Q&A: Drawing a Conclusion from Studying the Hebrew Bible
Drawing a Conclusion from Studying the Hebrew Bible
Question
Hello Rabbi,
In the second part of the trilogy you set out three questions as a test for whether something counts as “Torah study in the object-sense,” etc.
I wanted to put my own study of the Binding of Isaac to the test, and the question of the clash between religion and morality.
Before I approached this question, I had come across a dispute regarding the question of eating human flesh versus eating pork in a case of hunger so severe as to involve danger to life, and I really struggled with the question—both personally and in general. After studying the Binding of Isaac passage, I reached the conclusion that its explicit message is that God’s command takes precedence over every other consideration that exists, since Abraham stood in direct, frontal contradiction between a divine command and a clear and extreme moral consideration, and he was praised for agreeing to slaughter Isaac.
Therefore, with respect to the three tests—
1. What lesson is learned from the passage? That the word of God takes precedence over morality and every other human consideration.
Did we become convinced that this lesson really emerges from it? Absolutely, because it is explicitly presented as praiseworthy.
2. Can we learn this lesson from another source? No. There is no other source from which I could have drawn this conclusion (not even a halakhic source, because the question is meta-halakhic). Only a direct message from the Holy One, blessed be He—the Written Torah—could have decided the issue.
3. Would we adopt this lesson without identifying with it? Yes (and it has in fact happened in practice).
I would be happy to hear your response, and have a good week.
Answer
Hello.
It seems to me that this example came up in discussions following the columns I wrote about this.
In general, there are commentators who learn that Abraham failed the test of the Binding of Isaac (Ravitzky brings several of them in his article). In my opinion, though, that is far-fetched.
Beyond that, there are those who identify the word of God with morality (like Rabbi Kook), and therefore for them the main lesson is “Do not raise your hand against the boy.” That is, for Abraham the word of God was revealed to him directly in prophecy, and so there he assumed that he had to obey even though it was against morality. But for us, who do not receive the word of God through direct prophecy, things undergo interpretation that adapts them to morality. Therefore the question does not arise to begin with. After all, we all know what kinds of interpretations are applied to the Written Torah in order to adapt it to morality or to other human considerations. The illusion that the Torah is the word of God overriding every other consideration is nothing but an empty slogan. It is true in theory, but in practice it does not happen (because what the Torah says is the product of our interpretation, and that depends on our own considerations).
It is clear that we can learn this lesson from another source, since reason says that if the Holy One, blessed be He, is the source of morality’s authority, then one must listen to Him first. The mouth that prohibited is the mouth that permitted. Moreover, this is proven from this very passage itself—here, a lesson from studying the Hebrew Bible :)): after all, the Holy One, blessed be He, expected Abraham to obey Him. On what basis was Abraham supposed to infer the conclusion that God’s command takes precedence over morality? Necessarily, from reason. If so, that same reasoning exists for us as well.
Where did this happen in practice? On the contrary, in my opinion someone who does not accept this lesson will not adopt it from here either.