sacrificed his son
mm
this morning. About 7:15 EST, WYPR.
Some woman who spoke standard American English is talking about a rock
in Jerusalem and later about Islam (I don't know about earlier. I had
just changed stations.) and she says, "And it's there that Abraham is
thought to have sacrificed his son." IIRC, Moslems too only say that
Abraham started to do this. So we both get misquoted.
--
Meir
"The baby's name is Shlomo. He's named after his grandfather, Scott."
lee
Dont some moslems claim there was a second son at the event?
fla...@verizon.net
Muslims claim it what Ishmael that was almost sacrificed.
They place the birth of Isaac after the Akedah.
Susan
sheldonlg
> On "Speaking about religion" I think it's called on NPR when I woke up
> this morning. About 7:15 EST, WYPR.
>
> Some woman who spoke standard American English is talking about a rock
> in Jerusalem and later about Islam (I don't know about earlier. I had
> just changed stations.) and she says, "And it's there that Abraham is
> thought to have sacrificed his son." IIRC, Moslems too only say that
> Abraham started to do this. So we both get misquoted.
I really wish that this story didn't come up during the High Holidays.
I cannot stand that account. If it was a test of Abraham, then he
passed with a D-. To get an A+ he should argued with God as he did for
Sodom with the argument that God himself taught him not to do human
sacrifice like the idolaters did.
Steve Goldfarb
>I really wish that this story didn't come up during the High Holidays.
>I cannot stand that account. If it was a test of Abraham, then he
>passed with a D-. To get an A+ he should argued with God as he did for
>Sodom with the argument that God himself taught him not to do human
>sacrifice like the idolaters did.
I post this every time this comes up, and no one ever acknowledges it so
maybe I'm missing the whole thing, but I still say that fact that we're
focusing on the "wrong" part of the story demonstrates just how effective
the story has been at changing behavior.
What I mean is, imagine a story in which Barack Obama (or pick any public
figure) is said to have sat down to a Thanksgiving dinner, and when the
turkey is placed before him, says "how can we eat the flesh of our fellow
animals? Take this away!" and from then on America became a vegetarian
country.
For some period of time, the "moral of the story" would be clear to all -
we should NO LONGER eat meat.
At some point, though, when that message is so ingrained that no one would
even consider eating meat, then the message would be as Shelly posts above
- "how can we justify the fact that Barack Obama sat down to a meal of
turkey in the first place???"
I think that's what's going on here, with the akedah story. What was
originally "we should no longer sacrifice our children" became "how can
you even imagine sacrificing a child?" But it's something people
apparently did - if not literally, then at least symbolically if I
understand correctly.
--s
--
sheldonlg
Wow! I never thought of it that way! You make a lot of sense. The
problem was not one of a win-win situation for Abraham (D- is still a
passing grade), it is one of our modern perspective. Thank you. You
have just removed a tremendous discomfort I feel every year.
--
Shelly
Amitai
While the above makes psycholodical sense, it doesn't answer Shelly's
point:
Why did Abraham acquiesce unquestioningly to Hashem's order to
sacrifice his son? In the case of the destruction of Sodom, he was
quite capable of confronting him with "Shall not the judge of all the
earth do justly?".
Amitai
> --s
> --
Steve Goldfarb
>While the above makes psycholodical sense, it doesn't answer Shelly's
>point:
>Why did Abraham acquiesce unquestioningly to Hashem's order to
>sacrifice his son? In the case of the destruction of Sodom, he was
>quite capable of confronting him with "Shall not the judge of all the
>earth do justly?".
Excellent point, and one I hadn't thought of.
--s
--
lee
> In <2ccb9263-356d-45e5-a363-72df6a907...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com> Amitai <chr0...@techunix.technion.ac.il> writes:
>
> >While the above makes psycholodical sense, it doesn't answer Shelly's
> >point:
> >Why did Abraham acquiesce unquestioningly to Hashem's order to
> >sacrifice his son? In the case of the destruction of Sodom, he was
> >quite capable of confronting him with "Shall not the judge of all the
> >earth do justly?".
>
> Excellent point, and one I hadn't thought of.
>
> --s
> --
& abraham was ibrahim,
as is often said they love killing us (religios zeal)
more than they love their children
to misquote G Mier.
Herman Rubin
It is not equivalent. God told Abraham that he ws going
to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah because the people there
were wicked, and Abraham argued that possibly not all
were wicked. In Abraham's time, it was not considered
unjust for a god to demand a human sacrifice, although it
was less customary than the later critics of it assumed.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Micha Berger
> Why did Abraham acquiesce unquestioningly to Hashem's order to
There are as many answers as rabbis.
My personal lean is toward believing that Abraham knew something was up,
that G-d already promised Abraham a chosen people coming from this Isaac
he was told to slaughter -- and who didn't have any children yet.
There was an absolute trust in G-d, since there was no rational way to
see how both prophecies could play out. But Abraham "passed the test"
because he suspended judgment.
BTW, asserting that Abraham got a D- or failed runs counter to numerous
prayers in which we invoke the merit of the Aqeidah in hopes of having
our own prayers answered.
BTW, where in Tanakh is someone lauded for pleaing with G-d (or raging
at Him) on *their own* behalf? Moses defends the Jewish people only
after G-d says that He would reestablish the Chosen People from Moses'
progeny -- and thus removing that element of self-interest.
The point of the tragic is to grapple with the questions even though we
know we'll never get fully satisfying answers. The Aqeida exists in our
tradition as a question, not an answer. It's there to force an encounter
and emotional response, not to be tied up with a nice bow.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger I always give much away,
mi...@aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure.
http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen
Fax: (270) 514-1507
Arthur Kamlet
Herman Rubin <hru...@stat.purdue.edu> wrote:
>In article <hd9dvl$7tl$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
>Steve Goldfarb <s...@panix.com> wrote:
>>In <2ccb9263-356d-45e5...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>
>Amitai <chr...@techunix.technion.ac.il> writes:
>
>
>>>While the above makes psycholodical sense, it doesn't answer Shelly's
>>>point:
>>>Why did Abraham acquiesce unquestioningly to Hashem's order to
>>>sacrifice his son? In the case of the destruction of Sodom, he was
>>>quite capable of confronting him with "Shall not the judge of all the
>>>earth do justly?".
>
>>Excellent point, and one I hadn't thought of.
>
>It is not equivalent. God told Abraham that he ws going
>to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah because the people there
>were wicked, and Abraham argued that possibly not all
>were wicked. In Abraham's time, it was not considered
>unjust for a god to demand a human sacrifice, although it
>was less customary than the later critics of it assumed.
In the case of Sodom, God said Abraham, here's what I'm thinking
of doing, and Abraham, like Moses and Job, debated with God.
In the case of Isaac, God gave Abraham a direct order.
--
ArtKamlet at a o l dot c o m Columbus OH K2PZH
sheldonlg
Are you trying to put me back into an uncomfortable situation. Steve
just removed it. I'll stick with Steve's analysis.
lee
Its an allegorical myth, it doesnt need consistency.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
He had an even stronger argument. He could have said "G-d, _You_ told
me (Gen,21;12) 'for in Isaac shall seed be called to thee'".
--
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
The home and family are the center of Judaism, *not* the synagogue.
May Eliezer Mordichai b. Chaya Sheina Rochel have a refuah shlaimah
btoch sha'ar cholei Yisroel.
Disclaimer: Nothing here necessarily reflects the opinion of Hebrew University
Abe Kohen
"Arthur Kamlet" <kam...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:hd9jg7$8pm$4...@reader1.panix.com...
So it is God who failed, placing Abraham in an untenable position. And even
though God saved Isaac, this betrayal of Isaac by his father caused a a rift
between father and son, which would not be repaired until after Abraham
dies, and Isaac and Ishmael bury their father. The akeida also allegedly
caused Sarah's death.
(What grade do you give God for the Inquisition? For the Holocaust?)
Best,
Abe
Arthur Kamlet
The text itself tells us God put Abraham to the "test." Not a simple
one, nor an easy one, nor a test that many if any of us mere mortals
could pass.
> And even
>though God saved Isaac, this betrayal of Isaac by his father caused a a rift
>between father and son,
I assume this is based on no recorded conversations between them
following the Akedah? Not a very logical method for determining
there was a rift.
>which would not be repaired until after Abraham
>dies, and Isaac and Ishmael bury their father.
But ironically, Abraham's death corresponds with a rift between
his grandsons, Jacob & Esau.
The midrash on Esau coming to Jacob and saying he is famished
and needs Jacob's red red food, and Jacob selling the red red for
Esau's birthright, Whoops. Rift begins.
OT: Another of the tests put to Abraham was being thrown into
the fiery furnace by his arch enemy, Nimrod, mighty hunter of
Tower of Babel times. Midrash tells us Nimrod had it in for
Abraham.
Midrash further allows us to conclude that Abraham and Nimrod
both died on the very same day.
Because it tells us the reason Jacob was making the red red
stuff was to serve at his grandfather Abraham's shiva, as he
had died that day. And why was Esau famished and would die
if he did not eat the red red stuff? Because he was exhausted
from his fatal fight with Nimrod, who he just killed that very
same day.
> The akeida also allegedly caused Sarah's death.
It is that same midrash, relating that satan let Sarah know that
at that very moment Abraham was sacrificing Isaac, and so she dies,
that sets Isaac's age at the time of the Akedah at 37. Even though
he was still a na"ar.
DoD
> "Arthur Kamlet" <kam...@panix.com> wrote in message
>
> news:hd9jg7$8pm$4...@reader1.panix.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Herman Rubin <hru...@stat.purdue.edu> wrote:
> >>In article <hd9dvl$7t...@reader1.panix.com>,
> >>Steve Goldfarb <s...@panix.com> wrote:
> >>>In <2ccb9263-356d-45e5-a363-72df6a907...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>
> >>Amitai <chr0...@techunix.technion.ac.il> writes:
>
> >>>>While the above makes psycholodical sense, it doesn't answer Shelly's
> >>>>point:
> >>>>Why did Abraham acquiesce unquestioningly to Hashem's order to
> >>>>sacrifice his son? In the case of the destruction of Sodom, he was
> >>>>quite capable of confronting him with "Shall not the judge of all the
> >>>>earth do justly?".
>
> >>>Excellent point, and one I hadn't thought of.
>
> >>It is not equivalent. God told Abraham that he ws going
> >>to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah because the people there
> >>were wicked, and Abraham argued that possibly not all
> >>were wicked. In Abraham's time, it was not considered
> >>unjust for a god to demand a human sacrifice, although it
> >>was less customary than the later critics of it assumed.
>
> > In the case of Sodom, God said Abraham, here's what I'm thinking
> > of doing, and Abraham, like Moses and Job, debated with God.
>
> > In the case of Isaac, God gave Abraham a direct order.
>
> So it is God who failed, placing Abraham in an untenable position. And even
> though God saved Isaac, this betrayal of Isaac by his father caused a a rift
> between father and son, which would not be repaired until after Abraham
> dies, and Isaac and Ishmael bury their father. The akeida also allegedly
> caused Sarah's death.
>
> (What grade do you give God for the Inquisition? For the Holocaust?)
I am not following this..... ;o( Not the sentence above but about
the rift
between father and son..
David
lee
> "Arthur Kamlet" <kam...@panix.com> wrote in message
>
> news:hd9jg7$8pm$4...@reader1.panix.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Herman Rubin <hru...@stat.purdue.edu> wrote:
> >>In article <hd9dvl$7t...@reader1.panix.com>,
> >>Steve Goldfarb <s...@panix.com> wrote:
> >>>In <2ccb9263-356d-45e5-a363-72df6a907...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>
Harsh question! but is it a fair one? To ask of G-d rather than Herman.
Steve Goldfarb
>This, and the universal conversion at b-mitzva idea, are neat examples
>of thinking outside the box!
Thanks!
--s
--
Arthur Kamlet
In the Torah, there is no recorded conversations between Abraham and
Isaac following this event, and so one might conclude it means a
rift between them. Or it could mean there was nothing we are supposed
to learn that took place betwen them.
Herman Rubin
Philosophers do a good job of finding the black cat
which is not there. Also, what was Rebecca's age,
according to Torah, when she became pregnant? Add
them up, and it does not compute.
Incidentally, Nimrod has been equated to an Assyrian
king who certainly was not alive when the Torah
states he was.
>> The akeida also allegedly caused Sarah's death.
>It is that same midrash, relating that satan let Sarah know that
>at that very moment Abraham was sacrificing Isaac, and so she dies,
>that sets Isaac's age at the time of the Akedah at 37. Even though
>he was still a na"ar.
There is a reasonable theory that the ages given in the
postdeluvian period were half years. This would remove
the incredulity of Sarah's pregnancy, having her 45 years
old and post-menopausal, while still making it a quite
unusual event. Also, 37/2 is a reasonable age for a na'ar.
eArtKamlet at a o l dot c o m Columbus OH K2PZH
Micha Berger
> Philosophers do a good job of finding the black cat
> which is not there. Also, what was Rebecca's age,
> according to Torah, when she became pregnant? Add
> them up, and it does not compute.
What was her age? Do you know? Or do you think the Seder Olam didn't
already do that math?
(Actually, the reverse... The Jewish dating of the world is based on
adding the numbers, not the ages are fitted into our dating. Which is
why the current 5770 only reflects one set of positions on numerous
debates about when things happened and what ages people were.)
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger When you come to a place of darkness,
mi...@aishdas.org you don't chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org You light a candle.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l
DoD
> In article <1b1e82cb-6b84-4d6f-8a05-18d20758c...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Thank you.
David
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> DoD <danski...@gmail.com> wrote:
snip
>>I am not following this..... ;o( Not the sentence above but about
>>the rift between father and son..
>
> In the Torah, there is no recorded conversations between Abraham
> and Isaac following this event, and so one might conclude it means
> a rift between them. Or it could mean there was nothing we are
> supposed to learn that took place betwen them.
Umm how many recorded conversations between Abraham and Isaac are
there _before_ the Akeida?
lee
I thought that fathers only talk to their grown up sons about sports,
& they didnt have baseball back then.
Don Levey
Goat racing was all the rage in Canaan.
--
Don Levey, Framingam MA If knowledge is power,
(email address in header works) and power corrupts, then...
NOTE: Don't send mail to to sal...@the-leveys.us
GnuPG public key: http://www.the-leveys.us:6080/keys/don-dsakey.asc
Herman Rubin
lee <scho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 12 Nov, 09:38, mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>> kam...@panix.com (Arthur Kamlet) writes:
>> snip
>> >>I am not following this..... ;o( =A0 =A0 =A0Not the sentence above but =
>about
>> >>the rift between father and son..
....................
>I thought that fathers only talk to their grown up sons about sports,
>& they didnt have baseball back then.
Of course they did! Everyone knows that the Torah
starts out, "In the big inning" :-)
fla...@verizon.net
On 12-Nov-2009, Don Levey <Don_...@the-leveys.us> wrote:
> lee wrote:
> > On 12 Nov, 09:38, mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
> >> kam...@panix.com (Arthur Kamlet) writes:
> >>> DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> snip
> >>
> >>>> I am not following this..... ;o( Not the sentence above but
> >>>> about
> >>>> the rift between father and son..
> >>> In the Torah, there is no recorded conversations between Abraham
> >>> and Isaac following this event, and so one might conclude it means
> >>> a rift between them. Or it could mean there was nothing we are
> >>> supposed to learn that took place betwen them.
Then again, G-d stopped talking directly to Abraham
after the Akedah - does that betoken the same thing?
> Or it could mean there was nothing we are
> >>> supposed to learn that took place betwen them.
> >> Umm how many recorded conversations between Abraham and Isaac are
> >> there _before_ the Akeida?
> > I thought that fathers only talk to their grown up sons about sports,
> > & they didnt have baseball back then.
>
> Goat racing was all the rage in Canaan.
Not camels??
Susan
lee
I was thinking of Ben Hur but thats much later isnt it.
Then again is this period about the same time as the Trojan wars, the
Greeks had chariot races didnt they?
Micha Berger
No, this is before the Exodus, think Middle Bronze Age and early
Egyptian Empire, not Greece and Troy.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
lee
Are the Trojan wars about the time of the Exodus then?.
Also my Understanding is that the much later events involving the
Spartans were roughly at the same time as the Babylonian exile, is
that right?
Micha Berger
> Are the Trojan wars about the time of the Exodus then?.
Does the Trojan War have a date? I thought historians are still
assuming it's myth. Either way, Googling around didn't give me one,
so I can't answer your question.
> Also my Understanding is that the much later events involving the
> Spartans were roughly at the same time as the Babylonian exile, is
> that right?
The Peloponnesian Wars were in 431-404 BCE.
The Babylonian exile is harder to date, but buiding of the 2nd Temple
marking the end of that period was something like early 5th cent. BCE --
a century or so before that.
:-)BBii!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger The mind is a wonderful organ
mi...@aishdas.org for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org the heart already reached.
Fax: (270) 514-1507
lee
> Fax: (270) 514-1507
I thought they had found the site of Troy, now & the Trojan wars were
supposedly a lenghly series of campaigns rather than a single seige,
however I suppose it doesnt really matter.
I thought it was Xerxes who ended the Babylonian captivity by
destroying the Babylonian empire.
& that he was the same King who the Spartans fought against.
or was Xerces a title like Pharoah?
Personally I find this period of history quite intruiging I never
realized there was a greek dark age between the trojan period &
Alexander, or fully appreciated that the period between exodus & the
destruction of the 1st temple was over a millenium
Incidentally if anyone in the UK is interested theres a very
interesting documentary series about the early church on BBC4 at the
moment
A History of Christianity Diarmaid MacCulloch
keeps refering to Christianit as a small jewish sect!
obviously not to everyones tastes here
mm
Berger) wrote:
>lee <scho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Are the Trojan wars about the time of the Exodus then?.
>
>Does the Trojan War have a date? I thought historians are still
>assuming it's myth. Either way, Googling around didn't give me one,
>so I can't answer your question.
>
>> Also my Understanding is that the much later events involving the
>> Spartans were roughly at the same time as the Babylonian exile, is
>> that right?
>
>The Peloponnesian Wars were in 431-404 BCE.
>The Babylonian exile is harder to date, but buiding of the 2nd Temple
>marking the end of that period was something like early 5th cent. BCE --
>a century or so before that.
I thought early 5th century BCE would be only 50 years before 431 BCE,
481 BCE.
>
>:-)BBii!
>-Micha
--
Meir
"The baby's name is Shlomo. He's named after his grandfather, Scott."
Herman Rubin
lee <scho...@gmail.com> wrote:
A reasonable dating would have Abraham several centuries
before the Trojan War. It is unclear whether the arrival
of the Philistines is before or after the Trojan war, but
the Exodus occurred before the Philistines.
A reasonable time for the Trojan War is about 1200 BCE.
Herman Rubin
lee <scho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 12 Nov, 23:31, mi...@aishdas.org (Micha Berger) wrote:
>> lee <schotn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I was thinking of Ben Hur but thats much later isnt it.
>> > Then again is this period about the same time as the Trojan wars, the
>> > Greeks had chariot races didnt they?
>> No, this is before the Exodus, think Middle Bronze Age and early
>> Egyptian Empire, not Greece and Troy.
>Are the Trojan wars about the time of the Exodus then?.
>Also my Understanding is that the much later events involving the
>Spartans were roughly at the same time as the Babylonian exile, is
>that right?
There is much in the Iliad and Odyssey to date the Trojan
War to about 1200 BCE. Note that the Philistines are not
mentioned in the list of peoples in Canaan in the Torah,
The Greeks reach the stage of history about the time of
the Captivity.
Herman Rubin
Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>lee <scho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Are the Trojan wars about the time of the Exodus then?.
>Does the Trojan War have a date? I thought historians are still
>assuming it's myth. Either way, Googling around didn't give me one,
>so I can't answer your question.
>> Also my Understanding is that the much later events involving the
>> Spartans were roughly at the same time as the Babylonian exile, is
>> that right?
>The Peloponnesian Wars were in 431-404 BCE.
>The Babylonian exile is harder to date, but buiding of the 2nd Temple
>marking the end of that period was something like early 5th cent. BCE --
>a century or so before that.
The Spartans came on the historical scene well before
that; the Athenians tried to enlist their help for the
Battle of Marathon, and the Spartan army held the pass
at Themopylae (sp?) against the Persians until they
were betrayed.
Herman Rubin
lee <scho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 13 Nov, 11:04, mi...@aishdas.org (Micha Berger) wrote:
>> lee <schotn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Are the Trojan wars about the time of the Exodus then?.
>> Does the Trojan War have a date? I thought historians are still
>> assuming it's myth. Either way, Googling around didn't give me one,
>> so I can't answer your question.
>> > Also my Understanding is that the much later events involving the
>> > Spartans were roughly at the same time as the Babylonian exile, is
>> > that right?
>> The Peloponnesian Wars were in 431-404 BCE.
>> The Babylonian exile is harder to date, but buiding of the 2nd Temple
>> marking the end of that period was something like early 5th cent. BCE --
>> a century or so before that.
>> :-)BBii!
>> -Micha
>> --
>> Micha Berger =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 The mind is a wonderful organ
>> mi...@aishdas.org =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0for justifying decisionshttp://www.aishd=
>as.org=A0 the heart already reached.
>> Fax: (270) 514-1507
>I thought they had found the site of Troy, now & the Trojan wars were
>supposedly a lenghly series of campaigns rather than a single seige,
>however I suppose it doesnt really matter.
However, the dating coincides.
>I thought it was Xerxes who ended the Babylonian captivity by
>destroying the Babylonian empire.
No, that was a much earlier Persian king.
>& that he was the same King who the Spartans fought against.
>or was Xerces a title like Pharoah?
Xerxes was the second Persian king to try to conquer
Greece. Darius was the first, defeated by Athens at
the Battle of Marathon.
>Personally I find this period of history quite intruiging I never
>realized there was a greek dark age between the trojan period &
>Alexander,
Huh? This period included what is called the Golden Age
of Greek civilization, in which Athens was the main
cultural center, and Sparta and Thebes were, with Athens,
the major military powers. This was the Hellenic period;
after Philip of Macedon conquered Greece, and his son
Alexander put down the rebellion and then conquered the
Persian Empire, which started the Hellenistic period,
There is little written before about 600 BCE, but the
Iliad and Odyssey, the stories about the Trojan War,
go back at least a couple of centuries earlier.
>or fully appreciated that the period between exodus & the
>destruction of the 1st temple was over a millenium
>Incidentally if anyone in the UK is interested theres a very
>interesting documentary series about the early church on BBC4 at the
>moment
>A History of Christianity Diarmaid MacCulloch
>keeps refering to Christianit as a small jewish sect!
>obviously not to everyones tastes here
Susan S
<scho...@gmail.com>:
The Trojan wars may or may not have happened about 3000 years ago.
Susan Silberstein