In reading your reasons for not reading the story, I think I discovered exactly why the story must be read and interpreted. You say that we live in the shadow of an event (the Shoah) where the only defence of those who perpetrated the crimes was that they were ‘just following orders’. Abraham was saved from doing this act because doing it would have been egregious and the excuse of ‘God told me to’ would not have been sufficient. The story is there to teach us that no reprehensible act can be justified and that it is the duty of each person to question authority when it seems necessary.

That’s how I understand the story and think that it is a good lesson.

Shalom.

1. Many ancient peoples believed that the soul — or an equivalent idea of a continuing spirit — not only outlived the body, but was more important than the body. They may have believed that sacrificing a person (or animal) freed it to go on to another way of existing, or merging with the deity. Therefore, sacrifice would not have been seen as an ending of someone’s life in the way that most of us would see it today.

Abraham may have held such a belief. Indeed, Abraham may have been expecting to offer up his son at an appointed time. The surprise to him may have been that his firstborn, Ishmael, was not to be the sacrifice. This unexpected development certainly would have carried along one theme of the Torah, that of a younger son replacing an older son.

My point is that there’s no way for us to know for sure what our ancestors thought and felt about sacrifice, outside of the little conveyed to us by the text. So it’s important for us not to assume and judge them by modern standards; rather, I think we should face the challenge of our tradition’s texts and wrestle with them, drawing out new meanings and lessons, rather than rejecting them. This is especially true of a story like the Akedah, one of the central texts in our tradition. We don’t need an abridged Torah; we need our wise teachers to offer new insights into it.

2. In a larger sense, the Torah is talking about a time of transition, in which God was teaching Abraham a new way. At that time, child sacrifice was common (and remained common for centuries afterward). What we see in this story is a revolution: the substituting of an animal for a human being. This is a movement from killing humans to finding a replacement so as to spare human life. While we moderns may recoil even at the idea of animal sacrifice (I know I do), we must be mindful of the important point in a slow transition that this story represents. Personally, I’m proud to be part of a tradition that has not only rejected human sacrifice (and its modern metaphors), but has rejected the suggestion that we need sacrifice when prayer, study, and good deeds are what is pleasing to God.

Thanks for the streaming services, and L’shanah tovah to all.

I couldn’t possibly agree with you more. Ever since I was a child I too was confused by the premise of this story and could not reconcile it, even in my juvenile mind.

For all the reasons you cited above I fully support you in your decision. I understand that means nothing in the grand scheme of things, and some may see it as sacrilegious (as would my long deceased grandparents who also used the story to beat me over the head as to my “lack of obedience”).

In these utterly crazy-making times it makes sense to reassess these stories and appreciate them as tradition, but not as (my opinion) guidelines by which to live our daily lives.