Kaisipang Hudyo sa Awit ng mga Awit 2:2: Akeidat Yitzchak & Kol Dodi Dofek

Man's actions can be the result of three distinct causes. They can be the result of free choice made intellectually; they can be the result of man liking the activity he performs, or they can be the result of the immediate benefit he expects to derive fom his action. A further cause prompting man to act, is an inner urge, which does not bother to rationalise the purpose and sense of one's actions, as long as the action serves to gratify the urge that has prompted it. When a sailor, whose ship is about to founder, throws the cargo overboard in order to lighten the weight of the ship, and in order to avoid sinking the whole ship, he acts from a choice made intellectually, despite the fact that he resents either of the two options that had been open to him. This is similar to the halachic dilemma faced by people who need to violate a commandment in order to survive. Some such decisions must be based on the principle of yehareg ve-al ya-avor, rather be killed than become guilty of that violation; others will be based on the principle ya-avor ve-al yehareg, better to sin and survive than forego the chance of performing other mitzvot through having permitted himself to be killed. These options are discussed in Sanhedrin 76. If Isaac loved Esau because the latter would bring him venison, then an activity which would result in Isaac receiving such venison can be said to have originated in a feeling of love. Such an activity involves more of one's desire plus planning, than the one described previously. When a person is in the grip of lust or similar emotion however, he becomes so irrational that he will pay any price to satisfy his lust or greed. Chamor and Shechem are examples of people who made unreasonable concessions on behalf of their townspeople in order to satisfy the lust to possess Dinah, Jacob's daughter. (Genesis 34,11-19) In order to better comprehend the last example, picture a driver, a carriage and horses. Although the driver is in charge of the carriage, should the horses become unmanageable, the carriage will be drawn in the direction the horses want, and the driver will be powerless to prevent this, as long as carriage and horses are coupled together. In this parable, the horse represents the will, the lust, the urge; the carriage represents the person; the driver represents the choice made intellectually, the ability to discriminate, the gift man has been equipped with. The relationship of G'd to Zion is not based only on bechirah, choice between relative evils, but as the Psalmist 132, 13, terms it "for G'd has chosen Zion because He wanted it as His residence." The choice of the Jewish people as the chosen people, was dictated by intellectual considerations, but it was re-inforced by the Divine equivalent of ta-avah, an almost overpowering urge. This is underlined in the verse that follows "This is My rest forever, here I will dwell for I have desired it." In Deut. 10,15, Moses describes it as follows: "G'd took a strong liking to your forefathers, to love them; and He chose their descendants after them, more than all other nations, as of this day." This shows that the love sprang from a strong liking G'd had developed towards them, based on their conduct. However, the love for the descendants is due to His choosing them (bachar) in comparison with other nations who were on a lower level, morally. That this is so, is confirmed in Song of Songs, where we read that Israel is "like a lily among thorns, so is My partner among the daughters." (Song of Songs 2,2) The terms chashak, love, choice, are used in descending order of preference. The first one is natural, unreasoning; the second one is deliberate, planned, but based on sound reason for the attraction. The third one is something forced upon one, in which one makes the best of a given situation. Of the many expressions of G'ds love for the Jewish people which are recorded in the Torah, some stem from relatively mild forms of love. None express a stronger bond of love than the setting aside of the mo-adim, the holydays that enable us to commune with G'd, and be in the presence of the shechinah, like children in the company of their father in joy and happiness.

Similarly, in matters of the spirit, success can only be guaranteed when all three major conditions for success have been fulfilled In material matters the ingredients that ensure success are: a) availability of the finest raw materials, b) excellent tools, c) an outstanding craftsman. Even a Betzalel could only function at his best when he had at his disposal the finest materials, the best weaving and embroidery equipment. Isaiah 28, 24-29, further illustrates our point, showing that even simple labours such as ploughing and threshing, require more than brute force or muscle in order to be performed successfully. The critical ingredient is "if he has absorbed the lesson taught him by His G'd." (verse 26) Sometimes even undertakings commenced at the behest of G'd, will appear to have counterproductive results, especially so when the approach adopted seems illogical. Still, even in such cases, success is the ultimate result. When it does materialize, the impact is longer lasting and far more dramatic. Moses' first interview at the Court of Pharaoh certainly seemed to contain all the ingredients of the failure of a mission, producing as it did, harsh counter measures by Paraoh. (Exodus 5,6-23) The appointment of David as future king of Israel and its Saviour, (Samuel I chapter 16 and onwards) seemed to lead to early failure. Samuel had to take the most unlikely tool when he commenced the mission, a young calf. The insignificant waters of the river Jordan were selected to cure the Syrian general Naaman of his skin disease. (Kings II 5, 1-18) On the other hand, we find the Jews who went to collect manna on the Sabbath, or who tried to preserve it from one day to the next, -perfectly reasonable sounding procedures-, fail, because they did not heed the lesson quoted from Isaiah earlier. We also find that Pharaoh's magicians failed to cope with the plagues which they considered themselves capable and trained to deal with. The meaning of our opening Midrash then is clear. "May the right craftsman Moses, come and receive the right tools, Torah, from the only One who can supply these tools, G'd, on behalf of Israel." The description of Israel as "the good ones," has a dual meaning. A) There will always be found some good people in Israel, people whose merit will suffice to insure the nation's survival, people such as the prophets whose very existence has made our people unparalleled among all the nations since Abraham. Psalms 87, 5-6, clearly reflects this sentiment. The psalmist extols virtuous individuals all of whom regard Zion as their spiritual birthplace. B) The Jewish people, though not always measuring up to their task individually, deserve the appellation "the good ones, in comparison to other nations. When Solomon talks about "the lily amongst the thorns,” in Song of Songs, 2,2, he refers to this goodness of Israel relative to other nations. Even though a lily is not a fruit bearing plant, the master of the parables could certainly have selected a different plant to compare Israel to, had he wanted to. The lily does not even provide shade for the weary traveller, but only delights by its fragrance and beautiful appearance. It is found amongst thorns, which do not please the eye or the sense of smell, and which actually cause pain to those who come in contact with them. Similarly, the Jewish people even when not at their best, stand out amongst the nations. For this reason the sages instituted the benediction "You have chosen us," in our liturgy. We will discuss later in this chapter how the wholesale death of Israelites which emanated from the "Good One" at kivrot hata-avot, when Israel became the victim of uncontrolled greed, could have happened.

Some problems tin the text of our Parshah. 1) When the Torah writes (Numbers 11, 1) "The people were as if complaining, wicked in the eyes of the Lord," what was it that G'd had heard? Why is it not spelled out? When the Jewish people are described as "crying again" in verse four, when was the first time they had cried? 2) How could the people say "who will feed me meat?," when they had enjoyed a regular diet of fowl, quail, since the second month they had been in the desert? How could Moses therefore appear to question G'ds ability to provide meat for the whole nation? 3) Why did Moses not relay the people's request to G'd as had been his custom? 4) If Moses simply wanted to reduce the burden of leadership from himself, why did the elders have to be assembled prior to the provision of meat? 5) The Torah seems extraordinarily long winded when describing how long the meat supply would last, i.e. "not one day, not two days etc. etc.." Why? 6) Moses' question "are You going to provide meat for six hundred thousand foot soldiers that I find myself amongst," seems peculiar? 7) Why did G'd supply this meat?