The Akedah aka the Binding of Isaac.

[John D. Brey]

Judaism, as it’s often practiced, doesn't speak so much of the "sacrifice of Isaac" but instead the "binding" of Isaac (Isaac's bondage). . . The lamb of God, far from dying a meaningless death, or playing a minor role in the symbolism of the story (as some branches of Judaism would have it), is in truth the key to the entire narrative since, understood in the context of all other related symbolism, Isaac can be seen to be a symbol of the lamb of God not vice versa. ----In other words, when the story is rescued from the unknowing belief that the non-sacrifice of Isaac is the spirit of the narrative, it becomes apparent that the lamb of God, far from playing a minor role on the side, is the leading actor in the story. The lamb of God is the central character in the story, not Isaac. The plight of the lamb of God, and not Isaac, is the focus of the story. Isaac is merely a fore-skene, a prop, for the sacrifice of the lamb of God, rather than the lamb of God being a meaningless diversion after the rescue of Isaac.​

​

The Binding Meaning [of] Isaac's Bondage.​

The quotation above comes from a thread we did here almost a full ten years ago. Yet even now, the claim that the Akedah lamb is the central figure of the Akedah-narrative, such that Isaac is secondary, clearly isn't likely to sit well with Jewish readers. Which is why this new thread is resurrecting the Akedah lamb for a closer look.




John

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The lamb of God, far from dying a meaningless death, or playing a minor role in the symbolism of the story (as some branches of Judaism would have it), is in truth the key to the entire narrative ...

Thanks! Us poor Jews just can't seem to comprehend our own writings. It's so nice to have an itinerant preacher swing by to put us in our place.

 

[John D. Brey]

Thanks! Us poor Jews just can't seem to comprehend our own writings. It's so nice to have an itinerant preacher swing by to put us in our place.

. . . Anyone familiar with this so-called "itinerant preacher" should be aware by now that far from disputing Jewish comprehension of Jewish writing, it's precisely the Jewish sages, Chazal, and Chachamim, whose comprehension of scripture is considered the prism through which all serious consideration of the text must pass in order to pass muster. The point of this thread is to use Jewish sages to support the premise of the previous thread quoted in this thread-seeder, i.e., the premise that the Akedah ram, and not Isaac, is the central character of the Akedah-narrative:

If our offerings had no symbolic meaning; if the offering of this ram had not been intended to express, in symbolic terms, a devotion far more exalted and meaningful in life than would have been expressed by the actual slaying of Yitzchak ---then how blasphemous, how absurd, would it have been to offer up that ram תחת בנו! To offer up, instead of the most cherished being, for whom one would gladly have suffered death oneself ten times over, an animal that one happens to encounter in the wilderness, an animal that does not even have the value of being one's personal property! To what may this be compared? Someone generously gives you a million dollars, and you pick up a pin you happen to see on the ground and say: "Please accept this pin in exchange!"​

​

The Hirsch Chumash, Bereshis 22:13-14.​

John

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

. . Anyone familiar with this so-called "itinerant preacher" should be aware ...

I will gladly settle on reading Jewish sages.

 

[John D. Brey]

I will gladly settle on reading Jewish sages.

Then write us your reading of of what Rabbi Samson R. Hirsch wrote?



John

 

[John D. Brey]

If our offerings had no symbolic meaning; if the offering of this ram had not been intended to express, in symbolic terms, a devotion far more exalted and meaningful in life than would have been expressed by the actual slaying of Yitzchak ---then how blasphemous, how absurd, would it have been to offer up that ram תחת בנו! To offer up, instead of the most cherished being, for whom one would gladly have suffered death oneself ten times over, an animal that one happens to encounter in the wilderness, an animal that does not even have the value of being one's personal property! To what may this be compared? Someone generously gives you a million dollars, and you pick up a pin you happen to see on the ground and say: "Please accept this pin in exchange!"​

​

The Hirsch Chumash, Bereshis 22:13-14.​

Although it might be difficult to swallow, it's patently clear that Rabbi Hirsch is expressing the fact that the sacrifice of the Akedah ram is nothing like what it's taken to be in the minds of those far less insightful than he. Hirsch states clearly that the sacrifice of the ram "symbolizes" a devotion to God "far more exalted than would have been expressed by the actual slaying of Yitzchak." The sacrifice of the ram, far from playing a minor role in the narrative, expresses, as the always insightful Rabbi Hirsch points out, a far more exalted sacrifice than would have occurred with the sacrifice of Isaac. In Rabbi Hirsch's perfect logic (at least here), the hoi polloi belief that the spirit of the Akedah is in the binding or sacrifice of Isaac is wrongheaded in that it therein necessarily implies the sacrifice of the ram of God is a mere sideshow of no real importance taking place after the real event has occurred or been aborted as it were and was.

In the same quotation, Hirsch compares Isaac, or the sacrifice of Isaac, to a gift of such great worth that Abraham would gladly sacrifice himself ten times over for the privilege? Therefore, the angel of the Lord offering Abraham the sacrifice of the ram, in exchange for the right to offer Isaac, is rightly compared to giving someone something one has just found on the ground in exchange for the million dollars they already have. The sacrifice of Isaac is a million dollars Abraham already has. And as Rabbi Hirsch points out, the sacrifice of the ram of God is worth much more.

Taken in the thoughtless way much of Judaism and Christianity approach the narrative, just when Abraham is about to receive the greatest gift anyone could ever receive from God (the sacrifice of Isaac), the angel of the Lord suddenly appears and instead offers him a relatively worthless, wounded, beast, in exchange for the previous right to sacrifice Isaac.

Rabbi Hirsch is correct to note that the symbolism contained in the sacrifice of the ram, must be, for the story to be something other than the stuff of the hoi polloi, recognized not as a step down from the sacrifice of Isaac (in which case its such a step down as to be rightly reckoned and mocked as an utter farce) but rather a step up, a greater gift given based on Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac. In Rabbi Hirsch's brilliant hands, the willingness to offer up Isaac is the reason the Lord is willing to give him the ram of God as an offering symbolically greater than the offering of Isaac. Hirsch rescues the narrative from eons of asininity such that he therein provides us with the schematic, the template, with which to finally uncover what's really occurring beneath the veil provided for, and swallowed whole by, the hoi polloi.



John

 

[firedragon]

Judaism, as it’s often practiced, doesn't speak so much of the "sacrifice of Isaac" but instead the "binding" of Isaac (Isaac's bondage). . . The lamb of God, far from dying a meaningless death, or playing a minor role in the symbolism of the story (as some branches of Judaism would have it), is in truth the key to the entire narrative since, understood in the context of all other related symbolism, Isaac can be seen to be a symbol of the lamb of God not vice versa. ----In other words, when the story is rescued from the unknowing belief that the non-sacrifice of Isaac is the spirit of the narrative, it becomes apparent that the lamb of God, far from playing a minor role on the side, is the leading actor in the story. The lamb of God is the central character in the story, not Isaac. The plight of the lamb of God, and not Isaac, is the focus of the story. Isaac is merely a fore-skene, a prop, for the sacrifice of the lamb of God, rather than the lamb of God being a meaningless diversion after the rescue of Isaac.​

​

The Binding Meaning [of] Isaac's Bondage.​

The quotation above comes from a thread we did here almost a full ten years ago. Yet even now, the claim that the Akedah lamb is the central figure of the Akedah-narrative, such that Isaac is secondary, clearly isn't likely to sit well with Jewish readers. Which is why this new thread is resurrecting the Akedah lamb for a closer look.




John

What does the word "Akedah" mean in your paradigm?

 

[dybmh]

Although it might be difficult to swallow, it's patently clear that Rabbi Hirsch is expressing the fact that the sacrifice of the Akedah lamb

The problem, for me, when reading this thesis, like so many others, is the lack of attention to detail.

You wrote:

"Rabbi Hirsch is expressing the fact that the sacrifice of the Akedah lamb"

The problem is, Rabbi Hirsch is not talking about a lamb. See below:

If our offerings had no symbolic meaning; if the offering of this ram ...

Do you see it? The actual quote from the Rabbi refers to a ram. It is italicized in your own posted quote. It's a ram not a lamb. For you perhaps, fidelity to the text is less important than self-validation and gratification. For me, textual accuracy and attention to detail are the price of admission for entering into a discussion of this magnitude.

[the lamb of God] is in truth the key to the entire narrative

See what I mean? "... the key to the entire narrative." That's a rather large undertaking. Plotting a course through "the entire narrative" requires great care. I'm looking for reasons to believe that great care will be taken. Seeing none, I wish you well, John.

 

[John D. Brey]

The problem, for me, when reading this thesis, like so many others, is the lack of attention to detail.

Anyone with the stamina to follow the thread will likely see some serious lack of attention to detail from the Jewish sages that will render mine rather minor in comparison.

You wrote:

"Rabbi Hirsch is expressing the fact that the sacrifice of the Akedah lamb"

The problem is, Rabbi Hirsch is not talking about a lamb. See below:

Do you see it? The actual quote from the Rabbi refers to a ram. It is italicized in your own posted quote. It's a ram not a lamb. For you perhaps, fidelity to the text is less important than self-validation and gratification. For me, textual accuracy and attention to detail are the price of admission for entering into a discussion of this magnitude.

Surely you're aware that Abraham and Isaac were as sloppy about all this as me?

They both used "lamb" שה rather than "ram" איל in the narrative? Abraham told Isaac that God would provide himself the "lamb" שה for the offering. Sure enough God provided an offering all right. But now the text speaks of a "ram" rather than the "lamb" Abraham specifically told Isaac God would provide. Abraham said a "lamb" not a "ram." Did Abraham lie to Isaac? Or is there a distinction between "ram" and "lamb" that's important to the narrative even though a "ram" is merely an adult "lamb"? The Shelah HaKadosh points out some differences between Abraham being circumcised as an adult, versus Isaac as a youth, that might apply here?

There's some cause to wonder if Abraham used a peace offering, the ram, as a burnt offering, which, the latter, is supposed to be a lamb? Abraham spoke to Isaac about God providing a burnt offering, a lamb, so when God provides a peace offering, it gets treated like a burnt offering. Surely there's something important there?

​

See what I mean? "... the key to the entire narrative." That's a rather large undertaking. Plotting a course through "the entire narrative" requires great care. I'm looking for reasons to believe that great care will be taken. Seeing none, I wish you well, John.

It's always refreshing to have you interject thoughtful insight into these discussions. So as always, I wish you well as well.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

What does the word "Akedah" mean in your paradigm?

The word comes from Genesis 22:9 where Abraham "binds" עקד Isaac. The Akedah is thus the "binding" of Isaac.

Not sure what you mean by my "paradigm"? As you might note, if you've read the thread, dybmh wouldn't give you a plumb nickle for my pair-a-dimes.



John

 

[Ebionite]

Us poor Jews just can't seem to comprehend our own writings.

There's a reason for that.

And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
Matthew 13:14

And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.
Isaiah 6:9

 

[firedragon]

The word comes from Genesis 22:9 where Abraham "binds" עקד Isaac. The Akedah is thus the "binding" of Isaac.

Not sure what you mean by my "paradigm"? As you might note, if you've read the thread, dybmh wouldn't give you a pair of dimes for my so-called paradigm.



John

I just wanted to know the meaning. And thank you.

Cheers.

 

[John D. Brey]

Rabbi Hirsch is correct to note that the symbolism contained in the sacrifice of the lamb, must be, for the story to be something other than the stuff of the hoi polloi, recognized not as a step down from the sacrifice of Isaac (in which case its such a step down as to be rightly reckoned and mocked as an utter farce) but rather a step up, a greater gift given based on Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac. In Rabbi Hirsch's brilliant hands, the willingness to offer up Isaac is the reason the Lord is willing to give him the lamb of God as an offering symbolically greater than the offering of Isaac. Hirsch rescues the narrative from eons of asininity such that he therein provides us with the schematic, the template, with which to finally uncover what's really occurring beneath the veil provided for, and swallowed whole by, the hoi polloi.

It's a great service to all careful exegesis of the narrative of the Akedah, that Rabbi Hirsch points out that the lamb Abraham tell Isaac God will provide himself (which is a ram later in the story) is actually not an afterthought to the story about the sacrifice of Isaac, but is, by Rabbi Hirsch own words, symbolic of a far more exalted sacrifice than would have been expressed by following through with the offering of Isaac. Nevertheless, even with his knowledge that the lamb or ram is a more exalted sacrifice than Isaac, Rabbi Hirsch can't bring himself to go against faulty tradition by carefully interpreting the next verse in the story in context with the great insight he's just given us.

And the Lord said unto Moses, Thus thou shalt say unto the children of Israel, Ye have seen that I have talked with you from heaven. Ye shall not make with me gods of silver, neither shall ye make unto you gods of gold. An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings, and thy peace offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen: in all places where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee.​

​

Exodus 20:22-24.

​

​

Take ye a kid of the goats for a sin offering; and a calf and a lamb, both of the first year, without blemish, for a burnt offering; Also a bullock and a ram for peace offerings, to sacrifice before the Lord; and a meat offering mingled with oil: for to day the Lord will appear unto you. And they brought that which Moses commanded before the tabernacle of the congregation: and all the congregation drew near and stood before the Lord. And Moses said, This is the thing which the Lord commanded that ye should do: and the glory of the Lord shall appear unto you. 

​

​

Leviticus 9:3-6.​

Both of these passages imply that God's name/presence (the very ability to "see God") is related to the altar where burnt offerings are made. God will appear, be seen (you can "see God"), his very presence will be recorded and visually recognized, not by metallic statues like the pagans worship, but, get this, by a bloody altar of sacrifice. While the pagans see their god in molten statues, Israel is to "see God" when they see a bloody altar of sacrifice similar to the one Abraham erects on the mountain to sacrifice the ram of God.

Which segues directly into the oddity that after having just been so forthcoming about the true and careful exegesis of the text that implies the sacrifice of the lamb or ram is more exalted than the sacrifice of Isaac, Rabbi Hirsch chooses tradition over careful exegesis, in his interpretation of the next verse. Verse 13 sees Abraham constructing the altar for the burnt offering that Exodus 20:22 and Leviticus 9:3-6 claim is where Israel should look if they want to "see God."

Avraham named this place [i.e., the altar of sacrifice constructed ala Exodus 20:22, Leviticus 9:3-6] "God sees," which today is expressed as follows: On the mountain of God is one seen.​

​

The Hirsch Chumash, Bereshis 22:14.​

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see a huge problem in Rabbi Hirsch's exegesis of Genesis 22:14. Instead of Abraham naming the mountain that has the exalted altar of sacrifice (which Exodus 20:22 and Leviticus 9:3-6 clearly tell us is where God will make himself seen, i.e., visible, where we will "see God"), Hirsch completely inverts the text in order to make the verse speak of God seeing those on the mountain, rather than those on the mountain being able to "see God."

It seems perfectly reasonable to expect Abraham to name the place where he constructs an altar for a burnt offering more exalted than the sacrifice of Isaac, "the mountain where we will "see God," since that's a perfect match with other places in the Torah (such as Exodus 20:22 and Leviticus 9:3-6), that tell us to expect to "see God" at the altar of sacrifice. More than that, the Hebrew text lends itself to that interpretation in such a way that the interpreter has to have a strong bias against reading it that way in order to imply that God is seeing the sacrificer, rather than the sacrificer seeing God. God says he will be visible at the altar, not that we will be visible to him.

The lord hath nakedly revealed his holy arm in the eyes of all the Gentiles such that all the ends of the earth shall see the yeshua of our God.​

​

Isaiah 52:10.​

Isaiah 52:10 is the penultimate context for Isaiah 53, which, the latter, speaks of a messianic-like fellow being an offering perhaps more exalted than if Isaac himself were in the cross hairs of Isaiah 53. Rabbi Hirsch's ironic and abrupt about-face in interpreting the text of the Akedah, is addressed when the prophet Isaiah says that it's the Gentiles (who people all the earth) who will "see" the naked revelation of God's holy arm in the altar of this latter day sacrifice (Isaiah 53), such that we see, we goyim do, why our beloved Rabbi Hirsch, bless his Jewish heart, must imply not that Abraham and Isaac, with all their natural born family, will "see God" יהוה יראה ("Jehovah-jireh" KJV), as text and context seem to imply, but rather, since he, Rabbi Hirsch, doesn't see God in the Akedah narrative, and his compatriots in Judaism clearly don't "see God" in the Akedah narrative, surely then, the text can't be speaking of seeing God in a sacrifice more exalted than Isaac? It seems, therefore, that the goyim who claim to see God in an altar of sacrifice, one where a sacrifice more exalted than merely offering Isaac is said to be offered ---that is, an altar where not only Isaac, but a so-called "ram of God" is offered ---- will just have to quit trusting the lyin eyes that keep telling them they "see God" where no Jew has been able to see God without becoming a Jewish heretic in the process.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.
Isaiah 6:9

Does Isaiah 6:9 include Isaiah 6:9?



John

 

[Ebionite]

Does Isaiah 6:9 include Isaiah 6:9?



John

No reason for it not to.

 

[dybmh]

Anyone with the stamina to follow the thread will likely see some serious lack of attention to detail from the Jewish sages that will render mine rather minor in comparison.

Shrugs. Making this assertion requires attention to details.

Surely you're aware that Abraham and Isaac were as sloppy about all this as me?

They both used "lamb" שה rather than "ram" איל

You're missing the point. You flip-flopped. Rabbi Hirsch is talking about a ram. You are talking about a lamb. But , if I understand, you are equating them as if there is no difference. Rabbi Hirsch makes no mention of a "lamb of God". Rabbi Hirsch is speaking about one thing, you are speaking about something else entirely. Rabbi Hirsch does not support you, nor agree with you, John. He's referring to the ram which is caught in the thicket in verse 13. Is that what you're talking about? A ram caught in a thicket?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There's a reason for that.

Yes.

 

[John D. Brey]

You're missing the point. You flip-flopped. Rabbi Hirsch is talking about a ram. You are talking about a lamb.

I'm in good company. Abraham and Isaac talked about a lamb while the amanuensis called the sacrifice a ram. Rav Hirsch speaks of a ram while, like Abraham and Isaac, I see a lamb or lambs too (so to say).

But , if I understand, you are equating them as if there is no difference.

I think you and I see eye to eye concerning the fact that there's not a jot or tittle in the Torah that's insignificant. The change from Abraham and Isaac speaking of God providing a שה versus Hashem actually providing an איל is obviously important.

Rabbi Hirsch makes no mention of a "lamb of God". Rabbi Hirsch is speaking about one thing, you are speaking about something else entirely. Rabbi Hirsch does not support you, nor agree with you, John. He's referring to the ram which is caught in the thicket in verse 13. Is that what you're talking about? A ram caught in a thicket?

Yes. The discussion so far revolves around the fact that Rabbi Hirsch posits that the sacrifice of the ram is symbolically more exalted than if Abraham only offered Isaac as a lamb. Ergo, the distinction between Isaac's sacrifice being representative of the sacrifice of a lamb, versus the actual sacrifice instead being a ram, well, that's pretty important.

In the context of these things, the Shelah HaKaddosh implies that Abraham and Isaac were both already sacrificed (at least ritually) since circumcision represents the willingness to sacrifice oneself for God. Furthermore, throughout midrashim, Abraham's circumcision is juxtaposed with the Akedah. Which could imply that Isaac's circumcision also parallels the Akedah. Which could mean that Abraham and Isaac's circumcision proves to God that Abraham and Isaac are both willing to sacrifice themselves for God (indeed, ritually speaking, they already have). Which could mean the "lamb" or "lambs" for the sacrifice were already offered (Abraham and Isaac's circumcision) and accepted by God, such that Rav Hirsch's more "exalted" sacrifice of the ram is a kind of joyous It it Finished celebration (a peace-offering of the ram in relation to the burnt offerings of the lambs) celebrating the glory of the moment.

Furthermore, since a ram is an adult lamb, we could even posit that the sacrifice of the ram (the adult lamb), in conjunction with the sacrifice of the lamb (and we think of the sacrifice of father Abraham and his son Isaac, i.e., their circumcisions) implies that the Father shares in the sacrifice of the son therein implicating the exaltation of the completion of the Akedah sacrifices (culminating with the sacrifice of the ram) as the It is Finished moment of the entire Tanakh.

If this be the case, then Rabbi Hirsch's insightful statement that all future sacrifices brought in Israel harken back to this It is Finished moment (when on the mountain of God, father and son are "seen" to be sacrificed as the crux of Jewish history), well, this surely implies that every post-Akedah sacrifice merely celebrates the completion of God's plan for mankind whereby father and son are sacrificed in order to cleanse human history from its tainted beginning.




John

 

[John D. Brey]

No reason for it not to.

. . . Then wouldn't you be wasting your time using Isaiah 6:9 as a proof-text to a Jew if that text is included in the proof provided in that text? If Isaiah says the Jew can't, won't, know the meaning of scripture, and if Isaiah is scripture, then the very text saying Israel can't, won't, know the meaning of scripture, means they can never know that they don't know the meaning of scripture. That verse won't work to give them a hint, since that verse, too, is part of the scripture it says they can't, won't, know the meaning of.



John

 

[dybmh]

I'm in good company. Abraham and Isaac talked about a lamb...

... a lamb which God did not provide. God instead provided a ram, but Abraham had to look again for it. That's the way the story is written.

Rabbi Hirsch is talking about a ram, not a lamb.

Agreed?

There's no reason to fluff up your thesis by misquoting Rabbi Hirsch, unless, your thesis is weak and you feel better fabricating a Rabbi's "blessing" for your work.