09 September 2013

Teshuva, me'yirah and me'ahava

Ahava and yirah are the two fundamental ways that we relate to God. Each can lead one to teshuva, but they are not equivalent. In several lectures, the rabbis here have mentioned the teaching that teshuva me'yirah transforms intentional sins into unintentional sins in some spiritual sense, whereas teshuva me'ahava even transforms intentional sins into merits. Initially, this caused me great difficulty. It seems that the Talmud is establishing a clear hierarchy between two things that I had always considered to be opposite sides of a dialectic. If that were the case, I might be forced to reevaluate my general strategy for understanding Jewish hashkafa. There was one obvious way out, which seemed to be the one that the rabbeim here were taking, which is to say that this is not true, proper yirah, but a simple, infantile fear of punishment. Presumably, any higher motivation would then be me'ahava, making it a terribly vague category while resolving the problem of having one superior to the other. I am willing to accept that this surface level reading is in some sense correct, and comes to teach that even poorly motivated teshuva is worthwhile, but it is too facile to be satisfying and I think I can do better. Full disclaimer: I don't have a source that explicitly supports this reading.
Rather than seeing teshuva me'yirah as based on a desire to avoid the consequences of sin and teshuva me-ahava as done for its own sake, I would reverse the two.
Let us take yirah as a more mature emotion of awe -- the way of relating to God that we find when we stand on a mountain and watch the sunrise, or feel the power of a crowd of people acting together, or find beauty and precision in the study of math or physics. God as the distant, eternal, impersonal melekh, such that we are made aware of our own insignificance, yet can still be elevated by that very awareness. What would it mean to do teshuva motivated by this relationship? I would say that it would be a recognition of the moral truth in the universe that God represents. To know that there is right and there is wrong, and you have done wrong, and thus to feel remorse. Your remorse is a demonstration of one of two things: either you were overcome by your yetzer hara, or you were not as cognizant of the immorality of your act at the time as you are now. This brings me to several relevant halakhic points. First, one's true will is considered to be that of the higher parts of the soul, which has legal ramifications (if a man refuses to give his wife a get, the court is authorized to beat the yetzer hara out of him until his true will can act). Second, one who sins in ignorance is not considered to have deliberately sinned. Third, accidental sins can be atoned for through human action, particularly sacrifice. Thus, the sinner can make a legal case before God that his sin ought to be counted as unintentional, and ask that God take the lenient position and give him the chance to rectify it himself. He is asking for justice to be done in a merciful way.
The one who comes to teshuva through ahava, on the other hand, circumvents justice entirely. Ahava is the relation to God as the loving, intimate, personal av that we find in private prayer, or when we see the divine in a close friend or family member, or feel moved by an act of chesed. How do I see this moving one to teshuva? He realizes that sin creates a separation between the self and God, and is pained by that fact. He is moved to approach God, not as a defendant before the judge of the world, but as a child, a friend, or a spouse; admits his fault; apologizes; and asks for help in repairing the relationship.
In both cases, God, in his infinite mercy, grants exactly what is sincerely asked of him. The one seeks to correct his mistake in awe of the truth and majesty of the moral system, and asks for the means to do so within the bounds of justice, and God accepts his case as just. The other seeks to remove a barrier out of longing for connection and relationship, and finds it turned into a bridge. In this reading, neither is so superior as to make the other superfluous. The balance and dialectic of avinu malkeinu is preserved.

Some updates on yeshiva life:
Rosh Hashana was intense. It is easy to forget over a year what a trial of stamina it is. I slept in the beit midrash to ensure that I would wake up on time, and started praying as soon as I woke up as the first people entered. That meant that I was praying roughly 6:00-1:30, with a short kiddush break around 10:00, two days in a row, and then more in the afternoons and evenings. Still, I somehow managed to maintain decent kavanah through most of it, and it was a powerfully moving experience. Lots of good food, too, although the fish heads were rather dodgy. Shabbat the next day, morning services began at eight and ran less than three hours. Practically a day off!
Tzom Gedalia, we had the afternoon off, so I went to go take a nap in the neighborhood park. On my way, I thought, "I have plenty of time, why not get a bit of a walk and go to Gan Sacher for the nap?" Walked a couple blocks in that direction, then thought, "Screw napping, I'm going to take a proper walk; follow the sun into the Judean hills, then chase my shadow home!" Obviously, I was missing the ache in my legs from standing all day on Rosh Hashanah. Should probably have gone back and changed out of my sandals at that point. So it goes. The hills, by the way, are breathtakingly beautiful. Also, I got back into the city just as the the sunlight was starting to change the Jerusalem stone into glowing, rosy-hued blocks of magic. Good times. I haven't traveled as much as I would like, but I have seen enough cities that it is not entirely trivial to say that Jerusalem at sunset is the most lovely. I also happened to walk by Rabinowiz park on my way back. The slide there is my earliest memory of Israel. I was almost surprised to find that it is still really cool and visually interesting twenty years older.

Well, that was long. Still need to work on that. You wouldn't believe how much I didn't say about yirah and ahava!

Shana tova u'metuka!
Shalom,
-Ethan

12 comments:

  1. Glossary:
    yirah- awe or sometimes fear
    ahava- love
    hashkafa- philosophy
    melekh- king
    yetzer hara- "evil" inclination; perhaps more on those quotation marks in a later post
    halakhic- legal
    get- bill of divorce
    av- father
    avinu malkeinu- "our father, our king", common way to refer to God in the liturgy that reflects the need for a dual perspective
    beit midrash- hall of study, often where services are conducted
    kiddush- prayer, usually over wine, sanctifying the day, generally followed by snacks
    kavanah- focus and intention
    Tzom Gedalia- Fast day directly after Rosh Hashanah, pushed off to Sunday this year in honor of Shabbat.
    Shana tova u'metuka- a good and sweet new year

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ate up my reply again... thanks for the beautiful image of glowing Jerusalem, along with your reflections...(yes, I WOULD believe how much you didn't say....)
      Love, mom

      Delete
  2. I generally like your drash on the two types of teshuva. One question - you lead into it saying you want to reverse the conventional understanding of the two types of teshuva, but I don't see how the subsequent interpretation does so. Is it that in your view teshuva m'yirah is done for its own sake, while teshuva m'ahavah is done to avoid the consequences of sin? That only makes sense if on the one hand feelings of remorse are not a consequence of sin, and on the other hand, feelings of distance from God are a consequence of sin. I don't think this makes much sense, but it is the only way I can think of to interpret your introductory comment.

    That being said, I think this is a very minor criticism and the rest of your analysis stands beautifully on its own if you remove the proposition that you are reversing the conventional understanding of the two types of teshuva. Your characterization of the two types reminds me of Uncle Steve's sermon on the Jewish understanding of evil as an imbalance in the two divine attributes of Din and Chesed (Justice and Mercy, for those who aren't familiar with the terms), specifically an excess of Din. Teshuva m'yirah appeals to the divine Melekh's sense of justice. Teshuva m'ahavah appeals to the divine parent's loving mercy. You are tapping into a well-established Jewish dialectic by relating the types of teshuva to these aspects of the divine.

    Perhaps thinking of it this way, while restoring balance, also justifies the hierarchical elevation of one type of teshuva over the other. If the consequence of an excess of Din is evil, than perhaps teshuva m'yirah raises the specter of a moral hazard which is absent from teshuva m'ahavah. Of course imbalance between two divine attributes will always create some kind of undesirable outcome. Not sure Uncle Steve ever discussed what might be the result of an excess of Chesed, but to me at least, it seems preferable to an excess of Din.

    Love to hear your thoughts on this.

    Your Loving Adversary

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excess of chesed over din doesn't seem like a problem? Typical Reform...
      More to the point, anarchy and the inability to tell right from wrong are dangers just as great as inhuman strictness.
      The parallel with chesed-din is one of the things I chose not to discuss, in the name of brevity, along with related parallels in priestly-prophetic leadership, tieback to masculine-feminine issues, patriarchs, etc etc. Perhaps I can go into depth on some in another post, although I don't know that I want to keep running with the teshuva meta-theme now that the calendar is moving us in other directions.
      Regarding your criticism -- remorse is part of the act of teshuva, according to the Rambam's definition, regardless of motivation. Are you saying that my description of teshuva me'yirah is of one who feels remorse because he dislikes the feeling of remorse that comes from the action? On the contrary, the knowledge that the act was wrong, the violation of din, that leads to remorse. Remorse driven by regret that one's relationship with God has been impacted seems much more concerned with conseqences.

      Delete
  3. You are willfully twisting my comments to get in a dig at Reform - not very much in the spirit of the season. I didn't say there are no ill effects of an excess of Chesed, just that Steve did not go into it and I wasn't sure what they were. Whatever they are, I am pretty sure you and your siblings suffer from them, so not knowing the difference between right and wrong definitely does not come into it. Anarchy, maybe.

    The distinction between the remorse that motivates teshuva m'yirah and teshuva m'ahavah in your drash seems like a distinction without a difference to me - regret at the damage to one's relationship with a distant and awesome God on the hand, and regret at the damage to one's relationship with a close and loving God on the other.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Forgot to sign off -

      Your somewhat pissed off adversary

      Delete
    2. I apologize. I meant the dig at Reform to be playful, but I know that tone does not translate well into text.
      Din is not simply punishment. It also involves establishment of boundaries. Clarity, categorization, distinction, separation. In that sense, it is essential for distinguishing right from wrong. In the extreme, you distinguish too sharply between them, seeing the world in black and white and harshly judging the one without empathizing or considering the shades of gray. That is what Steve spoke of, right?
      I never claimed that teshuva me'yirah was about a relationship with God. I was saying that understanding God as arbiter of absolute moral truth is a function of yirah, and so regret at the basic moral wrongness of your act -regardless of consequences to yourself, others, or your relationship with God- is the beginning of teshuva me'yirah.

      Delete
  4. It has been a while since I heard Steve's sermon, but I don't think the idea of an excess of din meant seeing things in black and white - that, it could be argued, would represent a deficit of din, since the judgement would be faulty, seeing only black and white when reality always is comprised of shades of gray. Rather I think he really meant what he said - that din unbalanced by chesed leads to evil. When the Nazis engaged in human experiments to further scientific knowledge, the knowledge gained might have been true and accurate, but the decision to gain it at the expense of the lives of the subjects represented a failure of chesed - a dispassionate decision that the benefit of the knowledge outweighed the cost, perhaps a failure to even see the cost, lacking the lens of chesed through which to view the question. We could say the same thing about U.S. corporate depravity - corporations exist to deliver profits to their shareholders, a fact which has been used to justify heinous behaviors as diverse as selling cigarettes to minors or selling munitions to Sadam Hussein. And yet viewed through the lens of din, these practices make perfect sense.

    I wasn't really thinking in these terms when I made my earlier comment that you and your sibs have excellent access to moral truth even though you experienced a shocking lack of din in your upbringing, but now that I am thinking in these terms, I guess what I am trying to say is that chesed is a crucial component of morality, that the golden rule, the foundation of all morality, is in fact an expression of chesed. Din may give us the ability to extrapolate the rules of morality to more complex situations, but it does not furnish the fundamental postulates of morality. So we are back to the importance of the dialectic and balance between these attributes of God.

    I know you didn't claim that teshuva m'yirah was about a relationship with God, but I was trying to get you to think about what it means to have a relationship with a stern and distant God - I think that yirah is all about relationship. It just doesn't feel like relationship because it seems so one-directional; but fundamentally I think as a motivating force yirah is very analogous to the ahavah we feel towards a close and caring God, just calibrated for a different relationship. This is especially true since really both relationships are one-directional, we just convince ourselves that our relationship with the caring God is bi-directional.

    Your Loving Adversary

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think that din is necessarily free from error. One of the names given to the balance between the two is emet, truth. In the extreme, din distances itself from truth by imposing on reality a structure that is too stark for it. Utility maximization without concern for overriding values seems another issue entirely. Perhaps you see din as connected to the intellect, and chesed to the emotions? I don't think that that identification is consistent with Jewish tradition, and even if it were, your implication that morality is rooted in the heart as opposed to the mind may be supported by some strands of chassidut, but the mainstream has always held that the intellect should rule the emotions because morality comes from knowledge.

      I hope that I didn't imply that chesed is morally unimportant. Chas v'shalom. My point was that chesed makes us do what is right, but without din we would also do what is wrong. Chesed is active, din is restrictive. There is a positive and a negative formulation of the golden rule. "Love your neighbor as yourself" is pure chesed. "That which is hateful to you, do not do unto your neighbor" has a strong component of din. It still involves the identification of self with other, which comes from chesed, but it requires judgment of that which is hateful.

      I do not deny that there is relationship with yirah. Eved-melekh is a relationship just as much as ben-av is. But in a relationship that is in many ways defined by distance, why would minimizing distance be a motivating factor? In what way is that relationship threatened by transgression, and what tikkun is sought through teshuva? And, naturally, I can't let you get away with simply asserting that there cannot be a bi-directional relationship with God. That is the whole nature of covenant.

      Delete
  5. I won't dispute your first two paragraphs, and will merely suggest that the distance in the eved-melekh relationship might prompt a strong desire to come closer, or at least to prevent further distancing.

    I think in the most generous interpretation that a select few great religious figures over time have had a truly bi-directional relationship with God, and that the covenant was established through them. Most of mankind does not experience the immediacy of the covenant, and takes the bi-directional relationship on faith. For them, the relationship is one-directional

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I accept that many people do not feel the immediacy of the covenant and relate to God mostly through yirah. However, for those who do not struggle with ahava, I don't see any justification to accuse them of delusion. And for those of us who do struggle, ahava is still commanded, and we should not give up the attempt. We are members of a covenant, and it is theoretically accessible to all.

      Delete
  6. OK - I guess I was thinking of literal communication or intervention when I spoke of bi-directional relationship with God, something that only schizophrenics seem to experience in the modern world. But I admit that is a narrow definition of bi-directional relationship. Many individuals feel the immediacy of God's caring in their lives, even if they can't point to any tangible evidence of God's active participation in the relationship. My hero Avram Belinsky probably expresses it best, when trying to explain to the indian chief what God does for us.

    ReplyDelete