Pensamiento judío sobre Génesis 22:12

Man's deeds can serve as ends in themselves, or be a means towards an end. The former are different from the latter in three ways. A) Their essence. B) The degree and dedication involved in executing the deeds in question. C) The name given to the deeds in question. If someone engages in an adulterous relationship for the sake of financial gain, he is not a true adulterer. When such a relationship is pursued because of the physical and mental gratification it affords the parties indulging in them, this is true adultery. The ben sorer umoreh, stubborn and rebellious gluttonous son described in Deuteronomy 21,18-21, though a thief by halachic definition, since he has stolen a small amount of meat and wine from his father, is punished as a glutton, not as a thief. His thievery had merely been a means to achieve his objective that of gratifying his appetites. When Rabbi Meir says in Avot 6, that "he who preoccupies himself with Torah for its own sake, will merit many things, he means that even his incidental activities will be considered "preoccupation with Torah," since those incidental activities serve to further the achievement of the ultimate goal i.e. Torah, (compare chapter 72) Another aspect of this matter is that anyone who employs certain means only as a method to attain a certain objective, will not be too fussy about the quality or legitimacy of the means employed. If someone is concerned with keeping the rain out of his house, his prime concern will be to use boards that are waterproof. The colour, dimensions, thickness and general appearance of such boards will not concern him greatly. It is similar with the fulfilment of a mitzvah. If fulfilment of the mitzvah is merely meant to escape punishment at the hands of G-d, the person performing such a mitzvah will not be concerned with performing it in the most beautiful manner possible. Sukkah 51, describes the participants of the mitzvahoi simchat beyt ha-sho- eyvah, the joyful occasion of drawing water for the sacrifices on the altar, as "anshey ma-asseh,” men of true deeds. Berachot 8, teaches that "he who enjoys the fruit of his own labour is greater than the one who fears heaven." The Talmud supports this statement with verses from scripture. The point is that he who labours to serve G-d out of a feeling of love, as demonstrated by the labour of his hands, is superior to the person who serves Him out of fear of punishment. A third distinction between deeds that serve as an end in themselves and those that are not, is the fact that unsavoury, offensive means towards achieving such objectives are employed only when absolutely unavoidable. Example: if sexual gratification can be obtained only by means of paying for the services of a prostitute, stealing the funds in order to pay the prostitute ceases as soon as gratification is obtained, or as soon as the person concerned has found legal means to pay the price for his gratification. Alternately, if performance of mitzvot is due to fear of impending punishment, say a wife who is terminally ill, and the giving of charity is seen as a way of saving her life,- then either her death or her recovery will lead to cessation of such charitable activity by her husband. In this vein Hoseah describes the reaction of the sinful Jewish people. (Hoseah 13,13-15) They believe that because the danger of giving birth has passed, all is well and the danger of death has been banished forever. Israel as a nation had achieved a closeness to G-d which involved performance of His commandments as due to one's innermost desires. This is what G-d said in Deuteronomy 5,26, "would that they should always be of a mind to revere Me and observe My commandments for all times!" Satan's argument against Job was that he claimed that Job's piety was based on self interest. Since his prestigious lifestyle had been provided by G-d, what could have been more natural than that Job should abide by G-d’s rules? Only when man's most cherished possessions are about to be taken from him, can he prove his love for G-d, and his obediences are sincere, not means to an end. This is why G-d said to Abraham after the binding of Isaac "now I know that you are indeed G-d fearing," (in the sense that "your reverence for Me is sincere.") There are then three aspects to what is called "fear" of G-d. A) Fear of the consequences if he transgresses G-d’s will. B) Reverence expressed by the performance of positive commandments which are not subject to punishments if not performed. C) Performing all of these commandments on a regular basis, not only when on a temporary emotional "high." When we look at the behaviour of Amalek as described in Parshat Ki Teytze, Deut 25, it is clear that Amalek was dedicated, fanatical in what he undertook. He attacked the Jewish people lishmah, for its own sake, not because of any ulterior designs. It was wickedness of the utmost dedication. Normally, nations go to war in order to gain territory, prisoners, loot, or for their generals to make a name for themselves and for the country to gain glory. None of these motivations applied to Amalek when it attacked Israel. "He chanced on you on the way," i.e. he had no chance to rob you of territory since you yourself were wandering nomads. He did not attack frontally, only the stragglers that had trailed behind the main body (25,18) There was no glory to be gained from that! It was an act of cowardice, since Israel was tired as the Torah testifies. "He did not fear the Lord." The only motivation was to attack something precious to G-d. People who behave in this fashion are never candidates for rehabilitation, teshuvah Therefore, the Torah stipulates that when the time and the circumstances will be right, the people of Amalek must be totally eliminated, otherwise the kingdom of G-d on this earth will never come to pass. The words "and he did not fear the Lord," may apply equally well to the conduct of Israel on the occasion of massah u-merivah, when Israel had accused Moses of leading them out of Egypt in order to let them perish by thirst in the desert. This would explain why it was that G-d permitted the attack and the very sequence of these events. Since Israel had asked the frivolous question "is then the Lord in our midst?" they had to be shown what their fate would be if the Lord were not in their midst. Amalek's conduct was even worse than that of Ammon and Moab who are banned forever from joining the Jewish nation because they had failed to extend a helping hand to Israel when that had been called for. If Mordechai and Esther in their time refused to loot the belongings of their enemies though they had express permission to do so, as has been pointed out no less than three times in the book of Esther, it was to show that their only interest was to fulfil belatedly the commandment to wipe out Amalek, something which their ancestor King Saul had been instructed to do. King Saul's error in not completely destroying Amalek, produced tragic consequences not only for himself and his family, but for Jews throughout the ages. Saul's error -which deserves to be discussed at length,- stemmed from an attitude that performs the word of G-d only to the extent that it appears to one's limited human wisdom to be beneficial. This error is quite similar to the one discussed at the outset. When Samuel said to Saul on that occasion "obedience is better than good sacrificial offerings," he only explained that the sacrifice per se is neither of benefit to G-d nor to man. It is only a means by which man can demonstrate his obedience to G-d. rayach nichau-ach, the "sweet smell," satisfaction that G-d derives from such an offering, is because it expresses the preparedness of the person who offers it to execute G-d’s will. The prophet asked the pointed question "does the Lord need total offerings or meal offerings?" The letter mem in the word mi-zevach needs to be understood not as a comparative, but as "from." What does G-d get from it? Therefore, Samuel meant tov, i.e. the good to be derived from the sacrifice is the shamo-a, the obedience expressed by having listened to G-d’s instructions. The same construction is to be placed on the other half of that verse, le-hakshiv mi-chelev eylim, the careful attention that is expressed by offering the fat of rams, (compare Samuel I chapter 15 for the whole episode) Since Samuel criticised Saul on two counts, he added the third dimension discussed at the beginning of this chapter. 1) Saul had picked from G-d’s commandment to totally destroy Amalek, only the parts that suited him. He did not act as he did because he hated the nation that G-d hated, but because he was interested in the loot. 2) He had arrogated to himself the right to decide how to act, as if he had been the prophet, claiming he had carried out G-d’s wishes. 3) He had "failed" to carry out orders, not as he claimed. G-d retaliated by despising him, taking away his kingdom and terminating what would have been his dynasty. In the end, Saul acknowledged his error. The manner in which he acknowledged his error showed that he believed that not carrying out G-d’s word or not carrying out the prophet's precise instructions, were not the same thing at all. When Saul claimed first that he had indeed fulfilled G-d’s command, Samuel calls this the chatat kessem, which is in fact mered, rebellion. What is except kessem the illusion that one can manipulate the deity, impose one's own desire on G-d, in fact rebellion. When Saul finally realised his error, Samuel already tells him that he will be replaced. In fact, David, who selflessly risked his life on G-d’s behalf against Goliath, is superior to Saul in exactly the three areas that we have outlined.

The instructions concerning the details of the appearance of the menorah which are given before its construction, then again while its construction was in progress, and finally- at least partially- in Parshat Beha-alotcha when the lighting of the menorah is commanded, pose the problem "why all this emphasis on the details?" Since none of the legislation in the Torah contains superfluous detail, it must be that the details are very important if they concern nothing more than a vessel that serves as the vehicle of a mitzvah, not the mitzvah itself. Why do we need to be told at that point that the construction of the menorah conformed to its blueprint? Who was it that carried out its construction? The craftsman who made it is referred to only by the words "he made it." The subject is nowhere mentioned by name, however. Why does Aaron need to be praised for not making any changes? Were the problems of cleaning the menorah so extraordinary that changes in its construction seemed to have been called for? Even stranger is the Midrash Tanchuma in Parshat Beha-alotcha, according to which Aaron was told that lighting the menorah was a commandment which would never become redundant, whereas offerings on the altar would cease with the destruction of the holy temple. Did not everything cease at that time, including the lighting of the menorah? Maimonides' answer that the Midrash refers to the lighting of the Chanukah lights seems far fetched. Aaron's mind would hardly have been put at rest by being told that a minor Rabbinic ordinance in the future would compensate him for not participating in the offerings that had been brought by the princes in which his entire tribe had not been represented. This is especially so, since even during the seven days of the inaugural service in the holy tabernacle, when Moses himself performed the sacrificial rites, Aaron's mind had already been troubled. This in spite of the fact that he would perform many more such sacrificial rites in the future. We therefore have to look further in order to understand that particular Midrash. There is a basic difference between the way man looks at things and in the way G-d looks at things. Man begins with the phenomena that he sees and hears, and proceeds by means of those phenomena to comprehend or assume the existence of other less familiar phenomena. Such unfamiliar phenomena may exist only in the abstract, never to be perceived visually or aurally. G-d, on the other hand, proceeds in the opposite fashion. Sof ma=asseh bamachashavah techillah, the final product had been envisaged at the very outset. This is the way He operates. Every manifestation of any phenomenon represents merely a step planned and necessary to lead to the ultimate total structure. Having planned the final product, He comprehends the significance of every step, every constituent part, even if it is apparently unrelated to the whole. He is aware that such a phenomenon is indispensable, an integral part of the whole to be revealed later. On his way to the inner sanctuary, man, observing the sacrificial rites of the burning of animals which symbolise removal of sin etc., begins to comprehend that the inner sanctuary must be approached only in a state of purity, after washing himself from the copper basin placed in front of the sanctuary. Inside the sanctuary are found the holy vessels of which the menorah represents the concept of enlightenment, wisdom, which though one, seeing the menorah has been hammered out of single chunk of gold, nevertheless contains seven arms, branches. These seven arms suggest seven different disciplines of wisdom and knowledge. Indeed, the wisdom that Solomon (Proverbs 9, 1) refers to, is the Torah itself. We find this also in chapter six of Proverbs, where we read "a mitzvah is a light, whereas Torah is the source of enlightenment." The menorah of the spiritual forces in our world is represented by Torah. It guarantees meshivat nefesh, (Psalms 19,8-11), the return to eternal life by the soul. The six arms are mentioned alternatively left and right, representing the physical forces, (left) and the spiritual forces (right). The words "testimony, mitzvot and judgments," refer to the three arms on the left, whereas the words "mandates, reverence and more desirable than fine gold," refer to the three arms on the right of the stem of the menorah. Simple man does not dream of, or aspire to greatness- even in this physical world. "The testimony of G-d is faithful," teaches that this does not hold true in Judaism. An inferior position in this physical world, does not constitute a barrier to reaching one's perfection, Divinely inspired goals. Machkimat peti,” it makes even the fool become wise." Torah promotes that kind of inspiration. The princes which govern this physical world are the willpower and freedom of choice which enable man to aspire to lofty heights in spite of lowly physical surroundings. Since man may have suffered corruption due to other material forces that interact with him, pikkudim, mandates are needed to counteract the inroads made by the aforementioned forces. The purpose of these pikkudim, is to make the positive character traits the norm rather than the exception. mitzvah, are those commandments which ennoble our lives on earth by constituting a symbolic link with our destiny, our relationship with G-d. Examples are tefillin, (phylacteries), tzitzit (fringes), mezuzah, lulav and others. "Enlightening the eyes," refers to the thoughtful performance of the commandments. Yir-ah, refers to the reverence which we demonstrate when we perform commandments which we are unable to rationalise. We demonstrate our obedience to G-d whose superior wisdom we acknowledge by performing these mitzvot. Omedet la- ad, endures forever, means that part of the Torah remains an eternal moral and intellectual challenge. Mishpatim, judgments, refers to the penalties in store for those who choose not to observe the legislation of G-d as revealed in the Torah. This reference is made especially to past generations whose failure in this respect resulted in their being punished in a manner that fitted their crimes. Tzadku, were just. The justness of the punishment suffered by those generations is apparent to the student of history, i.e. the history described in the Torah. Hanechemadim, that are more precious than fine gold, refers to the statutes whose purpose it is to assure us a reward in the world to come, a reward far greater than any material possessions in this world. The symbolism contained in the merit, the right to kindle the menorah which represents man's attempt to perfect himself, becomes clear then. Keeping to the exact order in carrying out this task is laudable since so much depends on its outcome. Just as the name menorah for the whole candelabra suggests enlightenment, its parts, i.e. stem, arms, chalices, and flowers suggest their respective functions. The stem is used to acquire wisdom; the chalice to be the receptacle of such wisdom; the flower suggests additional wisdom sprouting forth once the fundamentals have been observed properly. The height of eighteen tefachim, handsbreadths, represents the height of a man of average height. The number eighteen is symbolic of the word chay, alive, i.e. its numerical value. Man's intellect is divided into two categories, each of which is subdivided into three parts. There is practical as well as speculative reason. The practical reason deals in the first instance with man's personal concerns, in the second instance with the concerns of his household, and in the third instance with matters affecting the society in which he lives. Similarly, speculative reason. In the first instance, man identifies his own feelings and senses. In the second instance, he learns to determine the validity of all these sensations, whether the information they convey to him is true. (i.e. can one trust one's senses?) In the third instance, man acquires the ability to understand the interrelationship between all these phenomena. This third stage is generally known as beenah, insight. The three arms on the right side of the menorah represent the three kinds of speculative reason, whereas the three arms on the left side of the menorah represent the three levels of practical reason. The "knobs" on the stems are to be seen as "way stations." Since attainment of insights is achieved only gradually, step by step, these knobs represent the steps in man's intellectual progress.

It is well known that the meaning of the word yir-ah, is twofold. One meaning is the instinctive unreasoning fear of a physically stronger phenomenon, a fear common to both man and beast. Jacob, fearing defeat at the hands of Esau, prays to G'd for help, lest Esau smite both him an his family. (Genesis 32,10-13) Isaac, who is afraid to be murdered on account of his wife, indulges in a white lie. (Genesis 26,7) Another kind of fear is that which recognises superior moral or intellectual qualities in someone whom one confronts. In effect, this fear is reverence. When Miriam and Aaron discussed Moses' marital relationship, (Numbers 12,2) G'd takes them to task for having failed to display that degree of reverence that is due a prophet of Moses' calibre. The Mishnah in Avot 4,15, urges that reverence for one's teacher should be on a level similar to that accorded the Almighty Himself. Whereas the former kind of fear is common both to the sinner and the devout person, the latter, i.e. reverence is a form of fear that sinners do not know. Proverbs 10,24, states: "the fear of the wicked, it shall come upon him, but the desire of the righteous will be granted." The thing that the wicked is afraid of will happen to him, the pious however, will not be denied, since his adversary can sense his moral superiority. G'd promises that the Canaanites will be awed by the Jewish people in this fashion when the latter are about to invade their land. "The fear of you and the reverence for you, the Lord will implant on all the face of the earth." (Deut 11,25) The most interesting example we find of this phenomenon is the account of Saul, who tries to kill David. (Samuel I chapter 18) He tried to make David's death (intended) appear like an accident, and that is why David did not run for his life at once. Twice, during the playing of the harp, David had turned his head at the precise moment Saul had thrown his spear at him. Saul, who realised that David's escape was not accidental, had previously only feared David as a formidable warrior. Now, however, he also developed reverence for him, seeing G'd had so obviously protected him. (verses 12-15) Verse thirteen refers to the reverence, verse sixteen to the fear of an adversary of known superiority. Saul had experienced similar feelings when his efforts to trick David into being killed by the Philistines had failed. At that time he had let it be known that he would give David his daughter in marriage in return for a dowry of one hundred Philistine foreskins, (ibid, especially verse nine) Other examples of fear and terror are found in Psalms 33,8 and 9. Psalms 68,4, and Jeremiah 5,22. On the other hand, the reverence of the righteous is not based on terror. Compare Psalms 34,10 as well as Psalms 145 and 147. The yereyim are not full of terror, but await G'ds kindness with confidence. We must now examine what kind of fear is referred to in our Parshah in chapter 10,22. It is unlikely that Moses would refer to the fear common to man and beast, since one would then have to assume that G'ds main purpose is for man to relive experiences that would remind him of moments of fear and terror. His service of the Lord then would be based only on man's terrifying awareness of G'ds superior power, His ability to punish man. When under the influence of such terror, truthfulness can easily be turned into falsehoods told because one hopes to escape detection of one's sins. Such untruths would then not even be sinful. We find Abraham calling his wife his sister. Isaac does so likewise, each one having feared for his life at the time. (Genesis 12,10 and 20,6) Joseph's brothers told him of a supposed statement by their father Jacob. They too had been motivated by fear that Joseph would revenge himself now that their father had died. Aaron had agreed to make the golden calf after having seen Chur killed. (Sanhedrin 7) It is therefore quite unthinkable that this is the kind of "fear" that G'd asks of the Jewish people. In fact the whole concept of free will would be demolished if that were to be the basis of our relationship with G'd. The statement of Rabbi Abdima ben Chana (Shabbat 88) that G'd had threatened the Jewish people with annihilation should they fail to accept the Torah at Mount Sinai, is used as evidence that contracts entered into under duress are not binding. Also, it would not make sense if the Talmud in Berachot 33, had described the attainment of fear as a minor accomplishment for the likes of Moses. Surely, any person could possess that kind of fear without even half trying. One certainly would not have to be a Moses to live in terror of G'ds power. On the other hand, if what is meant in our Parshah is reverence inspired by awareness of G'ds many attributes, then such a demand would seem to be the ultimate demand that can be made of any human being. Certainly such a demand ought not to be described as a very modest request. Intellectual awareness of the need for such reverence vis a vis G'd and all He stands for, may indeed be relatively easy to attain, but a lifetime filled with constant awareness of this reverence seems more than can be reasonably expected from any individual. Even of Moses himself it is said: "He turned his face away since he was afraid to look upon G'd." The Torah compliments Moses on this yir-ah, reverence. If a Moses deserves special mention for displaying such reverence, it cannot be come by easily by lesser mortals. (Exodus 2,6)