Pemikiran Yahudi Ulangan 23:18: Akeidat Yitzchak, Eight Chapters & Guide for the Perplexed

Bereshit Rabbah 50 discusses that the decision of the Sodomites to rob and rape every stranger was designed to establish a reputation that would keep strangers away. Their main concern was only their unwillingness to share their wealth. Their chet, criminal act, as distinct from their wickedness ra, namely the raping of strangers, was only incidental, not basic to their character. We can now understand Ezekiel who pronounced that the sin of Sodom was that they would not help the poor or destitute. When Jeremiah proclaims, "The iniquity of my people was greater than the chet of Sodom,” he refers to that failing of the Sodomites that was merely incidental, namely their immorality (Lamentations 4,6). Ezekiel does not bother to mention that sin, since it was not endemic to their character, could have been atoned for. The Talmud Sanhedrin 109 lists numerous examples of the Sodomites' misdeeds, all of which reflect the perverted monetary judgments that were the vogue there. On the evening when the angels arrived, the Sodomites merely behaved in a time honored fashion, not aware that the measure of their guilt had reached a state which called for Divine retribution. The men of Givah however, were quite different. Their laws were perfectly good, they only failed occasionally to live up to the standards of these laws and gave vent to their passions. For that reason, they did not deserve a rain of sulphur and brimstone. The leaders of the city should have punished the perpetrators of the crime. Since they neither interfered nor brought the rapists to justice for publicly committed crimes of the most vulgar kind, it became the duty of the other tribes to discipline the tribe of Benjamin (At this point the author criticizes leaders of his own generation for failing to deal with prostitutes and on occasion even harboring them and providing them with food and shelter, under the pretext that their plying their trade diminished the incidence of adultery). Any relatively insignificant sin, when committed in public and condoned by silent tolerance, becomes a big sin and threatens to assume the dimension of the sins committed by the people of Sodom who had hallowed their practices by enshrining them in law. Concerning the tribes who attacked Benjamin and initially suffered heavy defeats, our sages in Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer 38 tell us that these same tribes had been guilty of allowing the idolatrous image of Michah to flourish, without troubling themselves over G-d’s honor which was constantly being insulted thereby. They therefore had to pay the price when they showed that they considered the honor of the slain concubine and that of her husband as more deserving to be upheld than the honor of G-d. Altogether, before attacking their brother tribe, they should have undertaken to purge themselves of any wrongdoing, in order to be in a position to carry out a punitive expedition with a minimum of casualties. Our sages in Sotah 40 tell us that even when proceeding against pagans the verse, "He who is afraid must withdraw from battle” (Deut 20,8), refers to someone who feels he is guilty of some sin. If one goes to war against fellow Jews, one must most certainly purify oneself from sin before engaging in such an undertaking. Also, it would have been proper to obtain permission from G-d first to wage such a campaign. Even after their initial failure, when the tribes asked G-d if they should continue the war with "my brother Benjamin" (Judges 20,23), their philosophical concern was with the permissibility of engaging in civil war, not with their worthiness to conduct a punitive campaign without being free from guilt themselves. Only after having suffered the second defeat, having lost another eighteen thousand dead and a session of fasting, contrition sacrifice, and prayer, did the tribes receive the assurance of success of their efforts on the third attempt. Having seen how the attitude of "What is mine is mine and what is yours is yours" can reduce people to the level which borders on "What is mine is mine and what is yours is mine also," i.e. an attitude which once brought about the destruction of mankind at the time of the deluge, it is obvious that this must not be an attitude to be adopted. In his dealings with Avimelech, Abraham demonstrated that it is perfectly all right to share one's possessions, and when the need arises to accept help from one's fellow human being.

But to resume. Should those of our co-religionists—and it is of them alone that I speak—who imitate the followers of other religions, maintain that when they torment their bodies, and renounce every joy, that they do so merely to discipline the faculties of their souls by inclining somewhat to the one extreme, as is proper, and in accordance with our own recommendations in this chapter, our answer is that they are in error, as I shall now demonstrate. The Law did not lay down its prohibitions, or enjoin its commandments, except for just this purpose, namely, that by its disciplinary effects we may persistently maintain the proper distance from either extreme. For, the restrictions regarding all the forbidden foods, the prohibitions of illicit intercourse, the fore-warning against prostitution, the duty of performing the legal marriage-rites which, nevertheless, does not permit intercourse at all times, as, for instance, during the period of menstruation, and after child-birth, besides its being otherwise restricted by our sages, and entirely interdicted during the daytime, as we have explained in the Tractate Sanhedrin—all of these God commanded in order that we should keep entirely distant from the extreme of the inordinate indulgence of the passions, and, even departing from the exact medium, should incline somewhat towards self-denial, so that there may be firmly rooted in our souls the disposition for moderation.³⁴Cf. Moreh, III, 35, and H. Deot, III.

It is further ordained that the offerings must all be perfect and in the best condition, in order that no one should slight the offering or treat with contempt that which is offered to God’s name: “Offer it now unto thy governor; will he be pleased with thee?” (Mal. 1:8). This is the reason why no animal could be brought that was not yet seven days old (Lev. 22:26); it is imperfect and contemptible, like an untimely birth. Because of their degraded character it was prohibited to bring “the hire of a harlot and the price of a dog” (Deut. 23:18) into the Sanctuary. In order to bring the offering in the beat condition, we choose the old of the turtle-doves and the young of the pigeons, the old pigeons being less agreeable. The oblation must likewise be mingled with oil, and must be of fine flour (Lev. 2:1), for in this condition it is good and pleasant. Frankincense is prescribed (ibid.) because its fumes are good in places filled with the odour of burnt flesh.