Kaisipang Hudyo sa Deuteronomio 10:13: Akeidat Yitzchak & Yesod Mora VeSod HaTorah

Whenever the matter of animal sacrifices is discussed, there are some difficult questions that cannot be ignored. 1) Is it not unavoidable that sacrifices will be viewed as attempts to bribe G'd to forego the anger caused Him by the sinner who offers the sacrifice? 2) Does it not seem that the donor tries to placate G'd just as he would attempt to placate a mere mortal ruler, thereby insulting G'd, reducing His stature? 3) If, on the other hand, the offering is in the nature of a pennance, payment for trespass from which G'd receives no more benefit than from say the imposition of corporal punishment on the sinner, what good is it? 4) Is the purpose of the sacrifices perhaps merely to provide the priests with a livelihood, or simply the destruction of the animals that are being offered up? It is clearly erroneous to view the offerings as an attempt to restore the perfection or wholeness of G'd by means of a sacrifice that would complement something incomplete in Him. In Psalms 50, 11-13, "I will not accept bullocks from you, since all the animal kingdom is Mine; if I were hungry, would I have to call you? After all, the whole universe belongs to Me." Isaiah 43,24, states this even more succinctly. "You have not bought for Me fragrant reeds with money..nor have you tired yourself out on My behalf. You have not brought Me the lambs of your total offerings, not honoured Me with your meat offerings;..you have not bought Me with your money! I, I forgive you for MY sake!" Clearly, what the prophet stresses is that none of the things Israel did to placate G'd or bribe Him, has had the slightest impact on the well being of G'd Himself. G'd forgives for His own sake. He emphasizes that there is no other consideration, repeats His name when He proclaims that He dispenses forgiveness, in order to stress that there is no personal benefit involved. There is no aspect of G'd that can be enhanced by the gift of man. If there were a price tag on forgiveness, it would have to be set in motion through mutual action. Since however, there is no exchange of values for the forgiveness, it occurs only through "My righteousness." "I will not remember your sins," so as not to shame you. However, "remind Me of them," you tell of them, so that you can become righteous. (Isaiah 43,26) It is evident that the prophet endeavours to squash the foolish notion of "our contribution" in the matter of sacrifices. It is noteworthy that the term avodah, service, is not used in the Torah concerning offerings that are brought on the altar in order to obtain forgiveness. When Moses did use that term when talking to Pharaoh, (Exodus 10,26) "we do not know what we will serve the Lord," he simply used terminology familiar to Pharaoh. It is the manner of pagans to employ the term avodah for their religious observances. (Deut. 13,7) "Let us go and serve other deities." We find a similar warning (Deut 12,30) "lest you inquire into their deities, saying," how do these nations serve their deities?" The Torah in that instance, continues "do not do thus, for the Lord your G'd etc.," meaning that worship of the G'd of Israel is not of that order. Positive proof that worship of our G'd is of a totally different calibre, is the fact that "they burn their own children in fire to their deities," something the G'd of Israel has described as an abomination. True worship of G'd consists of obeying His commandments, neither adding nor subtracting therefrom. (Deut. 13, 1.) When referring to that kind of worship, the Torah does not shrink from employing the term avodah as in Deut. 10, 12, or Exodus 23,25, and other places. In all matters of piety of the heart, performance of good deeds, the benefit that accrues to the practitioner is stressed. (Deut. 10, 13) "for your own good." "Serving" is for our benefit, not G'ds. It is significant that the rasha, wicked person quoted in Parshat Bo, describes the Passover ceremonial as an avodah, service, stressing "what is in it for you?" It is precisely this attitude to sacrificial service that needs to be debunked. Similarly, the second possible rationale suggested for the requirement of sacrifice, namely atonement, cannot be true. It is obvious that the object used for atonement would have to be in some value relationship to the subject against whom the sin had been committed. Since it is imposible to relate to the Creator in this fashion, the idea of sacrifice sufficing as an act of compensation is quite erroneous. This is what the High Priest Eli (Samuel 1,2,23-24) tells his sons when he remonstrates with them. He had heard that they had acted improperly. "When man sins against man, the judge can mediate and determine fair compensation; but when man sins against G'd, who can determine the amount of compensation due to G'd?" How will one know that one had atoned adequately? Similarly, Michah 6,7, calls out: "Does the Lord want thousands of rams, tens of thousands rivers of oil?" The meaning is "could even the greatest amount of sacrificial animals compensate for the iniquity committed?" Obviously then, the idea of compensation is not the rationale for sacrificial rites. Regarding the third possibility mentioned, that the priests should be provided with a livelihood, the many offerings which are completely burned up, demonstrate that this could not have been the thought behind this legislation. Moreover, the idea that priests should be happy to consume the proceeds of man's sins, that their livelihood would improve in direct ratio to the number of sins committed by their brethren, could hardly be pleasing in the eyes of G'd. The fourth possibility mentioned, the wanton destruction of part of the animal kingdom is also difficult to accept as a possible motivation behind this legislation.

There is a higher principle, as stated in Deuteronomy 10:13, "To keep all the commandments of the Lord," which includes positive and negative commandments. The phrase in Leviticus 23, "And you shall serve the Lord your God," encompasses all positive commandments that involve one's heart, mouth, and actions, which are fundamental or explicitly mentioned. The phrase in Deuteronomy 14:23, "To fear the Lord," includes all negative commandments, and it is derived from the positive commandment, and the reason for it is that one should guard themselves from immorality out of their fear of God, just as a servant fears his master and refrains from doing evil while being constantly aware of his presence. Others may be drawn to their desires and not fear the king, thinking that he may not know their actions or out of disrespect, shame, and disgrace. The phrase in Deuteronomy 13:5, "After the Lord your God, you shall walk," includes acts of kindness, righteousness, and loving peace. The prophet Micah said, "He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness?" (Micah 6:8). This encompasses honoring one's father, not committing murder, adultery, theft, false testimony, or coveting. It also includes refraining from speaking falsehood, not showing favoritism to the powerful, not accepting bribes, not oppressing one's neighbor, and maintaining just weights and measures. It includes not delaying payment or taking revenge, and providing for the poor and the stranger. If lending money to my people, do not charge interest. Deal kindly with widows and orphans, do not afflict them. There are many more commandments that they have passed, and what is the need to mention them all in six hundred? Examples include the gathering of the hyssop, not leaving the manna overnight, the construction and transportation of the Tabernacle, the waving of the banners, the sending away of the impure, the hand and the peg in the camp, going out to war against the enemy, the blessings and curses, the altar on Mount Ebal, writing the Torah, the cities of refuge, the war against Amalek, and many others.

In considering that the purpose of observing Torah is to acquire the aforementioned level of partnership with the Divine, the question arises whether this is an exclusive objective, or whether one may have other more mundane benefits in mind which accrue to one in the process of fulfilling G-d’s commandments. If the former, the chances are that most people would not be able to take the long term view in order to live a life devoted to the performance of the mitzvot. The argument that mundane side benefits through the observance of mitzvot are not permissible, could be sustained by the following two considerations. 1) The more highly placed a worker or servant, the more lofty are the tasks that he is entrusted to perform. Man, as the most sophisticated creature on earth, would naturally only be concerned with the loftiest endeavours and objectives. 2) If we were to postulate that carrying out G-d’s will would have as its purpose merely human objectives, this would contradict the maxim that the objective is primary. If the prophet Isaiah 44,6, proclaims in the name of G-d "I am first and I am last," this clearly implies that the only considerations in all our endeavours must be centred around G-d and His purpose. Antignos, who has said in Avot,1 "do not be like the servant who serves the master for the sake of the reward," surely had this thought in mind. Also the saying of Ben Azzai "the reward for performing one mitzvah is another mitzvah, may be understood in a similar vein. In other words, performance of the commandments is an end in itself, not a means to an end. The Sifrey in Parshat Eykev says "a man might say to himself I'll perform the commandments in order to gain riches, or to acquire the title of Rabbi, or even in order to acquire a share in the hereafter; therefore the Torah says (Deut. 11,13) "in order to love the Lord your G-d." Your purpose in obeying should be to demonstrate your love for G-d. The Talmud in Avodah Zarah 19, quotes Rabbi Yoshua ben Levi as interpreting Psalms 112,1, "hail to the man who fears the Lord and is very desirous of His commandments,” as referring to people who perform the commandments for their own sake, not for the reward associated with them. Maimonides, at the end of his sefer hamitzvot pursues this line of reasoning also. However, one can also argue the reverse, again using two lines of reasoning. 1) It is natural for all creatures to be concerned first and foremost with their own physical needs. Although it is a fact that each type of creature serves as a means to sustain a higher category of life, i.e. plants to sustain animals, animals to sustain man etc., we nonetheless observe that they all concentrate on their own needs, their service to a higher category of life being merely incidental. 2) It is a psychological fact that man loses interest, in the pursuit of any task that does not promise tangible rewards within a time frame he considers reasonable. Even an Onan, (Genesis 38,10) was not punished for failing to have issue with Tamar, but only for taking active steps to prevent the fulfilment of the objective of the levirate marriage to provide issue for his deceased brother. Antignos' statement is revised to read "do not make service to the Lord conditional on the receipt of a reward," not as in the version of "make it conditional on being independent of a reward." Also the Talmud in Pessachim 8, states that if someone says he will give charity in order that his children will live, or in order that he himself may enjoy life in the hereafter, he is considered a perfect tzaddik. This seems to contradict the Sifrey in Parshat Eykev that he who studies the Torah in order to be called rabbi is wrong, since the Torah demands love of G-d as one's motivation. Clearly these examples indicate that having in mind personal objectives while performing mitzvot, is permissible. In fact, the Torah promises the attainment of personal objectives such as "so that you will be well off, will live long." (Deut. 22,7) There are many similar statements in the Torah. G-d Himself is quoted as wishing that the Jewish people should revere Him as they did at the time when they received the Torah, in order that He could treat them and their children well. (Deut 10,13) If G-d Himself wishes that our serving Him will result in benefits to us in this world, how can we say that all our mitzvah performance must be aimed exclusively at our being elevated to the status of becoming His partner, and that other material considerations would negate the moral value of the mitzvah performance? We must therefore believe that as a result of performing mitzvot sufficient benefit will accrue to us to make their performance worthwhile. This is the meaning of the saying in Makkot 23, "because the Lord wished to let us amass many advantages, He provided us with an abundance of mitzvot and good deeds to perform," as is written in Isaiah 42,21, "the Lord was pleased because of His righteousness to render the Torah increasingly great and glorious." Since both the aforementioned approaches have equally much to recommend them and are in accord with many sayings of our sages, we have to endeavour to reconcile the apparent contradictions. If we consider the word "prass" as referring to the remuneration received for services rendered, then the saying of Antignos becomes clear. Since all our deeds cannot provide G-d with anything that He does not already have, Antignos says " make sure your relationship with G-d is not based on the mistaken belief that there is reciprocity. Rather, remember that whatever you receive as reward for service of the Lord is in fact chessed, a kindness, since your service does not do anything for Him. However, it is a fact that your service will confer upon yourself both physical and spiritual benefits. "By observing them, the consequences, the benefits are numerous. (Psalms 19,12 ) This lesson had been misunderstood by Tzadok and Bayssus who believed that their teacher denied the theory of reward and punishment, and who, in postulating their concept of doing good merely for the sake of doing good, became heretics, strange as it may seem. The doctrine of reward as an act of grace, not as a condition for performing the mitzvot, is the true expression of Jewish attitudes then. Any other attitude smacks of an effort to manipulate G-d, of bartering with Him to do your will rather than the reverse, i.e. your doing His will. The Bible as well as our sages have carefully refrained from the use of the term "prass," and have used the term sachar instead. The latter in all its connotations simply means the reverse of hefsed, loss. If Antignos concludes by saying "in order that the fear of heaven be upon you," he warns his students not to relate to other deities which are not even able to confer any benefits upon them, be they prass or sachar. The language employed by the sayings that prohibits performing mitzvot for the sake of, is usually kedey, in order to. The distinction shows already that only when the purpose is reward is such servivce unacceptable. If, however, the service is not conditional, then the reward element is perfectly acceptable as a by- product. Once we accept that what matters is the purity of motivation of the performance, it is easy to argue that the deed itself is irrelevant as long as the intention to perform it existed. This could be the point raised by the rasha, the wicked son's question in the Haggadah. But the truth is that both deed and motivation are essential. Whenever observances are demanded, the Torah urges that it must be motivated by love for G-d, and if so, success in the form of visible reward will be the result of such service of G-d. When the Sifrey described a service that has reward as its objective as inadmissible, the reference is only to the objective of obtaining the reward in this life. If the desire is to ensure one's life in the world to come, such an objective is praiseworthy. Also the Talmud in Avodah Zarah 31, which interpreted the words "for His commandments and not for the reward of His commandments," refers only to these worldly rewards as being taboo. This was also Antignos' meaning concerning the words "today to carry out (the commandments) and not today to receive their rewards. The considerations mentioned, also help us understand the statement in Kiddushin 31, that he who performs a mitzvah because he has been commanded to do this by G-d, has done something greater than he who has performed the same deed voluntarily. One cannot achieve the ultimate tachlit, objective of the commandment unless one performs it as such. Only in this way does one become a shutaph, partner of the Almighty, a goal we have described as the ultimate purpose of mitzvah performance. This is another aspect of the saying that "the reward of the mitzvah is the mitzvah, that the achievement of the mitzvah is predicated on the very fact that it is a commandment.