EXODUS 23 - The ProActive Imperative
My Favorite Rashi in Parshat Mishpatim ...
Ever wonder whether laws in the Bible are just randomly thrown together, or whether there is an intentional pattern to their appearance? My teacher, R. Menachem Leibtag shlit”a, describes the lists of commandments in Parshat Mishpatim as being a four stage progression starting with going from YIRAH (fear) between man and man (Ex. 21:1 – 22:16), YIRAH between man and G-d (22:17 – 22:19), AHAVAH between man and man (22:20 – 23:9), and AHAVAH between man and G-d (23:10 – end) [the full presentation of his ideas can be found here – www.tanach.org]. I prefer a different understanding of these stages (it may be a pure semantics) but to me this presentation provides the basis of both the formation of the ethical personality and the special responsibility of the Jewish people in this world. The first two levels are fundamentally reactive – they deal with torts (damages, injuries, etc) that ideally a person should only meet in the theoretical framework of study [hopefully, no one will become a frequent visitor to small claims courts]; or religious violations (idolatry, etc.) that are the responsibility fo the courts to punish.
The turning point is level three (22:20 - 23:9). This section is bounded off by the statement that you (the Jewish people) are obligated to fulfill these laws, as you were once slaves in the land of Egypt. In other words, you are obligated by an ethical imperative because of your unique background. Most, if not all, of these laws cannot be enforced within the court of law – they are obligatory upon each individual’s conscience. The prime example of a law in this section is, “When you see your enemy’s donkey struggling underneath its load, you must stop and help. (Ex. 23:5)” No court could reasonably convict a person for walking away – after all, perhaps he didn’t see it, perhaps he had an important appointment – any number of feasible excuses. However, this distinction is the difference between the Jew and the non-Jewish legal systems. Most systems of law only ask people to refrain from causing damage to others, and indeed, this is the foundation of all ethical behavior (see Hillel’s comment to the person who wanted to know the Torah on one foot). However, the Jew is required to pursue “kedusha”- holiness. This means the transformation of “Do not steal”, to “return your brother’s lost object” – “Do not kill” to “Do not stand idly by when your friend’s life is in danger” – in all cases, becoming a person who actively tries to improve the world, not someone who passively stands at the side, refraining from causing damage. [That ethics in Judaism are based on the building of ethical relationship with others as the foundation, only upon which can a person actively build a relationship with G-d, is other learned from this progression, but that is the topic for another discussion.]
Where does Rashi fit into the discussion? While discussing this idea with my students this week, I noticed that in level 3, which I claim to be to consist of proactive commandments, we find the following statement (22:24):
If (IM) you shall lend money to the poor among you in my people …
I immediately thought – there goes the whole theory. Before any of my students caught it, however, my eyes glanced down towards Rashi, who immediately comments:
Rabbi Yishmael states that in all of the Torah, the word IM (if) implies optional, except in three places [where it signifies a mandatory comment] – and this is one of them.
In other words – lending money to help another person is not an optional, nice thing to do. It is an obligation. Immediately, I pointed out this Rashi to my students, who seemed suitably impressed (after all, if Rashi says it …)
Ever wonder whether laws in the Bible are just randomly thrown together, or whether there is an intentional pattern to their appearance? My teacher, R. Menachem Leibtag shlit”a, describes the lists of commandments in Parshat Mishpatim as being a four stage progression starting with going from YIRAH (fear) between man and man (Ex. 21:1 – 22:16), YIRAH between man and G-d (22:17 – 22:19), AHAVAH between man and man (22:20 – 23:9), and AHAVAH between man and G-d (23:10 – end) [the full presentation of his ideas can be found here – www.tanach.org]. I prefer a different understanding of these stages (it may be a pure semantics) but to me this presentation provides the basis of both the formation of the ethical personality and the special responsibility of the Jewish people in this world. The first two levels are fundamentally reactive – they deal with torts (damages, injuries, etc) that ideally a person should only meet in the theoretical framework of study [hopefully, no one will become a frequent visitor to small claims courts]; or religious violations (idolatry, etc.) that are the responsibility fo the courts to punish.
The turning point is level three (22:20 - 23:9). This section is bounded off by the statement that you (the Jewish people) are obligated to fulfill these laws, as you were once slaves in the land of Egypt. In other words, you are obligated by an ethical imperative because of your unique background. Most, if not all, of these laws cannot be enforced within the court of law – they are obligatory upon each individual’s conscience. The prime example of a law in this section is, “When you see your enemy’s donkey struggling underneath its load, you must stop and help. (Ex. 23:5)” No court could reasonably convict a person for walking away – after all, perhaps he didn’t see it, perhaps he had an important appointment – any number of feasible excuses. However, this distinction is the difference between the Jew and the non-Jewish legal systems. Most systems of law only ask people to refrain from causing damage to others, and indeed, this is the foundation of all ethical behavior (see Hillel’s comment to the person who wanted to know the Torah on one foot). However, the Jew is required to pursue “kedusha”- holiness. This means the transformation of “Do not steal”, to “return your brother’s lost object” – “Do not kill” to “Do not stand idly by when your friend’s life is in danger” – in all cases, becoming a person who actively tries to improve the world, not someone who passively stands at the side, refraining from causing damage. [That ethics in Judaism are based on the building of ethical relationship with others as the foundation, only upon which can a person actively build a relationship with G-d, is other learned from this progression, but that is the topic for another discussion.]
Where does Rashi fit into the discussion? While discussing this idea with my students this week, I noticed that in level 3, which I claim to be to consist of proactive commandments, we find the following statement (22:24):
If (IM) you shall lend money to the poor among you in my people …
I immediately thought – there goes the whole theory. Before any of my students caught it, however, my eyes glanced down towards Rashi, who immediately comments:
Rabbi Yishmael states that in all of the Torah, the word IM (if) implies optional, except in three places [where it signifies a mandatory comment] – and this is one of them.
In other words – lending money to help another person is not an optional, nice thing to do. It is an obligation. Immediately, I pointed out this Rashi to my students, who seemed suitably impressed (after all, if Rashi says it …)
posted by Rav Yaakov Beasley at 1:13 PM
4 Comments:
You do know about tanach.org right?
Rabbi, hi, it's Yaniv.
Is there a way I can e-mail you something? I don't want to post it on here because it's quite long. Thanks and chag same'ach!
hello
leave your small advertisements on the forum of jewisheritage.f
shalom
Those four levels also, very plainly, depict a progression of philosophical thought by which one would reach Judaism. 1) יראה between man and his fellow man - this philosophy and set of laws correlate to Natural Law, in which man is his highest authority and thus, naturally fears man. 2) יראה between man and 'ה - which correlates with Deism, in which a god of sorts is man's maker and thus authority to him. 3) And, just like you said, here comes the fundamental shift; אהבה between man and man - this evokes a spiritual man. Here we leave the philosophical realm and enter a realm where man finds sanctity in human life, its creation and destruction. Life is purposeful, but man is unaware of a specific purpose. 4) אהבה between man and 'ה correlates with Judaism. 'ה participates in this world and in man's life, and man and 'ה have entered into a covenant with one another. Not only has man purpose, but he has a purpose from 'ה and guidelines and a living relationship with 'ה. This relationship is not based on reason (just as you would never define a relationship with a person you love to be based in reason), it is on a higher plain.
(Ha, imagine me saying that there is something greater than philosophy, than reason... The above all happened because you wrote "the fist two levels are fundamentally reactive", which I understood to mean as the second is a fundamental reaction to the first - which also works because man does not really fear man until he fears god, because if not you just have the individual really only fearing himself).
Post a Comment
<< Home