I find the character of Yishma'el fascinating. He is often paired with 'Eisav, the two rejected sons of the avoth (the patriarchs) (benei Ketura notwithstanding), but his relationship with Yisrael is far less straightforward. 'Eisav is associated with Rome, that greatest oppressor of the Jews, combing the humiliation of Bavel (Babylon), the bald slaughter of Paras (Persia), and the assimilationist pressure of Yavan (Greece), managing to far outdo each of its predecessors in their own area of expertise; and he is further distinguished as the progenitor of 'Amalek, the ideological negation of Yisrael. Yishma'el, on the other hand, is one of those rare figures that the rabbinic tradition leaves as neither hero nor villain. Sometimes he is accused of great sin: Rashi connects the "mitzaḥek" that motivates Sarah to have him exiled to the three cardinal sins of 'abhodha zara (idolatry), giluy 'arayoth (illicit sexual relations), and retziḥa (murder). But then again, Ramban responds that it is outrageous to suppose someone raised in the house of Abhraham would act thusly, and even Rashi agrees that he repented later in life. He is the only person in the Torah called "adham" save for the progenitor himself, literally a mensch. We have a number of great rabbis who bear his name, despite the tradition to avoid the names of the wicked. Yet, despite all in his favor, he is not considered fit to remain a part of the trunk of the nation. Sarah says that he must go, and God supports her.
So, what does this ambivalent character represent? The three avoth are often connected to midhath haḥesedh, the outpouring of emotion that breaks down all barriers and flows toward oneness (Abhraham); midhath hagebhura, the analytic precision that puts everything in its proper place and orders creation (Yitzḥak); and midhath hatiphereth, the harmonious balance between the former and the latter (Ya'akobh). Interesting digression: Rav Matis Weinberg understands this whole paresha as providing a gradual transition for the spiritual life of the people from ḥesedh to din -- every time Abhraham runs, hurries, or wakes up to do something (almost everything he does this week), he finds himself a little closer to din, culminating in 'akeidhath Yitzḥak where Yitzḥak really becomes the dominant force, although the narrative transition waits until the next paresha.
By this understanding, both Yishma'el and 'Eisav are far more their fathers' sons than their younger brothers who are chosen to inherit. They represent the dangers of imbalance. They may also represent these midhoth to the nations; the Vilna Gaon has an interesting comment to God's promise to make a nation of Yishma'el, that there are traditionally seventy nations, and seventy already accounted for, but seventy often really means seventy-two, with two set apart and above, as is the case in the Sanhedrin, with seventy elders, one Abh haBeith Din (head of the court), and one Nasi (prince or president). Thus, there is room for Yishma'el and 'Eisav to father nations, and indeed a special place of leadership for them. This idea works nicely with the traditional identification of 'Eisav with Christianity and Yishma'el with Islam.
The dangers of excess gebhura seem clear enough, as stated in the first paragraph regarding 'Eisav. Every sort of tyranny and oppression. Yishma'el, the opposite figure, is described as the freest of men by Rav Hirsch, and full heir to those most typical gifts of Abhraham's ḥesedh: generous hospitality and a powerfully monotheistic intuition. Not so bad. But also dangerous. It means that "his hand shall be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the face of all his brethren." The generous spirit, untempered by din, is incompatible with society, order, and ultimately peace. Vehameibhin yabhin.
Shabbath Shalom uMebhorakh!
Fascinating conclusion - with Election day tomorrow, my mind is moving in political paths. We Democrats tend to think or ourselves as committed to communal values, while our Republican counterparts worship at the alter of the rugged individualist. Our empathy, our chesed, is the source of our communitarian ideals, but as you rightly point out, people cannot live together without placing restrictions on each other's freedom. Our chesed should ultimately lead us to embrace din. Does this work in the opposite direction? Can a Republican focus on Din lead to an embrace of chesed? Not sure how that would work. So perhaps this is the ultimate defense of Democratic values - they lead inexorably toward balance in political life, while Republican values, though not inimical to balance, don't tend toward balance.
ReplyDeleteI disagree that ḥesedh leads inexorably toward balance. The example of Yishma'el shows that one can take ḥesedh to self-defeating extremes. I suppose your question, then, is whether din becomes self-defeating in its extremity, or if it is consistent but still problematic. I think that it is self-defeating. At extreme levels of precision, things do not tend to fit neatly into their categories, and so further rigidity and precision at that point becomes mis-categorization, a much graver contradiction to proper din than a failure to categorize. One name for the proper balance of ḥesedh and din is emeth, truth. Neither midha, on its own, correctly appraises the world, and so must become self-defeating when completely separated from emeth.
DeleteI never said esedh leads inexorably to, rather than in the specific realm of politics, esedh tends toward balance with din because the goals of esedh in this sphere are not achievable without balance. In other aspects of life I would not claim this self-correcting mechanism.
DeleteAnd my point was that the goals of din are also not achievable without balance. When you go against emeth, you undermine yourself, as a general rule.
DeleteWhat do you identify as the "goals of din" in the political realm? I would claim they are quite different than the goals of chesed. It seems to me the goals of chesed are basically a well-functioning polity for the benefit of the common good. The goals of din, as articulated by American conservatives, appear to be protection of the individual from impositions on their freedom by the collective. I don't see how this goal is hampered by absence of chesed. Please either share your alternate understanding of the goals of current American political conservatism, or if you accept my version, explain how an absence of chesed undermines this elevation of the individual above the needs of the community.
DeleteI would say that the political goal of din is the identification of the proper place for every element of the polity, and preventing those elements from straying. That everyone should get exactly what they deserve, neither more nor less. Tyranny is the classic danger of excess din, not anarchy. Protecting individual freedom from collective impositions is the chesedik side of conservatism; breaking down structure in a way that seems to cause division but certainly reduces distinction.
DeleteWell, at least this helps clarify the source of our difference. Where I disagree with you is that modern American conservatism has taken the founding fathers' assertion that "all men are created equal," paired it with radical free market ideology (and the delusion that we actually have a free market in the U.S.) to come to the conclusion that what each of us have is exactly what we deserve. They therefore want to prevent the government from redistributing wealth as an exercise is giving the undeserving more than they should have, and taking away from the wealthy what they deservedly already have. I don't see how you can call this "chesedik".
DeleteI would argue that redistribution is not really an imposition on freedom. I know some on the right like to claim that property rights are the basis of all rights, but from a religious perspective that is silly. Productivity as the fundamental moral virtue, sole determinant of one's material desserts, is similarly laughable.
DeleteBasically, I am saying that chesed focuses on freedom from and din focuses on freedom to. Chesed tries to identify and meet needs, din tries to identify and enforce obligations.
I think we're in agreement, though I might choose different words than silly and laughable to describe what seems to pass as mainstream American conservative thought these days.
DeleteInteresting point that came up in discussion with a ḥavrutha: Abhraham's ḥesedh is outwardly oriented, Yishma'el's is inwardly oriented. Yitzḥak's din is inwardly oriented, 'Eisav's is outwardly oriented.
ReplyDelete