Bar-Ilan University
Parshat Vayera 5773/October 19, 2013
Parashat Hashavua Study Center
Lectures on the weekly Torah reading by the faculty of Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan, Israel. A
project of the Faculty of Jewish Studies, Paul and Helene Shulman Basic Jewish Studies Center, and
the Office of the Campus Rabbi. Published on the Internet under the sponsorship of Bar-Ilan
University's International Center for Jewish Identity. Prepared for Internet Publication by the
Computer Center Staff at Bar-Ilan University.
990
The Test of G-d
By Dan Elbo
The British scholar Richard Dawkins in his recent book, The G-d Delusion,1 refers to the
binding of Isaac as a "disgraceful story" and "an example simultaneously of child abuse,
bullying in two asymmetrical power relationships."2 This is a harsh argument, running
contrary to traditional Jewish sources which go out of their way to praise Abraham.

Dr. Elbo is an historian, poet and cultural scholar. His book Shirat Miriam on Miriam bat Simhon’s
poetry was recently published. This article is dedicated in memory of my mother, Zohar bat Amram
and Simha of the house of Bibas.
1
Richard Dawkins, The G-d Delusion, Boston 2008, p. 275.
2
This is similar to the criticism the Sages voiced against Abraham. One of their homilies says, "In time
to come the Holy One, blessed be He, will send Abraham to make reconciliation with His people Israel,
saying to them: My daughter, please accept an offer of reconciliation from the Omnipresent. But
Israel will respond: How can you expect me to accept an offer reconciliation brought by you, who did
1
Can Scripture be interpreted differently? The question of free choice includes a collection of
difficulties closely connected to faith: the seeming contradiction between G-d being Master
and His believers having free will and the fundamental question of how free will can be
consonant with absolute obedience to a will other than one's own. According to Scripture,
human beings choose their G-d,3 and the story of the binding of Isaac poses the question:
how should one act when one's G-d commands an action which runs contrary to the basic
assumptions that led the person to choose that G-d?
In the previous three weekly portions, Scripture imputes to events a moral significance
based on distinguishing between good and evil, reward and punishment. Those who did evil
were punished and those who did good were rewarded.
This logic leads to a clear
connection between death and punishment, as opposed to life and reward. Abraham
manifests great moral strength in his petition for the people of Sodom, expressing his
position in two questions: "Will you sweep away the innocent along with the guilty?" and
"Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?"
The underlying assumption is that G-d Himself is subject to the rules of justice which He
established. Just as G-d is not allowed to take the soul of a righteous person for the sin of a
wicked person, so too, He is not entitled to instruct a person to take the life of another who
has not sinned. Unlike the case of Sodom, where Abraham fervently took up the argument
in defense, in the binding of Isaac he falls dumb, and his loss of speech is incomprehensible
insofar as the command given him entails a dreadful injustice. Moreover, the Lord's words
to Abraham are diametrically opposed to the structure of morality that was built thus far,
according to which when a person dies before his time it is either the result of human crime
(such as the murder of Abel) or divine punishment (the flood and the overthrow of Sodom).
The Sages picked fault with Abraham for his lack of compassion towards his favored son;
Abraham's unbefitting comportment is problematic, but the main difficulty lies not in him
but in the moral wrong and cruelty entailed by G-d's command.
The story of the binding of Isaac demands an answer to both difficulties: G-d's command
and Abraham's silence. According to the standard interpretation, the test was intended to
reveal whether Abraham would comply with the command to sacrifice his son, but
understanding the test in this manner contradicts the qualities attributed to the Lord in
not save your only son!?" (Sifre d'Aggadeta al Esther—Midrash Pannim Aherim [Buber], version 1, ch.
1).
3
See Genesis 28:20-21.
2
Scripture and our perception of Him as omniscient. Moreover, in the affair of Abraham and
the king of Gerar we saw that Abraham divided the world into places where there was "fear
of G-d" and places where there was not, between G-d-fearing people and others.4 Insofar as
Abraham was already in the category of G-d-fearing people, what point was there in putting
him to the test regarding a trait which he possessed, examining his faith? What exactly was
being tested in Abraham?
"He said to him, 'Abraham,' and he answered, 'Here I am.' And He said, 'Take your son, your
favored on, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a
burnt offering on one of the heights that I will point out to you.'" This request can be split in
two: go to a certain defined spot, and sacrifice Isaac as a burnt offering. The test to which
Abraham was put also can be split in to, in parallel: first, would he have the courage to go to
the spot the Lord indicated, notwithstanding the request that he sacrifice his son as a burnt
offering? Second, how far would he go in his obedience, and at what stage would he begin
to wonder and show doubts regarding the justice of the command? That is the nature of the
test, and this is how we propose understanding the binding of Isaac. We are dealing with
two tests: God testing whether Abraham would have the courage to refuse to commit the
crime that He was encouraging him to commit, and from Abraham's point of view, whether
he would see any point in continuing to be faithful to a G-d who, like pagan gods, instructed
him to sacrifice his son as a burnt offering.
G-d placed Abraham in two dilemmas: choosing between obedience and noncompliance, on
the one hand, and between good and evil, on the other. G-d did not make things easy for
him, insofar as the dilemmas went at cross purposes: choosing obedience would lead him to
choosing evil, whereas choosing noncompliance would lead to choosing good. So the test of
the binding of Isaac was to see whether Abraham would refuse the Lord's demand and
4
The story of Abraham and the king of Gerar provides two keys to understanding the binding of Isaac.
The first is in the Lord calling Abraham a prophet. That he should be thus described is surprising
insofar as there was no prior indication of Abraham foreseeing the future or prophesying. "Therefore,
restore the man's wife—since he is a prophet, he will intercede for you—to save your life" (Gen.
20:7). He also possesses the talent of prayer which has the power to grant life. These two abilities
are imminently tied to the story of the binding of Isaac. The second key is found in Abraham's
response to Abimelech asking, "What, then, was your purpose in doing this thing?" Abraham
explained in response, "I thought, surely there is no fear of G-d in this place" (Gen. 20:10-11). This
answer reflects the sense of faith by which Abraham was guided.
3
choose in favor of his son's life, or whether he would obey the command and sacrifice his
son.
It seems that upon hearing the Lord's words, Abraham made a decision not to obey. He told
Isaac openly what the Lord had said to him, and together they set out on their journey.
When Abraham said, "You stay here with the ass. The boy and I will go on for a bit [`ad
koh];5 we will worship and we will return to you" (Gen. 22:5), he knew how the story would
end before it reached its conclusion. Moreover, to Isaac's question, "but where is the sheep
for the burnt offering?" Abraham answered, "G-d will see to the sheep for His burnt offering,
my son." Amazing! Exactly as would happen just a bit later. How could this be? One cannot
explain Abraham's precise apprehension of the future without relating to his being a
prophet; nor did he have it in mind to sacrifice his son.6 From Isaac's question it is clear, too,
that he never considered at any point that it was he who would be slaughtered, and from his
acquaintance with his father he had no reason to doubt the honesty of his words.7
Given the detailed accounting of the supplies mentioned in preparation for the expedition, it
is strange that no mention was made of a rope, for how can a human being or an animal be
bound to the altar without a rope? `Akedah literally means binding, tying together the
hands and feet, and for animals, tying the front feet to the back feet. Clearly there can be no
`akedah if there is no binding, and there can be no binding without a rope. There is no rope
in the list of supplies just as there is no hammer in a pistol used for a murder scene on stage.
The missing item is the clue to understanding Abraham's stand on morality and faith in the
5
`Ad-koh is an expression that occurs but rarely in Scripture, and its sense is derived from its
occurrence here and in I Kings 10:45: "Meanwhile (va-yehi `ad-koh ve-`ad-koh) the sky grew black
with clouds." It refers to the dimension of time, akin to meanwhile, in a few moments, or briefly.
Clearly if it had been his intention to slaughter his son, he would not have used the expression `adkoh, for the rite of sacrificing a living person as a burnt offering cannot be accomplished in a moment
or two, or even in several minutes.
6
Earlier, in the episode of Abraham and the king of Gerar (Genesis 20:7), Scripture associated
Abraham with prophecy, prayer, and life, as another stage in building the features of monotheistic
faith and characterizing the spiritual world of the father of monotheism. Prophecy, prayer and life
were mentioned for good reason, for prayer and life are the antithesis of sacrifice and death.
7
If we do not take what Abraham said at face value, then it turns out that he lied and led all three of
them astray. Moreover, if he returned without Isaac, either he would have had to tell the truth (that
he had sacrificed him) after the fact, or he would have had to compound his lying with another
falsehood in order to account for his son's disappearance.
4
request to sacrifice his son as a burnt offering. Abraham does not equip himself with a rope
at the outset because he has no intention of binding his son later on.
"And the two of them walked on together and arrived at the place of which G-d had told
them." Together, to emphasize that they went sharing knowledge of the purpose of the act
in which they were participating. The picture is one of proceeding calmly, with purposeful
cooperation, as one would expect of two people executing an agreed plan with clear details.
Isaac behaved like the actor in the play with a murder scene where the pistol has no
hammer. He knew that after they finished worshipping he would return with his father to
Abraham's servants. Abraham, for his part, was interested in knowing whether or not the
Lord who was revealed to him in Haran required human sacrifice, like other gods.
"He bound his son Isaac"—in the absence of any rope, this can be interpreted as follows: he
placed him on the altar in the fashion of someone whose hands and feed are bound. From
their point of view the question was to find out how far they needed to carry on with the
pagan show in order to discover the Lord's intentions. Indeed, an angel of the Lord did
appear before the knife was brought down: "Then an angel of the Lord called to him from
heaven: 'Abraham! Abraham!...Do not raise your hand against the boy, or do anything to
him. For now I know that you fear G-d, since you have not withheld your son, your favored
one, from Me'" (Gen. 11-12). The Lord essentially said to Abraham: since you did not give
up your favored son for my sake, as do the pagans, sacrificing their firstborns, therefore
"now I know that you fear G-d." Thus we interpret "have not withheld" (Heb. hasakhta) as
meaning: did not cause his annihilation. We read the Hebrew as "hashakhta," as in hoshekh
or darkness, charcoal and ashes (Maharal, Derekh Hayyim, p. 144), meaning: you did not
burn up your son for me.
Abraham's fervently moral personality and prophetic qualities, his saying explicitly that he
would return with Isaac after worshipping,8 and the absence of any rope provide a solid
foundation for the interpretation suggested here, that Abraham is presented neither as
complying with the request to slaughter his son nor as lying and leading his son astray.
Abraham's test was of the nature of his faith, not the strength of his faith, for even a pagan
who slaughters his firstborn does so out of faith and religious fervor. This touches on the
heart of the problem in suzerain-vassal relationships, the tension between the master who
commands and the free will of the person who is commanded. The problematic nature of
8
Unless one argues that Abraham deliberately lied in order to mislead Isaac and his servants.
5
authoritative religion is far from negligible: blind faith and obedience can easily lead to
moral blindness and in certain circumstances can be the shortest way leading to the most
heinous deeds. The story of the binding of Isaac raises the question of this aspect of faith
and limits the subordinate relationship of the one commanded to the one commanding. The
person of faith is called upon to obey but at the same time to choose. On one hand, being
obedient means nullifying free choice, yet on the other hand, faith which is devoid of free
choice nullifies the concept of good and evil. In this week's reading the dialectic between
fear and choice finds expression in Abraham's actions. He walked for three days in order to
see for certain whether the Lord would indeed see to the sheep for His burnt offering. The
words of the angel and the appearance of the ram prove to Abraham that from the outset
the Lord did not want him to take his son's life.
The binding of Isaac is a milestone in the theological and moral characterization of
monotheism as a faith that rejects human sacrifice, a faith in which wisdom, along with free
choice, are not taken away from the person of faith. This is the message we should learn
from the binding of Isaac.
Translated by Rachel Rowen
6