Kaisipang Hudyo sa Mga Hukom 21:25: Akeidat Yitzchak

Man attains his ideal state via a threefold process. 1) He must fulfil his duties towards himself. 2) He must fulfil his duties towards his fellow man. 3) He must fulfil his duties towards G'd. The prophet Michah, in chapter six, describes man's tasks as follows: "What is it that the Lord asks of you, except a) to do justice, b) to practice loving kindness, and c) to walk humbly with the Lord your G'd." Duties towards oneself are easily understood, therefore the prophet refers to them by the word mishpat. When Manoach was told about the impending birth of Samson, he asked the angel "what is the mishpat of the boy, and how is he to be treated? (Judges 13,11) He meant "how can one ensure the boy's survival?" Duties towards oneself are to ensure one's survival. Performance of duties towards one's fellow man consists of putting acquired good character traits to practical use. David asked his son Solomon (Chronicles I 28,9) "and you my son Solomon, know the G'd of your father, serve Him with a perfect heart and a willing soul." Our sages display a negative attitude towards people who make vows. Prompt fulfilment of the vow is equated with offering a sacrifice on a private altar at times when private altars are forbidden. (Gittin 56) The reason is that though there clearly is a good intention, the venue is unwelcome. This is so when the subject of the vow is a devar mitzvah, something desirable in the eyes of G'd. When the subject matter of the vow is merely a devar reshut however, i.e. something merely permissible, the vow itself is viewed as reprehensible, since it presupposes that by accepting the gift, G'd indicates His need of it. What could be more laughable? Since vows are subject to annulment, the question why some famous vows have never been annulled is in order. Why was the vow of Yiphtach who offered the life of the first living thing that would come towards him when he would return from war victorious, and which resulted in his own daughter being that sacrifice, not annulled? Our sages blame the pride of both Yiphtach and the High Priest Pinchas. Supposedly, each waited for the other to make the first move. Both were punished for their pride. Pinchas no longer enjoyed the ear of G'd. (Chronicles I 9,20) Yiphtach's body was scattered all over the place, as parts of it were buried in different part of Gilead. (Judges 12,7) In the case of the aftermath of the pilegesh be-givah, Judges chapter twenty one, one must ask why the annulment procedure was not used to cancel the vow to kill all the men of Yavesh Gilead? Surely, this would have been even more important than to save the life of a single person, the daughter of Yiphtach at the time? Surely a lesson could have been learned from the former event? Also, why was the vow not to give daughters in marriage to the the remnant of the tribe of Benjamin not annulled? One of the main reasons for this national paralysis, could have been the absence of a central authority at that time. After all, the era has been characterised by the book of Judges as "in those days, there was no king in Israel." (Judges 19,1) Again, at the end of the book of Judges (Judges 21,25) we read "in those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in." When an entire nation had vowed a vow, only an even greater authority can absolve from such a vow. Since many of the people had died since the vow had been made, it could not even have been annulled by an equal number of people. (Moed Katan 17) For that reason they had to resort to the subterfuge described there, i.e. letting the young men of Benjamin kidnap their brides to be. (see commentary by Kimchi) All of the above illustrates the severity of the laws concerning vows, once they have been made. Surely then it is preferable not to make vows in the first place. Man's tendency not to make payment promptly when he pledges a donation, is a sign that he overestimates his own value, and his effort to compensate for this when the time comes to make payment. The Torah, therefore, provides objective valuations, so that the person who promised a value to the temple treasury that equals his own value, would not shortchange the temple treasury. When the vow concerns a devar mitzvah, a duty that had to be fulfilled anyways, even if no vow had been made at all, the Torah warns "do not be tardy to pay it, the Lord will surely demand it from you." (Deut 23,22) For that reason the Torah continues: "if you fail to make vows, this will not be counted a sin against you."

It is commonly supposed that "peace" is the restoration of harmony between parties that have been at odds with one another. People who conceive of "peace" as being merely that, deprive the concept of much of its value. If "peace" does nothing more than restore a balance where there had previously been an imbalance, it can hardly be considered a blessing. Shame is not a virtue, since it presupposes that an unworthy act had been committed which the perpetrator is now ashamed of. Actually, peace is more like the silver thread that joins two people or two entities combining them into a unified whole. Why is one of the names of G'd shalom, peace? Because He ties together worlds, keeps them united and preserves their appearance and format. (Midrash Chazit chapter 1) When we read in Samuel II 11,7, "David enquired after the "peace" of Yoav, the "peace" of the people, and the "peace" of the "war," there is certainly no reference intended to the cessation of the war. This war was still very much in progress. David merely asked Uriah whether these people or affairs were all well and proceeding according to plan. The word "peace" in that context describes that there was a common bond between the people or the animals described. A city of people who do not quarrel with one another, who tolerate each other's idiosyncrasies, cannot be said to be at peace with each other as long as they do not share a common purpose or goal. Furthermore, when there is no bond joining people, there is a degree of separateness which may eventually lead to disintegration, decay etc. Isaiah 45,7, has this in mind when he contrasts "fashions light, or creates darkness, makes peace or creates evil, I the Lord do all these." The relationship of ra, evil, to shalom, peace, is like the relationship between darkness and light. Peace, i.e harmony, is the fruitful interaction of the various energies of different bodies, elements. It was Aaron's special talent to have understood that it is the task of a leader to weave that thread, the fabric that binds people to one another, and thus help them to establish harmony by desiring for them what one desires for oneself. Moses, on the other hand, was concerned primarily with the intellectual approach. He believed that without the benefit of Torah, whatever man does is of insufficient value to prolong our days on this earth. Without Torah, no degree of harmony can be achieved that would be capable of overcoming the dichotomy due to the fact that this physical universe has been made up of four distinctly different elements. The Talmud Shabbat 89, illustrates this line of thinking when it describes Moses' arrival on Mount Sinai before he had received the Torah. Moses is described as finding G'd "tying crowns to the letters." G'd asks him: "Moses, is there no "peace" in your city?" (are you people not in the habit of extending greetings of "peace be with you" where you come from?) Moses replies: "how can a slave contribute to the "peace"' of his Master?" G'd replies: "at any rate you should have assisted Me." Immediately, Moses said "now let the strength of the Lord become great as You have said." The lesson contained in that Midrash is, that even without the benefit of Torah, man's effort to weave the thread of togetherness, i.e. civilisation, is sufficient to improve his lot down here on earth. This is shalom; peace. When Hillel advised people to emulate the virtue of Aaron, namely to strive for peace, he was quite correct, inasmuch as this is a most positive character trait. Similarly, when Hillel said "do not separate yourself from the community," he was merely describing the other side of the coin. Tzibbur, community, after all, is what has been united by shalom, peace. The holiness of G'd depends on the community. Venikdashti betoch beney Yisrael, I will be sanctified within the community of Israel. When the community sins, one must abandon it. (Jeremiah 9,1) When only an individual sins, the community must see to it that the individual repents, or they must place him outside the tzibbur, into cherem quarantine. Since peace therefore is of vital importance to the existence of the community, it is clear that precisely at the time the tabernacle was put into service, G'd would pronounce the blessing of peace, as we have noted in our opening Midrash.

All this is a parallel to the "natural" household, i.e. living creatures whose continued health depends on the correct sequence and manner of receiving their respective energy supplies, both in their proper quantity and quality. In our analogy of the four kinds of functions or "servants" that are active in the body/household/nation respectively, the underlying assumption has been that we owe allegiance to a central authority. In the case of the body, the central authority is the heart. Similarly, in the case of the nation the central authority to whom we owe allegiance would be the king. Unless there is such a central authority, a country will not prosper, just as a household without a head, or a body without a heart cannot function. The reason Solomon lists several such foursomes in Proverbs chapter thirty, is to repeat the analogy of body, household and nation. We can understand that Moses was anxious for G'd to appoint a single successor, displaying due regard for the welfare of the nation as a whole. At the same time, however, Solomon tells us "a king must base the country on a rule of justice; a man receptive to gifts (bribes) would ruin it." (Proverbs 29,4) A king who accepts bribes is worse than no leadership at all, will bring about ruin at an accelerated pace. Leadership in the animal kingdom is so natural, that the Talmud states that the king of the domesticated animals is the ox, whereas amongst the free roaming beasts the lion is king, the leader amongst the birds being the eagle. Although the locusts and the ants seem to manage without leadership, a nation devoid of leadership is likely to become prey to all kinds of invaders, and even the defence against attackers is no one's concern except those directly under attack. There is then no collective defence. The book of Judges is full of examples of such a state of affairs and the tragic consequences thereof. "In those days everyone did whatever seemed good in their eyes, there was no king in Israel." (Judges 21,25) Since we conceive of G'ds Personal Providence as supplemental to our own intelligent efforts, whenever our own efforts are lacking, we cannot expect Divine assistance to crown our own handiwork. The Torah therefore establishes rules about how central authority and law enforcement is to work. This culminates in the appointment of a king "whom G'd will choose," (Deut 17,15) as distinct from other nations where the king reflects at best vox populi, and at worst dictatorship against the will of the people. The appointment of the right kind of king ensures that the nation is not merely the sum total of its individual households, but becomes one single vast household in the process. The distinctiveness of the Jewish nation lies in the fact that it possesses the kind of human leadership which will ensure the presence of Divine leadership at the same time. In view of the aforesaid, and even assuming that the words " som tassim alecha melech," would constitute only permission to appoint a king and not be a commandment to do so, the behaviour of the prophet Samuel when Israel asked for a king needs much clarification. (see Samuel I chapter 8) If at first glance, the Jewish people appear disadvantaged by not having a king compared to the nations surrounding them, the eventual appointment of a king must do more than just give them equal status with the gentile nations. The institution of the monarchy must be elevated to a higher level than that prevailing in neighbouring countries. Failure of the Jewish people to understand this, led the prophet to articulate his frustration when the people demanded that he appoint a king for them. In that context, even G'ds attitude seems confusing. On the one hand, He helped Samuel to find the person chosen to become king, on the other hand, He told Samuel that it was His leadership the people had rejected, when they asked for a king, not Samuel's. What was it then that prompted Samuel to give in to the request of the people? (verse 11 onwards)