Adler V Freud: Determinism V Agency
http://psychological-musings.blogspot.com/2012/03/comparing-sigmund-freud-and-alfred.html
Freud's psychoanalytic view was deterministic with little room for external influences in future decision making, but Adler believed the past continues to influence the choices people make throughout their lives. Whereas Freud believed sexual tension was one of the basic human drives, Adler believed people are motivated by social relationships. Both men, however, believed fundamental personality characteristics are born within the first six years of life (Fisher, M. (2001). Alfred Adler. Muskingum College Department of Psychology. Retrieved from http://elvers.us/hop/index.asp?m=3&a=65&key=117). Freud believed instinctual forces drove humanity whereas Adler believed people can and do make conscious decisions.
A primary difference in therapies was Freud's focus on the narrow scope of early childhood and it's affects but Adler's therapy focused on the present. He believed the conscious aspect of the human mind was a powerful component in creating goals, and making choices. Freud thought human behavior was determined mostly by the past, and people were not free to make choices, but were compelled to react to internal and unconscious directives (Corey, G. (2009). Case approach to counseling and psychotherapy (7th ed). Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole.).
Both men were prolific pioneers of psychoanalysis and early psychology. Both had similar, although not identical beliefs that environmental forces such as biological and environmental conditions create limitations in the human "capacity to choose and to create" (Corey, 2009, p. 99). Freud, however, believed these limitations played a much more influential role in human behavior than did Adler.
Adler's techniques intended a shorter length of therapy with a focus on a strong beneficial relationship with the therapist, definitive goals toward solving the client's contemporary issues, and an optimistic view of the client's ability to change (Corey, 2009) Freud's psychoanalysis, however, was a longer-term therapeutic investment, with a focus on bringing the unconscious into consciousness. Contemporary trends in psychoanalytic therapy aim to provide successful interventions in a shorter period of time.
Freud's psychoanalytic view was deterministic with little room for external influences in future decision making, but Adler believed the past continues to influence the choices people make throughout their lives. Whereas Freud believed sexual tension was one of the basic human drives, Adler believed people are motivated by social relationships. Both men, however, believed fundamental personality characteristics are born within the first six years of life (Fisher, M. (2001). Alfred Adler. Muskingum College Department of Psychology. Retrieved from http://elvers.us/hop/index.asp?m=3&a=65&key=117). Freud believed instinctual forces drove humanity whereas Adler believed people can and do make conscious decisions.
A primary difference in therapies was Freud's focus on the narrow scope of early childhood and it's affects but Adler's therapy focused on the present. He believed the conscious aspect of the human mind was a powerful component in creating goals, and making choices. Freud thought human behavior was determined mostly by the past, and people were not free to make choices, but were compelled to react to internal and unconscious directives (Corey, G. (2009). Case approach to counseling and psychotherapy (7th ed). Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole.).
Both men were prolific pioneers of psychoanalysis and early psychology. Both had similar, although not identical beliefs that environmental forces such as biological and environmental conditions create limitations in the human "capacity to choose and to create" (Corey, 2009, p. 99). Freud, however, believed these limitations played a much more influential role in human behavior than did Adler.
Adler's techniques intended a shorter length of therapy with a focus on a strong beneficial relationship with the therapist, definitive goals toward solving the client's contemporary issues, and an optimistic view of the client's ability to change (Corey, 2009) Freud's psychoanalysis, however, was a longer-term therapeutic investment, with a focus on bringing the unconscious into consciousness. Contemporary trends in psychoanalytic therapy aim to provide successful interventions in a shorter period of time.
Psychology of Victimhood, Don't Blame the Victim, Article by Ofer Zur, Ph.D. (researchgate.net)
Victimization is neither a recent nor especially North American phenomenon. The American culture has nevertheless provided a unique and increasingly fertile ground for the cultivation of victimization. The American emphasis on freedom and choice also implies that we are in charge of our destiny. Whether it is by working hard to get ahead, by pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps, or by social and political activism, we believe that we not only can, but actually must take total control of our individual and social destiny. Unlike the Buddhist acceptance of evil, inequality, and hierarchy, Western culture, and particularly North American culture, has evolved notions about the individual's freedom to choose, the immoral nature of social inequality, and the inalienable right of each person to pursue happiness. Within this cultural psychology, and specifically in psychotherapy, lies a belief in people's inherent ability to change themselves and their environment Violence and victimhood, like evil and inequality, must be fought and eradicated. Accordingly, when violence occurs and victims suffer, or when inequalities exist, it is interpreted not as an act of God or a manifestation of karma, but as a failure that must be corrected. This view of 'failure' readily leads to victimhood and blame. Americans, unlike Far-Easterners, Middle-Easterners, or Russians, expect things to turn out well. The constitutional promise to all Americans that they have the right to the pursuit of happiness gives rise to the expectation that Americans are supposed to feel happy. Not feeling happy indicates some sort of failure. The victim says "it is definitely not my fault". The culture of victimization is closely tied to what Amitai Etzioni (1987), a sociologist at Georgetown University, called the 'rights industry.' This 'industry' is a collective term for those who fight for the rights of groups, such as women, abused children, minorities, the homeless, experimental animals, AIDS victims, or illegal immigrants. The concepts of 'rights' and 'victims' are often closely related. Fighting for a 'right' infers that a right was denied. While not always the case, many claims for rights pose a moral claim on someone else, as in the battle between smokers and non-smokers and very often between men and women. Fighting for a right all too often means claiming a victim status. Ironically, the rights movement often victimizes one group while liberating another. What seems to be a noble, justified, long overdue act of protecting a victim can easily turn to blame and warfare. When this happens, conflict, injustice, and victimization are perpetuated, and the possibility of resolution and healing is destroyed....
We have become a nation of victims, where everyone is leapfrogging over each other, publicly competing for the status of victim, and where everyone is defined as some sort of survivor. Shamelessly, many people in recovery compare their individual sagas of abuse in alcoholic families or sexual harassment on the job, with the experiences of World War II Holocaust survivors who endured the atrocities of the concentration camps (Herman, 1992). Today it is fashionable to be a victim.
Victimization is neither a recent nor especially North American phenomenon. The American culture has nevertheless provided a unique and increasingly fertile ground for the cultivation of victimization. The American emphasis on freedom and choice also implies that we are in charge of our destiny. Whether it is by working hard to get ahead, by pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps, or by social and political activism, we believe that we not only can, but actually must take total control of our individual and social destiny. Unlike the Buddhist acceptance of evil, inequality, and hierarchy, Western culture, and particularly North American culture, has evolved notions about the individual's freedom to choose, the immoral nature of social inequality, and the inalienable right of each person to pursue happiness. Within this cultural psychology, and specifically in psychotherapy, lies a belief in people's inherent ability to change themselves and their environment Violence and victimhood, like evil and inequality, must be fought and eradicated. Accordingly, when violence occurs and victims suffer, or when inequalities exist, it is interpreted not as an act of God or a manifestation of karma, but as a failure that must be corrected. This view of 'failure' readily leads to victimhood and blame. Americans, unlike Far-Easterners, Middle-Easterners, or Russians, expect things to turn out well. The constitutional promise to all Americans that they have the right to the pursuit of happiness gives rise to the expectation that Americans are supposed to feel happy. Not feeling happy indicates some sort of failure. The victim says "it is definitely not my fault". The culture of victimization is closely tied to what Amitai Etzioni (1987), a sociologist at Georgetown University, called the 'rights industry.' This 'industry' is a collective term for those who fight for the rights of groups, such as women, abused children, minorities, the homeless, experimental animals, AIDS victims, or illegal immigrants. The concepts of 'rights' and 'victims' are often closely related. Fighting for a 'right' infers that a right was denied. While not always the case, many claims for rights pose a moral claim on someone else, as in the battle between smokers and non-smokers and very often between men and women. Fighting for a right all too often means claiming a victim status. Ironically, the rights movement often victimizes one group while liberating another. What seems to be a noble, justified, long overdue act of protecting a victim can easily turn to blame and warfare. When this happens, conflict, injustice, and victimization are perpetuated, and the possibility of resolution and healing is destroyed....
We have become a nation of victims, where everyone is leapfrogging over each other, publicly competing for the status of victim, and where everyone is defined as some sort of survivor. Shamelessly, many people in recovery compare their individual sagas of abuse in alcoholic families or sexual harassment on the job, with the experiences of World War II Holocaust survivors who endured the atrocities of the concentration camps (Herman, 1992). Today it is fashionable to be a victim.
List the various mitzvot we are commanded to do in the Parsha. What do they all have in common?
The following is the one of only two narratives we find in the book of Vayikra. The first being the story of nadav and avihu. Read it through and think about the questions below:
(י) וַיֵּצֵא֙ בֶּן־אִשָּׁ֣ה יִשְׂרְאֵלִ֔ית וְהוּא֙ בֶּן־אִ֣ישׁ מִצְרִ֔י בְּת֖וֹךְ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל וַיִּנָּצוּ֙ בַּֽמַּחֲנֶ֔ה בֶּ֚ן הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִ֔ית וְאִ֖ישׁ הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִֽי׃ (יא) וַ֠יִּקֹּ֠ב בֶּן־הָֽאִשָּׁ֨ה הַיִּשְׂרְאֵלִ֤ית אֶת־הַשֵּׁם֙ וַיְקַלֵּ֔ל וַיָּבִ֥יאוּ אֹת֖וֹ אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֑ה וְשֵׁ֥ם אִמּ֛וֹ שְׁלֹמִ֥ית בַּת־דִּבְרִ֖י לְמַטֵּה־דָֽן׃ (יב) וַיַּנִּיחֻ֖הוּ בַּמִּשְׁמָ֑ר לִפְרֹ֥שׁ לָהֶ֖ם עַל־פִּ֥י ה'׃ {פ}
(יג) וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר ה' אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹֽר׃ (יד) הוֹצֵ֣א אֶת־הַֽמְקַלֵּ֗ל אֶל־מִחוּץ֙ לַֽמַּחֲנֶ֔ה וְסָמְכ֧וּ כׇֽל־הַשֹּׁמְעִ֛ים אֶת־יְדֵיהֶ֖ם עַל־רֹאשׁ֑וֹ וְרָגְמ֥וּ אֹת֖וֹ כׇּל־הָעֵדָֽה׃ (טו) וְאֶל־בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל תְּדַבֵּ֣ר לֵאמֹ֑ר אִ֥ישׁ אִ֛ישׁ כִּֽי־יְקַלֵּ֥ל אֱלֹקָ֖יו וְנָשָׂ֥א חֶטְאֽוֹ׃ (טז) וְנֹקֵ֤ב שֵׁם־ה' מ֣וֹת יוּמָ֔ת רָג֥וֹם יִרְגְּמוּ־ב֖וֹ כׇּל־הָעֵדָ֑ה כַּגֵּר֙ כָּֽאֶזְרָ֔ח בְּנׇקְבוֹ־שֵׁ֖ם יוּמָֽת׃ (יז) וְאִ֕ישׁ כִּ֥י יַכֶּ֖ה כׇּל־נֶ֣פֶשׁ אָדָ֑ם מ֖וֹת יוּמָֽת׃ (יח) וּמַכֵּ֥ה נֶֽפֶשׁ־בְּהֵמָ֖ה יְשַׁלְּמֶ֑נָּה נֶ֖פֶשׁ תַּ֥חַת נָֽפֶשׁ׃ (יט) וְאִ֕ישׁ כִּֽי־יִתֵּ֥ן מ֖וּם בַּעֲמִית֑וֹ כַּאֲשֶׁ֣ר עָשָׂ֔ה כֵּ֖ן יֵעָ֥שֶׂה לּֽוֹ׃ (כ) שֶׁ֚בֶר תַּ֣חַת שֶׁ֔בֶר עַ֚יִן תַּ֣חַת עַ֔יִן שֵׁ֖ן תַּ֣חַת שֵׁ֑ן כַּאֲשֶׁ֨ר יִתֵּ֥ן מוּם֙ בָּֽאָדָ֔ם כֵּ֖ן יִנָּ֥תֶן בּֽוֹ׃ (כא) וּמַכֵּ֥ה בְהֵמָ֖ה יְשַׁלְּמֶ֑נָּה וּמַכֵּ֥ה אָדָ֖ם יוּמָֽת׃ (כב) מִשְׁפַּ֤ט אֶחָד֙ יִהְיֶ֣ה לָכֶ֔ם כַּגֵּ֥ר כָּאֶזְרָ֖ח יִהְיֶ֑ה כִּ֛י אֲנִ֥י ה' אֱלֹקֵיכֶֽם׃ (כג) וַיְדַבֵּ֣ר מֹשֶׁה֮ אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵל֒ וַיּוֹצִ֣יאוּ אֶת־הַֽמְקַלֵּ֗ל אֶל־מִחוּץ֙ לַֽמַּחֲנֶ֔ה וַיִּרְגְּמ֥וּ אֹת֖וֹ אָ֑בֶן וּבְנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֣ל עָשׂ֔וּ כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֛ר צִוָּ֥ה ה' אֶת־מֹשֶֽׁה׃ {פ}
(יג) וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר ה' אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹֽר׃ (יד) הוֹצֵ֣א אֶת־הַֽמְקַלֵּ֗ל אֶל־מִחוּץ֙ לַֽמַּחֲנֶ֔ה וְסָמְכ֧וּ כׇֽל־הַשֹּׁמְעִ֛ים אֶת־יְדֵיהֶ֖ם עַל־רֹאשׁ֑וֹ וְרָגְמ֥וּ אֹת֖וֹ כׇּל־הָעֵדָֽה׃ (טו) וְאֶל־בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל תְּדַבֵּ֣ר לֵאמֹ֑ר אִ֥ישׁ אִ֛ישׁ כִּֽי־יְקַלֵּ֥ל אֱלֹקָ֖יו וְנָשָׂ֥א חֶטְאֽוֹ׃ (טז) וְנֹקֵ֤ב שֵׁם־ה' מ֣וֹת יוּמָ֔ת רָג֥וֹם יִרְגְּמוּ־ב֖וֹ כׇּל־הָעֵדָ֑ה כַּגֵּר֙ כָּֽאֶזְרָ֔ח בְּנׇקְבוֹ־שֵׁ֖ם יוּמָֽת׃ (יז) וְאִ֕ישׁ כִּ֥י יַכֶּ֖ה כׇּל־נֶ֣פֶשׁ אָדָ֑ם מ֖וֹת יוּמָֽת׃ (יח) וּמַכֵּ֥ה נֶֽפֶשׁ־בְּהֵמָ֖ה יְשַׁלְּמֶ֑נָּה נֶ֖פֶשׁ תַּ֥חַת נָֽפֶשׁ׃ (יט) וְאִ֕ישׁ כִּֽי־יִתֵּ֥ן מ֖וּם בַּעֲמִית֑וֹ כַּאֲשֶׁ֣ר עָשָׂ֔ה כֵּ֖ן יֵעָ֥שֶׂה לּֽוֹ׃ (כ) שֶׁ֚בֶר תַּ֣חַת שֶׁ֔בֶר עַ֚יִן תַּ֣חַת עַ֔יִן שֵׁ֖ן תַּ֣חַת שֵׁ֑ן כַּאֲשֶׁ֨ר יִתֵּ֥ן מוּם֙ בָּֽאָדָ֔ם כֵּ֖ן יִנָּ֥תֶן בּֽוֹ׃ (כא) וּמַכֵּ֥ה בְהֵמָ֖ה יְשַׁלְּמֶ֑נָּה וּמַכֵּ֥ה אָדָ֖ם יוּמָֽת׃ (כב) מִשְׁפַּ֤ט אֶחָד֙ יִהְיֶ֣ה לָכֶ֔ם כַּגֵּ֥ר כָּאֶזְרָ֖ח יִהְיֶ֑ה כִּ֛י אֲנִ֥י ה' אֱלֹקֵיכֶֽם׃ (כג) וַיְדַבֵּ֣ר מֹשֶׁה֮ אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵל֒ וַיּוֹצִ֣יאוּ אֶת־הַֽמְקַלֵּ֗ל אֶל־מִחוּץ֙ לַֽמַּחֲנֶ֔ה וַיִּרְגְּמ֥וּ אֹת֖וֹ אָ֑בֶן וּבְנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֣ל עָשׂ֔וּ כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֛ר צִוָּ֥ה ה' אֶת־מֹשֶֽׁה׃ {פ}
(10) There came out among the Israelites a man whose mother was Israelite and whose father was Egyptian. And a fight broke out in the camp between that half-Israelite and a certain Israelite. (11) The son of the Israelite woman pronounced the Name in blasphemy, and he was brought to Moses—now his mother’s name was Shelomith daughter of Dibri of the tribe of Dan— (12) and he was placed in custody, until the decision of ה' should be made clear to them. (13) And ה' spoke to Moses, saying: (14) Take the blasphemer outside the camp; and let all who were within hearing lay their hands upon his head, and let the community leadership stone him. (15) And to the Israelite people speak thus: Anyone who blasphemes God shall bear the guilt; (16) and one who also pronounces the name ה' shall be put to death. The community leadership shall stone that person; stranger or citizen—having thus pronounced the Name—shall be put to death. (17) If any party kills any human being, that person shall be put to death. (18) One who kills a beast shall make restitution for it: life for life. (19) If any party maims another [person]: what was done shall be done in return— (20) fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. The injury inflicted on a human being shall be inflicted in return. (21) One who kills a beast shall make restitution for it; but one who kills a human being shall be put to death. (22) You shall have one standard for stranger and citizen alike: for I ה' am your God. (23) Moses spoke thus to the Israelites. And they took the blasphemer outside the camp and pelted him with stones. The Israelites did as ה' had commanded Moses.
Why is the narrative placed here in the context of the preceding chapter that described the showbread?
What is its relationship to the rest of the topics in Parshat Emor?
Who is the man and where does he 'go out from'?
What was the argument about?
Who is his mother Shelomit the daughter of Divri and what is her significance to the story?
Why is he punished? (the text seems to suggest two reasons - the blaspheming and the striking of another man - what is the main difference between these two?).
Look at he following explanations: how do they align with the peshat? What idea do you think the commentaries are unpacking?
The Holy and the Good
(א) ויצא בן אשה ישראלית. מֵהֵיכָן יָצָא? רַבִּי לֵוִי אוֹמֵר מֵעוֹלָמוֹ יָצָא, רַבִּי בְּרֶכְיָה אוֹמֵר מִפָּרָשָׁה שֶׁלְּמַעְלָה יָצָא, לִגְלֵג וְאָמַר "בְּיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת יַעַרְכֶנּוּ" דֶּרֶךְ הַמֶּלֶךְ לֶאֱכֹל פַּת חַמָּה בְכָל יוֹם, שֶׁמָּא פַּת צוֹנֶנֶת שֶׁל תִּשְׁעָה יָמִים, בִּתְמִיהָ? וּמַתְנִיתָא אֲמַרָה מִבֵּית דִּינוֹ שֶׁל מֹשֶׁה יָצָא, מְחֻיָּב, בָּא לִטַּע אָהֳלוֹ בְתוֹךְ מַחֲנֵה דָן, אָמְרוּ לוֹ מַה טִּיבְךָ לְכָאן? אָמַר לָהֶם מִבְּנֵי דָּן אֲנִי, אָמְרוּ לוֹ "אִישׁ עַל דִּגְלוֹ בְאֹתֹת לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם" כְּתִיב (במדבר ב'), נִכְנַס לְבֵית דִּינוֹ שֶׁל מֹשֶׁה וְיָצָא מְחֻיָּב, עָמַד וְגִדֵּף (ספרא, ויקרא ל"ב): (ב) בן איש מצרי. הוּא הַמִּצְרִי שֶׁהָרַג מֹשֶׁה (שם): (ג) בתוך בני ישראל. מְלַמֵּד שֶׁנִּתְגַיֵּר (ספרא): (ד) וינצו במחנה. עַל עִסְקֵי הַמַּחֲנֶה: (ה) ואיש הישראלי. זֶה שֶׁכְּנֶגְדּוֹ שֶׁמִּחָה בוֹ מִטַּע אָהֳלוֹ:
(1) ויצא בן אשה ישראלית AND THE SON OF THE ISRAELITISH WOMAN WENT OUT — Whence did he go out? Surely not from the camp, since Scripture states “and they strove in the camp”! Rabbi Levi said, “He went out from (by his blasphemous utterance he lost) his eternal life (עולמו; R. Levi evidently connects ויצא with the last word of v. 8; “the everlasting covenant, ברית עולם”). R. Berachya said, “He set forth (יצא) (started his argument) from the above section. He said sneeringly: “Every Sabbath he shall set it in order!? Surely it is the way of a king to eat fresh (lit., warm) bread every day; is it perhaps his way to eat bread nine days old (lit., cold bread of nine days)?! (The Hebrew word בתמיה “Say this in the intonation of a question” means nothing other than our question mark) (Midrash Tanchuma 38 23). A Baraitha states that ויצא means, he came out of the judicial court of Moses where he had been pronounced to be in the wrong in the following matter: although his father was an Egyptian he had gone to pitch his tent in the camp of the tribe of Dan to whom his mother belonged (cf. v. 11). They (the men of Dan) said to him, “What have you to do here" (lit., what is your character that gives you the right to come here?). He replied. “I am one of the children of the tribe of Dan”. Thereupon they said to him, “Scripture states: (Numbers 2:2) “Every man [of the children of Israel shall encamp] by his own standard, that bears the signs of their father’s house”! He thereupon went in to the judicial court of Moses to have the matter decided and came forth (יצא) declared to be in the wrong. He then stood up and blasphemed (Sifra, Emor, Section 14 1; Leviticus Rabbah 32 3). (2) בן איש מצרי THE SON OF AN EGYPTIAN MAN — It was the Egyptian whom Moses had killed (Leviticus Rabbah 32 4; cf. Exodus 2:11 where Scripture also uses the expression “איש מצרי”; cf. also Rashi thereon). (3) בתוך בני ישראל AMONG THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL — This teaches us that he had become a proselyte (Sifra, Emor, Section 14 1). (4) וינצו במחנה THEY QUARRELLED IN [or CONCERNING] THE CAMP, about matters connected with the camp (i. e. as to where was his proper place in the camp; Sifra, Emor, Section 14 1; cf. Rashi on יתישראל אשה ויצא בן). (5) הישראלי ואיש THE ISRAELITISH MAN — this was his opponent (Sifra, Emor, Section 14 1) who had prevented him from pitching his tent in the camp of Dan.
(א) והוא בן איש מצרי ובכן העיז פניו לברך את השם דישראל לא פקירי כולי האי:
(1) והוא בן איש מצרי, this is why he had the effrontery to curse the tetragram; none of the Israelites would have been so deficient in reverence.
וַיֵּצֵא בֶּן אִשָּׁה יִשְׂרְאֵלִית. רַבִּי חָמָא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר, מִפָּרָשַׁת יוֹחֲסִין יָצָא. שֶׁכְּשֶׁבָּא לִיטַּע אָהֳלוֹ בְּמַחֲנֶה דָּן, דָּחוּהוּ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: בֶּן מִצְרִי אַתָּה, וּכְתִיב: אִישׁ עַל דִּגְלוֹ בְּאוֹתוֹת לְבֵית אֲבוֹתָם (במדבר ב, ב), וְלֹא לְבֵית אִמּוֹתָם. מִיָּד הִתְחִיל לִנְקֹב אֶת הַשֵּׁם וּלְקַלְּלוֹ. רַבִּי לֵוִי אָמַר, מַמְזֵר בָּרוּר הָיָה. כֵּיצַד, נוֹגְשִׂים הָיוּ מִשֶּׁל מִצְרִים, וְהַשּׁוֹטְרִים מִשֶּׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל. הַנּוֹגֵשׂ הָיָה מְמֻנֶּה עַל עֲשָׂרָה שׁוֹטְרִים, וְהַשּׁוֹטֵר הָיָה מְמֻנֶּה עַל עֲשָׂרָה מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל. נִמְצָא, הַנּוֹגֵשׂ מְמֻנֶּה עַל מֵאָה וַעֲשָׂרָה מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל. חַד זְמָן קִדְּמוֹ נוֹגֵשׂ לְשׁוֹטֵר. אָמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל כְּנֹשׂ עֲשִׂרִיּוֹתֶיךָ. כְּמוֹ שֶׁהָלַךְ הַשּׁוֹטֵר לְדַרְכּוֹ, נִכְנַס הַנּוֹגֵשׂ לְבֵיתוֹ שֶׁל שׁוֹטֵר וְקִלְקֵל עִם שְׁלוֹמִית אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁל שׁוֹטֵר. חָזַר בַּעֲלָהּ, מוֹצְאוֹ יוֹצֵא מִבֵּיתוֹ. כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִרְגִּישׁ בּוֹ, הֲוָה מָחִי לֵיהּ כָּל יוֹמָא, וְאָמַר לֵיהּ: לֵיעַנּוֹת טַבְאוֹת, לֵיעַנּוֹת טַבְאוֹת. נִצְנְצָה רוּחַ הַקֹּדֶשׁ בְּמֹשֶׁה. תָּלָה עֵינָיו לַמָּרוֹם, אָמַר, לֹא דַּי לְרָשָׁע זֶה שֶׁעִנָּה אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ, אֶלָּא חוֹזֵר וּמַכֶּה לְבַעֲלָהּ. מִיָּד וַיַּךְ אֶת הַמִּצְרִי וַיִּטְמְנֵהוּ בַּחוֹל (שמות ב, יב). אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה בַּעֲוֹנוֹת אַתֶּם נִמְסָרִין בְּיַד אֻמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם. אֲבָל לֶעָתִיד לָבֹא, וְהָיוּ מְלָכִים אֹמְנַיִךְ וְשָׂרוֹתֵיהֶם מֵינִיקֹתַיִךְ, אַפַּיִם אֶרֶץ יִשְׁתַּחֲווּ לָךְ וַעֲפַר רַגְלַיִךְ יְלַחֵכוּ וְיָדַעְתְּ כִּי אֲנִי ה' אֲשֶׁר לֹא יֵבֹשׁוּ קֹוָי (ישעיה מט, כג).
(Lev. 24:10:) “Now there went out the son of an Israelite woman, [whose father was Egyptian].” From where did he go out? R. Hiyya bar Abba said, “He went out from the Parashah on genealogies. When he came to pitch his tent in the camp of Dan, they rejected him. Now they said to him, ‘You have an Egyptian father, but it is written (in Numb. 2:2), ‘each with his standard, under the banners of their fathers' houses,’ and not ‘of their mothers' houses.’ Immediately (according to Lev. 24:11), he began to utter the name [of God] and curse it.” R. Levi said, “He was clearly a bastard. How so? Taskmasters were from Egypt, and the officers were from Israel. The taskmaster was in charge of ten officers, and the officer was in charge of ten Israelites. [Thus,] it turned out that the taskmaster was in charge of a hundred and ten Israelites. On one occasion a taskmaster met an officer. He said to him, ‘Go gather your groups of ten.’ When he had gone, he entered his house and sullied Shelomith, the officer's wife. [When] her husband returned, he found him leaving his house. When [the taskmaster knew that her husband] noticed him, he beat him every day and said to him, ‘Toil properly, toil properly.’ The holy spirit was kindled in Moses. He raised his eyes to the sky. He said, ‘Was it not enough for this wicked man to rape his wife, but that he should return and beat him?’ Immediately (according to Exod. 2:12), ‘he smote the Egyptian and hid him in the sand.’” The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “In this world you are delivered through sins into the hands of the nations of the world. However, in the world to come (according to Is. 49:23), ‘Kings shall be your guardians; their ladies, your wet nurses; they shall bow down before you, nose to the ground, and lick the dust of your feet; then you shall know that I am the Lord; those who trust Me shall not be ashamed.’”
Jonathan Sacks: To Heal a Fractured World Chap 12 - The Holy and the Good
The fundamental task of ethics is not only to know the good but to make it part of our lives. The Bible is less a philosophical treatise on the nature of the good than a choreography of human action: commands, judgements, statutes, rituals, observances and prayers. To be sure, Judaism is about knowledge of the good. It is a religion of study and ethical reflection. But it is also, and intensively, about practice: about what we eat, how we conduct every aspect of our lives, and how we structure our time. The life of the commands is an ongoing exercise in character formation, a sustained seminar in Judaism's 'habits of the heart'. We become ethical not just by what we know, but also by what we do...
The holy and the good are different categories, but their artful interweaving in Leviticus 19 shows that they belong to a single vision, the 'priestly' cosmos of Genesis 1, with its emphasis on order, separation and harmonious balance....
Far too little attention has been paid to the role of ritual in the moral life - in fact, I cant recall a single book on the philosophy of ethics that mention it. Yet it makes a difference - sometimes all the difference - by turning abstract rules into living practices that, in turn, shape ethical character. The fact that each day I must pray, give money to charity, and
make a blessing over all I eat and drink; that once a week, however busy I am, I must stop and spend time with my family and community; that once a year, during the High Holy Days, I must atone for my sins and apologize to those I have offended: these things transform life....
The holy and the good are not the same but they are linked in a cyclical process of engagement and withdrawal. Our prayers, texts and rituals hold before us a vision of how the world might be. Our work, service to the community and social life take us into the world as it is, where we make a difference by mending some of its imperfections, righting
wrongs, curing ills, healing wounds. The juxtaposition of the two creates moral energy, and when they are disconnected, the energy fails. The holy is where we enter the ideal; the good is how we make it real. Long ago alone at night, Jacob dreamed a dream of a ladder connecting heaven and earth, and of angels ascending and descending, Life is that ladder, for earth cannot be mended without a glimpse of heaven, nor heaven live for humankind without a home on earth.
The fundamental task of ethics is not only to know the good but to make it part of our lives. The Bible is less a philosophical treatise on the nature of the good than a choreography of human action: commands, judgements, statutes, rituals, observances and prayers. To be sure, Judaism is about knowledge of the good. It is a religion of study and ethical reflection. But it is also, and intensively, about practice: about what we eat, how we conduct every aspect of our lives, and how we structure our time. The life of the commands is an ongoing exercise in character formation, a sustained seminar in Judaism's 'habits of the heart'. We become ethical not just by what we know, but also by what we do...
The holy and the good are different categories, but their artful interweaving in Leviticus 19 shows that they belong to a single vision, the 'priestly' cosmos of Genesis 1, with its emphasis on order, separation and harmonious balance....
Far too little attention has been paid to the role of ritual in the moral life - in fact, I cant recall a single book on the philosophy of ethics that mention it. Yet it makes a difference - sometimes all the difference - by turning abstract rules into living practices that, in turn, shape ethical character. The fact that each day I must pray, give money to charity, and
make a blessing over all I eat and drink; that once a week, however busy I am, I must stop and spend time with my family and community; that once a year, during the High Holy Days, I must atone for my sins and apologize to those I have offended: these things transform life....
The holy and the good are not the same but they are linked in a cyclical process of engagement and withdrawal. Our prayers, texts and rituals hold before us a vision of how the world might be. Our work, service to the community and social life take us into the world as it is, where we make a difference by mending some of its imperfections, righting
wrongs, curing ills, healing wounds. The juxtaposition of the two creates moral energy, and when they are disconnected, the energy fails. The holy is where we enter the ideal; the good is how we make it real. Long ago alone at night, Jacob dreamed a dream of a ladder connecting heaven and earth, and of angels ascending and descending, Life is that ladder, for earth cannot be mended without a glimpse of heaven, nor heaven live for humankind without a home on earth.
What's Between Sanctity and Morality?
- Read Haidt's comments on the notion of sanctity. How do you think modern (or postmodern society) views the notion?
- How is their view consonant or non- consonant with the Torah view?
- How do the comments of the Ramban and Midrash differ from the other commentaries seen thus far? What do you think they are saying about the actions of the makalel and the people in the text?
Jonathan Haidt: The Righteous Mind p28 p179
When a group of people make something sacred, the members of the cult lose the ability to think clearly about it. Morality binds and blinds...
And if you think, as I do, that one of the greatest unsolved mysteries is how people ever came together to form large cooperative societies, then you might take a special interest in the psychology of sacredness. Why do people so readily treat objects (flags, crosses),places (Mecca, a battle field related to the birth of your nation),people (saints, heroes),and principles (liberty, fraternity, equality) as though they were of infinite value? Whatever its origins, the psychology of sacredness helps bind individuals into moral communities. When someone in a moral community desecrates one of the sacred pillars supporting the community, the reaction is sure to be swift, emotional, collective, and punitive. To return, finally, to Meiwes and Brandes: They caused no harm to anyone in a direct, material, or utilitarian way.® But they desecrated several of the bedrock moral principles of Western society, such as our shared beliefs that human life is supremely valuable, and that the human body is more than just a walking slab of meat. They trampled on these principles not out of necessity, and not in service to a higher goal, but out of carnal desire. If Mill's harm principle prevents us from outlawing their actions, then Mill's harm principle-seems inadequate as the basis for a moral community. Whether or not God exists, people feel that some things, actions, and people are noble,
pure, and elevated; others are base, polluted, and degraded.
When a group of people make something sacred, the members of the cult lose the ability to think clearly about it. Morality binds and blinds...
And if you think, as I do, that one of the greatest unsolved mysteries is how people ever came together to form large cooperative societies, then you might take a special interest in the psychology of sacredness. Why do people so readily treat objects (flags, crosses),places (Mecca, a battle field related to the birth of your nation),people (saints, heroes),and principles (liberty, fraternity, equality) as though they were of infinite value? Whatever its origins, the psychology of sacredness helps bind individuals into moral communities. When someone in a moral community desecrates one of the sacred pillars supporting the community, the reaction is sure to be swift, emotional, collective, and punitive. To return, finally, to Meiwes and Brandes: They caused no harm to anyone in a direct, material, or utilitarian way.® But they desecrated several of the bedrock moral principles of Western society, such as our shared beliefs that human life is supremely valuable, and that the human body is more than just a walking slab of meat. They trampled on these principles not out of necessity, and not in service to a higher goal, but out of carnal desire. If Mill's harm principle prevents us from outlawing their actions, then Mill's harm principle-seems inadequate as the basis for a moral community. Whether or not God exists, people feel that some things, actions, and people are noble,
pure, and elevated; others are base, polluted, and degraded.
(א) ויצא בן אשה ישראלית טעמו "ויצא בתוך בני ישראל" וכן ויצא בתוך העיר (אסתר ד א) כי יצא מביתו או ממקום מושבו אל העיר וכן זה יצא מאהלו או ממקומו ובא בתוך העם וינצו שם וטעם במחנה כי היתה המריבה במחנה ושמעו רבים ותפשו בו ויביאו אותו אל משה האהלה וטעם הזכיר זה בכאן כדברי האומר מפרשה של מעלה יצא (ויק"ר לב ג) כי חטא בשפתיו על אשי ה' והוכיחו האיש הישראלי וינצו שניהם ויחר אפו וקלל בנפשו וטעם בן הישראלית ואיש הישראלי להורות כי העו"ג הבא על בת ישראל הולד אינו ישראלי ואע"פ שפסקנו בגמרא (יבמות מה) דעו"ג הבא על בת ישראל הולד כשר בין בפנויה בין באשת איש הרי אמרו (בכורות מז) מזהמין את הולד שהוא פגום לכהונה וכל שכן שאינו ישראלי בשמו לענין היחס בדגלים ובנחלת הארץ כי "לשמות מטות אבותם" כתוב בהן (במדבר כו נה) ומה שאמר בת"כ (פרשה יד א) בתוך בני ישראל מלמד שנתגייר אינו שיצטרך בגירות אלא ככל ישראל שנכנסו לברית במילה וטבילה והרצאת דמים בשעת מתן תורה (כריתות ט) אבל נתכוונו לומר שהלך אחרי אמו ונדבק בישראל וזה טעם "בתוך בני ישראל" שהיה עמהם ולא רצה ללכת אחרי אביו להיות מצרי וכן מה שאמרו בת"כ (שם) אע"פ שלא היו ממזרים באותה שעה הוא היה כממזר כדברי יחיד היא שנויה והלכה הולד כשר
(1) AND THE SON OF AN ISRAELITE WOMAN, WHOSE FATHER WAS AN EGYPTIAN, WENT OUT, etc. This means that he went out among the children of Israel, similar to the expression: and he went out into the midst of the city, meaning that he [Mordecai] went out from his house or from where he was abiding into the city. Similarly, this [son of an Israelite woman] went out from his tent or from his place, and came into the midst of the people, and they strove there. The meaning of the word bamachaneh [“in the camp” — and the son of the Israelite woman and a man of Israel strove together ‘in the camp’], is that the quarrel took place in the camp and many people heard it, and [when they heard the son of the Israelite woman blaspheming the Name], they took hold of him and they brought him unto Moses into [his] tent. And the reason why Scripture mentions this episode here, is as the words of the Sage who says: “He ‘came forth’ from the section above [i.e., he began his argument by speaking contemptuously of a law mentioned in the above section], for he sinned with his lips concerning the fire-offerings of the Eternal, and an Israelite man rebuked him, whereupon they strove and he became angered and then blasphemed “himself.”
The intention of the expression the son of an Israelite woman and a man of Israel, is to teach that if a non-Jew has sexual relations with a Jewish woman, the child is not deemed Jewish. And although we have rendered the final decision in the Gemara that if a non-Jew has sexual relations with a Jewish woman whether she is single or married, the child is a fully-qualified Jew, yet they have said, “the child is ‘rejected,’” meaning that it is disqualified for the priesthood; and certainly it is not considered a fully-qualified Israelite by name as far as genealogy is concerned, with respect to the standards [i.e., as to where he was to take his place under one of the four main standards that were set up], and inheriting of the Land, for it is written of them, according to the names of the tribes of their fathers. And that which the Rabbis have said in the Torath Kohanim: “Among the children of Israel, this teaches that he had become a proselyte,” does not mean that he needed conversion, for he was like all Israelites who entered into the covenant by circumcision, immersion, and the expiation by blood, at the time of the Giving of the Torah. But the intention of the Rabbis [in this text of the Torath Kohanim] was to state that he was reared by his mother and became attached to Israel, this being the meaning of the expression among the children of Israel, that he was with them and he did not want to go after his father to be an Egyptian. Similarly, that which the Rabbis have said in the Torath Kohanim: “Although there were no mamzerim at that time, he was like one,” this text follows the opinion of a single Sage [who says that if a non-Jew has sexual relations with a Jewish woman, the child is deemed a mamzer], but the final decision of the law is that the child is a fully-qualified Jew.
וַיֵּצֵא בֶּן אִשָּׁה יִשְׂרְאֵלִית, מֵהֵיכָן יָצָא, רַבִּי לֵוִי אָמַר יָצָא מֵעוֹלָמוֹ, כְּמָה דְאַתְּ אָמַר (שמואל א יז, ד): וַיֵּצֵא אִישׁ הַבֵּנַיִם. רַבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה אָמַר מִפָּרָשָׁה שֶׁל מַעְלָן יָצָא, אָמַר כְּתִיב (ויקרא כד, ה): וְלָקַחְתָּ סֹלֶת וְאָפִיתָ אֹתָהּ, דַּרְכּוֹ שֶׁל מֶלֶךְ לִהְיוֹת אוֹכֵל פַּת חַמָּה, שֶׁמָּא צוֹנֶנֶת, כְּהַהִיא דִּתְנִינַן תַּמָּן לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים אֵין נֶאֱכָל פָּחוּת מִתִּשְׁעָה וְלֹא יֶתֶר עַל אַחַד עָשָׂר, כֵּיצַד נֶאֱפָה בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת וְנֶאֱכַל בְּשַׁבָּת, לְתִשְׁעָה. חָל לִהְיוֹת יוֹם טוֹב בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת, נֶאֱכָל לַעֲשָׂרָה, שְׁנֵי יָמִים טוֹבִים שֶׁל רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה נֶאֱכָל לְאַחַד עָשָׂר, כִּדְאִיתָא בְּתַנְחוּמָא. תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּא מִפָּרָשַׁת יוּחֲסִין יָצָא, שֶׁבָּא לִטַּע אָהֳלוֹ בְּמַחֲנֵה דָן, אָמְרוּ לוֹ מַה לְּךָ לִטַּע אָהָלְךָ בְּמַחֲנֵה דָן, אָמַר לָהֶם מִבְּנוֹת דָּן אֲנִי, אָמְרוּ לוֹ כְּתִיב (במדבר ב, ב): אִישׁ עַל דִּגְלוֹ בְאֹתֹת לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם וְלֹא לְבֵית אִמּוֹתָם, נִכְנַס לְבֵית דִּינוֹ שֶׁל משֶׁה וְיָצָא מְחֻיָּב, עָמַד וְגִדֵּף.
... And the son of an Israelite woman came out — From where did he go out? [Surely not from the camp, since the text “and a fight broke out in the camp”] Rabbi Levi said, “He went out from his eternal life (עולמו; R. Levi connects ויצא with the last word of v. 8: the everlasting covenant, ברית עולם - ie, by his blasphemy he lost his eternal life). R. Berachya said: “he came out (יצא) (with an argument) from the above section. He said: it is written 'You shall take choice flour and bake of it twelve loaves [...every Shabbat] (Lev. 24:5-9)'. Surely it is the way of a king to eat warm bread every day; is it perhaps His way to eat bread that has been cold for nine days?! [technical explanation from the Tanchuma] Rabbi Chyia taught: “he came out (יצא) (with an argument) from the section regarding family connections. He had gone to pitch his tent in the camp of the tribe of Dan. They told him: "what [claim] do you have to pitch your tent in the camp of Dan?" He replied: "I am from one of the daughters of the tribe of Dan". They said to him: "It is written (Numbers 2:2) 'Every man [of the children of Israel shall encamp] by his own standard, that bears the signs of their father's house' - and not the mother's!" He went in to the judicial court of Moses to have the matter decided and came out (יצא) declared to be in the wrong. He then stood up and blasphemed.
Compare the incident with the following narrative? where do you see the textual similarities? What could be the thematic parallels?
(יא) וַיְהִ֣י ׀ בַּיָּמִ֣ים הָהֵ֗ם וַיִּגְדַּ֤ל מֹשֶׁה֙ וַיֵּצֵ֣א אֶל־אֶחָ֔יו וַיַּ֖רְא בְּסִבְלֹתָ֑ם וַיַּרְא֙ אִ֣ישׁ מִצְרִ֔י מַכֶּ֥ה אִישׁ־עִבְרִ֖י מֵאֶחָֽיו׃ (יב) וַיִּ֤פֶן כֹּה֙ וָכֹ֔ה וַיַּ֖רְא כִּ֣י אֵ֣ין אִ֑ישׁ וַיַּךְ֙ אֶת־הַמִּצְרִ֔י וַֽיִּטְמְנֵ֖הוּ בַּחֽוֹל׃ (יג) וַיֵּצֵא֙ בַּיּ֣וֹם הַשֵּׁנִ֔י וְהִנֵּ֛ה שְׁנֵֽי־אֲנָשִׁ֥ים עִבְרִ֖ים נִצִּ֑ים וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙ לָֽרָשָׁ֔ע לָ֥מָּה תַכֶּ֖ה רֵעֶֽךָ׃ (יד) וַ֠יֹּ֠אמֶר מִ֣י שָֽׂמְךָ֞ לְאִ֨ישׁ שַׂ֤ר וְשֹׁפֵט֙ עָלֵ֔ינוּ הַלְהׇרְגֵ֙נִי֙ אַתָּ֣ה אֹמֵ֔ר כַּאֲשֶׁ֥ר הָרַ֖גְתָּ אֶת־הַמִּצְרִ֑י וַיִּירָ֤א מֹשֶׁה֙ וַיֹּאמַ֔ר אָכֵ֖ן נוֹדַ֥ע הַדָּבָֽר׃ (טו) וַיִּשְׁמַ֤ע פַּרְעֹה֙ אֶת־הַדָּבָ֣ר הַזֶּ֔ה וַיְבַקֵּ֖שׁ לַהֲרֹ֣ג אֶת־מֹשֶׁ֑ה וַיִּבְרַ֤ח מֹשֶׁה֙ מִפְּנֵ֣י פַרְעֹ֔ה וַיֵּ֥שֶׁב בְּאֶֽרֶץ־מִדְיָ֖ן וַיֵּ֥שֶׁב עַֽל־הַבְּאֵֽר׃
(11) Some time after that, when Moses had grown up, he went out to his kinsfolk and witnessed their labors. He saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew, one of his kinsmen. (12) He turned this way and that and, seeing no one about, he struck down the Egyptian and hid him in the sand. (13) When he went out the next day, he found two Hebrews fighting; so he said to the offender, “Why do you strike your fellow?” (14) He retorted, “Who made you chief and ruler over us? Do you mean to kill me as you killed the Egyptian?” Moses was frightened, and thought: Then the matter is known! (15) When Pharaoh learned of the matter, he sought to kill Moses; but Moses fled from Pharaoh. He arrived in the land of Midian, and sat down beside a well.
The Dissonance Between Justice and Empathy
ויהי בימים ההם ויגדל משה ויצא, זה שאמר הכתוב גם במעלליו יתנכר נער אם זך ואם ישר פעלו (משלי כ יא), שהרי משה רבינו אע״פ שהיה בפלטין של פרעה, הלך לראות בסבלותן של ישראל, היינו דתנן הלל אומר אל תפרוש מן הצבור, שלא יהי׳ אדם רואה צבור בצער ויאמר אלך לביתי, ואוכל ואשתה, ושלום עלי נפשי, אלא יהא נושא בעול עם חבירו.
וירא איש מצרי. הבין כי מצרי הוא.
How does the Midrash below differ in tone and message from the other midrashim? How does its perspective shine light on our topic?
דָּבָר אַחֵר, וַיֵּצֵא בֶּן אִשָּׁה יִשְׂרְאֵלִית, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (קהלת ד, א): וְשַׁבְתִּי אֲנִי וָאֶרְאֶה אֶת כָּל הָעֲשׁוּקִים, דָּנִיֵּאל חַיָּטָא פָּתַר קְרָיָה בַּמַּמְזֵרִים, (קהלת ד, א): וְהִנֵּה דִּמְעַת הָעֲשׁוּקִים, אֲבוֹתָם שֶׁל אֵלּוּ עוֹבְרֵי עֲבֵרוֹת, וְאִילֵין עֲלוּבַיָא מַה אִכְפַּת לְהוֹן, כָּךְ אָבִיו שֶׁל זֶה בָּא עַל הָעֶרְוָה זֶה מַה חָטָא וּמָה אִכְפַּת לוֹ, (קהלת ד, א): וְאֵין לָהֶם מְנַחֵם, אֶלָּא (קהלת ד, א): מִיַּד עשְׁקֵיהֶם כֹּחַ, מִיַּד סַנְהֶדְּרֵי גְדוֹלָה שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁבָּאָה עֲלֵיהֶם מִכֹּחָהּ שֶׁל תּוֹרָה וּמְרַחַקְתָּן עַל שׁוּם (דברים כג, ג): לֹא יָבֹא מַמְזֵר בִּקְהַל ה'. (קהלת ד, א): וְאֵין לָהֶם מְנַחֵם, אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עָלַי לְנַחֲמָן, לְפִי שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה יֵשׁ בָּהֶן פְּסֹלֶת אֲבָל לֶעָתִיד לָבוֹא אָמַר זְכַרְיָה אֲנָא חֲמִיתֵּיהּ אָלוֹ כּוּרְסוֹן כֻּלּוֹ דְּהַב נְקֵי, הֲדָא הוּא דִּכְתִיב (זכריה ד, ב): רָאִיתִי וְהִנֵּה מְנוֹרַת זָהָב כֻּלָּהּ וְגֻלָּהּ עַל רֹאשָׁהּ, תְּרֵין אָמוֹרָאִין, חַד אֲמַר גֻּלָּהּ, וְחַד אֲמַר גּוֹאֲלָהּ. מַאן דַּאֲמַר גֻּלָּהּ, שֶׁגֻּלָּה לְבָבֶל וְגָלַת שְׁכִינָה עִמָּהֶן, כִּדְאֲמַר (ישעיה מג, יד): לְמַעַנְכֶם שִׁלַּחְתִּי בָּבֶלָה, וּמַאן דַּאֲמַר גּוֹאֲלָהּ, פָּרוֹקָא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ישעיה מז, ד): גֹּאֲלֵנוּ ה' צְבָאוֹת שְׁמוֹ, וּכְתִיב (מיכה ב, יג): עָלָה הַפֹּרֵץ לִפְנֵיהֶם פָּרְצוּ וַיַּעֲבֹרוּ שַׁעַר וַיַּעֲבֹר מַלְכָּם לִפְנֵיהֶם וַה' בְּרֹאשָׁם.
Another teaching about "A son of an Israelite woman went out" - Regarding that which is written "I returned and saw all of the oppression" (Kohelet 4:1), Daniel the Tailor interpreted the verse as referring to Mamzerim. "The tears of the oppressed", the fathers of these sinned, and these [the children] are shamed, how does it concern them? So too, this one's father committed incest, what is the child's sin, and how does it concern him? "And they have no comforter", rather "their oppressors are empowered", this refers to Israel's Great Sanhedrin, who comes at them with the power of Torah, and pushes them away in the name of "a mamzer will not enter the community of the Lord." (Devarim 23:3). "They have no comforter" - says the Holy Blessed One: it is upon me to comfort them; in this world they are cast aside, but in the future, as Zecharia said, "I see a people all of gold", as it is written (Zechariah 4:2) “I see a menorah all of gold, with a bowl [gulah] above it". Two speak; one says "an exile [gulah]" and one says "a redeemer [goalah]". According to the one who says exile, that they were exiled to Babylon and the Shechina was exiled with them, as it says (Isaiah 43:14) "For your sake I send to Babylon". And according to the one who says a redeemer [goalah], a redeemer [paroka], as it says (Isaiah 47:4 "Our redeemer, the LORD of Hosts is Their Name", and it is written (Micah 2:14) "One who makes a breach goes before them; they enlarge it to a gate... [and leave by it]. Their king marches before them, God at their heads".
(א) ובני ישראל עשו כאשר צוה ה' את משה אף לסמיכה אף לדחייה אף לתלייה אף ללא תלין נבלתו על העץ תורת כהנים (פרק כ י) ור"א אמר (אבן עזרא על ויקרא כ״ד:כ״ג) בפשוטו כי עשו מאותו היום והלאה כמשפט הזה בחובל ואינו נכון שיהיה כתוב על העתיד ופשוטו וירגמו אותו אבן כי עשו בני ישראל המצוה אשר צוה ה' את משה כי כן יכפול בכל השומרים מצות השם כמו שנאמר בפרשת הפסח (שמות יב כח) וכמו שאמר בפרשת הפקודים (במדבר א נד) ויעשו בני ישראל ככל אשר צוה ה' את משה כן עשו וכן במטות הנשיאים (שם יז כו) ויעש משה כאשר צוה ה' אותו כן עשה והנכון בעיני בכאן מפני שפרט בתחילה הסקילה ואחר כן חזר ואמר ובני ישראל עשו כי טעם הכתוב לומר כי כאשר דבר משה אל בני ישראל הוציאו מיד את המקלל ורגמו אותו ועשו כן כל בני ישראל לשמור ולעשות כאשר צוה השם את משה ולא לשנאת בן המצרי שנצה עם הישראלי אלא לבער הפגום מתוכם:
(1) AND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL DID AS THE ETERNAL COMMANDED MOSES. “This includes the leaning of hands, casting from a height, and hanging the dead body, as well as the regulation, his body shall not remain all night upon the tree.” [This is the language of the] Torath Kohanim. And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote that the plain meaning thereof is that from that day onwards they acted in accordance with the law concerning one who wounds [a fellowman or causes him damage, mentioned here above in Verses 17-21]. But it is not a correct [explanation] that this verse be referring to the future. The plain meaning thereof is as follows: “and they stoned him with stones because the children of Israel did according to the commandment which the Eternal commanded Moses.” Such a repetition of expressions is found with respect to all those who keep the commandments of G-d, just as it is said in the section of the Passover, and as He stated in the section of the census, Thus did the children of Israel; according to all that the Eternal commanded Moses, so did they; and so also with regards to the rods of the princes: Thus did Moses; as the Eternal commanded him, so did he.
The correct interpretation here appears to me to be that since Scripture mentioned first the stoning, it went back afterwards and stated, and the children of Israel did etc., for the meaning of Scripture is to declare that when Moses spoke to the children of Israel they immediately brought forth him that had cursed, and they stoned him; and all the children of Israel did so in order to keep and fulfill [the commandment] as the Eternal commanded Moses, but not out of hatred to the son of the Egyptian who had striven with the Israelite, for [they did it] in order to remove the unworthy one from their midst.
(יז) לִמְד֥וּ הֵיטֵ֛ב דִּרְשׁ֥וּ מִשְׁפָּ֖ט אַשְּׁר֣וּ חָמ֑וֹץ שִׁפְט֣וּ יָת֔וֹם רִ֖יבוּ אַלְמָנָֽה׃ {ס}
(17) Learn to do good.
Devote yourselves to justice;
Aid the wronged.-e
Uphold the rights of the orphan;
Defend the cause of the widow.
Devote yourselves to justice;
Aid the wronged.-e
Uphold the rights of the orphan;
Defend the cause of the widow.
R. Jonathan Sacks: To Heal a Fractured World
God exists, therefore there is justice. But it is divine justice justice from the perspective of one who knows all, sees all, and considers all: the universe as a whole, and time as a whole, which is to say, eternity. But we who live in space and time cannot see from this perspective, and if we did, it would not make us better human beings but worse....
If we were able to see how evil today leads to good tomorrow -if we were able to see from the point of view of God, creator of all - we would understand justice but at the cost of ceasimg to be humam. We would accept all,vindicate all, and become deaf to the cries of those in pain. God does not want us to cease to be human, for if he did, he would not have created us. We are not God. We will never see things from his perspective. The attempt to do so is an abdication of the human situation. My teacher, Rabbi Nahum Rabinovitch, taught me that this is how to understand the moment when Moses first encountered God at the burning bush. Moses hid his face because he was afraid to look at God' (Ex. 3:6). Why was he afraid? Because if he were fully to understand God he would have no choice but to be reconciled to the slavery and oppression of the world. From the vantage point of eternity, he would see that the bad is a necessary stage on the journey to the good. He would understand God but he would cease to be Moses, the fighter against injustice who intervened whenever he saw wrong being done. 'He was afraid' that seeing heaven would desensitize him to earth, that coming close to infinity would mean losing his humanity.' That is why God chose Moses, and why he taught Abraham to pray.
A Holocaust historian was once interviewing a survivor of the extermination camps. He was a hassidic rebbe (the name given by hassidim, Jewish mystics, to their leader). Astonishingly, he seemed to have passed through the valley of the shadow of death, his faith intact. He could still smile. 'Seeing what you saw, did you have no questions about God?' she asked. 'Yes', he said, 'Of course I had questions. So powerful were those questions, I had no doubt that were I to ask them, God would personally invite me to heaven to tell me the answers. And I prefer to be down here on earth with the questions than up in heaven with the answers'. He too belonged to this ancient Jewish tradition....
There is divine justice, but God wants us to strive for human justice- in the short term, not just the long term; in this world, not the next; from the perspective of time and space, not infinity and eternity. God creates divine justice, but only we cam create human justice, acting on behalf of God but never aspiring to be other than human. That is why he created us. It is why God not only speaks but listens, why he wants to hear Abraham's voice, not just his own. Creation is empowerment. That is the radical proposition at the heart of the Hebrew Bible. God did not create humankind to demand of it absolute submission to his all-powerful will. In revelation, creation speaks. What it says is a call to responsibility.
God exists, therefore there is justice. But it is divine justice justice from the perspective of one who knows all, sees all, and considers all: the universe as a whole, and time as a whole, which is to say, eternity. But we who live in space and time cannot see from this perspective, and if we did, it would not make us better human beings but worse....
If we were able to see how evil today leads to good tomorrow -if we were able to see from the point of view of God, creator of all - we would understand justice but at the cost of ceasimg to be humam. We would accept all,vindicate all, and become deaf to the cries of those in pain. God does not want us to cease to be human, for if he did, he would not have created us. We are not God. We will never see things from his perspective. The attempt to do so is an abdication of the human situation. My teacher, Rabbi Nahum Rabinovitch, taught me that this is how to understand the moment when Moses first encountered God at the burning bush. Moses hid his face because he was afraid to look at God' (Ex. 3:6). Why was he afraid? Because if he were fully to understand God he would have no choice but to be reconciled to the slavery and oppression of the world. From the vantage point of eternity, he would see that the bad is a necessary stage on the journey to the good. He would understand God but he would cease to be Moses, the fighter against injustice who intervened whenever he saw wrong being done. 'He was afraid' that seeing heaven would desensitize him to earth, that coming close to infinity would mean losing his humanity.' That is why God chose Moses, and why he taught Abraham to pray.
A Holocaust historian was once interviewing a survivor of the extermination camps. He was a hassidic rebbe (the name given by hassidim, Jewish mystics, to their leader). Astonishingly, he seemed to have passed through the valley of the shadow of death, his faith intact. He could still smile. 'Seeing what you saw, did you have no questions about God?' she asked. 'Yes', he said, 'Of course I had questions. So powerful were those questions, I had no doubt that were I to ask them, God would personally invite me to heaven to tell me the answers. And I prefer to be down here on earth with the questions than up in heaven with the answers'. He too belonged to this ancient Jewish tradition....
There is divine justice, but God wants us to strive for human justice- in the short term, not just the long term; in this world, not the next; from the perspective of time and space, not infinity and eternity. God creates divine justice, but only we cam create human justice, acting on behalf of God but never aspiring to be other than human. That is why he created us. It is why God not only speaks but listens, why he wants to hear Abraham's voice, not just his own. Creation is empowerment. That is the radical proposition at the heart of the Hebrew Bible. God did not create humankind to demand of it absolute submission to his all-powerful will. In revelation, creation speaks. What it says is a call to responsibility.
R. Jonathan Sacks: Morality p159, 160
Morality makes a difference to the way we think about problems and their solution. It shifts us from self-interest to concern for the common good, and from a narrow focus on immediate gain to more distant horizons. We need to be able to think in this collective, long-term way if we are to avoid the short-sightedness that led people to think that you could abandon morality without paying a momentous price. The long journey from “We' to T, from shared moral code to morality is what I choose it to be’, seemed to make sense in the I96os. Hart won, Devlin lost. We can't rewrite that history But we live with the consequences, and some of those are very bad indeed: drug addiction, markets without morals, the consumerisation of happiness, the fracturing of the family, and other phenomena we will encounter in chapters to come. What the philosophical, legal and moral voices of the time failed to factor in was the law of unintended consequences. Things never turn out the way we think they will. Too often, Western thought has been short-sighted - we might even say, time-blind. It needs moral courage to say No to the things that are tempting in the present but ruinous in the long run: drugs, cheap plastic goods, cars for all, and the other ways in which we enjoy our present at the cost of our children's future. We need space in our lives to gather collective wisdom about the common good, and to consider sacrifice now for the sake of benefit in generations to come.
Morality makes a difference to the way we think about problems and their solution. It shifts us from self-interest to concern for the common good, and from a narrow focus on immediate gain to more distant horizons. We need to be able to think in this collective, long-term way if we are to avoid the short-sightedness that led people to think that you could abandon morality without paying a momentous price. The long journey from “We' to T, from shared moral code to morality is what I choose it to be’, seemed to make sense in the I96os. Hart won, Devlin lost. We can't rewrite that history But we live with the consequences, and some of those are very bad indeed: drug addiction, markets without morals, the consumerisation of happiness, the fracturing of the family, and other phenomena we will encounter in chapters to come. What the philosophical, legal and moral voices of the time failed to factor in was the law of unintended consequences. Things never turn out the way we think they will. Too often, Western thought has been short-sighted - we might even say, time-blind. It needs moral courage to say No to the things that are tempting in the present but ruinous in the long run: drugs, cheap plastic goods, cars for all, and the other ways in which we enjoy our present at the cost of our children's future. We need space in our lives to gather collective wisdom about the common good, and to consider sacrifice now for the sake of benefit in generations to come.