Q&A: A Paradox in the Binding of Isaac
A Paradox in the Binding of Isaac
Question
Following last week's Torah portion, the Binding of Isaac.
You quoted several times the question (of Soren Kierkegaard, I think) about the contradiction in the act of the binding vis-à-vis "through Isaac shall offspring be called yours," and why Abraham chose the second revelation rather than the first one (which also accords with the natural instinct).
I thought perhaps this could be resolved based on another principle you presented several times in your courses.
You argued that one must distinguish between a "fact" and an "action." The latter can be commanded, whereas a "fact" is a state of affairs—it cannot be inserted into the framework of a "command." (You can't command that "this is a wall," whereas you can command "go there.")
Could that perhaps explain why Abraham chose specifically the revelation that commands the binding?
The first revelation is nothing but an abstract fact: "through Isaac shall offspring be called yours." This is not a command or any commandment at all, but rather a passive event in which Abraham is meant to believe that somehow or other it will happen,
- as opposed to the revelation "go and bind Isaac"—which is actually dealing with a commandment, with an active character, a command to act.
That part Abraham understood he had to *do*—the test? 1. the emotional, instinctive difficulty. 2. the promise that offspring would come from him.
Answer
I don't understand what you resolved here. There is a contradiction between two statements of the Holy One, blessed be He. Why should I care whether one of them is a fact and the other a command? What logical advantage does that give one over the other?
Discussion on Answer
So you're not offering a solution to the contradiction, but rather a proper mode of conduct for Abraham despite the contradiction: "Why do you concern yourself with the secrets of the Merciful One? What you were commanded, you should do, and what is pleasing before the Holy One, blessed be He, let Him do" (Berakhot 10a). For that there is no need for the distinctions of mine that you mentioned.
But on the substance of the matter, I don't think this is a real solution. After all, there is also the option that Abraham would conclude that this was his hallucination and not a genuine command of the Holy One, blessed be He.
As far as Abraham is concerned, this is not only a mode of conduct, but also a solution to the "contradiction."
As far as he is concerned, there is no such contradiction! The fact that he was exposed to some kind of "background noise" (the first revelation) should not interfere with his service of God (the Binding of Isaac).
Even if it's "the righteous person who suffers" (promise 1 not being fulfilled)—one still has to serve and do God's will (revelation 2—the Binding of Isaac).
Why didn't he treat it as a psychotic episode?
That's a question based on a mistaken assumption.
It assumes that he should have treated 2 as a delusion, and 1 seriously.
And why should he? The sound and credibility of both were presumably equal.
If 2 is psychotic, then 1 is psychotic too—necessarily. And vice versa.
There is no situation in which they are unequal in credibility. (The voice sounded the same.)
And since he chose (rightly) to think that both were credible, he chose the commandment and not the promises of "the righteous person who prospers," etc.
Maimonides explicitly writes that Abraham was certain that God had commanded him, because otherwise he would not have killed on the basis of doubt.
And it is famously said in the name of Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin that the angel said, "Do not stretch out your hand," because to save him it is enough for an angel to appear, but to kill one needs God Himself…
I think this is very correct!
"Through Isaac shall offspring be called yours"—this is a factual promise, which is not in Abraham's hands.
True, he is the subject of the statement, but by the same token the Holy One, blessed be He, could have promised it just like that without his presence (to the angels, to empty space, I don't know…). Abraham is not doing anything in it; he is, as it were, sitting passively and hoping it will come true.
And if not? Then not! That's on the Holy One, blessed be He—not on him.
Therefore Abraham adopted the second revelation, in which he and his action are an integral part of the essence of the matter.
In that it is a command to perform a specific action imposed on Abraham—to do!!
In the first ("through Isaac," etc.)—Abraham is not commanded. The revelation is a promise from the Holy One, blessed be He.
In the second (the binding)—he is commanded; the revelation is about an action Abraham is obligated to do
(without regard to any emotional data or some dry statement of fact of one kind or another)