Parsaht Be'Har-Be'Chu'ku'tai Leviticus 25:1 - 27:34

This week’s two portions – Be’har (literally, “on the mountain”), and Be’Chuku’tai (literally, “in my laws”) – mark the end of the third book, the book of Leviticus.  They contain the famous laws of “shmee’ta” – the innovative idea that every seventh year the land itself has to rest, just like we humans rest every seventh day.  They also contain other, more familiar religious laws such as the prohibition on the making of idols (Levit. 26:1), the decree to keep the Shabat (26:2), and others.  At the end of the Chapter 26, we see a dramatic concluding remark: “These are the statutes, laws, and doctrines that God provided between Himself and the Israelite People at Mount Sinai at the hand of Moshe.”  (26:46)

But other than those well-established rules, this week’s portions discuss two very interesting concepts – the notion of business cycles, and the notion of negative rewards (or sanctions) for bad behavior.  To me, both demonstrate that apparently not much has changed since the time the Torah has been written. I will disucss them in turn. 

On Business Cycles and Old Recessions

The modern theory of business cycles – the notion that markets function in predictable stages, notably four: (1) expansion; (2) crisis; (3) recession; and (iv) recovery – was only developed in the twentieth century by economists like Joseph Schumpeter.  Yet the idea that economic activity operate in waves, and that sometimes people find themselves on top and sometimes on the bottom, is as ancient as markets themselves.

This week’s portion is famous for its detail discussion of the laws of Sh’meeta, which I mentioned earlier – the careful consideration given to the ground, the main production source of the day. In a limited sense, this is also a discussion of a business cycle, though one that is self created. However, to me, the more interesting part of the portion relates to the very detailed account of what happens when people are suddenly affected by economic hardship. What happens, for example, when your relative is forced to sell a part of his land as he no longer can hold onto it; when someone had to sell his lucrative dwelling home behind the protective walls of the city (the then-Upper East Side, I presume); what happens to other dwelling homes that are sold, without a wall (insert your favorite wall-less neighborhood here); what happens when your relative lost his job; and so on and so forth. (Levit. 25:25-55)

Though the laws dealing with these situations are fascinating – providing, in essence, a model for market-created social safety net, including the (now famous) restriction on usury loans – I am more interested here in the very phenomenon of people who fell on hard economic times. More importantly, I am interested in how society -- according to Judaism -- should treat those people. This, to me, shows not only that this unfortunate phenomenon was prevalent way before the Great Depression or our current economic crisis, but that the Jewish religions saw it as a religious obligation to treat those people with dignity, honor, and hope.  The message here is simple: You better treat those people well today, because tomorrow you might be the person needing that kind of support. The debate in Washington today over the creation of a new consumer protection agency or the concept of a “private” bail-out – a direct government assistance to people in need – are but a faint echo to this comprehensive set of rules that was created more than two thousand years ago to properly deal with business cycles and their effect. Once again, we can be proud of our wise sages (or God, if you believe He is the author of the text) that identified a social issue and created a comprehensive way of dealing with it.

The “She’ma” and Sanctions for Bad Behavior

While business cycles are entirely a secular phenomenon – no God is involved in either the creation or solution of the issue (with the proviso, of course, that everything is done in His command, again for those readers who hold this view) – the next issue is anything but.

The She’ma – “She’ma Israel, Adonai Eloheinu, Adonai Echad” – is by far the most famous of Jewish texts.  It consists of two parts, as Yeshayahu Leibowitz explained in length (in English, see The Reading of Shema in Judaism, Human Values, and the Jewish State 37 (Harvard 1992)). The first part of the She’ma, which is presented as an absolute demand (or a Kantian categorical imperative), orders every Jewish person to love the Lord our God with all his heart, with all his soul, and with all his might. (And Rabbi Akiva says: “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 human emotion 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 Jewish Lord.  Leibowitz dwells here on the notion of “Lishma” and “Lo Lishma” (a faith for its own sake, which is the one mentioned in the first part, and a lesser, though much more prevalent, form of faith, to gain a reward, appearing in the second) – an issue I dealt with in previous posts. 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 very positive in nature. They describe no sanction, no punishment, no negative reward for not following the ways of God. 

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 does not appear 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:" And 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 do something for anticipation of reaping the rewards – such as “if you will follow my laws, all the best will happen to you.” But human nature is such that nothing would happen 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, big sanctions (and in this case, perhaps even cruel and unusual sanctions). 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?

Shabbat Shalom,

Doron