Musar su Osea 4:76

Now it is known, that the upper "arousal" is dependent on the lower. Therefore, if the trait of peace is found in Israel, and there are no slanderers among them below, then in the upper world, too, Satan cannot prosecute them — even for the severest sin of all, idol worship, G-d forbid, as stated in Midrash Shir Hashirim, that even (G-d forbid) if Israel is idolatrous, but there is peace among them, the Holy One Blessed be He says, as it were: "Satan will not touch them," as it is written (Hoshea 4:17): "Ephraim is bound to idols — let him be!" The intent here is that the Holy One Blessed be He has implanted it in Satan that in such an instance [i.e., when Israel are at peace among themselves], Satan cannot touch them at all. And thus have Chazal said (Yerushalmi Peah 5:1), that the generation of Achav, even though they were idolators, would go down to war and win, because there was no slander among them. The proof — they did not slander [(to Achav)] Ovadiah, who sustained the one hundred prophets [who were hiding from Achav]. And, as I have written below, (Chapter IV), "measure for measure" is a [guiding] principle in all affairs. Therefore, if one suppresses himself and muzzles his mouth against speaking demeaningly against his friend and arousing strife against him, so, above, the Prosecutor, above, will not be able to open his mouth to speak accusingly. As opposed to a situation where there is slander in Israel below. For aside from the slanderer's arousing prosecution against himself because of his sins (as we shall explain below in the name of Chazal), he arouses the power of prosecution against Israel in general. For through this, Satan comes and prosecutes Israel for their sins, and calls for din against them; and [the L-rd], as it were, is "compelled" to punish them for this. And who caused all this? The speaker of lashon hara below.

And contemplate this well to understand the principle of this matter: Behold we mentioned earlier that it is permissible to speak in disgrace of the sinner about the theft that is in his hands, if it is known that he has not left his path. For example, the robber and the extortionist, the damager and the harasser, the one who whitens the face [of another], the one who makes [others] fowl and shameful and the one who speaks evil speech - [if] he has not returned the theft, or payed for his damage or requested from his fellow to remove his iniquity (to forgive him). However those that see their ways must surely first speak to the sinner - perhaps they will be able to help by way of a reprimand to have him repent from his evil way. And if he surely refuses, they may then inform the public about his ways and deeds.
However a person can be blamed from the deed of his fellow that was wanton against his fellow, when he recounts his deeds to people and reveals the obligations of the sinner and disgraces his acts with various claims: Behold, the recounter will be suspected about this and they will think him one engaged in evil speech. And they will surely say, “Even if the thing was true, it would have been fitting to reveal it to the ear of the sinner as a reprimand first.” And his listeners will suspect him about his not giving him a reprimand first, saying that he would not have said all of this in front of [the sinner] and he is flattering him - like the matter that is stated (Hosea 4:4), “Let no man rebuke, let no man protest!” And [they will further say that] he enjoys speaking about the guilt of the people, the iniquity of which brings him joy and the disgrace of which brings him honor when it is not front of them; and he is similar to someone involved in evil speech and is clinging to its dust. And people will also say, “The things are not true and he made them up from his heart. And, however if not, why did he not reveal his iniquity in front of him first, but rather ignore him?” Hence our Rabbis said (Arakhin 15b), “Any statement that is said in the presence of its master (i.e., the subject of the statement) is not in the way of evil speech. It means to say that if he previously gave an open reprimand to his fellow about his deed, and [the latter] did not pay attention to his words - he may afterwards inform people of that man’s guilt and the evil of his conduct. And he will not be suspected of wanting to give his fellow a defect. And likewise if the teller is assumed by the public not to seek the favor of any man and not to bend to a man; and everything he would say not in front of his fellow, he would [also] say in front of him and not be frightened by any man; and he also be assumed among his people to only speak the truth - he is not to be suspected when he speaks about the guilt of his fellow not in front of him. And so did they mention in their words, may their memory be blessed, about this matter and say, “Rabbi Yose says, ‘From [all of] my days, I have never said a word and turned around behind me.’” He meant to say, “I have never said something about a person not in front of him, but suppressed it when I was in front of him.” They also said, “Anything that is said in front of three is not in the way of evil speech.” It means to say - since there were many [people] with him at the time that he told the thing, hence the thing will be known to his fellow. And behold it is as if he said the words in front of him.

And [(by neglecting Torah study)] he especially injures himself, as Chazal have said: "Whoever forgets one item of his learning brings bout exile to his sons, as it is written (Hoshea 4:6): 'And you have forgotten the Torah of your G-d — I, too, will forget your sons.'"

There is also another Midrash which describes the heifer as symbolizing Israel, comparing Israel to a stubborn, defiant cow. Again, also the word אדומה is interpreted by that Midrash as referring to Israel who are redder than pearls. תמימה refers to Israel who are compared to יונתי תמתי, "My perfect turtle dove," in Song of Songs 6,9. The words אשר אין בה מום, "which is totally unblemished," are also a reference to Israel, since the verse quoted above describes that turtle dove. In this way the words אשר לא עלה עליה עול, "which has never accepted a yoke," are a reference to Israel during the period of Jeremiah, when Israel refused to accept the Yoke of Heaven. This Midrash is almost the reverse of the Yalkut! Besides, why does the Midrash continually repeat the words "this refers to Israel?"

Once we follow this approach the verses in Deuteronomy which appeared strange, begin to make sense. Moses first said: "See I have given you חקים and משפטים, i.e. statutes devoid of rationale as well as laws that commend themselves to your reason." Immediately afterwards The Torah quotes the Gentiles as basing their assessment of the Jewish people as a wise and intelligent people on the fact that we perform all these commandments faithfully (compare Deut. 4,5/6). Their argument is that surely just as there are good reasons for the משפטים which have been revealed, there must be equally good reasons for the חקים which He has not seen fit to reveal. These חקים emanate in the domain רשימו. The meaning of the word רק in the verse רק עם חכם ונבון הגוי הגדול הזה, "this nation is a great and intelligent people," then is ריק, empty, i.e. "these commandments cannot be empty, devoid of intellectual content." As long as the people of Israel hold on to Torah and perform its commandments it is complimented by the nations of the world. This is what the Midrash alluded to when it said cryptically, פרה=ישראל, אדומה=ישראל, תמימה=ישראל, אשר לא עלה עליה עול=ישראל. This means that Israel is superior to the nations of the world in four respects, hence the grudging respect of Satan and the rest of the world. If we fail to demonstrate our superiority by heeding those four areas from which Torah values are transmitted to us, we would – G–d forbid! – become victims of the four kingdoms that rule over us in the four exiles. The degree of mystery surrounding these four examples of Torah legislation that Satan and the nations had quoted, varies. The red heifer legislation is the most mystifying, since its true reason is available only to those who have access to the domain of רשימו. The scapegoat on the Day of Atonement is a little less mystifying, as explained in the Zohar, in its commentary on the words איש עתי, Leviticus 16,21. The true reason for that legislation is reserved for those who have access to the domain of חקיקה. The domain חציבה holds the mystery of the levirate marriage legislation, whereas the domain of עשיה contains the answer to the mystery of the כלאים legislation. We have shown why this Parshah in pointing to the mystical domain of רשימו is really the root of all Torah legislation.

The mystical undercurrent of the whole legislation is continued by the Torah in the next paragraph which commences with: "If a man has two wives, etc.” The two "wives" in question are none other than Lilith and Machalat. The "wife" who is described as the אהובה, the beloved one, is none other than Machalat, who captures the imagination of many people who observe her because of her joyful attitude to the transient life on this planet. The other wife, the one the Torah describes as שנואה, the hated one, is Lilith. The firstborn son the Torah speaks of in 21,15, is an allusion to בני בכורי ישראל, Israel. Israel is to always prevail over the hated "wife," even during times when the war against half of the evil urge she represents is waged outside the Holy Land. If we do not properly observe the commandment לא תחיה כל נשמה "Do not allow any of your enemies to survive," then Israel the first born son may turn out to become a בן סורר ומורה, (21,18). Raising a son who turns out to be wayward and defiant is the result of our not having waged the war against the evil urge with all our might. The Zohar describes this passage in approximately the following way: Upon being given this passage of the Torah Moses asked G–d how a Jewish father and mother could be expected to take their own son to the Supreme Court in order to have him executed? This whole passage should be deleted from the Torah! G–d explained to him that it was included to enable us to receive a reward for studying it, though it would always remain in the realm of hypothesis only. At that time G–d called upon יופיאל, the "prince" of Torah, who asked Moses to allow him to explain the meaning of the passage. He explained that the word איש at the beginning of the verse כי יהיה לאיש refers to G–d Himself who is known to us as איש מלחמה from Exodus 15,3. The word בן in our verse refers to the people of Israel, G–d's firstborn son. The words סורר ומורה are an allusion to Hoseah 4,16: כי כפרה סוררה סרר ישראל, "Israel has balked like a stubborn cow." The words: איננו שומע בקול אביו ובקול אמו, refer to G–d the father and כנסת ישראל, the mother, respectively. Such concepts are alluded to by Solomon in Proverbs 1,8: אל תטוש תורת אמך, "Do not abandon the teachings of your mother." The words ויסרו אותו, "they disciplined him," are reminiscent of Kings II 17,13: "G–d warned Israel and Yehudah through all His prophets and seers: 'Turn back from your wicked ways, etc.'" The words: ולא ישמע אליהם are parallel to the words ולא שמעו אליהם in Kings II 17,13. The Torah continues in 21,19: ותפשו בו אביו ואמו והוציאו אותו אל זקני עירו ואל שער מקומו, "His father and mother will seize him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the public place of his community, etc." We must ask ourselves: Why did the Torah not write "their city" instead of "his city?" Why did the Torah not write מקומם, "their community" instead of מקומו? The subjects of עירו and מקומו are the city of G–d and the place of the כנסת ישראל respectively. The Torah alludes to the highest Tribunal in the Celestial Regions whence supervision of man's activities on earth is exercised. The Torah adds the apparently superfluous words בנינו זה "this son of ours" to emphasize that he is not a Canaanite. Suddenly the parents (i.e. the Torah) add a new accusation: זולל וסובא, "he is a glutton and a drunkard" to explain the background to the excesses of such a wayward son, i.e. the presence of Canaanites in Israel's midst from whom the Jewish lad picked up these bad habits and became a delinquent. Psalm 106,35 refers to the results of such social mingling between the Jews and the Canaanites: "They mingled with the nations (Canaanite) and learned their ways." The Torah itself testifies about the Israelites in Numbers 25,2: "The people ate and bowed down to their deities." The eating and drinking with the Canaanites eventually led to these people making obeisances to the deities of their Canaanite (actually Moabite) hosts. It is therefore fair to attribute the cause for turning into a בן סורר ומורה to someone associating socially with the Canaanites. The Torah continues in 21,21: "The men of his city shall thereupon stone him to death." The "men of his city" referred to are the forces G–d has appointed as agents to carry out sentence on people who have been found guilty. The reference to stones are the אבני קלעים with which we are familiar from Uzziah's army in Chronicles II 26,14.