Kaisipang Hudyo sa Genesis 22:2: Akeidat Yitzchak, Hegyonot El Ami & The Third Beit HaMikdash

(1) We have to understand this whole story as a continuation of the previously reported incident, in which G'd had criticised Moses openly for having appeared to doubt His ability to supply the people with large quantities of meat. Under the circumstances, Miriam and Aaron also found reason to criticise Moses. They believed that Moses, having married a woman belonging to another nation, had now become ashamed of this, and that this was the reason he had separated from her. They were convinced that his status as a prophet had nothing to do with this separation, since they too were prophets, and this did not interfere with their family life. If Moses were to use the argument of his being a prophet, they considered that this would be showing off his piety. This was their second sin, in fact. G'd heard all this, and decided to reprimand them more severely than He would have done, had their criticism been more factual, and if they had not chosen a point in time when they believed Moses to be out of favour with G'd. First of all, by testifying to Moses' humility, the Torah squelches the thought that he could have been showing off his piety. Secondly, it states that the separation had nothing to do with Moses having developed a dislike for his wife. Matters which would be considered private by other couples who conduct their sex life in the confines of their bedrooms, would assume a quasi public character in the case of Moses, since he had to be available for communication from G'd on a seven day, twenty four hour basis. He could therefore not afford to be found tamey, ritually impure due to the emission of seminal fluid at any moment. Even the brief space of time it would require to immerse himself in a ritual bath, would mean that he would keep G'd waiting, on occasion. Because Miriam and Aaron did not appreciate the different level of Moses' prophetic powers and stature, they had arrived at an opposite conclusion regarding Moses' motivation. By addressing them suddenly, G'd wanted to demonstrate to Miriam and Aaron that whereas they had not been tuned in to this communication and had been totally unprepared for it, their brother was perfectly at ease, comfortable with this "sudden" communication. Miriam and Aaron were forced to remain outside the tabernacle, whereas Moses was inside it. Only through Moses being in the presence of the shechinah, did they receive any communication at all. (2) G'd then proceeded to outline the qualitative difference between Moses' prophetic powers, and those of Miriam and Aaron respectively. Im yihye nevi-achem, "if he were a prophet according to your definition of the term," G'd would speak to him in a dream or through a reflection. (verses 6-8) Other prophets receive their communications in one of four ways. A) In a dream. B) Through a reflected image, while remaining awake but in a state of trembling. C) In a parable, through a riddle, by means of an angel. D) After having prepared themselves spiritually to a state necessary to receive a communication. In chapter seven of his sefer hamada, Maimonides has elaborated on the Talmudic statement in Yevamot 49, explaining that the prophecy of Moses was in the nature of a "clear vision," whereas all other prophets received only "clouded visions." Our Parshah explains some of the aspects of prophecy discussed by Maimonides, as well as others not dealt with in his sefer hamada. Mar-ah, is the mirror which is the means by which the prophet receives his message while awake or asleep. There are four basic deficiencies when one receives a communication by means of a mirror. They leave the recipient unable to comprehend the message in its entirety. 1) The viewer sees only what is immediately opposite him, anything behind a curtain, for instance, would not be seen, since only the curtain itself is reflected by the mirror. In this way, prophets receive an external view of things, without comprehending its substance. Abraham's belief that Isaac was to be sacrificed is an example of this. Although it appeared as if G'd had changed His mind, lack of comprehension of the true nature of G'ds command, only affected the viewer. Similarly, Samuel erred thinking G'd had wanted him to appoint Yishai's eldest son, until G'd told him not to be guided by the "exterior." i.e. mar-eyhoo. Even at the beginning of his career, he had mistaken the call of Eli, the High Priest, his mentor, no less than three times. (Samuel I chapter 3) This kind of communication is described by Solomon in his Song of Songs as "behold, He was standing behind our wall, observing through the windows, peering through the lattices." (chapter 2,9) Concerning all this, G'd says "not so My servant Moses; he is at home in any part of My house." The second deficiciency when perceiving by means of a mirror, is that all communication is only visual; the viewer cannot hear anything that may be spoken by the figure appearing in the mirror. Consequently, understanding is liable to be fragmentary, the whole picture is not communicated. Gestures may be observed, but no sound is audible. Zacharyah 4, and Daniel 10, are examples of the inadequacy to the prophet of this kind of revelation, unless there is further assistance. Concerning this flaw which other prophets have to put up with when they receive G'ds communications, G'd says about Moses "I speak to him mouth to mouth." His ears, not only his eyes are part of his prophetic visions. The third disadvantage in perceiving by means of a mirror, is that one does not behold the actual form or shape of the object shown, but only its two dimensional reproduction, i.e. reflection. This is like making the recipient of the vision guess at the real essence of something. It is as if asking him to piece together parts of a puzzle, chidot. Mar-eh, spelled with the vowel segal, means a true image, not the reflected one. Moses receives mar-eh, not mar-ah. The fourth disadvantage of viewing by means of a mirror is that whoever wants to view things in a mirror, must first assume a position opposite, directly in front of the mirror. Whatever is seen however, appears inverted. What is right in reality and parallel to the viewer, appears as on the left of the viewer. The viewer must employ his brain to compensate for the distortion inherent in viewing things in a mirror. Moses, on the other hand, sees temunat hashem, the true image, not something distorted in a mirror. After G'd had outlined to Miriam and Aaron how different Moses' level of prophetic perceptions was from theirs, He challenges them "why have you not had enough reverence for him to talk about My servant etc." i.e. "about ME?" Here G'd makes the point that Moses is indeed the spiritual father of all prophets, and as such, a special reverence is required in our attitude towards him. When the Mishnah Avot 4, 15, says "may the reverence for your teacher equal the reverence for Heaven," our Parshah is its source. The sin of Miriam and Aaron was twofold, since in making derogatory remarks about Moses, they had actually criticised G'd by implication. Moses was G'ds chosen instrument, after all. Secondly, Moses' character was so perfect, that they had no right to impute base motives to any of his actions. When G'd had finished explaining to Miriam and Aaron how they had erred, He withdrew, and Miriam was struck by the skin disease, since it had only been she who had actually done the talking. Aaron had been included in the accusation, since by remaining a silent listener, he had become an accessory to the travesty committed. Proof that Aaron had kept silent, is the fact that the Torah does not say "Miriam and Aaron spoke," using the plural form, or the masculine form, which would have included Aaron. (3) The plea "do not lay sin upon us," means "since we have already admitted our guilt, do not reprimand us any further for this sin, but pray for us." In answer to Moses' prayer to heal Miriam of her affliction, G'd says "since even Aaron had not suggested that she go completely free, only that she should not die, her punishment would be temporary banishment. Her sin being also against her father in Heaven, said father would ban her from His presence temporarily." (4) The fact that the people did not continue their journey during Miriam's quarantine, was not an unmixed blessing for her. Though it reflected the fact that they held Miriam in high esteem, it was also the surest way of publicising what had happened to her, since the delay in travelling would lead to questions concerning the reason for the delay. All of this would result in increased respect for Moses and his prophetic powers. The Parshah teaches the lesson that one must be exceedingly careful when criticising one's leaders. Solomon, in Proverbs 18,12-14, summarizes the lesson to be learned from this Parshah. Moses, who enjoyed tremendous prestige and honour was exemplified by his humility, whereas Miriam the greatest prophetess, had let her pride cause her to slander her brother. The principal error to be avoided when criticising one's leaders, is not to apply one's own low standards of conduct to those of one's leaders.

Some philosophers thought that true love can exist only between opposites. Dry earth requires and longs for water, moisture. Water laden skies, clouds, need to empty themselves on earth. On the other hand, all craftsmen are jealous of one another. Aristotle on the other hand holds that likes are attracted to each other. Starlings keep company with ravens as they are of a kind (Chullin 65). Since G-d is neither similar to man nor totally his opposite, some hold that a love relationship with G-d is impossible. But the prophet Maleachi 1,2 says, "G-d says I have loved you Israel, and I have hated Esau... How can you question this?" (based on the premise that I am neither like you nor your exact opposite. More about this in chapter 90). The fact that two brothers (Jacob and Esau), who by nature should be similar, are treated so differently, proves that character traits rather than genetic affinity, i.e. outwardly similar human beings, determine between whom love occurs. Love has positive and negative aspects. Inasmuch as even trees have been compared to humans, especially fruit-bearing trees, their destruction has been prohibited (Deut. 20,19). Animals which share even more with human beings than trees, seeing that they are living creatures, must not be destroyed needlessly and must not be made to suffer even when their destruction is in order and serves a higher purpose (Baba Metzia 32). Examples are consumption by humans, which is restricted in the case of the mother animal and its young, which are not to be slaughtered on the same day. Mother birds must be dispatched before the newly hatched chicks may be taken. An animal needs to be at least eight days old before it may be slaughtered as a sacrifice to G-d, etc. Such considerations apply in even greater measure when dealing with fellow human beings, regardless of any formal agreements to that effect. Torah legislation, when dealing with the status of gentile slaves, is most specific in detailing the degree of concern that must be shown for the physical well being of such a slave. This mutual love for fellow human beings is observed in increasing measure when these humans are part of the same race or environment. The Torah emphasizes the positive aspects of love by commanding "Love your fellowman like yourself," i.e. when that fellowman is similar to yourself (Leviticus 19, 18). Love is not demanded for those utterly unlike you, such as animals etc. In fact, the feelings which we reserve for things or creatures unlike us is not love, but goodwill, pity etc. (see Psalms 102). We relate to the stones of Zion as something that we "want," not as something that we "love." The latter term would be a complete misnomer for phenomena not on our level. When Isaac asks Esau for "delicious dishes the way I "love" them" (Genesis 27,4), the term "love" does not describe the dishes, but the people whom he loves. He is saying to Esau, "When you do what I like....l will love you." Proof of this is found in the verse (Genesis 25,28) "Isaac loved Esau because he carried venison in his mouth." The term "love" cannot rightfully be applied even to parts of the body. Such parts become "nirtzah," appreciated, and may become the instrument through which their owner becomes "beloved." The term " ratzon," goodwill, appreciation, refers also to the parts of whole things which qualify for "love." For instance, Psalms 19, 15, "May the words of your mouth engender goodwill." The term "love" is reserved for the whole person. "Love the Lord your G-d;" "Love your fellowman like yourself,” i.e. identification with the other party is love. Such an identification is based on a complete appreciation of the other's qualities. This is what G-d describes when He said to Abraham, "Take your son, your only one, the one whom you love." (Genesis 22,2) Love cannot survive when one of the parties undergoes a drastic change either in moral or physical stature. Jonathan volunteered to become David's deputy, to enable his love for David to survive (Samuel I 23,17). For the appreciation of the foregoing, G-d required a covenant from the Jewish people, in order to maintain the love relationship that existed and to warn Israel that unless a mutuality of interests and the deeds arising from that mutuality of interests was maintained, the love relationship would disintegrate. The factors which were mutual, i.e. the common denominator between G-d and Israel, were Torah, Sanctuary (temple), and Priesthood. These factors were needed to ensure that by concentrating on them, both G-d and Israel would maintain their identity of purpose. When people try to upset this love relationship others have with G-d, it is like craftsmen who are jealous in their hearts of fellow craftsmen, seeing that we are all children of one father.

"Please take your son, your only one, who you love, Yitzchak, and go to the land of Moriah; and sacrifice him as a burnt-offering" (Genesis 22:2).