This website may not work correctly in Internet Explorer. We recommend switching to a more secure modern web browser such as Microsoft Edge which is already installed on your computer.

View this website in Edge.

Rabbi Sam Zwarenstein 2024 RH sermon

Rabbi Sam Zwarenstein

Emanuel Synagogue

The traditional Torah reading for 2nd day Rosh HaShanah is from the Book of Bereishit, chapter 22, and it tells the story of the Akeidah – the binding of Isaac. God commands Abraham to sacrifice his beloved son as a burnt offering. Abraham and Isaac travel three days to Moriah, the place of sacrifice, where they build an altar. Abraham binds Isaac, lays him on the firewood and raises his knife to slay him. At the last moment, however, an angel calls out to Abraham to do no harm to the lad, and a ram caught in a nearby thicket is substitute for Isaac. Even though Isaac is the one being bound, the story is more directly explored as God’s testing of Abraham.

Throughout the Rosh HaShanah liturgy, this story echoes in our prayers, reminding us of the weight and significance of faith. The shofar, traditionally a ram’s horn, which we hear today, also connects us to this moment, symbolising the ram that took Isaac’s place, sparing his life.

The story of the Akeidah may be troubling, yet woven into it is a message of hope, a fitting reflection for Rosh HaShanah. Just as we ask God to “remember us for life” in our prayers, the conclusion of the Akeidah sees Isaac’s life spared—he, too, is “remembered for life.” Abraham’s profound trust in God opens the door to hope, reminding us of the possibility of renewal and the gift of life as we enter this new year.

Given the story’s impact throughout many centuries and across multiple cultures, it is no surprise that commentary on the story of the Akeidah was well documented amongst philosophers during the age of enlightenment in the 17th and 18th centuries.

One philosopher who took a keen interest in Abraham’s actions in the Akeidah is Immanuel Kant, renowned for integrating early modern rationalism and critical philosophy. Kant asserts that human understanding forms the basis for the general laws of nature that structure our experience and that human reason provides the moral law which underpins our belief in God, freedom, and immortality.

In relation to the Akeidah, Kant argues that Abraham actually fails the test set by God. Unlike biblical figures such as Job, who challenged God in the face of injustice, Kant claims that Abraham did not question or refuse what appeared to be an unjust command.

Kant further suggests that Abraham could not be certain that the voice instructing him to “Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the heights that I will point out to you” (Genesis 22:2) was indeed God’s voice.

Kant writes, “For if God should really speak to a human being, the latter could still never know that it was God speaking. It is quite impossible for a human being to apprehend the infinite by his senses, distinguish it from sensible beings, and be acquainted with it as such. But in some cases, the human being can be sure that the voice he hears is not God’s; for if the voice commands him to do something contrary to moral law, then no matter how majestic the apparition may be, and no matter how it may seem to surpass the whole of nature, he must consider it an illusion” (Conflict of the Faculties – Immanuel Kant).

While I understand what Kant is telling us and it makes good sense, his hypothesis can only be accepted if it is considered in isolation, not linked to the rest of the Bible. 1

We know that this is not the first time that Abraham experiences an encounter or conversation with God. In their first meeting God told Abraham; “Go forth from your native land and from your father’s house to the land that I will show you. I will make of you a great nation, And I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you shall be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you and curse him that curses you; and all the families of the earth shall bless themselves by you.” (Gen 12:1-3)

Later, God informs Abraham that “The outrage of Sodom and Gomorrah is so great, and their sin so grave! I will go down to see whether they have acted altogether according to the outcry that has reached Me; if not, I will take note.” (Gen 18:20-21). Abraham then enters into a series of negotiations with God, to spare the righteous of Sodom and Gomorrah, even if there are only a few of them.

After Sarah demands that Abraham banish Hagar and Ishmael, and sensing Abraham’s distress, God says to him; “Do not be distressed over the boy or your slave; whatever Sarah tells you, do as she says, for it is through Isaac that offspring shall be continued for you. As for the son of the slave-woman, I will make a nation of him, too, for he is your seed.” (Gen 21:12-13)

The repetitive nature of the God-Abraham specific relationship in each of these stories shows Abraham listening to God, and through various series of events, he learns that God will end up doing what God intends to do.

If we are to accept Kant’s theory, then why does it not apply to every other encounter God and Abraham have?

Why isn’t it seen as delusional for Abraham to blindly follow the instructions of a deity he has never encountered, and pack up his belongings and go to a land this deity will show him?

How is it possible for Abraham to negotiate with God over the fate of some of the inhabitants of an area God intends to destroy?

What possible explanation would there be for Abraham to heed God’s assurances regarding Sarah’s wishes for Hagar and Ishmael?

The Akeidah is not the first time God speaks to Abraham, and more importantly, Abraham was willing to follow God’s instructions in the previous encounters, why should he start doubting this encounter and these instructions now?

Even when Abraham stands up for the rights of the moral people in Sodom and Gomorrah, God shows him that what God says is going to happen, will happen.

In refuting my defence of Abraham, Immanuel Kant could argue that the specific instructions Abraham heard in the Akeidah story should surely have rung some alarm bells in his head. Aside from the obvious anachronism (there were no alarm bells in the Bible), there are a number of possible explanations.

Firstly, there are accounts of children being sacrificed as part of Pagan and possibly other Near Eastern cultural rites. That doesn’t mean that they were the norm or that they were accepted across all cultures, but it does provide some justification for the possible recognition of such an instruction. This practice is also referred to in Leviticus, as part of the laws provided in Parashat Achrei Mot; “You shall not give any 2 of your children to devote them by fire to Moloch1, and so profane the name of your God.” (Lev 18:21) [1Moloch – a Canaanite deity associated in biblical sources with the practice of child sacrifice.]

Secondly, God had already told Abraham; “I will make of you a great nation …” (Gen 12:2), and then later God reassures him; “… whatever Sarah tells you, do as she says, for it is through Isaac that offspring shall be continued for you.” (Gen 21:12)

These two statements work together to serve as God’s guarantee to Abraham that no harm can come to Isaac. If Isaac were to be offered up as a sacrifice, how could Abraham become a great nation? God’s commitment to Abraham specifically mentions that his lineage would be carried on through Isaac. Therefore, Abraham knows that the plan will require intervention at some stage.

As he has done before, Abraham declares his trust in God through obeying God’s instructions.

Kant’s theory does not take into account the whole picture, the overall experience, and most importantly the reason why God and Abraham had the relationship that they did.

Our narrative clearly shows that God saw Abraham as a worthy agent for change, a leader who would carry the message of living by example and acting in accordance with God’s wishes.

The story of the Akeidah plays an important role in our narrative, which includes its significance in the Rosh HaShanah tradition. It is a declaration of faith, purpose, and trust. However, it is not possible to view the Akeidah as a solitary example of said faith, purpose and trust. It must be read and acknowledged as part of the whole Abraham story, right from Lech Lecha. Contrary to Immanuel Kant’s belief, Abraham did not fail the test, rather he confirms his trust in God and shows that he understands that God has a plan, in which Abraham is a willing participant.

And that declaration of faith and trust is the key to understanding our individual relationships with God. Many of our ancestors, Abraham in this case, had a one on one relationship with God that would determine their destiny and set up the path for the next generation and so on. Our narrative reminds us of the importance of faith and trust our ancestors demonstrated on each occasion, but more importantly it reminds us that in order to see the whole picture, we cannot base our vision or destiny on one interaction.

While we may not always grasp the full picture or understand the details, we are called to trust in the journey, knowing that it is part of something greater than any one moment or test. Abraham’s participation in that journey allows us to share the rich narratives of our ancestors and learn from their stories as they help shape our destiny.

Shana Tovah.

Find more Parashat Hashavua