Kaisipang Hudyo sa 1 Mga Hari 21:29: Akeidat Yitzchak & Duties

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.

Shemot Rabbah 7 states that G-d revealed the course of events to Moses so that the latter would not be dumbfounded by the apparently counterproductive results of his mission to Pharaoh. Even so, Moses was appalled, asking G-d: "Why have You caused things to get worse since I have come to Pharaoh?" This is what Solomon meant in Kohelet 7,7, "Oppression causes the wise to become foolish." Even a Moses can become confused in his faith when confronted by excessive oppression and apparent injustice. At any rate, G-d ascribes Pharaoh's obstinacy to Pharaoh himself, not to Divine interference. Maimonides's reason for Sichon King of the Emorites having been denied the exercise of free will when he denied the Israelites passage through his country seems inadequate. Why was his sin worse than that of the kings of Edom and Moab who did not have their freedom of choice interfered with according to Maimonides (compare Deuteronomy 2,30)? Most difficult however, is the thought frequently expressed in scriptures that the gates of repentance are never closed (Jeremiah 3, Psalms 25, to quote but a few).

The second premise is, that granted that kessem, enchantment is as far from real prophecy as right is from left, it still shares a common denominator with prophecy in that it is an attempt to divine events in the future. It had served such men as Bileam as a stepping stone towards reading the future. (Numbers 22,7, and other examples) The Torah testifies that after Bileam had employed these devices a number of times, he eventually dispensed with them, being confident that he was already on the right wave length without having to employ these gadgets as "tuning dials." At any rate, by means of nechashim and kessamim, he would be able to tune in to "G'ds transmission" This proves that these devices serve a useful function, are not entirely fraudulent. When we keep these two premises in mind, we will find that all the difficulties mentioned earlier are resolved quite easily. Accordingly, I feel that Saul's iniquity consisted in that though he knew that not having killed all the Amalekites, he had estranged himself from G'd, he had failed to humble himself and to do teshuvah, repentance. This is so especially, since he faced a hostile Philistine army of large dimensions. He should have prayed, fasted and repented until the gates of repentance would have been opened to him. No doubt, he would have succeeded. If even such hardened sinners as Achav (Kings 121) and Menashe king of Israel (Chronicles II,33,19) were given a reprieve and the latter was even restored to his throne, surely Saul's repentance would have been accepted. However, Saul, confident of his good standing, went to consult the urim vetumim. Failing to obtain a response, he expected word from a prophet. At least, he thought, he would receive a communication in a dream. He received neither, because he did not yet qualify for good news. His doom however, had not yet been decreed. Therefore, he did not receive any bad news either. It was still hoped in heaven that he would be penitent. In desperation then, and because he had run out of time, he resorted to the use of the kessem, in order to achieve contact with a prophetic message. Saul hoped that Samuel's spirit would have pity on his plight, and would communicate with him in a manner described in our first premise. When he said to his companions "seek me out a woman who communicates with ghosts, I will go to her and I will enquire through her," he deliberately refrained from saying that she would enquire on his behalf, but stated that he himself would enquire. The text in Chronicles I 10,13, confirms that the "asking of the ghost to enquire," refers to two different activities. The "asking" was for the purpose of facilitating the "enquiry." This explains why initially the woman felt she had been asked to commit a crime, whereas Saul knew she was not going to have a chance to commit a sin. He was therefore able to reassure her. The prophet never spoke to her, nor did she ask him anything. Saul had not said "ask the ghost on my behalf," but only "enchant" ' for me, which is merely a preliminary stage before actual necromancy. Since Saul knew that if he requested the appearance of the prophet Samuel, she would ridicule his request, he asked for "Samuel," without title. The name Samuel must have been borne by other men, not only the prophet. By prefacing his request simply by saying "make the person that I will tell you arise," he wanted to make her think that the person in question was of no particular significance. When he then asked for Samuel, it did not occur to the woman that he was referring to the prophet. The latter had been commonly referred to as "the Seer," "the Judge," or "the Prophet." She had assumed that some other Samuel was meant. This was so especially, since the woman was not aware that it was king Saul who made the request. Due to the woman's psychological readiness to see an apparition, she saw Samuel before Saul did. We find that even Bileam's ass saw the angel before Bileam himself did. (Numbers 22,23) The woman's consternation was due both to the unexpected appearance of the prophet Samuel, and to her sudden realisation that it had been the king in disguise who had commanded her to establish this contact. Who else could have had the nerve to request the prophet Samuel's presence in such a fashion? She now felt that the whole encounter had simply been designed to trap her. When she replied to Saul's question as to what she had seen, and said "G'd has arisen," she emphasized that what had occurred was not the usual type of necromancy. As stated previously, in necromancy the ghost does not arise, but only deep voices are heard from the earth. In order to eliminate any doubt, Saul questioned her about the appearance of the vision, and when she described Samuel's mode of attire, Saul knew that Samuel had indeed complied with his request. Under no circumstances is his appearance to be credited to the woman's activities. Saul explains that he had no other alternative anymore than to call on Samuel to guide him. Samuel's reply "what good is asking me, when G'd has departed from you and become your adversary," means "how can you expect good tidings under such circumstances?" Samuel proceeds to explain to Saul once more why G'd had turned away from him, namely because of his failure to take G'ds revenge on Amalek. He did not accuse him concerning the sin of consulting ov, since he assured Saul immediately afterwards of immediate entry into the world to come, on a footing comparable to his own. (Berachot 12) It is inconceivable that someone who knowingly resorts to consulting ov would rank equal to the prophet Samuel in the hereafter. The language used in the Torah to castigate people who consult and turn to ov is too unmistakable to allow for such sins to be forgiven. (Leviticus 20,6) The criticism of Saul expressed in Chronicles I 10,13, refers to the method Saul had chosen to establish communication with Samuel, not to the act of consulting ghosts. The reference in verse fourteen about his failure to seek out G'd, is to be understood as similar to the sin of King Assa, (Chronicles II 16,12) who is scored for not seeking out G'd, but relying on his doctors to heal him. The sin did not consist in calling in medical aid in the form of doctors, as pointed out in chapter twenty six. Samuel is quite correct when he says that Saul's fate was sealed on that day because of his sin with Amalek, even if it is true that if Saul had repented, his repentance would have been accepted. When a sick person dies, not having partaken of medication prescribed for him, we do not ascribe his death to the failure to take the medication, but we consider his illness the cause of his death. Here too, failure to seek out G'd is not the cause of death, but this merely failed to reverse the decree for the prior sin committed. Our Parshah decrees death for those who harbour ov and yidoni amongst them. (Leviticus 20,27.) The wording clearly absolves Saul and the woman from culpability, since all they had been involved in was the attempt to procure a departed prophet in the manner used to procure information from the dead. The woman had reportedly been the mother of Avner and Amassa, who had been leading Torah scholars and thoroughly familiar with what was forbidden and what was not. Saul could reassure the woman since he was accompanied by the senior members of the Supreme Court, Sanhedrin. (5) By means of its many injunctions, the Parshah points out that the way to holiness which leads from the many tum-ot, impurities and defilements one can become enmeshed in, is indeed lengthy; ergo the reminder in the beginning, in the middle, and again at the end, that our goal is holiness comparable to that of the Almighty. (2) Vayikra Rabbah 24, illuminates our Parshah by the following parable. A king who owned a wine cellar, appointed guards to protect same against theft. Some of these guards were notorious drunkards. Others were known to be total abstainers. When it came to paying these guards their wages, the king paid the drunkards twice as much as he paid the abstainers. To the latter's complaint that surely they had performed the same service as the drunkards and should therefore receive equal pay, the king pointed out that the drunkards had to fight twice as much temptation as had the abstainers when they were exposed to so much opportunity to drink. Therefore, when describing Heavenly beings, the expression kedushah holiness is used sparingly. Human beings, however, being comprised of both matter and spirit require a double dose of "holiness." We are therefore like the drunkards in the parable, steeped in our primal desires, pursued by the intoxicating wine of our passions. Concerning denial of intoxicating wine, the Torah enjoins us to sanctify ourselves. The second step is the one that leads to "you will become holy," i.e. to apply ourselves to guard the treasure, having practiced abstinence.