Pemikiran Yahudi Mazmur 11:4: Akeidat Yitzchak & Guide for the Perplexed

The objective yardsticks of ethics and morality are the laws given by G-d. When David prayed "Grant, O Lord, to Solomon Your justice, to the king Your righteousness," it is as if David had prayed for Solomon to be granted that objective yardstick of justice which is reserved for the Lord Himself. Proof that this prayer was granted is found in Chronicles I 29,23, "Solomon sat on the throne of G-d as king, replacing his father David.” The first example of Solomon having been granted this Divine yardstick of justice, is the story of the two mothers who accused each other of having switched babies (Kings I Chapter 3). If human yardsticks were to be applied, the mother in possession of the surviving baby should have been awarded custody, since the other mother had no proof to offer. Solomon's initial decision to cut the living baby in half, and divide it between the two claimants, runs counter to Talmudic law, i.e. the example of two people each holding on to part of a garment, since in this case possession had not been shared. Obviously then, Solomon only used this to demonstrate that the ultimate decision was inspired by a superior logic, i.e. G-d’s. The idea of dividing the baby was so abhorrent to Rabbi Yehudah bar lla-i, that he says only a minor could have come up with a decision like that (Solomon at the time had not yet reached his thirteenth birthday). Rabbi Yehudah applied the verse in Kohelet 10,16, "Woe to the country that is ruled by a child." The same people who were aghast at a decision that would have resulted in the death of the surviving baby, hailed Solomon's eventual decision. This reflects the verse in Kohelet 10,17, "Hail to the country whose ruler is truly free." The Midrash stating that the words "she is his mother" were spoken by a Heavenly voice teaches that Solomon's decision was indeed the correct one. Solomon's initial verdict did not even correspond to the Talmudic principle of gud o agud (Baba Batra 13), which stipulates that in cases where physical division of disputed property would result in irreparable loss to either litigant, division of the disputed property is to be arranged in kind. It is clear that suspension of the Divine system of justice would result in perversion of justice, since our yardsticks of comparison would vanish. When only a small section of mankind indulges in false morality, the result, while damaging, might help to restore true morality elsewhere. To the Jew, Abraham's query "Shall the judge of the whole earth not do justice?" (Genesis 18,25) is not a question of "if," but a question of “how.” The fact that G-d’s morality is objectively true morality is axiomatic; our concern is only with attempting to comprehend some of its aspects. The premise is "the Rock, His work is perfect; for all His ways are justice" (Deuteronomy 32,4). Similar statements can be found throughout the Bible. If we become too perturbed when enquiring into apparently unjust occurrences and one forgets this premise, then the danger of heresy is very real, and one can no longer claim to be a searcher for truth, but becomes a doubter of truth. This is the lesson the prophet Chabakuk (2,4) teaches, "The righteous lives by his faith." We proclaim the truth of G-d both by day and by night immediately following the shema yisrael, "hear O Israel," prayer.

When, however, the word “eye” is connected with the verb “to see,” (raah or ḥazah) as in “Open thine eyes, and see” (1 Kings 19:16); “His eyes behold” (Ps. 11:4), the phrase denotes perception of the mind, not that of the senses: for every sensation is a passive state, as is well known to you, and God is active, never passive, as will be explained by me.

Instances of organs of locomotion being applied to the Creator occur as follows:—“My footstool” (Isa. 66:1); “the place of the soles of my feet” (Ezek. 43:7). For examples of organs of touch applied to God, comp. “the hand of the Lord” (Exod. 9:3); “with the finger of God” (ib. 31:18); “the work of thy fingers” (Ps. 8:4), “And thou hast laid thine hand upon me” (ib. 139:5); “The arm of the Lord” (Isa. 53:1); “Thy right hand, O Lord” (Exod. 15:6). In instances like the following, organs of speech are attributed to God: “The mouth of the Lord has spoken” (Isa. 1:20); “And He would open His lips against thee” (Job 11:5); “The voice of the Lord is powerful” (Ps. 29:4); “And his tongue as a devouring fire” (Isa. 30:27). Organs of sensation are attributed to God in instances like the following: “His eyes behold, His eyelids try” (Ps. 11:4); “The eyes of the Lord which run to and fro” (Zech. 4:10); “Bow down thine ear unto me, and hear” (2 Kings 19:16); “You have kindled a fire in my nostril” (Jer. 17:5). Of the inner parts of the human body only the heart is figuratively applied to God, because “heart” is a homonym, and denotes also “intellect”; it is besides the source of animal life. In phrases like “my bowels are troubled for him” (Jer. 31:20); “The sounding of thy bowels” (Isa. 63:15), the term “bowels” is used in the sense of “heart”; for the term “bowels” is used both in a general and in a specific meaning; it denotes specifically “bowels,” but more generally it can be used as the name of any inner organ, including “heart.” The correctness of this argument can be proved by the phrase “And thy law is within my bowels” (Ps. 40:9), which is identical with “And thy law is within my heart.” For that reason the prophet employed in this verse the phrase “my bowels are troubled” (and “the sounding of thy bowels”); the verb hamah is in fact used more frequently in connection with “heart,” than with any other organ; comp. “My heart maketh a noise (homeh) in me” (Jer. 4:19). Similarly, the shoulder is never used as a figure in reference to God, because it is known as a mere instrument of transport, and also comes into close contact with the thing which it carries. With far greater reason the organs of nutrition are never attributed to God: they are at once recognized as signs of imperfection.