Act and Comprehend

By Ofir Haivry

Both Judaism and Zionism were predicated on the idea that human fulfillment can only come of correct action. Today’s confusion is the result of the exaltation of principle over deed.

PDF Format

previous (page 3 of 9 - view all) next

These differences of outlook are evidenced by the tactics which the two sages are reported to have used when confronted by the gentile. Shamai is not even willing to discuss Judaism “on one leg” and rejects any such occupation out of hand, while Hillel attempts to deal with the stranger in a sophisticated fashion that is supposed ultimately to bring the questioner to accept Judaism in its complete and inclusive form. In the talmudic story, the stranger converts in the end, and this fact is supposed to indicate the preferability of Hillel’s tolerance as opposed to Shamai’s zealousness. The source of this story is, as mentioned, the Babylonian Talmud, and it symbolizes the political-cultural turn that gradually took place in Judaism after the fall of the Second Temple. As long as those living in the land comprised the majority and the core of the Jewish people, it was the older traditions, those closer to Shamai and his teachings—traditions which gave birth to the national uprisings of the Hasmoneans, the Great Revolt and the Bar-Kochva Revolt—which remained in ascendance. But when the land of Israel ceased to be the living center of the Jewish nation, the traditions of Beit Shamai succumbed as well, and it was the legal tradition of Beit Hillel which was accepted in practice, and which has guided Judaism since.

However, a second look at Hillel’s answer arouses much wonder: What kind of a description of the essence of the Tora does not include any reference to the uniqueness and unity of God and his relationship with the Jewish people? It would have been reasonable to expect Hillel to choose as a concise, succinct definition—the first words of the book of Genesis, or the first commandment of the Decalogue, or “Hear O Israel.” But he did not do so. Hillel, one of the outstanding Jewish sages, does not even mention the existence of God or his commandments, and instead chooses to present to the gentile a practical, behavioral principle, rational and utilitarian, which is entirely worldly.

One certainly need not suspect Hillel of failing to understand the importance of the existence of God in the Jewish religion. One is therefore left with no alternative but to regard his reply as an attempt to confront the challenge of generalization in a manner which attempts to check the antinomian danger inherent in it. In answer to the “philosophical” question about essence, Hillel deliberately gives an answer which leads in the opposite direction, faithfully following the Jewish tradition of refraining from directly occupying oneself with the sublime and the transcendent, preferring instead to concentrate on the means, the deed. Thus Hillel’s answer is indirectly close to that of Shamai: A distrust for the whole idea of doing anything “on one leg,” a demurral at the danger inherent in the direct answer. For a direct answer brings one to the essence, preempting the need for the means—and this is the greatest of dangers.

In the days of Hillel and Shamai, in the third decade of the First Century C.E., and perhaps even on the very same day as the conversation with the gentile, a Jewish youth from the Galilee came to a group of Pharisee sages in Jerusalem—perhaps Hillel and Shamai were among them?—argued with them, and disparaged the importance of the means. His subsequent behavior is described by his disciples:

And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, “Which commandment is the first of all?” Jesus answered, “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” And the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher; you have truly said that he is one, and there is no other but he; and to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.¹⁶

Here we see the danger of generalization in its full and deadly form. A direct answer is given, and is immediately followed by the logical conclusion—that this principle is more important than all sorts of customs such as burnt offerings and sacrifices. We have already reached the end-point, so why bother with the means? Now it is clear why Shamai was angered and why Hillel gave such a cautious answer. The young Galilean Jew seemingly went just one small step further, and gave the direct answer which both Hillel and Shamai had so insistently avoided. The Galilean’s answer, which could easily be given while standing “on one leg,” says in effect that the essential principle and the divine identity is love. Yet we know that while one can stand on one leg, one cannot walk in this way; and he who tries, falls.

Hillel’s answer to the gentile was an oblique attempt to counter the widespread acceptance by that time, among many of the Jewish people as well, of the principle of generalization. Judaism very quickly learned how dangerous this route is, because even a cautious attempt to give an answer “on one leg” regarding its essence leads in the end to the threat of messianism.

VII. Jesus and Bar-Kochva

The nature of the challenge with which Judaism was confronted can be seen in the Histories of the Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus, written around the end of the First Century C.E., in which he argues that “The Jewish faith is paradoxical and despicable.”¹⁷ In this period Judaism was part of the cultural, philosophical and religious controversy of the Roman world, which was attracted by the idea of the one and unique God of Israel, but was repelled by all the incomprehensible, bothersome and exacting rites which accompanied this faith in one God. The combination of an abstract God with ritual minutiae seemed to many, as it did to Tacitus, to be contradictory; hence his harsh conclusion.

At this time pagan beliefs were already in an advanced state of decay. The social order, based as it was on inconsistent traditions and beliefs, gradually crumbled as more and more ancient customs failed to withstand the test of practical utility; and the belief in gods such as Apollo and Jupiter was shown by the philosophers to be meaningless. The cornerstones of society—such as its moral values and common goals—were eroded, and a quest began for something to replace them.

Even philosophical rationalism itself could not withstand the corrosive power of the trend towards generalization. It became clear that the attempt to base society on philosophical principles was fruitless, since these principles are susceptible to being perpetually undermined by the very process which produced them; after all, philosophical principles were originally understood as a tool for meditating upon and challenging all things. Philosophies which settle upon the impossibility of fundamentally knowing anything (skepticism), or which argue that there is no permanent value to anything and therefore no value that can be defined as meaningful (epicureanism), of necessity led to existential despair and to a search for something unshakable.

Thus by degrees, both the ignorant masses seeking support in time of trouble, and the followers of Aristotelianism and neo-Platonism who accepted the existence of one supreme abstract source of things, became ready to adopt a monotheistic faith, but not the punctiliousness of deed and ritual which are found in Judaism. They found what they were looking for in early Christianity—the religion of pure faith.

In our own day, there persists a widespread view according to which Christianity was mainly the invention of Saul (Paul) of Tarsus, while the Nazarite himself was actually a devout Jew fundamentally loyal to the religion of Israel, no more than a Galilean carpenter who did not wish to change Judaism and whose opinions were falsified after his death. But such was not the case. It is true that the Tarsean had an overwhelmingly important role in shaping Christianity by formulating concepts such as the Holy Trinity, in which the son of Mary becomes part of God, but the root of Christianity is undoubtedly in the far-reaching religious innovation whose source is the Nazarite himself: The identification of God with “love.”¹⁸

PDF Format

previous (page 3 of 9 - view all) next