(Inner and Outer) The deeper we delve into the innerness of man’s personality, the greater the degree of ambivalence we discover: Bitachon  (Reliance upon Hashem) and Hishtadlut (Human Effort); Predetermination and Free Choice; Existence and Destiny; Present and Future; Real and Ideal  

To think that (lichshov et) … to think about (lichshov al)… Which is truer? Feelings of happiness or feelings of anguish? Actually emotions are fraught with the tension between them. Perhaps, their relationship is similar to that between an oath and a vow:

A vow can take effect to restrict one’s ability to perform a mitzva, while an oath cannot, since one cannot personally forbid himself [not “upon himself”] the performance of a certain mitzvah….saying “I will not sit in the sukkah,” for he swore long ago at Mount Sinai to perform the mitzvah. One oath cannot take effect, if another one has already been sworn; it cannot release an individual, himself, from his prior obligations, … rather we maintain that one cannot take an oath requiring oneself to transgress.(Torah Temima, Parshat Matot 30, n.17)

And above in the same note:

For in making a vow he makes the [actual] object forbidden to himself; therefore, he does not appear to be taking a vow abrogating his [future] performance of the mitzvah. For he did not place any restriction upon his very person; rather, he forbade the object’s use, such that if he performed a mitzvah with it, the mitzvah would be one that was accomplished by [or at the same time as] the performance of a transgression….This, in contrast to an oath, wherein he places upon his very self the restriction of personally benefiting from a specific object. (Ibid)

And see Nachmanides, on our parsha, who distinguishes between vows and oaths: one taking a vow swears on the life of the king, while one taking an oath swears upon the king himself. This appears to be the distinction between thinking that ... and thinking about.

Taking an oath requires that the individual connect with the object itself; To think that ... while taking a vow resembles thinking about. Remaining outside, thinking objectively.

Judaism is concerned with focusing upon the ambivalence of existence. This leads to the erroneous impression that Judaism is pragmatic, possessing, as it were, no spiritual principles or ideals. The halacha concerns itself with a path which runs between two complementary and opposite poles, and it has no more interest in one than in the other. The Gemara questions whether study or action is greater, and comes to the conclusion that study is greater because it leads to actions. And do not be fooled into thinking that the Gemara is prioritizing between the means and the ends. The ends are the heart of the matter; however, depending upon the situation, the means may be the ends, or at least part of them. The Torah deals with the meeting point between theory and practice, between sadness and happiness. Rabbi Akiva “laughed and cried” when he saw the jackal exit from the ruins of the Holy of Holies. He cried overwhelmed by the destruction, and rejoiced at the fulfillment of the verse “jackals prowl over it”(Eicha 5:18), certain that the verses concerning our final redemption would also be fulfilled. “There is a time for everything”; “Everything has a time and a place.” Circumstances, themselves, are not ambivalent. Every circumstance endows its place with unique meaning.

Except that the Jewish approach demands the experience created by having been in the throes of being jostled between the opposites, between the tendency towards self-preservation and the tendency towards creativity; between being “within” - love - and being “above,” awe; between thinking that – “And Adam knew [that] Eve, [was] his wife,” and thinking about good and evil, the distinction between them created by man’s thought; between “Who has sanctified us with his commandments and commanded us about performing” and “Who … commanded us to perform.”

Eve, who caused the separation between et (that) and al (about) by enticing man to eat from the “Tree of Knowledge about,” manifests, unto this very day, the characteristic of ambivalence. Therefore, the encounter between opposing interests, matter and spirit, eternal principles and reality, object and subject are attributed to woman, the creator of the ambivalence between the Self and the Other. The junction where these encounters take place is where the fundamental essence of humanity, created by the encounter between male and female, is born.                 

2. Relating through Belonging. Due to man’s essential ambivalence, the halachot circumscribing man’s behavior introduce the term “a scoundrel [who acts] within the boundaries of the Torah”; remind man “to be in awe of Hashem”; advocate going beyond the letter of the law; and so on and so forth. For this reason the obligation to save a life overrides all the other commandments in the Torah. For this reason, the Rabbis rule stringently with regard to saving a life, in contrast to the stringency demanded concerning laws inscribed in the Torah. For this reason, potential danger to human life is to be addressed with greater stringency than ritual prohibitions.

For this reason, man treats the ritual purity of vessels stringently and the shedding of blood dismissively. For this reason, the Oral Torah must determine the meaning of the Written Torah … since the halacha must be established by a living Sage, a man experiencing the throes of reality, and not by the written word …

From here stems the mistake made by the many who fixated upon one facet of Judaism and ignored the other. In Moses Mendelson’s period, Judaism, on the one hand, was understood to be a technical law-bound religion, focused upon practice, with no spiritual, idealistic side or fundamental principles to speak of. However, on the other hand, the Reformers completely ignored the Halacha, perceiving Judaism a collection of principles and theories lacking any real-life application. Both these approaches stem from an understanding of Judaism gleaned from its external mechanistic side. These approaches perceive Judaism to be a religion that completely ignores reality; a religion that instead prefers to force the Written Law upon it adherents, with no hint of human consideration or pragmatic flexibility.   

Ambivalence is found throughout our parsha. Hashem’s vengeance upon the Midianites becomes the Israelite’s veneance upon them. “And Moshe became angry,” notwithstanding the joy of victory; the ambivalence of the tribes of Gad and Reuven, their prioritizing building sheepfolds over buildings houses for their children. And the daughters of Zelophechad, whom Moshe could not answer, because of the ambiguity represented these women. And in Parshat Massey “these are their stages at their goings forth” and “these are their stages at their goings forth”; “and they journeyed” and “they pitched camp.” The “going forth” that cannot stay still, which hates staying in one place. They will go forth from strength to strength. Flexible, dynamic -- these are traits that characterize Judaism.

Seven times the righteous man will fall – and arise. Just because man sins does not mean that he is a failure; failure is the result of man deciding to make himself a permanent fixture in the realm of sin. Repentance is the act of moving from transgression to commandment, from sin to good deed. Therefore, man’s relationship with woman functions as his point of origin and affords him a place of anchorage on the seas of existence. Thus, man’s relationship to woman cannot be understood without a comprehensive theory; however, it also cannot be comprehended solely through formulae. A book on couple’s relationships must include both theory and specific cases to illustrate the points.

Male ambivalence travels upon the theory axis.
Female ambivalence travels upon the reality axis.
In combining the two of them, a harmonious ambivalence is created.