So while debating with the atheist, I realized that there is a powerful extension to the vort I suggested for parshas balak. Forgive me for partially repeating myself in expressing the entirety of the idea I wish to say.
Our atheist attacked religion (and me) for its (and my) arrogance - "how do you claim to know so much of what G-d thinks", he asked me.
As a simple response, the fact that G-d told me what he thinks and commanded to me to act based on what he told me should be enough to remove any arrogance from the picture. but there is more to be said about this. I think the question is actually a profound one, with an important answer.
Because he's right - we cannot (and hence we don't) claim to understand G-d. How could a finite human being comprehend the infinite wisdom of G-d?
I told him, Our sages contrast between the personalities of Bilaam, the prophet who attempted to curse Israel, and Abraham, the forefather of the Jewish people. Both were people who independent of any outside help, managed to discover the one true G-d and connect with him. One, because of his righteous character, truly connected with G-d on a deep and meaningful level, to the point where G-d decided that he deserved for his descendants to forever after be G-d's chosen nation. The other, with his perverted character, so distorted his connection to G-d that he is judged in hell with the likes of jesus yimach shemo. What differentiates between these two personalities?
One of the three distinguishing traits chazal identify is nefesh rechavah vs nefesh shefala - Bilaam's arrogance as opposed to Abraham's humility. Where do we find these two traits expressed in the bible?
Maimonides addresses this question. He writes that Bilaam's arrogance comes through when he calls himself a yodea daas elyon - one who understands G-d. Abraham's humility, in contrast, comes through when Abraham tells G-d that he is no better than dust and ashes.
If we look at the context where these 2 statements are said, we are astounded. True, Abraham refers to himself as dust and ashes, but this is in the context of ARGUING WITH G-D! What greater display of arrogance could there be than to know better than G-d himself whether it is just to wipe out Sodom or not?
Conversely, Bilaam, when he calls himself a yodeo daas elyon, is in the middle of a complete submission to the will of G-d. Bilaam wants to curse the Jews, but as he says again and again, "whatever G-d tells me to say, that is what I will say." G-d tells him to bless the Jews, and bless them he does, despite the huge embarrassment of doing so in front of balak and all the sarei moav.
What I take away from this is that somehow, there is a way to even argue with G-d that isn't arrogant. If one is motivated by truth and justice, it is no contradiction to simultaneously recognize one's frailty and lowliness while at the same time fighting for what one knows to be right - because you have no choice. Truth is mechayev - you must do whats right - even if it involves putting yourself forward and taking on G-d himself. This isn't arrogant, as long as it is done out of a true care for justice, with recognition that "anochi afar va'efer" - I still am nothing but dust and ashes.
Conversely, it doesn't reflect humility to submit to G-d's will if you think that you truly understand and "know G-d". That's what Bilaam was saying when he said yodeo daas elyon - He submits to G-d out of knowledge and understanding of G-d. Religion is arrogant only if we think like Bilaam - that we can achieve some true understanding of G-d through the tiny minuscule amount that has been revealed.
There is a story that I like that encapsulates some (but not all) of this idea. I am not sure, but I think the story took place with R Yechezkel Abramsky.
For some reason or another, R Abramsky was required to testify in the secular court in London as an expert in religious law. So he goes, and as all witnesses do, he swears to tell the truth. Before they begin the specific inquiry, the judge asks him, is it true that you are a well respected rabbi?
He says, "yes".
Is it true that you are an expert in jewish law?
"Yes."
The greatest expert in Jewish law in all of England?
"Yes."
Arent you jews supposed to be humble?
"I'm under oath."
Emes sometimes obligates one to act in a way that seems contradictory to humility - but its no stirah.
No comments:
Post a Comment