The Avoidance of Negative Experiences III

(third post)

General Statements that the Ethical Takes Precedence over the Holy

In the course of explaining hukkim, we have seen that Torah culture is defined by its goal of Goodness and its pursuit of holiness and dignity in order to serve that goal, not to supersede that goal.  In the words of Maimonides:

Cleaning garments, washing the body, and removal of dirt also constitute one of the purposes of this Law.  But this comes after the purifications of the actions and the purification of the heart from polluting opinions and polluting moral qualities (Guide 3:33, trans. Pines). [1]

Similarly, Maimonides explained that the reason that critical religious practices do not take precedence over human life is because the laws of Torah are intended to bring mercy, kindness, and peace to the world (Laws of Shabbat 2:3).  In the simple words of R. Juda Loeb (MaHaRa”L mi-Prague, d.1609) avoiding disgusting behavior is holy behavior (Gur Arye, Leviticus 20:8) but avoiding evil yet alluring behavior is even holier behavior (Gur Arye, Exodus 22:32).  In the even simpler words of the tanna, R. Pinhas b. Yair (2^nd century CE), the process of character development merely begins with personal cleanliness (m. Sota 9:15).

The greatest twentieth century analytical scholar of Jewish Law, R. Shimon Shkop (Poland and Belarus, 1860-1940), stated the primacy of the ethical demand most forcefully.  He argued (in his introduction to Sha’arei Yosher) that the Levitical demand to imitate God and be holy (Leviticus 19:1-2) is actually a demand to dedicate all of one’s actions to the public welfare - including those personal selfish actions that one must perform in order to allow herself to function well and to thus serve the public successfully.[2]  R. Shkop argued that this is the only way we can truly imitate God in His holiness; mere asceticism, merely refraining from the pleasures of life, is not truly imitatio Dei inasmuch as the Eternal has no desires from which He refrains.  Although R. Shkop’s read of holiness may sound modernist (cf. Rynhold and Harris 2008, 260-269), it actually fits well with the fact that the short Code of Leviticus to which he refers (Leviticus 19:1-37)[3] opens with a demand to be holy, and closes each of its ethical directives with the words  “I am the Eternal”.[4] 

R. Shkop’s reading redirects our attention to the fact that according to this Biblical Code, other legal and prophetic sections of Tanakh, and leading Jewish sages through the ages, the point of all these norms is for humans to connect to God in their ethical behavior.  As we have seen repeatedly in these chapters, the Jewish tradition has been understood to call upon humans to act Go[o]dly and experience Go[o]dliness as individuals and a people.  It is because this behavior and experience is lost or challenged to varying degrees when individuals commit the unethical, perform the disgusting, or experience the unsettling[5] that such actions are forbidden or curtailed.

CONCLUSION

This understanding that there is a general Biblical proscription or meta-proscription against disgusting behavior led Amoraim to weigh actions by their degree of contemporary repugnance instead of by their formal classifications as Biblical prescriptions.[6]  For example, the Amoraim all agreed that one is permitted to avoid performing a Biblical commandment or to commit a Rabbinic sin in order to preserve personal dignity; the Amoraim only debated whether one may also commit a Biblical sin in order to preserve personal dignity (R. Zeira in y. Nazir 7:1; anonymous debate in y. Kilayim 9:1; Rav and Rav bar Sheva in b. Berakhot 19b).[7]  In fact, one could argue – as did the renowned Hungarian Torah scholar, R. Moshe Shmuel Glasner (1856-1924)[8] – that as regards a person who faces not mere indignity but rather severe shame, all Amoraim would agree that avoiding shameful behavior overrides Biblical religious sins.

---

[1] In greater elaboration: “When only the desires are followed, as is done by the ignorant… cares and sorrows multiply, mutual envy, hatred, and strife aiming at taking away what the other has, multiply.  All this comes about because the ignoramus regards pleasure alone as the end to be sought for its own sake.  Therefore God, may His name be held sublime… forbids everything that leads to lusts and mere pleasure.  This is an important purpose of the Law.  Similarly one of the intentions of the Law is purity and sanctification; I mean by this renouncing and avoiding sexual intercourse and causing it to be as infrequent as possible. …And just as the Law designates obedience to these commandments as sanctity and purity, it also designates transgression of these commandments and the perpetration of evil actions as impurity.” (Guide of the Perplexed [trans. Pines], 3:33)

[2] On the role of acknowledging the validity of humans partially meeting their selfish needs (until they overcome them) see: “To shove our impulses underground by the taboo is to force them to virulent and uncontrolled expression. To follow impulse wherever it leads means the satisfaction of one impulse at the expense of all the others. The glutton and the rake can satisfy only their gluttonous and rakish impulses, and that isn't enough for happiness. What civilized men aim at is neither whim nor taboo, but a frank recognition of desire, disciplined by a knowledge of what is possible, and ordered by the conscious purpose of their lives.” (Lippmann 1914)

[3] This miniature code has been recognized as a code and commented upon by various Geonim and Rishonim including Rav Saadya Gaon and Ramban.  For further discussion of its literary contours, see critical Biblical scholarship on the Holiness Code such as Paton 1897 and Krumrei 1985.

[4] This point was already noted by the Tannaim (Sifra Kedoshim, beginning of parsha 2; Sifra Bahar 3:4; baraita b. Kiddushin 32b).

[5] The only explanation I can offer for the poor scholarship preceding this chapter’s psychological definition of tum’a is that “disgust has elicited little attention in any of the disciplines that claim an interest in the emotions: psychology, philosophy [and] anthropology.  It is not hard to guess the likely reason.  The problem is its lack of decorum….  To study disgust is to risk contamination.  Jokes about his or her unwholesome interests soon reach the disgust researcher” (Miller 1997, 5).

[6] See Yere’im #73; Rabbeinu Yona’s Shaarei Teshuva 3:93; Novella of Ritva Makkot 16b; and Beit Yosef YD 116.

[7] For more on this topic, see: ריינס תש"י, 161 and בלידשטיין תשמ"ב-תשמ"ג, 127.

[8] Dor Revi’I al Masekhet Hullin, introduction #2.  [Unfortunately the critical quote for this point is not translated in Elman 1991, 63-69.]