Pemikiran Yahudi Bilangan 27:21: Akeidat Yitzchak, Derashot HaRan & Nefesh HaChayim

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.

David's encounter with Goliath stemmed from the purest of motives, i.e. to silence the blasphemer. When we read David's comment in Samuel I 17,26, "what shall be done for the man who shall slay this Philistine?", the word ye-asseh needs to be understood as "what needs to be done for the man who...? " David expresses incredulity that it should be necessary to promise a reward for the person willing to engage Goliath in combat. As David says in Psalms 139,2, "O Lord I hate those who hate You." David was not satisfied to have ousted Goliath according to the terms of combat set by Goliath. (17,9) It seems that having felled Goliath would have sufficed. But David insisted on killing Goliath, even though he did not even have a sword on him. He used Goliath's own sword to kill him with. In a similar manner, David did not wait to be commanded when he wanted to build a temple for G-d, but he volunteered to do so and prepared everything he could for that undertaking. In the end, though the temple was actually built by his son Solomon, it bore David's name also. Psalm 30 is introduced as a hymn on the occasion of dedicating David’s Temple. Even in Kings I, 12, when the ten tribes secede from the dynasty of David, they refer to the Temple as "Your house David." All this despite the fact that none of the building had been commenced in David's lifetime. Midrash Shocher Tov on Psalms 23, relates that when the angels remonstrated with G-d for removing the kingship from Saul and anointing David, G-d explained it to them in the following manner. When Saul, who was about to consult the Urim Vetumim if he should pursue the Philistines, observed the eagerness of the people, he aborted his original intention. (14,20) David, on the other hand, (Samuel II 5,23 ) consulted the Urim Vetumim when set upon by the Philistines. When he was told not to counterattack until he would hear steps in the tops of the trees, he waited. David consulted again, although he had already been given a general O.K. from G-d previously, and had been assured of success, (verse 19) He had already achieved a measure of success, as we read in verse 20. According to the Midrash, the Philistines, unbeknown to David, were in an excellent tactical position, and had David not heeded G-d’s command to wait until the tops of the trees revealed movement, his men would have become victims of the Philistines. It was David's obedience to G-d’s detailed instructions that saved his victory, whereas giving in to popular request for immediate attack would have resulted in disaster. Saul excelled in personal good traits, may be even more than David, but the test of a king lies in his preparedness to submit to Divine guidance and not to rely on human perceptions. This principle applies when Divine guidance is available through consultation of the Urim Vetumim located within the folds of the breastplate of the High Priest. Pity, normally a noble emotion, is misplaced when applied to Agag the king of Amalek. The meaning of a statement by Rabbi Hunna in Yoma 22, "how extremely careful must a person be who has G-d on his side," is applicable here. As Rabbi Hunna continues, "Saul erred once with fateful consequences, whereas David erred twice and no fateful consequences ensued." Saul, whose failing consisted in not accepting G-d’s discipline, was told by G-d through Samuel "I regret having made him king." Yet David, who had erred both in respect of Uriah and the national census, was not deprived of his kingdom. His failing was of a personal nature, it was not a failing in the essential leadership qualities that a king must possess. When Moses blessed the tribe of Yehudah (Deut.33,7) saying "this for Yehudah, the Lord will hearken to the voice of Yehudah," he refers to Yehudah's role as king. Providence will be with him, because he is the people's leader who relies on G-d’s guidance. Of him it is said "that he not depart from the Lord's way, right or left." (Deut 17,11) "By the Lord's command he will go to war or return home." (Numbers 27,17) The king himself determines by his own actions if Providence will be with or against his people. The sin of following one's own reasoning or instincts is a king's cardinal error, not even given to repentance, since it represents a fundamental belief. Saul, though as innocent personally as a one year old baby (Yuma 22) when he ascended the throne, erred in his capacity as king. (Samuel I 13,1) If Rabbi Nachman was troubled and had nightmares for having dared suggest a negative interpretation of this verse,why then was Saul's rule not the beginning of a dynasty? The answer clearly is because he was personally so infallible. From this the Talmud derives the maxim that in order for authority never to become dictatorial, the monarch or whoever is responsible for the affairs of his community, should possess some publicly known demerit. Otherwise, he might become overbearing. As long a he can be reminded of his own shortcomings, his conduct will be more restrained, and he will be more amenable to the common people's problems. In support of our theory we draw attention to the way Samuel describes the relative merits of Saul and David on two separate occasions. When Saul consulted Samuel via the witch of Endor, Samuel says to him "G-d took the kingdom from you and gave it to your companion David." (Samuel I 28,18) At the time of the debacle with Agag however, the same Samuel had said "G-d has torn the kingdom of Israel from you this day, and given it to your companion who is better than you." (Samuel I 15,28) This indicates that David may have been better than Saul in his capacity as king, but that Saul was second to none as a person. Also, David having committed the error of counting the people, repented of his own accord without any ifs and buts. Saul, however, even when he did repent having been urged to do so by Samuel, did so only with reservations. He tried to blame others for his own shortcomings, claiming that he had had to compromise with the wishes of his people. When Samuel states (Samuel I 15,29) that G-d in fact had not reneged, he explains that the expression nacham, changing plans is only applicable when conditions have not changed, but the one in charge changes his stance. When the prevailing conditions had changed however, any adjustments G-d makes to His plans are not in the nature of reneging, (compare chapter 11 re Noach) The subject in verse thirty "for he is not a changeable man" is David, not G-d. It is David who is being described as remaining constant by virtue of his character, and therefore a superior choice as king over Israel.

Moses' blessings are viewed as a continuation of Jacob's blessings. Jacob had concluded with the line "and this is what their father said to them when he blessed them." (Genesis 49,28) So Moses says "and this," at the beginning of his blessings, whereas we find this term used at the very end of Jacob's blessings. Since Reuben had been demoted at the time of Joseph's sale, and had been the subject of his father's criticism at the time Jacob died, Moses emphasizes that though numerically not strong, Reuben would produce outstanding men in spite of this. The blessing may also include the assurance that Reuben personally had not lost his share in the world to come as the result of the incident with Bilhah. By mentioning Yehudah next, the fact that Reuben had been mentioned first, shows that Moses had not wanted to deny Reuben his rightful place. Yehudah is mentioned next due to his rank. Since it will be he who will lead Israel in battle, provide the kings, Moses blesses Yehudah by imploring G'd to come to Yehudah's aid when the latter finds himself in difficulties. "Though his hands fight on his behalf, be the helper from his adversaries." (33,7) Since the temporal and spiritual leadership of the nation are to go hand in hand, Levi is mentioned next in the list of tribes to be blessed. Although inquiries re the will of G'd are made via le-ish chassidecha, religious authority, by the use of tumecha ve-urecha, the ineffable name in the High Priest's breastplate, the secular leader is required to stand in the presence of the High Priest. (see chapter 35) Since Moses is himself a member of the tribe of Levi, he apologises for the sin at the "waters of strife," explaining it as having been due to instructions once received at Massa to hit the rock. (33,8) Since the sin had not been intentional, Aaron is not excluded from the term of endearment "your pious one." Both on the occasion of the golden calf episode when the Levites had risked their lives for G'ds law, and at Shittim when Pinchas had done so, the tribe had displayed fervent loyalty. The second function of the tribe is to teach the Torah to Israel, yoru mishpatecha, they will teach Your social laws. Thirdly, service in the temple will be performed by members of that tribe, yassimu ketorah be-apecha, they will put incense before You. The position of Priest and Levite being a hereditary one, it is apt to be viewed by some as an undeserved privilege, and will arouse antagonism towards that tribe. Therefore, Moses asks that the Levites' adversaries be crushed, (verse 11) Moses does not mention the tribe of Shimon, the latter still smarting from the affair of Baal Peor, and the wounds on its collective dignity inflicted by Pinchas. Also, it had just lost twelve thousand men. Moses therefore was content not to criticise the tribe of Shimon at this stage. Also, this made it unnecessary for him to bestow thirteen blessings.