Pemikiran Yahudi Keluaran 32:4: Akeidat Yitzchak

In defining the relative merit of "good,” it can be said that the greatest "good" is that which confers the greatest number of benefits on the greatest number of people, without at the same time restricting the rights of the individual. Sunlight and warmth which embraces all people in equal measure, is a greater "good" than candlelight for instance. The latter provides light for only a limited number of people, the candle is not available for everyone, but has to be paid for by someone. Compared to the bounty of government, whose wealth and ability is very limited when measured against the wealth of the Almighty, only G'd has the ability to provide for everyone from an inexhaustible reservoir. "The Lord is good to All” (Psalms 145,9) This point is made by king Saul in Samuel I 22,7-8. He says that even if David had the best of intentions, he could not possibly grant everyone what they desire. Also, since the universe is constructed in a manner which makes each of its constituent parts indispensable to the proper functioning of the whole, the whole cannot merely be a multiplicity of components which each perform the identical function, and therefore are all of the same rank. To view the fact that some creatures appear more distinguished than others as proof of injustice, or to view the fact that parts of the body seem more precious than others, as proof of discrimination, is foolish. To arrive at the conclusion that these distinctions are the result of accident or lack of ability on the part of the Creator, is equally erroneous. "And His mercy extends to all His creatures," (Psalms 145,9) Each part in creation is equipped to perform its allotted task in the grand scheme of the Creator. In spite of all the foregoing, G'd has bestowed special loving care on His people Israel. The yovel year legislation etc prevents permanent loss of a family's inheritance, i.e. landed wealth. Jews must not be given menial tasks to perform. He who sells himself, is punishable; the Torah takes a dim view of such action. In short, Torah legislation is aimed at preserving the lofty status of the Jewish nation at the time when that nation accepted Torah as its national constitution. Vayikra Rabbah 13, mentions that the food and drink legislation also aims at the purification of man, just as Torah legislation as such, aims at purifying and refining man by limiting his indiscrimate indulgence in pleasurable activities meant only to gratify his body. Yalkut Shimoni Bereshit 31, points out that "he who wants to live, will die; he who is prepared to die, will live." Whatever man denies himself in this world, will ensure his life in the eternal world. The more he indulges himself in this life, however, the more likely is he to forfeit his share of eternal life. The aggadah in Baba Batra 74, portraying G'd as castrating the male leviathan, and killing the female, salting away its flesh for consumption by the righteous in the world to come, may express a similar idea. The separate creation of the males and females may symbolise the defusion of the physical and the spiritual. If the most powerful union of body and spirit in this universe, (Leviathan) would be allowed to roam completely unfettered, they could destroy the entire civilisation, G'd forbid. If human intelligence were to be used exclusively to advance his materialistic aspirations, the results could be disastrous. Alternately, if the body would be used exclusively to advance the interests of the spirit, this would also be contrary to G'ds plan for His universe. Therefore, G'd insured the survival of both as separate entities. As such, both are able to make their respective contributions to G'ds overall design for the world, without being able to completely upset such design. Pursuing the same subject matter, Pessachim 119, relates a strange story. In the world of the future, G'd will prepare a meal for the righteous. After having eaten and drunk, the cup is offered to Abraham to lead the other guests in reciting grace. Abraham declines the honour, saying that since he had sired Ishmael, he did not think he deserved this honour. Using similar reasoning, also Isaac declines, seeing he had fathered Esau. Jacob too declines, citing the fact that he had married two sisters while they were both alive. (something that would be forbidden once the Torah had been revealed) Moses declines the honour, saying that he had not been found fit to enter the holy land. Joshua declines, saying that he had not been found worthy to have a son. When the cup was offered to David, he accepted. He proclaimed "I shall raise the cup of salvation and call out in the name of the Lord." What we learn from here is that self control is valued so highly, that David was considered worthy to recite grace more than his illustrious ancestors including prophets. He alone of all those present, had possessed an active yetzer hara, sensual urges. Even though he might have sinned, compared to the many temptations he had been exposed to throughout his life, his sins were insignificant. All the others present must be viewed as tzaddikim gemurim, saintly by nature. (compare our commentary on chapter 41) Esther, who had been the only one among all the contestants for Ahasverus' favour, who had not availed herself of every means to enhance her physical charms, was rewarded by becoming queen. This was precisely because she did not make demands on life. External circumstances play an important part in shaping one's character. "The air of the land of Israel, makes wise." (Baba Balra 158 ) Exposure to certain climates advances one's ability to absorb knowledge. Inhabitants of parts of the globe subject to extremes of heat or cold, reflect this in their general behaviour. Since the land of Israel was considered as possessing a superior climate, being called eretz hatzvee, the choicest of countries, its climate can bestow benefits on its inhabitants. Rabbi Tanchum in Vayikra Rabba 13, says that a doctor who had two patients only one of whom he diagnosed as capable of making a recovery, imposed a rigorous diet on the patient he thought had a chance to recover. He did not place any restrictions on the other patient. Similarly, Israel and the gentiles. Israel, which has its after life at stake, must ensure that its food habits are such that that this after life is not jeopardised. The gentiles, who have not qualified for such after life, do not need to impose any restrictions on their food intake, therefore. On no account is the legislation of forbidden foods to be seen in the context of contributing to or detracting from physical well being, bodily health. Chapter fourteen in Deuteronomy begins by listing the otherness of the Jewish people. "You are children to the Lord your G'd; do not make incisions on your body when mourning the dead, neither make bald spots, because you are a holy nation...Do not eat anything which is an abomination." With this preamble, the Torah introduces the legislation about forbidden foods. If this legislation had hygiene, sanitary considerations, as its objective, it would reduce Torah to being a medical textbook, and a very abbreviated one at that. This thought is intolerable, if only for the fact that many of the health hazards in certain foods could be neutralized by the use of spices and other preservatives. Since we observe many nations who do eat foods that we consider abominations, enjoy good health, it is clear that the legislation is not aimed at our physical health, but rather at our mental health. Such foods as are listed as forbidden, might drive out the holy spirit that dwells within each Jew. David asks the Lord in Psalm 51,13, "do not take away Your holy spirit from me!" Since our sages suggest that the names of certain forbidden animals symbolise characteristics of different nations, and since many of these nations did not exist at the time the legislation was formulated, it is clear that they felt that consuming certain foods would eventually leave its mark on the character of such people. Examples are gamal for the Babylonians; arnevet for the Creeks; shafan for the Medes. The fact that these names seem repeated unaccountably in scripture, gave rise to these interpretations. Since G'd had said to Moses concerning achievements of our individual goals in life "it lies within your mouth and within your heart to accomplish," (Deut 30,11-14) it is no more than reasonable to include our food intake in that advice, i.e. "within your mouth."

Some problems in the text. 1) Exodus 32, 11, tells of Moses being late in returning from Mount Sinai. The time frame involved, according to our tradition, was a mere six hours. Yet we are told that Aaron was besieged by the people, that these people brought him their personal jewelry, having failed to persuade their wives to part with their jewelry. The crucible for melting down the gold seemed to be at hand, Aaron produced a golden calf. How could such a revolutionary change occur so suddenly within such a short space of time? Were there no people prepared to credit Moses with being a day late? 2) If the people were indeed convinced that Moses would not return, why did they not offer the now vacant leadership position to their beloved Aaron? Why did they demand "a G-d who will walk in front of us?" 3) Why did Aaron choose a golden calf as the symbol to be constructed? No materials or specific animal had been requested, after all? 4) Why did not G-d tell Moses that Aaron had made that calf? 5) Why did G-d say "leave Me alone, so that I can get angry"? The words "leave Me alone so that I can destroy them" would seem to have been more appropriate! 6) Moses’s question "why are You angry?" seems difficult to understand Could there have been anything that would have given G-d greater reason to be angry? 7) Why did Moses not get angry till he reached the camp? Had he not believed what G-d had told him? 8) Why did Moses burn the calf? Who burns metal objects? 9) The dialogue between Moses and Aaron is very strange. Aaron seems to deny responsibility, whereas Moses seems to have suggested to him an excuse by asking "what have the people done to you?" It seems as if the people were punished whereas Aaron went scot free? 10) When Moses confessed the guilt of the Jewish people, he avoided mentioning the fact that it was a calf that had been worshipped. Does not a proper confession require the spelling out of all the details of one's misdemeanour? 11) Since we had already read about the people having removed their jewelry, (verse 4) why did G-d instruct Moses to have the people remove their jewelry? (verse 5)

The four statements are therefore not to be understood as "sins," but rather as faults which made their sin possible. Outstanding individuals such as these two sons of Aaron, could not fall prey to a cardinal sin such as bringing "strange fire" into the sanctuary, unless there had previously been something wrong in their attitudes. Drunkenness disturbs the mind. Only when in a confused state of mind, could they have committed such a serious error. Not having washed their hands and feet is symbolic of not preparing one's body to perform a sacred task. Garments, especially outer garments, are meant as a shield against the temptation of the yetzer hara. Failing to wear such garments shows that one at least underestimates the power of temptation, while at the same time overestimating one's own character strength The purpose of all Torah study is execution of its teachings. Another way of expressing this, is "the producing of fruit." Having children is bearing fruit. Being able to bear fruit is a privilege. He who has something worthwhile to bequeath to posterity, leaves children behind who, perpetuate their parents, contribute to civilisation. He who studies Torah for ulterior motives, such as to achieve honour, a title etc has nothing to bequeath. These two sons of Aaron not having children, is not to be conceived as a cause for their being unfit. Rather, it is the result of their having been unfit. To sum up, one could accuse these two sons of three deficiencies. (1) intellectual; (2) emotional; (3) moral. It is also possible to view the fact that these sons did not marry as proof of a certain amount of arrogance. They did not marry because they did not consider anyone as good enough to become their respective wives. Again, the wearing of garments can be understood as representing acquired character traits. Not wearing outer garments would mean that they lacked certain character traits which are essential in a priest, without which he is not fit to represent the people before G'd.