Pemikiran Yahudi Keluaran 33:5: Akeidat Yitzchak & Kuzari

A different solution may be the very vagueness of the command. Not only was the exact location of the place where the sacrifice was to be offered not spelled out at the outset, but we do not find G-d becoming more specific as time went on. No particular mountain is ever mentioned. Therefore, by the failure to specify the mountain, the command had never actually been completed. Abraham had simply jumped the gun in his eagerness to obey what he thought he had been commanded. The words "He arrived at the place" or "He saw the place from a distance" simply refer to the general area, not the exact site, since none had been specified. (3) Psychology teaches that decisions to perform extremely unpleasant tasks are often split-second decisions, motivated by the desire to get the inevitable over with as soon as possible. When a man prepares carefully for the fulfilment of a mitzvah, Divine commandment, saddling his donkey, splitting kindling, getting his servants to accompany him, such actions cannot be ascribed to a sudden impulse, but are the result of mature deliberation. To make sure that we understand this, the Torah lists all the steps that Abraham took in preparing to carry out the commandment. Inasmuch as chamor, a donkey is symbolic of chomer, matter, and inasmuch as vayachavosh, he saddled, is an expression of kevishah, conquest, subjugation, Abraham's saddling and riding the donkey is symbolic of the victory of mind over matter. Abraham had conquered material considerations that could have impeded him in carrying out the mitzvah. He had mobilized all his spiritual resources. Man, being composed of both the physical and the spiritual, achieves his perfection when he succeeds to put the former in the service of the latter. (8) After the completion of the physical world at the end of six days, the period immediately preceding the Sabbath, the spiritual seal that was the crowning glory of creation, a number of things emerged that indicated that the physical and spiritual were capable of being fused together. What was accomplished by Abraham when he took Isaac to be slaughtered was paralleled by Moses when he took his family from the safety of the house of Yitro and proceeded towards Egypt where persecution awaited him and his family.

Shemot Rabbah 42, answers the question from where Moses took the authority to kill Jews found worshipping the calf, by referring us to G-d’s own example on the occasion of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the Tower of Bable respectively. In either case, G-d had proceeded to mete out punishment after He had investigated the facts. Similarly, Moses, G-d’s trusted servant, was expected to carry out this task as G-d’s messenger. When the Levites had completed their task, Moses addressed the nation exhorting them to remain loyal to G-d, and thus turn away His wrath. He pointed to the example of their fellow Jews the Levites, who had demonstrated such loyalty by disregarding family ties when the law required that their closest relatives be executed. He explained that all that is needed to qualify for G-d’s blessing, is loyalty. (Exodus 32,29) On the morrow, after the three thousand had died, Moses said to the people that they too had sinned gravely by having demanded proof of G-d’s existence and power. Also, they should have prevented the three thousand from dancing around the calf. Therefore, it was now necessary for Moses to ascend the mountain and plead for forgiveness. Moses uses both understatement and exaggeration in his plea, in order to present a credible defense. By describing the sin as the construction of a golden deity, he exaggerated its importance. By pointing out that it had been removed, and that the guilty had been punished, and that none of those witnessing the punishment had protested the death of the guilty, he prayed that surely the time had come to forgive the remainder of the nation for this episode. G-d’s reply "whosoever has sinned against Me, I will wipe out from My book," is not a direct response to Moses’s request. Moses had spoken about the book "You have written," meaning the Torah, whereas G-d referred to the book of life, a book which G-d retains for His own exclusive use. The people were to be punished by acts of G-d only, since no human witnesses were at hand to testify to their culpable participation in the construction of the golden calf. However, G-d reserved the right to exact such punishment whenever an occasion would arise in the future to punish them for other misdeeds. For the present therefore, G-d says to Moses "lead this people to the place I have said to you." We read in verse 35, "G-d smote the people because they had made the calf that Aaron had made." The repetition of the words "they had made...Aaron had made," indicates that the intentions of the people and the intentions of Aaron had been quite different from one another. Aaron's part in it had been merely incidental, the real culprit having been the people. Nonetheless, Aaron reproaches himself after two of his sons have died, saying "all these things have happened to me," when in fact we had not read of anything else happening to him. 11) Since the progress of the Jewish people from now on was to be under the guidance of an angel, (Exodus 33, 1-3) the people thought that the Divine Presence would no longer be among them. They mourned this news by failing to wear their jewelry. Since they had not actually removed their jewelry from themselves, there was reason for Moses to command them to "remove" it. Apparently, some of the people had put on their jewelry. Why did some people wear their jewelry, whereas others did not? If we follow the tradition that the "jewelry" were the phylacteries of the head, the latter could be viewed as a protective device while worn. When in mourning, wearing such phylacteries is forbidden. The Jews who did not wear their phylacteries considered themselves in mourning, having heard G-d’s decree. Others considered themselves in the category of "outcasts," and as such Jewish halachah requires the continued wearing of phylacteries. The difference between the two groups stemmed from which part of G-d’s stricture they considered as paramount. (33,5) If they considered the reference to them as "a stiffnecked people" as paramount, they would be in mourning. If they considered the words "I will not go up with you" as paramount, they would view themselves as outcasts. When G-d used the words "children of Israel," a term of endearment at one and the same time, this was proof to those who continued to wear their phylacteries that it was the danger to their souls that was the greater source of worry. G-d having rescinded His descision to abandon the Jewish people, they were told not to grieve more than their brethren who had mourned their physical fate and had therefore divested themselves of their phylacteries. The commandment to the last group to remove their phylactries also, is a commandment to downgrade the state of their despair to a level in which they only mourned the physical consequences arising out of the episode of the golden calf. When Moses realised that the people were in a state of banishment, he had to remove his tent from their midst, or he would have forfeited further communication from the shechinah, since the latter would not communicate with him as long as he was amidst the banished.

80. The Rabbi: It is said that it is done in order to arouse natural heat. My personal belief is that it stands in connexion with the subject under discussion. As it often happened that many persons read at the same time, it was possible that ten or more read from one volume. This is the reason why our books are so large. Each of them was obliged to bend down in his turn in order to read a passage, and to turn back again. This resulted in a continual bending and sitting up, the book lying on the ground. This was one reason. Then it became a habit through constant seeing, observing and imitating, which is in man's nature. Other people read each out of his own book, either bringing it near to his eyes, or, if he pleased, bending down to it without inconveniencing his neighbour. There was, therefore, no necessity of bending and sitting up. We will now discuss the importance of the accents, the orthographic value of the seven principal vowel signs, the grammatical accuracy resulting from them as well as from the distinction between Qāmeṣ, Pataḥ, Ṣērē and Sēgōl. They influence the meaning of grammatical forms and assist in distinguishing between past and future tenses e.g., ‏שַׁמתִּי‎ and ‏ושַׁמְתִּי‎ and ‏וַאֲבָרְכֵהוּ‎ and ‏וְאַבָרְכֵהוּ‎. (Isaiah 51:2, and Genesis 27:33); or between a verb and an adjective, e.g. ‏חָכַם and ‏חָכָם; between the interrogative Hē and the article, as in ‏הָעוֹלָה הִיא לִמָעְלָה ‎(Ecclesiastes 3:21), and other cases. The euphony and structure of speech is increased by the sequence of two vowelless consonants, which enables a whole congregation to read Hebrew simultaneously without mistakes. Other rules apply to the musical accents. For the vowel sounds are divided in Hebrew into three classes, viz. U-sound, A-sound, and I-sound; or in another division: great U-sound, or Qāmeṣ, medium U-sound, or Ḥōlem; little U-sound, or Shūreq; great A-sound, or Pataḥ; little A-sound or Sēgōl; great I-sound or Sērē; little I-sound, or Ḥīreq. Shewā is sounded with all these [vowels] under certain conditions. It is vowel absolute, because any addition would require a vowelless consonant to follow. Qāmeṣ is followed by a long closed syllable, but not by dāgēsh in the first form Dagēsh can only follow, if demanded by the exigencies of the second or third forms, the syllable being long, by one of the vowel letters alef or hē, as in ‏ברא‎ and ‏קנה‎. A syllable of this kind can also end in a vowelless consonant, as in ‏קאם‎ (Hosea 10:14). Ḥōlem also can be followed by a vowel letter which is wāw or alef as in ‏לא‎ and ‏לו‎, or a syllable of this kind can be closed by a consonant as ‏שׁור‎ and ‏שׂמׂאל‎. The vowel letters after Ṣērē are alef or yōd as in ‏יוצא‎ and ‏יוצאי‎. Hē, however, only in the second form, but not in the first. Shūreq is free for all three forms. It can be followed by a vowel letter, or dāgēsh, or vowelless consonant. Its long vowel is expressed by wāw only as, ‏לו‎, ‏ללון‎ and ‏לֻקח‎. Ḥīreq follows the rule of Shūreq as in ‏לין‎, ‏לי‎ and ‏לבי‎. Pataḥ, and Sēgōl are not followed by a vowel letter in the first form, but are lengthened by the second form, either for the sake of emphasis, or on account of the accent, or in the pause at the end of a sentence. The rules of the first form are obtained by considering the formation of each word separately, without any relation to the construction of the sentence with its variety of combination and separation, and long and short words. Then are obtained the seven principal vowels in their original, unchanged form and the simple Shewā without qa’yā. The second form deals with euphony in the construction of sentences. Occasionally elements of the first form are altered to please the second. The third form concerns the accents, and sometimes reacts on both preceding ones. In the first form three consecutive vowels without an intervening consonant or dāgesh are possible, but three, or more, short vowels may follow each other as in Arabic. This, however, is impossible in the second form. As soon as three vowels follow each other in the first form, the second one lengthens one of them to the quantity of a long vowel as in ‏משבָני‎, ‏לשבֵני‎, ‏רצפת‎ (Psalms 21:12; Esther 1:6). For Hebrew does not allow three consecutive vowels, except when a consonant is either repeated as in ‏שררך‎ (Song of Songs 7:3), or in the case of gutturals as in ‏נהרי‎ and ‏נחלי‎, the reader being at liberty to read [the first syllable] long or short. In the same way the first form allows the sequence of two long closed syllables. The second form, however, to prevent clumsiness of speech, shortens one long syllable as in ‏שמתי‎ and ‏ושמתי‎. It is obvious that the pronunciation of ‏פעל‎ and similar forms is contrary to its vocalisation, the second syllable being lengthened in spite of the Pataḥ, whilst the first is read short in spite of the Qāmeṣ. The heightening of the second syllable is due to the tone, but not to make it slightly longer. Words as ‏אמר-לי‎ and ‏עשה-לי‎ (Genesis 20:5; Genesis 21:6) remain therefore in the first form, because the smaller word has the tone. We also find ‏פָעָל‎ with two Qāmeṣ though in the past tense. The cause of this is to be found in the athnaḥ or sōf pāsūq, and we say that this is possible in the second form on account of the pause. We follow this up till we find even ‏פָעָל‎ with two Qāmeṣ and zāqēf. The reason of this we find in a virtual pause, the word being entitled to athnaḥ or sōf pāsūq, but other cogent reasons made athnaḥ and sōf pāsūq in this case impossible. On the other hand we find these two accents with two pataḥs, however strange this may be, e.g. ‏ויאמַר‎, ‏וזקנתי‎, ‏ותשברנה‎, ‏וַיִּלַךָ‎. The reason of pataḥ in ‏ויאמר‎ is found in examining its meaning, as it cannot stand in pause, and is necessarily connected with the following complement of the sentence There are only a few exceptions as ‏כאשר אָמָר‎, (Genesis 21:1), because the verb completes the sentence logically, and can take Qāmeṣ because of the pause. As regards, however, ‏וילך‎ and ‏ותשברנה‎, they should originally be ‏ויֵלֵך‎ and ‏ותשבֵרנה‎; but the transformation of the I-sound with great Pataḥ, without any intermediate element, was too awkward, and therefore Pataḥ stepped in. The form ‏זקנתי‎ belongs probably to the same class, because the root is ‏זָקֵן‎, the Ṣērē being changed into Pataḥ at the end of a sentence. We marvel why the ‏פֶעֶל‎ forms have the accent on the first syllable which is read long, although it has Sēgōl. We must, however, consider that, if the first syllable remained short, Hebrew phonology would require the second syllable to be read long and with accent, and a slight quiescent would creep in between the second and third radicals. This would be inelegant, which is not the case in the first syllable, which must have this quiescent and has also room for it. This lengthening of the penultima corresponds to ‏פֶן עֶל‎, but not to ‏פָן עֱל‎. For when the word has athnaḥ, or sōf pāsūq, it is ‏פָעֶל‎ corresponding to ‏פָאן עֶל‎. This shows the necessity of lengthening the vowel in ‏שַמתי‎ and ‏שָמתי‎. We consider forms like ‏שער‎ and ‏נער‎ likewise strange, because the Pataḥ of the first syllable is read long. We soon discover, however, that they are ‏פֶעֶל‎ forms with Pataḥ on account of the guttural. For this reason they undergo no change in the status constructus, as do ‏נהר‎ and ‏קהל‎ (Genesis 15:18; Exodus 12:6), which are formed like ‏דָבָר‎. Then we find ‏אעשה‎, ‏יעשה‎, ‏אבנה‎ and ‏אקנה‎ with Sēgōl and vowel letters. If we consider the first instance, we find it to be a form ‏אפעל‎, ‏יפעל‎, the second radical not being long, but always forming a closed syllable with Pataḥ. We are now to read ‏אעשֶה‎ instead of Pataḥ, because no A-sound can precede a silent hē, unless it be Qāmeṣ. Qāmeṣ is long, whilst the second radical of a verb can never have a long vowel, except when read with a vowel, or when followed by Alef as in ‏אצֵא‎. It is for this reason that ‏אעשׂה‎ is read with Sēgōl which is the shortest vowel imaginable, but interchanges with Ṣērē when the second form requires to replace the one by the other at the ends of sentences. There is almost no necessity for the hē of ‏אעשה‎ except in the pause or with the accent, and is eased by dāgesh as in ‏אעשה-לך‎ and ‏אבנה-לי‎, (Exodus 33:5), in which cases the hē has no function. This is not the case [with ‏א‎] in ‏אצא‎, ‏אבא‎. In ‏בא-לי‎, there is no dāgesh, the ‏א‎ being preceded by Ṣērē and being a radical. Hē, however, is considered to be so weak that it is both graphically and phonetically omitted in ‏ויבן‎, ‏ויקן‎ and ‏ויעש‎. How could it, then, close a syllable vocalized by Ṣērē? It was, therefore, left to Sēgōl, the slightest vowel, at all events, in the first form. The second form changed it into Sērē, when standing in pause. It appears likewise strange that ‏מראה‎, ‏מעשה‎, ‏מקנה‎ and similar forms have Ṣērē in the construct state, but Sēgōl in the absolute. We should think the reverse to be correct. But if we consider that the third radical, viz. a silent Hē is treated as altogether absent, and those nouns have the forms of ‏מרא‎, ‏מעש‎, ‏מקן‎, nothing but Sēgōl will serve till some circumstances bring it out with a long vowel as in ‏מראֵה‎, ‏מעשֵה‎, ‏מראיהן‎ and ‏מעשיהן‎. Sēgōl becomes Ṣērē to take the place of [small] Pataḥ in ‏מראֵם‎ and ‏מעשׁםֵ‎. Words of the first form can be altered by the second as to the vowels, but not as to the pronunciation. The word ‏בן‎ has Sērē in the absolute state, Sēgōl in the construct. Occasionally the latter is lengthened by the tone as in ‏בן-יאיר‎ (Esther 2:5) with the Sēgōl of the first form In other cases the tone precipitates it, although it has Ṣērē according to the first form, as in ‏בן אחר‎ (Genesis 30:24). In segolate forms with the accent on the last syllable Sērē is no longer perplexing. The author of this profound science held secrets which are unknown to us. We may have discovered some by means of which he intended to stimulate our investigation as we have said above, with regard to ‏העולה היא למעלה‎. Or we might find out the rules of distinguishing between past and future, infinitive and participle of the passive voice, e.g. ‏נאסָף אל עמי‎ (Genesis 44:29), with Qāmeṣ, and כאשר נאסַף‎ (Numbers 27:13) with Pataḥ. The masoretic text vocalizes three times ‏וישהָט‎ (Levitcus 8:15, Levitcus 8:19, Levitcus 8:23), with Qāmeṣ, although syntactically speaking the words stand only virtually in pause. There are many instances that the Sēgōl after Zarqā has the force of Athnaḥ, or sōf pāsūq, or Zākēf, causing an alteration of the first form. If I wished to enlarge an the subject, the book would become too lengthy. I only desired to give thee a taste of this profound study, which is not built on hap-hazard, but on fixed rules.