What We Miss:

-Three “visitors” come to visit Abraham and Sarah. The guests benefit from Sarah and Abraham’s hospitality (Hebrew: haknasat orkhim). The guests never identify themselves; one announces that Sarah will have a child.

-Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah: Abraham (unlike Noah) becomes the defender of humanity by arguing with God to spare the cities for the sake of any righteous people living there.

-Two of Abraham’s “guests” visit Lot and protect him from the townspeople/mob. Lot decides to offer the mob his daughters in to spare his two visitors and to prevent some type of insurrection. The two cities are eventually destroyed.

-Abraham again, passes Sarah off as his sister to spare his life.

What We Read:

* Sarah gives birth to a son. His name is Isaac; from the Hebrew to laugh. I believe that Isaac’s name is identified with two types of laughter. The first type is a joyous laughter: A response to a child born to elderly parents, skeptical of ever having a child. The second type is a laughter more cynical and derisive, reflecting disbelief when Sarah and Abraham were told that Sarah would become pregnant. Biblical names are often a reflection of both the joys and the struggles in the lives of the respective parents.

* As Isaac grows, the tensions between Sarah and Hagar never dissipate. One incident triggers Sarah’s animosity toward both Hagar and Ishmael. The Torah merely states that Sarah saw Ishmael playing. The sentence does not actually call Ishmael by name; he is merely the son whom Hagar the Egyptian had borne to Abraham. The wording suggests that Sarah considers Ishmael less than human. He is not even worthy of being called by his name. Some commentators posit that Ishmael was “playing” with Isaac, but not so innocently. At minimum, Sarah believed Ishmael to be a corrupting influence. At worst he was making sexual advances at her beloved Isaac. I believe these explanations are far-fetched and an apologetic justification for the eventual (and permanent) banishment of Hagar and Ishmael from home.

The banishment is traumatic for Ishmael, as it would be for anyone of his age. Despite venerating Abraham and Sarah for all their lifetime initiatives, the banishment is not a shining moment for them. I cannot ethically defend their actions any more than I can defend Lot’s offering his daughters to pacify a mob of men. On a more global level we understand why Hagar and Ishmael were banished. The future history of Israel cannot run through a son born to an Egyptian servant. However, on a more visceral level, we need to honestly admit that there is no ethical justification for making Ishmael an outcast boy.

*Vayera concludes with the Akedah, the binding of Isaac. The Akedah is one of the most discussed (and controversial) stories in Biblical literature. From the outset, we know that God was merely conducting a test, because the Torah says so at the beginning of the chapter.

Several times throughout the year our TV and Radio networks conduct a test of the “Emergency Broadcast System.” We are assured that what is to follow is only a test. Here too, the Torah reassures us that the story to follow is only a test and nothing more.

Even as the warning reduces our anxiety, it is still difficult to follow (much less embrace) a story in which God commands a parent to sacrifice his child. Bear in mind that child sacrifice was so common in antiquity that the Torah will eventually include legislation to prohibit such a barbaric practice.

Why then, even include the Akedah when God could simply have told Abraham stay away from such cultic practices of other cultures?

I believe the unequivocal prohibition against human sacrifice has the greatest impact when we readers experience a potential murder first hand, as a sort of play-by-play account. Such a prohibition will be most effective when we follow the potential trauma as it unfolds. By the time Abraham is told to spare his son, we are an emotional train wreck. The Torah’s point is effectively made; we will never require another reminder…

I must also assume that Abraham’s faith was so secure that he never -EVER - believed God would follow through. He went through the motions to demonstrate his total belief in a righteous God, Who had promised that Isaac would be heir to a future Israel. With Sodom and Gomorrah Abraham knew that God meant business. With Isaac, Abraham had to imagine otherwise. Unless he expressed total faith in his new God, the clan of Abraham would have no future. He had to feel secure that no God would make such horrific demands. Rather than contest the command, Abraham complied; as a means of demonstrating commitment to a God, Who only desired life. I must also assume that following the trauma, Abraham “debriefed” Isaac about the entire episode. Otherwise, Isaac would be scarred forever.

Throughout history, some have interpreted the Akedah as an analogy for the suffering of Israel. Some even suggest that Isaac was actually sacrificed. The Akedah, therefore, is a source of never-ending discussion and interpretation.

Haftorah Reading — Second Kings 4: 1-37 (pages 124-126)

The Torah describes an Abraham who brings hesed (loving kindness) to the world. In the Haftorah, the prophet Elisha does likewise. He performs two miracles; providing financial and spiritual sustenance to a needy woman; and then reviving a child who was near death. Whether or not these stories are true, they highlight the compassionate character of a good person.