Pemikiran Yahudi Ulangan 22:7: Akeidat Yitzchak, Kuzari, Yesod Mora VeSod HaTorah & Guide for the Perplexed

The Torah demands on repeated occasions that we rid ourselves of negative virtues such as hatred, jealousy and the like. Not only are we commanded "do not hate your brother in your heart," (Leviticus 19,17) but we are even commanded to physically assist our enemies in loading or unloading his donkey, should the occasion demand it. We are asked to lend or to give alms repeatedly to the same people even, and to avoid doing so out of a feeling of distaste for such beggars. All this is designed to refine our character. We must not bear tales, avenge unneighbourly behaviour, and similar commandments. The Torah states as the general purpose of the legislation "so it will be good for you; so you will be well off; so it will be good for us." In other words, those who perform these mitzvot will refine their character by doing so. Not only will one merit external benefits from the performance of such social commandments, i.e. reward, but there will be an additional benefit for us, the improvement of our personality. Whenever the Torah considers a particular commandment of special importance, it repeats the demand to observe such a mitzvah. Sometimes the demand is repeated even more than twice. We are told "do not pervert justice, listen to both sides when sitting in judgment, do not give preferential treatment to either rich or poor, pursue justice with fairness." The greater the negative impact if one should fail to observe certain commandments, the greater the emphasis the Torah places on its observance. In fact, inheritance of the land of Israel is made conditional on the observance of these social statutes. Study of Torah is one of the categories of mitzvot that are the foundation of personal and national well being. This is so, since it not only leads to the development of positive virtues, but also helps us avoid the many pitfalls man is exposed to. For that reason, the mitzvah of Torah study is not like kan tzippor, something to be observed if it happens our way, yet not something that needs to be sought out, but it is a duty incumbent upon each of us at all times, and applies practically within any environment we may find ourselves in. It is immaterial whether a person is highly placed or in very modest circumstances. Joshua (Joshua 1,8) is commanded to have access to a sefer Torah, Torah scroll at all times. Kings are to write it and study it. (Deut. 17,18) History shows that whenever a Jewish king treated Torah as a most precious possession and source of inspiration, so did his people. On the other hand, as soon as the king ignored the Torah, the people were not long in following suit. The result was usually disastrous and not too long in coming. The reason the king is elected as a model for how to treat Torah, is simply that the king's safety is symbolic of the security of the entire nation. When the aging David could not longer actively participate in battle without endangering his life unduly, his generals were most concerned to keep him in a safe place, pointing out that his personal safety was the key to the nation's success in battle, and to the maintenance of morale among the population. (Samuel II chapter 8) The Talmud in Erchin 17, states "each generation according to its leaders." The meaning is that the fate of the generations is in large measure due to the actions of its leaders.

Here too only a few people were guilty in indulging in immoral acts, yet the Torah treats the matter as if there had been a wholesale collapse of morality. However, just as the act of a single individual at the right time and in the right place can redeem a whole nation, so can acts of individuals bring about national misfortune. When David fought Goliath, not for the sake of his own reputation, but to restore glory to the name of G'd, he becomes an "ish chayil," a man of valour. The degree of messirat nefesh, dedication, determines whether the act of an individual can be the catalyst that cancels evil decrees and brings in its wake salvation to a whole nation. (compare Talmud Berachot 20, Taanit 24) Matters in our Parshah that need clarification. 1) The Torah keeps harping on the words "the people." The people started to commit harlotry, the people ate, the people worshipped the Moabite deities. Israel joined itself to Baal Peor. Was all this nationwide? Or are "the people" perhaps only a few individuals? If the former, how could G'ds anger be assuaged by hanging just a few leaders? If the latter, why blame the whole nation? 2) Why did Pinchas "see" something no one else had seen? (25,7) Why did he act without instructions, and if what he did was proper, why had he not been instructed to do it? 3) Why does the Torah in verse thirteen say only that he was jealous on behalf of G'd? He was not only jealous, but he did something about it, he committed an irreversible deed? After all, G'd Himself testifies "he took My revenge." (verse 11) 4) Why does the Torah say "he atoned for Israel?" All he had done was settle the score with one sinner, the others remained sinners. Since when does the execution of one sinner exonerate all the remaining sinners? The answer to all these questions lies in what we have discussed before. The relationship of the individual to the community is the key to the entire matter. When one individual can disturb the equilibrium of the whole community, then another individual can also restore such equilibrium. This is what is meant by the Midrash quoted at the beginning. It does not say "he prayed," but "he did something," a word from the same root but instead of being used in the reflexive, the verb here is used in an active conjugation, almost aggressively, you might say. What Pinchas did, went far beyond what he was obliged to do as a good Jew. The angels who tried to obstruct him, must be understood also. Surely it is not in the nature of angels to hinder people who are trying to do good? We must consider that Pinchas in trying to do what he did, endangered his own life. Supposing that Zimri had desisted from completing his act of copulation with Kosbi before Pinchas had killed him, then halachically, Pinchas could have been guilty of murder. Again, had Zimri chosen to defend himself and Pinchas would have been killed by him in self defence, it would have been considered a legitimate act of self defence, and Pinchas' death would halachically have been considered as self inflicted. Moreover, Pinchas had to consider retributive action by Zimri's relatives. In that case also, his death at the hands of Zimri's relatives would have been laid at his own doorstep and would not have been unlike a suicide. Because of all the reasons cited, the angels considered that they were doing Pinchas a good turn by trying to obstruct him. The angels therefore must be viewed as having acted in Pinchas' own interest. Moses being the beyt din, Court, personified, was not allowed to do what Pinchas could do spontaneously. Perhaps this is the reason that Elijah who had personally killed four hundred priests of the Baal on Mount Carmel, having chosen to act like his predecessor Pinchas rather than like Moses and Aaron, did not reap the reward given to Pinchas. He had to flee for his life, endure extreme discomfort until he asked G'd to let him die. Why did G'd not appear to him at once and instruct him to anoint Chazael, Yehu and Elisha, instead of doing so after Elijah had travelled an exhausting forty days through the desert to Mount Chorev? Why did he not receive G'ds revelation on sacred ground within the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael? G'd made him come to the spot where Moses at the time of the sin of the golden calf had not acted like Elijah, because his position as law giver and law teacher was similar to the position of Elijah in the latter's generation. At least that was the position Elijah had attempted to assume among his people. Elijah's repeated statement to G'd "I have been motivated by jealousy on Your behalf," when G'd had asked him what he was doing at Mount Chorev, only elicited the reply from G'd "go up to the Mountain." There he would learn that the spirit of G'd was not to be found in a variety of excesses of nature, but rather in the kol demamah dakkah, the almost inaudibly soft voice that superseded all the terrifying spectacles of nature run amok. The lesson was that the practice of kanna-ut, jealousy, i.e. making it a way of life, did not represent the spirit of the Torah. Not the spirit that moves man, not the fire, the enthusiasm that burns within him, but the yishuv hada-at, the calm considered approach, will have lastingly beneficial effect. When Elijah, apparently, had failed to absorb the lesson by repeating the statement that all his sincere kanna-ut notwithstanding, he had wound up an outcast at Mount Sinai, persecuted, unappreciated, G'd tells him that his work henceforth would have to be carried on by others, such as Chazael, Yehu, and Elisha. (compare Kings I chapter 19) In spite of all the foregoing, our sages seem to blame Moses for a degree of neglect, when they state that the reason Moses' grave remains unknown is due to his conduct during this episode. (see Bamidbar Rabbah 20) The reason is that Moses had failed to instruct Pinchas and others to proceed against Zimri in a judicial manner, i.e. bringing him to trial. Moses was in the habit of acting on G'ds instructions. When an opportunity occurred when he should have acted without waiting for instructions, and he failed to act independently, then our sages consider this "laziness," and teach us that G'd is so demanding of those close to Him that He punishes them even for so minor a sin of omission. (Baba Kama 50) Had Moses been legally required to initiate proceedings, his sin would indeed have been major, seeing that he had not done so. G'd told the angels, who for the purpose of the Midrash may even be synonymous with the chachamim, the sages-, "let him be"; he is descended from Levi who acted in pure spirit, in defiance of personal danger when he killed the people of Shechem on account of their implication in the rape of his sister Dinah. Furthermore, he is descended from Aaron, who by offering incense, without instruction, turned away My wrath. He has purity of motivation through heredity, and therefore is allowed to do what he has set out to do. G'ds assistance manifested itself in several ways. 1) Coitus, normally an act of short duration, continued until Pinchas had a chance to stab Zimri to death. 2) Neither Zimri nor Kosbi had a chance to cry out to alert those nearby. 3) Helping Pinchas's aim through the walls of the tent where the act was taking place. 4) Lengthening the blade so that it could penetrate both Zimri and Kosbi. (The Midrash lists eight other "assists") The point of these Midrashim is to show that Pinchas merely commenced the laudable deed, i.e. kinneh, was jealous. Heavenly assistance helped him complete the deed without his becoming defiled by contact with a corpse. (As a priest who has killed is halachically forbidden to perform the traditional duties of the priesthood) He himself needed only to express "kinnah" jealousy; the rest of the action could then be ascribed to Heaven. When Midrash Rabbah Numbers 21, tells us that this shalom, peace is especially precious, it is because it represents the true wholeness of the saintly personality. Such people preserve the "Divine image" with which they have been equipped in the perfect manner. (see our comments in chapter 15) Pinchas argued a point of law with G'd, (use of the word pelillim in the judicial sense). Vayefallel, he argued and prevailed. Pinchas' two outstanding accomplishments were 1) kanna-ut, totally dedicated personality. 2) His merit devolved on his people as a whole so that with his deed he was able to atone for their disgrace. Confirmation of this view is found in the nature of his reward. The "peace" that G'd granted him extends not only horizontally, i.e. to people of his own generation, but also vertically, lezaro acharov, to his future seed and generations. For this reason he was to take part in the punitive expedition against Midian. This is why his descendant the prophet Elijah will close the generation gap between fathers and sons and sons and fathers before the advent of the Messiah. (Maleachi chapter 3) In chapter two verses 4-7, the prophet describes the virtues and accomplishments of Pinchas/Eliyahu. The Talmud, Berachot 19, states clearly that whenever a question of chilul hashem, desecration of G'ds name is involved, one does not stand on ceremony, according honour or rank to one's leaders. When the prophet refers to Pinchas first as a Levite and subsequently as a kohen, a priest, the reference is to the upgrading of Pinchas' status subsequent to the affair with Zimri. At the end, the prophet refers to Pinchas as malach hashem tzeva-ot, an angel of the Lord of Hosts. This is a reference to Elijah's ascent to Heaven, there to await the proper time for his return to earth to complete his mission. This is the meaning of the prophet's statement "here I will send you My angel." It is most interesting to note that the law of lo tossifu velo tigre-u, do not add or detract from the laws of the Torah, (Deut 4,2 is coupled with a reference to the events of Baal Peor, our Parshah. From the text it is clear that those who had been guilty only by association had survived. Pinchas succeeded in restoring the unity of the people and the unity between the people, its Torah and its G'd. The fact that we do not find the instruction to hang all the leaders of the people as having been carried out, shows the effect of Pinchas' deed. Maimonides points out that had the hangings indeed taken place, the Torah would have had to confirm this by such statements as "they did so," or something along those lines.

THE RABBI: According to our view a servant of God is not one who detaches himself from the world, lest he be a burden to it, and it to him; or hates life, which is one of God's bounties granted to him, as it is written: 'The number of thy days I will fulfill'; 'Thou shalt live long' (Exodus 23:26). On the contrary, he loves the world and a long life, because it affords him opportunities of deserving the world to come. The more good he does the greater is his claim to the next world. He even reaches the degree of Enoch, concerning whom it is said: 'And Enoch walked with God' (Genesis 5:24); or the degree of Elijah, freed from worldly matters, and to be admitted to the realm of angels. In this case he feels no loneliness in solitude and seclusion, since they form his associates. He is rather ill at ease in a crowd, because he misses the divine presence which enables him to dispense with eating and drinking. Such persons might perhaps be happier in complete solitude; they might even welcome death, because it leads to the step beyond which there is none higher. Philosophers and scholars also love solitude to refine their thoughts, and to reap the fruits of truth from their researches, in order that all remaining doubts be dispelled by truth. They only desire the society of disciples who stimulate their research and retentiveness, just as he who is bent upon making money would only surround himself with persons with whom he could do lucrative business. Such a degree is that of Socrates and those who are like him. There is no one nowadays who feels tempted to strive for such a degree, but when the Divine Presence was still in the Holy Land among the people capable of prophecy, some few persons lived an ascetic life in deserts and associated with people of the same frame of mind. They did not seclude themselves completely, but they endeavoured to find support in the knowledge of the Law and in holy and pure actions which brought them near to that high rank. These were the disciples of prophets. He, however, who in our time, place, and people, 'whilst no open vision exists' (I Samuel 3:1), the desire for study being small, and persons with a natural talent for it absent, would like to retire into ascetic solitude, only courts distress and sickness for soul and body. The misery of sickness is visibly upon him, but one might regard it as the consequence of humility and contrition. He considers himself in prison as it were, and despairs of life from disgust of his prison and pain, but not because he enjoys his seclusion. How could it be otherwise? He has no intercourse with the divine light, and cannot associate himself with it as the prophets. He lacks the necessary learning to be absorbed in it and to enjoy it, as the philosophers did, all the rest of his life. Suppose he is God-fearing, righteous, desires to meet his God in solitude, standing, humbly and contritely, reciting as many prayers and supplications as he possibly can remember, all this affords him satisfaction for a few days as long as it is new. Words frequently repeated by the tongue lose their influence on the soul, and he cannot give to the latter humbleness or submission. Thus he remains night and day, whilst his soul urges him to employ its innate powers in seeing, hearing, speaking, occupation, eating, cohabitation, gain, managing his house, helping the poor, upholding the law with money in case of need. Must he not regret those things to which he has tied his soul, a regret which tends to remove him from the Divine Influence, which he desired to approach?