by Rabbi Avi Billet
In the United States of America, there are few phrases that are as famous as those which adorn some of our national monuments. Many can recite at least part of Emma Lazarus’ poem on the Statue of Liberty, everyone knows of “E Pluribus Unum” (Of many, one) and “In God We Trust” which appear on our currency. The phrase on the Liberty Bell, “Proclaim liberty throughout the land…” is also well known. This last one appears in Parshat B’har (25:10), in the context of the declarations made in the Yovel (Jubilee) year, as debts were cancelled, land was returned to its ancestral owner, and all Hebrew slaves were set free. (Most commentaries actually translate the word to be “freedom” over “liberty” but I suppose in modern language they are somewhat synonymous).
What does it mean to be or become a Hebrew slave? It means to have made a decision that “I can’t take care of myself, and I’d rather indenture myself to someone for a period of time, working without worry about my food and shelter.” In some cases, the person may have stolen and been forced into this arrangement.
But this is not a natural state. In fact, this is the opposite of what the Torah mandates, which is to toil for six days and rest on the seventh (Shemos 20:9, 23:12, 31:15, 34:21, 35:2, Vayikra 23:3). Or to toil for six years and rest in the seventh year (Shemos 23:10, Vayikra 25:3). Just about all of these instructions are written in the singular, which is a certain indication that the idea of working for someone else as an indentured servant, or however we wish to define “Eved Ivri,” is far from ideal. It’s one thing to have a job and to receive a pay check, and certainly to work for oneself or as an independent contractor. It’s an entirely different matter to live in the master’s home completely indebted to the master.
Chizkuni compares the freedom that comes in the 50th year to the conclusion of the work-life of a Levite, which would end at age 50, linking the phrase “and he shall not work anymore” (which references the Levite) to the experience of the Eved Ivri who goes free, who shall not be working for his master anymore.
Rav Shimshon Raphael Hirsch is a little more methodical in trying to define the word “Dror” which up to now has been translated as “liberty” or “freedom.” Using a number of examples from the Bible and Talmud, he notes that the translation is correct, but that the etymology is still curious. His analysis concludes with two major points. “The basic meaning of Dror would be to follow a natural tendency.” The explanation of the word in our verse is that “Persons and property revert to where they naturally belong – man reverts to his family, and property reverts by right of original ownership.”
Of course it is to be noted that the status of the Eved Ivri was undoubtedly better than most “avadim” we might otherwise imagine. Note the Talmud (Kiddushin 20a) which even equates the “owner” of the Eved Ivri as having acquired a master for himself insofar as he must share his bread made of superior flour, his aged wine, provide a similar soft mattress, etc. And yet, the situation remains, in how we perceive it, unnatural.
What, therefore, is natural? According to the verse, what we call “liberty” is natural! It is most ironic that in the history of Mankind, “Liberty” was not natural. Between monarchs (which include benevolent rulers but much more often authoritarian dictators) and oligarchies, along with slavery which accompanied the vast majority of kingdoms, empires and governments, most of humanity never experienced freedom until democracies and republics came about. Certainly some scientists and philosophers emerged and contributed to the world in significant ways (we know their names), but they were not the majority of humanity.
I have heard it said that “Liberty is a value, not a yearning.” It is not human instinct. John Stuart Mill wrote that an early definition of liberty “was meant protection against the tyranny of the political rulers.” Which essentially means that in their so-called liberty, people wanted to be protected and taken care of by the person or leadership that had the power to do so, while being relatively kind to them (not enacting tyrannical rule).
In a more contemporary definition, he argued “the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” (His essay on Liberty is here: https://www.utilitarianism.com/ol/one.html)
With this definition in mind, one wonders if the value of Liberty which is espoused in the Torah is one which we value today, if we have a right to it, or if we are to put our so-called liberties in the hands of people who may be arguably viewed as a modern-day oligarchy? Of course, Mill's concern of preventing harm to others was more likely thinking of a person who is violently dangerous who can be imprisoned rather than a person who is sick, who until relatively recently knew to self-quarantine until the illness passed, and then life continued.
In the Torah, according to Rav Hirsch, liberty refers to how things were before. We declare it once every fifty years, but in truth it’s an ideal for all time. We don’t want there to be Eved Ivri. And while for the sake of business and commerce it is important to buy and lease land, we want land to remain owned within its ancestral heritage.
In these days many businesses are rethinking how they will do business. I think that some of the more intimate kinds of businesses (barbers, salons, etc) will actually have an easier time than places that thrive on larger crowds (theaters, sports, etc.) because it’s easier to protect you and me, than it is to protect such a huge crowd.
Yet I struggle with Mill’s definition ("to prevent harm to others"), because self-protection in Corona-time is actually quite simple. For those who do not wish to run any risk, stay isolated at home! Do not have any contact with anyone! And don’t impose a personal need of isolation on those who don’t need to isolate!
There are plenty of people who do wish to venture out, who do wish to engage in life as it was (Hirsch’s definition of liberty). Surely these people do not wish ill upon themselves, so we can surely argue that they don’t want anyone to get sick. The question is what is the cost of lockdown-for-all vs opening-all with mild (or severe?) precautions?
Even in Mill's definition, “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any [person]… is to prevent harm to others.” The percentages of people who are harmed by this disease are very small, and for the most part, we know who the most vulnerable are. The argument that the most vulnerable should be protected while everyone else goes about life is a valid argument, even if some people disagree with it. As for “the asymptomatic carrier” – that refers to a generally healthy person who, even if having had the disease asymptomatically, doesn’t carry it forever. So now society is being trained to be fearful of asymptomatic people! As a result, grandparents are not visiting with their grandchildren, even though the children are not sick.
And so we’re faced with a strange reality and conundrum. Because a few individuals who are in positions of authority (some elected, some unelected) have made a few pronouncements, it looks like much of the country, and especially the Orthodox Jewish world, have fallen in line without questioning. Never mind how many predictions made by these people have been proven wrong. Never mind how many times they’ve changed their opinions over time. Never mind how some do not have the Jewish people’s interests in mind. Never mind that there are many scientists and medical personnel who think differently. And of course this is not to ignore the tragic circumstances some have personally witnessed – though even Dr. Fauci said in his call with the OU last week that every region is different!
What has happened as a result is we (the collective Jewish community) have taken the “pikuach nefesh” card to such a degree that we will hold off opening our shuls until we are “sure that it is safe.” Who will be making that call? How can anything be assured? Or, a different claim, we will resume operations when there’s a vaccine. There has never been a successful vaccine made for other coronaviruses (such as SARS and MERS, which both disappeared within two years without lockdowns!), so we could be waiting forever on that timeline, or even if one is miraculously made, at least another year!
“Do you want people to die?” Of course not! But I do worry about people having a good portion of their identity ripped away from them for a long period of time which really has no end in sight. And I am also seriously troubled by those who have declared the groups of ten who have gathered – following social distancing rules – to make “backyard minyanim” in different areas of the country “idolators who worship the minyan.” Seriously? If they are following current suggested protocols of safety, how is this idolatry? Who can presume to know what drives a person, and that their intentions are idolatrous? Our synagogue has discouraged the practice, but far be it from me to blame someone who desperately wants to say a kaddish, and does so in a manner that is unquestionably safe. Should we need to, we can criticize with love and say "We recognize how meaningful it is to you to daven with a minyan. In consultation with our poskim, we continue to discourage this practice, while reminding you that during this time our contemporary halakhic decisors have indicated there is no mitzvah to seek out a minyan - due to pikuach nefesh concerns."
Many rabbis have been sharing anecdotes of great rabbis of yesteryear who fled from a plague, sometimes for many months until they felt it was safe to come home to resume life – yet I’m sure that wherever they were, whomever they were with, they continued to pray together, until the coast seemed clear. There are never guarantees, but I suppose they followed their own version of statistics.
In my own naivete, I gain solace from this week’s Haftorah, which includes the following statements (translated for space limitations): “So says Hashem, ‘Accursed is the person who trusts in people and makes mortals his strength, and turns his heart away from Hashem…Blessed is the person who trusts in Hashem, then Hashem will be his security…’ Heal me Hashem, and I will be healed, save me and I will be saved, for You are my praise.” (Yirmiyahu 17:5,7,14)
Maybe if we all put more faith in God than in man we’d be in a better place. But don’t blame me for saying that. Please blame the prophet Yirmiyahu.
No comments:
Post a Comment