Pemikiran Yahudi Bilangan 4:21: Akeidat Yitzchak & Kol Dodi Dofek

Midrash Tanchuma on Parshat Eykev, and Midrash Shocher Tov comment on Proverbs 5,6, and Job 28,16, respectively. We find in those verses references to the mysterious way in which Torah sometimes reports the sequence of events. In the words of the Midrash, the apparent lack of cohesion is deliberate, as otherwise "every reader could heal the sick or revive the dead." We should ask therefore, why the sages endeavoured altogether to find meaning in the order in which events have been related? The truth is that our sages did not mean that there is absolutely no order in the sequences of the Torah's teachings; rather they teach that G'd arranged things in a manner that safeguarded certain secrets that He has reserved for Himself. (Isaiah 44,7) "Who but I can declare it and set it in order for Me, since I appointed the ancient people." This verse forms the background to our Midrashim. The enquiry why a particular event is reported at a particular point in the sequence of events, is quite legitimate, regardless of the general rule eyn mukdam, that the Torah does not claim to report events in the chronological order in which they occurred. That rule means, that even when the Torah does report events in historical order, this does not mean that the Torah's purpose is exhausted by having conveyed to us a little bit of history. Dissemination of slanderous information may stem from a variety of motivations. 1) A person may slander someone else in order to make himself look good by comparison. 2) On the other hand, someone may spread negative information about a third party, having no ulterior motive at all. The latter type is the real ba-al lashon hara, spreader of evil gossip. The first type is simply a glory seeker, the slander being incidental to his purposes. When the Talmud Erchin 15, describes animals approaching the snake asking the reason it attacks humans, it compares the lion and the wolf with the snake. The two former either wish to still their hunger, or at least to devour the prey. The snake however, seems to poison just for the fun of it, deriving no visible benefit from its action. Korach was not a classic example of a slanderer, since he merely used slander to enhance his own stature, and to further his ambition to become a leader. For this reason, Korach is described in our classic sources as a dissident, a quarreler. The spies, however, are described as "slanderers." Since Miriam's sin, though not as severe as that of the spies, was also in the nature of slander, the story of the spies follows that of the punishment of Miriam, to alert us to the fact that the spies had not absorbed the lesson contained in Miriam's punishment. (1) If the Torah skips the introduction about the circumstances that preceded the dispatch of the spies, in this instance, it is precisely to make sure that we would not confuse the issue, and would notice that the issue was the sin of lashon hara, slander. (2) The reason twelve men were sent, was to provide the maximum chance of success. People endowed with all the good qualities cited in the Parshah, would command enough moral fortitude to prevail over their human weaknesses, if anyone could. Their eventual report would be accepted without prejudice, since they represented a cross section of the people. Should the mission fail, it would not be due to inadequate planning. The princes mentioned in Parshat Nasso, having already assumed their respective functions, were not allowed to absent themselves from their posts for such an extended period. The Torah describes the twelve spies as each being a nassi, prince, in order to show that they were not inferior to the twelve princes whom we know already. The fact that Joshua is only ranked fifth amongst them, shows that all of them had been very eminent people at the time of their appointment for this task. That the Torah does indeed list them in the order of their qualities seems borne out by the fact that the order in which they are listed corresponds neither to the order of the "flags" of the encampment, nor to the order of birth of the various sons of Jacob whose tribes they represented. The Talmud Sotah 34, discusses the various names and comes to the conclusion that their various names contained hints of their eventual disloyalty to G.d. Since this is obviously an excercise in hindsight, the original selection must have been based on the positive qualities each one of the spies had displayed prior to his being chosen for such a fateful mission. The fact that Caleb and Joshua could not even persuade their own respective tribes to accept their minority report, shows that the spies had not been chosen for any popular following they might have enjoyed. (3) The verse dealing with the name Joshua must be understood as follows. "These are the names of the men...except for Hoshaya of the tribe of Ephrayim, whom Moses later used to call Joshua." (which is the name by which he is known to us in most instances when we read about him.) Observing the goodness of the land, entailed four separate considerations. 1) Did the inhabitants appear robust and healthy? 2) Was the terrain easy to cultivate and was there an abundance of it? 3) Were there urban centres the inhabitants were happy in and proud of? 4) Did the soil yield abundantly, and was the produce of high quality? (4) Moses wanted the spies to pay attention to all these factors, so that they would look forward to this all soon being theirs. (compare verses 18-20) Concerning the type of cities,-whether open or fortified,- Moses wanted to point out that if these people still lived in fortified cities, this reflected a lack of self confidence on their part. This would give Israel a psychological advantage when setting out to attack them. The book of Joshua in chapter 6,1, reports that Jericho was completely sealed off from the inside and the outside. Immediately afterwards we are told that the inhabitants had already reached the point of despair. Although it was early in the season, and the orchards would therefore be under close scrutiny by their respective owners, Moses instructed "fortify yourselves," i.e. get a hold of yourselves and take from the fruit to taste it. Moses' insistence stemmed from his conviction that the land was excellent. The fact that the nachal eshkol, valley of the grape cluster, was so named, was only in commemoration of the spies' visit. It proves that the grapes found there were not of exceptional quality. (verse 24) They were merely representative specimens of the quality the land produced. (5) The spies brought the fruit back in order to lend credibility to the report they were about to issue. When Moses saw the fruit, he was lulled into a false sense of security, overlooking the fact that they were not making their report to the commander-in-chief, but to the nation as a whole. The Torah indicates this by describing the spies as returning from latour, from touring the country, from emphasizing its good points. When one emphasizes weak points such journeys are described as rigul, spying. The opening remarks seemed to confirm Moses' optimism. (verse 27) As soon as they uttered the word efess however, they aborted their entire mission. The fruit became an instrument to describe the desirability of the land, and to contrast this with the physical prowess of its inhabitants. From having been reporters, they suddenly assumed the role of advisors. The careful description of who lived in the land, i.e. Amalek in the South, the presence of giants, three nations in the mountains, Canaanites by the sea and the river Jordan, all these remarks were designed to create the impression that conquest of such a country was not feasible. They did not yet dare to spell this out, however. When Caleb, knowing the tenor of their remarks, interrupted, he did so to give Moses a chance to be heard, and to create a climate in which his own report would at least get a hearing. For that reason he made it appear as if he too had something to complain against Moses' adventurous policy of attacking such physically superior residents of the land of Canaan. In fact, he hoped that by giving his own report, emphasizing his firm belief that Israel could conquer the land, he could squelch the despondency his colleagues had evoked with their innuendos about the hopeless nature of such an undertaking. He thought that the other spies would not dare come out openly against such a campaign in the very presence of Moses. At that point, however, the other spies started to use their arguments outright. They portrayed the presence of the giants (32-33) as proof of the futility of starting a war, citing the fact that these giants included men who had survived the deluge. To contrast this with their own feeling of inadequacy, they referred to their having felt like grasshoppers by comparison to those super-men. The fact that these giants had observed twelve strange men help themselves to grapes from their orchards without the owners having become galvanised into some form of counter action, they conveniently overlooked. On the contrary, they allowed it to be taken as proof that these men were not in the least bothered by such action. They considered any danger from Jewish spies as no greater than the threat posed to them by grasshoppers. They considered the country's fertility as only due to the superhuman efforts of these giants. By describing the land as one that devours its inhabitants, they hinted that ordinary people could not survive that climate. The reason there is no preamble to the despatch of the spies, is that the very mission, having as its objective the collection of factual observations, was perfectly permissible. What was wrong was that the people, upon return of the spies, allowed them to present their interpretation of what they had seen, and that they believed those interpretations. The people's belated concern (14,3) was only a cover for their, true motivation, that of despising the land G'd was offering to them. (14,31) The positioning of verse three, in which the people describe their own fate and that of their families, makes it appear that they preferred their families' deaths to their own dying by the swords. They do not describe the fate of their wives and children as the result of their own death in action. They express their preference to whatever fate would await them in Egypt. They go so far as to suggest the appointment of a leader for such a return. G'ds answer to all this is quite appropriate. He says, in effect: "your children will enjoy that which you have despised." But you who have consigned yourselves to damnation either way, and who are already considering yourselves as corpses, you will drop dead in the desert. (7) Joshua and Caleb rent their clothing, confirming only that the land was indeed excellent. Since this had been all that they as spies had been asked to report on, they expressed the conviction that if He wished, the Lord would surely bring them to that land subject to His considering them fit for this. (6) When the people realised that the whole logic of their position had been challenged by Joshua and Caleb, they did not react with reason but with their basest instincts, trying to still the voice of conscience by attempting to murder the authors of a report they did not like. They were restrained only by the appearance of the Divine glory that scared them. Moses, who continued to remonstrate with them, could not sway them. (Deut. 1,29-33) At that point G'd despaired of their ever demonstrating true faith, and decided to let them all die at once, meaning to replace them with a new people, with Moses as its patriarch. Moses used the well worn argument that the impression such action would produce on outsiders like the Egyptians, would be counterproductive to His image. Our sages describe active forces in terms of the masculine gender, whereas they describe passive ones in terms of the feminine. It does not matter in this context whether the mashpia, the active force is actually of the male gender or vice versa, in the case of the mushpa the passive force being actually of the female gender. In that sense, G'd is always the mashpia, and everybody or everything relative to Him is always the mushpa. When Moses in 15, 11, says to G'd "if this is what You are about to do to me," and he uses the feminine gender for the word "You," the sages interpret this to mean "You will undermine Your own strength." The idea is that he argues that G'd would henceforth appear as the mushpa instead of as the mashpia, G'ds traditional role. This is the reason Moses prayed "now let the power of the Lord be great," to demonstrate that "Your" strength is indeed the source of all Power. When Israel, speaking to Moses at the time they received the ten commandments, said to Moses "you speak to us," employing the feminine pronoun in referring to Moses the man, the human being, (Deut. 6,23) they convey the same idea. They are saying that although they will then be hearing the voice of G'd only from the mushpa instead of from the mashpia, at least they would survive. (8) The fact that the argument Moses used is of the utmost significance, is proven from the words of Ezekiel, in chapter thirty six. Concerning the advent of the redemption in the future, G'd is quoted as saying "Not for your sake do I act, family of Israel, but for the sake of My holy name that you have desecrated etc." Moses, as distinct from the sin at the golden calf, invoked the attribute of adnut, Omnipotence of G'd when he appealed for forgiveness. He had realised that after all the many acts of rebellion by the Jewish people, the kind of forgiveness which is total, could not be expected as an immediate outcome of his prayer. He therefore refers to the fact that G'd had previously raised the level of the sin to a lesser category - compare verse 19- "as You have raised this people until now, ever since they have come out of Egypt." G'd responds by saying "I have forgiven, exactly in accordance with your words." (the limitations you yourself have set) This is "for the people." However, the perpetrators will have to pay an immediate price and die by the plague. (verse 37) The entire nation who had witnessed G'ds miracles at the time of the Exodus in their adult years, would henceforth no longer qualify for similar miracles at the time they would conquer the land of Canaan. They have forfeited forever the right to such revelations of G'ds power on their behalf. This was a punishment on an individual level, though at first glance it might have looked collective, since none of them would enter the holy land. The individual nature of the punishment would manifest itself when each one of them would die on a different date. However, "the wicked congregation," i.e. the ten spies, would all die at the same time at once, receive collective punishment. (9) The need for the next generation to wait forty years to enter the holy land, is directly related to the sin of the parent generation. As long as some of the former remain alive, as living testimony to the disloyalty of their covenant with G'd, the miraculous protection of G'd cannot be extended to their children when they would try to enter the holy land. The ratio of forty years for forty days is again an expression of G'ds consideration for His people. Since the spies had taken forty days before returning with a negative report, G'd allows a year for each day of delay, spreading the punishment over a period of forty years, instead of letting everybody die at once. In this manner, the whole nation would learn that G'd is merciful even when He administers punishment. He does not thin out the ranks of the people all at once, but gradually, so as not to allow their decreased numbers to become an invitation to attack by their enemies. If G'd could be merciful even in such circumstances, what tremendous display of G'ds goodness must the people have forfeited by their conduct? G'd hastens to confirm the decree by swearing an oath (verse 28). He is only too aware that the people will be overcome by a feeling of remorse and will try to sway Him from His declared intention. (10) Since repentance induced by fear, duress, does not wipe the slate clean, the people did not deserve the presence of the holy ark in their midst in the campaign they now planned. The very fact that they dared to go ahead without it, showed that they still had not appreciated who it was that alone would guarantee their success. If we are taught in the book of Joshua that the sin of one man, Achan ben Karmi, who had not yet been punished for his crime, could be the cause of the whole Jewish people suffering defeat at the hands of the small city of Ai, what would happen when a whole army of unrehabilitated sinners would face the might of the Canaanites? (compare chapter 7)

3. The connection between adversity and repentance was expressed in the mitzvah of ‎sounding a ‎warning with trumpets when adversity is about to befall the community. Maimonides ‎‎(Hilkhot ‎Ta’anit 1:1-4), states: “A positive Scriptural commandment prescribes prayer and ‎the sounding ‎of an alarm with trumpets whenever trouble befalls the community. For when ‎Scripture says, ‎‎‘Against the adversity that oppresses you, then you shall sound the alarm with ‎trumpets’ ‎‎(Numbers 10:9), the meaning is: Cry out in prayer and sound an alarm against ‎whatsoever is ‎oppressing you, be it famine, pestilence, locusts or the like. [And the Scribes teach ‎us that we must ‎fast until we are pitied from heaven on every misfortune that shall befall us.]” ‎Translation from I. ‎Twersky, A. Maimonides Reader (New York: Behrman House, 1972), pp. ‎‎113–114.
There are two unique mitzvot: (a) A positive mitzvah of confession and repentance ‎for every sin ‎that man commits. This mitzvah is explained in the biblical portion of Naso. “When a ‎man or a ‎woman shall [commit any sin that men commit], they shall confess the sins that they have ‎done” ‎‎(Numbers 5:6). Maimonides, in the Sefer HaMaddah, dedicated ten chapters to ‎this ‎mitzvah, entitled Laws of Repentance. (b) There is a specific mitzvah of repentance in an hour ‎of ‎misfortune, as recorded in the above-noted passage concerning the trumpets: “And when you ‎go ‎to war [in your land against the adversary that oppresses you, then you shall sound the alarm] ‎‎ ... ‎and you shall be saved from your enemies” (Numbers 10:9). In practice, the biblical obligation to ‎be ‎aroused to repentance is accomplished by the sounding of the trumpets, to which the ‎Rabbis ‎added the vehicle of fasting.‎
Essentially, the obligation to repent is tied to the suffering of the ‎community, as noted by the ‎Mishnah: [that repentance is called for] “For every misfortune that ‎shall befall the community” (TB ‎Ta’anit 19a and Maimonides, loc. cit.). Indeed, the obligation of the ‎individual who finds himself in ‎extremis to return to God is also derived from this Torah portion. ‎The fact that the halakhah ‎recognized the individual’s fast as valuable, proves that the individual is ‎obligated to repent in a ‎time of trouble. According to Maimonides, there can be no fast devoid of ‎repentance. In ‎‎[Hilkhot T’shuva 1:9], Maimonides writes that “Just as the community fasts ‎on the occasion ‎of its adversity, so does the individual fast on the occurrence of his misfortune.” ‎Similarly, the ‎‎baraita cited in TB Ta’anit 22b states: “The Rabbis taught: In the case of a city ‎that was ‎surrounded by hostile gentiles, or by an overflowing river, or a ship being tossed by a ‎stormy sea, ‎or an individual pursued by non-Jews or by thieves or by a hurricane, etc. [in all these ‎instances ‎one may sound a voice alarm on Shabbat].” Maimonides ruled accordingly in Mishneh ‎Torah, ‎Hilkhot Ta’anit 1:6 (it being understood that there is no sounding of the trumpet on a ‎weekday ‎for an individual who is being pursued). The trumpets are sounded only for communal ‎adversity ‎and not for individual misfortune. There are specific halakhot in tractate Ta’anit and in ‎Maimonides’ ‎‎Hilkhot Ta’anit, chap.5, that delineate the character of communal adversity. ‎The ‎‎baraita only sought to teach that an individual who finds himself in extremism may ‎cry ‎out (according to Maimonides even on the Shabbat). It is therefore established that the ‎obligation ‎of crying out is equally applicable to the individual and the community, and of what ‎benefit is ‎crying, if it does not issue forth from a soul that regrets its sins?‎
The difference ‎between the general mitzvah of repentance and the obligation to repent in a time ‎of adversity ‎may be distilled in one detail: Repentance for sin is tied to the knowledge that one has ‎sinned. So ‎long as a man is not aware of his sin he has no obligation [to repent]. One cannot be ‎obligated to ‎obtain forgiveness without knowledge of the sin for which he repents. As the verse ‎states, “If his ‎sin, wherein he has sinned, be known to him [he shall bring for his offering a goat, a ‎male without ‎blemish] (Leviticus 4:23, emphasis added). Knowledge of a sin obligates the bringing ‎of a sin-‎offering. Similarly, with regard to repentance, man is not required to repent for those ‎‎[misdeeds] ‎that are hidden, but only those that are revealed to him. However, in a time of ‎adversity, the ‎sufferer must examine his deeds and inquire after his sins in order to repent for ‎them. The ‎essence of suffering confirms the existence of sin and commands man: find your sin and ‎return to ‎your Creator. Examining one’s deeds is characteristic of the obligation of repentance ‎which is tied ‎to suffering.‎
We know that on fast-days courts would sit and examine the deeds of the ‎inhabitants of the city. ‎The Talmud (TB Megillah 30b) states: “From the morning a group … ‎examines the deeds of ‎individuals.” Maimonides ([Hilkhot Ta’anit] 1:17) firmly establishes ‎the halakhah: “On each ‎fast day undertaken by a community beset by troubles, the court and the ‎elders should remain in ‎session at the synagogue from the end of the morning service until ‎midday, to examine into the ‎conduct of the citizens and to remove obstacles to righteous living ‎provided by transgressions. ‎They should carefully search and inquire after those guilty of extortion ‎and similar crimes.” ‎‎(Translation from I. Twersky, Maimonides Reader, p.114). 114). [Cf.TB ‎Eruvin 13b, “And now ‎that [man] is created let him examine his deeds, and we said he shall take ‎hold of his sins.”] The ‎obligation to examine one’s deeds relates to a time of misfortune. It appears ‎that the special ‎obligation to repent on Yom Kippur (as explained in Maimonides, Hilkhot ‎T’shuvah 7:7 and ‎in the Sha’arei T’shuvah of Rabbenu Yonah Gerondi) was established ‎as a special obligation ‎of repentance for undisclosed deeds and a requirement to examine one’s ‎deeds in order to reveal ‎the dishonorable aspects of a man’s life. In this regard the obligation of ‎repentance on Yom Kippur ‎coincides with the obligation of repentance in a time of suffering. ‎Concerning these opportunities, ‎the verse states: “Let us search and examine our ways and return ‎to the Lord” (Lamentations 3:40).‎
Established as a special obligation of repentance for ‎undisclosed deeds and a requirement to ‎examine one’s deeds in order to reveal the dishonorable ‎aspects of a man’s life. In this regard the ‎obligation of repentance on Yom Kippur coincides with ‎the obligation of repentance in a time of ‎suffering. Concerning these opportunities, the verse ‎states: “Let us search and examine our ways ‎and return to the Lord” (Lamentations 3:40).‎