Kaisipang Hudyo sa Genesis 34:30: Akeidat Yitzchak

If we interpret the above to mean that Israel will be physically unable to break the covenant of its forefathers, the fact that throughout the ages large segments of our people have always defied the rules of the Torah, is mystifying. Also, if we cannot contravene the laws of the Torah physically, what about the concept of free will upon which the entire system of reward and punishment is built? Again, if G'd feels compelled to threaten retaliation for nonobservance of His laws, there evidently cannot be a question of physical inability to transgress these laws! Furthermore, if G'd had the power to make us live up to the covenant, threats of chastisement seem pointless. From all the above, we feel that it is clear that the matter of the oath needs to be understood somewhat differently from the manner most commentators have presented it. We must also subscribe to the notion that the eternal existence of the Jewish people as well as their special status amongst the nations is not tied to the observance or non observance of the covenant, but rather that it is anchored in the very nature of this people, which will not change even when defying the covenant. Although the impulse for self-destruction is abnormal, unnatural, G'd has seen fit to legislate against the commission of suicide, assuming that such legislation might dissuade a few people bent on self-destruction. The rare phenomenon of wilful self-destruction does not undermine the will of the vast majority to remain alive. Similarly, the estrangement of the nation from its G'd cannot be brought about by the desertion of a few, since the bond tying it to its G'd is far too deeply rooted in history. The following parable will illustrate the whole subject more clearly. A certain highly intelligent and courageous young man who successfully confronted his less highly principled peers, became the object of his peers' hatred. They did everything to make the young man's life unbearable until the young man sought refuge at the King's Court. There he was placed under Royal protection. The young man thereupon concentrated his abilities and energies on performing a series of duties for the king, until the latter decided to grant him a special status in recognition of his selfless devotion. The king entered into an agreement with the young man whereby his special status would also extend to his descendants, on the understanding that such descendants would keep faith with the king, and would continue to perform the duties assigned to them. The young man was overjoyed by this generous offer, and accepted with alacrity. For several generations the descendants of the young man prospered and kept their part of their ancestor's bargain. The fifth generation, having become extremely wealthy, decided that the services rendered to the king had become too onerous, and refused to carry out the terms of the agreement their forefather had entered into. Their complaint was directed at their forefather, whom they accused of having committed them to a life of servitude to the king. They therefore claimed the right of self determination, and the freedom to decide for themselves whom they would recognise as their Master. The king was quite agreeable, pointing out however, that since the family's obligations were being terminated, so was his own undertaking to grant this family special protection against its natural enemies, and to ensure its continued affluence. As soon as all the former enemies heard about the changed relationship of that family and the king, they resumed harassing the family with devastating results. No one in their right mind would accuse the king of having punished that family. Everyone understands that whatever evil befell that family from that time on had been their own doing, that they had only themselves to blame. Applied to the Jewish people, the comparison is quite simple. Jacob, choicest of our ancestors, had incurred the wrath of Esau, the jealousy of Laban, the enmity of the Canaanites around Shechem, and had led a life of frequent upheavals, daily skirmishes until he took refuge under the wings of the shechinah. (Genesis 35,8) "The Lord who has answered me on the day of my distress." Because his way of life had found favour in the eyes of G'd, He assured Jacob of protection against his enemies, and this support continued throughout the generations, (see beginning of Parshat Vayetze) The promise was spelled out in detail at Mount Sinai, (Exodus 19,5) when the condition "now you must hearken to My voice and observe My covenant etc" was made a prerequisite for this continued protection and special status of the Jewish people. These conditions were further emphasized in Deuteronomy 26,15-19, when the reciprocal relationship between Israel and G'd is repeated in clear and unmistakable language. If subsequent generations would repudiate the deal made by their ancestors by worshipping idols and other acts of disloyalty to their erstwhile king, then the ill fate that would befall them could not be described as punishment by that king. On the contrary, they would be considered the architects of their own misfortune, especially, since G'd is on record as withdrawing the special status this people had enjoyed heretofore. The crucial aspect of the eternal nature of the covenant is, that just as mass suicide committed by a whole people simultaneously is unthinkable, so the alienation of the entire Jewish people from its Torah and its G'd simultaneously, is equally beyond the realm of possibility. When the Talmud in Shabbat 88, discusses the coercion used by G'd in order to get the Jewish people to accept the Torah at Sinai on pain of immediate burial under the Mountain, Rabbi Acha bar Yaakov raises the issue of the validity of acceptance under duress. This issue is raised concerning the people standing at the foot of the mountain. How much more would this question apply to later generations who had not even been present on that occasion! Those later generation who had not experienced liberation from bondage in Egypt, had far less reason to accept the Torah out of a sense of gratitude for their deliverance! The argument in the Talmud is turned aside by a reference to the Jewish people accepting Torah completely voluntarily at the time of their deliverance from the threat of extinction by Haman. That acceptance is deemed binding for all future generations. That so-called voluntary acceptance was induced by the realisation that if G'd were to forsake them, their very existence would come to an end, as had been demonstrated by their experience with Haman. The latter had almost succeeded in wiping out a nation that had considered itself both secure and emancipated. When the wording of the covenant in Parshat Nitzavim stresses that the covenant did not only apply to the generation of the Exodus, but to all subsequent generations, the reference to the generation of the Exodus teaches that even that generation did not have to accept Torah out of a sense of gratitude, but rather because Torah had become a natural habitat for the Jewish people, just as water is for fish or blood for the body. "She is a tree of life to those who support her." (Proverbs 3,18) Just as G'd had promised never to bring another deluge, since conditions would not be allowed to recur which would call for such mass extinction, so conditions allowing a total rupture between Israel and its G'd would also not be allowed to recur. This is what the oath in our Parshah wishes to convey. Jeremiah 31,16, quoted earlier, describes a situation which is possible in theory, since all physical phenomena have measurable finite dimensions. Since the effort in actually taking those measurements is mind boggling, so is the idea of G'd despising the entire Jewish people. Isaiah 54, 9-10, may be understood in a similar vein.

The fourth trait listed by Aristo (Chapter 11) defines the true man of valor as someone who is not reckless, but weighs the dangers he exposes himself to in relation to the chance of success in battle. Being human, fear in varying degree is not alien to him. When facing certain death, he is aware of the advantages of life; when the cause is worthy however, he chooses death as being preferable to an unworthy life. Our sages, in Sanhedrin 74, have formulated three evils as the ones that are not fit to live with, and for the avoidance of which death is preferable to life (immoral sexual relationships, idol worship, and shedding inncocent blood). This will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 83. The value of not endangering one's life frivoulously, is demonstrated in Samuel II Chapter 23, when David refused to drink water which three heroes had secured for him at the risk of their lives. They could easily have been killed by Philistines at Bethlehem. David compared the water they brought him to their own lifeblood. Since our lives are a sacred trust given to us by G-d for safekeeping, we are not at liberty to endanger it needlessly. Until the owner (G-d) claims His property back, we have to preserve it faithfully. Elijah was wrong in offering his life back to G-d. (Kings I19) Why did he flee from Jezebel who would gladly have taken his life, had he not known that it was his duty to preserve it? When the wife of Job (Job 2,10) exhorted him to curse G-d and thus deliver himself up to death either at the hands of G-d or through a human tribunal, she did so thinking he would be better off dead than alive. Job, however, answered her that anyone willing to accept the pleasant aspects of life must likewise be prepared to accept the unpleasant parts if and when they do occur. Flavius Josephus's own account of how he surrendered to the Romans rather than commit suicide, is a valid argument in favor of our position. How much did Jacob's sons err when they destroyed a city situated in the midst of a densely populated area, an action that was bound to be followed by retaliatory measures by the whole district, and which could ultimately have resulted only in their collective deaths? Jacob remonstrated with them, "You have troubled me to make me odious" (Genesis 34,30). Had it not been for "the fear of the Lord" which overcame the inhabitants of the neighbouring towns, the inevitable consequences would have ensued.

Moses' blessings are viewed as a continuation of Jacob's blessings. Jacob had concluded with the line "and this is what their father said to them when he blessed them." (Genesis 49,28) So Moses says "and this," at the beginning of his blessings, whereas we find this term used at the very end of Jacob's blessings. Since Reuben had been demoted at the time of Joseph's sale, and had been the subject of his father's criticism at the time Jacob died, Moses emphasizes that though numerically not strong, Reuben would produce outstanding men in spite of this. The blessing may also include the assurance that Reuben personally had not lost his share in the world to come as the result of the incident with Bilhah. By mentioning Yehudah next, the fact that Reuben had been mentioned first, shows that Moses had not wanted to deny Reuben his rightful place. Yehudah is mentioned next due to his rank. Since it will be he who will lead Israel in battle, provide the kings, Moses blesses Yehudah by imploring G'd to come to Yehudah's aid when the latter finds himself in difficulties. "Though his hands fight on his behalf, be the helper from his adversaries." (33,7) Since the temporal and spiritual leadership of the nation are to go hand in hand, Levi is mentioned next in the list of tribes to be blessed. Although inquiries re the will of G'd are made via le-ish chassidecha, religious authority, by the use of tumecha ve-urecha, the ineffable name in the High Priest's breastplate, the secular leader is required to stand in the presence of the High Priest. (see chapter 35) Since Moses is himself a member of the tribe of Levi, he apologises for the sin at the "waters of strife," explaining it as having been due to instructions once received at Massa to hit the rock. (33,8) Since the sin had not been intentional, Aaron is not excluded from the term of endearment "your pious one." Both on the occasion of the golden calf episode when the Levites had risked their lives for G'ds law, and at Shittim when Pinchas had done so, the tribe had displayed fervent loyalty. The second function of the tribe is to teach the Torah to Israel, yoru mishpatecha, they will teach Your social laws. Thirdly, service in the temple will be performed by members of that tribe, yassimu ketorah be-apecha, they will put incense before You. The position of Priest and Levite being a hereditary one, it is apt to be viewed by some as an undeserved privilege, and will arouse antagonism towards that tribe. Therefore, Moses asks that the Levites' adversaries be crushed, (verse 11) Moses does not mention the tribe of Shimon, the latter still smarting from the affair of Baal Peor, and the wounds on its collective dignity inflicted by Pinchas. Also, it had just lost twelve thousand men. Moses therefore was content not to criticise the tribe of Shimon at this stage. Also, this made it unnecessary for him to bestow thirteen blessings.