Rabbi Yael Tischler delivered this sermon at Milton Keynes and District Reform Synagogue on Rosh Hashanah morning.
—
Hot take: Satan is the true hero of the akedah. OK, hear me out. I promise not to convert us all to Satanism. What I do promise to do is introduce us to a midrash – a rabbinic legend – that elaborates upon the akedah and will help us all see it in a new light.
But first things first: what is the akedah? The akedah, which literally means “the binding”, is the story that Priscilla leyned for us so beautifully this morning. The akedah is the tale of how God tests the patriarch Abraham by asking him to sacrifice his son Isaac. Abraham rises early the next morning, saddles his ass and takes Isaac to do God’s bidding. Abraham goes as far as tying up Isaac, placing him on a pile of wood and raising a knife to sacrifice him. The only reason Abraham doesn’t go through with killing his own son is that an angel arrives, stops him and points him towards a ram caught in some nearby bushes – a much more fitting sacrifice, if you ask me.
Second things second: who is Satan in Jewish tradition? If you’re picturing a red guy with devil’s horns, a pointy tail, carrying a fiery pitchfork, it’s time to wipe that image away. Satan or satan in Hebrew means “The Adversary” or “The Accuser.” In most of the Hebrew Bible, satan is a common noun that can refer to any adversary, whether divine or human. It’s not until the later biblical books of Zechariah, Job and possibly Chronicles that Satan starts to refer to a particular entity. In the Book of Zechariah the prophet, Satan is portrayed as a prosecutor in the heavenly court, who accuses the high priest Joshua. In the Book of Job, Satan is a member of God’s spiritual entourage, who challenges God, suggesting that the pious human Job wouldn’t be so pious if God hadn’t been so nice to him. This provokes God into giving Satan licence to make all sorts of horrible things happen to Job, in order to prove to Satan that Job will remain faithful to God in the end.
In the earlier rabbinic period, Satan is often an amorphous embodiment of evil, but appears a couple of times as a fully-fledged character; once he creates conflict between two people and another time he tempts the famous Rabbi Akiva. In the later rabbinic period and beyond, the period from which the story we’re going to study emerges, Satan is a distinct character, whose job is to tempt and accuse humanity. There is a story in the Talmud – not the one that we’re going to study today – in which Satan provokes God into asking Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, however this provocation is given a somewhat positive spin, since Satan’s goal is to remind God that Abraham is way more righteous than Job. Satan is also said to have prompted significant sins in the Hebrew Bible, including Adam & Eve’s disobedience, the worship of the Golden Calf, and King David’s rape of Batsheva, which we discussed last night. Of interest to us today in particular, the Talmud suggests that one of the reasons we blow the Shofar on Rosh Hashanah is to confuse Satan, so that he doesn’t do a very good job prosecuting humanity in the heavenly court. If some of this seems contradictory, you’re correct – much of Jewish lore contradicts itself, which is a sign of Judaism’s magnificent multivocality. Having a multivocal tradition means that we’re never tied down into simplistic readings of our texts, there’s always space for complexity.
So, Satan in Jewish tradition is a complex character, and in the midrash we’re going to look at today, he actually comes out looking much better than everyone else. The story I’m going to share with you today is from Midrash Tanhuma, a collection of midrashim that likely dates from the sixth or seventh centuries CE. A midrash (plural “midrashim”) is a rabbinic tale that expands upon Biblical stories, filling in gaps and giving them new meaning. So, here’s the story of the akedah like you’ve never heard it before:
It starts off in a familiar way: God commands Abraham to sacrifice his son. After some limited signs of trepidation, Abraham hastens to fulfil God’s command. Abraham’s one worry: his wife Sarah. He thinks to himself: women get all emotional over the tiniest things – can you imagine just how emotional she’ll be about this?! (My commentary: your husband killing your son seems like a reasonable thing to be emotional about, but Abraham seems to have suppressed his emotions so far beneath the surface that he’s willing to go ahead with murder.)
Back to our midrash: Abraham also thinks to himself: But if I don’t tell Sarah anything and just disappear in the night with Isaac, she’ll kill herself! (My commentary: She may or may not, but if you’re worried your wife might be suicidal if you kidnap your own child, probably you should think twice about what you’re going to do?) Anyhow: Abraham decides that instead of being honest with Sarah, he’ll tell her that he’s off to take Isaac to a place for religious education and initiation. (Maybe they need a bit of family therapy?)
Enter Satan: Satan appears to Abraham in the guise of an old man. Satan asks Abraham, “Where are you going?” Abraham glosses over the truth. “To pray,” he says. But Satan knows what’s really going down: “And why does one going to pray carry a fire and a knife in his hands and wood on his shoulders?” asks Satan. Abraham lies, flat out: “We may tarry there for several days and slaughter an animal and cook it.” That’s when Satan chastises him: “That is not so; I was present when the Holy Blessed One ordered you to take your son. Why should an old man, who begets a son at the age of a hundred, destroy him? Have you not heard the parable of the man who destroyed his own possessions and then was forced to beg from others? If you believe that you will have another son, you are listening to the words of a seducer. And furthermore, if you destroy a soul, you will be held legally accountable for it.” A convincing case from the Divine Prosecution, but Abraham refuses to listen.
So Satan tries to get some sense out of Isaac instead. He transforms himself into a young man, perhaps hoping that Isaac will respond better to a peer. “Where are you going?” Satan asks. “To study Torah,” replies Isaac, innocently. “Alive or dead?” asks Satan. “Can a person study Torah after they’re dead?” says Isaac. That’s when Satan turns on the taps of Jewish guilt:
“Oh, unfortunate son of an unhappy mother, many days your mother fasted before your birth, and now this foolish old man is about to sacrifice you!” Think of your mother! Think of what this will do to her!
Once again, Satan does have an extremely good point here. One might go so far as to say that he is the only character in the story to truly consider Sarah’s wellbeing. Abraham lies to Sarah. Isaac isn’t really thinking about her. But Satan says: Sarah struggled with infertility for so long and finally she had you, Isaac! You were a miraculous gift, beyond her wildest dreams. Can’t you imagine what it will do to her if she loses you? But Isaac simply says, “Even so, I will not disregard the will of my Creator, nor the command of my father.” Isaac will follow God and Abraham, but he’s quite happy to throw both himself and his mother under the bus. Whose side are we all on so far?
When Satan sees that neither Abraham nor Isaac will listen to him, in spite of his skilful arguments that appeal both to reason and emotion, Satan tries a different tactic. He transforms himself into a river, blocking Abraham and Isaac’s way. Abraham wades into the water – it is at his knees. Abraham presses on – in the middle of the river, the water reaches his neck. Abraham calls out to God, begging God to save him and Isaac, so that they can perform God’s command. How ludicrous is this: Abraham asks God to please rescue them so that they don’t die before Abraham can kill his son. God listens to Abraham and dries up the river. How absurd is it, that God and Abraham are conspiring to kill Isaac, that Isaac is perfectly happy to be killed and that Satan is the one trying to prevent the murder? Surprisingly, in our story so far, Satan is emerging as the sole moral voice.
What does Satan do? He tells the truth, once again. He says to Abraham, “I heard from behind the heavenly curtain that [what’s actually going to happen is that you’ll be given] a lamb to sacrifice instead of your son.” Now, it does turn out to be a ram instead, but close enough. Satan’s meaning is clear: you don’t have anything to prove. Go home. The sacrifice isn’t going to happen in the end anyways. Don’t put your son through this. Don’t put your wife through this. Don’t put yourself through this. But Abraham replies: “It is a liar’s fate that even though he should speak the truth, no one will believe him.” An ironic thing to say, when Satan is the only one in the story who has been consistently telling the truth. God has lied about God’s own intentions. Abraham has lied both to his son and his wife. Isaac is perfectly happy to follow both Abraham and God without telling his mother anything. In fact, Isaac eventually begs Abraham not to tell her about what has happened whilst she is standing at the edge of a pit or a roof, in case she hurls herself from it. Satan has seen through everyone and is determined to put a stop to it.
The drama comes to its climax. Abraham binds Isaac on the altar on Mount Moriah, preparing to sacrifice his own son.
Abraham raises his hand in the air – and Satan appears and knocks the knife out of Abraham’s hand. It is only then that a voice cries out from heaven, “Do not sacrifice the lad!” The midrash tells us, “If this had not happened, Isaac would certainly have been sacrificed.” If what had not happened? Satan knocking the knife out of Abraham’s hand? The heavenly voice crying out? It seems to me that if Satan hadn’t knocked the knife out of Abraham’s hand, the heavenly voice would have been too late. It is Satan who saves Isaac’s life.
Up until this moment in the story, it’s clear to me who the true hero is. Satan – the Accuser, the Adversary. Throughout the narrative, only Satan has protested God’s command. Satan has stood against Abraham, asking Abraham to reconsider what murdering his own child might cost him, as well as the legal and moral implications of carrying out that murder. Satan has stood against Isaac, encouraging him to ask questions about what is happening, instead of blindly following his father and God. Satan also encourages Isaac to think of the impact his and his father’s actions will have on the others he loves, in particular, Isaac’s own mother. Satan has stood against God, by preventing God’s command from being carried out. In this story, Satan stands against violence, religious fundamentalism, wilful ignorance, selfishness, deceit and lack of empathy. His behaviour echoes that of a political protester. Satan begins with words, addressing Abraham and Isaac, calling them to face the truth; one might think of a person who drafts petitions, organises campaigns, gives impassioned speeches, engages in public debate. Satan then moves to direct action, as he does when he obstructs Abraham and Isaac’s path with the river and knocks the knife out of Abraham’s hand. In this case he is like a person who participates in public demonstrations, using their own body to physically obstruct perceived injustice.
In writing this sermon, I was reminded of many historical movements who used direct action in order to achieve their goals. I thought in particular of the suffragettes, whose tactics were provocative and confrontational – their motto was “deeds not words.” According to the London Museum’s website, “They heckled government MPs, chained themselves to government buildings, damaged London landmarks and works of art, smashed windows and bombed and burned buildings.” Their methods might seem extreme to some of us, but their cause was just and their efforts resulted in women’s emancipation. They embodied Satan’s righteous adversarial spirit; half of us in this room wouldn’t be able to vote if they hadn’t taken these adversarial actions.
I was also reminded of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s, which used a combination of non-violent civil disobedience, as well as more aggressive tactics. I grew up learning about how Rosa Parks refused to offer her seat to a white person, leading to the Montgomery Bus Boycott. I also was familiar with the March on Washington, in which Martin Luther King Jr delivered his famous “I have a dream” speech. I was less familiar with the Civil Rights movement in the UK, so I looked into it before speaking to you. In 1963, Paul Stephenson led the Bristol Bus Boycott. “By challenging a company that refused to employ Black and Asian workers, the boycott exposed the routine nature of discrimination and forced it into public view.” According to the British Black History Month website, “The success of the boycott demonstrated that change could be driven from outside formal institutions. It also reflected a wider, transnational moment, connecting struggles in Britain to civil rights movements taking place elsewhere. This period saw the emergence of a more visible and organised challenge to racial inequality in Britain, rooted in community action and collective pressure.” Without these brave, righteous, adversarial voices, racial equality would be in a very different place than it is today. Whilst racism has certainly not left us, the Civil Rights Movement led to the dismantling of unjust legislation and the drafting of new legislation that protected minorities from discrimination.
More recently, many of us here probably remember the height of the Extinction Rebellion protests. Just as Satan turned himself into a river to block Abraham from sacrificing his son, among the direct actions of the global movement was parading trees onto and occupying Waterloo Bridge. Since then, Extinction Rebellion has continued to call attention to the pressing issue of climate change and the need to act quickly to reverse the damage that we have wrought on our planet.
In 2024, when racist riots erupted across the UK, the counter demonstrators, who showed up in full force to protest against racism, quickly outnumbered the racist demonstrators. According to the Guardian, “By mid-evening they were mostly counter-protesters with nothing to counter. There was sometimes an almost carnival-like atmosphere – singing, dancing and in one case a samba band – with little sign of the far right.” The direct action of the counter-protesters also embodied Satan’s righteous adversarialness, demonstrating that community and solidarity could be more powerful than hate. Of course, there are many more examples that we could list here, of righteous movements both historic and contemporary who have wielded adversarial tactics in the name of justice. These movements are like the Satan of our midrash: he is a truth-teller and a moral compass, unafraid to go to extremes in order to prevent unethical behaviour. He is a reminder that it is important to listen to those antagonistic, accusatory voices in our lives and in our societies, because they might have something extremely important to say, no matter how difficult we might find it to hear.
Now, we’re about to complicate this portrait of Satan a little bit. In our midrash’s version of the akedah, up until now, I’d imagine many of us have been on Satan’s side, or at least been sympathetic to his goals, if not to his methods. Here’s what happens next. And I think it’s important, because it offers a bit of nuance to this story. In our midrash, Satan has prioritised telling the truth. At every turn, he has by far been the most honest character. But now, we must ask, are there any boundaries to truth-telling? Are there consequences to truth-telling? And if there are, might holding back the truth actually be the better course of action? Here’s what happens next: Satan appears to Sarah in the guise of Isaac. “What did your father do to you, my son?” she asks. Sarah is not as much of an idiot as Abraham and Isaac clearly think she is; she suspects that something is up. Satan spills the whole story – how Abraham bound Isaac over an altar on a pile of wood, prepared to burn his flesh and raised his hand to slaughter him. Satan concludes: “If the Holy Blessed One had not called out, ‘Lay not your hand upon the lad,’ I would have been slaughtered.” Sarah hears what has happened and her soul leaves her. She dies immediately.
I’m not sure what to make of this conclusion to our midrash. Abraham, Isaac and God have all kept Sarah in the dark throughout the entire story. This has ostensibly been to protect Sarah, but it has also been because at the very least, Abraham knows that Sarah, too, will act as an adversary and not permit the sacrifice to go ahead. The midrash says that Abraham rises early to take Isaac on their journey, so that Sarah can’t change her mind and stop them from going. Abraham and Isaac explicitly (and God implicitly) keep Sarah in the dark, supposedly for her own benefit, but it is ultimately self-interested. And yet, Abraham and Isaac have been proven right. The news of what Abraham has nearly done to Isaac does kill her.
Was Satan right to tell Sarah the news? After all, Isaac had already been saved. The ordeal was over. Might it have been better to spare Sarah the misery? For Abraham, Isaac and Sarah to continue living as a happy family, with Sarah blithely believing that her husband and son had gone on a study retreat? There are times in our lives in which we deliberately conceal the truth in order to protect others and sometimes there’s a very good reason for this. According to Jewish law, we must “distance ourselves from falsehood,” which is different from always telling the truth. Truth should be a priority, but there are cases in which Jewish law permits us to lie, or at least obscure the truth. The main case is when it will keep the peace. Would Satan refraining from telling Sarah the truth have kept the peace? Would staying silent have protected her from harm? Did Satan go too far in his truth-telling? The conclusion to our tale invites us to reflect: it is important to listen to the adversarial voices in our society, it may even be important to be the adversarial voices in our society, but we must also ask: are there limits? Satan had already saved Isaac’s life. Was it truly necessary to tell Sarah what had happened? Would it have been better to leave the truth unsaid, for the sake of allowing Abraham, Isaac and Sarah to maintain a loving, peaceful family home?
Furthermore, certainly there are times in which the adversarial voices are wrong, in which they do not speak the truth. In those cases, we should still pay attention to what they have to say, because this can give us important information about the political and social climates in which we live and whether there are real threats to our values to which we need to respond. Paying attention to these voices and taking on board what they have to say are very different things. The most recent example of direct action to take over the newspaper headlines is of the masses of far-right protestors clothed in black in the South of England. I want to be absolutely clear: these far-right protestors, though adversarial and accusatory, are not speaking the truth. Noting what they have to say alerts us to the presence of dangerous ideologies within our country, and the people who espouse them. In this case, it is important not to heed these adversarial voices. Instead, we must denounce them.
And so, with these questions in mind, we return to Satan. Should we still consider him the hero, since his truth-telling directly resulted in Sarah’s death? Should he have let Abraham and Isaac’s dissembling stand, for the sake of shalom bayit – peace in the home?
I’m not sure that there would have been peace in Abraham, Sarah and Isaac’s home, whether or not Satan had revealed the truth. Sarah already suspects something, even if she doesn’t know the details of the event. Would she truly not have noticed the change in Abraham and Isaac’s relationship? Isaac doesn’t even seem to return home after the akedah. The Biblical text is extremely explicit about Abraham and Isaac walking together towards Mount Moriah, so it is incredibly striking when Abraham is the only one said to return to his servants – there is no mention of Isaac. The next time we hear about Isaac, he is in Be’erlachairoi, a place associated with his stepmother, Hagar. It seems likely that Abraham and Isaac’s relationship broke down after the akedah, and that Isaac preferred to move in with a different parental figure.
Furthermore, how could Abraham and Sarah have lived out the rest of their years as a loving couple, with Abraham constantly withholding an extremely significant piece of information from her? Would Abraham really have been able to connect to his wife in the same way as before the akedah, knowing what he was hiding from her? Would Sarah really have been able to connect in the same way with her husband? Would both of them not mourn their fractured relationship with their son?
I’m not sure that Satan made the right decision in telling Sarah the truth, but I’m also not sure that he didn’t. I’ll leave that as an open question for us. Sometimes there are no straightforward answers. What I am sure about is that this midrash calls us to see the akedah in a different way, blurring the boundaries between hero and villain – things are never that clear-cut. The midrash also reminds us of the importance of taking note of adversarial voices and sometimes even being those adversarial voices. Without the spirit of Satan – the Adversary, the Accuser – we might let injustices go unchecked. The backbone of Jewish tradition is the pursuit of justice. The Satan in the midrash we’ve studied today encourages us to take it to heart when we are being challenged – there may be some true wisdom there. And sometimes, it is we who are called upon to be the challengers. Shabbat shalom and shanah tovah.