Pemikiran Yahudi Ulangan 15:11: Akeidat Yitzchak, Duties & Guide for the Perplexed

Although as a rule the parable is used to help the reader or listener understand a difficult subject by means of illustrating concepts familiar to him, there are occasions when the parable is used in reverse. An example of the former usage is the verse "as a father chastises his son, so does the Lord chastise you." (Deut. 8,5.) On the other hand, the line "you will be like G'd, knowing good and evil," (Genesis 3,5) is an example of the use of the parable in reverse. Although we have no concept of the essence of G'd, we do understand the concepts of "good" and "evil;" ergo it helps to define G'd by saying that this knowledge is one of His attributes. Or, as the Talmud Berachot 10, says "just as G'd fills the universe, so does our soul fill our body." The subject "G'd" can be brought closer to our understanding, although the essence of G'd remains a mystery. Drawing conclusions from the known microcosm regarding the nature of G'd, the great unknown, is only possible with the aid of the Torah, G'ds revealed law. Since Greek philosophers have no such terms of reference they cannot draw any valid conclusions. The latter, observing three kinds of life in our world, i.e. plants, animals and humans, and noting that man comprehends all three kinds of life, concluded that man has three souls, one each to enable him to comprehend the various forms of life respectively. They did not realise that a single soul can govern all three aspects of life, (provision of food, motion and intelligent planning) Shimon the Just tells us that since man is heir to such a tripowered soul, one that governs vegetable, animal and human abilities, he must therefore assume a threefold moral obligation corresponding to his endowments. These obligations are the promotion of Torah, Avodah, i.e. service in matters relating to the man/G'd relationship and the performance of kind deeds, i.e. building social relationships with his fellow human beings. This is a suitable introduction to the whole tractate of Avot. When the Talmud says "the kingdom of earth is similar to the kingdom of Heaven," (Berachot 58) the meaning may well be that just as we find in the "upper" world both purely spiritual beings as well as bodies, (galaxies) although the essence of that world is spiritual, abstract, so we find in our "lower" world creatures possessed of spiritual capabilities, although by definition these creatures belong to an essentially physical world. Human beings have been equipped with a soul to aid them in performing their physical functions properly, just as the galaxies have been equipped with bodies to enable them to perform their spiritual functions properly. At the same time, just as there are completely disembodied spirits in the "upper" world, so there are completely lifeless bodies in our "lower" world, such as stones etc. Just as the planets in the galaxies have bodies to help them perform the tasks assigned to them by the Creator, so the animal kingdom has a kind of "soul" to help it perform the task assigned to it by the Creator in the scheme of things in our world. It is however, impossible to classify the soul of man as having been designed to serve his body, else one would have to believe that man's soul perishes at the same time his body dies, seeing it has no longer a function to perform. In that latter event, man would hardly possess an advantage over the animals. Rather, man is to be viewed as the counterpart to the angels, who appear in human form on occasion, i.e. equipped with a body, in order to perform a task that requires them to become visible to man. We refer to such apparitions as have been granted to Hagar, Lot, Gideon, Manoach and others. In all those instances, the bodies were corollaries to the angels' spirits. By the same token, man, or especially Jews, have been given a body to assist their souls to perform their tasks. The task of the Jewish people is to perform a mission on behalf of G'd, and the task of the High Priest is to do the same in an even more intensive and specific manner. The High Priest wears the special garments when he performs service in the holy Temple. These garments are worn only once, and were not passed on even to his successor. They had to be removed immediately upon termination of the respective service performed in the Temple. Angels appeared in one kind of human garb only once, since each angel was entrusted with only one mission at a time. A number of Midrashim elaborate on this parallel between the "upper" world and our own world down here. (Vayikra Rabbah 21) Once we accept this comparison, the statement that the Jewish people are to be a kingdom of priests illustrates the functions we are to perform even better. The function of the Jewish people is to act as messenger/priest for mankind. We are given a special equipment to help us perform this task, i.e. Torah etc. If we abuse this equipment for personal advancement instead of employing it to perform our tasks, we are guilty of treason both vis a vis G'd and vis a vis mankind. Our punishment in such an eventuality will reflect the severity of the crime.

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)

After having dealt with matters which are likely to face a person as soon as he grows up, the Torah continues with matters which do not usually occur until confidence in one's own manhood has been firmly established. We refer to conduct of wars outside one's own boundaries. Since special Divine protection is needed in view of the danger accompanying such an undertaking, the soldiers' conduct must be such as to warrant Divine protection. Therefore, even a person whose impurity is due only to involuntary nocturnal emission of semen, must leave the camp until he has purified himself. Such natural occurrences as bowel movements, must be covered up so as not to defile the camp. A military camp observing such high standards of purity, will surely be able to qualify for G'ds protective cover. It goes without saying that in other matters of licentiousness common amongst gentile soldiers, Jewish soldiers are expected to observe strict self discipline. Since the heavenly food provided by G'd during the forty years they were in the desert, was absorbed by the body totally, there had been no need for these last regulations for the Jewish encampments in the desert during those years. Since the capture of prisoners of war as well as slaves fleeing from their owners are frequently a corollary of warfare, the Torah legislates at this point that slaves who have escaped from gentile masters must not be returned to their former owners. This applies even to a gentile slave who is the property of a Jew residing outside the land of Israel. Since it was the practice of other nations to put prostitutes at the disposal of their soldiers, the Torah forbids such practice even in that context. The prohibition, of course, extends to all situations, since we already know that the moral standards among the Jewish soldiers was such that this injunction would be quite superfluous were it to apply only to them. The term "prostitute" applies even if the woman in question is the exclusive sex partner of one soldier, or civilian male. Since she does not enjoy the benefit of marriage, i.e. no formal responsibilities having been entered into by her male partner, their sexual union is no better than intercourse with a harlot. To underline the negative view taken of harlotry, the Torah emphasizes that the proceeds of such unions are not acceptable as sacrifices in the holy Temple. This is so even if the sacrifice represents fulfilment of a specific vow. Since the conditions of war frequently result in part of the population becoming temporarily or permanently impoverished, it is at such times that borrowing will most likely occur. The Torah therefore warns against charging interest to a fellow Jew. It is irrelevant if such interest payments are in cash or produce, or even labour. Interest of any kind must not be charged or paid on loans between Jews. Similarly, during war, people are apt to make vows to call Heaven's protection down on themselves at such dangerous times. The reason G'd insists on such vows being paid on time- although He surely is not in need of them,- is that even without the express vow, the soldier owes thanks to G'd for having safely survived whatever it was that had motivated him to make that particular vow. Therefore the Torah says "if you cease (or fail) to make a vow,”- while you do not commit a sin,- the only situation when not making such a vow is not a sin, is when you were not too miserly to make such a vow. (23,23) The reason the Torah stipulates the apparently obvious demand to honour one's promises, (23,24) is to ensure that these promises are couched in such language as not to violate various laws about unnecessary oaths etc. Concerning the utterance of such oaths, the Torah uses both the term tishmor, i.e. avoid doing so, and ve-assita, carry out. Do not utter things that are forbidden, carry out undertakings you have vowed. In verse twenty six, which deals with the prohibition of helping oneself to some of the neighbour's ears of corn etc., the Torah must correct the impression that private property is not inviolate. Having made concessions to besieging armies regarding the destruction of trees, even certain fruitbearing trees belonging to civilians, the Torah stresses that even a labourer must not do more than still his immediate hunger from the produce of his employer. Dealing now with the previously discussed "attractive female prisoner of war," the Torah tells us that should the marriage fail at one stage or another, the husband must divorce her in the same manner as he would any wife of Jewish origin. Since a bill of divorce cancels a previous marriage contract, the woman forthwith is forbidden to her former husband in the event that she remarries. The obvious intent of this legislation is to prevent a kind of legalised wife swapping by using the institution of marriage and divorce as a mere legal formality. The Torah describes such a practice as an abomination with potentially the gravest consequences to our tenure in the holy land. In reply to the question by a gentile, why the wife of an apostate Jew requires a bill of divorce, since we could simply consider her a widow seeing her husband has abandoned the religion under the auspices of which he had married her, the answer given was that a Jew cannot change his basic status. Once a Jew, always a Jew, regardless of one's efforts to abandon the religion of one's people. This answer proved unacceptable to the gentile, the more so since we accept gentiles as proselytes, and Jewish law considers such a proselyte like a new born child whose life commenced at the time of his conversion. Also, all contact with his former family is considered as having been severed, i.e. former relatives such as father, brother etc are not recognised in Jewish law. We suggest a different answer, one that may evoke a more responsive chord amongst the gentiles. Union of man and woman contains three elements. 1) The purely biological function, i.e. procreation. 2) A typically human manner of sexual union common to all civilisations, a relationship in which by mutual consent similar relationships with other potential partners are excluded. The patent advantage of this arrangement is in removing doubt about the paternity of children from such unions. 3) Entering into such a marriage under special conditions. In the case of the Jewish religion, ring, document (ketuvah) etc; in the case of Christian marriages, the priest joining the hands of the couple etc. The man who changes his religion does not sever the bonds of his marriage, since the union was based on their common humanity, not on their common Jewishness. The reason we demand a proper document of divorce is that the woman is still Jewish, and anyone wishing to marry her could not do so until she was free to marry under Jewish law. What follows are all situations that are more likely to occur during unsettled times such as during a war. Therefore, dealing with them at this point is appropriate. The prohibition of kidnapping and selling fellow Jews into slavery under pain of the death penalty is restated here, since the same practice if it involves gentile prisoners of war during wartime may be permissible.