Kaisipang Hudyo sa Isaias 58:5: Akeidat Yitzchak & Yesod Mora VeSod HaTorah

The Yalkut Shimoni on Ezekiel item 358, relates the following: "They asked 'wisdom' what is a suitable punishment for the sinner? 'Wisdom' replied "evil will pursue the sinners." (Proverbs 13,21) When they asked 'prophecy' the same question, 'prophecy' replied "the person who sins will die” (Ezekiel 18,4) When the asked ‘Torah', the answer was “he will bring an offering and obtain forgiveness." When they asked G'd, G'd said “let him repent and confess and he will obtain atonement,” as we know from Hoseah 14,2, "take with you words and return to the Lord” This is also the meaning of the verse in Psalms 25,8, “good and upright is the Lord, therefore He instructs the sinners in the path of life.” It is apparent that the sages wished to explain the four approaches possible to the problem of sin. Human 'wisdom' perceives it as related to the inadequacy of the sinner on the one hand, and the overpowering stature of the One sinned against on the other. Since the sinner is so lacking in worth, once he has sinned, he is perceived as automatically and irreversibly pursued by the evil that his sin has evoked. Rehabilitation is not conceived possible, because of the unbridgeable chasm between puny man and the great Lawgiver and Creator. Therefore, the decree in Samuel I- 2,31-33, envisioning the irreversible punishment that the house of Eli would become victim of. The next point of view, espoused by 'prophecy', incorporates an understanding of the human personality based on revelation, and appreciates that each individual is to be judged on his own merits without setting in motion a chain reaction of punishments involving untold future generations. Thus 'prophecy' sees the death of the sinner himself as the fitting punishment for his inadequacies. Similarly, Solomon says (Kohelet 3,8) "there is one that is alone, without a second one, he has neither son nor brother." It is to this statement that 'prophecy' referred, when it said that the sinner alone would die, neither his son or brother will have to bear the burden of the sin of the sinner. Compare Ezekiel 18,4. The father/son relationship between G'd and His people is stronger than the father/son relationship between biological fathers and their sons, because G'd is our common Father. "You are sons to the Lord your G'd." (Deut 14,1) G'd can restrict punishment to each individual nefesh, personality, not as human wisdom would assume, that all punishment would ipso facto involve also subsequent generations of the sinner. (Chapter 99 will deal in greater detail with the obligations of the subsequent generations to embrace Sinaitic laws.) This then is the answer of 'prophecy', inasmuch as it represents the highest spiritual and intellectual level man is able to attain on his own. However, considering that the study of Torah broadens man's horizon, the additional insight gained by study of Torah produces the answer "let him bring a sacrifice and atone," to our original question. All the Rishonim agree that this recipe for obtaining forgiveness will alert man to the nature and severity of the sin, since when he sees what happens to the animal, he will say to himself "here but for the grace of G'd, go I. "He will thus acquire a deeper reverence for G'd and His commandments. We observe how Cain, when G'd told him "the voice of your brother's blood cries out to Me," and the punishment decreed, (Genesis 4,11-13) became aware of the vastness of sin, until he himself admitted "my sin is too great to bear." Due to the severe nature of the punishment, the true nature of the sin is sometimes revealed to the sinner. Just as the drunkard who enters a bar and gets drunk, does not realise what is wrong with him until he is asked to pay for what he has consumed, so the sinner. Solomon, in Proverbs 23,31, puts it this way: "when he sets his eyes on the cup," i.e. when he drinks only what he can afford, instead of falling victim to the allure of the wine's colour," only then can he walk upright." The reason that the animal sacrifice does not normally atone for intentional sins, is twofold. 1) Not to advertise that people who enjoy good reputations are capable of forgetting their duties to such an extent that they sin deliberately. 2) When a superior being, one that possesses the gift of speech, sins, it can hardly expect that an inarticulate animal or worse, some lifeless object, could serve as compensation, atonement for his sin. Only the sinner himself can properly be sacrificed on the altar through repentance, fasting, confession, suffering and the performance of good deeds, as expressed by Isaiah 58. In that chapter, Isaiah describes the nature of a meaningful fast day. Michah,6,7, offers scathing criticism of those who are content to offer up their firstborn in atonement for their sins, when nothing less than their own lives would really be capable of atoning for them. Only the sinner's complete transformation can achieve atonement. Our sages also said concerning the house of Eli, that not sacrifices but only Torah and good deeds could bring about their rehabilitation. (Rosh Hashanah 18) When the fourth example of the Yalkut quoted earlier has G'd saying "let the sinner repent," that refers to the sinner who has sinned knowingly. Since G'd, in His goodness desires the rehabilitation of the sinner, He shows them the way. The precise nature of teshuvah, repentance is discussed further in chapter 100. The type of sacrifice involving atonement is not too difficult to understand then, whereas a second category including peace offerings, vows, gifts etc. is much more difficult to understand. In fact, they are so difficult to comprehend, that Maimonides in chapter 32 third part of his Moreh, writes that the purpose of these sacrifices is sublimation. We are to dedicate them to G'd rather than to a lesser deity, as had been commonplace among the pagans. According to Maimonides, none of these sacrifices has intrinsic value. Maimonides' attitude on these matters has been severely criticised by many scholars including Nachmanides, as is well known. All the arguments offered by those scholars were not new to Maimonides, of course. Nonetheless we find his commentary inadequate. The same applies to the arguments of Yehudah Halevi in the Kuzari. (I have omitted the author's detailed rebuttal of Maimonides' arguments as well as his rebuttal of Yehudah Halevi's arguments. Ed.) We prefer to think that animal sacrifices, even when not for the purpose of atonement, help man to perfect himself through appreciation of the the why, where, how and what he is instructed to offer. In other words, there is a symbolism in the legislation pertaining to each category of sacrifice. Also the nation as a whole is strengthened by the offerings of the communally paid for sacrifices prescribed in the Torah. Just as the nefesh chayah, "soul" of man is distinct from his "physical life force," so is the food required for the former distinct from the food required by the latter. The former derives its sustenance from matters spiritual, as shown by Moses who went without food or drink for forty days at a time while on Mount Sinai on three separate occasions. Every se-udat mitzvah, a meal occasioned by a mitzvah celebration, contains elements designed to fortify our "soul," feeding the spiritual part of us from the sanctified portions of such a meal. The partaking of food primarily designed for our bodily needs, also strengthens the spiritual part of us if the circumstances and intent causing such food to be consumed are related to the performance of G'ds will. If we eat-for instance- in order to be better able to serve G'd, then our "soul" automatically derives sustenance from such eating. (see Proverbs 23,1-3. Compare also chapter thirty two.) The presence of G'd is assured not because we feed the shechinah, but because through our proper intent and care when offering sacrifices (i.e. feeding our national "soul") we become fit for the shechinah to continue to reside near us. This is the rey-ach nicho-ach lashem, the sweet smelling odour to G'd, that results whenever "My will" is done. (see Sifrey on Parshat Pinchas.) Since the Torah does not state the reasons explicitly, the first of the princes (Numbers 7) was especially complimented on having perceived some of the functions of the sacrifices on his own. (compare Midrash Rabbah Numbers 17 "Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair said etc.")

Some problems in the text that need explaining. 1) Why does the Torah relate the service on the Day of Atonement to the two sons of Aaron that had died? (16,1) Why mention their death at this point? 2) Why does the High Priest bring one sin offering and one total offering, whereas for the people there are two sin offerings and one total offering? 3) What is the reason for the drawing of lots as to which he-goat will serve which purpose? 4) Why is the tabernacle when Aaron enters it to remove the spoon and pan for the incense in verse twenty three, described as "the tent of appointment" rather than as the "tabernacle," or "sanctuary," i.e. the usual designation? Why the requirement that he leave his garments there? 5) Why are not all the acts of the temple service of that day mentioned in this Parshah? If the answer is that the Torah at this point lists only the service performed in the white linen garments, why was there a need to constantly refer to the "changing of the garments?" 6) Why is the requirement of the "affliction" mentioned twice in this Parshah, and three more times in Parshat Emor? 7) How can the little extra time that one fasts before sunset on the day preceding the Day of Atonement be called "an affliction,” seeing one has just concluded eating a festive meal? 8) Why does verse 27, in chapter 23, start with the word ach, "however," a word which normally forms a bridge with the subject matter under discussion previously? The word is not usually employed to introduce new subject matter as in this instance. 9) Why is there a different penalty for transgressing the commandment of "afflicting oneself," and the transgression of the work prohibition? The Torah seems to describe different nuances of death at the hands of G'd? 10) The use of the word ish, a person, a man, would seem to have been more appropriate to describe the subject carrying out the work than the word nefesh, "soul," employed here!

There is a commandment that is essential, and it has limitations, such as the Nazirite who abstains from wine and any grape product throughout the duration of their vow. Wine increases desire and clouds the mind. We see this in the example of Daniel, who abstained from wine during Passover, even though it is only a rabbinic prohibition. Similarly, the Nazirite is prohibited from consuming vinegar, grape products, raisins, and grape seeds. They must not shave their hair, allowing themselves to appear attractive to women. The reason for this is that if one takes a vow to abstain from wine alone, they will not be fully dedicated and holy to the name of God unless they observe all the mentioned commandments. Our ancestors acted similarly on Yom Kippur, where eating is forbidden. This is the essence because any form of self-affliction that connects with the soul in the entire scripture is considered a fast. It is so because the soul's desire resides in the liver (Deuteronomy 12:20), as it is stated, "The desire of your soul." (Job 33:20) "His soul longs for food." Leviticus 7:18 states, "The soul that eats." The witnesses confirm this, as it is written in Isaiah 58:3, "Why have we fasted, and you do not see it? Why have we afflicted our souls, and you take no notice?" The reason is twofold. Similarly, in Isaiah 58:5, it says, "Is this the kind of fast I have chosen, a day for a person to humble himself? Is it only for bowing one's head like a reed and for lying in sackcloth and ashes? Will you call this a fast and a day pleasing to the Lord?" Furthermore, in Isaiah 58:5, it states, "You will call, and the Lord will answer; you will cry for help, and he will say: Here am I." I have already explained the concept in Psalm 35:13, "But as for me, when they were ill, my clothing was sackcloth; I humbled myself with fasting, and my prayer returned to my own lap." Why does the word "Nefesh" (soul) begin with a Bet in the context of fasting? It is because it is also forbidden to drink during fasting. This is found in Deuteronomy 14:23, "And you shall eat before the Lord your God, in the place that he will choose to make his name dwell, the tithe of your grain, your wine, and your oil." In the case of Daniel, in Daniel 10:12, it says, "I did not eat any choice food; no meat or wine touched my lips." This teaches us to comprehend and engage in fasting. There is no mention of bathing during fasting, and they said that one may wash if they have a seminal emission. How eager were the ancient sages! As it is said in Pirkei Avot 2:1, "Be as careful with a minor commandment as with a major one." Additionally, in Pirkei Avot 4:2, it states, "The reward for a mitzvah is a mitzvah."