Human Sacrifice or Techiyat HaMetim?

By Rabbi Dr. Hillel ben David (Greg Killian)

In the Torah we find HaShem apparently commanding Avraham to sacrifice his son, Yitzchak, on Mount Moriah. This is contrary to everything the Torah teaches! What is going on?

As we shall see, the Midrash says that Yitzchak was resurrected from the dead, yet no one killed him. What is going on?

In the Nazarean Codicil [1] we see Yeshua as an apparent human sacrifice. I say apparent because no one killed Him, yet He was resurrected. How can this be?

In this study I would like to examine these two incidents to begin to understand the Torah’s prohibition against human sacrifice while, at the same time, apparently commanding Avraham to slay his son. If we can understand what happened to Yitzchak, then we have some insight into the death of Yeshua. Since there are many similarities between the akeida [2] and the death of Yeshua, then we have much to gain by studying these two incidents.

Nachmanides,[3] at the beginning of Vayikra (Leviticus) 1:9, writes that when the Torah uses the Hebrew word ‘korban - קרבן’, it means human sarifice and not that of an animal.

HaShem abhors and rejects human sacrifice, as we read in the Torah:

Bereshit (Genesis) 9:6 Whoever sheds the blood of man (adam), by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of G-d has G-d made man (adam).

Devarim (Deuteronomy) 12:29 When HaShem thy G-d shall cut off the nations from before thee, whither thou goest to possess them, and thou succeedest them, and dwellest in their land; 30 Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their G-ds, saying, How did these nations serve their G-ds? even so will I do likewise. 31 Thou shalt not do so unto HaShem thy G-d: for every abomination to HaShem, which he hateth, have they done unto their G-ds; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their G-ds.

HaShem abhors and rejects human sacrifice, but only as far as its physical implementation is concerned, according to Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik.

Rabbi Soloveitchik said, “When a man brings a sacrifice after having sinned, he must imagine that it is he himself who is being offered upon the altar. When the blood of the animal is sprinkled, he must imagine that it is his own blood that is being sprinkled, that his own hot blood which in his passion drew him to sin, is being sprinkled upon the altar of his sin; that the fats which are consumed on the altar are not the animal’s, but his own fats, which congealed in his heart and gave him over to the hands of sin. Only by virtue of HaShem’s august mercy is man redeemed from having to sacrifice himself, for it is G-d who arranged for a ram to take the place of Yitzchak. It is for this reason that it is always the ineffable name of HaShem (the Tetragrammaton, indicating HaShem’s attribute of mercy and forgiveness) that appears in the context of sacrifices, for the quality of divine mercy is revealed in the sacrificial rites.”[4]

Man and all he possesses belongs to HaShem. An animal sacrifice is a very inadequate substitute for the real korban, which is human sacrifice. This is the significance of the akeida and the crucifixion.

The basic quandary created by the akeida is that on the one hand Yitzhak is the progeny through whom HaShem has promised to fulfill His blessings, while on the other hand Yitzhak is to be killed. Rabbi Soloveitchik, quoting his grandfather, describes this as a classic case of two verses contradicting one another, and a third verse which reconciles the two. Mystical sources have insisted that Yitzhak did, in fact, die at the akeida, an idea found in various midrashim. The An’zal claims that Yitzhak, who would have been childless, dies, and a new soul that can father children enters his body. Thus, it was the akeida that made the fulfillment of HaShem’s promises to Avraham possible. Christological sources have long seen the akeida as a prototype for their claims of a different so-called execution and resurrection. What is particularly interesting is that some midrashim describe Yitzhak’s carrying the wood as if he was bearing a cross. See Bereshit Rabbah 56:3 (and parallel sources) where the word tzlovo (צְלוּבוֹ) is used, a verb that may have the connotation of crucifixion. This should come as no surprise being that the Nazarean Codicil quotes parallel biblical scenes, making extensive use of extant Midrashic material.[5]

Bereshit Rabbah 56:3 And Avraham took the wood of the burnt-offering[6] - like one who carries his own cross[7] [to be impaled] on his shoulder. 4 “And laid it upon his son… and they went both of them together” – The one to bind and the other to be bound, the one to slaughter and the other to be slaughtered.[8]

Both of them had to bear the cross of sacrificing their own personal will for the sake of Heaven. The expression: etzei Olah “the wood of the burnt-offering”[9] can be interpreted also as ‘wood of ascending’ or ‘ascending trees’. The word Olah literally means: ‘to ascend’; ie. something that goes up. In the secret of:[10] “let us go up [vena’Aleh – עלה] to Zion, to the Mount of HaShem” – which is Moriah. Abraham renamed Moriah with the name: HaShem-Yireh, previously Shem had called it Salem; and it finally was known with both names: Yireh-salem = Yerushalaim. It is no coincidence that Moriah was the place chosen by HaShem. It’s the place of the Holy Temple, the place for sacrifices, and the first sacrifice performed there [consummated or not] was that of Yitzhak.

Avraham understood that HaShem wanted the life of Yitzchak, but demanded only a substitute. In the end, the Midrash indicates that Yitzchak did die, though no one killed him, and was resurrected. This is the first example of Techiyat HaMetim (resurrection of the dead).

Yeshua understood that He was the substitute for all of the Gentiles. If the Torah had used the names of El or Elohim, then a subsititute would not have sufficed as these names are associated with the attribute of strict justice. Since the korbanot are associated with the YHVH (HaShem) name; a substitute is not only permitted, but required. In the end, the Nazarean Codicil relates that Yeshua died, though no one killed Him, and was resurrected.

Yochanan (John) 10:17-18 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. 18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

Bereans (Hebrews) 10:3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. 4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. 5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: 6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. 7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O G-d. 8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; 9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O G-d. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Yeshua HaMashiach once for all.

Romans 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of G-d, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto G-d, which is your reasonable service.

Ephesians 5:2 And walk in love, as Mashiach also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to G-d for a sweet smelling savour.

During the akeida, we see that the name used was Elohim all the way till the time that ‘the Angel of HaShem’ commanded Avraham to stay his hand. At that point, Elohim became HaShem.

II. Nullification of a Vow

The Sages point to the following incident of human sacrifice as a vow that should have been nullified by the Bet Din:

Shoftim (Judges) 11:29 Then the Spirit of HaShem came upon Jephthah, and he passed over Gilead, and Manasseh, and passed over Mizpeh of Gilead, and from Mizpeh of Gilead he passed over unto the children of Ammon. 30 And Jephthah vowed a vow unto HaShem, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands, 31 Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be HaShem’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering. 32 So Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon to fight against them; and HaShem delivered them into his hands. 33 And he smote them from Aroer, even till thou come to Minnith, even twenty cities, and unto the plain of the vineyards, with a very great slaughter. Thus the children of Ammon were subdued before the children of Israel. 34 And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter. 35 And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one of them that trouble me: for I have opened my mouth unto HaShem, and I cannot go back. 36 And she said unto him, My father, if thou hast opened thy mouth unto HaShem, do to me according to that which hath proceeded out of thy mouth; forasmuch as HaShem hath taken vengeance for thee of thine enemies, even of the children of Ammon. 37 And she said unto her father, Let this thing be done for me: let me alone two months, that I may go up and down upon the mountains, and bewail my virginity, I and my fellows. 38 And he said, Go. And he sent her away for two months: and she went with her companions, and bewailed her virginity upon the mountains. 39 And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man. And it was a custom in Israel, 40 That the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year.

In the following Midrash we see that the death of Jephthah was completely avoidable.

Midrash Rabbah - Leviticus XXXVII:4 Jephthah made a request in an improper manner, as is proved by the text, Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me... I will offer it up.[11] Said the Holy One, blessed be He: ‘ If a camel, or an ass, or a dog had come out, would you have offered it for a burnt-offering?’ So the Holy One, blessed be He, answered him correspondingly by bringing him his daughter to hand. And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes (ib. 35). But surely he could have had his vow disallowed by going to Phinehas? He thought: I am a king! Shall I go to Phinehas? And Phinehas argued: I am a High Priest and the son of a High Priest! Shall I go to that ignoramus? Between the two of them the poor maiden perished, and both of them incurred responsibility for her blood.

Thus we see that the death of Jephthah’s daughter was an example of Human Sacifice which was viewed in a very negative light by HaShem. This is not what a sacrifice is all about!

Sacrifice comes as a ransom for man who is obligated to offer himself to HaShem, according to R. Avraham Ibn Ezra and Ramban (Nahmanides).[12]

III. Yitzchak Died

Chazal,[13] however, teach us that the akeida itself did take place and although the ram was offered on the altar as a replacement for Yitzchak, they claim that it is not the ashes of the ram which we see but in fact the akeida of Yitzchak. Although there was no physical harm done to Yitzchak, since the angel forbade Avraham from even scratching him, nevertheless we call it “afar Yitzchak” (the ashes of Yitzchak). Psychologically and spiritually, at that very moment, Avraham gave Yitzchak away.

Was Yitzchak actually Shechted?[14] There is a Midrash that says that indeed Avraham did Shecht him, and there are a number of proofs. We say during Rosh Hashana that HaShem should remember the ashes of Yitzchak which are gathered under the Keesay Hakavod.[15] Secondly, he didn’t come to his mother’s funeral, because angels brought him to the Gan Eden to be healed there. That is why, when Yaaqov came in dressed in Esav’s clothing, Yitzchak declared that he recognized the smell of the clothes as that of Gan Eden. He knew that smell because he was there. These were the clothes that HaShem made for Adam, they passed on to Nimrod and from there to Esav.

Rashi said, in Bereshit (Genesis) 22:13-14:

What is meant by “in place of his son?” At every sacrificial act he performed on it [the ram], he prayed saying: May it be Your will that this act may be regarded as having been done to my son – as though my son is being slain; as though his blood is being sprinkled; as though his skin were being flayed; as though he is being burnt and is being reduced to ashes…

“There are seen in the mountain of the Lord” – the ashes of Yitzchak heaped up as it were and serving as a means of atonement.

Sacrificing the ram in place of Yitzchak reflects the idea, associated primarily with the Ramban,[16] that an animal is sacrificed in place of the person bringing it, who should in fact have offered his own self on the altar. In this sense, “the ashes of Yitzchak”, that is, Yitzchak’s absolute readiness to sacrifice himself to G-d, constitute the foundation of the sacrificial service for future generations.

“.....and why is memory not mentioned in regards to Yitzchak? For the ashes of Yitzchak appear before Me, piled in place upon the altar.”[17]

Midrash Rabbah - Leviticus XXXVI:5 Why are the Patriarchs mentioned here in reverse order? To tell you that if there were no good deeds in Jacob then Yitzchak’s deeds would suffice, and if Yitzchak’s deeds did not suffice, then Avraham’s deeds would suffice; in fact, the deeds of each one alone would suffice for the whole world to be kept suspended in its position on account of their merit. Why was the expression ‘remembering’ mentioned in connection with Jacob and Avraham but not in connection with Yitzchak? R. Berekiah and our Rabbis offer different explanations. R. Berekiah says that it was because he was a child of suffering, and our Rabbis say it was because He saw Yitzchak’s ashes, as it were, heaped up upon the altar.

Midrash Rabbah - Genesis XCIV:5 R. Berekiah made two observations: The Holy One, blessed be He, never unites His name with a living person save with those who are experiencing suffering, and Yitzchak indeed did experience suffering. The Rabbis said: We look upon him as though his ashes were heaped in a pile on the altar.

. . . How did they know the location of the altar [when designing the First Temple]? . . . Rav Yitzchak Napcha said, “They saw the ashes of Yitzchak piled in that spot.”

Zevachim 62a As for the Temple, it is well, for its outline was distinguishable; but how did they know [the site of] the altar? — Said R. Eleazar: They saw [in a vision] the altar built, and Michael the great prince standing and offering upon it. While R. Yitzchak Nappaha said: They saw Yitzchak’s ashes lying in that place. R. Samuel b. Nahman said: From [the site of] the whole House they smelt the odour of incense, while from there [the site of the altar] they smelt the odour of limbs.

Yitzchak’s physical ashes cannot be on the Altar because not only is there no longer an Altar, but Yitzchak was never burned.

“Yitzchak was not actually burned as a sacrifice. Nevertheless, his willingness to be so consecrated was accepted by G-d, so much so that Chazal tell us that to this day, the ‘Ashes of Yitzchak’ rest before G-d as a continuing source of merit for us. Similarly, we pray that to G-d that our thoughts – expressed through our recitation of ‘Korbanot’ - be accepted as actual sacrifices as well.”[18]

In spiritual terms, Avraham’s original sacrifice of Yitzchak was consummated.[19] That means to say, in HaShem’s mind, Yitzchak died as an offering [20] such that “the ashes of Yitzchak were laid before Him.”[21] He stood up from the altar to recite the blessing for the resurrection of the dead.[22]

Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer, 30 Rabbi Yehuda said: “When the knife touched Yitzchak’s neck, his soul flew out of his body. When the Voice emerged from between the cherubim and commanded, “Do not send your hand to hurt the youth...” his soul returned to his body, and Yitzchak stood up on his feet, and realized that just so would the dead be eventually resuscitated, and he declared, “Blessed are you G-d, who resuscitates the dead.”

IV. Self-sacrifice

In the siddur,[23] we read the Amida where one of the eighteen benedictions is:

Shmoneh Esreh You are mighty forever, My Master, You are the Resurrector of the dead, the Powerful One to deliver us. Causer of the wind to blow and the rain to fall. Sustainer of the living with kindliness, Resurrector of the dead with great mercy, Supporter of the fallen, and Healer of the sick and Releaser of the imprisoned and Fulfiller of His faithfulness to those who sleep in the dust. Who is like You Master of mighty deeds and who can be compared to You? King Who causes death and restores life and causes deliverance to sprout forth. And you are faithful to restore the dead to life. Blessed are You, Lord, Resurrector of the dead.

Man attains liberty through self-sacrifice. “Total and unreserved offering of soul and body, that is the foundation of Judaism,” asserts Rabbi Soloveitchik.[24] Moreover, he hazards that, in essence, “Judaism does not prohibit the sacrifice of humans”; i.e., he explains, though the Torah forbids human sacrifice and regards the phenomenon as an example of the obscene in idolatry, it does not ban the notion of self-sacrifice. In the words of the Rav, “G-d demands not tribute from man, but man himself.”[25] Rabbi Soloveitchik sees the central philosophical idea underlying the act of sacrifice explained in Maimonides’ assertion that man is the property of the Creator. Man and all his belongings, his body and soul, ideas, actions, achievements and possessions, even his wife and children, all belong not to man, but to his Creator. And if man is “the property of the Almighty, then he has no choice when the Voice of G-d calls out to him to ‘take now thy son, thine only son,’ and sacrifice him, but to arise and set out to obey the command.” Avraham has no rights in the disposal of his son, Yitzchak; Yitzchak has no claim over Avraham. Man is free; he attains that freedom through exercising his right to self-sacrifice in the service of his Creator.

Were it allowed, the Law would call for human sacrifices, but the dispensation of Grace precludes this, asserting: “Ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd, and of the flock” (Lev. 1:2). Animal sacrifice is allowed as a substitute for human sacrifice, but the meaningfulness of the sacrifice remains, as it were, undiminished; so in the sacrifice of Yitzchak, and so in all other sacrificial offerings. “As the sacrifice is burnt upon the altar, so we burn, in the act of confession over the sacrifice, our entrenched tranquility, our well-nurtured pride, our artificial lives. Through the sacrifice, or through the suffering which stands in its stead, we repeatedly feel ourselves ‘in the presence of G-d.’“[26]

V. Resurrection Of The Dead

The Nazarean Codicil makes an explicit connection between the death of Yeshua and the resurrection of the dead.

Matitiyahu (Matthew) 27:50 Yeshua, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. 51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; 52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, 53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. 54 Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Yeshua, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of G-d.

This suggests that this ‘human sacrifice’ was a voluntary death for the purpose of providing for the resurrection of the righteous.

The Nazarean Codicil recognizes that the death of Yeshua was a substitute for the Gentiles in the same way that the ram was a substitute for Yitzchak, who was a substitute for all Jews. Further, our death is the penalty for our sin. Our death is for the purpose of the destruction of sin.

Romans 6:1-11 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2 G-d forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? 3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Yeshua HaMashiach were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Mashiach was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: 6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. 7 For he that is dead is freed from sin. 8 Now if we be dead with Mashiach, we believe that we shall also live with him: 9 Knowing that Mashiach being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. 10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto G-d. 11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto G-d through Yeshua HaMashiach our Lord.

In the beginning HaShem warned us that human death would be the result of our sin.

Bereshit (Genesis) 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

From this we see that HaShem demands the death of the one who sins. This is strict justice.

* * *

VI. Covenant at the Basins

The Akeda and the Covenant at the Basins

by Yonatan Grossman

Sometimes, a difficult section of the Torah can be explicated by following the literary allusions which tie it in with a totally different one. Parashat Mishpatim ends with a covenant ceremony on Mt. Sinai. We shall try and understand the nature of this “covenant of the basins”[27] by comparing it to a different incident: akedat Yitzchak, based on a striking parallel in the language of both parshiot. The parallels extend beyond a common atmosphere, for both stories come to teach similar lessons.

Let us first compare the content of these stories.

Akeida	Covenant Of The Basins
In both circumstances, a group of people gather at the side of a mountain; a select few ascend, while the rest stay below.	In both circumstances, a group of people gather at the side of a mountain; a select few ascend, while the rest stay below.
In both instances, they are commanded to wait the return of those who ascend.	In both instances, they are commanded to wait the return of those who ascend.
it states “and Avraham said to his servants, ‘YOU WAIT HERE with the donkey. The boy and I will go up there; we will worship and WE WILL RETURN TO YOU’“ (Bereshit 22:5).	We read “and to the elders it was said, ‘WAIT HERE FOR US UNTIL WE RETURN TO YOU’“ (Shemot 24:14).
it states, “On the third day Avraham looked up and saw the place FROM AFAR” (Bereshit 22:4).	it says, “Then He said to Moshe, ‘Come up to the Lord, with Aharon, Nadav and Avihu, and the seventy elders of Yisrael, and bow low FROM AFAR” (Shemot 24:1).
“Avraham built an altar there” (Bereshit 22:9).	“he set up an altar at the foot of the mountain” (Shemot 24:4).
Avraham, on his altar, “offered it up as a burnt-offering (olah) in place of his son” (Bereshit 22:13).	they offered burnt-offerings and sacrificed bulls as peace-offerings (shelamim) to G-d” (Shemot 24:5).
“Avraham rose EARLY in the morning” (Bereishit 22:3).	Moshe “rose EARLY in the morning” (Shemot 24:4).
The knife in the akeda is called a ma’akhelet (Bereshit 22:6), based on the same root as “okhla.”	After Moshe ascends the mountain, it is written “Now the Presence of the Lord appeared in the sight of the Israelites as a consuming fire (eish OKHLA) on the top of the mountain” (Shemot 24:17).
“Do not RAISE YOUR HANDS AGAINST the boy” (Bereshit 22:12).	“He did not RAISE HIS HANDS AGAINST the leaders of the Israelites” (Shemot 24:11).

One phrase in the berit ha-aganot demands elucidation: “He sent na’arei benei Yisrael, and they offered olot [28] and sacrificed bulls as shelamim [29] to G-d” (24:5). There is a dispute among the commentators as to the identity of the “ne’arim.” Onkelos translates the sentence as “He designated from the first-born of the Israelites.” In his footsteps, Rasag, Rashi, Rashbam, Ibn Ezra and others, explain the word “na’arei” to mean that the bekhorim, the first-born men, were chosen to offer the sacrifices.

This understanding is based on the assumption that only at a later date did the tribe of Levi and the sons of Aharon replace the first-born who were initially to have been the priests of G-d, based on the exchange recounted in Beha’alotkha (Bemidbar 8:14-19).

It makes sense that the first-born would be sent to offer the sacrifices, since at this time they were still the “priests.” However, this explanation does not solve the textual problem, for we never find “na’arei” to mean the first-born.

The term “na’ar” has several definitions in Tanakh.[30] Sometimes, it can refer to a baby, for example: “she saw that it was a child (na’ar) crying”.[31] It can also refer to someone who has yet to become a grown man, as in Shoftim 8:14, and I Shemuel 2:18. Often the term ‘na’ar’ means a servant or a slave: “A Hebrew na’ar was there with us”.[32] Additionally, it also may denote a man of war as seen in I Shemuel 30:17, “except 400 ne’arim who mounted camels and got away”.[33] However, there is no other place where ‘na’ar’ refers to a first-born.

The Ramban explains:

“Perhaps it is because Scriptures mentioned the elders who are “the nobles of the Bne Yisrael;” therefore it called the first-borns “ne’arim,” for relative to the “elders” they were young. It thus emphasizes that Moshe sent them to offer the sacrifices not because of their status in wisdom, for they were not yet advanced in age, but only on account of the bechora, through which they were appointed to offer sacrifices.”

According to the Ramban, the term “ne’arim” suggests that although the first-born are individually unworthy of such an honored position, nonetheless they are granted this position due to their first-born status. The Ramban offers another possible interpretation of the phrase “na’arei Bne Yisrael,” one which he prefers over his first explanation: “In line with the plain meaning of Scriptures, na’arei Bne Yisrael were the youth of Yisrael who had not tasted of sin, and had never come near a women, for they were the most select and holy of the people...”

We are dealing with one of the most significant events in the founding of Bne Yisrael as a nation, the forging of a covenant with G-d in preparation of the acceptance of the Torah. Why are the ne’arim, whether they are the first-born or young lads chosen to represent the entire congregation in such a profound moment? Should we not have expected Moshe or Aharon to accept the mantle of leadership at such an occasion? What is different about such a moment from the consecration of the tabernacle or the inauguration of the priests, when Moshe performs the main role?

In light of the parallel between berit ha-aganot and Akedat Yitzchak, perhaps we should see the berit as a type of “Akedat Yitzchak” in addition to its other purposes. Just as Avraham as an individual was commanded to sacrifice his son, so too all of Yisrael, as a congregation, are required to offer their sons, their ne’arim, to G-d. Of course, actual human sacrifice is an abomination. Thus, a ram was offered as a sacrifice instead of Yitzchak; correspondingly, the ne’arim sacrificed burnt offerings as a substitute for themselves.[34]

The olot that the ne’arim offered were coming as “a soul for soul,” a substitute for themselves. The multitude of literary comparisons between berit ha-aganot and Akedat Yitzchak enables us to understand why the ne’arim were specifically chosen to offer the sacrifices. The burnt offerings were a substitute of the na’arei Bne Yisrael themselves, who were supposed to be offered to G-d just as Yitzchak, the son of Avraham, was four hundred years earlier.

VII. Echoes of the Akeida

Additionally, there are four events in the Tanach which have ‘echoes’ of the akeida. Each of these four events is introduced with the words: ‘and it happened on that day’ (Vayehi hayom) - וַיְהִי הַיּוֹם. Further, these are the only four times where this phrase is ever used. Every one of these four examples of, and it happened on that day, each of these four episodes where those words occur, are each an echo of the akeida.

and it came to pass on that day

Now it fell upon a day

Now there was a day

Now it came to pass upon a day

1. Jonathan and Saul in the Book of Samuel. [Shmuel alef (1 Samuel) 14:1]

Saul’s history is framed by two variations on the devotion of the firstborn, Hannah’s dedication of Samuel at the beginning (I Sam 1:1-28; 2:1 la) and Saul’s near sacrifice of Jonathan at the end (1 Sam 14:23b-30, 36-45).^4vMore specifically, Hannah’s petitionary vow while fasting and dedication of her son are echoed in Saul's petitionary oath imposing a fast and his consequent willingness to have Jonathan put to death when it is determined

The resolution of the near sacrifice (1 Sam 14:45) is followed by two summary passages that conclude the history: the end of the Philistine war (1 Sam 14:46), which fulfills the more specific version of Saul's commission (1 Sam 9:16), and Saul’s deliverance of Israel from their surrounding enemies (1 Sam 14:47-48), which fulfills the more inclusive version of his commission (I Sam 10:1[LXX]).

2. In Job.

[Iyov (Job) 1:6]

Job, Chapter 1, verse 1; There was this fellow by the land of Utz, his name was Job, and he was a wonderful guy. He was; Tam v'yashar vi'yereih Elokim - and he was fearing G-d; V'sar mei'ra'ah. By the way, sounds a lot like Abraham. I mean, what is Abraham described in the Akeida? Atah yadati ki yarei Elokim atah - now I know that you're a fearer of G-d. Not only that, [Abraham/Job 48:57] - Tam, an Ish Tam. Noach was an Ish Tam - a wise man, a simple man, a perfect man in his faith and Yashar and Abraham was too. What does G-d say to Abraham? Hit'halech lefanai v'heyai tamim - walk before Me and be perfect, be pure, be Tam. So these two things actually sound a lot like Abraham, a man who was Tam, a man who was Yarei Elokim, a man who was good.

And he had these children, these seven children and these three daughters and he had lots of cattle and lots of flocks. He was; Ha'ish hahu gadol mikol bnei kedem - he was greater than all of the people in the east. By the way, what do we know about Abraham? Agadlah shemecha - I will make you great, you will have a lot of stuff. V'halchu banav v'asu mishteh - oh a Mishteh - his children go and they make a party, a particular kind of party, a Mishteh. What did Abraham do when Abraham had - Isaac was born, what did he do? He made a; Mishteh gadol - a huge party, and invited everyone to the party. Well the brothers in this case, the children of Job, made themselves a Mishteh and they invited everyone to [bring them 50:10].

But the Mishteh gets Job worried because Job says - what Job does is he starts offering offerings to G-d; Ki amar Iyyov - because Iyyov says; Ulai chatu banai - maybe my children sinned? Maybe they did something wrong? U'beirchu Elokim bilvavam - and they cursed G-d in their heart. And this is what Job would do, he would always try to protect his children that nothing would ever bad happen to his children. So therefore he gave offerings to G-d, to try to sort of protect his children.

This is the Job story in the background and all of a sudden who should show up? Vayehi hayom - one day, Vayavo'u bnei Ha'Elokim l'hityatzeiv al Hashem vayavoh gam ha'satan betochom - the Satan shows up and makes a bet with G-d, and says you think he's so Tam v'Yashar, let's see what happens when You start to take away his children? Think of the Akeida. The Rabbis said; Achar devarav shel Satan - that the Satan made a bet with G-d, it was Job-like. What did Job try and do? He was trying to protect his kid. What was Abraham trying to do? He was trying to protect his kid. G-d said, send away Ishmael, and he didn't want to do it.

Iyov is the only other story in Tanach in which a Tzaddik is tested with emotionally-wrenching experiences involving his children. Chazal might reason that just as Iyov’s test was triggered by the Satan pointing out a spiritual deficiency in him (Iyov 1:9-12 and 2:4-6), so too Avraham’s test was caused by the Satan noting a spiritual deficit in him. Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, in his great work The Lonely Man of Faith, writes that Iyov’s failure was that he sacrificed only on behalf of his family member’s and no one else (Iyov 1:5). He later corrected this misstep at the conclusion of the Sefer (Iyov 42:10) by praying on behalf of someone other than a family member. In the interim, Iyov was tested by the loss of his children. Similarly, Avraham’s initial failure was in lack of sacrifices, and he had to make up for it with a near sacrifice of his precious Yitzchak. My Talmid Avi Levinson, though, questions why Iyov in fact lost his children and Avraham Avinu did not lose Yitzchak. Perhaps offering the ram as substitute for Yitzchak avoided the loss of Yitzchak.

And it was after these things that Avraham was told, saying, “Behold, Milcah as well has borne children to Nachor, your brother: Utz, his first-born, Buz, his brother…”

Be’er Mayim Chaim: While we, his more distant relatives, have little natural interest in Nachor’s expanding family, Chazal [35] saw important events in this pasuk. Avraham, they tell us, became fearful of having to endure Divinely-ordered suffering. Hashem told him not to worry. Utz had been born. Otherwise known as Iyov, he would bear the burden of suffering, and spare Avraham.

We would call this puzzling, to say the least. Avraham had just been directly assured by Heaven of a rich beracha in the aftermath of the Akeida. Why, of all times, would he now dreadfully anticipate Divinely- ordained suffering? And if he had some good reason to fear it, how could Iyov, an innocent stranger, assume that suffering and spare Avraham?

We have to move our focus back a bit to discover the solution to these enigmas. While it was never HaShem’s intention that Avraham go through with the offering of his son, Avraham still detected significant meaning in the very instruction, which could not have been arbitrary. Avraham reasoned that Yitzchak was linked to gevurah, including its strongest and harshest forms. The Akeida, Avraham believed, was meant to bring this gevurah under the absolute dominion of chesed – Avraham’s own characteristic. (The Ari HaKadosh explained offerings as a class in this way. The slaughter of a korban would “sweeten” gevurah through an admixture of chesed.)

The Ari also taught that people’s neshamot often returned through their own progeny. (This is what the Torah means when it speaks of HaShem visiting the sins of parents upon their children!) Avraham sensed that Yitzchak’s neshamah was linked in part to this grandfather Terach, who had ample sins that remained unatoned. (Grandchildren are also reckoned as children in this regard.) When Yitzchak walked away from the Akeida unscathed, Avraham now had reason to fear that the unpaid spiritual debts of Terach would be collected from himself!

With the news of the birth of Utz, Avraham’s fears were allayed. While Terach may have been linked to the neshamot of Yitzchak (and even Avraham), Utz was even closer. Utz/ Iyov was a full gilgul of Terach; his life afforded an opportunity to right the wrongs committed by Avrohom’s father. (Initially Iyov rejected his suffering. His friends all told him that he must somehow be guilty of some aveirot. Iyov knew, however, that he was guiltless! He could only see blind fate as somehow responsible for the way his life had turned out, and he cursed that natural fate. The intervention of Elihu changed his perception. Elihu introduced him to the concept of gilgul; Iyov then understood that his life was meant to remedy the misdeeds of an evildoer who had preceded him.)

Avraham was largely correct – even if the suffering would catch up with his son, rather than himself. Yitzchak, according to Chazal, inaugurated the entire concept of living with suffering. To be sure, his suffering was minor, compared to that of Iyov. It could have been different, were it not for the fact that when HaShem remembered Sarah and allowed her to conceive, He worked the same miracle for Milcah – resulting in the birth of Iyov, who lightened the burden that Yitzchak otherwise would have borne.

Our pasuk alludes to this by opening with “and it was”/ vayehi, the ominous phrase that portends tragedy and unhappiness. It hints at the trials and suffering of Iyov, who is introduced to us here under a different name.

3. Chana is chlidless.

[Shmuel alef (1 Samuel) 1:4]

Chana, whose soul was also embittered, just like the Shunmamite woman.

4. The Shunammite woman.

[Melachim bet (2 Kings) 4:8]

She has no children, just like Abraham and Sarah.

she has no child; and her husband is very old. Just like Abraham and Sarah (Gen. 34:37).

Shunmamite stood in the doorway. At this time next year you will have a child, just like Sarah (Gen. 35:29) was standing in the doorway of the tent and told she would havbe a child at this time next year.

Now whereas the first half of the story mirrors the birth of Isaac, the second half of the story - this is going to seem to mirror the Akeida - the story of the Binding of Yitzchak. Let's listen in. What happens?

One day the child is out in the field and he says to his father; Roshi, roshi - my head, my head. And the father says to those around him; Go bring the child to his mother. Now keep those words in mind, they don't appear in the Akeida story themselves, in fact Sarah is not actually involved in the Akeida story, she's noticeably absent, but keep those words in mind because they will become very important later. They don't appear in the Akeida story, but they're echoed in another phantom Akeida story, and we'll come back to that.

But in any case the father says, go bring the child to his mother. And they bring him up to his mother; And the child sits upon her knees; And the child dies. And the woman goes up and she lays the child down on the bed of the man of G-d, of Elisha. And she closes the door behind him; And she leaves. And then she calls out to her husband and says; Go find for me - the woman says - get me one of the lads and one of the donkeys; And I'm going to run to the man of G-d and I will return.

Now recall that so far the father is being, so to speak, commanded by the mother to do this, but the father doesn't know why, the father is not aware that the child has died. The woman has kept this secret. In fact, the father says; Why are you going today; He says, it's not a special day, and she says; Shalom. She just says, don't worry about it, everything will be fine. And she really does not mention anything. And she saddles her donkey and goes - and says to the lad to go with her; Go run and we're not stopping, we're single-minded focused, don't stop until I tell you.

Now here we have the beginning of the echoes of the Akeida. First of all, we have a woman acting without telling her husband what's going on. A mirror image of the Akeida where Abraham acts without telling Sarah what's going on. Sarah is entirely in the dark for the whole Akeida story, here the husband is in the dark in this story. Both stories revolve around the death or the potential death - the already death or the possible death of the child. The woman has a single-minded focus, she's going and not thinking about anything, just all of her actions were just going, going, going. If you look at the verbs in the beginning of the Akeida story it's going, going, going. Abraham is not thinking, just one verb after another verb; And he's cutting the wood for the offering and he's getting up and he's going and he's waking up early in the morning. It's just verb, verb, verb. Here as well, she's going, single-minded focus.

In the Akeida story who does he go with when he saddles the donkey? He goes with the lad. Here, she saddles the donkey, goes with the lad. It's the same - and where are they going? They're going in both stories to the top of a mountain; She goes here to the top of Har ha'Carmel. Abraham when to the top of Mount Moriah, and now she's going to the top of Mount Carmel.

So Elisha here intuits that something is wrong, that something is strange and says, go check out what's happening. But she doesn't tell Geichazi, she says everything is fine. What happens? She goes, so she grabs hold of she grabs a hold of the legs of Elisha and Geichazi thinks she's a crazy woman, he's going to push her away, but he says no, don't touch her; because her soul is very bitter; And Hashem has held this back from me, G-d has held this back from me, and has not told me what's going on.

By the way, what does this remind you of folks? This is not an Akeida reminder but again a reference to another phantom Akeida story. It's like as if all these stories are linked with each other. They're linked to the Akeida but they're also linked to each other. Which phantom Akeida story does this remind you of, where a man is approached by a woman who seems to act in a crazy kind of way, but she's in fact acting out of anguish? He realizes in this case that she's acting out of anguish, the anguish is called being of embittered soul, and he's not aware of this because G-d doesn't tip him off what's going on. What does this remind you of? Well it reminds you of the story of Chana and Eli.

Look back at the story of Samuel, at the beginning of the story of Samuel, the story of Chana and Eli, exactly the same. Chana seems to be acting crazy. She's not grabbing hold of Eli's feet but she's whispering and talking and she's not speaking and Eli think that she's drunk, and he's ready to push her away just like Geichazi does. But he doesn't realize that in fact where she's coming from is a place of deep anguish, it's not that she's crazy, and that's in fact what Chana says. Chana uses the same language here as is being mirrored here by the Shunammite woman, she says; [42:20] - my soul is very better, and here again we have that echo, my soul is very bitter.

In fact, what does she say? This is the first things out of the mouth of the Shunammite woman; she says; Did I ever ask this child of you? I told you not to joke with me, I didn't ask for this child, you gave me this child, I never asked for this child. What happened? Then Elisha understands what's going on.

By the way, not an echo of the Akeida story here but an echo of another story which is a phantom Akeida story - the Chana story, which is another story by the way of a woman giving up her child. Not to death, but giving up her child; [42:58] - I set aside this child, I consecrated this child, I made this child holy. Isaac was made holy as an offering, Samuel was made holy and given to the Temple service for all the days of his life, and he was almost orphaned, he was taken away as a very young child, after weaning. The weaning of Isaac and the weaning of Samuel are the only two weanings we know of in the entire Torah. These two children are weaned and then they're off and they are G-d's, they're not their parents' anymore. The Samuel is weaned and she gives him off and it's another Akeida story, it's a mother giving up her child. Not physically, the child is still going to be alive, she can still visit him, but she's no longer in some fundamental way, his parent, she's given over to G-d, to the service of G-d. [He's off 43:42] in the Temple, and Eli has taken over the parental duties, as it were.

But what does she say? The Shunammite woman says to Elisha - did I ever ask this child? What is this? This is a mirror image of Chana. Chana when she names Samuel, Samuel, she names Samuel, Samuel because Samuel in Hebrew, she says; I asked this child from G-d. Chana asked the child from G-d, G-d responded. Because G-d responded to what she asked for how did she reciprocate? She says; now I asked the child from You, and now I'm responding by lending the child back to You. In Hebrew the word for ask and lend is the same. Sha'alti - I asked the child; And now I'm returning him to You, I'm lending the child back to G-d. Chana says that it is legitimate for me to lend the child and give the child to G-d because I asked the child, I borrowed the child, the child is really just on borrowed time and therefore I'm lending him back to G-d. Over here we have the mirror image where the woman is saying; did I ask this child? I never asked this child of you.

What this is, is a mirror image of the Akeida. What's happening in the Akeida? They're going up the mountain for what purpose? What's going to happen at the top of that mountain? What's happening at the top of that mountain is that Abraham is ready to give the child back to G-d. What's happening in this story? G-d has the child, he's dead, but it's a mirror image of the Akeida in the sense that this woman is doing the very opposite of the Akeida, she's asking for the child back. Why? For exactly the opposite reasons. Because Chana - another mirror image of the Akeida story - Chana asked the child of G-d, she didn't ask this child. I never asked for it, you gave it to me, you can't be an Indian giver, give me the child back.

This story, I think, when you look at this in relation to the Akeida story it makes you ask fundamental questions. One of the questions to ask is maybe there's another response? It's not always that you give your child up. This woman got her child back - and by the way this child survives, this child lives, this child comes back to life. G-d listens to what she has to say and this child is resuscitated. He comes back from the dead. It's just fascinating because he's an example of - you would say, well the pious and the right thing to do is to give your child back to G-d. Here's a woman who did exactly the opposite, she had her child taken away from her, and demanded the child back, and won, in a mirror image of the Akeida story.

So this is one example of where have we heard these words before, it's a phantom Akeida story, another Akeida story which reappears elsewhere in Tanach and seems to be begging us to ask us to analyze it and to see it in light of the first Akeida story.

Ishmael and Yitzchak

Child bound on mother’s shoulders, Yitzchak bound on the altar.

Child under wood of a bush, Yitzchak under wood to carry it.

A Haftorah for the day that we read both of these stories; the Akeida story itself and the expulsion of Ishmael.

Bereshit (Genesis) 22	Yitzchak	Bereshit (Genesis) 21	Yishmael

6 And Abraham took the wood of the burnt-offering, and laid it upon Yitzchak his son;	The wood is bound together above Yitzchak.	15 And the water in the bottle was spent, and she cast the child under one of the shrubs.	The ‘wood’ is above Yishmael.
6 and he took in his hand the fire and the knife; and they went both of them together.	Both went together	16 And she went, and sat her down over against him a good way off …	And she stood from afar וַתֵּשֶׁב לָהּ מִנֶּגֶד
7 And Yitzchak said unto Abraham his father …	Son to father
7 … and said: 'My father.' …	Son to father
7 … And he said: 'Here am I, my son.' …	Father to son Conversation between father and son TOGETHER. (the only one in the Tanach)	16 for she said: 'Let me not look upon the death of the child.'	DISTANT Mother to herself Lack of conversation between mother and child
7 …And he said: 'Behold the fire and the wood; but where is the lamb for a burnt-offering?' (Seems to be an interrupted conversation.)	Son to father
8 And Abraham said: …	Father to son
8 And Abraham said: 'God will provide Himself the lamb for a burnt-offering, my son.' So they went both of them together.	Both went together	16 … And she sat over against him, and lifted up her voice, and wept.	And she stood from afar וַתֵּשֶׁב מִנֶּגֶד
9 And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built the altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Yitzchak his son, and laid him on the altar, upon the wood.	The wood is below Yitzchak who is bound.

Bereshit (Genesis) 22	Yitzchak

6 And Abraham took the wood of the burnt-offering, and laid it upon Yitzchak his son;	The wood is bound together above Yitzchak.
6 and he took in his hand the fire and the knife; and they went both of them together.	Both went together
7 And Yitzchak said unto Abraham his father …	Son to father
7 … and said: 'My father.' …	Son to father
7 … And he said: 'Here am I, my son.' …	Father to son Conversation between father and son TOGETHER. (the only one in the Tanach)
7 …And he said: 'Behold the fire and the wood; but where is the lamb for a burnt-offering?' (Seems to be an interrupted conversation.)	Son to father
8 And Abraham said: …	Father to son
8 And Abraham said: 'God will provide Himself the lamb for a burnt-offering, my son.' So they went both of them together.	Both went together
9 And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built the altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Yitzchak his son, and laid him on the altar, upon the wood.	The wood is below Yitzchak who is bound.

Bereshit (Genesis) 21	Yishmael

13 ‘And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed.’	Promise of Yishmael’s descendents
14 And Abraham arose up early in the morning, and took bread and a bottle of water, and gave it unto Hagar, …	Canteen of water
14 putting it on her shoulder, and the child, and sent her away; and she departed, and strayed in the wilderness of Beer-sheba.	Child is connected to his mother
15 And the water in the bottle was spent, and she cast the child under one of the shrubs.	Cast the child away (going down)
16 And she went, and sat her down over against him a good way off, as it were a bow-shot; …	And she sat from afar וַתֵּשֶׁב לָהּ מִנֶּגֶד
16 … for she said: 'Let me not look (אֶרְאֶה ) upon the death of the child.'	‘See’ and ‘fear’ are from the same root
16 And she sat over against him, and lifted up her voice, and wept. 17 And God heard the voice of the lad…	Mother cries, but God hears the child.
17 … fear (תִּירְאִי) not; for God hath heard the voice of the lad where he is.	‘See’ and ‘fear’ are from the same root
16 … And she sat over against him, and lifted up her voice, and wept.	And she sat from afar וַתֵּשֶׁב מִנֶּגֶד
18 Arise, lift up the lad …	Lift up the child (going up)
18 … and hold him fast by thy hand; for I will make him a great nation.'	Child is connected to his mother
19 And God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went, and filled the bottle with water, and gave the lad drink.	Canteen of water
21 And he dwelt in the wilderness of Paran; and his mother took him a wife out of the land of Egypt.	Promise of Yishmael’s descendents

1. Yaaqob gives Yosef and akeida like test by sending him to look for his brothers despite the fact that he knows the brothers want to kill him.

2. Yaaqob wants Yosef to be the bechor and gives him the cloak of many colors in addition to the cloak He gives to all of the brothers.

3. Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik suggests that Yaaqob leaving Lavan is a fulfillment of the promise of exile given to Avraham.

4. Yaaqob leaves Lavan immediately after Yosef is born. Yosef is the trigger he is the fourth generation, the firstborn of his beloved wife. See Debarim (Deuteronomy) 21:15-17 as the Torah of Yaaqob’s relationship with Leah as the ‘hated’ wife.

5. If you look through the entire Bible you will find that the Hebrew term Senu'ah - hated woman, hated wife, is actually applied to a real person, to a specific person, only once in the entire Bible. That is Leah.


Hated Wife	Loved Wife
Leah	Rachel
Becor - Reuben	Becor - Yoswf

II Kings 4:17-

* * *

This study was written by

Rabbi Dr. Hillel ben David

(Greg Killian).

Comments may be submitted to:

Rabbi Dr. Greg Killian

12210 Luckey Summit

San Antonio, TX 78252

Internet address: gkilli@aol.com

Web page: http://www.betemunah.org/

(360) 918-2905

Return to The WATCHMAN home page

Send comments to Greg Killian at his email address: gkilli@aol.com

[1] Nazarean Codicil = New Testament (which is neither new nor a testament.)

[2] Akeida = binding, normally applied to the binding of Yitzchak on Mt. Moriah.

[3] Rabbi Moses ben Nachman Gerondi, known by the abbreviation RaMBaN, and to the non-Jewish world-as Nachmanides.

[4] Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, On Repentance, pp. 266-268

[5] This paragraph is excerpted and editited from: Echoes of Eden, Sefer Bereishit, by Rabbi Ari D. Kahn, pg. 127, OUPRESS – Gefen Publishing House.

[6] Bereshit (Genesis) 22:6

[7] tzlovo (צְלוּבוֹ)

[8] Here Yitzhak is in the aspect of Mashiach ben Yosef. ‘As a Lamb’ [Is 53:7] (kaShe) = 325. 325 is the Gematria of “haNaar” (the Lad, or the young boy) name used by Abraham to refer Yitzhak in his binding; also the name used in Maasei Merkava to refer Enoch and MemTet (cf. Sefer Heikhalot 3:2); therefore, this name is an aspect of Mashiach ben Yosef.

[9] Bereshit (Genesis) 22:6

[10] Yirmiyahu (Jeremiah) 31:6

[11] Shoftim (Judges) 11:31

[12] Quoted in Worship of the Heart, by Joseph Dov Soloveitchik.

[13] Our Sages

[14] Shechted = kosher slaughter

[15] Keesay hakavod = throne of glory

[16] In his commentary to Vayikra (Leviticus) 1:9

[17] Rashi, ad. loc.

[18] Artzot HaChaim: Eretz Yehuda, ch.1, section 5

[19] Bereshit Rabbah 55:5. See Zevachim 62a.

[20] Pirke d’Rabbi Eliezer, ch. 31

[21] This otherworldly element of Yitzchak means that no expression of “remembrance” is necessary for him (Rashi, Vayikra 26:42, citing Torat Kohanim 8:7).

[22] Pirke d’Rabbi Eliezer, ch. 30

[23] Siddur = prayerbook

[24] “On Repentance,” 142.

[25] “On Repentance,” 166. Compare with Soloveitchik, “Five Sermons,” translated by David Telsner (Tal Orot, Jerusalem 1974, pp. 14–15). Soloveitchik here explains Deut. 20:29: i.e., the means by which a Jew achieves purchase on the Almighty is through his “whole being” (be-khol nafshekha), as explained in Rabbi Akiva’s sermon (Ber. 63a): “Even if it costs one’s life.” The Almighty can be reached through suffering and obstinate devotion: “in short, one reaches the Almighty through sacrifice.”

[26] “On Repentance,” 65, 167. Compare with Rabbi A. I. Kook, “The Lights of Repentance” (Jerusalem 1970), 46–52. In general, there are many points of convergence between the thinking of repentance of the “poet of repentance,” Rabbi Kook, and the “philosopher of repentance,” Rabbi Soloveitchik, as, for example, on the problems of time, suffering, the individual and the community, etc. A comparative study of the two might prove enlightening.

[27] Berit ha-aganot 24:12-18

[28] Olot = Burnt offerings

[29] Shelamim = Peace Offerings.

[30] Tanakh is an acronym for: Torah, Neviim, and Ketuvim – The Law, The Prophets, and The Writings – the Old Testament.

[31] Shemot 2:6; see Rashi

[32] Bereishit 41:12; see also Shemot 33:11

[33] See also II Shemuel, 2:18

[34] See Ramban Vayikra 1:9 who explains all animal sacrifices as a substitute for self-sacrifice.

[35] Bereshit Rabbah, 56:4