Pemikiran Yahudi Ulangan 33:7: Akeidat Yitzchak

David's encounter with Goliath stemmed from the purest of motives, i.e. to silence the blasphemer. When we read David's comment in Samuel I 17,26, "what shall be done for the man who shall slay this Philistine?", the word ye-asseh needs to be understood as "what needs to be done for the man who...? " David expresses incredulity that it should be necessary to promise a reward for the person willing to engage Goliath in combat. As David says in Psalms 139,2, "O Lord I hate those who hate You." David was not satisfied to have ousted Goliath according to the terms of combat set by Goliath. (17,9) It seems that having felled Goliath would have sufficed. But David insisted on killing Goliath, even though he did not even have a sword on him. He used Goliath's own sword to kill him with. In a similar manner, David did not wait to be commanded when he wanted to build a temple for G-d, but he volunteered to do so and prepared everything he could for that undertaking. In the end, though the temple was actually built by his son Solomon, it bore David's name also. Psalm 30 is introduced as a hymn on the occasion of dedicating David’s Temple. Even in Kings I, 12, when the ten tribes secede from the dynasty of David, they refer to the Temple as "Your house David." All this despite the fact that none of the building had been commenced in David's lifetime. Midrash Shocher Tov on Psalms 23, relates that when the angels remonstrated with G-d for removing the kingship from Saul and anointing David, G-d explained it to them in the following manner. When Saul, who was about to consult the Urim Vetumim if he should pursue the Philistines, observed the eagerness of the people, he aborted his original intention. (14,20) David, on the other hand, (Samuel II 5,23 ) consulted the Urim Vetumim when set upon by the Philistines. When he was told not to counterattack until he would hear steps in the tops of the trees, he waited. David consulted again, although he had already been given a general O.K. from G-d previously, and had been assured of success, (verse 19) He had already achieved a measure of success, as we read in verse 20. According to the Midrash, the Philistines, unbeknown to David, were in an excellent tactical position, and had David not heeded G-d’s command to wait until the tops of the trees revealed movement, his men would have become victims of the Philistines. It was David's obedience to G-d’s detailed instructions that saved his victory, whereas giving in to popular request for immediate attack would have resulted in disaster. Saul excelled in personal good traits, may be even more than David, but the test of a king lies in his preparedness to submit to Divine guidance and not to rely on human perceptions. This principle applies when Divine guidance is available through consultation of the Urim Vetumim located within the folds of the breastplate of the High Priest. Pity, normally a noble emotion, is misplaced when applied to Agag the king of Amalek. The meaning of a statement by Rabbi Hunna in Yoma 22, "how extremely careful must a person be who has G-d on his side," is applicable here. As Rabbi Hunna continues, "Saul erred once with fateful consequences, whereas David erred twice and no fateful consequences ensued." Saul, whose failing consisted in not accepting G-d’s discipline, was told by G-d through Samuel "I regret having made him king." Yet David, who had erred both in respect of Uriah and the national census, was not deprived of his kingdom. His failing was of a personal nature, it was not a failing in the essential leadership qualities that a king must possess. When Moses blessed the tribe of Yehudah (Deut.33,7) saying "this for Yehudah, the Lord will hearken to the voice of Yehudah," he refers to Yehudah's role as king. Providence will be with him, because he is the people's leader who relies on G-d’s guidance. Of him it is said "that he not depart from the Lord's way, right or left." (Deut 17,11) "By the Lord's command he will go to war or return home." (Numbers 27,17) The king himself determines by his own actions if Providence will be with or against his people. The sin of following one's own reasoning or instincts is a king's cardinal error, not even given to repentance, since it represents a fundamental belief. Saul, though as innocent personally as a one year old baby (Yuma 22) when he ascended the throne, erred in his capacity as king. (Samuel I 13,1) If Rabbi Nachman was troubled and had nightmares for having dared suggest a negative interpretation of this verse,why then was Saul's rule not the beginning of a dynasty? The answer clearly is because he was personally so infallible. From this the Talmud derives the maxim that in order for authority never to become dictatorial, the monarch or whoever is responsible for the affairs of his community, should possess some publicly known demerit. Otherwise, he might become overbearing. As long a he can be reminded of his own shortcomings, his conduct will be more restrained, and he will be more amenable to the common people's problems. In support of our theory we draw attention to the way Samuel describes the relative merits of Saul and David on two separate occasions. When Saul consulted Samuel via the witch of Endor, Samuel says to him "G-d took the kingdom from you and gave it to your companion David." (Samuel I 28,18) At the time of the debacle with Agag however, the same Samuel had said "G-d has torn the kingdom of Israel from you this day, and given it to your companion who is better than you." (Samuel I 15,28) This indicates that David may have been better than Saul in his capacity as king, but that Saul was second to none as a person. Also, David having committed the error of counting the people, repented of his own accord without any ifs and buts. Saul, however, even when he did repent having been urged to do so by Samuel, did so only with reservations. He tried to blame others for his own shortcomings, claiming that he had had to compromise with the wishes of his people. When Samuel states (Samuel I 15,29) that G-d in fact had not reneged, he explains that the expression nacham, changing plans is only applicable when conditions have not changed, but the one in charge changes his stance. When the prevailing conditions had changed however, any adjustments G-d makes to His plans are not in the nature of reneging, (compare chapter 11 re Noach) The subject in verse thirty "for he is not a changeable man" is David, not G-d. It is David who is being described as remaining constant by virtue of his character, and therefore a superior choice as king over Israel.

(1) The seventeen years in Egypt were also part of the years under the special Providence of G-d; although Joseph did provide for his father, he did so as an instrument of G-d’s Providence, as he had said himself, "Not you have sent me here, but G-d." The line, "Who has been my shepherd until this day," refers to G-d’s Providence during those last seventeen years. The word hazeh, this, equals seventeen in numerical value. (2) "Do not bury me in Egypt!" Since we have pointed out earlier that during one's lifetime an ever increasing bond is forged between body and soul, and that this bond is not completely dissolved at death, but takes twelve months until it is completely severed, Jacob did not want the remains of his soul to be connected with Egypt for any part of this period. Compare Shabbat 152, "The soul ascends and descends during the twelve months after the body ceases to function." The importance of the place of burial and how it facilitates the ascent of the acquired spiritual qualities of man, has been discussed in Chapter twenty-two. Jacob did not even want to be interred in Egypt temporarily, being afraid that re-interment would be postponed indefinitely; therefore, he said, "As soon as I die, I want to lie with my fathers; carry me out of Egypt and bury me in my father's grave." By replying, "I will do as you say," Joseph implied that his father's wish was more compelling than any oath. Jacob insisted on an oath however, to enable Joseph to tell Pharaoh that he had sworn an oath, should the latter make any difficulties. The fact that Joseph had to tell Pharaoh, "My father has made me swear an oath" shows that Jacob's fears were well founded. When Jacob recalled the vision he had had at Looz, he tells Joseph that he had learned two things on that occasion. Firstly, that there is a connection between the blessing and residence in the land of Israel. Secondly, that at least part of that blessing applied to him personally, not only to his future issue (vayevarech oti, He blessed me). Therefore, the promise of possession of the land applied only to the future. For this reason, Jacob starts once more "He said to me" as a separate communication from G-d (48,34). Jacob realized that the meaning of the second part of the blessing was that just as his children would remain "alive," so would he remain "alive," which is part of the meaning of our sages' statement that "Jacob did not die." (4) On that occasion, at Bet El, we find that G-d blessed Jacob by saying, "Nation and community of nations will stem from you" (35,9-13). Apparently, this referred to children as yet unborn. Since only Benjamin had not been born yet at that time, Jacob was entitled to apply the second part of that blessing to himself having been promised more children. Joseph's two sons therefore could rightfully be considered as belonging to Jacob. Although they had been born in Egypt, the promise to Jacob had been made while he was in the land of Israel. Future events which dictated that the tribe of Levi would be separated into a separate unit with special functions, thus depriving the encampment of the children of Israel of one of their twelve armies, necessitated that Levi be replaced. Since Jacob allocated a double portion to the firstborn in the inheritance, he thus appointed Menashe and Ephrayim to represent the share of Joseph. Jacob did not discuss future children of Joseph then, but the words "And your offspring," refer to his grandchildren and his great grandchildren. We find the latter being counted as heads of tribal families in Numbers Chapter twenty-six. This shows that Menashe and Ephrayim, though belonging to a later generation, are given the same status as Reuben and Shimon. There cannot, therefore, be a question of non-fulfilment of a promise of future children for Joseph. (5) The fact that Rachel died almost immediately after Jacob had received that blessing, made it clear to him that this blessing could not have referred to his having any more children. The line, "When I came from Padan Aram, Rachel died etc.," is introduced as justification for appointing Menashe and Ephrayim as sons in the forthcoming distribution of the land of Israel. (6) Jacob saw a number of people around his bedside, not recognizing them. The Torah reports that they were Joseph's sons, but Jacob had not realized this until told by Joseph "these are my sons,” the ones born to him in Egypt, prior to Jacob's arrival. He had now brought them so that they could receive the blessing discussed previously. Jacob asked that they come closer so that perhaps he could recognize them despite his failing eyesight. The kissing and embracing substituted for his inability to see, just as in the case of his father Isaac, when Jacob had received the blessing (Genesis Chapter 27). Jacob expressed his satisfaction at having been granted not only reunion with his son Joseph, but at having seen his children also. When Joseph saw his father like this, in a happy frame of mind, he removed the children from his father's knees to position them so that they could receive the blessing in order of their seniority. (7) After Joseph had already heard his father give Ephrayim precedence when he compared his position to that of Reuben, although Ephrayim was the younger, Joseph, thinking his father had erred, placed Ephrayim on his right side. When, despite the way Joseph had positioned the children, Jacob crossed his hands, it became clear that Jacob could not have erred previously when he mentioned Ephrayim ahead of Menashe. The words of the Torah "And he was the younger," in describing Ephrayim, are not to be understood as "although he was the younger," but rather as "because he was the younger." It is clear that G-d did not intend for Jacob's left hand to come to rest on the head of Ephrayim. Jacob was presumably inspired by the order in which G-d had blessed him at Looz "be fruitful and multiply; the "be fruiful" came first. Since the name "Ephrayim" is derived from the same root as the word "fruitful," Jacob took this as his cue. The fact that the right hand represents the more important activities and achievements is well known and already documented in Proverbs 3,16, "Long life from its right, wealth and honor from its left." The word sikel seems the same as we find in connection with Achitofel (Samuel II 15,31), "Please make foolish the advice of Achitofel." It does not seem to matter whether the word is spelled with the letter sin or samech. The Torah tells us that the fact that he crossed his hands indicated that Jacob himself had not known who the firstborn was. He blessed Joseph." Being blessed in the name of G-d is a three-stage process: 1) The wish for successful spiritual development. 2) The wish for the material blessings which enable one to devote oneself to one's spiritual progress. 3) Protection against negative influences that stand in the way of one's achieving one's spiritual objectives. (8) Concerning the first portion of the blessing, Jacob said, "The G-d before whom my fathers have walked." Concerning the second portion of the blessing, he said, "The G-d who has been my shepherd." Concerning the third portion of the blessing, he said, "The angel who has acted as my redeemer etc." The line, "May my name be proclaimed through them in the name of my fathers," is confirmation that Ephrayim and Menashe are going to be treated like the other tribes. (9+10) "My name will attach to them." Joseph's objections were not based on begrudging Ephrayim the blessing; rather, he believed his father had erred in placing his right hand on Ephrayim, and that if so, the blessings might not be fulfilled since they had been given based on a mistaken premise. He felt that just as his father had remained unaware of what the brothers had done to him, so he might be unaware now as to which of the sons standing in front of him was the firstborn. Jacob's answer, stressing twice, "I know, my son, I know," reassures Joseph on both counts, tells him that his father is well aware of what the brothers had done to him. He also tells him that he is aware that Menashe would become a tribe on account of his being the firstborn, however the younger one would achieve even greater status, though not at the expense of the older one. (3) Apparently, Joseph was mollified, and when Jacob said, "With you Israel will bless," this indicates that Joseph joined in that blessing. Jacob's saying to Joseph, "I will give you one Shechem additional to your brothers," refers to the city that had been conquered by Shimon and Levi. When the Almighty gives territory to Israel, no one can claim it as his own, since they have not conquered it. Shechem, however, had not been given, but had been conquered. It, therefore, became the property of the conqueror and his to dispose of as he saw fit, seeing it was not part of the land promised to the children of Israel as a whole, as a gift from G-d. When David mourned Saul, he mourned the fact that it had become necessary to fight against Israel's enemies militarily, i.e. "to teach the sons of Yehudah the use of the bow" (Samuel II 1,18). This need had first manifested itself when Israel had been attacked by Amalek, and Moses had to tell Joshua to go and select fighting men. When at the end of that episode, the victory is described as, "He weakened Amalek by the sword;" the reference is to all conquests based on merely military superiority. Human conquest, by definition, is "weak," as compared to territory that is acquired by the direct intervention of Providence on our behalf.

The eighteen benedictions parallel the Priests' blessings also formally, in that they commence with the word "bless" and end with the word "peace." Since the generosity of G'd is frequently apparent by His granting a double measure of blessings, the three blessings can actually be viewed as six. Our sages accordingly may have divided the eighteen benedictions into three groups of six. In the first group of three, we express our belief in the ability of G'd to answer our requests. Inasmuch as these three benedictions are service with the mind, as we have explained, they are followed by three requests all of which are for the benefit of the mind. "You grant man knowledge," is a request for spiritual assistance to our intellect. "Make us return to Your Torah," is a request to help us overcome our sinful urges. The third request "forgive us our Lord for we have sinned," requests assistance to our "ego" problems which are the root cause of committing sins. All three requests, at any rate, are concerned with the improvement of the state of our mind, and therefore correspond to the "may He bless you and keep you" section of the Priestly blessings. The next six benedictions, while dealing with physical needs, are divided into absolute needs, namely freedom of the body, health and food supply, followed by three requests which if not fulfilled will not jeopardise our survival, but will impede our progress towards our goal in life. Without national redemption, restoration of inspired leadership, and visible punishment of our detractors, our progress towards the golden age can hardly be expected. The benedictions asking that the righteous will be seen to receive their reward, is the other side of the coin of the more recently added nineteenth benediction concerning "the slanderers." When we reach the last six benedictions, we find all of the "may He lift His countenance to you and grant you peace" variety, that we have in the Priestly blessing. The reestablishment of the Kingdom of Heaven, the coming of the Messiah, response to our supplications are the first phase of the eventual granting of the "peace" for which we strive in all its ramifications. Rabbi Shimon, who warns in Avot 2,13, not to make prayer something that is performed by rote, i.e. keva, but rather to make all our prayers entreaties, wants us to utilise the recital of keriyat shema prior to the amidah to attain the mental state necessary to express our prayers meaningfully. In the absence of such mental state, the best we may receive is matnat chinam, an undeserved gift, but not the proper response to our prayers.