This week we read the last portion of Leviticus, Be’chu’ko’tai (literally, “my laws,” as in “if you shall follow my laws…”). This portion is fascinating on many levels, and quite lengthy and elaborate at that. In this post, however, I would only comment on one aspect of this important portion. That aspect relates to one of central tenets of Judaism, indeed of every religion; in fact, this issue is perhaps the central notion around which the notion of religious concepts began to evolve. And the issue is that of “reward and punishment” (sa-char va-oe-nesh) – whey some people are condemned to suffer, despite being righteous, while others enjoy a happy life, despite being evil. To this day, this question divides philosophers, theologians, religious scholars, and people of all faiths. I will examine one important facet of this issue.
- The Question Presented: Why Are Righteous People Being Punished?
In a nutshell, the question presented by our portion is this: Why do some people – Jews, in particular – continue to be punished in this world despite following God’s commandments, while other people, who don’t follow God’s orders, seem to be handsomely rewarded. Put differently, why does the almighty God allow such a state of injustice to prevail in this world, instead of (properly) rewarding the righteous and punishing those who commit evil. This question was presented in its purest form during the most horrific genocide of all time, the terrible Holocaust of Europe’s Jews; it has never been answered satisfactorily since.
One of the popular answers to this question – quite prevalent in many denominations of Christianity, as well as at the margins of Judaism – is that this world is merely a preparation (a corridor, to use the most oft-quote metaphor) to the hereafter, the next world; and it is there where the proper allocation of retribution – either reward or punishment – is being dealt fairly. This answer, which is convincing to some, is of course unexaminable and therefore irrefutable; in that sense, it is not very interesting. As Wittgenstein once wrote, at the end of his Tractatus, “things we cannot talk about should be passed over with silence.” (Para. 7) This is obviously true with regards to this argument, which may never be tested. (Nevertheless, as I write these lines, on the evening of May 20, 2011, I am consistently confronted by rumors that the world is coming to an end tomorrow, or at most by the next day after that; if that were true, then we probably will be able to finally test the veracity of the “afterlife” theory that’s been offered for more than a millennia; that should be quite interesting….).
- The Beginning of an Answer: The Jewish She’ma
Another answer, more nuanced, insightful, and challenging than the one offered by the “afterlife” argument is presented by the constituent text of the Jewish religion, the She’ma. “She’ma Israel, Adonai Eloheinu, Adonai Echad” – by far the most famous of Jewish texts, also presents a deeply philosophical argument. As demonstrated by Professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz on several instances (for an English version, see The Reading of Shema in Judaism, Human Values, and the Jewish State 37 (Harvard 1992)), the She’ma consists of two separate parts. The first part, which is presented as an absolute demand (or, in Kantian terms, as a categorical imperative), requires every Jewish person to love the Lord our God with all his or her heart, all of his soul, and all of his might. (And as Rabbi Akiva famously noted, “with all his soul – meaning even when they are taking away your soul (killing you) – you should still love Him.”) I would not dwell here on the beautiful issue of why the word love was chosen to portray the desired – nay, decreed(!) – relationship between the person of faith and God. I would just suggest that love is the greatest of human feelings, the strongest, the most expressive, and thus no other description of human emotion – and recall that the text is bound by existing words – could be chosen for the task.
The second part of the She’ma is framed as a conditional demand (or, in Kantian terms, a conditional imperative). It begins with the words “And if you shall hear [Me],” and promises a set of rewards for those who would follow the ways of the Lord. Among these are timely rain (a big issue in a desert land like Israel), plentiful of agricultural produce, and other material-nature rewards. [Importantly, Leibowitz teaches us here on the notions of “Lishma” and “Lo Lishma” (a faith for its own sake and that which is not for its own sake, but for an external gain; the first type of faith appears on the first part of the She’ma, while the second, much more prevalent form of faith, appears in the second part; I dealt with that distinction in previous posts and would not dwell on it here). The important point here, which is quite complicated, is that the reward in life comes inherently from the experience of standing before God. In other words, the reward does not await to the man of faith in the form of a more expensive watch, faster car, promotion at work, etc. The reward for the man of faith is being a man of faith, and that reward comes in many forms, shapes, and sizes; what is important, however, that those who truly stand before God during their lives cannot expect – and indeed, never expects – any other, or “better” reward.
As for the evil-doers who are plentifully rewarded in this world - that is a much more complicated an issue, to which I can provide no answer. My only suggestion here – which is neither scientific nor philosophical in nature – is that sometimes things are not actually as they seems to be. Take for example the 25-year successful marriage of Governor Schwarzeneger and his beautiful heiress of the Kennedy dynasty, Maria Schreiber. Just this week we learned that despite all the money, political power, social success, and any other material reward one may think of, their marriage were built on a sham and they had to break the partnership. Again, this is not a scientific observation (and, obviously, much poorer couples betray each other as well), but it may suggest that the notion of “earthly reward” is not as simple as we initially view it.
- The “Missing Part” of the She’ma
But for my purposes today, I would like to remark on what is missing from the She’ma. The two sections (I omit, for a second, the third part of Ts’tsit) are extremely positive in nature: They mostly describe the good things that would happen to those who follow the laws of the Lord. In other words, they describe very little sanction, very little punishment, very little of the negative consequences that were to occur should one decides not to follow the word of the Lord.
And that part is supplied by today’s portion. And in droves.
The portion of “Be’Chukutai” begins with the now-familiar text of “If you shall follow my laws, and keep my decrees . . . then I shall provide your rain in time (etc., etc.)” – much like the second part of the She’ma. But then the text moves onto a third part that expands greatly on the small section of negative consequences mentioned in the She’ma:
"But if you shall not listen to me, and shall not follow my decrees, and if you reject my rules and despise my laws . . . then I shall do the following onto you:… "
Here the text provides a parade of horribles, including plagues, losing in wars, turning to enemy slaves, having no fruits from the ground, death of domestic animals, and so on and so forth, including being forced to eat the very flesh of your own sons and daughters. (Levit. 26:29).
To me, that shows – once again – that not much has changed since the time the text was written. Yes, it is very nice to discuss categorical imperatives – doing things because they are right in and of themselves; or even doing something in anticipation of reaping the rewards – such as “if you will follow my laws, all the best will happen to you” (insert your favorite material possession here). But human nature is such that in most cases, nothing actually happens unless and until meaningful sanctions are put in place. And those sanctions, to be sure, must be such that would deter someone from doing the act. Serious, meaningful sanctions (and in this case, perhaps even cruel and unusual sanctions) are what usually motivate us ever since our childhood in all areas of life; the area of faith should be, for most people at least, no different. And this is the role (well) played by our portion of the week.
I would like to leave you with the following question, however: If this section is so important, so vital, so crucial to human behavior, why was it left outside the She’ma itself? If you were sitting today in the Knesset Gdolah (a religious legislative body that doesn't exist anymore), would you reintroduce this part of the text into the She'ma? Think about it during your restful Shabbat.
Shabbat Shalom,
Doron
No comments:
Post a Comment