see the critics crying foul even then.
Orthoprax: Because he already tested God and found Him righteous. Whatever God was asking of him must have been alright, especially since God already told him He'd make a success out of Isaac.
Badrabbi: Gamliel is correct that the critics may have cried foul if Abraham interceded on behalf of one and not for another. My point is that Abraham should have interceded for BOTH of them. That he did not is beyond my comprehension.
Orthoprax, I am not certain where Abraham “had tested God”. Abraham tested God? If “whatever God says must be right” then arguing against destroying Sodom should also have been pointless. Yet, Abraham did argue against God’s decision. Moreover, in the Torah, on more than one instance, God had made a decision (such as destroying the Jewish nation) and was in fact dissuaded from it by Moshe. So, God’s decisions can be changed. Even if God’s heart is hard, even he is obstinate and stubborn, at least Abraham could have argued a little, no? After all Abraham was facing the slaughter of his own son.
Finally, Orthoprax, you raise a good point: On the one hand, God had told Abraham that Isaac would be “a success”. On the other hand, God had commanded Abraham to kill his son. Now, if I were Abraham, I might think: “god, you are crazy. You are telling me two different things”. At this point, I would figure that God is a schizophrenic monster, in which case I would not do what he says, or that God is playing a test on me, in which case, I would have figured out God’s test.
BR,
"To say “as far as the reader is concerned, God spoke to Abraham” is convenient but unsatisfactory. As far as I am concerned, the story does not Jive."
The story is written from an omniscient third-person narrator's perspective, quote, "וַיְהִי, אַחַר הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה, וְהָאֱלֹהִים, נִסָּה אֶת-אַבְרָהָם; וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו, אַבְרָהָם וַיֹּאמֶר הִנֵּנִי."
It's simply a given fact of the story that God spoke to Abraham. The story as stated, is _not_ that Abraham heard God, but very simply that God spoke to him. The narration is meant to be taken at face value.
Your speculation as to how sure Abraham really was that God actually commanded him thusly is beyond the scope of the narrative and would go in the realm of midrash or "fan fiction."
"Fear and Trembling" uses the story, but it is not about the story.
Badrabbi: 3. Why was he not more upstanding with regards to Hagar and Ismael? I noticed you left an explanation out for this story...."
Gamliel: He gave them food but life was harder to begin with in the desert. Times were different too. The idea was to send Yishmael away. But Avraham knew that Yishmael would become the father of a mighty nation as G-d had told him.
Orthoprax: It's for the same reason as the Akeidah. God told him to do it and also had guaranteed to do well by them. 21:"12 But God said to him, "Do not be so distressed about the boy and your maidservant. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned. 13 I will make the son of the maidservant into a nation also, because he is your offspring.
Badrabbi: Unfortunately these responses do not address my question. What I am asking is not why Abraham sent Ishmael and Hagar away. What I am asking is why he acted so dishonorably. Let’s say that Abraham was told to listen to Sarah and have his wife and child leave his house. My question is: did he have to do it like that? To put a half day’s bread and water and banish them to the desert? That’s what an honorable person does?
I would have put them up in a nice house in a city, provide a stipend for them, look after their need, making sure that they are OK. Can we not expect some decency from our prophets?
BR,
"Orthoprax, I am not certain where Abraham “had tested God”. Abraham tested God? If “whatever God says must be right” then arguing against destroying Sodom should also have been pointless."
The point of the Sodom and Gemorrah story is not so Abraham would dissuade God, but for Abraham to understand that God is just. That's the given reason why God told him what He was about to do to Sodom etc, in the first place:
"17 Then the LORD said, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do? 18 Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him. 19 For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing what is right and just..."
Abraham tests God by seeing if He is a moral judge. That's what the classic righteous men countdown is all about. It is only after this story, which establishes God's moral worthiness, where trusting His commands is morally acceptable.
"Moreover, in the Torah, on more than one instance, God had made a decision (such as destroying the Jewish nation) and was in fact dissuaded from it by Moshe. So, God’s decisions can be changed."
That's not the point.
"Even if God’s heart is hard, even he is obstinate and stubborn, at least Abraham could have argued a little, no?"
That would illustrate a lack of trust - which would counter the point of the story. The point is that they had nothing to fear.
"Finally, Orthoprax, you raise a good point: On the one hand, God had told Abraham that Isaac would be “a success”. On the other hand, God had commanded Abraham to kill his son. Now, if I were Abraham, I might think: “god, you are crazy. You are telling me two different things”. At this point, I would figure that God is a schizophrenic monster, in which case I would not do what he says, or that God is playing a test on me, in which case, I would have figured out God’s test."
Well, since it's pretty obvious that God _is_ testing Abraham - the text says exactly that - it indeed stands to reason that Abraham could have figured that out.
BR,
"My question is: did he have to do it like that? To put a half day’s bread and water and banish them to the desert? That’s what an honorable person does?
I would have put them up in a nice house in a city, provide a stipend for them, look after their need, making sure that they are OK. Can we not expect some decency from our prophets?"
Meh. These were desert folks so I don't know how well Hagar was expected to know the lay of the land or what was necessary for survival. Lots of things went on in Beersheba. That much sustenance could have been sufficient if Hagar was proactive instead of wandering about. It's also unclear how much food and water they actually had. Additionally, they had God's guarantee, so their welfare couldn't have been a serious concern.
Regarding stipends and whatnot, I don't thnk that type of thing was practical or even something considered back in those days.
>Contrary to what Holy Hyrax believes, we are not purely dumb people.
You're not paying attention BadRabbi. Your question only exists because a text with this story exists. Your question is irrelvant from what the text is trying to tell you. Why dont you also ask how they brushed their teeth, or on what days he slept with his wife. The text is coming from a POV mechatchila that he came to realize it IS God. All these mental calculations perhaps DID occur but we was readers are not privy to that. What is relevant is what the text it trying to tell us. Work with what the author of the text is trying to tell you.
>but an account of what actually happened.
From YOUR honost perspective, this is all man made, hence, the comment that I left is appropriate for you. But lets just say it DID happen. Clearly, if God is writting it as well, he is only giving you parts of information for whatever reason. Maybe Avraham DID sit in anguish and debate his mind over this commandment. But we are not told that. Seeing that he KNOWS God exists (from the text), then he has no reason to think these are voices in his head.
Holy Hyrax: From YOUR honost perspective, this is all man made…
Badrabbi: Yes, in my opinion, the Torah is written by man.
Holy Hyrax: hence, the comment that I left is appropriate for you.
Badrabbi: Which comment is that? You have made so many comments, including the below the belt “this is dumb”. Frankly, I gain nothing by comments such as that.
Holy Hyrax: But lets just say it DID happen.
Badrabbi: OK, lets…
Holyhyrax: Clearly, if God is writting it as well, he is only giving you parts of information for whatever reason.
Badrabbi: OK….
Holyhyrax: Maybe Avraham DID sit in anguish and debate his mind over this commandment. But we are not told that.
Badrabbi: Frankly I do not care whether Abraham anguished over it. I am asking a completely different question. Let’s say that I hear a voice, or see an image of a ghostly apparition, telling me to drive a plane into a building. My question is: How do I know that it was God telling me to do this? I know that the Torah is not clarifying this issue. I am asking YOU. Is it not a critical issue to verify that a monsterous command such as this be verified?
Holyhyrax: Seeing that he KNOWS God exists (from the text), then he has no reason to think these are voices in his head.
Badrabbi: I want to understand this statement clearly. Are you saying that when one “knows” (KNOWS in capital) that God exists, then when he hears voices then there is no reason to think it is someone other than God? LOL, Do you think that all schizophrenics are atheists? Or that Satan is not capable of speaking to one’s head?
>Badrabbi: I want to understand this statement clearly. Are you saying that when one “knows” (KNOWS in capital) that God exists, then when he hears voices then there is no reason to think it is someone other than God? LOL, Do you think that all schizophrenics are atheists? Or that Satan is not capable of speaking to one’s head?
OMG, OMG
Badrabbi, let me explain to you again. Your concern is that how did Abraham KNOW it was GOD, and not some practical joke or voices in his head. This line of questioning on your part is ridiculous. The author of the story, whom ever it is coming into the story of the akeidah that Abraham already confirmed, in one way or the other that God exists. You are missing a fundamental point which is: Stick with what the text is trying to tell its reader. All these other questions, might be good from a stand point of how can a man just believe in voices being divine, BUT, the only reason we are even talking about a person named ABRAHAM, is because the torah is telling you about him. THE SAME torah that is already telling you he believes in God.
Lets go through this again. And I dont mean to treat you stupid here, I just want you to understand. There is a character in a story called Abraham. We, as the reader, are given a snipet of information to work with which the author decided to share with us.
So perhaps there WAS an Abraham. OK? And perhaps he DID go through all the questioning and stuff. Maybe he DID think to himself where these voices came from. Ok? Ofcourse, he probably went through this in Lech Lecha, right? So that by the time he left to Israel and went through everything and had a son, and saw angels, HE ALREADY BELEIVES. Now, all those mental thoughts, are NOT IMPORTANT TO WHAT THE AUTHOR of the text is trying to tell the reader.
Sooooooooooooooooo, again, by the time the akeidah happened, HE IS ALREADY CONVINCED THAT THIS MONSTEROUS COMMAND IS FROM GOD.
Holy Hyrax: OMG, OMG
Badrabbi: LOL, are you hyperventilating?
HolyHyrax: Your concern is that how did Abraham KNOW it was GOD, and not some practical joke or voices in his head.
Badrabbi: Yes, that is one of my concerns.
HolyHyrax: This line of questioning on your part is ridiculous.
Badrabbi: Actually, that you have not accepted this very elementary point that I have raised is somewhat ridiculous. Frankly it is difficult to continue to discuss things with you as I do now know how else to express myself. This is not that difficult. I leave it to the rest of the audience, Orthoprax not withstanding, to read and decide if they too believe that my points are ridiculous.
HolyHyrax: The author of the story, whom ever it is coming into the story of the akeidah that Abraham already confirmed, in one way or the other that God exists.
Badrabbi: But I am not disputing whether God exists here. Don’t you understand? I am not saying that a pre-requisite for the story of Akaida is that Abraham first has to confirm that God exists. Let us, for the purpose of this discussion, stipulate that God exists, and that at times he spoke to Abraham. Now, specifically, in the instance of Akaida, a seemingly monstrous command is given that is totally out of character for a good God. I am saying that here, there is an obligation on the part of a reasonable person to first verify that the command is from God.
HolyHyrax:You are missing a fundamental point which is: Stick with what the text is trying to tell its reader.
Badrabbi: I get the story, man. I get it! For the thousandth time, I get what the story is trying to say. Now deal with my issues, which are that a reasonable man, when told to kill his son, should take certain steps, critical ones really, before doing the deed. I get the story my Hyrax. Do you get mine?
HolyHyrax: All these other questions, might be good from a stand point of how can a man just believe in voices being divine, BUT, the only reason we are even talking about a person named ABRAHAM, is because the torah is telling you about him. THE SAME torah that is already telling you he believes in God.
Badrabbi: Once again, and for the thousandth time, I am not disputing that Abraham believes in God. The Torah is telling us about Abraham. After the fact, it turns out that indeed it was god who was talking to Abraham. OK. I am understanding you, right? Now deal with my question. What steps did Abraham take to correctly conclude that God told him to do this ghastly deed? Remember, a legitimate answer can be “I do not know!”
HolyHyrax: Lets go through this again. And I dont mean to treat you stupid here
Badrabbi: LOL, don’t bother. What you are trying to do is to use an old debating trick. Since you have not sufficient logical rebuttals, you will bring up the straw man of my lack of understanding. But OK: I am asking you to “treat me stupid here” and walk me through the steps of your logic. Let us see, now that you have decided to go step by step and act like I am a simpleton what your logic is…..
HolyHyrax: There is a character in a story called Abraham.
Badrabbi: So far so good…
HolyHyrax: We, as the reader, are given a snipet of information to work with which the author decided to share with us.
Badrabbi: I get this too. Wow, you are doing so well. So to recap, there is a guy named Abraham, and the story tells us a bit about him. Good.
HolyHyrax: So perhaps there WAS an Abraham. OK?
Badrabbi: OK, LOL!
Holyhyrax: And perhaps he DID go through all the questioning and stuff. Maybe he DID think to himself where these voices came from. Ok?
Badrabbi: OK. Maybe this Abraham, who has been told to kill his boy indeed DID think to himself where the voices came from. LOL, OK.
Holyhyrax: Ofcourse, he probably went through this in Lech Lecha, right?
Badrabbi: Yes, I agree. Anytime a voice tells you to do something important, it behooves you to make sure that the voices you are hearing are legitimately from God. So, in effect, I think you are telling me that whatever steps Abraham took in Lech Lecha are the same steps that he took in Akaida! What you are doing is transferring my question from one story to another! OK, I am now asking how Abraham verified that indeed it was god asking him to go from one town to another.
Furthermore, and this is critical here, the nature of lech lecha is very different than Akaida. It is one thing if a voice is telling you that it is better for you to move from Staten Island to Borough Park. It is another thing altogether if the voice is telling you to put an explosive inside of a shopping mall in Brooklyn! Can you not see that the nature of one is advisory and the other evil? Can you not see that it is within God’s character to say the former but not the latter? Can you not see that it takes a completely different verification process for one versus the other?
Am I really the one who is stupid here?
HolyHyrax: So that by the time he left to Israel and went through everything and had a son, and saw angels, HE ALREADY BELEIVES.
Badrabbi: You can capitalize all you want. I never questioned Abraham’s belief. I know that Abraham believes in God. Who said anything otherwise? If this is not a definition for a straw man, I do not know what is!
HolyHrax: Now, all those mental thoughts, are NOT IMPORTANT TO WHAT THE AUTHOR of the text is trying to tell the reader.
Badrabbi: I fully recognize that the AUTHOR is trying to portray the Akaida story as a successful test of Abraham’s faith. I have not questioned the author’s motives here. Frankly I am shocked that you thought for one minute that the torah was trying to cast Abraham in a bad light. I am saying that even though the Torah is showing the supposed sacrifice of Abraham positively, even though the “AUTHOR” is praising Abraham for his deeds, that in fact upon reading the Torah that Abraham comes off as a jerk! I am saying he is a jerk not because the Torah intends for him to be portrayed this way, but for the reasons that I mentioned previously.
HolyHyrax: Sooooooooooooooooo,
Badrabbi: So, again, holyhyrax, your condescension is really tiring, especially in light of your refusal to understanding relatively simple concepts.
HolyHyrax: again, by the time the akeidah happened, HE IS ALREADY CONVINCED THAT THIS MONSTEROUS COMMAND IS FROM GOD.
Badrabbi: All I can say to the above, its irony of your writing this in capitals not withstanding, is “OY VEY”
>Can you not see that the nature of one is advisory and the other evil? Can you not see that it is within God’s character to say the former but not the latter? Can you not see that it takes a completely different verification process for one versus the other?
Why the need for verification? Even if these are two diminic different commandments, why is that the fist time would not be enough? If he KNOWS God (not believes), but knows him, and the text is obviously stating that their relationship has grown (kivyachol) does he need to start verifiing at every junction? That would not make sense for the narrative of the story even. There is no seperate form of verification here because the story is already BEYOND that. The akeidah is at the point of complete submission to this God after already dealing with God in the past.
And I am not using any debating trick here. You are clearly not understanding the text and seeing how the stories are changing in the right direction
Ok, Holy Hyrax. I suppose we have to agree to disagree.
I am just curious about you personally. If you heard voices telling you to slit your loved one's throat, what would you do?
>I am just curious about you personally. If you heard voices telling you to slit your loved one's throat, what would you do?
Ok, good question. If I heard that kind of order, out of the blue, I would probably think I am delusional. I guess I would have to ignore it. (I guess one could also argue that if God DID talk to you, you would certainly know it was God and not in your head)
But, if I had an ongoing relationship with this voice, that I have already realized its God, I would not think I'm delusional. I would not need to verify it on this occasion as you are asking. I would have started the verification process way before. So would I comply with this order? I don't think so. I would probably start arguing with God. Thats just me personally. Maybe Avraham did argue with God. We don't know that. All I know is, is that that Avraham story at this junction fits with the progression of the narrative. And it could be, could be, that sacrificing children in those days was not THAT unheard of. Nahum Sarna brings this up in his book. So what seems immoral to us, perhaps in Avraham's eyes, was normal.
Holy Hyrax;
Thank you for this lucid answer. It did make sense, and I understood the answer. Which of Sarna's books are you referring to? DO you recommend his books?
Sarnas books is called "Understanding Genesis"
Great book.
Post a Comment