Vayera - Genesis 18:1-22:24

Preface

There are those who see the writings of the Torah as a text of one author, written in a linear fashion, which is a mistake. Even the apologetic, "there is no early or later [order] in Torah" to get around some of the repetitions and jumping around in the timeline doesn't smooth out this view entirely.

Many of the chapters in the Torah begin with earlier references that don't exist, suggesting that these stories are anthologies, fragments of other stories that have long been lost. Excluding the "J" and "E" hypothesis, there are many instances where the stories are haphazard, where it forces the reader to create a non-existing narrative to resolve this problem. 

I am going to present a single example to keep this blog short, and I have some certainty that if you maintain an awareness of this problem, that you will be able to see this issue throughout what is erroneously called "the five books of Moses".

The Akeida

At the end of chapter 21, we have Abraham making a covenant with King Avimelech, and then Abraham planting a tree to commemorate the event and going off to travel among the Philistines for many days. The Akeida, which is the story of the 'Binding of Isaac', begins after all of that with verse 22:1. 

ויהי אחר הדברים האלה והאלהים נסה את אברהם ויאמר אליו אברהם ויאמר הנני

"And it was after those words, and THE Elohim had tested Abraham, and He said unto him, "Abraham" and he said, "Here I am."

You have several problems here. The first is that "after these words". 

What words?

The next problem is that nisah, which means to test, experiment, or trial, is in the past tense piel (active) form of the Hebrew verb.

What test?

There was no test, and there were no words exchanged. "Those words" should be words that would have demanded that this Akeida take place. And it is from this that the Rashbam (Rabbi Shmuel ben Meir, the grandson of Rashi), a 12th century Jewish commentator and apologist, connected "those words" to Abraham's vow to King Avimelech (verse 21:22-24) and his planting an eshel to commemorate that by swearing the name of YHVH, that he saw the Akeida as a punishment, since "test" had to already have happened (although he doesn't address that):

YHVH: "You were so bold as to take the son I gave you and to forge a covenant that will apply between him and Avimelech's children?! Take Isaac and bring him as an offering. We shall see what comes of your covenant!" Peirush HaTorah Genesis 22:1

So according to the Rashbam, the Akeida was not a test, but a punishment to put Abraham in his place. Like so many ways of trying to make a fragment part of a flowing narrative, one needs to invent the missing fragment, as though the current story has any connection with the previous one, and that it was written by the same author.

Here is another example:

According to the sages of the Talmud, "those words" were from the Satan (a mischievous servant of YHVH who would often trick him into doing some pretty horrible things, such as killing Job's family just to prove a point). After Abraham plants an eshel and declares that YHVH is great, the Satan tell him:

The Satan: Out of the entire banquet that Abraham made [honoring the birth of his son], he did not offer before you a bull or a ram! 

YHVH: Did he make it other than for his son? If I were to say to [Abraham] "Sacrifice [Isaac] before me", he would not refrain from doing so." Sanhedrin 89b, Midrash Rabbah Genesis 55:4

Things

The word "devarim" can mean "words" or "things", depending on the context. So, what about reading it as: 

"And it was after these things, and THE Elohim had tested Abraham, and He said unto him, "Abraham" and he said, "Here I am."

What were these "things"? 

Many would translate this to be the same as "events", and in doing so, turn this verse into referring to events that had transpired where YHVH had tested Abraham. 

But there was no testing of Abraham in the previous chapter. 

"But, ah!", the apologist would tell you, "this is not referring to the test at the end chapter 21 (21:33), but the test at the beginning of that chapter (21:10), where Abraham was told to send away his son, Ishmael.the previous chapter.

Does the text call that event a test? 

No. 

But based on using "events" in this verse, and that there had to be multiple ones, since "devarim" ("things") is in the plural, the Rambam came up with a list of 10 tests, where the Akeida is the 10th and the final test. There are other lists (such as one by Rabbi Ovadiah of Bertinoro) that change some of the first 8 of the 10 "tests", but they all have their list of 10 (just as you have multiple lists of 613 mitzvot).

But the earlier texts never state that there were any tests! 

In fact, the term nisah (test) only appears one time in the Book of Genesis, and this verse  (22:1) is it.

The apologetic of having "those events" be events that occurred in other chapters does not help in binding this chapter to the previous one, but only strengthens that gap.

But, remember, for the devout: "there is no order to the Torah" is the answer to that dilemma as well.

Traditional Learning

There is a tradition that one should not learn Torah one time without learning the Aramaic Targum two times. (Talmud, Berachot 8a-8b. Shulchan Aruch Orach Chiam 285). 

The Aramaic Targum Onkelos (circa 2nd century CE) is the approved Rabbinical Aramaic interpretation of the text. It doesn't tell you what the text says as much as how you should read the text and has more than 10,000 changes to the actual text. 

Here is how the Targum rewrites this verse:

These are the things by which YHVH put Abraham to the test.

In other words, the Akeida was the only test, and what follows are the things. Also note that "Ha-Elohim" ("That/the Elohim" or "The entire Elohim")  is replaced by YHVH to eliminate some ideological problems.

The result of all of this is that if you ask most Yeshiva students what this first verse means, chances are that they will see it exactly as the Targum explains it, because that is how they are taught: loyalty to the words of the sages take precedence over personal interpretation.

Summary

The story of the Akeida begins with "And it was after those words", but there were no words. There are those who would have this read "And it was after those things", treating is the previous events for which there is no indication of any test. To get around this, some move the events to things much further in the past, and the Targum tells us that there were no previous events, but that the text only speaks of the future test of the Akeida.

It's a tangled web of apologetics to attach meaning to where there is none rather than simple say, "some of the text of this story is lost".

Reading the story simply shows us that this is not the whole story. To the ideologue, the Torah is perfect, and so nothing can be missing.

And for the religious, loyalty to a group interpretation often trumps personal understanding.