Pemikiran Yahudi Yehezkiel 1:1: Akeidat Yitzchak & Guide for the Perplexed

One of the wonders and axioms of nature is the fact that all things created earlier are inferior to those created later. Nature proceeds from the primitive towards the sophisticated. Man being the last in a string of creations is therefore the most perfect and the most sophisticated (Bereshit Rabbah 19). Rabbi Yehudah son of Rabbi Simon states that all things created subsequent to something else enjoy dominion over those things created prior to them. Man is therefore the most dominant creature, none daring to raise their heads against him. We do not observe fully-grown camels attack lion cubs or baby tigers, since in the order of things the species created earlier is instinctively aware of its inferior status vis a vis the products of a later stage of creation (Psalms 104,2). "How great are Your works, O Lord." The Talmud Shabbat 121 asks, "Why is it that a live baby does not need to be guarded against mice? The answer is that nature operates in such a way that even helpless, unarmed man is superior to the animals.” "The fear and dread of you will be on all living creatures of the earth." (Genesis 9,2). Natural laws apply on the assumption and with the proviso that man-- supreme creature that he is-- lives up to his purpose and abilities. Natural laws are suspended on the occasion when a miracle is performed. This can be due to part of mankind having lost "the image of G-d in which he was created," or to all of mankind having forfeited this image due to their collective sinful conduct. The miracle is in fact based on the covenant made by G-d with His entire creation that when the occasion arises, its subservience to the will of the Creator will be demonstrated by its deviating from its normal behavior. Generally, the "normal" behavior is proof that nature is not a deity, but that its conduct is controlled, not free. This "normality" is reversed on occasion in order to demonstrate the same point by nature's inverted behavior. The fact that nature, after having once "run wild," returns to its usual pattern is proof that the very deviation was due to the will of G-d. Example is Exodus 14,27, "The sea returned to its normal state at the turn of morning." There are numerous other examples of this. When nature acts totally out of character on a prolonged regular basis, that fact reflects on the state of man. When the animal kingdom has observed man acting animalistically, it ceases to show obeisance to man, and the rules we read in this Parshah concerning the natural awe that animals display for humans no longer apply. The same is true of such phenomena as wind, fire, and water, all of which demonstrate their destructive potential against man under such circumstances. Had man lived up to his destiny, those elements would not represent any danger to us, and harnessing their useful potential would not be a struggle, but they would willingly put all their power at our disposal. A king whose closest advisors act rebelliously cannot expect loyalty and obedience from the populace at large. Similarly, disobedience by man against G-d leads to corruption in other sections of the universe, right down to the basic elements. When Hillel said, "When I am present, everyone is present" (Sukkah 53), what he meant was, "When man is O.K.,every thing is O.K.," i.e. all other creatures and parts of the universe behave predictably and beneficially. When the leaders of the people behave in exemplary fashion, the population at large is apt to emulate such behavior. The reverse is true also. This is why the Talmud in Shabbat 151 interprets Psalms 49,13, "But man with all his honor will not outlast the night," to mean that under the adverse conditions man has created himself, he will not be better off than the beasts. When stating that lions do not attack humans when there are at least two humans-- and the observation is made that we know from experience that this simply is not so-- the Talmud answers that this only proves that the men who have been attacked by the lions lacked the qualities that make up the kind of person who is entitled to enjoy mastery over the beasts. The tribes of Reuben and Gad exhorted Joshua to "be strong and brave." The first time they refer to the self confidence he needs to display as a leader. The second time they refer to the mastery over inner temptations he must acquire in order to command the unswerving loyalty and obedience of the people (compare Joshua chapter 1). While he had been in the ark providing for all the animals, Noach-was protected, although the animals had previously been corrupted through the perversion of mankind. When Isaiah describes his vision of the lion eating straw, this refers to the restoration of a state of nature as had occurred after the deluge in Parshat Noach (Isaiah 11,7). When the lions fail to attack Daniel in the den, this is merely a demonstration of the natural order of things, the lions having become sensitive to the type of man who faced them (Daniel chapter 6). Daniel describes the impotence of the lion against him as being a result of his upright behaviour towards G-d and his loyal conduct vis a vis the king. Not having eaten any treyfah food or drunk prohibited wine intended for pagan libations was part of the control over the evil urge that Daniel had exercised. This had imprinted on his face the aura of being a moral man, something animals can sense. The same idea is true concerning other elements of nature that can hurt or even destroy man. Such destruction, if and when it occurs, is due only to man's corruption and nature's subsequent insensitivity to man. Chananyah and his companions were unharmed by the fire in the furnace Nebuchadnezzar had thrown them into, because they, like Daniel, represented man as envisaged by G-d. They had therefore been able to hold nature in check. The discussion cited in Pessachim 118 between the angel in charge of hail and Gabriel illustrates our point. The angel in charge of hail had volunteered to quench the fire in the furnace. Gabriel replied that this would not be meaningful since water, the natural enemy of fire, would simply have been viewed as having had the upper hand over the fire in the furnace. However, the angel Gabriel being the angel in charge of fire, would descend and, while heating the furnace from the outside, cool the inside, and thus save the three men. This would be a far more convincing miracle. When Abraham had been thrown into Nimrod's furnace, G-d handled his salvation personally, drawing a parallel between His own uniqueness and the unique personality of Abraham the monotheist. Abraham deserved to be saved by the One and Only One whom he served directly. The reverse can be true also. The wild ass that bit Rabbi Chaninah died of its bite, since it had attacked a man who had been free from sin (Berachot 33). As the latter proclaimed, "Death is not caused by the snake but by sin." Kings I Chapter 20, tells of an incident when someone not normally afraid of lions due to his superior moral level was nonetheless killed by a lion as a penalty for having disregarded the order of a prophet.

When we examine the promise of the prophet Nathan to David concerning the future of his son Solomon, we find that G-d had almost precluded Himself from severing His covenant with Solomon even if the latter should be steeped in sin. (Samuel II 7, 12-17) We read there something that sounds like Solomon had been given carte blanche by G-d, come what may. Similarly, we see Eytan Haezrachi describe the absolute assurances G-d gave to David and his descendants. (Psalms 89,21-38) How does all this square with the statement "G-d is not mortal man that He deceives?" (Numbers 23, 19) Reading verses 39,53, in Psalms 89, certainly poses a difficult problem concerning the absolute nature of assurances from G-d. We also find Solomon being warned repeatedly that his kingdom would not endure if he failed to live up to G-d’s expectations of him. (Kings I chapter 9) Even though the tabernacle, i.e. temporary collapsible structure did endure long, -due to the sin of the spies-, G-d expressed His plan for residence on earth by giving all the instructions for such a residence. In G-d’s own good time, an enduring structure will be built, such as is envisaged in the concluding chapters of the book of Ezekiel. That however, will be when the Jewish people will have become so refined in character through having been persecuted in exile, that success can be ensured and the Divine Presence would not again be forced to withdraw. The entire book of Ezekiel can be viewed as concentrating on this subject, seeing that it commences with a vision of ma-asseh merkavah, i.e. G-d’s residence in the heavens, and concludes with visions of G-d’s residence on earth. The intervening chapters only provide the rationale why a permanent residence for G-d on earth had not been possible, due to the errant ways of G-d’s chosen people. Only after "and I shall sprinkle on you cleansing waters...and give you a new heart," (chapter 36) have the conditions been met that must precede the establishment of a permanent home for G-d on this earth. Interestingly, when Ezekiel mentions the date of his first vision, he begins with the exile of the Divine Presence,- when Jewish exile began-, only to mention the date of the day of Atonement, when forgiveness is granted as the last day in all his recorded visions. If G-d did not command building of a temple when Israel entered the holy land, it was because Israel did not remove all the vestiges of idol worship and idol worshippers from that land. They left in place many people and many objects that would cause them to sin at a later date. Even though David, of his own accord, proposed to establish such a temple, G-d asked "how could you do so unless I had commanded you?" As to the promise that his son would be chosen to do so, the son referred to, is not Solomon, but the Messiah. G-d emphasized that He never requested from Moses a permanent residence, neither does He request it at that time. (Samuel II 7,7) However, "your son" meaning the Messiah, "he will build it." David prepared blueprints etc., but he did not realise that it was not Solomon who had been meant by the words of the prophet Nathan, but that the descendant who would build the permanent house would do so many years after David's departure from this earth. Chronicles I chapter 17, confirms this interpretation. Verse 14 reads "I will make him stand in My house and My kingdom forever," a phrase that can certainly not be applied to Solomon. This is all in line with the prophecy in Isaiah chapter eleven, describing the nature of the Messiah. This is the person referred to already in David's time (Samuel II 7, 14) "I will be his father" etc. The kind of sins committed in those distant days will indeed be subject to forgiveness because the people will respond positively to teachings and rebukes. As the prophet Zecharyah (12,8) says "anyone that stumbles in those days will be equal to David; the house of David will be G-d like, like an angel before the Lord." G-d will not abandon them as He has not abandoned David himself." Nathan's prophecy to David referred in large measure to this distant future. Whether Nathan himself was fully aware of this, does not matter. When David refers to G-d’s promise for the distant future in gratitude, (Samuel II 7, 19) we notice that he was not unaware of the meaning of Nathan's message. David also understood that the very nature of man made it necessary for this process of refinement to extend over millenia. Chronicles I 17, 17, states "You have seen me and chosen me like the row (group) of men of the elite, Lord G-d." As the Talmud (Baba Metzia 114) says "man, i.e Israel will qualify for the term ADAM after going through long periods of trials and afflictions etc. before realising that the object of our hopes is the glory of G-d manifested by what He builds, not the glory of man manifested by what man has erected.

IT is necessary to notice that the plural marot elohim, “visions of God,” is here used, and not the singular mareh, “vision,” for there were several things, of different kinds, that were perceived by the prophet. The following three things were perceived by him: the Ofannim, the Ḥayyot, and the man above the Ḥayyot. The description of each of these visions is introduced by the word va-ereh, “and I beheld?” For the account of the Ḥayyot, begins, “And I looked (va-ereh), and behold a whirlwind,” etc. (Ezek. 1:4). The account of the Ofannim begins: “Now as I beheld (va-ereh) the Ḥayyot, behold one ofan upon the earth” (ver. 15). The vision of that which is above the Ḥayyot in order and rank begins: “And I saw (va-ereh) as the colour of the amber, etc., from the appearance of his loins even upward” (ver. 27). The word va-ereh, “and I beheld,” only occurs these three times in the description of the Mercabah. The doctors of the Mishnah have already explained this fact, and my attention was called to it by their remarks. For they said that only the two first visions, namely, that of the Ḥayyot and the Ofannim, might be interpreted to others; but of the third vision, viz., that of the ḥashmal and all that is connected with it, only the heads of the sections may be taught. Rabbi [Jehudah], the Holy, is of opinion that all the three visions are called ma‘aseh mercabah, and nothing but the heads of the sections could be communicated to others. The exact words of the discussion are as follows:—Where does maaseh mercabhah end? Rabbi says, with the last va-ereh; Rabbi Yiẓḥak says it ends at the word ḥashmal (ver. 27). The portion from va-ereh to ḥashmal may be fully, taught; of that which follows, only the heads of the sections; according to some it is the passage from va-ereh to ḥashmal, of which the heads of the sections may be taught, but that which follows may only be studied by those who possess the capacity, whilst those that cannot study it by themselves must leave it.—It is clear from the words of our Sages that different visions are described, as may also be inferred from the repetition of the word va-ereh, and that these visions are different from each other in degree: the last and highest of them is the vision commencing, “And I saw as the colour of ḥashmal”: that is to say, the divided figure of the man, described as “the appearance of fire, etc., from the appearance of his loins even upward, and from the appearance of his loins even downward,” etc. There is a difference of opinion among our Sages whether it is permitted to give by way of hints an exposition of any part of this third vision, or whether it is prohibited even to teach of it the heads of the sections, so that only the wise can arrive at understanding it by their own studies. You will also notice a difference of opinion among our Sages in reference to the two first visions, viz., that of the Ḥayyot and that of the Ofannim whether these may be taught explicitly or only by way of hints, dark sayings, and heads of sections.