Pensamento Judaico sobre Isaías 56:1

Since we have established that events in this world can be due to natural law or G-d’s direct intervention, and that the latter is reserved for the Jewish people, it is proper to show how construction of the tabernacle fits into the second category. When events are the result of natural law, the fate of the righteous and the fate of the sinner are alike, since natural law does not distinguish between good and evil, rich and poor etc. This is not so when events are due to Divine intervention. Then the guilty gets his just deserts and the innocent, i.e. the righteous reaps the reward due him. It is crucial therefore, to have chosen the right way of life. He who chooses the lifestyle of a sinner, is in effect choosing death. This fact is spelled out in the Torah on several occasions, such as Deut.30, 16, et al. We have discussed G-d’s Personal Providence in chapters 15 and 31. Since we have explained in chapter 48, that the tabernacle was a microcosm of the universe, we will explain how Israel is taught a lesson by G-d exercising His Personal Providence in connection with the tabernacle and its parts, about His macrocosm. When one speaks about how the world is being run, this "running" can be subdivided into three aspects. 1) Availability of food and shelter. Both are available in equal measure for the righteous as well as for the sinner, as stated in Deut. 4, 19, "sun, moon and stars have been allocated to all nations." 2) The availability of free choice within the framework of natural law. (compare chapter 3) This is necessary in order not to make good conduct something that is merely functional. If bad conduct were to be followed automatically and immediately by punishment, good behaviour could not qualify for reward since it would be due merely to fear and other functional considerations. 3) Sometimes, matters that had been preordained in accordance with natural law, are synchronised to occur at a time when they demonstrate G-d’s pleasure or displeasure with the conduct of man. If Nebuchdnezzar's star rose at the time of Yehoyakim so that he became the world's ruler, Israel, by reason of its wicked conduct was not excluded (saved) by special Divine intervention. Normally, when prophets make predictions they have in mind those preordained events. They announce their knowledge of these events and the time they would occur. Should the people repent, the preordained event will be cancelled, i.e. Divine intervention in Israel's fate will become manifest. False prophets base their predictions on their knowledge of natural law, not being privy to these preordained happenings that are timed to coincide with certain actions, resp. inactions of the Jewish people. Thus they deny Divine Personal intervention. Chapter twenty seven in Jeremiah is a case in point. Personal Providence does not apply to Nebuchadnezzar, but it would apply to Israel if they would follow the urgings of the prophet. Proof that the chapter discusses events due to natural law, is the prophecy concerning Nebuchadnezzar's son and grandson who had as yet not proven themselves, and whose dominion, if preordained, had nothing to do with Divine intervention. In such circumstances, intervention by hashgachah peratit, Personal Divine Providence, cannot be expected. Also, by means of natural law, the seventy years of Babylonian exile were to have the psychological effect of bringing about repentance by those who had to live in Babylonia as strangers. King Cyrus responded to their seventy year exile when he granted permission to re-establish the Jewish state, (province within the Persian empire) When king Solomon states in Kohelet 8,5, "he who obeys the commandments will know no evil, and a wise mind will know time and justice, for everything has its time and justice for man's evil overwhelms him..l have taken this to heart," this passage does not mean that all fates are determined exclusively by natural law. It merely means that there is such a thing as natural law, but that G-d works according to His timetable. Those who believe that there is only natural law err. Therefore, all attempts to calculate the coming of the Messiah in advance are doomed to failure. When G-d has said in Isaiah 63,4, "the day of vengeance is in My heart," He means that He will not reveal the timing, but it remains in His heart. Sanhedrin 97, curses those who calculate the timing of the Messiah's arrival beforehand. Such calculations actually delay his arrival. If someone had calculated that the Messiah would not arrive until the year seven thousand, using astronomic and astrological data, we would resign ourselves to a lengthy exile and slacken our efforts to hasten his arrival through the performance of good deeds. We must believe that a) "My redemption is close at hand," (Isaiah 56, 1) and that when least thought about, it may arrive. (Sanhedrin 94) Experience has taught us that G-d may hasten the end, (Haggadah of Passover) when He shortened our exile in Egypt." I the Lord, at its time, I will hasten it" (Isaiah 60,22). G-d reserves the right to accelerate His timetable, if warranted. At this point we learn that "natural law" can be supplanted by hashgachah perartit. When Jeremiah expresses the hope that the prediction of the false prophet Chananyah ben Azzur who had predicted the return of the captured holy vessels within two years, would come true, (Jeremiah 28, 6) he did so because the principle of hashgachah peratit can override the dictates of natural law. G-d’s prerogative to employ this method has certainly not been abrogated. When Jeremiah expressed doubt however, that this would happen, and predicted the false prophet's imminent death, he merely indicated that the conditions to bring about G-d’s personal intervention on behalf of the Jewish people did not exist at that time. The people simply did not merit it. The acid test of whether a prophet speaks the truth is when he predicts something "good" and it does not come true exactly as promised. Prediction of disaster merely serves to arouse feelings of fear and, hopefully, remorse. The reverse is achieved when the false prophet predicts something "good," lulling his listeners into a false sense of security, an impediment to arousing feelings of remorse and repentance. This is what was the case in Jeremiah chapters 27 and 28. In Jeremiah 27, 18, Jeremiah exhorts those prophets that if they were indeed prophets of the Lord, they would pray to G-d not to lose the remaining holy vessels of the temple, and for their king not to be taken into captivity. At least, if they did that, they would attempt to ward off a decree already in the process of being executed. The reason the "good" prophecy has to come true is that hashgachah peratit supersedes natural law, and a good prophecy is always based on hashgachah peratit being employed. The reverse is not true, since prophesies of doom are based on G-d’s intervention having been forfeited. Hence there is a chance of doom. When no doom occurs, it proves that Divine intervention did take place on our behalf and superseded the natural law which would have proved fatal to us had it been allowed to run its course. (more on this in chapter 96) When two prophets prophesy simultaneously about the same people however, the true prophet threatening doom in order to arouse feelings of repentance, and the false prophet assuring the same people that regardless of their conduct the good will come true since their merit suffices, then only by the "good" coming true can we have proof positive of who was the true prophet and who was not.

Even though gentiles are commanded to observe the seven Noachide laws, one of which is the establishment of a system of social legislation, they are at best to be treated as amateurs when it comes to their fitness to administer Jewish law, even if they are familiar with it. In view of all this, we can understand the verse in Proverbs 21,3, "he who has carried out righteousness and justice is dearer to G-d than a sacrificial offering." A wealthy man once had to go on a journey, and did not want to leave behind his assets for fear that something could happen to them during his absence. He converted all his assets into diamonds, which he carried with him on his journey. When accosted by robbers who wanted to know the value of the diamonds, he disclaimed knowledge of their true value, saying they were merely glass baubles, worth pennies. The robbers decided not to kill the man for the sake of these worthless baubles. Later, when the same traveller displayed his merchandise at a fair in the city, the traveller, of course, demanded the real worth of these diamonds from any prospective purchaser. When the robbers found out, they said to the traveller "why did you tell us that they were practically worthless?" The traveller explained that when he had found himself on the threshold of death, his diamonds did indeed not represent any value to him. Now, however, when he was in different circumstances, these same diamonds had once more become very valuable to him. Thus it is with the reward for the mitzvot performed in this world. Their reward value is very shortlived. But in the world to come, the real worth of the reward will become evident. The ordinary Jew may find himself in circumstances when he feels justified to describe his jewels as mere baubles. David, on the other hand, could state that he had never treated "the judgments" as worth less than their true value. He said that even at times when it seemed pointless and unrewarding, and he found himself in great distress, "I carried out the justice and righteousness." Therefore, G-d tells us not to look upon the judgments as something trifling, not deserving our best efforts.

Symbolically, the red heifer legislation can be understood in the following manner. The cow herself,- though reminiscent of the golden calf's mother, and thus indirectly responsible for her offspring,- is pure, much as the soul is pure at entry into the human body. The colour red represents the soul after having joined the body and becoming besieged by all the attractions of physical life here on earth. Sin is possible on three levels, parallel to the three life forces that are extant in man. Man possesses the life force of the plants, i.e. he responds to everything physical. He possesses the life force of animals, i.e. he is sensitive to all that goes on around him be it painful or pleasurable. Thirdly, he possesses intellect, being able to sin with it by preferring to pattern his life on heretical concepts. The requirement that the red heifer must not have worn a yoke in order for it to be capable of becoming an instrument of atonement, suggests that it represents the type of man who has rejected any and all limitations from a higher source concerning the manner in which he can conduct his life down here. The fact that only a minute amount of the blood of the red heifer is actually presented on the altar, indicates that the physical pleasures man is permitted to indulge in are minimal, so that he will be free to fulfil the will of the Lord. Removal of the red heifer from all three encampments of the Israelites, both from the most sacred as well as from the relatively least holy, indicates that man must remain free, or free himself from the demands made upon him by the three life forces that we have mentioned earlier. All the remainder of the red heifer is to be burned. The reason that burning of skin, flesh and blood is each mentioned separately, seems to symbolise the three life forces again. Each of these forces is more concealed from view than the next. Skin represents the exterior life force. Flesh is the middle life force; blood is the innermost life force. The use of both cedar wood, representing the tallest of the plants, and hyssop, representing the most lowly plant, is a reminder that we must observe the golden mean. By throwing the aforementioned into the fire, we are to demonstrate that we abandon the path of extremism. The priest washing his clothes, then his body, then re-entering the encampment, constitutes three stages of atonement. Washing one's body is symbolic of purifying the sense of touch. Washing one's clothing symbolises purification of the animalistic life force. Return to the encampment is symbolic of rehabilitating the mind, which through having been outside the encampment had been apart from the shechinah, G'ds Presence. At that point in the process, the rehabilitated are fit again to associate not only with the deputy leader Eleazar, but with the leaders themselves, i.e. Moses and Aaron. Had the whole procedure of the burning of the red heifer and the subsequent sprinkling of its ash contained in springwater, been performed on Moses and Aaron themselves, it might have subdued their anger at the Jewish people sufficiently to have prevented their having later on become guilty of hitting the rock instead of speaking to it. (Numbers 19,7-12) Perhaps this is the reason that this law is recorded at this point in the fortieth year of the wandering of the Israelites. The fact is that the law itself was promulgated already in the second year of their trek through the desert. The part of the purification legislation that requires eventide for completion of the process, may symbolise that the time of day when the body cools off is most suitable for reassertion of spiritual forces within us. Also, at such times, emotional responses are more likely to be tempered by one's intellect. Interestingly, the person who administers the sprinkling, required all three stages of the purification outlined. The person who burned the red heifer, however, needed only two stages. He did not have to leave the camp. Perhaps this is because his entire function had been to destroy the red heifer, the symbol of earthiness. The remains of the red heifer are handled only by ish tahor, someone already purified. The person handling the ashes needs only to wash his clothing, not even his body. Since the sins of man can stem from any of the three life forces, the ash of the red heifer was stored in three different places, as a reminder. (compare Mishnah Parah, chapter three) One part was kept within the precincts of the temple, one part on Mount Olives, and the third part was divided up amongst all the twenty four groupings of the priests, the mishmarot. The Torah describes three instances of a person becoming impure, hinting at the three parts of man that can incur impurity. The annual reading of this portion occurs chronologically after the celebration of the redemption of the Jewish people in the days of Mordechai, shortly before Passover, when we celebrate the redemption from Egypt, and before the month of Nissan which, according to tradition, will herald the coming of the Messiah. It is interesting that our sages,-when the four special readings in advance of the Passover holiday were arranged,- did not place the reading of parshat hachodesh, i.e. the reading of the portion announcing the coming of the month of Nissan, and the Passover legislation, before that of parshat parah. One would have expected them to do so, since, chronologically speaking, the tabernacle was put up on the first of Nissan, and the red heifer was burned only on the second day of that month. This may reflect their view that the concept of purity is so paramount in Jewish philosophy, that it can push historical, chronological considerations into the background. For that reason, though we lack the ash of the red heifer today, and are therefore unable to purify ourselves ritually from contact with a dead body, we still immerse ourselves in a ritual bath (especially prior to the holidays) in order to fulfil the rites of purification at least symbolically.