Еврейская мысль к Дварим 7:16

Since the nourishment provided for the various species of the universe is commensurate with their respective needs, it is axiomatic that the most advanced species are provided with the most advanced form of nourishment available. Normally, the type of food provided for a species is on a level that is one degree lower in the order of life than the species to be fed by it. Since we have stipulated elsewhere that the order of creation proceeded from the simple towards the more sophisticated, it follows that the lowest form of life derives its food supply from primordial matter. This would be immediately below it in the order of creation. After all, the lowest form of existence is primordial matter. Next would be the four basic elements, all of which rank equal in the scheme of created matter. Therefore, air, fire, earth and water act respectively as nourishment for plant life, the latter being of a more sophisticated nature than the basic elements. If plants need rain or water to sustain them, this is in accordance with such natural order as we have described. On the other hand, development, growth of the inert form is possible only through the infusion of an amalgamation with any or all of the basic materials contained in primordial matter. When a creature of a certain level in the world of matter receives its nourishment, or part of it, from a category more than one rung lower than itself, this is a curse. When we are told that the serpent in addition to feeding on plants, also feeds on earth, a lower form of created matter, this is a curse. (Genesis 3,14). Also man,-as long as he had been restricted to a vegetarion diet- (Genesis 1,29) was not yet at the elevated level where his food supply was only one category lower in the scheme of things than he himself. Possibly, the verse (Genesis 1,28) "and have dominion over the fish in the sea, over the fowl in the air and over every living thing that creeps on the earth," was in fact permission to also feed on an animal diet. The fact that such an animal diet was withheld till after the deluge, could have been the result of the original sin. The gradual decline of animals into becoming carnivorous beasts, is merely a form of corruption paralleling the corruption of man during the period preceding the deluge. This is why Isaiah predicts in chapter eleven, that all these carnivorous beasts will undergo a change of nature in the post messianic era. Since the Jewish people have attained the stature of am segulah, "precious nation," their nourishment does not only include the category immediately below them in the world of matter, but even part of their own category. G-d describes this in Deut.7,16, when the Torah says "you will consume all the nations the Lord your G-d gives you, your eyes shall have no pity on them." This refers to our having been granted permission to ensure our continued existence and well being at the expense of gentile nations worshipping idols and practicing other perversions. When we find that the Talmud Pessachim 49, states that the ignorant is not permitted the consumption of meat, this may mean that any person who has not qualified to be a member of the human race "in good standing," is not allowed to use the immediately lower category of life to serve as the material that satiates his appetites. To make indiscriminate use of creatures only a single category less sophisticated than ourselves, we must first prove that we ourselves live up to our own destiny, are intelligent creatures, chay ha-medabber.. Both Bileam (Numbers 24,8), Joshua and Caleb (Numbers 14,9) describe Israel as "consuming" its enemies. There are humans whose way of life places them sufficiently below us that they may serve as our life sustainers. Food, after all, is an aspect of life sustaining matter. On the other hand, food too far below our rank would drag us down to its level; therefore, insects etc. are forbidden. Since cannibalism is prohibited as despicable, the references above refer to our right to dispose of these nations as we see fit. A human being may fit into one of three categories. 1) He may be so ignorant that he has difficulty putting thoughts into words. 2) He may be capable of putting his thoughts into words, but his thoughts are so banal and mundane, that he only achieves basic purposes such as union with a mate, ("he shall cleave to his wife and they shall become one flesh") 3) He may belong to the select group who use the power of speech to express lofty thoughts, whose ideas are capable of standing on their own without physical sustenance. Of this group it is said "if he will live, he will die, but if he will die, he will live." (Yalkut Shimoi Bereshit 14) Dilution of the spiritual with the physical is apt to impair the spiritual to the point of death, whereas refinement of the spiritual to the exclusion of the physical, will result in life eternal. People of that category require two kinds of nourishment, one for the physical part of their beings, the other for the spiritual part. Our rabbis refer to this as "two tables." The physical part can be nourished successfully by a vegetarian diet, meat being forbidden to it, since it derives from the same level of creature. In such a type of person, the spiritual part is not considered integral to the total personality. Their intellect, being of the world of the spirits, does not require physical sustenance just as none of the spirits require this. This is the reason such individuals as Chanina survived on as little as a kav (6 eggs' volume) of carobs from Sabbath eve to Sabbath eve. (Taanit 24) This indeed may have been G-d’s wish when He created original man in whom the spirit, intellect reigned supreme before the fall. The food par excellence for people of such stature would be bread, (compare Proverbs 17,1, "better dry bread than meat obtained in an environment of strife") Concerning the "second table," the substance required by the spiritual part of such men is the product of his good deeds. In the words of Isaiah 3,10, "hail the just man for he is well off; he shall eat the fruit of his works." The meaning is allegorical, just as in Psalms 128,2, "you who eat the fruit of your labours," namely the good deeds you have performed sustain you into the hereafter, into kingdom come. When the Lord provided Manna for the Jewish people in the desert, it had been hoped that everyone would qualify as belonging to the highest category of person outlined above. If that had been so, the physical part of the Manna would have sustained the reduced needs of their bodies. Since the quality of that food was such that it could be completely assimilated by their bodies, none of it having to be excreted, only a small' quantity would have been needed. The spiritual part of their personalities would have been sustained by the many lessons to be learned from the composition, the quantity, the manner of delivery, by the time at which the Manna was to be gathered etc. The fact that G-d did provide meat in answer to the request of the Jewish people, but in a manner much less gracious than the way in which the Manna was provided, leads one to believe that the supply of the quail was a one time occurrence. It was merely meant to demonstrate that it was indeed G-d who had taken the people of Israel out of Egypt, not Moses and Aaron, as the Israelites had been complaining. The very fact that the people are once more reported as having demanded meat, (Numbers 11,4) proves that meat had not been part of their diet all along. Further proof that meat was a exceptional provision, lies in the fact that it came unaccompanied by such ordinances as the manner in which it had to be slaughtered, specific quantities for each person, how long it could be preserved etc., all details that had been spelled out about the Manna. When the Torah talks about "bread," and uses Manna as proof that "man does not live by bread alone, but by all that issues from the mouth of the Lord," (Deut.8,3) bread is a synomym for nourishment, and the lesson is that nourishment of a physical kind is solely for our physical parts, (elevated man category three) Observance of the instructions (motza pee hashem ) accompanying such food are the nourishment for our spiritual part. It will be shown that this too was the nature of the food supplied to Adam in the garden of Eden.

The very idea of Israel's selection as G-d’s pilot project is based on the fact that it is the part of the human species which has preserved more of the original tzelem elokim, Divine image, than any other section of humanity. G-d has described the relative standing of the Jewish people among the nations, as similar to the standing of humans vis a vis the animal kingdom. In other words, the nations of the world are aware of our dominance and are afraid of us. This is so at least as long as Jews deserve such status due to their moral superiority. We are described as treating our Canaanite adversaries as if they were "our bread" to be consumed by us (Numbers 14,9). Prior to tackling Goliath, David explains to the startled Saul that his experiences with the lion and the bear, both of which he had slain, convinced him of his chance against the uncircumcised blasphemer (Samuel I Chapter 17). David rejected armour and sword, since his victory over the beasts had also not been due to external weapons. David's enquiry about the type of reward the slayer of Goliath would receive is based on the assumption that killing an uncircumcised blasphemer such as Goliath cannot in itself be much of a heroic deed, since the "laws of nature" almost guaranteed victory to any good Jew, and the risk involved was not of the kind which would call for a major reward. The reputation acquired by such deed should in itself suffice as reward. Obviously, David's companions did not understand his meaning, as seen from their response to David's enquiry. However, Saul's advisors sensed David's meaning when David said "let no adam have fear of him." The adam David referred to was the kind of a person who had preserved his tzelem elokim, Divine image. Such a person would not have reason to fear the Philistine. Baba Metzia 114 teaches, "Israel is referred to as adam; the nations of the world do not qualify for such appellation." Upon being challenged by Saul, David detailed past events in his life as proof for his confidence. He attributed his success to G-d, and was confident that the same G-d would grant him success against Goliath. "The Philistines will be no better than one of those beasts." To emphasize our point, the book of Samuel relates that David rejected the armor, to show that his superiority did not stem from such sources, but was in the nature of things. After the battle (Samuel I 17,55), Saul wanted to know, "Who is this lad?" a strange request indeed, since his family status etc. had been common knowledge. David had performed as a regular harpist at Saul's Court (Samuel I 16,19). At that time, Saul had begun to wonder about David's ultimate destiny. In view of the fact that his own son Jonathan had performed deeds of valor of a similar nature previously, we can understand the love and mutual attraction that existed between David and Jonathan. The two shared the distinction of being adam in the full sense of the word. This is what our sages call "a love which is not based on something tangible, something material" (Avot 5, 16). The love is for the basic qualities in the other person. When the Torah says "Love your fellow man like yourself," the "yourself" referred to is that same human quality (Leviticus 19,18).

Midrash Tanchuma on Parshat Eykev, and Midrash Shocher Tov comment on Proverbs 5,6, and Job 28,16, respectively. We find in those verses references to the mysterious way in which Torah sometimes reports the sequence of events. In the words of the Midrash, the apparent lack of cohesion is deliberate, as otherwise "every reader could heal the sick or revive the dead." We should ask therefore, why the sages endeavoured altogether to find meaning in the order in which events have been related? The truth is that our sages did not mean that there is absolutely no order in the sequences of the Torah's teachings; rather they teach that G'd arranged things in a manner that safeguarded certain secrets that He has reserved for Himself. (Isaiah 44,7) "Who but I can declare it and set it in order for Me, since I appointed the ancient people." This verse forms the background to our Midrashim. The enquiry why a particular event is reported at a particular point in the sequence of events, is quite legitimate, regardless of the general rule eyn mukdam, that the Torah does not claim to report events in the chronological order in which they occurred. That rule means, that even when the Torah does report events in historical order, this does not mean that the Torah's purpose is exhausted by having conveyed to us a little bit of history. Dissemination of slanderous information may stem from a variety of motivations. 1) A person may slander someone else in order to make himself look good by comparison. 2) On the other hand, someone may spread negative information about a third party, having no ulterior motive at all. The latter type is the real ba-al lashon hara, spreader of evil gossip. The first type is simply a glory seeker, the slander being incidental to his purposes. When the Talmud Erchin 15, describes animals approaching the snake asking the reason it attacks humans, it compares the lion and the wolf with the snake. The two former either wish to still their hunger, or at least to devour the prey. The snake however, seems to poison just for the fun of it, deriving no visible benefit from its action. Korach was not a classic example of a slanderer, since he merely used slander to enhance his own stature, and to further his ambition to become a leader. For this reason, Korach is described in our classic sources as a dissident, a quarreler. The spies, however, are described as "slanderers." Since Miriam's sin, though not as severe as that of the spies, was also in the nature of slander, the story of the spies follows that of the punishment of Miriam, to alert us to the fact that the spies had not absorbed the lesson contained in Miriam's punishment. (1) If the Torah skips the introduction about the circumstances that preceded the dispatch of the spies, in this instance, it is precisely to make sure that we would not confuse the issue, and would notice that the issue was the sin of lashon hara, slander. (2) The reason twelve men were sent, was to provide the maximum chance of success. People endowed with all the good qualities cited in the Parshah, would command enough moral fortitude to prevail over their human weaknesses, if anyone could. Their eventual report would be accepted without prejudice, since they represented a cross section of the people. Should the mission fail, it would not be due to inadequate planning. The princes mentioned in Parshat Nasso, having already assumed their respective functions, were not allowed to absent themselves from their posts for such an extended period. The Torah describes the twelve spies as each being a nassi, prince, in order to show that they were not inferior to the twelve princes whom we know already. The fact that Joshua is only ranked fifth amongst them, shows that all of them had been very eminent people at the time of their appointment for this task. That the Torah does indeed list them in the order of their qualities seems borne out by the fact that the order in which they are listed corresponds neither to the order of the "flags" of the encampment, nor to the order of birth of the various sons of Jacob whose tribes they represented. The Talmud Sotah 34, discusses the various names and comes to the conclusion that their various names contained hints of their eventual disloyalty to G.d. Since this is obviously an excercise in hindsight, the original selection must have been based on the positive qualities each one of the spies had displayed prior to his being chosen for such a fateful mission. The fact that Caleb and Joshua could not even persuade their own respective tribes to accept their minority report, shows that the spies had not been chosen for any popular following they might have enjoyed. (3) The verse dealing with the name Joshua must be understood as follows. "These are the names of the men...except for Hoshaya of the tribe of Ephrayim, whom Moses later used to call Joshua." (which is the name by which he is known to us in most instances when we read about him.) Observing the goodness of the land, entailed four separate considerations. 1) Did the inhabitants appear robust and healthy? 2) Was the terrain easy to cultivate and was there an abundance of it? 3) Were there urban centres the inhabitants were happy in and proud of? 4) Did the soil yield abundantly, and was the produce of high quality? (4) Moses wanted the spies to pay attention to all these factors, so that they would look forward to this all soon being theirs. (compare verses 18-20) Concerning the type of cities,-whether open or fortified,- Moses wanted to point out that if these people still lived in fortified cities, this reflected a lack of self confidence on their part. This would give Israel a psychological advantage when setting out to attack them. The book of Joshua in chapter 6,1, reports that Jericho was completely sealed off from the inside and the outside. Immediately afterwards we are told that the inhabitants had already reached the point of despair. Although it was early in the season, and the orchards would therefore be under close scrutiny by their respective owners, Moses instructed "fortify yourselves," i.e. get a hold of yourselves and take from the fruit to taste it. Moses' insistence stemmed from his conviction that the land was excellent. The fact that the nachal eshkol, valley of the grape cluster, was so named, was only in commemoration of the spies' visit. It proves that the grapes found there were not of exceptional quality. (verse 24) They were merely representative specimens of the quality the land produced. (5) The spies brought the fruit back in order to lend credibility to the report they were about to issue. When Moses saw the fruit, he was lulled into a false sense of security, overlooking the fact that they were not making their report to the commander-in-chief, but to the nation as a whole. The Torah indicates this by describing the spies as returning from latour, from touring the country, from emphasizing its good points. When one emphasizes weak points such journeys are described as rigul, spying. The opening remarks seemed to confirm Moses' optimism. (verse 27) As soon as they uttered the word efess however, they aborted their entire mission. The fruit became an instrument to describe the desirability of the land, and to contrast this with the physical prowess of its inhabitants. From having been reporters, they suddenly assumed the role of advisors. The careful description of who lived in the land, i.e. Amalek in the South, the presence of giants, three nations in the mountains, Canaanites by the sea and the river Jordan, all these remarks were designed to create the impression that conquest of such a country was not feasible. They did not yet dare to spell this out, however. When Caleb, knowing the tenor of their remarks, interrupted, he did so to give Moses a chance to be heard, and to create a climate in which his own report would at least get a hearing. For that reason he made it appear as if he too had something to complain against Moses' adventurous policy of attacking such physically superior residents of the land of Canaan. In fact, he hoped that by giving his own report, emphasizing his firm belief that Israel could conquer the land, he could squelch the despondency his colleagues had evoked with their innuendos about the hopeless nature of such an undertaking. He thought that the other spies would not dare come out openly against such a campaign in the very presence of Moses. At that point, however, the other spies started to use their arguments outright. They portrayed the presence of the giants (32-33) as proof of the futility of starting a war, citing the fact that these giants included men who had survived the deluge. To contrast this with their own feeling of inadequacy, they referred to their having felt like grasshoppers by comparison to those super-men. The fact that these giants had observed twelve strange men help themselves to grapes from their orchards without the owners having become galvanised into some form of counter action, they conveniently overlooked. On the contrary, they allowed it to be taken as proof that these men were not in the least bothered by such action. They considered any danger from Jewish spies as no greater than the threat posed to them by grasshoppers. They considered the country's fertility as only due to the superhuman efforts of these giants. By describing the land as one that devours its inhabitants, they hinted that ordinary people could not survive that climate. The reason there is no preamble to the despatch of the spies, is that the very mission, having as its objective the collection of factual observations, was perfectly permissible. What was wrong was that the people, upon return of the spies, allowed them to present their interpretation of what they had seen, and that they believed those interpretations. The people's belated concern (14,3) was only a cover for their, true motivation, that of despising the land G'd was offering to them. (14,31) The positioning of verse three, in which the people describe their own fate and that of their families, makes it appear that they preferred their families' deaths to their own dying by the swords. They do not describe the fate of their wives and children as the result of their own death in action. They express their preference to whatever fate would await them in Egypt. They go so far as to suggest the appointment of a leader for such a return. G'ds answer to all this is quite appropriate. He says, in effect: "your children will enjoy that which you have despised." But you who have consigned yourselves to damnation either way, and who are already considering yourselves as corpses, you will drop dead in the desert. (7) Joshua and Caleb rent their clothing, confirming only that the land was indeed excellent. Since this had been all that they as spies had been asked to report on, they expressed the conviction that if He wished, the Lord would surely bring them to that land subject to His considering them fit for this. (6) When the people realised that the whole logic of their position had been challenged by Joshua and Caleb, they did not react with reason but with their basest instincts, trying to still the voice of conscience by attempting to murder the authors of a report they did not like. They were restrained only by the appearance of the Divine glory that scared them. Moses, who continued to remonstrate with them, could not sway them. (Deut. 1,29-33) At that point G'd despaired of their ever demonstrating true faith, and decided to let them all die at once, meaning to replace them with a new people, with Moses as its patriarch. Moses used the well worn argument that the impression such action would produce on outsiders like the Egyptians, would be counterproductive to His image. Our sages describe active forces in terms of the masculine gender, whereas they describe passive ones in terms of the feminine. It does not matter in this context whether the mashpia, the active force is actually of the male gender or vice versa, in the case of the mushpa the passive force being actually of the female gender. In that sense, G'd is always the mashpia, and everybody or everything relative to Him is always the mushpa. When Moses in 15, 11, says to G'd "if this is what You are about to do to me," and he uses the feminine gender for the word "You," the sages interpret this to mean "You will undermine Your own strength." The idea is that he argues that G'd would henceforth appear as the mushpa instead of as the mashpia, G'ds traditional role. This is the reason Moses prayed "now let the power of the Lord be great," to demonstrate that "Your" strength is indeed the source of all Power. When Israel, speaking to Moses at the time they received the ten commandments, said to Moses "you speak to us," employing the feminine pronoun in referring to Moses the man, the human being, (Deut. 6,23) they convey the same idea. They are saying that although they will then be hearing the voice of G'd only from the mushpa instead of from the mashpia, at least they would survive. (8) The fact that the argument Moses used is of the utmost significance, is proven from the words of Ezekiel, in chapter thirty six. Concerning the advent of the redemption in the future, G'd is quoted as saying "Not for your sake do I act, family of Israel, but for the sake of My holy name that you have desecrated etc." Moses, as distinct from the sin at the golden calf, invoked the attribute of adnut, Omnipotence of G'd when he appealed for forgiveness. He had realised that after all the many acts of rebellion by the Jewish people, the kind of forgiveness which is total, could not be expected as an immediate outcome of his prayer. He therefore refers to the fact that G'd had previously raised the level of the sin to a lesser category - compare verse 19- "as You have raised this people until now, ever since they have come out of Egypt." G'd responds by saying "I have forgiven, exactly in accordance with your words." (the limitations you yourself have set) This is "for the people." However, the perpetrators will have to pay an immediate price and die by the plague. (verse 37) The entire nation who had witnessed G'ds miracles at the time of the Exodus in their adult years, would henceforth no longer qualify for similar miracles at the time they would conquer the land of Canaan. They have forfeited forever the right to such revelations of G'ds power on their behalf. This was a punishment on an individual level, though at first glance it might have looked collective, since none of them would enter the holy land. The individual nature of the punishment would manifest itself when each one of them would die on a different date. However, "the wicked congregation," i.e. the ten spies, would all die at the same time at once, receive collective punishment. (9) The need for the next generation to wait forty years to enter the holy land, is directly related to the sin of the parent generation. As long as some of the former remain alive, as living testimony to the disloyalty of their covenant with G'd, the miraculous protection of G'd cannot be extended to their children when they would try to enter the holy land. The ratio of forty years for forty days is again an expression of G'ds consideration for His people. Since the spies had taken forty days before returning with a negative report, G'd allows a year for each day of delay, spreading the punishment over a period of forty years, instead of letting everybody die at once. In this manner, the whole nation would learn that G'd is merciful even when He administers punishment. He does not thin out the ranks of the people all at once, but gradually, so as not to allow their decreased numbers to become an invitation to attack by their enemies. If G'd could be merciful even in such circumstances, what tremendous display of G'ds goodness must the people have forfeited by their conduct? G'd hastens to confirm the decree by swearing an oath (verse 28). He is only too aware that the people will be overcome by a feeling of remorse and will try to sway Him from His declared intention. (10) Since repentance induced by fear, duress, does not wipe the slate clean, the people did not deserve the presence of the holy ark in their midst in the campaign they now planned. The very fact that they dared to go ahead without it, showed that they still had not appreciated who it was that alone would guarantee their success. If we are taught in the book of Joshua that the sin of one man, Achan ben Karmi, who had not yet been punished for his crime, could be the cause of the whole Jewish people suffering defeat at the hands of the small city of Ai, what would happen when a whole army of unrehabilitated sinners would face the might of the Canaanites? (compare chapter 7)