A central theme of Passover is freedom as a means to serve G-d. As G-d says, “Let my people go so that they may serve me” (Exodus 10:3). The exodus from Egypt culminates in a complete acceptance of the Torah at Mount Sinai.
Thousands of years later, we live in a society that values the individual experience above all. Our personal connection trumps blanket commitment and conflicts with the value of accepting the yoke of Heaven. In modern times, the very idea of obligation to any value or object is opposed to the idea of freedom. Commitment contains an element of coercion, while exercising our free will is more meaningful to us.
In his essay titled “Commitment vs. Connecting” Rav Amital criticizes our generation for “seek(ing) ‘identification’ with mitzvot, but not a ‘commitment’ to them.” He says that “authority and obligation - two foundations necessary for living in accordance with the Torah - have become irrelevant in this generation. Not only are these concepts not spoken about, but worse still - the very mention of these terms ‘turns off’ the modern person, since the ‘connection’ they seek is personal, individual and experiential.”
Rav Amital observes that our generation is influenced by this atmosphere in our religious approach as well, and that choice out of free will has become the foundation of our religious worldview.
Questions to consider:
1. Is Rav Amital being too harsh on our generation or is he simply a careful observer of an obvious phenomenon?
2. In your own life and decisions, do you see the tension between personally identifying with mitzvot vs. accepting the entire Torah?
3. Perhaps our freedom represents progress. Do we gain more from being free to make our own (hopefully right) choices? Or are we better off relinquishing control from the outset and deferring to our religious tradition?
(ד) הוא היה אומר: עשה רצונו כרצונך, כדי שיעשה רצונך כרצונו. בטל רצונך מפני רצונו , כדי שיבטל רצון אחרים מפני רצונך.הלל אומר: אל תפרוש מן הצבור, ואל תאמן בעצמך עד יום מותך, ואל תדין את חברך עד שתגיע למקומו, ואל תאמר דבר שאי אפשר לשמוע שסופו להשמע. ואל תאמר לכשאפנה אשנה , שמא לא תפנה.
(4) He would say: Make [God's] will your will, in order that God make yours God's. Nullify your will before God's, in order that others' wills be nullified before yours. Hillel says: Don't separate from the community; Don't trust yourself until the day you die; Don't judge your fellow until you've stood in their place; Do not say something that shouldn't be publicized, for in the end it will be public; And don't say, "When I have a free moment I'll make a difference' - maybe you'll never have that.
Erich Fromm, Escape to Freedom (Wikipedia)
Fromm distinguishes between 'freedom from' (negative freedom) and 'freedom to' (positive freedom). The former refers to emancipation from restrictions such as social conventions placed on individuals by other people or institutions. This is the kind of freedom typified by the Existentialism of Sartre, and has often been fought for historically, but according to Fromm, on its own it can be a destructive force unless accompanied by a creative element, 'freedom to' the use of freedom to employ spontaneously the total integrated personality in creative acts. This, he argues, necessarily implies a true connectedness with others that goes beyond the superficial bonds of conventional social intercourse: "...in the spontaneous realization of the self, man unites himself anew with the world..."
In the process of becoming freed from authority, we are often left with feelings of hopelessness (he likens this process to the individuation of infants in the normal course of child development) that will not abate until we use our 'freedom to' and develop some form of replacement of the old order. However, a common substitute for exercising "freedom to" or authenticity is to submit to an authoritarian system that replaces the old order with another of different external appearance but identical function for the individual: to eliminate uncertainty by prescribing what to think and how to act. He characterises this as a dialectic historical process whereby the original situation is the thesis and the emancipation from it the antithesis. The synthesis is only reached when something has replaced the original order and provided humans with a new security. Fromm does not indicate that the new system will necessarily be an improvement. In fact, Fromm indicates this will only break the never-ending cycle of negative freedom that society submits to.
Dr. Art Markman, "The Dark Side of Choice in America" (Huffington Post)
This desire for choice is also reflected in the way we consume. We love outlet malls, big box retailers and warehouse clubs that are filled with a huge variety of products with many different variations of each. We prize the ability to control our own destiny, down to the level of which fabric softener to add to our laundry....
Because we believe that life is full of choices, when Americans focus on choice, we tend to be less generous to those people whose lives are not going well. It is as if our ability to make choices leads us to think that bad outcomes people suffer are largely a result of their own poor choices....
Putting this all together, then, there is a dark side to the American cultural love of choice. When we are allowed to choose, it increases our own sense of agency. It makes us feel like we are in control of our lives. Of course, there are many factors that influence the course of our lives, and our own choices are only a part of that. Someone whose house was flooded after the recent spring rains was not in control of their of his or her destiny.
One reason why we help others is because we recognize that even people who make all the right choices may still suffer. Bad things do happen to good people.
But, the more that we, as Americans, focus on the bounty of choice around us, the less that we recognize that sometimes people need a little help to get back on their feet.
Most characteristic of the Halakhah is its lack of pathos. The Halakhah does not depend upon the incidence of religious experience and attaches little importance to the psychic urges to perform extraordinary deeds. It strives to base the religious act, even in its highest manifestations, on the permanent habit of performing one's duty. "Greater is he who performs because he has been commanded than one who performs without having been commanded."[15]Precisely this nonpathetic attitude hides a depth of intense pathos. How unfounded is the imaginary antithesis of the inner religious experience and the formalism of the halakhic praxis, an antithesis so popular amongst the opponents of the religion of Halakhah!
Two types of religiosity may be discerned: one founded in values and beliefs from which follow requirements of action, the other posited on imperatives of action, the observance of which entails values and intention. The religion of values and beliefs is an endowing religion - a means of satisfying man's spiritual needs and of assuaging his mental conflicts. Its end is man, and God offers his services to man. A person committed to such a religion is a redeemed man. A religion of Mitzvoth is a demanding religion. It imposes obligations and tasks and makes of man an instrument for the realization of an end which transcends man. The satisfactions it offers are those deriving from the performance of one's duty.
(source: Yeshaya Leibowitz http://tpeople.co.il/leibowitz/leibarticles.asp?id=81#_edn2)