On Sartre and the Rambam

Jean-Paul Sartre

I recently listened to a lecture by Professor Frank Furedi on prominent Existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre(1905-1980) and the relevance of his thought today. I enjoyed it so much that I went ahead and read “Existentialism is a Humanism”, an essay based on a famous lecture by Sartre, introducing his philosophy to the broader public. As such, I’d like to share some of my thoughts on Sartre and connect it to the Rambam.

A Timeless Debate

Sartre’s thought is largely based around the idea of Human Freedom, and it’s on this topic that he clashed with many of the intelligentsia of his day. As the scientific revolution added more and more knowledge about how the world works, many thinkers felt that it was just a matter of time until Free Will was proven to be an illusion, and Human to be merely complex automatons, subject to deterministic processes. Baron Paul Henri Thiry d'Holbach(1723-1789) summarizes this opposed view well before Sartre was born:

"You will say that I feel free. This is an illusion, which may be compared to that of the fly in the fable, who, upon the pole of a heavy carriage, applauded himself for directing its course. Man, who thinks himself free, is a fly who imagines he has power to move the universe, while he is himself unknowingly carried along by it."

Sartre rejected this notion that our perceived freedom of choice is a faux, and explored the implications of said free will.

“In other words, there is no determinism—man is free, man is freedom.”

Hearing about this debate, I couldn’t help thinking of the debate over Free Will in the Rambam’s time. The Rambam took issue with some Islamic thinkers of his time who opposed the notion of Human Freedom as they saw it as contradicting God's ability to know the future and therefore detracting from his Omnipotence. The Rambam even refers to this debate in his Mishna Torah(Hilchot Tshuva 5:2)

אל יעבור במחשבתך דבר זה שאומרים טיפשי האומות ורוב גולמי בני ישראל, שהקדוש ברוך הוא גוזר על האדם מתחילת ברייתו להיות צדיק או רשע.

It seems that this debate is truly a timeless one, as it continues to resonate in the popular culture of today.

Character Traits

Discussions of Free Will often focus on individual acts, such as whether a person gives in to the temptation to sin or not. Sartre, on the other hand, focuses on the larger scale implications of Freedom--the type of person we become.

“What the existentialist says is that the coward makes himself a cowardly and the hero makes himself heroic; there is always the possibility that one day the coward may no longer be cowardly and the hero may cease to be a hero.”

I expected to find the Rambam’s formulations on Free Will to be focused more on the micro-scale of whether or not one chooses to sin, perform a mitzvah (especially since it's in Hilchot Tshuva).  Instead, the Rambam also begins his discussion of Free Will by focusing on character traits(Hilchot Tshuva 5:2)

אין הדבר כן, אלא כל אדם ואדם ראוי להיות צדיק כמשה רבנו או רשע כירובעם, או חכם או סכל, או רחמן או אכזרי, או כיליי או שוע; וכן שאר כל הדעות

That said, I’ll just note, that while the Rambam accepts the concept of Human Nature(yet indicates that we can change it), Sartre takes the more extreme approach of rejecting it entirely, insisting that we are only how we choose to act.

…there is no Human Nature…Man is that which he wills himself to be…is nothing other than what he makes of himself.

Taking Human Freedom Further

So, the Rambam focuses, not merely on deeds, but on traits. Sartre takes things a step further. His concept of Radical Freedom encompasses the ability to create and define ourselves entirely. He gives the example of an artist:

“…has anyone ever blamed an artist for not following rules of painting a priori? Has anyone ever told an artist what sort of picture he should paint? It is obvious that there is no pre-defined picture to be made…”

Inventing oneself is a creative act, perhaps THE creative act. Free will is not just a question of whether we are good or bad or even just the traits we acquire. There are many paths to virtue and we have the power and creativity to craft our own path.

Sartre gives the example of one of his students who came to him for advice, whether to attempt to escape occupied France for England so that he could help fight the Nazis, or whether to stay with his widowed mother who has no one else in the world but him. Sartre tells us that both paths are valid, it is the young man’s mission to choose what life to live and what person to become.

This is a powerful message and it is one worth internalizing. As Jews, we are obligated in many mitzvot, yet much is left open to us. If our service of God ends within the 4 amot of Halacha, then our work is incomplete. Each of us must forge his own path in the service of his Maker.

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks

Along those lines, let's wrap up with advice from Rabbi Sacks on how to choose a direction for one's life.

If you want to find your purpose in life. Think about following sentence,  Where what you want to do, meets what needs too be done.

How to Say Nothing in 500 Words on Rav Lichtenstein

Rav Aharon giving shiur in the Gush

As you have likely heard, dear reader, Rav Aharon Lichtenstein passed away last week. I had the privilege of attending his yeshiva for two years, though I didn't get the opportunity to attend his regular Shiur. Nevertheless, he has been highly influential on my Torah learning(and on the Torah World in general), so I wanted to make a post in his honor.
I could just link to all the past posts where I reference his teachings, but instead I'm going to try and take this in a new direction.

How to Say Nothing in 500 Words

There are many important themes that Rav Aharon focused on: Torah Umada, being religious in modern Israeli Society, Torat Brisk, English Literature. In light of this last one, here is a thing I stumbled upon recently. It's Paul McHenry Roberts' essay "How to Say Nothing in 500 Words". This 1956 paper offers timeless advice for new college students on how to write a short paper. The essay is largely an exercise in knowing one's audience and writing to them. Said audience, in this case, is perhaps the most jaded one possible--the English Professor who, while grading Freshman papers

"wonders how he allowed himself to get trapped into teaching English when he might have had a happy and interesting life as an electrician or a confidence man." 

Paul McHenry Roberts

Roberts makes four basic suggestions how to do this:

1. Novelty- write something unique for this most-jaded of readers
2. Be Concrete- don't just write abstractly, use vivid, concrete illustrations and examples
3. Eliminate Padding- write efficiently
4. Word choice- various advice on how to use words/phrases to write more interestingly

Of all these recommendations, I found the first most surprising. Shouldn't our focus be on making a strong argument rather than on a novel one? Isn't truth more important than entertainment?

The Beit Midrash of Rebbe Yehoshua

Now, it's possible that Roberts would give different advice to the mature writer. Certainly, the writing tyro may need help escaping simplistic thinking so that he can come up with a more complex view of the matter. That said, I'm reminded of the Yeshiva World's own fundamental question of whether to focus on the classic understandings of a topic that have stood the test of time or on coming-up with novel understandings.

Rav Daniel Wolf

Rav Wolf(Hiddush Within the Beit Midrash: R. Aharon Lichtenstein's Approach to Lomdus as an Adaptive Improvement to the Brisker Dererch) points to the Beit Midrash of Rebbe Yehoshua as being the classic treatment of this question:

The Talmud relates a story (Hagiga 3a): R. Yehoshua asked his disciples what new ideas of Torah they had heard in the Beit Midrash. The disciples declined, as the notion that they could add to the knowledge of their great master seemed brash and in fact insulting. Nevertheless, R. Yehoshua insisted, “It is inconceivable that there is a Beit Midrash without new words of Torah.” R. Yehoshua was certain that the cacophony of voices in the Beit Midrash must have produced some new halakha or idea. (What) We can deduce from this is that a study hall without novel approaches is simply not regarded as a Beit Midrash.

Rav Wolf goes on to point out that this debate over focus, on novelty vs. tradition, continues in the Yeshiva world today. He argues that Rav Aharon falls squarely on Rebbe Yehoshua's side, along with Rav Soloveichik and Rav Chaim before him(a tradition of Novelty? I DO DECLARE!). The paper goes on to argue this point in detail, pointing out Rav Aharon's novel contributions to four different areas:

1. Halachic Language
2. Conceptual over Textual focus 
3. inclusion of a wider set of source materials
4. novel comparisons between different Halachic areas.

So what does Rav Aharon have in common with Professor Roberts? They both viewed their role as being not merely pedagogic, but as contributing to the continued growth of their respective academic disciplines.

I'll just wrap this up with a personal challenge. In light of this idea of the importance of novelty, I'd like to expand the mandate of this blog. In addition to being merely a place for me to post summaries of whatever I'm learning, I'd like this to also be a place for me to jot down novel ideas or analyses that arise from that learning. Now, to come up with some novel ideas...

The Kohanic Prohibition of Tumah

Continuing on in מנחה טהורה to the chapter on איסור טומאה לכהנים, the main chakira here is the question of how to characterize the prohibition on Kohanim:

• It is forbidden for Kohanim to become impure from Tumat Met
• It is forbidden for Kohanim to come in contact with a corpse

For most cases, these conditions coincide, but there are nevertheless many cases where only one condition occurs, for example:

1. If a Kohen is already tamei met, is he still forbidden from contact with a corpse? If the prohibition is on becoming impure, then it apparently wouldn't apply.
2. Can a Kohen come into contact with a גוסס on his deathbed, who is not yet tamei yet still has the status of a corpse to some degree? It may be a problem of contact with a corpse.
3. Why can the pregnant mother of a potential Kohen enter the tent of a dead body? No Tumah can reach the baby, yet the baby is still in a place of death so we may need the Rokeach’s sfeik sfeika to allow it.
4. Are cherev kechalal or sof tumah latzeit forbidden to a Kohen? There is tumah, but no hitkarvut lamet.

Rav Wolf also points out that the psukim reflect both approaches, so it may be that there are two independent issurim, at least for a Kohen Gadol:

• "לנפש לא יטמא בעמיו"(ויקרא כא:א)
• "ועל כל נפשת מת לא יבא"(ויקרא כא:יא)

On Cherev Kechalal

The time has come, dear friends, for us to have a serious talk about Cherev Kechalal.

Cherev Kechalal is a rule by which a sword receives the same level of Tumah as the corpse itself. While not explicit in the Torah, this rule is nevertheless learned exegetically (נזיר נג:) from the pasuk "וכל אשר יגע על פני השדה בלל חרב או במת" חרב—הרי זו כחלל.

Not only that, but the actual parameters of Cherev Kechalal are a matter of some controversy:

• The Rambam says it applies to all kelim that touch a dead body
• Rabeinu Tam says it applies only to metal kelim that touch a dead body
• The Raavad says it applies specifically to a sword(or other weapon, I assume)

In explaining this debate, Rav Wolf(מנחה טהורה, "חרב כחלל") returns to the classic chakira of Haavara vs. Hagdara. He points out that the Rambam seems to see Cherev Kechalal as a type of Haavarat Hatuma, while Rabeinu Tam and the Raavad seem to see it as Hagdarat Tuma Chadasha.

Similarly, Rav Wolf points out another distinction based on the source of the Cherev’s tumah:

• If a corpse itself was the source, then perhaps we’re talking about Hagdara
• If, however, some other tamei met object is the source, then apparently we’re talking about Haavara

This possibility that Cherev Kechalal is a type of Hagdara raises a number of interesting halachik questions as to what degree it is similar to normal Tumat Met. Some examples of this are the debates over whether it is Metamei Beohel, and whether it is forbidden to Cohanim.

Rabbi Sacks on The Righteous Mind

Well, judging by last week's TOI article, it seems that Rabbi Jonathan Sacks is also a fan of Jonathan Haidt's excellent book "The Righteous Mind".  In the article, Rabbi Sacks points out our innate tribalism and the resulting tendency to hate "the stranger". He also points out the Torah's repeated injunction to overcome this instinct.

You must not mistreat or oppress the stranger in any way. Remember, you yourselves were once strangers in the land of Egypt. (Ex. 22: 21)

You must not oppress strangers. You know what it feels like to be a stranger, for you yourselves were once strangers in the land of Egypt. (Ex. 23: 9)

It's a good point and it's interesting that the Torah's means of fighting this impulse is by appealing to our very same tribalism, telling us to identify with the stranger because we are alike. I'll just add that the Torah also makes use of our tribalistic instinct in other, more active ways.

As Haidt says "Morality Binds and Blinds", blinding us towards outsiders while binding us to our own group or caste. There are many mitzvot that build on this binding impulse, all the mitzvot that apply to אחיך. For example:

• The obligation to redeem him if he becomes a slave
• The obligation to redeem his land if he is forced to sell it
• The prohibition on hating him

The picture that emerges is that the Torah rejects our tendency to treat strangers unjustly, while at the same time building on our natural tendency to go beyond mere justice with our fellow Jew.

Two Understandings of Tumat Met

A corpse is one of the Torah's Avot Hatuma, and the tumah it creates, Tumat Met, has its own special status. Tumat Met is generated by a complete corpse, but in many cases it can also come from incomplete parts. Rav Wolf opens his chapter on טומאת מת וקבר in מנחה טהורה, with a general distinction about the status of parts of a corpse that cause Tumat Met:

• Part of a Corpse: the part creates tumah because it is part of a corpse. In this case we require a quantitative measure for it to be a significant enough part to be a source of Tumat Met.
• Represents the Entire Corpse: the part represents a whole corpse. Here, conditions for the part to be a source of Tumah are qualitative in nature.

General Nafka Minot

Rav Wolf brings two general cases from Rav Aharon Lichtenstein(שיעורי הרא"ל טהרות) as to how this distinction may play out halachically:

1. Combination

For one, there is the issue of combining. If we’re dealing with part of a corpse and thus a quantitative measure, then two parts, individually considered too small, can combine to create a larger one that does produce Tumah. If, however, we’re concerned with a part that qualitatively represents a whole corpse, then insignificant parts can’t combine into a significant one.

2. Nothing Significant Left

There are cases where no significant portion of the corpse is left and yet, what is left carries tumat met. These cases must be understood as qualitatively representing the entire corpse, rather than being a quantitative part of the corpse.

Specific Cases

Rav Wolf applies this distinction to many different cases. Here's the abbreviated version:

• כזית בשר מן המת- a qualitative or quantitative measure?
• רביעית דם- a qualitative or quantitative measure?
• מת שנשרף ושלדו קיימת- apparently qualitative according to Hachamim
• דם קטן שיצא כולו- R. Akiva that says it’s tamei must consider it qualitative
• מלוא טרוד רקב(rotted remains)- apparently qualitative
• חרב כחלל- apparently qualitative if Nazir must shave for touching it

Cyberpunk Shemot

So, I’d like to offer a(somewhat longwinded) metaphor for how to understand Sefer Shmot and its relationship to Sefer Bereshit(be assured that the fact that I'm once again connecting Genre Fiction to the Parsha is purely incidental). Anyway, here goes...

The 1990 novel “The Difference Engine” is a collaboration between authors William Gibson and Bruce Sterling, of considerable influence. The novel depicts an alternative history, set in the Victorian Era, where the success of Charles Babbage's "Difference Engine" ushers in a new techonological age, with numerous social and political ramifications. The computer, the automobile, and many other modern innovations have come before their time, all of them running on a liberal dose of steam-power and clockwork.

All this is readily apparent to the uninitiated reader, who needs only read the plain meaning of the text. And yet, to a reader familiar with Gibson and Sterling’s other work, there is another layer to the novel, a subtext of a different nature entirely.

Gibson and Sterling are arguably the two biggest names in Cyberpunk literature. Their most famous stories take place in the near future, anticipating deeper levels of integration of technology in our lives and exploring the effects of such integration on the Human experience. Readers familiar with this literature, will find “The Difference Engine” is a text packed full of references to the authors’ earlier Cyberpunk work. In fact, while the undiscerning reader will consider this a rather humorless novel, written completely straight, the Cyberpunk aficionado realizes it’s actually a comedy, hearing the echoes of the authors workroom laughter tinkling in the background with every new joke: “hey look, this is what data-theft looks like in the Victorian Era!” or “instead of Hackers they’re called Clackers because of the sound their punch-cards make!” or even “Hey, remember the decadent Lady 3Jane? In this world Ada Lovelace would be her parallel!” And so, by presenting us with the same classic Cyberpunk tropes, but in vastly different circumstances, the authors present us with a rich subtext, entirely different from the basic text of the story.

Shemot and Bereshit

The same can be said for Sefer Shemot. On the surface, we have a straightforward story of the Jews’ slavery in Egypt and the miraculous redemption and exodus that Hashem brings about. And yet, there is another layer, a subtext in which Shemot is packed full of references to its predecessor. Some examples are the exile/redeption arc as well as Moshe's personal history leading up to his mission as redeemer:

Shemot	Bereshit
Yaakov descends from Canaan to Egypt with his 70 family members because of famine	Abraham descends from Canaan to Egypt with his wife because of famine
Pharoh wants to kill the male Israelites and spare the females. His plans are thwarted by the midwives who fear God and those Israelites who hide their children away.	Abraham is worried that the Egyptians will kill him and take his wife. He is spared by his claim that Sarah is his sister, and she is saved by Hashem’s direct intervention with Pharaoh.
Hashem afflicts the Egyptians with 10 plagues.	Hashem afflicts Pharoh and his house with sickness.
Am Yisrael go up from Egypt with great wealth that they took from the Egyptians.	Pharaoh gives Avraham great wealth and sends him out of Egypt.
Moshe risks all and kills the Egyptian to save his “brothers”.	Abraham risks all and makes War on the 5 kings to save his kinsman Lot.
Moshe flees for his life from the Egyptians across the Jordan to Midyan.	Yaakov flees for his life from Eisav across the Jordan to Haran.
Moshe arrives at a well, saves Yitro’s daughters from the other shephards, and ends up dwelling with their father and marrying one of them.	Yaakov arrives at a well, helps Rachel water the sheep by rolling away the stone. He ends up dwelling with her father and marrying her and her sister.
Moshe returns from his exile at God’s command. "God" tries to kill him but he is saved by the circumcision of his son. His brother Aaron meets him.	Yaakov returns from exile at God’s command. A mysterious man attacks him in the night and wrestles with him but Yaakov overcomes him. His brother Eisav meets him.

So here we see that, as with “The Difference Engine”, Shemot is full of references to a previous work. That said, while Gibson and Sterling provided their subtext for the entertainment of their fans, the question remains: What purpose does the subtext of Shemot serve?

This is a big question, that begs a detailed and thorough analysis of much of the text of Bereshit and Shemot. This blog post is not the place for such an analysis. That said, I would like to briefly offer one rather broad, sweeping, (overambitious?) answer.

To a large degree, Sefer Bereshit is the story of what worked and didn’t work in how Hashem relates to Humanity:

1. At first Man is placed in a wondrous garden with all his needs provided. He immediately uses his freedom to rebel.
2. Then Man is made to work for his sustenance. Mankind becomes so corrupted by theft that Hashem is forced to wipe everyone out and start over with Noach.
3. Noach and his sons are given a more rigid structure of commandments. Humanity embraces idolatry.
4. Finally, Avraham comes along with approach that he must uplift his fellow Man. Hashem chooses to support him and his descendants and in this way guide Humanity slowly to moral perfection.

Sefer Shemot constantly reinforces the thesis that Hashem has chosen to relate to Humanity in the way he related to the Avot. These scenes of the partriarchs, repeated time and again, form and reform until, at last, a pattern emerges. The stories of the Avot are not merely history, but archetypes for all that comes after. It is then that it dawns on us that the Creation story did not end with the first chapters of Genesis. After the physical creation was related, the Torah continued with the spiritual formation of the world as we know it. Why were the Jewish people chosen? Why was this nation of slaves takes out of Egypt and given over to the slavery of the service of God? Genesis tells us how the spiritual framework of this world was formed and reformed until at last the travails of one man and his descendants would set the stage for all that would come after.