Kaisipang Hudyo sa Awit ng mga Awit 1:6: Akeidat Yitzchak & Guide for the Perplexed

Just as man, despite his freedom to move within the confines of the earth, cannot move outside of it, so he cannot interfere with the laws of nature G-d has established, despite the free will that has been granted to him. Man's limitations are evident in three areas. Let us illustrate this. There are many necessary activities without which man would perish, i.e. provision of food, shelter, and clothing, all of which man pursues by choice, though his failure to pursue them would result in irreparable harm to himself. Secondly, there are activities which are undertaken under the influence of varying degrees of pressure, such as business trips to foreign countries, which though freely decided upon, have not really been initiated by the traveller's own free will. Thirdly, there are activities which man wishes to initiate but is prevented from executing due to the limitations placed upon him by the will of the Creator. Were man to aspire to travel to heaven, for instance, this is clearly impossible due to the nature of man and the universe, respectively. The limitation placed on man is consistent with the words of David in Psalms 33,10-11, "G-d destroys the counsel of nations, whereas the counsel of the Almighty prevails forever." This teaches that the limitations placed on human freedom aim at ensuring that G-d’s universe should not be tampered with unduly by any of His creatures. Superficial consideration of these limitations might lead one to conclude that freedom of choice does not exist in reality. If one assumes that the whole is nothing more than the sum total of its parts, it follows that if the whole is to remain inviolate, so must the parts remain inviolate. We have discussed this in Chapter twenty-two and twenty-six, and have demonstrated that G-d’s will does not impose itself on human will. A prisoner who has the run of his prison, is free and responsible for his actions, though he cannot escape from the walls of the prison. The Torah illustrates the limits of such freedom by many stories, the Joseph story being a classic example in which all participants play their parts, executing their own designs, without G-d’s overall design becoming thwarted. On the other hand, the freedom of choice of none of the participants is interfered with in any way. This is the basis for the whole system of reward and punishment. Rabbi Yoshua ben Korcha in Tanchuma Vayeshev explains the verse, "Go and see G-d’s accomplishment. He is terrifying in His acts above the sons of man" (Psalms 66,4) to mean that man has a habit of blaming his mistakes on G-d. A husband who wants to divorce his wife, for instance, asks her to pour him a cup of wine. She complies, whereupon he gives her a bill of divorce claiming that the wine had been lukewarm. The wife queries, "How did you know beforehand that I was going to give you lukewarm wine?" Similarly, we say to G-d, "You have predetermined our death, since it says in Your Torah, which had been written prior to the creation of man "this is the law of the Torah; when man dies in a tent etc" (Numbers 19,2). This clearly means that death is part of the scheme of things. The truth is, of course, the reverse. Although, in the final analysis G-d’s plan will prevail, no one has been forced to play a particular part on the stage of history. Is it conceivable that because of an extra strand of dyed wool in Joseph's garment a whole people should have become condemned to exile in Egypt? G-d wanted to carry out the prophecy made to Abraham at the covenant between the pieces. The chain of events in which the jealousy of Joseph's brothers played a prominent part ultimately proves to have become the instrument for carrying out G-d’s design. However, G-d could have found many other means to achieve the same end. Therefore, the brothers cannot claim exoneration by saying that what they had done, helped G-d to achieve His aim. The Bible is full of similar such lessons. The Joseph story with all its details would be completely superfluous were it not for the fact that it foreshadowed Jewish experiences in general.

The Midrash quoted at the outset of this chapter, listing a variety of comparisons for the Israel/G-d relationship, refers to the various temples. The first example, the shepherd and his dwelling, refers to the tabernacle in the desert. G-d’s function in the desert was to provide all the needs of the people directly. (Manna-water-meat) Solomon's temple,-since it did not endure-, was referred to as a hut, the need of the guardian to keep manning his observation post. Israel was referred to as the vineyard during that epoch. (Compare Isaiah chapter five or Song of Songs chapters one and eight) In the first chapter of Isaiah we find that after the destruction of Solomon's temple, Israel is described as having been abandoned like a hut in a vineyard. These various prophecies envisage the rebuilding of something permanent. None of the prophecies concerning rebuilding can be matched to historic events that have already occurred. A temple that lacked the holy ark, to mention but one of the many items missing in the second temple, and one that had been built at the direction of, or at least with the consent of a gentile government to which Israel owed allegiance, cannot possibly be something that manifests G-d’s reign on earth. Chaggai and Ezekiel clearly refer to the temple of the future. If it is an honour for the father to be surrounded by his children as the Midrash says, the small number of Jews that returned to Israel during the reign of Cyrus etc., surely cannot confer much honour on the father. This latter condition will only come about as we read in Psalms 126, "when the Lord returns to Zion we shall be as dreamers," during an era of which we can truly say "then our mouth will be full of laughter and our tongue will be filled with jubilation." That the expanded temple in the days of Herod- a slave of the Hasmoneans-, his hands bloodstained by much Jewish blood, could not be the temple envisaged by our prophets, goes without saying. One must therefore view the entire relationship between Israel and G-d as that between groom and betrothed. The proper husband/wife relationship is to be consummated when the permanent temple will be built. An alternate view of the opening Midrash would be that it refers to parts of the tabernacle. The inner sanctuary would be referred to as the house, the sanctuary proper, heychal, as the hut, and the courtyard as the enclosure, the pen. In the latter event, "enclosure," G-d has a claim on us because He provides food and shelter. In the case of "hut, He can demand more, since He has also given us the Torah. In the case of "house," since He is prepared to act as our father, providing All, He can expect that we prepare His abode accordingly. The author clearly refers the first approach.

(5) The woman of ill repute is executed in front of her father's house, so that her father-in-law would not be shamed by her being executed in front of the Court House, i.e. the public square. Since her infidelity had started at home before she had been married, judgment is executed there. The betrothed girl who was unfaithful in the city, and who has no father-in-law to shame, is executed in front of the Court House, at the site of her crime, so to speak.