Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | What's bothering Rashi?: Vayeira | Gen 22:1 | Eliyahu | 162282 | ||
This week's parsha records several dramatic events: the birth of Isaac; Abraham's unsuccessful plea to save Sodom; the destruction of Sodom and Lot's rescue; and finally the binding of Isaac. The meaning of Abraham's binding and intended sacrifice of his beloved son, has been interpreted in various ways. We will compare Rashi's thinking with that of his grandson, Rashbam. Genesis 22:1 "And it was after these events that Yahweh tested Abraham and He said to him, 'Abraham,' and he said, 'Here I am.'" RASHI: There are those of our Rabbis who say the meaning is: After the words of the Satan who accused (Abraham) and said, "Of the banquet which Abraham made he did not sacrifice even one bull or ram (in thanks to Yahweh)." Then (Yahweh) said to him "Did he not do all this only for his son, and if I would say to him 'Offer your son for Me,' he would not refuse!" Others say, "After the words of Ishmael, who boasted to Isaac, that he allowed himself to be circumcised at the age of 13 and did not protest. Isaac said to him 'With one part of your body are you boasting to me! If Yahweh would ask me to sacrifice my life I would not refuse.' " Rashi is clearly relating to the Torah's words "After these devarim." The Hebrew word "devarim" can mean either "events" or "words." The fact that the Torah begins this section of the binding with the word "After" implies that there is some kind of connection with previous verses. Which verses? This question lead to the two opinions of the Rabbis that Rashi cites. The first opinion refers back to verse 21:8 where Abraham's feast for Isaac's being weaned at two years old is described. The second opinion refers further back to verse 21:4 where Isaac's circumcision at eight days is mentioned. That Ishmael was circumcised at age 13 is mentioned even earlier, in verse 17:25. The Torah's use of the word "nisa" is usually taken to mean "tested"; that is, Yahweh was testing Abraham to see if his faith was steadfast and his obedience would stand up to this difficult test. Also, after Abraham showed his willingness to do anything for his Authority, the Torah testifies to this. Verse 22:12 says: "...for now I know that you are Yahweh-fearing, for you have not withheld your only son from Me." All the commentaries follow this line. A question: Why does the All Knowing Yahweh need to test Abraham to know the extent of his faith in Yahweh? He certainly knows each man's heart, so why the need for a test? Ramban's explanation: Ramban explains that in this case the test served the purpose of allowing Abraham to actualize his inner potential. Although Yahweh knew that Abraham was obedient to perform the painful act of offering his dearly beloved son, even so, once a person acts on his inner belief, he has given that belief more validity. Rashbam (Rashi's grandson) offers an original view of this "test." He says: "...After Abraham made a treaty with Avimelech, between him, their sons, their grandsons and their great grandsons, then Yahweh was angry with him because the land of the Philistines was part of the Land of Israel and the Holy One commanded 'You shall not let live any soul'; therefore, Yahweh 'provoked'" Abraham, and caused him pain." Rashbam continues: "This is to say that he (Abraham) was proud of the son that Yahweh had given him and made a covenant for this son and Avimelech's son. Now (says Yahweh) bring him as an offering on the altar and we will see what becomes of your brit." The Rashbam continues by quoting a Midrash, that Yahweh made an oath: "since you offered seven sheep (in the covenant ceremony) the Philistines will kill seven of your Righteous and destroy seven of your temples: Ohel Moed, Gilgal, Nov, Shilo, Givon, and the two Temples." This is really a startling interpretation (and of timely relevance!). Can you find textual validity for Rashbam's interpretation over Rashi's?An Answer: Both Rashi and Rashbam are connecting the chapter of the Akaida with a previous event. The two interpretations that Rashi offers are both based on drash not p'shat. The Torah does not record Ishmael's conversation with Isaac nor the conversation between the Satan and Yahweh. Rashbam's interpretation, on the other hand, is very close to p'shat, because the Akaida does come after the covenant which was explicitly made between Abraham's son and Avimelech's son. And we also know that Israel was commanded not to make a treaty with the inhabitants of the Land and instead to destroy them. Abraham had gone against this command. The terrifying provocation of Yahweh to kill his son was his punishment! A LESSON:I find the lesson from this interpretation both startling and eye-opening! Living in Jerusalem at this point in time of our vicissitude-filled history, I am wondering if the Torah (according to Rashbam) is not speaking to us. Are such thoughts "merely" political or are they p'shat?!Love in Yahweh, Eliyahu |
||||||
2 | What's bothering Rashi?: Vayeira | Gen 22:1 | mark d seyler | 163060 | ||
Hi Eliyahu, Since, as you have already said, we are not given a record of any such conversation between Satan and the LORD in referrence to Abraham, we really cannot know about that. Equally true of any such conversation between Ishmael and Isaac. I tend to go with what is written in James about this event: James 2:22 "You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected;" So this leads me to agree with Ramban, "giving validity to his faith". Was Abraham's treaty with Avimelech wrong for Abraham to make? Was not the command to slay all in the land given after Abraham? As I read the story of Abraham and Avimelech, it seems that God has favor on Avimelech. What do you think? Do you think that God is imposing a greater testing of Isreal because of similar actions, in giving away land, and seeking treaties with it's enemies? I think that God would have commanded Abraham to offer Isaac whether or not Abraham had made a treaty with Avimelech, because of the other purposes that act served, in prophetically protraying Jesus' sacrifice, but this is of course my own opinion. In Hebrews we are told that Abraham fully expected God to raise Isaac from the dead, and so it may have been less terrifying, and more mistifying - I don't know. (Just a small thing, but it helps me to read longer posts - Could you insert paragraph breaks - a blank line - so that this is not a solid block of text? It helps my tired eyes to read) Anyway, these are some of my thoughts. Let me know what you think. Many of us here in the US are wondering if perhaps some the the calamities that have happened to us are because of our pressure on the Israeli government to give up land. God bless you! Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||