Parashat VaYera, Gen. 18:1-22:24

This week's parasha has been generously sponsored by Sam and Jack Markle in memory of Sam Slywowicz.

Kolel appreciates its weekly sponsors. To sponsor a parasha, click here.

 

The Other "Lech Lecha"

Study with Baruch Sienna

It has often been said that the Bible is not a children's book, but this week reads like the most risqué episode of some popular soap opera. Sarah becomes pregnant in her old age. Our parasha describes the male citizens of Sodom wanting to have intercourse with Lot's honoured guests (hence the origin of the word 'sodomy'), the offer of Lot's virgin daughters to the crowd, the seduction and incest of Lot with his daughters, Sarah's position as sexual pawn between Abraham and Avimelech, the abuse and expulsion of Hagar from Abraham's house and finally the climax of the 'Binding of Isaac', the near murder of Abraham's son. The whole parasha is pretty R rated.

This final chapter of our parasha is also read on Rosh HaShanah; you can view our yearly lay leaders' contributions who share their wisdom on our archived Rosh Hashanah Sermons and Divrei Torah page. Each year I look forward to their words of wisdom to this troubling story because there are unfortunately no easy solutions to this disturbing passage.

Many try to see the story as a repudiation of child/human sacrifice. It is true, that human sacrifice was in fact known (and practiced) in the ancient Near East. It seems to have been particularly popular in Canaan, and the Canaanite practice is frequently criticized (Lev. 18:21; Deut. 12:31). The king of Moab sacrificed his son in hopes of securing a victory in battle (II Kings 16:3). Indeed, the whole story only makes sense, if to Abraham (and perhaps the reader), it is actually conceivable that God could want this sacrifice. Yet, although Isaac is spared at the last minute, and therefore implicitly God does want a human sacrifice, there is no explicit, unambiguous renunciation of child sacrifice. We could expect the tale to end with the conclusion, "therefore God forbids child sacrifices..." or at the very least, some disclaimer that God doesn't want the sacrifice of humans. Others claim that the story provides the justification for animal sacrifice. However, the Torah has already introduced animal sacrifice (with Cain and Noah), and Isaac is replaced by a ram at the last minute, not through any Divine intervention, but through Abraham's initiative.

Others argue that the problematic sacrifice should not be the focus, since the whole point of the story is that it is a test. The first verse tells us this explicitly: And God put Abraham to the test... This is only a test. Do not panic. This is only a test. But this too is not entirely satisfactory. Notwithstanding God's claim, 'Now I know that you fear me...' this is problematic since for the biblical author God is omniscient. Why would God need to put Abraham to the test? One idea is that just as Abraham cast out his one son Ishmael to an almost certain death, God gives Abraham a 'taste of his own medicine' as it were. See how you like that! Others suggest the innovative solution that Abraham in fact fails the test, but this is the kind of creative midrash that turns the text on its head (even though that's allowed, I can't believe it is the pshat - the intended meaning of the text!). In the medieval period, where Jews often were martyred, Yitzhak became a powerful symbol for their suffering. Today however, in a post 9/11 world of suicide bombers and world terror, we are disturbed by any religious zeal that promotes unthinking obedience to God, something that did not disturb the classical rabbis as much who saw such faith as praiseworthy. We rightly recoil from religious extremism, and It is this kind of fundamental fanaticism that creates the danger that we recall especially this week, as we mark the murder of the other Yitzhak on the anniversary of the assassination of Israel's prime minister eleven years ago.

So what does this story mean? Generations of rabbis and scholars have tried to understand this disturbing story of the Binding of Isaac, and I haven't found any satisfying answers. Biblical stories operate on multiple levels; we commonly make the mistake of assuming they have only one moral lesson. So the story of the tower of Babel, for example, is simultaneously about the unusual flat-topped ziggurats, the origin of the diversity of language, an indictment of technology and urban life, and a comment on our relationship with the Divine. Similarly the Binding of Isaac is on some level a criticism of child sacrifice but also about Abraham's faith and religious character. But I think there are two additional mistakes we make in reading biblical narratives. The first is, when the Bible tells us a story, more important than asking "why did this character do X", or "why did God do Y," is to ask, why does the Torah choose to tell us this story? After all, there are lots of events in Abraham's life that the Bible skipped over (why was Abraham chosen? for example).

Secondly, we also tend to look at individual stories, and overlook connections with other narratives. Commentators and biblical scholars have pointed out a number of parallels between chapter 12 and chapter 22. It seems deliberate and significant that the phrase 'lech lecha...' is used in God's command to offer Isaac. This phrase appears twice and only twice in the Torah. Besides in our story, it also begins last week's parasha of the same name: Lech Lecha. In both stories Abraham is commanded to go on a journey, (without a speciic destination), Go forth... to a place that I will show you. Both times, Abraham obeys without a peep. The threefold description of Abraham's land (your land, your birthplace, your father's house) parallels that of Isaac (your son, your favoured one, whom you love). The two narratives conclude with similar blessings. The two stories form the opening and closing brackets to the Abraham narrative, the first and last times God speaks to Abraham. In this way, the stories create a kind of book-end symmetry, and forming mirror images of each other, they shed light on each other by highlighting how the two episodes are different. So the question that must be asked is, 'What is our story's connection with the beginning of last week's parasha: Lech Lecha...?' 

Last week, Abram set out on a journey to the place that God promised to 'show him'. The midrash inverts the verb to mean, 'where God will appear.' The midrash may be picking up on this connection, because this week's parasha, in fact, begins with God appearing 'vayera' and the theme of 'vision' is repeated numerous times in the final story (Abram sees the place from afar, sees the ram, and even names the site: Adonai Yireh: God will be seen.) So the story of Abraham's life has been a journey to see the Divine. But what does that mean?

When Abraham is first called, he is given the promise of a great reward. He will inherit the land of Israel, and be the father of a great nation. Who wouldn't want that? Religion is easy when its adherents believe that there is an intrinsic (or even better, an extrinsic) reward for their obedience. But this time there is no reward for following God's command; in fact, complying would nullify God's promise. Now it's not so easy. This final story demonstrates the evolution of Abraham's faith. Abraham now demonstrates that he is not following God for the reward. That's what God, Abraham, and we, the readers need to see. The story is not about God wanting to see if Abraham would kill his own son or not.

We too are all on that journey, like Abraham, and struggling to see the Divine. The Torah tells us this story to ask whether we will continue to believe in our lofty ideals even when they make us uncomfortable, indeed, even if we have to make sacrifices. Maybe that's what it means to be able to see the Divine.

 

Shabbat Shalom.

BDS