Kaisipang Hudyo sa Genesis 3:12: Akeidat Yitzchak

Since we have proof from all parts of the Bible that it is the nature of man to follow "woman" whose ways are crooked and perverted, how can man escape that trap? He has after all two "women" to contend with. One is the "woman" that accompanies him from birth, concerning which the Torah has stated "male and female He created them" (Genesis 1,27), as well as "this one shall be called ‘woman’" (Genesis 2,23). See the parable which explains all this a little further on. The second woman is the one he acquires from the outside, the world at large, through marriage. These two kinds of matings have been discussed briefly in Chapter eight. Since the male is inclined to seek physical comforts and enjoyment, he is apt to follow the demands made upon him by these two women, to do their bidding, since they are the ones who provide him with these comforts. Since the first woman already turned out to be a trap for man, the situation becomes aggravated when he freely chooses another woman, i.e. a wife. A look at the life story of Samson illustrates how someone who starts out pure, a heroic figure at that, can become ensnared by women until he cannot escape their clutches (Judges Chapter 14). Even the wisest of men, Solomon, was led astray by women (Kings I 11,4), "His wives turned his heart aside." Or, consider Achav the king of Israel, who was led astray by his wife Izzebel (Kings I 16,31). Solomon, in Kohelet 7,26, states, "I have found something worse than death-- woman." It is clear from all this that in order to escape the enticements represented by "woman," one requires tremendous assistance. If man's attaining his perfection depends on the quality of the two women in his life, and both their characters would be determined in heaven, like the first one that accompanies him from birth, and who was not subject to his free choice, then everything in his life (including his character) would depend on mazzal, i.e. the horoscopic constellations plus environmental factors prevailing when he is born, (compare Aristotle Ethics Chapter 10, Essay 3) This also appears to coincide with the statement in Sotah 2 that forty days before the fetus assumes final form, a heavenly voice proclaims who would be this fetus's life partner in the future. From all the above it seems impossible to escape the conclusion that our path in life is predetermined by forces beyond our control. We also find our sages saying that birth under certain signs of the zodiac influences a person's character traits. In Shabbat 156, we are told that Israel is subject to mazzal, i.e. environmental and hereditary factors. Also, Rabbi Chaninah states that such factors contribute to whether a person will be rich or poor. On the other hand, we have Rava in Moed Katan 28 stating that whereas mazzal determines a person's economic status etc., it does not affect his personal merits. These discussions in the Talmud are not merely of a hypothetical nature, but examples from real life are cited of scholars experiencing totally different experiences in their lives though their merits were deemed similar. The life story of two outstanding scholars are meant to illustrate the point made by Rava. Rabbah, pious to the point where a prayer offered by him for rain would be answered immediately, died at the age of forty, had buried sixty next of kin during his short life, and had hardly enough money to live on bread made of barley flour. His contemporary Rav Chisdah, on the other hand, married off sixty next of kin, lived to be ninety years old and was so wealthy that even his dogs enjoyed luxuries. This example is cited in support of the claim that mazzal is of overriding influence in matters of one's success in life on this planet. These quotes all represent difficult questions vis a vis our belief in personal providence, hashgachah peratit, as opposed to mazzal, when it comes to the fate of Jews both nationally and individually. Our opening Midrash moreover seems self contradictory. If G-d decrees concerning wealth as well as concerning physical prowess of a person, all of which are necessary for a person to function at their optimal ability, how can such people attain their potential if they are handicapped from birth? We have a tradition that a person cannot attain the status of prophecy unless he is endowed with certain physical and material attributes. If these factors are subject to the caprice of mazzal, how can a person be blamed for not attaining that moral level? The fact that righteousness and wickedness respectively are not predetermined by the angel Laylah becomes relatively meaningless, since the attributes which help man to become righteous may be denied him by the very same angel. The Mishnah in Avot 2,6 states that an uncivilized person, bor, cannot be G-d fearing. So what chance do people who are genetically underequipped at birth have to reach ideals set for man, and to share in the reward in store for achieving such ideals? G-d then would have decreed the outcome by default, by denying the attributes that help man achieve his shleymut, perfection! Where is the concept of freedom of will and choice, then, and what sense would reward and punishment make if all our deeds are more or less preconditioned? The answer is, of course, that both physical and mental equipment which man receives prior to birth provides him with tendencies to act in a certain way. His will is not involved in any way. He remains free to follow these tendencies or fight them using his intellect, willpower, and heart. Isaiah 66,3 states clearly that responsibility for the sinners' actions is their own because "they chose their respective paths."

In our opening Midrash, Rabbi Meir takes the view that wine, -because it causes confusion of the mind-, is unwholesome. Rabbi Yehudah, on the other hand, holds that far from confusing the mind, wine confers blessings upon those who drink it; it improves the digestion, temperament etc. when consumed in moderation. The Bible is full of quotations attesting to the virtues of wine. As the wine cellar is open to all who wish to buy, so Sinai was open to all who wished to learn Torah, to help them control the urge to let the demands of the flesh dominate, a tendencey that has existed since the first sin in Eden. This is why the Talmud (Yevamot 103) claims that the Israelites who stood at Mount Sinai divested themselves of the impurities ingested by man in Eden, due to the serpent. For this reason too, our sages in Sanhedrin 90, say that all of Israel has a share in the world to come. If the Talmud in Sanhedrin 90, had meant that every Jew, whether religious or secular has eternal life, that would be unfair discrimination against the gentiles, and would make the life of the pious Jew unrewarding. The sinner could then look forward to the same destiny. Also, the second statement in that Mishnah, which lists a number of exclusions to the general rule, would contradict the first statement. Therefore, the correct understanding of the statement is that the term "Israelite" is not applied to someone who is merely of Jewish parentage, but to someone who lives up to the expectations of Judaism. It refers to Jews who live in accordance with the lessons learned at Sinai. Such a person is assured of eternal life. Therefore we understand the word "Israelite" as a righteous person, and conversely, "a righteous person" is an "Israelite." When the Mishnah goes on to adduce scriptural proof for its statement, the quotation "and your people who are all righteous will inherit the earth for all future times," makes perfect sense. We read in Tzefaniah 3,13, "the remnant of Israel will not commit iniquities." This seems to presuppose that it is possible to bear the name Israel, and yet commit all kinds of sins? When Tzefaniah talks about the "remnant" however, he refers to those who, though they share the Jewish tradition, are not necessarily aware of Torah. We see that Moses distinguishes between two sets of Jews. (Deut. 33,4) "Moses commanded us Torah, a hereditary tradition to the community of Jacob." The elite of the people are familiar with Torah and its details; the multitude treasures tradition handed down as such, but without deeper knowledge of same. Acquiring new habits is difficult, unless a satisfactory rationale is provided. Continuing a long established tradition does not make intellectual demands on those who practice them. The men of the great assembly may have been called such, because due to the cessation of activities by the prophets, it fell to their lot to make certain innovations to insure the continuance of Judaism as we know it. They established their claim to fame by three things. (Mishnah Avot 1) They advised moderation in the application of justice, searched for a concensus. 2) They tried to put Torah on a broad base, by enrolling many students in the academies; and once having done these two things, 3) they were able to construct "fences" around Torah, and have those "fences" respected by the people at large. If the interpretation of the Mishnah would be the standard one, i.e. that of "be circumspect before deciding legal matters," a later statement at the end of the chapter, that "justice is one of the pillars of the world," should have appeared before the statement in the name of Shimon Hatzaddik. The latter had been a member of the men of the great assembly, and was also the author of the opening statement of the first Mishnah. Having understood the function of the men of the great assembly, we can now understand the statement of the Talmud in Avodah Zarah 35, which interprets the verse "your friendship is dearer than wine" (Song of Songs 1,1) to mean that the Midrashic interpretations of Torah are dearer to Israel than the original text, even. The general order in which forbidden foods are listed, is such that the intake of animals that the Torah considers as only mildly damaging, is listed first, whereas those foods that the Torah considers as severely harmful to the development of the ideal Jewish personality, are listed later. The very fact that animals which are poisonous, or any plants that are poisonous are omitted in the list, clearly shows that the Torah's concern in this legislation is not our physical health.