Kaisipang Hudyo sa 1 Mga Hari 21:2: Akeidat Yitzchak

Three approaches are possible in one's dealings with G'd. The same is true in one's dealings with any person upon whose services and goodwill one feels dependent. 1) If one has a justified claim on a person, one may simply demand that such claim be honoured. 2) If one has a dubious claim, one may resort to flattery, bribery etc, in order to have one's claim honoured. 3) One may engage in illegal means to get what one wants, using either violence, cheating, lying etc. Sometimes this method will prove successful. However, in the long run, anyone employing such illegal means to secure what he wants will pay for it, though he may have appeared successful in the short term. A striking example of this truth was Achav the king of Israel. This king had employed all the means enumerated to secure Navot's vineyard for himself. On the one hand, he could have laid claim to the latter's vineyard on the basis of Royal privilege, as stated in Samuel I 8,14. However, the Sanhedrin (Supreme Court) interpreted that verse as not representing a legal claim at all. Rather, it had been a warning to the people that a king might arrogate to himself the right to such privilege. At the very most, the king would have the right to confiscate private property if he had to pay off his soldiers from the proceeds of such confiscation. On no account, however, does the king have the right to take over such property for personal use. Achav adopted the approach of offering generous payment for said vineyard. When his proposition was turned down, the owner claiming that it was unbecoming for him to sell his inheritance, Achav suggested that Navot might consider making the vineyard a gift to his king, something that would certainly not reflect to his discredit. When this suggestion was turned down also, Achav became so frustrated that he sulked. His wife, Izzebel, interpreting the law about Royal privilege in a manner more favourable to the king, proceeded to have Navot framed, accused of insubordination to both G'd and the king, and to have him executed. In this manner, the king took over the property of the late Navot. Achav's sin began when he did not tell his wife the true reason that Navot had refused to part with the vineyard. The reason he had neglected to do so was that he thought once Izzebel would hear the real reason, she would consider the refusal final and the whole matter would have ended. In this way, Achav had actually encouraged his wife to find alternate ways to make her husband happy. Sulking, on account of a trivial matter such as the acquisition of an additional vineyard, was also part of his sin, since it was conduct unbefitting a person of the stature of a king of Israel. Had Izzebel had Navot executed merely for insubordination, the Bible might not have referred to the matter as murder for greed, but rather as a sinful abuse of the laws governing false testimony. At any rate, both the king and his queen were severely punished as prophesied by Elijah. (Kings I 21,29) Even though part of the punishment was long delayed due to Achav having acknowledged his guilt, in the end his crime did not pay.

In order to achieve maximum impact by His revelation at Mount Sinai, G-d resorted to extraordinary phenomena both before, during and after matan Torah, the presentation of the Torah to the people. This becomes evident when one studies the story of the Jewish people's arrival in the desert of Sinai. First we are told that they arrived in Sinai on the first day of the third month. Next, though we know that their last stop had been Refidim, the fact that they set out from Refidim and arrived in Sinai is repeated. Next it says that Moses ascended to G-d and called to Him from the Mountain. The order really should have been "G-d called to Moses and the latter ascended." From the manner of the text, it appears as if Moses was on a higher level than the one calling to him. Next we have the emphasis on the order of addressing Israel, "thus you shall say to the house of Jacob and tell the children of Israel." Furthermore, "these are the words you shall speak to the children of Israel." This suggests that Moses had no latitude in the words he could use. However, it is worth noting that anyone who has a major request of his fellow man would do well to pay attention to the following prerequisites in order to assure himself of an optimal chance of success. He must watch (a) timing, (b) place, (c) method of presentation of the request, (d) the ability of the party petitioned to grant the petition, (e) explain the advantages accruing to the petitioned party if he grants the petition. He must also bear in mind the position in society of the party petitioned. Queen Esther is a prime example of how all these points need to be heeded when she petitioned king Ahasverus. She chose the timing very carefully, saying "tomorrow I shall do what the king says." She chose the place, inviting him to lunch at her palace, so as to be undisturbed. She chose the method, i.e. wine, in order to put the king into a good frame of mind, and at the same time to make Haman relaxed and careless. She adhered to the order of priorities by begging for her own life first. Concerning the king's ability to deliver, and the advantage to him by granting her request, she said "we have been sold, and the king stands to lose heavily financially." In our situation, G-d demonstrates the same care in His request from Israel. The time chosen, the third month after the Exodus, allowed Israel to have recovered from the slavery experienced.They had been given ample opportunity to observe the way in which G-d had looked after their needs thus far. The mountain, frequently referred to as "the mountain of G-d", was meant to impress itself on those who beheld it. (by far the highest mountain in that part of the world). When one contrasts unpleasant memories with pleasant experiences, the latter seem much more impressive than when contrasted with everyday events. Since the events in Refidim had been exceptionally upsetting, mentioning the contrast of their departure from there with the arrival at Sinai, left an especially favourable impression. The site was well chosen, therefore. As far as how G-d’s request was related to the Jewish people, this was accomplished through the good offices of Moses who was the most suitable instrument, being someone who had reached the highest level of humanity without the benefit of Torah legislation. Concerning the exact formulation of the request, the word "thus" indicates that Moses indeed was not given any leeway in the precise wording he had to employ. The content of the message concentrated on reminding the addressee of prior events which have a bearing on his attitude. In this case, these would be G-d’s actions against Egypt, which form the background for His present request. There follows the purpose of the request, namely that Israel become a holy nation, a nation of priests, precious to the Lord etc. That such a carefully planned scenario elicited a favourable response from Israel is hardly surprising then. Although Moses relayed G-d’s request only to the elders, fearing that the nation as a whole might not be so responsive, the nation's response shows how effective G-d’s planning of this event had been. The wonderfully effective things G-d was going to do during the actual revelation is introduced by His saying to Moses "here I will come to you in a thick cloud, so that the people will hear Me talk to you and will also believe in your leadership forever more". The objective of becoming a "holy nation" by means of the mitzvot is described in Deuteronomy 30,11, as a very easily attainable goal. "For this commandment is not so wonderfuL.it is easily achievable..up to your mouth and your heart to implement". Our sages tell us that the Torah is so structured that even "the empty ones among you are as full of mitzvot as pomegranates are full of pips". This is so, because the mitzvot apply to our body's activities and do not require intellectual brilliance in order to be performed.