Pemikiran Yahudi Mazmur 2:11: Akeidat Yitzchak & Derashot HaRan

The Ramban's approach that, having refused to repent during the first five plagues, Pharaoh was no longer entitled to repentance, is also not considered satisfactory, even though it is based on Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish in Shemot Rabbah 17. The proof for that view, namely the changes in grammar describing Pharaoh's obstinacy during the first five plagues as being self-induced, and that during subsequent plagues as being induced by G-d, (distinctions such as vayechezak versus vayachazek- 7,15, 9,12) would force us to believe that Moses was told in advance that at some stage Pharaoh would no longer be a free agent, that because he only mouthed thoughts of repentance without meaning them, G-d would force him to act in accordance with his true feelings. This is also what Rashi meant in his commentary on Exodus 7,3. The problem with this approach is that if G-d knows that the sinner does not plan to repent, why interfere with his decisions? His actions would automatically expose him to further punitive action by G-d. Surely it would be viewed as a greater success for G-d if His creatures are forced by circumstances to comply with His wishes! If this is indeed what happened after the tenth plague, what reason do we have to assume that Pharaoh's last pronouncement was any more sincere than his earlier ones? In fact, G-d would have delayed the deliverance of the Israelites by having interfered with Pharaoh's free will! For this and other reasons, the author prefers an approach supported by many Midrashim which state clearly that there had been no interference with Pharaoh's free will. Any person guilty of a variety of crimes, deserves a number of penalties to square the account. Even a single act can be a multiple offense, punishable by several penalties, such as the consumption of a hornet (Makkot 16). Pharaoh, having committed a variety of crimes against the Jewish people, had to endure a string of chastisements. Intervals between administering these various punishments were needed, so that he did not escape the impact by being unconscious at the time some of the punishments were inflicted. When each stage of the punishment is not as severe as it could be, namely resulting in probable death, the victim is far less likely to really repent. The major incentive for repentance is fear and terror. When this incentive is absent, the psychological climate for remorse has not been created. When the Torah in Deut 13,12 says, "All of Israel shall listen and be afraid, and will not continue to do such in your midst," the objective is twofold: a) destruction of evil by destroying the perpetrator; b) to frighten the population out of imitating the wrongdoer. Were the wrongdoer to be welcomed as a repentant sinner, all the onlookers would lose all their restraint and proceed to sin and expect to escape the consequences. This is the reason Moses’ss and Aaron's repentance did not help when they had publicly desecrated G-d’s name by striking the rock instead of talking to it (Numbers 20,12). Our sages (Yuma 86) tell us that when a sin includes chilul hashem, public desecration of the holy name of G-d, all the conventional ways of repentance do not help without the addition of the sinner's death. Only in this manner can atonement become complete. In Pharaoh's case, a period of respite between the plagues was mandatory, as otherwise he would not have received all the chastisements due him. The crimes of maltreating a people whose founder had been the savior of Egypt and whose only crime against Egypt had been their high birthrate, is unforgivable. The progressively harsher measures enacted against this people called for strong punitive action by G-d. The "great judgments" of which G-d speaks to Moses at the burning bush are these acts of multiple retribution. The Egyptians had been aware that the Jewish people were loyal to their G-d. Their whole behavior then was a rebellion against G-d, and as such it was not likely to lead to repentance. Since it was G-d’s stated purpose to convince the Egyptians that He was (1) a deity, (2) a power controlling the earth, and (3) a deity the like of which did not exist on the whole earth, the torture visited upon Egypt had to be staggered in such a way as to allow the Egyptians to recover from blow after blow and to absorb their lesson in the end. All the references made in the Torah to G-d hardening the heart of Pharaoh etc. have to be understood as the recovery Pharaoh was allowed to make between the plagues, so he could be made to feel the full impact of the next instalment. The Talmud in Makkot 10 produces proof from all parts of the Bible that the path in life a person wishes to take he is allowed to travel, i.e. freedom of choice is absolute. An example is the prophet Bileam who was first told by G-d not to accompany the messengers of Balak, but who, once it had become clear that he had made up his mind to go with them, was permitted to proceed (Numbers 22,12-20). The reference of Avshalom preferring the advice of Chushai, (Samuel II 17,14) is another such example. The classic example would be the deliberate turnabout by the Jewish people in the desert when facing Baal Tzefon (Exodus 14,1-3). All these examples illustrate that G-d does indeed provide opportunities for sinners to err, to draw false conclusions which will enmesh them in further difficulties. At the sea of reeds also the Egyptians chose to interpret that a twelve hour wind that had dried out the bed of the sea was a natural phenomenon and that the bottom of the sea was as safe for them as it had proved to be for the Israelites. It was in this indirect manner that G-d encouraged the Egyptians to fall into the trap He had set for them.

The story of Creation teaches that belief in fatalism is wrong. Since the Creator was free to create at that time, He will forever remain free to change His world and its laws whenever it pleases Him. (compare chapter 1 and chapter 15) Fear then is predicated on the assumption that what is dreaded need not necessarily happen, or need not necessarily fail to happen, since the ultimate decision is within the province of G'ds will and Power. We are therefore asked by the Torah not to relate to anything from a fatalistic point of view. We are asked to fear Him, just because He is able to either halt or precipitate the very events which we dread. Fear is the opposite of resignation then. If one were to assume that misconduct by man would inevitably result in retribution by G'd, then fear, which is the catalyst of repentance, would be replaced by resignation, and repentance would become almost impossible. (Chagigah 15, telling about the apostate Elisha ben Avuyah is a prime example of this approach). The latter had heard that the gates of repentance would be closed to him, and had therefore lost his incentive to do penitence, and to re-acquire the yir-ah expected of us. In his prayer, during the inauguration ceremonies of the temple, king Solomon used this very argument, lema-an yira-ucha, in order that they may fear You as long as they live on this earth." (Kings I 8.37-40) Concerning this "fear,"- which is identical with faith,- Rabbi Chaninah proclaims that whereas all is within the power of Heaven, imbuing someone with this faith is not within the power of Heaven, but is solely up to the believer himself. For this reason, Abraham was given credit for having believed in the promise that he would sire children. "He believed G'd, and He considered it an act of righteousness on Abraham's part." (Genesis 15,6) This faith could not have been supplied by G'd, but had to be an act of willpower on the part of Abraham himself. He was the first philosopher who found his way to this yir-ah/emunah, as is recorded of him after the akeydah, the binding of Isaac. (Genesis 22,12) "For now I know that you are G'd fearing." After all, this is the goal of all our striving, as Solomon proclaims at the end of his book Kohelet: "In conlusison, after all is said and done, fear the Lord, observe His commandments because this is the sum total of being a human being " There is a third variety of fear that is composed of an intelligent awareness of the fact that if one does not take adequate precautions against known dangers, disastrous consequences may result. This fear, while recognising the dangers of inaction or lack of preparedness, is nevertheless not due to a fatalistic outlook. It is therefore fear, not resignation. The intelligence involved stems from the recognition of a free G'd as the ultimate cause of events, events which He can control, but that man can influence directly. If a king threatens a subject with jail unless said subject carries out certain orders, such conduct is autocratic and deprives the subject of any meaningful choice. If, on the other hand, the king points out that strike action by the subject would result in his losing income, his family going hungry etc., this would not really be called putting the subject under duress. A person doing the right thing under such circumstances falls into the category of "who is clever? he who can foresee the consequences." (Tamid 32) The fear experienced by such individuals is based on an intelligent appraisal of the options open to them in the long run. When Moses realised that his killing of the Egyptian had been witnessed, (Exodus 2,14) he became afraid, not resigned, and took action to escape the consequences. When our sages in Avot 3,21, say "where there is no wisdom, there is no fear, and where there is no fear, there cannot be any wisdom," this is what they had in mind. He who is intellectually unaware of what the future may hold, cannot relate to it with fear. On the other hand, he who is insensitive to what the future may hold, is obviously devoid of wisdom. Fear of the type described, is fear of becoming the architect of one's own misfortune, seeing that the Torah tells us that we will be punished for our sins. Since no one is completely free from sin, no one should be completely free from this fear. Just as an invalid whose doctor prescribes abstention from certain foods to avoid harming his condition, will not consider himself under compulsion, so a Jew whose Torah forbids matters which would endanger his physical and spiritual survival cannot consider himself as observing Torah under duress. In this way we understand Moses' address to the people at the time of matan Torah, the giving of the Torah, (Exodus chapter twenty) when he said "do not be afraid; in order to test you did the Lord come; and in order that the fear of Him shall be upon you so that you will not sin." (verse 17). Although, at first glance these lines seem self contradictory, the fact is that they are exhortations not to relate to G'd with the wrong kind of fear. The result of the revelation was that Israel realised that it was possible to witness the glory of G'd and yet to remain physically alive. We were elevated from the purely instinctive, animalistic dread. Our concepts were raised to a level that afforded us an inkling of His grandeur, not like the beasts around us. This kind of fear fills one with a degree of joy, as David expresses it in Psalm 2,11, "serve the Lord in fear, rejoice even while trembling." With this thought one can also resolve the contradiction in Psalm 76,9 "from the Heavens you have heard judgment, the earth was afraid and calm." How can calmness be a product of fear or vice versa? As long as the earth had not heard that Israel had accepted the Torah, she had been concerned about her own future. Once she heard that Israel had spoken the words "We shall do and we shall listen," the earth became calm, knowing her own future was assured. In other words, joy is the product of the right kind of fear at the right place at the right time. Going back to our opening Midrash, we can appreciate now how the attainment for the kind of fear we have described was truly a minor accomplishment for Moses. The Torah has taught us this concept meanwhile in so many ways, that we can no longer claim that the attainment of such "fear" as Moses achieved without the help of the Torah, is really such an unattainable goal for the Jewish masses who enjoy the benefit of Torah and its teachings.

If the assumption about the emotions represented by the sequence of tekiyah-shevarim -teruah respectively is correct, then the custom of blowing tashrat during malchiot, tashach during zichronot, and tarat during shofarot, makes sense. This in addition to the consideration that it would impose needless diversion of the congregation from concentrating on the prayer itself, and that therefore a minimum of sounds are being blown during the actual amidah prayer. Malchiot, i.e. proclaiming G'ds Majesty, is welcomed by the completely righteous who can afford to react to these sounds with joy and equanimity, i.e. tekiyah. The completely wicked person, on the other hand, shrinks from such an encounter and is represented by the teruah sound of the shofar. The great majority of people who fall somewhere between those two categories, view the coming of a reward for their meritorious deeds with a certain feeling of gladness, while trembling at the thought of the impending retribution for the sins they have committed. We are, after all, enjoined by the Psalmist “serve the Lord with fear, but rejoice while trembling.” (Psalms 2,11) In order to emphasize the worthwhile nature of the mitzvot, tekiyah is blown both at the beginning and at the end of each sequence of blasts, and the tekiyah gedolah, the long final blast underlines the desire to recall those events that reflect our good deeds. The binding of Isaac on the altar was one such event. If we were to blow a teruah gedolah, this would represent the exact opposite feeling on our part, and is therefore completely out of place. The reason for blowing the shevarim, which is considered a median teruah sound, is twofold. Having to rely on citing the good deeds of our ancestors rather than our own, is not so complimentary to ourselves. There is also the fear that setting in motion the process of reminding G'd of the outstanding deeds of our ancestors, He might recall our own misdeeds instead. Shofarot, the last of the three central benedictions of the mussaph amidah, qualifies for blowing the teruah sound, since the objective of that benediction is to bring home to us the frightening aspect of the shofar. The teruah, after all reflects that type of the shofar blast during the amidah. It is significant to realise that G'd Himself uses the shofar as an instrument of proclaiming freedom, and that He blows it Himself, (see opening Sifrey) Therefore, when the proper person blows the shofar, he can turn it into an instrument that confuses Satan and confounds him. The question raised in the Sifrey, "I still do not know who blows it," as well as the answer "it is the Lord G'd who blows it," suggests that the person most qualified to blow the shofar is he who is close to G'd. Just as the High Priest- if not free from sin-, cannot serve successfully in representing the nation, so the baal tokey-a, the shofar blower who is not a G'd fearing individual cannot accomplish by his blowing the shofar what the congregation expects of him, i.e. to rebut our accusers, (see Zohar Leviticus on verse two chapter four)