Pensamento Judaico sobre Êxodo 33:20

Lack of motivation results ultimately in inertia. When David illegally ordered the Jewish people counted, and Yoav could see no reason for it, he carried carelessly, failing to count the tribes of Levi and Benjamin (Samuel II 24 and Chronicles 121). Even the tribes he did count, were not reliably tabulated. Had the people known that the war by Saul against Amalek did not have plunder as its objective but had been waged purely at the command of G-d, the tragedy of Saul would have been averted (Samuel I chapter 15). If we observe the larger planets move very slowly, this may be because they are not aware of their destination and ultimate objective. Philosophers are agreed that the greater one's intelligence, the better one appreciates the distance between one's own intelligence and that of one's Creator. The less intelligent deem themselves close to G-d, whereas the most intelligent beings realize the tremendous gulf between their own intelligence and that of G-d. This is why when angels praise the Lord, they are said to refer to Him in the third person, i.e. "blessed be the glory of His Majesty," whereas we humans address G-d in the second person, i.e. "blessed are You." The ultimate objective of our knowledge is to know the limit imposed upon our knowledge and understanding. Moses was told (Exodus 33,20) "You cannot see My face." If one presupposes that heavenly bodies are equipped with intelligence, then the large ones—which are presumably equipped with the highest intelligence because of their awareness of the limits of their intellects—lose motivation and revolve slowly. On the other hand, those stars and lesser intellects which are under the illusion that theirs is a great mind keep racing around the universe in order to achieve what they believe to be their purpose.

In fact, since according to our sages, Moses had been handed the keys to all G'ds treasure chambers, he is criticized when he resorts merely to prayer instead of action, deed. At the sea, when threatened by the Egyptians who were close on his heels, G'd says to him "why are you crying out to Me, tell the Jewish people to get going!" (Exodus 14,15) Not for nothing did G'd say to him "see I have made you Lord over Pharaoh." (Exodus 7,1) Moses was like a deity who would employ Aaron as his prophet to impose his will upon Pharaoh. The contrast with Bileam is striking. The latter, by his own admission, had no idea when G'd would respond to his requests, and was certainly quite powerless to act on his own and display supernatural powers. Every utterance made by Bileam in his capacity as seer, needed approval by G'd. He did not even have latitude to depart from his prepared text. (Numbers 22,38) His utter lack of vision is best demonstrated when he said to his she-ass "if I had a sword in my hand I would kill you now." (Numbers 22,29) The Midrash that stated that among the nations there did arise a prophet, did not mean to compare Bileam with Moses, but to point out the contrast between the two. Even when a prophet does arise among the gentiles, there is no comparison at all. In every vital matter, Moses was far superior to Bileam. (see Sifri on Deut. 34,10) In order to convey G'ds messages, Moses did not need to hear them spelled out, since he always found himself on the right wavelength. Bileam, on the other hand, had to stress that what he conveyed was the word of G'd. The meaning of the Sifri in Deut. 34,10, that Moses did not know who was going to talk to him, whereas Bileam knew, is, that Moses did not need to prepare himself for an encounter with G'd, whereas Bileam had to. Moses communicated with G'd from an upright position, Bileam only while he was prostrate. The fact that Bileam was uncircumcised was a further impediment to his receptiveness for Divine communication. Prior to circumcision, even an Abraham received the word of G'd only while falling down. Not until after the circumcision when G'd addressed him, (Genesis 18,1) do we find him remaining seated. The gentile is communicated with only at night, since he is compared to a mistress, someone whom one visits discreetly during the hours of darkness. Israel, however, is like a wife with whom one communicates openly during all hours of the day. When Bileam describes himself as "one who hears the words of G'd, receives visions of the Almighty, (Numbers 24,4) one forms the impression that he was indeed on very familiar terms with the Almighty. However, this is misleading. Whereas the chef in the king's kitchen must be familiar with every ingredient in the king's meal, the maitre D' does not have to concern himself with every detail. When the Midrash, in apparent inexactitude, states that whereas Moses did not know "what was talking, whereas Bileam knew "what was talking," the reference is to the subject matter. Bileam who knew that a specific topic would be discussed with him without preamble, needed advance knowledge of that subject. Similarly, he knew when this subject would come up. This is why he could tell Balak's messengers to stay overnight till he would get instructions. Moses needed no advance knowledge of the subject matter, nor did he ever have to wait for an opportune moment. As soon as he entered the tabernacle, "he would hear the voice of the Lord talk to him." (Numbers 7, 89.) The somewhat peculiarly worded Midrash (Sifri) mentioned, has yet another meaning. Since Bileam's mode of communication with G'd was not on the level of "face to face," he could identify the source of what was speaking to him, since "it" assumed a certain form. Moses, on the other hand, while on the level of "face to face" communication had also been told by G'd "you cannot see My face, you can only see My rear, i.e. in retrospect." (Exodus 33,20) At the actual moment of the communication, he never knew how close to the "face to face" level the emanation from which he heard the voice actually was. Bileam had a kind of visual contact machazeh. Not so Moses, to whom a completely disembodied voice would not present a conceptual problem. The thrust of the whole commentary on the verse "there did not arise another prophet etc." is not to minimise the accomplishments of an Elijah in reviving the dead, nor to belittle Joshua arresting the sun and moon in their respective orbits. The commentary wishes to underline that no one other than Moses performed such miracles except by their own initiative. None were as privy to G'ds intentions as had been Moses. For that very reason, namely that he was on such intimate terms with G'd, it would have been practically impossible for Moses to have produced a miracle on his own initiative. If the whole portion is written to demonstrate the inadequacy of the most brilliant of gentile prophets, then we can understand Rabbi Yitzchak's statement that commencing with the functioning of the tabernacle, no more prophetic powers were granted to the gentiles.

From all this it seems clear, that if the red heifer contaminates all that it comes in contact with, surely the heifer itself must be the source of the contamination! The whole matter seems to defy our normal way of reasoning. Therefore, the use of the words "this is the statute of the Torah", at the beginning of this paragraph is to remind us that logic cannot be employed if we want to comprehend the meaning of this commandment. This is why our sages quote the wisest of men, Solomon, as admitting that comprehension of this mitzvah, or rather its mechanics, its halachic rulings, escapes him. People who try to philosophise about Torah, fall into two categories. Group one believes that everything written in the Torah needs to be understood at face value, literally. For instance, if the Torah refers to G'd "smelling the sweet fragrance of a sacrifice," they perceive G'd literally employing His sense of smell. Or, if the Torah reports G'd as descending on Mount Sinai, they understand this to have been a physical descent. The second group is aware that statements in the Torah are subject to interpretation. Some members of this group will interpret on the basis that the Torah employs human idiom in order to facilitate our understanding of certain concepts. This group will not interpret in a manner that conflicts with known Torah principles. A sub group of category number two, arrogates to itself the right to make its interpretations primary and Torah principles only secondary. This is done by most Christian and a few Jewish philosophers. Making one's own intellect supreme in the matter of exegesis is heretical, of course. Solomon refers to all three groups in Proverbs 14, 14-16. (1) The fool will believe anything. (2) The crafty one will understand in line with his principles. (3) The haughty fool will come to grief through exaggerated self confidence. The manner in which the Torah portrays the laws of the red heifer is a clear hint not to try and unravel that which is conceptually beyond the human intellect. The contradictions have been built into this legislation to warn us off trying to comprehend it.