Chasidut su Osea 3:7
Sha'ar HaEmunah VeYesod HaChasidut
The Case of Hosea
It has been established that man’s choice exists only within the borders of the scope of his perception. Man can choose to serve God within this sphere of personal influence. Therefore Shimshon did indeed sin within the realm of his own perception and understanding. If Shimshon had followed the correct path in not desiring the Philistine woman, then God would certainly have told him in a clear communication to go ahead and marry her. Then it would have been similar to the case of Hoshea (1:2), where God said to him directly, “Go take a whore for a wife.” God further said to Hoshea (3:1), “Go yet, love a woman beloved of her friend and an adulteress….”429The prophet is a barometer of the soul of Israel. Hoshea went after a whore in order to show the people of Israel that they were whoring after idols. In this way Hoshea was obeying God’s command. This does not mean that God actually turned the sin into something permitted, rather God wanted him to sin. Hoshea himself didn’t desire to be in this situation. Because he was not doing the act to fulfill his personal desire, for he only desired to fulfill God’s command, we see that God made the Divine desire clear by commanding Hoshea. It is similar with the thief. The thief’s victim had to suffer a loss at this particular time and by this particular thief. However, if the thief had decided to be good, then either it would have taken a Divine command for him to go ahead and steal, or God would have orchestrated a situation where the money would have come into his possession legally. From the point of view of the victim, the loss was God’s decision, and from the point of view of the thief, the theft was man’s decision to do evil. Thus the thief is a rebel and worthy of punishment. In this way, man’s power of choice is only effective within the scope of his own understanding, and can thus choose to do good or its opposite.
It has been established that man’s choice exists only within the borders of the scope of his perception. Man can choose to serve God within this sphere of personal influence. Therefore Shimshon did indeed sin within the realm of his own perception and understanding. If Shimshon had followed the correct path in not desiring the Philistine woman, then God would certainly have told him in a clear communication to go ahead and marry her. Then it would have been similar to the case of Hoshea (1:2), where God said to him directly, “Go take a whore for a wife.” God further said to Hoshea (3:1), “Go yet, love a woman beloved of her friend and an adulteress….”429The prophet is a barometer of the soul of Israel. Hoshea went after a whore in order to show the people of Israel that they were whoring after idols. In this way Hoshea was obeying God’s command. This does not mean that God actually turned the sin into something permitted, rather God wanted him to sin. Hoshea himself didn’t desire to be in this situation. Because he was not doing the act to fulfill his personal desire, for he only desired to fulfill God’s command, we see that God made the Divine desire clear by commanding Hoshea. It is similar with the thief. The thief’s victim had to suffer a loss at this particular time and by this particular thief. However, if the thief had decided to be good, then either it would have taken a Divine command for him to go ahead and steal, or God would have orchestrated a situation where the money would have come into his possession legally. From the point of view of the victim, the loss was God’s decision, and from the point of view of the thief, the theft was man’s decision to do evil. Thus the thief is a rebel and worthy of punishment. In this way, man’s power of choice is only effective within the scope of his own understanding, and can thus choose to do good or its opposite.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy