호세아 14:3의 유대 사상

Reason is distinct from will in that it strives to imbue any action with purpose and make it failsafe. Aristotele, in chapter six of his book of ethics states that reason does not initiate any action that is not of benefit to its subject. Man's activities can be divided into four categories, a) Foolish actions; B) actions designed to gratify some urge, but devoid of moral purpose. C) Futile actions, actions that are not capable of achieving their purpose. D) Actions motivated by the desire to achieve meaningful constructive results. Maimonides in Moreh Nevuchim, expresses this somewhat differently. There are meaningless actions, (hevel, vain) and meaningful actions. The latter fall into two categories, depending on whether they are motivated by constructive or destructive considerations. The former originate with our reason, the latter with our will and its shortcomings. The actions originating with our reason employ will-power merely for execution of a purpose initiated by our intellect. Freedom of choice, or moral choice, was granted man so that he can use it in combination with his reason. On the other hand, man is to avoid actions that are initiated by will without benefit of reason. Whenever we fail to apply these criteria in planning our actions, we have reason to join the prophet Isaiah when he exclaims "I have toiled in vain, and wasted my strength; yet my judgment is with the Lord, my deeds with G'd." (Isaiah 49,4) The prophet describes his efforts as failures because he has not seen them crowned with success. He knows however, that sooner or later, G'd will cause his efforts to be crowned with success. All G'ds actions are based on reason; this is the meaning of Deut. 32,4, "the Rock, His work is perfect, for all His ways are justice." Historians may argue that even G'ds plans went awry when He commanded animal sacrifices as a means to sublimate existing idolatrous practices. History shows that in time, G'd needed the prophets to rebuke the people for the erroneous concepts they entertained about the meaning of the sacrifices. Eventually, the very sanctuary, the site of the sacrifices, had to be destroyed. According to Maimonides then, G'ds plans had misfired. Also, according to our own view that the sacrificial rites were designed to achieve a closeness with G'd, such a goal has evidently not been achieved. The answer to the problem lies in the fact that G'ds plans are long range and comprehensive on the one hand, and tactical, of limited duration on the other hand. The thought that G'ds long term objectives would fail to be realised is intolerable; on the other hand, short term objectives need not be realised. Even a short term objective need not be considered as having failed, when the lesson it was supposed to have taught is absorbed by a change of our lifestyle. If, say, sacrifices were meant to bring man closer to G'd through his having offered himself vicariously through the animal, then a lifestyle which includes three daily prayer sessions certainly can be said to be evidence that man has come closer to G'd, views Him as the source of all he strives for. Even while the temple had still been standing, sacrifice had been accompanied by prayer. Representatives of all the tribes were always present in Jerusalem to do this. Our sages in Chagigah 21, go so far as to say that had it not been for the ma-amadot, these Israelites who prayed when the sacrifices were being offered, heaven and earth would long since have ceased to exist. The prophet Hoseah exhorts us to employ "words" to achieve what the bulls had been meant to atone for. (Hoseah 14,3) We see therefore, that prayer is a very effective method of getting closer to G'd. Chapter two in Jeremiah makes it clear that the iniquities he talks of include those committed knowingly, purposely. All of these are covered by Hoseah's appeal "take words with you and do pennance." If prayer, coupled with proper remorse, of course, can atone for such sins, something which sacrifices never could, then prayer is a more powerful tool to achieve closeness with G'd. Prayer never ceased to be effective, whereas sacrifices, in order to achieve their purpose had to meet many pre-conditions. Not the least of these pre-conditions was the existence of a sanctuary at a site approved by G'd. In Psalms 51,17-20, David describes the mental state of man necessary in order that he may achieve what cannot be achieved in any other way today, due to the absence of sacrifices. When David says of G'd "for You do not wish a sacrifice," this is to be understood like "when you happen to encounter a bird's nest etc." (Deut 22,6), or "when you build a new house," (Deut 22,8) These situations are not bound to occur. The Torah addresses itself to circumstances that may or may not occur. David too means that if an occasion arises when sacrifice seems called for, but cannot be offered due to the absence of a temple, then G'd will not insist on a sacrifice if the sinner is humble and of contrite heart. Nonetheless, we pray urgently for His return to Zion and the restoration of sacrificial service.

The Yalkut Shimoni on Ezekiel item 358, relates the following: "They asked 'wisdom' what is a suitable punishment for the sinner? 'Wisdom' replied "evil will pursue the sinners." (Proverbs 13,21) When they asked 'prophecy' the same question, 'prophecy' replied "the person who sins will die” (Ezekiel 18,4) When the asked ‘Torah', the answer was “he will bring an offering and obtain forgiveness." When they asked G'd, G'd said “let him repent and confess and he will obtain atonement,” as we know from Hoseah 14,2, "take with you words and return to the Lord” This is also the meaning of the verse in Psalms 25,8, “good and upright is the Lord, therefore He instructs the sinners in the path of life.” It is apparent that the sages wished to explain the four approaches possible to the problem of sin. Human 'wisdom' perceives it as related to the inadequacy of the sinner on the one hand, and the overpowering stature of the One sinned against on the other. Since the sinner is so lacking in worth, once he has sinned, he is perceived as automatically and irreversibly pursued by the evil that his sin has evoked. Rehabilitation is not conceived possible, because of the unbridgeable chasm between puny man and the great Lawgiver and Creator. Therefore, the decree in Samuel I- 2,31-33, envisioning the irreversible punishment that the house of Eli would become victim of. The next point of view, espoused by 'prophecy', incorporates an understanding of the human personality based on revelation, and appreciates that each individual is to be judged on his own merits without setting in motion a chain reaction of punishments involving untold future generations. Thus 'prophecy' sees the death of the sinner himself as the fitting punishment for his inadequacies. Similarly, Solomon says (Kohelet 3,8) "there is one that is alone, without a second one, he has neither son nor brother." It is to this statement that 'prophecy' referred, when it said that the sinner alone would die, neither his son or brother will have to bear the burden of the sin of the sinner. Compare Ezekiel 18,4. The father/son relationship between G'd and His people is stronger than the father/son relationship between biological fathers and their sons, because G'd is our common Father. "You are sons to the Lord your G'd." (Deut 14,1) G'd can restrict punishment to each individual nefesh, personality, not as human wisdom would assume, that all punishment would ipso facto involve also subsequent generations of the sinner. (Chapter 99 will deal in greater detail with the obligations of the subsequent generations to embrace Sinaitic laws.) This then is the answer of 'prophecy', inasmuch as it represents the highest spiritual and intellectual level man is able to attain on his own. However, considering that the study of Torah broadens man's horizon, the additional insight gained by study of Torah produces the answer "let him bring a sacrifice and atone," to our original question. All the Rishonim agree that this recipe for obtaining forgiveness will alert man to the nature and severity of the sin, since when he sees what happens to the animal, he will say to himself "here but for the grace of G'd, go I. "He will thus acquire a deeper reverence for G'd and His commandments. We observe how Cain, when G'd told him "the voice of your brother's blood cries out to Me," and the punishment decreed, (Genesis 4,11-13) became aware of the vastness of sin, until he himself admitted "my sin is too great to bear." Due to the severe nature of the punishment, the true nature of the sin is sometimes revealed to the sinner. Just as the drunkard who enters a bar and gets drunk, does not realise what is wrong with him until he is asked to pay for what he has consumed, so the sinner. Solomon, in Proverbs 23,31, puts it this way: "when he sets his eyes on the cup," i.e. when he drinks only what he can afford, instead of falling victim to the allure of the wine's colour," only then can he walk upright." The reason that the animal sacrifice does not normally atone for intentional sins, is twofold. 1) Not to advertise that people who enjoy good reputations are capable of forgetting their duties to such an extent that they sin deliberately. 2) When a superior being, one that possesses the gift of speech, sins, it can hardly expect that an inarticulate animal or worse, some lifeless object, could serve as compensation, atonement for his sin. Only the sinner himself can properly be sacrificed on the altar through repentance, fasting, confession, suffering and the performance of good deeds, as expressed by Isaiah 58. In that chapter, Isaiah describes the nature of a meaningful fast day. Michah,6,7, offers scathing criticism of those who are content to offer up their firstborn in atonement for their sins, when nothing less than their own lives would really be capable of atoning for them. Only the sinner's complete transformation can achieve atonement. Our sages also said concerning the house of Eli, that not sacrifices but only Torah and good deeds could bring about their rehabilitation. (Rosh Hashanah 18) When the fourth example of the Yalkut quoted earlier has G'd saying "let the sinner repent," that refers to the sinner who has sinned knowingly. Since G'd, in His goodness desires the rehabilitation of the sinner, He shows them the way. The precise nature of teshuvah, repentance is discussed further in chapter 100. The type of sacrifice involving atonement is not too difficult to understand then, whereas a second category including peace offerings, vows, gifts etc. is much more difficult to understand. In fact, they are so difficult to comprehend, that Maimonides in chapter 32 third part of his Moreh, writes that the purpose of these sacrifices is sublimation. We are to dedicate them to G'd rather than to a lesser deity, as had been commonplace among the pagans. According to Maimonides, none of these sacrifices has intrinsic value. Maimonides' attitude on these matters has been severely criticised by many scholars including Nachmanides, as is well known. All the arguments offered by those scholars were not new to Maimonides, of course. Nonetheless we find his commentary inadequate. The same applies to the arguments of Yehudah Halevi in the Kuzari. (I have omitted the author's detailed rebuttal of Maimonides' arguments as well as his rebuttal of Yehudah Halevi's arguments. Ed.) We prefer to think that animal sacrifices, even when not for the purpose of atonement, help man to perfect himself through appreciation of the the why, where, how and what he is instructed to offer. In other words, there is a symbolism in the legislation pertaining to each category of sacrifice. Also the nation as a whole is strengthened by the offerings of the communally paid for sacrifices prescribed in the Torah. Just as the nefesh chayah, "soul" of man is distinct from his "physical life force," so is the food required for the former distinct from the food required by the latter. The former derives its sustenance from matters spiritual, as shown by Moses who went without food or drink for forty days at a time while on Mount Sinai on three separate occasions. Every se-udat mitzvah, a meal occasioned by a mitzvah celebration, contains elements designed to fortify our "soul," feeding the spiritual part of us from the sanctified portions of such a meal. The partaking of food primarily designed for our bodily needs, also strengthens the spiritual part of us if the circumstances and intent causing such food to be consumed are related to the performance of G'ds will. If we eat-for instance- in order to be better able to serve G'd, then our "soul" automatically derives sustenance from such eating. (see Proverbs 23,1-3. Compare also chapter thirty two.) The presence of G'd is assured not because we feed the shechinah, but because through our proper intent and care when offering sacrifices (i.e. feeding our national "soul") we become fit for the shechinah to continue to reside near us. This is the rey-ach nicho-ach lashem, the sweet smelling odour to G'd, that results whenever "My will" is done. (see Sifrey on Parshat Pinchas.) Since the Torah does not state the reasons explicitly, the first of the princes (Numbers 7) was especially complimented on having perceived some of the functions of the sacrifices on his own. (compare Midrash Rabbah Numbers 17 "Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair said etc.")

So, "SHE TOOK FROM THE TREE AND ATE." The Torah describes two considerations as having won out. 1) The external appearance of the tree was made the yardstick of what is good and what is evil. 2) The prospect of immediate pleasure outweighed the fear of the eventual harm. "Their eyes were opened and they were naked." This does not describe their embarrassment, which would not have been objectionable, and would have been the result of their having enjoyed the fruit of that tree. The awareness was a form of knowledge that they needed to maintain their image. In order to do this, expensive trimmings for one's exterior are required. They therefore quickly attempted to cover themselves so that they could prove themselves superior to the animals. (9) The Torah therefore does not state that they did this in order to cover their nakedness. This is also why no mention is made of their feeling ashamed when they heard the voice of G-d, only that they hid themselves out of fear, seeing that they had transgressed G-d’s commandment. Adam said "I heard Your voice and was afraid." To this G-d replied "who told you that you are naked?" (6) Had Adam and Eve eaten only from the trees whose fruit had been permitted, the feeling of shame would have necessitated covering only their private parts, would not have induced in them the feeling that they needed fancy clothing to prove their superior status. Only eating from the tree of knowledge could have accounted for that feeling. (7) Adam (man) added to his sin by blaming his wife, suggesting that because she had given him of the fruit, he had been bound to eat it. That is why G-d blamed him doubly now, saying 1) "Because you listened to your wife;" 2) "Because you ate." When our sages explain Psalms 69,32, "And this will please the Lord better than a bullock tossing its horns and showing its hooves," they say that this refers to the offering brought by Adam. The ox Adam offered had its horns protruding beyond his hooves. Split hooves are a sign of "purity" in an animal, and reconciliation with one's Maker is to be achieved by means of the sacrifice of a "pure animal" (or by words as described in Hoseah 14, who describes the bull as equivalent to lips). When such a reconciliation is attended by the claim that others are responsible for one's shortcomings, one distorts the concept of sacrifice. Adam did this by blaming his sin on his wife. Therefore, the Psalmist describes the signs of purity of his sacrificial bullock as having been obscured by its horns. Originally, the bull had only one horn, a sign of superior strength. It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah that a horned animal is more likely to gore, to cause damage. Therefore, it would have been most fitting symbolically to serve as the sin offering for Adam. Eve fell into the same trap as Adam by blaming the serpent for her sin. The serpent, being the last party involved in the episode, did not need to be asked by G-d. It was cursed by having its former superior height reduced till it became the lowliest creature, condemned to crawling on the ground. Since the serpent had tricked Eve into eating what held allure for the eye, it would henceforth subsist on a diet of things that looked like earth, i.e. held no allure for the eye. The ongoing enmity between man and the snake, with man seeking to smash the head of the snake, is another part of the curse decreed on the latter. Woman was cursed in matters specific to her function. When she fails to become pregnant right after marriage, both parties worry about her being barren. Her pain will be greater than that of man, since even when she bears children she is not certain of her husband's love. There is the discomfort of pregnancy and the pain of giving birth. Despite all this, man dominates her when it comes to marital relations. Since man was created first, and since the survival of the species depends on him (he is commanded to procreate, not she), she who was created later was clearly created for his benefit, and not vice versa. Woman's sex urge is therefore usually weaker than man's. As the Talmud says (Kidushin 2), "It is the way of a man to try and recover what he has lost (i.e. looking for a wife), it is not the way of the lost object (woman) to go looking for its owner." For this reason, man displays less embarrassment in matters relating to sex. Granted that the urge for physical contact is rooted in the animalistic within us, man nevertheless has the redeeming excuse that he needs to reproduce the species. Woman does not share this redeeming aspect of the sex urge. The comparison is similar to what Solomon has stated in Proverbs 6,31-32 when he compares people who steal because of need with people who steal because of greed. The curse upon man was greater, since as a direct product of G-d’s creative activity (He personally had equipped him with the soul of life), his conduct should have been on a far higher plane than even that of his wife. He was cursed in all "directions" of motion corresponding to the status of being a "living creature" par excellence which had been his prior to his sin. The four aspects of motion can be subsumed as defined by the answers to the questions 1) where to? 2) how? 3) how much? 4) motion itself. Scriptural references for the above are "Go for yourself from your country," i.e. "where to;" (Genesis 12,1). "He will keep going and cry" equals the "how"? (Psalms 126,6). "Continuing to grow in intensity," equals the "how much?" (Exodus 19,19). "Here I am going to die," equals the "motion itself," an example of when the very nature of the motion transforms the essence of the one who is in motion (Genesis 25,32). G-d said, "Because you listened to your wife" 1) "The earth is cursed," will not yield its fruit easily. Man is condemned to eat vegetables he has to grow and plant, since he had been too anxious to eat from the fruit of the tree for which he did not have to toil. 2) Only after having "sweated and toiled" will man be able to feed himself from now on. 3) "Until you die," i.e. until your travels take you from above the ground to your grave below. 4) "To dust you will return," you will dissolve into a multiplicity of particles (reference to how much, quantity). Instead of being a single integrated unit, you will disintegrate. 8) Originally, Adam had called Eve “ishah ", emphasizing her parity with man, i.e. ish. After the episode with the tree of knowledge, he called her chavah, emphasizing the female element within her, and the fact that she was the mother of all subsequent human beings. Between these two names, the two functions of woman are defined. On the one hand, as the eyshet chayil, woman of valor, she possesses all the ingredients that can raise her to the status of prophetess; on the other hand her function is to become a mother. A woman who fails to give birth, just like a man who is sterile, has not forfeited her major function in life, as is proven from Isaiah 56,3-5, "Let not the barren proclaim I am but a dried-out tree." We hold the view that man's major function is the performance of good deeds, something quite independent of procreation. If Jacob had been angry at Rachel for demanding children, else her life would not be worth living (Genesis 30,1-2), it was precisely for this reason. When the Talmud in Nedarim 64 states that of the four categories of people who are considered as dead, one is the group that have no children, the reference is only to their perpetuating their name on this earth. When woman conducts herself true to her purpose as helpmate to man, she also retains the name ishah. When, however, she acts as a hindrance, her function is reduced to that of the female part within her, i.e. she remains only chavah, mother. (9) G-d, in His kindness, covered their entire bodies with clothing, fulfilling a wish Adam had expressed already before that. G-d had waited for this request for clothing just as He had waited for the request of a suitable mate.