The Two Inclinations in Judaism
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE TWO INCLINATIONS IN JUDAISM John D. Rayner Introduction Two facts about the human condition stand out. The first is that, like all animals, we are doomed to die; the second that, unlike other animals,‘o'r at least to an incomparably higher degree, we are capable of both good and evil - unlimited and evil. virtually good V Between these facts - of our physical mortality and our moral ambivalence - it has sometimes been thought that there is a connection. For since evil often leads to death, it is tempting to think that to conquer evil would be to conquer death as well. But that is logical fallacy, since evil is not the cause ,of .. only , ‘ a V death. Even if we were all saints, we should still die. Because that is fairly obvious, there has sometimes been a tendency to change the subject from physical death to spiritual death. The good, it is said, will live for ever in some other world; the bad will be destroyed or else suffer a fate worse than death in the form of eternal torment. Such notions have ‘ui- been entertained in different ways both in Judaism and in Christianity - the COLLEGE ._.—\...4 /. famous ‘resurrection verse‘ in Daniel (12:2) played a key role in them; but I .. mention them only to make it clear that they do not fall within our purview. CK Of the two basic facts about the human condition, it is only the moral ( .4 -—.U. LEBRARY ambivalence that concerns us. Whether or not there is a hereafter, our life on B! earth is of limited duration. But while it lasts, we can and do perform both ~ A—v- which’has good and evil. The question is why. It is a theoretical question LEO h- ,\ exercised the philosophically minded all through the ages; But it is also a EU practical since the maximisation of good and the diminution of evil .1 .— question, is the most urgent of all practical tasks. But in order to make any headway with it we need to understand what causes the twofold tendency. To that question many different answers are to be found in the literature of Judaism, as of Christianity. But on the Jewish side most of them are contained in, or related to, the Rabbinic doctrine of the Two Inclinations, which it is my assignment to expound. Since it is a Rabbinic doctrine, I need not spend much time on its antecedents in the biblical and intertestamental periods. Nevertheless I cannot entirely avoid it. For Judaism is the religion of the Hebrew Bible as interpreted by the Rabbis, and the interpretation cannot be entirely separated from the text. Body and Soul One way of accounting for the duality of human beings in the moral sense is to point to their duality in a more fundamental, constitutional sense. They are, it is said, a compound of two' kinds of stuff: matter and spirit. In so far as they are made of matter, they are prone to sin; in so far as they are made of spirit, they tend to act nobly. This dualistic view is not, however, characteristic of the Hebrew Bible. Of course, the contrast between the high and low status of human beings is frequently noted and emphasised, not least in the 8th Psalm: 'When I look at Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars which You have established - what are human beings that You are mindful of them, mortals that You care for them? Yet You have made them little less than divine, and crowned them with glory and honour!’ But the contrast is not generally stated in terms of a matter-spirit dualism in which matter is bad and spirit is good. To quote Otto Baab, ‘Matter is not intrinsically evil or corrupt, and carnality is not a sin in Hebrew thought' (pp. __;10_8f). ‘And again: 'man's physical nature is not the reason for his sin,.._I-Iis proneness to yield to the lusts of the flesh results from his eagerness to escape the problem created by the conflict between his spiritual freedom and the limitations of his physical nature. His sin consists in choosing sensuality, not in the possession of a body which makes sensuality possible' (The Theology of the Old Testament, p. 248). On the contrary, the chief locus of sin is not 1273, the flesh, but :‘7 or :25, the heart which, though in its literal sense a bodily organ, stands as a metaphor for the mind. There are of course traces of matter-spirit dualism, apparently showing Greek influence, especially in the later books (e.g., Eccles. 12:7). But they become a great deal more pronounced in the Apocrypha, Philo and the New Testament, and they left their mark on Rabbinic Judaism. Of special interest here is the Rabbinic exegesis of the phrase in the Second Creation Story that God 'formed Adam out of the dust of the ground' (Gen. 2:7), where the Hebrew word 13‘”. for 'formed' has a double yod, which is interpreted as pointing to the duality of human nature. According to one interpretation, which sees in the verb an allusion to the noun 13’ for 'inclination‘, God compounded Adam of two inclinations, good and evil (Gen.R. 14:4), According to another, which relates the verb to the noun .178” for 'creation', the process involved two stages which brought into being respectively the earthly and heavenly aspects of human beings. This led the Rabbis to say of them: 'Like animals, they eat and drink, procreate, secrete and die; like angels, they stand erect, speak, think, and see visions‘(Gen.R. 14:3). The matter-spirit duality of human nature is certainly found in Rabbinic literature. Thus the Rabbis could conceive of an sun E‘Jw, a world-to-come in which 'there is no eating or drinking or procreation or trading or jealousy, but the righteous sit with crowns on their heads, feasting on the radiance of the arm, the Divine Presence' (Ber. 17a) - in other words, a purely spiritual form of existence. Yet one senses a hesitancy to concede that the two components are ultimately separable, and therefore a reluctance to let go of the belief in D’nnn n‘mn, a resurrection in which body and soul are finally reunited. Above all, there is no straightforward identification of the two aspects with good and evil respectively. As Moore points out, it is not the case 'that the evil impulse resides in the body while the good impulse proceeds from the soul. That the physical organism, as material, is evil per se, sense the origin of error, the appetites and passions the source of moral evil - these ideas, which through prevalent philosophies had gained wide currency in the Hellenistic world, have no counterpart in Palestinian Iudaism' (Iuduism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era, Vol. I, p. 485). The general Rabbinic view sees the two components of human nature as different but inseparable, and both alike involved in good and evil. Typical is a well known passage in which body and soul together appear before God to be judged, and each accuses the other, whereupon a parable, found also in .other traditions, i_s told about two orchard keepers, one lame and one blind. During the royal owner‘é‘aAbsence the lame man stands on the shoulders of the blind man, and picks the fruit. When the king returns to find the fruit gone, each has a ready excuse: the lame man that he can‘t walk ahd the blind man that he can't see. Then the king orders the lame man to climb on-the blind man's back, and judges them together. So, too, is the moral, God judges body and soul together (Mekhilta on Exod. 15:1; Lev.R. 4:5). The Divine Image As we continue our search for the causes of the moral ambivalence of human nature, we should remind ourselves that it is both sides of it, not only the evil but also the good, that call for an explanation. Why do we generally recognise and desire, and often though by no means always do, what is good? About that, at least, Judaism has been clear and consistent all through the ages: the good in us is a consequence Of our having been created in the image of God. God, says the first chapter of Genesis, created Adam n‘nbx E1533, in the divine image (1:27). D’n'7R man, in the divine likeness, reiterates the fifth chapter (5:1). And the greatest of the Rabbis, Akiva, remarked: ‘I-Iow privileged we are to have been created 1353:, in the divine image; how much more privileged still to have been made aware that we were created in God's image' (Avot 3:14). This doctrine is central to the Jewish understanding of human nature; It has never been questioned, let alone repudiated, and it has been regarded as a necessary and sufficient explanation of the 2m "13*, the Good Inclination, which is the voice within us that prompts us — often, alas, unheeded - to choose and do what is right. It does, however, raise a question, which we can't ignore: What then of the story of the Garden of Eden? Does it not mean that the high status of human beings, and with it their Good Inclination, has long since been forfeited? There is also a prior question: How seriously should the Garden-of-Eden story be taken? Some modern Bible scholars have regarded it, partly on account of its pessimism about human nature, as atypical of other Pentateuchal material and derived from a separate source which Otto Eissfeldt called L for 'Lay Source', Julian Morgenstern ‘K' for 'Kenite‘ and Robert H‘ Pfeiffer 'S' for 'South' or ‘Seir', meaning Edomite (Introduction to ' the Old Testament, pp‘ 161-65).