By Rabbi Dr. Michael Leo Samuel
CHULA VISTA, California — In his introduction to the Guide for the Perplexed, Maimonides acknowledges he composed his philosophical work for two types of audiences: He wrote for the common reader who wished to understand the basic meaning of the fundamental theological teachings found in the Torah. He also wrote the Guide in a literary style that scholars and intellectuals could discern the author’s hidden meaning embedded in the biblical narrative and its laws. Should a reader fail to comprehend the spiritual lexicon of the Tanakh, the wayward student is apt to be “perplexed” and lead to a serious misunderstanding of the Scriptures. In certain respects, Maimonides composed one of the first theological dictionaries of the Tanakh. With the aid of his Guide, the gifted reader will be able to discern from the corpus of Maimonides’ works a subtle insight into the inner workings of their master’s mind.
In this section, we will examine Maimonides’ treatment of the Akedah. Although most Judaic, Christian, and Muslim commentators and thinkers interpret the Akedah as having actually occurred while Abraham was in a wakeful state of consciousness, Maimonides hints that there may be another way of interpreting the story. Maimonides mentioned on many occasions how the Divine speaks to mortals in either a dream, or by granting them a visionary experience. Perhaps the Akedah was also a visionary experience.
Why should such a perspective be considered? Maimonides often writes about the occasional bizarre feats biblical prophets have been described as performing in the Tanakh. One of the most vivid examples Maimonides gives is when God tells the prophet, Isaiah, to go take off his sackcloth and walk naked for three years as a sign and portent against Egypt and Ethiopia. Isaiah foretells that the Assyrian king would do exactly that to the captives he takes from those countries (Isa. 20:2-4). Judah’s reliance upon Egypt to protect her would prove to be nothing more than a pipe dream. But here, too, claims Maimonides, he cautions his readers not to interpret the story literally. Isaiah never went naked for three years, but he did in his prophetic vision.
Similarly, when God instructed the prophet Hosea to marry a prostitute, are we to assume that Hosea married a prostitute exactly as God instructed? Obviously not, according to Maimonides—this too was nothing more than a prophetic vision. Prophetic visions make use of important parabolic themes that the prophet uses when encouraging the people to change. In another chapter, Maimonides describes the psychological landscape of prophecies and contends that God utilizes the human imagination when speaking to the prophet:
It is undoubtedly evident that most prophecies are given in images, for this is the characteristic of the imaginative faculty, the organ of prophecy. We also find it necessary to say a few words on Scripture’s figures, hyperboles, and exaggerations. They would create strange ideas if we were to take them literally without noticing the embellishment they contain, or if we were to understand them according to the original meaning of the terms, ignoring the fact that these are used figuratively.[2]
Why does Maimonides insist here upon a psychological interpretation rather than a literal understanding of the text?
God is too exalted than that He should turn His prophets into a laughing stock and a mockery for fools by ordering them to carry out crazy actions. … All those happenings are parables in a vision of prophecy … There remains no room for obscurity as to any of these things having a real existence. . .. Even if such actions should have had a long duration and should have been attached to certain times . . . individuals . . . and places, you should—as soon as it has become clear to you that the action in question is a parable—you will have certain knowledge that the seemingly strange behavior described in the narrative occurred in a vision of prophecy[3} (emphasis added). [4]
Maimonides’ subtle wording could apply to the details in the Akedah story. Maimonides knew better not to make this point explicit—especially since most Jews have long interpreted the Akedah as a historical event. Throughout the wars of the Crusaders, Maimonides knew how fathers killed their entire families and then themselves as the Crusaders threatened the Jews of his era with torture and conversion.[5] Maimonides laid the foundation he had hoped future generations of scholars might perceive the hidden message he wished to convey. Maimonides did not wish to have more critics accusing him of conveying heretical teachings! But the idea that Abraham might appear as a mentally deranged father also bothered Maimonides, who felt that viewing this story as a prophecy offered the clearest way of making the Akedah psychologically, palatable, and morally relevant.
Maimonides applies this insight to several biblical narratives. For instance, according to Maimonides, when God instructs Hosea to take a prostitute, this too was a prophetic vision. This would apply no less to the Valley of the Dry Bones mentioned in Ezekiel 37:1-14—an event that occurs not in real-time but in a vision (as noted by Rashi and other exegetes).[6] And the reason Maimonides felt this way was because laypeople and scholars alike (e.g., Ramban) tend to interpret certain prophetic narratives as occurring in real-time. When Balaam’s donkey spoke, Ramban, Rashi, and others claim it really spoke, as did the serpent in the Garden of Eden!
Maimonides explains further:
In a dream, a person may imagine living an entirely different life than the one the dreamer is presently living; the dreamer will imagine himself traveling to a foreign country, marrying and raising a family. This type of dream imagery can unfold a person’s entire life in a prophetic dream. The passage of time, life changes involving a family, the lives of individual family members, the sensation of moving from place to place—all of this often occur in the parabolic landscape of a prophetic vision—the scenes depicting real action are real, but only to the imagination.
Scriptures in the recounting of all details of the parable may dispense with reiterating that they happened in a vision of prophecy. Similarly, a prophet may say, “And the Lord said to me.” Without needing to state explicitly that this happened in a dream. Therefore, the multitude thinks that these actions, transportations, questions, and answers occurred while the prophet was awake; they forget that everything described happened in a vision of prophecy. As to this, I shall cite you an example I about which no one can have fanciful notions, and I shall add to it some other examples belonging to the same species. And from these examples, you will be able to draw an inference regarding those that I shall not mention (emphasis added).
Many people reading the Akedah narrative today would probably think Abraham temporarily lost his sanity. Had the incident occurred today, we would have institutionalized Abraham for attempting to sacrifice his son. Maimonides expected this modern critique; he knew some people would turn Abraham into an object of ridicule and scorn. He could not accept the story as something that occurred in real-time in his heart of hearts. But if the narrative occurred like other biblical stories regarding the prophets, then the Akedah had to have been a visionary experience that happened to him either in a vision, or in a powerful dream where he encountered God.
Assuming Abraham experienced God’s revelation in a dream, what might its message potentially be? Sigmund Freud of fond of quoting the Talmudic dictum, חֶלְמָא דְלָא מִפַּשַּׁר כְאִגְַרתָּא דְלָא מִקְָריָא “A dream that is not interpreted is like a letter that has not been read.”[7] To begin with, Abraham may have wondered about the future of his son after he would soon die. Would Isaac prove to be capable of carrying out his life mission? Was he willing to be really dedicated to God throughout his life? The image of Abraham walking side by side with Isaac was proof enough for Abraham to allay his fears. The purpose of the vision was to answer Abraham’s primary concern. Not only would Isaac follow in the footsteps of his father, but he would also prove to be no less willing to sacrifice himself to achieving God’s will without any reservations whatsoever.
As Maimonides observed earlier, “Satan” represented the untamed imagination.[9] And the dream imagery of the Akedah reflected an unconscious question Abraham had grappled with. His imagination made him wonder, “Am I a true servant of God? Look at everything God has blessed me with!” A part of Abraham may have felt that he had worshipped God because he wanted to be blessed. But was he capable of selfless devotion? Was he prepared to sacrifice everything he had to be a true servant? “Satan” is merely the rabbinic way of speaking about Abraham’s imagination, or what modern psychology would term as the “unconscious.” As we noted above, there will always be surreal aspects of a dream that naturally erupt in the dreamscape; they occur without the dreamer’s preparation. A dreamer cannot do what he wants to see in a dream; its symbols flow unconsciously and with complete spontaneity. When we look at the Akedah from this perspective, the story takes on an entirely new meaning.
After seeing how some of the Canaanite peoples sacrificed their sons and daughters to their gods, Abraham might have had these thoughts. Unconsciously, Abraham may have wondered: Would I be capable of making a similar sacrifice? It is conceivable that Abraham may have been oblivious to this thought. Still, unconsciously, the image of Canaanites sacrificing their children remained etched in his psyche, led him to wonder about the limits of divine devotion he could show. God’s vision to Abraham came to answer that question. However, the Akedah also taught Abraham that a true sacrifice does not require or demand the death of an innocent; an authentic sacrifice respects the inherent value of human life and does not destroy it. Obedience to God does not require that one be a moral nihilist, or a fanatic.
Like Levinas’ interpretation, R. Avraham Isaac Kook explains that the angel that prevented Abraham from killing Isaac personified the human conscience. The conscience functions as the voice of God in the human psyche that calls upon each of us to respond to our soul’s higher calling and vocation. Assuming that Rav Kook’s insight concerning Abraham’s conscience (as symbolized by the angelic encounter), let us briefly expand upon this insight. Of all the ancient Judaic thinkers who best articulated the role of the conscience in the spiritual and moral life of the individual, Philo of Alexandria offers one of the clearest insights:
Conscience can never be censored, for its basic nature despises anything that is false and inauthentic. Conscience loves only virtue, and acts as the soul’s accuser and judge as one. When the conscience is violated, it blames, impeaches, and is hostile. When conscience acts as a judge, it teaches, admonishes, and demands that the accused change his ways. If conscience succeeds in persuading him, the individual will find inner peace and joy. However, if he denies the voice of conscience, it will wage an endless and implacable war against him, never quitting him— day or night. Conscience will inflict incurable wounds upon him, until he destroys his miserable and accursed life….[1]
About Maimonides’ view that angelic beings represent a cipher of the soul, the angelic manifestation did not occur outside Abraham but from the inner depths of his being. This interpretation is consistent with our proposed exposition that Maimonides’ perspective of the entire visionary experience occurred within the psyche of Abraham. The vision taught Abraham that he must continue dedicating his beloved son to affirm life in a meaningful way. It is more important to live and sanctify human life than to die as a martyr. Elsewhere Kook mentions a point that could contextually fit with the Akedah theme, even though Kook did not directly refer to that narrative in this citation:
When the duty to honor God is conceived of in an enlightened manner, it raises human worth and the worth of all creatures, filling them with a generosity of spirit combined with genuine humility. But a crude conception of God tends toward the idolatrous and degrades man’s dignity and other beings. [10]
From this standpoint, Isaac’s role in the Akedah is merely an image of the dream, whose vision Abraham shared with him after his vision was over. The symbolism of the Olah offering symbolized complete dedication and devotion for every part of the animal must be consumed. Abraham further taught Isaac that the dedication he must show must be for God’s sake and not for a desire for personal gain.
Lastly, the Talmud in Ta’anit 5a comments on Jeremiah 19:5, which condemns human sacrifice and states, “‘Nor did it come into my heart,’ the Sages explain this verse refers to Isaac, the son of Abraham. Although God commanded Abraham to offer up Isaac, there was no intent in God’s heart that he should actually do so; the Akedah was only a test and nothing more.
*
NOTES
[1] Guide 2:47.
[2] Shlomo Pines’ (Trans) Guide 2:46; pp. 405–407.
[3] Guide 2:47.
[4] Louis Jacobs illustrated this point:
Relevant to this question is a Responsum of Rabbi Meir ben Baruch of Rothenberg (d. 1293). Here (Teshuvot Pesakim U-Minhagim, ed. I. Z. Kahana [Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1957-62], Part II, No. 59, p. 54) Meir discusses a case arising out of certain tragic events that occurred in the city of Koblenz, where on 2 April 1265 a man killed his wife and four children in order to save them from torture and forcible conversion; he had intended also to kill himself, but the Gentiles prevented him from doing so. Asked whether the unfortunate man must do penance for the murder of his family, Meir replies that he is quite sure that it is permitted – indeed, obligatory – to commit suicide in order to avoid apostasy, but that he is not at all sure that it is permitted to murder others for the sake of the ‘sanctification of God’s name’. Nevertheless, Meir concludes that this, too, must be permitted, since we know that many of the saints killed themselves and their families when threatened with forcible conversion. He concludes that the man must not be allowed to undergo any penance, for if he did penance it would imply that the saints of old were wrong. Cited from Jewish Theology, op. cit., p. 49.
[5] Maimonides perceptively writes that in the beginning of Parshat Vyera that “this portion of scriptures consist of a general statement followed by a detailed description. Thus, the Scriptures first says how the Eternal ‘appeared to Abraham’ in the form of prophetic visions and the entire narrative that immediately follows detailing how Abraham catered to the needs of his guests—this too was part of Abraham’s visionary experience.” Ramban, raised many questions concerning the contextual content of Abraham’s hospitality that do not appear to be relevant to the angelic disclosure that Sarah would soon give birth to a son. Moreover, how could Maimonides apply this to the scoundrels and reprobates of Sodom and Gomorrah? Did they have a prophetic experience too? For these reasons and more, Ramban differs with Maimonides concerning the peshat of the narrative.
[6] See Michael Leo Samuel, Maimonides’ Hidden Torah Commentary: Genesis 1-21. (Sarasota, FL. First Edition Design Publishing, 2016), pp. 282-283.
[7]] BT Berachoth 55b. in my lifestyle.
[8] Much of what Maimonides writes here fits well with Carl Jung’s psychological concept of individuation. Defined: individuation is a term that describes the process of becoming aware of oneself—one’s true inner self. This pathway to psychological health demands a psychological wholeness in which all aspects of the soul are integrated. These aspects of the unconscious consist of a series of archetypes of the shadow, anima and animus figures—each of which is brought to consciousness through what Jung described as the active imagination, and through the interpretation of dreams. The poet Milton called Satan “the principium individuationis” “the principle of individuation” (CW 11:470).…, and to the extent that our shadow side helps us become more fully ourselves, Jung agreed. for it is the source of that fearful power which drives us toward individuation process, which is mediated through the active imagination. See Carl Jung; Aion; Page 39; Para 72.
[9] Spec. Laws 1:202-204.
[10] Abraham Isaac Kook and Ben-Zion Bokser (Trans.) Abraham Isaac Kook, (New York: Paulist Press, 1978), 171.
*
Rabbi Dr. Michael Leo Samuel is spiritual leader of Temple Beth Shalom in Chula Vista and the author of a five-book set on Maimonides’ interpretations of Torah. He may be contacted via michael.samuel@sdjewishworld.com