Sources from essay by Rabbi Peter B. Schaktman in The Mussar Torah Commentary
In Parashat Acharei Mot, we find important insights about the nature of responsibility and accountability- insights that can inform our own understanding and practice of Mussar.
The parashah begins by evoking an episode of dramatic irresponsibility described earlier in Leviticus: the offering of "alien fire" by Aaron's sons Nadav and Avihu, an act that resulted in both priests being consumed by a divine fire (Leviticus 10:2). It continues by delineating the specific role of the High Priest in purifying the sacred shrine of the Israelites, by making expiation first for himself and his household and then on behalf of the entire community. Once the shrine has been purified, the High Priest symbolically transfers his own transgressions and the sins of others onto the scapegoat (aza-sel), which is then sent into the wilderness, carrying the people's sins away. Later in the parashah, we read a long list of tersely rendered mitzvot regarding sexual boundaries, ostensibly aimed at preserving the k'dushah ("holiness") of the entire Israelite community.
Hidden in the name of the parashah is a key to understanding the middah of acharayut "responsibility". The root of the first word, acharei ("after"), is the same as that of the middah, acharayut. Our Mussar teachers have taught us that this single root can be understood in two different ways, both of which help us discern the essence of the middah.' When we connect acharayut to achar, to "after," we understand responsibility as measuring the consequences of our actions or words.
-Rabbi Peter B. Schaktman
§ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to Trampling, in the case of an animal that tramples a child in the courtyard of the injured party and kills the child, what is the halakha with regard to the liability of the owner of the animal to pay ransom? The Gemara explains the different sides of the question: Do we say that this halakha is just as it is with regard to Goring? Accordingly, just as with regard to Goring, once an animal has gored two or three times this becomes defined as its usual manner and therefore it is deemed forewarned and the owner must pay ransom in the event that it kills a person by an act classified as Goring, here too it is not different, as with regard to the category of Trampling the owner is deemed forewarned from the start and he must therefore pay ransom. Or perhaps, should we say that the halakha with regard to Goring is more stringent, as Goring requires the animal’s intent to cause damage, and that is why the owner must pay ransom in the event of a death; but in a case of Trampling, where there is no intent to cause damage, the owner would be exempt from paying ransom? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a solution to this dilemma from a baraita: If one brought his ox into the courtyard of a homeowner without his permission, and it gored the homeowner and he died, the ox is killed by stoning and the owner of the ox is obligated to pay the full amount of the ransom, regardless of whether the animal was innocuous or forewarned. This is the statement of Rabbi Tarfon.
What does this text teach us about how the Talmud understands responsibility?
As the parashah opens, the momentous responsibility of the High Priest is established by God's directive to Moses in the context of Aaron's loss of his sons:
Here, the rationale for compliant behavior is the avoidance of dire consequences-acharayut in its sense of after-effects— in this case, death. Once Aaron understands the basic rules, he can begin the process of purgation of the sacred space. This process begins with the High Priest's offering on behalf of himself and his household.
Once that sacrifice has been completed, "he shall then slaughter the people's goat of sin offering, bring its blood behind the curtain, and do with its blood as he has done with the blood of the bull:
All assume some responsibility for tainting the shrine and the com-munity, and they release themselves from the consequences through the chief priest's confessions and the symbolic rites of sacrifice.
-Rachel Havrelock
Note that the word acharayut, begins, as does the Hebrew alphabet, with alef and ends with tav (the last letter of the alphabet), which may suggest that responsibility must be all-inclusive. We are accountable not only for our own actions but also for those of our families and the wider community...This emphasis on collective responsibility is extended in the description of the scapegoat ritual:
-Rabbi Peter B. Schaktman
(20) When he has finished purging the Shrine, the Tent of Meeting, and the altar, the live goat shall be brought forward. (21) Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat and confess over it all the iniquities and transgressions of the Israelites, whatever their sins, putting them on the head of the goat; and it shall be sent off to the wilderness through a designated agent. (22) Thus the goat shall carry on it all their iniquities to an inaccessible region; and the goat shall be set free in the wilderness.
The azazel narrative also helps understand the potential for acharayut, like all middot, to be taken to an extreme, by calling to mind the important distinction between responsibility and guilt. While responsibility leads to greater wholeness, guilt— neurotic, and often narcissistic-instead engenders anxiety. Guilt is a source of spiritual negativity, a potentially debilitating state of being. No such angst is associated with the scapegoat. The ritual is prescribed, the High Priest and people enact it, and what results is a cleansed, confident community that has acted responsibly.
One could, however, argue that forgiveness-by-goats replaces actual repentance with empty ritual and therefore short-circuits real acharayut, "responsibilty." A story is told of Rabbi Shlomo Rabinowicz, who excoriated leaders of the Jewish community for not being attuned to the economic state of the people they led. "Indeed," he taught, "the sin of Nadav and Avihu was that they were content to draw near to God, but did nothing to help the people. They died because they didn't deserve to be leaders of Israel... Do you think you were appointed to make decisions about the kashrut of a pot or spoon?" Acharayut, from this perspective, is never about "checking items off a list," like sacrificing one goat and sending another into the wilderness; it is, instead, about being wholly responsible for one's actions.
-Rabbi Peter B. Schaktman
Questions to Ask
-
Does your intuitive approach to acharayut emanate more from a focus on the consequences of your behavior or from identifying with others around you?
-
Do you think about responsibility as the successful execution of specific tasks (and/or the avoidance of certain behaviors) or as a general approach to life?
-
How do others, like the ancient High Priest, contribute to your understanding of acharayut?