Human Development in Two Worlds

Parshat Tazria Metzora

by Rabbi Avi Billet 

 Due to their not (yet) having been translated by the Jewish publishing houses much of the midrashic library is a treasure-trove of untouched gemstone mines. It is particularly fertile ground for rabbis to utilize in homiletical discourses, because not all Midrash is meant to be understood literally. Frankly, much of midrash can not be understood literally – an essential point to bear in mind before exploring any midrashic passage.

 It is fascinating to read through certain midrashim – and without the crutch of a translation, because it leaves the midrash open to interpretation, as well as the derivation of either important lessons, important messages, or both.

Parshat Tazria opens with laws and practices surrounding giving birth and the aftermath of boy or girl's arrival, vis-à-vis the baby's mother's responsibilities.

The Yalkut Shimoni on Tazria 547 recounts a debate between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel in which they differ over how the fetus develops versus how a parallel development takes place in the World to Come. 

Beit Shammai says "In this world, the flesh and skin develops first, followed by the sinews and bones. In the World to Come, the sinews and bones develop first, and the completion is the development of skin and flesh." He proves this analysis from Yechezkel's depiction of the Dry Bones coming to life (37:8).

On the other hand, Beit Hillel thinks the two developments pan out in the same ways. "In this world the skin and flesh develops first, and [the body] is completed with the sinews and bones. In the future as well, development will begin with skin and flesh and will be completed with the sinews and bones." He proves his analysis from a comment made by Iyov in Iyov 10:9-11.

What are they talking about?

Unlike questions of a "halakhic" nature, I don't believe the conclusion to this difference of opinion is particularly important. But the debate does give us pause to consider how people develop – not only physically, but spiritually. Bones and cartilage certainly begin developing in the fetus two months into a pregnancy, long after the (somewhat) human shape has formed its skin. This is a fact that everyone – even Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel – can take for granted and cannot argue otherwise.

 Aside from the physical reality, the message of human development would seem to suggest that the vessel is created first, and then the human has the opportunity to develop what shape or form the vessel will take. Please read the following descriptive words with their multiple meanings intended: will the person be tall and straight or bent and crooked? Will the mind be full or empty? Will the vessel be growth-oriented to reach great potential or will it be sedentary and take the shape of the couch it sits on its entire life? These are questions we can all appreciate.

But what about the end of life? What will be in future, or in the World to Come? Many rabbinic figures of the past have weighed in on what the World to Come means and what it will be like for all of us on some "other side." I am not interested in entering that conversation, because I am comfortable saying "I honestly have no idea." But Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, in this minor debate, shared with us what their opinions are.

If some version of the World to Come refers to a resurrection of the dead, with former bodies somehow being reformed from DNA, then their debate in the physical realm of how bodies will be recreated speaks for itself.

But if the reality they speak of is a spiritual development, I think there is no harm in suggesting that the two approaches will both be influenced by how a person leads and lives life in this world.

 According to Beit Shammai, the bones and sinews will develop first. This would indicate that the form or shape that a person created in life will inform the person's reformulation in the World to Come.

In Beit Hillel's approach, on the other hand, one's "rebirth" is exactly as was one's original birth. In other words, one gets a new slate, just as each person had the first time around.

 There is no question that both Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai would advocate living life to one's full potential – an honest, ethical, and morally upright existence. Their sons and daughters married one another because they respected each other greatly (Yevamot 14b). In a different realm, they also discussed the merits of living versus never having been born and concluded that now that we are born, we must constantly review, and presumably improve, our deeds (Eruvin 13b). But both approaches to the World to Come provide insight as to the long term merits of one's ethical existence.

Beit Shammai would seem to leave little room for error, while Beit Hillel would seem to leave open the possibility that no one is perfect, and every one of us will have the chance to try again to "get it right" in a world-to-come existence.

May we merit to get it right the first time, with no regrets.

Making The Most Out of Life

With the return of Gilad Shalit to Israel, alive and in one piece (at least in body - who knows what his mind has been through?), an image many had doubts we would ever see, there is cause for celebration for the positive end to his personal ordeal. Many question the math of a 1,027 person exchange, many of whom are convicted murderers who literally have blood on their hands, as being a fair price to pay to get Gilad back. I will not render an opinion in this forum on that question. It was surely a difficult decision, and I do not envy the Israeli leaders who brokered this deal, for the aftermath of this exchange which rests on their shoulders.


It did get me thinking, however, about a famous film that raised a similar question. It's hard to compare the storylines, and perhaps I am stretching things, but the quotes I present here from the movie "Saving Private Ryan" are provocative conversation starters, and certainly fit in line with my parsha piece this week. I present the quotes first (lifted from imdb.com), unedited, followed by the dvar torah on the first parsha of the Torah. The spaces between lines indicate that the quotes are from different parts of the film and are not presented as straight dialogue.

Private Reiben: You wanna explain the math of this to me? I mean, where's the sense of riskin' the lives of the eight of us to save one guy? 

Sergeant Horvath: I don't know. Part of me thinks the kid's right. He asks what he's done to deserve this. He wants to stay here, fine. Let's leave him and go home. But then another part of me thinks, what if by some miracle we stay, then actually make it out of here. Someday we might look back on this and decide that saving Private Ryan was the one decent thing we were able to pull out of this whole godawful, shitty mess. Like you said, Captain, maybe we do that, we all earn the right to go home. 

Captain Miller: He better be worth it. He better go home and cure a disease, or invent a longer-lasting light bulb. 

Captain Miller: You see, when... when you end up killing one your men, you see, you tell yourself it happened so you could save the lives of two or three or ten others. Maybe a hundred others. Do you know how many men I've lost under my command? 
Sergeant Horvath: How many? 
Captain Miller: Ninety-four. But that means I've saved the lives of ten times that many, doesn't it? Maybe even 20, right? Twenty times as many? And that's how simple it is. That's how you... that's how you rationalize making the choice between the mission and the man. 

Captain Miller: [weakly mutters something] 
Private Ryan: [leans in closer] What, sir? 
Captain Miller: James, earn this... earn it.         [Captain Miller dies shortly after he says this]

Old James Ryan: [addressing Capt. Miller's grave] My family is with me today. They wanted to come with me. To be honest with you, I wasn't sure how I'd feel coming back here. Every day I think about what you said to me that day on the bridge. I tried to live my life the best that I could. I hope that was enough. I hope that, at least in your eyes, I've earned what all of you have done for me. 
Ryan's Wife: James?... 
[looking at headstone] 
Ryan's Wife: Captain John H Miller. 
Old James Ryan: Tell me I have led a good life. 
Ryan's Wife: What? 
Old James Ryan: Tell me I'm a good man. 
Ryan's Wife: You are. 

Parshat Bereishit

After she finished reading Dara Horn's recent novel "The World to Come" my wife said to me, "The last chapter is amazing." I have not yet read the book, but I did read the last chapter. It's filled with Dara Horn's style of weaving Jewish titles, terms, and quotes in her narrative, and is a joy to read. Especially if you "get" all the references.

In the chapter, two souls who already lived spend some time with a "not-yet," a soul who is soon to be born, on a journey to the Tree of Life that is guarded by the sword described in Bereishit 3:24.

The male character wants the not-yet to eat from the tree, while the female character does not. She says, "You actually, genuinely want him to be born and never die." When the male character (the not-yet's deceased grandfather) proceeds to scream at her saying, "WHY NOT? Why can't he have what we didn't have? Why should his children have to watch him die?" her response is, "Because that's what makes it matter."

It's a chilling image, one imagines taking place in a heavy rainstorm, at a tottering bridge, before the world is about to end. The scene is very powerful and dramatic.

The Torah lists the concern that a person might eat from the Tree of Life and live forever as one of the reasons for the expulsion from the garden (3:22-23), but it does not say why living forever would be a problem.

In fact, Radak points out that original command of 2:16-17 included instructions that allowed people to partake of the Tree of Life: "You may eat from every tree except the Tree of Knowledge." Once they partook of the Tree of Knowledge, mortality was introduced – they were condemned to die one day. On account of this, they were expelled from the garden, lest they eat from the Tree of Life and extend their lives beyond their now-allotted years.

Radak feels God could not command them "Do not eat from the Tree of Life" because it had already been permitted to them. Furthermore, experience shows they don't do well with one commandment not to eat from a specific tree. Therefore they were taken out of the garden to avoid the problem altogether.

Ramban speaks in less cryptic terms when he says, "God wanted His punishment decree to be fulfilled with the death of man. Were he to eat from the Tree of Life, God's decree would have been thwarted, delayed, or he might even live forever." The problem with the Tree of Life, therefore, was that it would take away the punishment the humans were meant to get for eating of the Tree of Knowledge. (Chizkuni)

In the most spiritual of the answers I found, the Alshich looks at the practical side of living forever, and though he does not mention the cathartic stage we go through in death directly, he says "Were he to eat of the Tree of Life and live forever, he would never achieve a tikkun" or a correction for his mistake. Rashi even describes how a person who lives forever will steer people after him, making himself into a god-like figure.

It does not seem that immortality in and of itself is a bad thing (assuming one doesn't fancy himself a god on account of it). But for Man who was punished for partaking of the Tree of Knowledge, living forever would remove the punishment, and the possibility it would bring for the soul to make amends. For Man who needs to achieve atonement or to receive forgiveness for an error, death brings about such atonement and forgiveness. For Man to bring a correction to the soul, such a correction could only come about when the body no longer stands as interference to the soul.

Death also brings closure to a life lived – sometimes well-lived, sometimes long, sometimes tragically short. Knowing of our own mortality, we set goals for the lives we live, and if we are lucky enough to apportion our time right and stay focused, we can spend a good portion of our lives working towards and achieving our goals. The knowledge that we have a finite amount of time makes our individual journeys on this earth matter, and makes our existence matter to those we touch in our lifetimes.

The mark of a life well-lived is being missed by those who survive us once we are gone. Were we to live forever, we would never be missed, and we would lose our relevance. We might even ask God to end our existence, as did many Biblical and Talmudical figures (Moshe, Eliyahu, Yonah, Choni Ha'Magel, to name a few, as well as the elders of Luz (Sotah 46b) )

May we merit to always live our lives noting the incredible gift of life we have been given. May we also find the resilience to make the most of our lives so that when our time on earth comes to an end, we need not look back with any regrets.

As the female character says to the not-yet born in "The World to Come," "The test comes later." And her male counterpart says, "Later. During every moment of every day of your life."