Kaisipang Hudyo sa Jeremias 31:35: Akeidat Yitzchak, HaEmunot veHaDeot & Guide for the Perplexed

(8) According to some, the promise that Abraham and Sarah would sire a child, made Abraham wonder if perchance Ishmael was destined to die, since otherwise his existence would have enabled G-d to fulfil His promise to Abraham to become the ancestor of a multitude of nations in a far more natural way. This consideration prompted Abraham to pray for Ishmael's continued existence. (6) When Abraham questioned G-d’s promise, his concern was legitimate, whereas when Sarah did so she had no such legitimate concern. Therefore, G-d criticized Sarah without criticizing Abraham. However, it is more likely that Abraham's remark was just as unseemly as Sarah's later, just as was that of Moses when he questioned G-d’s ability to feed all of Israel meat in the desert (Numbers 11,21). Since however, it was a day of glad tidings, a day on which Abraham had cheerfully accepted the commandment to circumcise himself, G-d did not want to spoil the occasion by criticizing him. Similarly, on the day the Torah was given, the leaders of Israel were not punished, although their conduct was deserving of punishment (Exodus 24, see Vayikra Rabbah 20). When G-d did criticize Sarah eventually for her similar lack of belief, He did so via Abraham. "Why does Sarah laugh?" (Genesis 18,13). He could have criticized Sarah without addressing Abraham on the subject. However, G-d wanted Abraham to get the message that he, too, had erred in a similar fashion on the same subject. (9) As it was, G-d’s answer was only meant to emphasize that Sarah deserved to bear a son. Ishmael's future was not in doubt at all. Abraham was to call the new son Isaac, as a reminder that he had considered his conception and birth as too amusing a flight of fancy to entertain seriously. G-d would let Ishmael become great, but the new covenant under discussion would be maintained with Isaac. (10) The statement that "G-d had finished speaking with Abraham" proves, that this whole vision had been of a superior nature compared to previous ones. This vision was more like the ones Abraham would enjoy from this point on, though in this instance we still find Abraham falling down due to the overwhelming impact of G-d’s Presence. The promptness with which Abraham carried out G-d’s commandment reflects the newly won awareness that he was as yet incomplete as a human being. Rabbi Berechya points out in Bereshit Rabbah 39 that in promising Isaac, G-d did not say, "I will place you," but rather "I will make you." This indicates a direct action on G-d’s part, similar to such actions by G-d during the creation of man. The meaning is "When I make a new creature out of you, be fruitful and multiply!" When G-d had made a covenant with Noach, the sign of which was the rainbow, He limited the power of the forces of water and assured the continued existence of man. He promised that the future of a nation based on Abraham and Isaac would be assured just as the future of mankind had been assured through the covenant with Noach. No matter what sins will call for retribution, the nation as a whole will not perish. This implies that Israel's character even amid persecutions due to its infidelity vis a vis the Almighty, will exhibit traits that will qualitfy it for eventual redemption.

Now that I have set forth these preliminary points, I consider it appropriate to append to them a discussion regarding the abrogation of the Torah, as this is its proper place. And I say: The Children of Israel have already received a firm tradition that the commandments of the Torah, concerning which the prophets declared to them that they would not be abrogated, and they affirmed having heard this in an explicit declaration, which dispels all thought and all reasoning to the contrary.
Subsequently, I have examined the scriptures and found therein indications to this effect, firstly, that the majority of commandments are written with the phrase "for your generations". Furthermore, there is the pronouncement (Deuteronomy 33:4), "Torah Moses commanded us, an inheritance for the congregation of Jacob." Moreover, our nation is only a nation by virtue of its Torah. And since the Creator declared that the nation shall endure as long as the heavens and the earth endure, it is necessarily implied that its Torah must endure for as long as the heavens and the earth, as He stated (Jeremiah 31:35), "Thus saith the Lord, who giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night… If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the Lord, then the seed of Israel also shall cease…"
Furthermore, I have observed in the later prophecies, a warning concerning the observance of the Torah of Moses until the Day of Judgement, preceded by the mission of Elijah the Prophet, as He stated (Malachi 3:22), "Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments." (Malachi 3:23), "Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord."
I have noticed individuals from our nation who adduce proof against the abrogation of the Torah from general principles. And I say: When the Creator commands in the Torah, it cannot escape being one of four possibilities. Either He explicitly states that it is everlasting, in which case its abrogation is inconceivable. Or He establishes it for a specific period, as if He said "Do this for a hundred years," and its abrogation before a hundred years is impossible, and after the hundred years it is already fulfilled and abrogation does not apply. Or it is contingent upon a place, as if He said "Do this in Egypt," and in Egypt its abrogation is impossible, and if He commands it elsewhere, outside of Egypt, there is no abrogation. Or it is caused by a reason, as if He said "Do this, because the waters of the Nile are flowing," and before the waters of the Nile cease, its abrogation is impossible, and if He commands it after the waters have ceased, it is not abrogation.
And when it is said to them, behold, here is a fifth possibility, which is the Torah, which is limited by time, and people will not cease from doing it until they are commanded to do another in its place, they say, this too, if it were the case, would be for a part of time, because the measure would be known, either to God in truth, or to men until the time of the second commandment. And in both cases, abrogation in Egypt is impossible, and the time of the Torah would be partial in conception from the beginning of the commandment. And some say, this fifth possibility is not conceivable, because general and partial Torahs only exist so that nothing remains unspecified.
I have seen that one who deems abrogation possible bases this on seven assertions, and considers them to be matters of reasoned contemplation, and their intellect to be sound. And I deem it proper to mention them and to address the responses to them. And I say, firstly, his analogy to life and death. He argues, just as it is proper to give life with wisdom and to bring death with wisdom, so too may He give the Torah with wisdom and abrogate it with wisdom. However, it becomes clear to me that there is a great difference between them. For He only gives life in order to bring death, but He did not give the Torah in order to abrogate it. For death is the path of passage to the world to come, which is the ultimate purpose. He did not give the Torah in order to abrogate it, for if the Torah were given in order to be abrogated, it would be impossible for any Torah to exist without abrogation, and the first would be abrogated by the second, and the second by the third, ad infinitum, and this is false. Furthermore, if this were the case, the second Torah would necessarily contain contradiction and opposition. To explain this, the second Torah would have a purpose other than itself, by virtue of being a Torah, and this is the nature of every Torah. And it would also be the purpose by virtue of abrogating the first, and this is the nature of every abrogator, that it is the primary purpose. And this is a subtle argument.
The second assertion is his analogy to the deceased, who were commanded by the Torah, and the removal of the Torah from them at death. And I have observed that death necessarily removes the Torah from the deceased, since commandment and prohibition no longer apply to them. And there is no analogy between what is possible to dispense with and what is impossible to dispense with. And if abrogation were impossible to dispense with, the contradiction I mentioned regarding the abrogation of every Torah would return.
The third assertion is his analogy to one who performs work on one day and rests on another, and fasts on one day and eats on another. And this too is from the necessity of things, for since man is not capable of fasting every day, nor of resting every day, it would not be proper for the Creator to command him thus. However, it is possible for man to observe the Torah in every generation.
The fourth assertion is his analogy to the one who enriches and impoverishes, heals and blinds, each of which He does at a time when it is good to do so. And I have considered what difference there is between these matters. For all prosperities are designated as reward for one who serves Him, and all afflictions are designated as reward for one who disobeys Him. However, the Torah is not designated as a reward for service, nor for disobedience. And if this arguer were to argue thus, it would be detrimental to the first Torah, because it would be abrogated to be a reward for something that preceded it, since there is no Torah before it.
The fifth assertion is his analogy to the date that ripens after being green, and similar examples. And all of these, I have considered them, and behold they are necessitated either by nature and natural disposition, or by habit. However, the Torah is not so. For if it were so, the abrogation of every Torah would be necessitated, and the contradiction would return.
The sixth he said: Just as work on the Sabbath was permissible according to reason, but the Divine decree invalidated the permission by prohibition, so too is it possible that a Divine decree may reinstate its permissibility. And I say: In this matter, this analogy would be conclusive, if reason necessitated work on the Sabbath, and then one could say that the Divine decree invalidated that necessity. However, this is not the case. For man does not cease to perceive in his reason that it is permissible for him to abstain from work every Sabbath and other days, whether for bodily rest, or for pleasure he may derive from it, or for both together. And thus it is stated in the Torah regarding what is permissible by reason, and it said to him, "The Sabbath is for your bodily rest," and that you may acquire thereby the benefit of reward, and it does not invalidate anything, even though it is termed everlasting, for it is conceivable in his reason that a wise man might command him to rest on a particular day, and give him a dinar for each day.
The seventh he said: Just as it was proper that the Torah of Moses should be different from the Torah of Abraham, so too would it be proper that there be a Torah other than Moses', different from his Torah. And when we examine the Torah of Moses, we find in it the Torah of Abraham in truth, but Moses added commandments and the Sabbath, due to innovations that arose among his people, like one who is saved on a particular day and vows to fast on that day perpetually. And when this is deemed fitting by him on his own accord, it is also deemed fitting that his Creator should command him. And if this addition is abrogation, then whoever volunteers in prayer, or in fasting, or in charity, has already abrogated his Torah. And if the Author of the Torah permitted him this, He has already permitted him to abrogate his Torah. And the consequences for his initial assertions are similar to this. And all of these, may God have mercy on you! are trivialities, none of which stand up to scrutiny.

The following are the words that refer to the indestructibility of the Universe: “And the earth remaineth for ever.” And those who do not agree with me as regards the above distinction [between the indestructibility and the Eternity of the Universe], are compelled to explain the term le-‘olam (lit., “for ever”), to mean “the time fixed for the existence of the earth.” Similarly they explain the words of God, “Yet all the days of the earth” (Gen. 8:22) to signify the days fixed for its existence. But I wonder how they would explain the words of David: “He laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be moved for ever” (Ps. 104:5). If they maintain here also that the term le-‘olam va-‘ed (lit. “for ever”) does not imply perpetuity, they must come to the conclusion that God exists only for a fixed period, since the same term is employed in describing the perpetuity of God, “The Lord will reign (le-‘olam) for ever” (Exod. 15:18, or Ps. 10:16). We must, however, bear in mind that olam only signifies perpetuity when it is combined with ad: it makes no difference whether ‘ad follows, as in ‘olam va-‘ed, or whether it precedes, as in ‘ad ‘olam. The words of Solomon which only contain the word le-‘olam, have therefore less force than the words of David, who uses the term olam va-‘ed. David has also in other passages clearly spoken of the incorruptibility of the heavens, the perpetuity and immutability of their laws, and of all the heavenly beings. He says, “Praise ye the Lord from the heavens, etc. For He commanded, and they were created. He hath also stablished them for ever and ever; he hath made a decree which shall not pass” (Ps. 148:1-6); that is to say, there will never be a change in the decrees which God made, or in the sources of the properties of the heavens and the earth, which the Psalmist has mentioned before. But he distinctly states that they have been created. For he says, “He hath commanded, and they were created.” Jeremiah (xxxi. 35) likewise says, “He giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night,” etc. “If these ordinances depart from before me, saith the Lord, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.” He thus declares, that these decrees will never be removed, although they had a beginning. We therefore find this idea, when we search for it, expressed not only by Solomon but also by others. Solomon himself has stated that these works of God, the Universe, and all that is contained in it, remain with their properties for ever, although they have been created. For he says, “Whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor anything taken away from it” (Eccles. 3:14). He declares in these words that the world has been created by God and remains for ever. He adds the reason for it by saying, “Nothing can be put to it, nor anything taken from it;” for this is the reason for the perpetuity, as if he meant to say that things are changed in order to supply that which is wanting, or in order to take away what is superfluous. The works of God being most perfect, admitting no addition or deduction, must remain the same for ever. It is impossible that anything should exist that could cause a change in them. In the conclusion of the verse, Solomon, as it were describes the purpose of exceptions from the laws of Nature, or an excuse for changes in them, when he says, “And God doeth it (viz., He performs miracles) that men should fear before him.” The words which follow, “That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been, and God seeketh that which is pursued,” contain the idea that God desires the perpetuity and continuity of the Universe.