Daf Yomi, Rabbi Simcha Feuerman, Torah and Psychology, Marriage Counseling, Psychotherapy
Our Gemara on Amud Beis quotes a proof text that a knife must be used to slaughter the Olah sacrifice:
“Slaughtering may be performed only with a knife and not with a sharp stone or reed. The Gemara asks: And with regard to a burnt offering itself, from where do we derive that it must be slaughtered with a knife? This is learned from that which is written: ‘And Abraham stretched forth his hand and took the knife to slaughter his son’ (Bereishis 22:10); and there Abraham was offering a burnt offering, as it is written: ‘And offered it up for a burnt offering instead of his son’ (22:13).”
The Gemara considers Yitschok to be an Olah sacrifice, and therefore whatever verse was used to describe his process of offering can also
apply to the ram that was brought in his place.
The verse, “Offered it up for a burnt offering in place of his son,” has a redundancy. Given the storyline, it is obvious that the ram was being brought as an offering in place of Yitschok. Why does the Torah emphasize “in place of his son”? Rashi (ibid.) notes this and quotes the Midrash Rabbah (56:9):
“Since it is written, ‘He offered it up for a burnt offering,’ surely nothing is missing in the text; what then is the force of ‘in the stead of his son’? At every sacrificial act he performed on it he prayed saying, ‘May it be Thy will that this act 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 reduced to ashes.’”
It seems that according to the Midrash and Rashi, an extra degree of piety and devotion is being noted. Instead of being relieved and offering the ram in order not to sacrifice his son, Avraham worked to still feel as if every part of the process was truly the sacrifice of giving his son’s body to God.
If I may, I would offer an opposite interpretation of the Torah’s emphasis and underscore a different aspect of piety. The verse states, “Offered it up for a burnt offering in place of his son,” but does not state, “In place of his son, he offered it up for a burnt offering.” What is the difference? In the latter, it is primarily in place of his son as an Olah, while the former and actual sentence structure emphasizes that it is primarily an Olah, which is also being used in place of his son.
If so, the extraordinary piety is that Avraham was able to remove his bias and feelings of relief. He offered this Olah purely as a sacrifice and as any other sacrifice. This too was a unique mesiras nefesh—to stay on task in simple devotion, with no ulterior motives. He offered it first and foremost as an Olah, which also happened to be in substitution for his son. It is similar to giving charity in order that someone be healed, which is permitted, but it is understood that the wish is to give the charity regardless of whether the miraculous healing occurs or not (see Rosh Hashanah 4a and the implication from Tosafos “beshvil”).
Translations Courtesy of Sefaria, except when, sometimes, I disagree with the translation
Free resource for couples/families:
Over 80 lectures on heathy communication, marriage and sexuality from a Torah perspective Click here
If you liked this, you might enjoy my Relationship Communications Guide. Click on the link above.
Rabbi Simcha Feuerman, Rabbi Simcha Feuerman, LCSW-R, LMFT, DHL is a psychotherapist who works with high conflict couples and families. He can be reached via email at simchafeuerman@gmail.com