Thoughts on Parashat Va’etchanan
At the beginning of this week’s Torah portion Moses asks the Eternal to let him enter the Promised Land. God does not cave to his pleas, the only thing He offers him in exchange is a suggestion for Moses to climb to the top of mount Pisgah, from where he will be able to take a look at the Land given to Israel (Deut 3:23-27.) This story ends in chapter 34 of the Book of Devarim (Deuteronomy), when Moses climbs to the top of that mountain. Then God says to him:
This is the land of which I swore to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, ‘I will assign it to your offspring’. I have let you see it with your own eyes, but you shall not cross there. So Moses the servant of the Lord died there, in the land of Moab, at the command of the Lord. He buried him in the valley in the land of Moab, near Beth-Peor; and no one knows his burial place to this day. Moses was a hundred and twenty years old when he died; his eyes were undimmed and his vigor unabated (Devarim 34:4-7.)
As we can see, Moses’ days were numbered, without any possibility to file any kind of appeal. This phraseology, as well as the very fact that we are all, without any exceptions, going to die one day, is the source of the claim that we are all equal in the face of death. It’s hard to deny this, although we could argue about what the term “equal” means. Be that as it may, it is worth asking the question whether any kind of other, “innate” equality between people stems from the fact that we are equal when it comes to death? Let’s take a closer look at this matter.
A typical conclusion voiced in this context is that we are all equal in the face of death there stems a certain futility of (material) things in the world we live. Both the poor and the rich will face the same fate – ultimately everyone will end up in a grave. Therefore, there is no point in toiling too hard and amassing wealth since we won’t be taking anything from this world with us. But is this kind of reasoning really correct? Does the fact that we are all going to die lead to the conclusion that amassing material goods is only a pursuit of the wind? That we should not worry about this too much and the best thing would be for example to introduce communism?
This way of reasoning is, of course, incorrect. While the Hebrew Bible brings up the topic of the poor and the rich many times and it introduces laws aimed at securing a just division of goods, nowhere does it propagate economic equality between people, and its laws (e.g. Devarim 10:18, 14:28-29, 15:7;11, 24:17, 27:19 etc.) are aimed at preventing extreme and pathological situations. In addition, the verses for example from the Book of Proverbs,
Rich man and poor man meet; the Lord made them both (Proverbs 22:2)
and
A poor man and a fraudulent man meet; the Lord gives luster to the eyes of both(Proverbs 29:13)
should not be understood as claiming that the poor and the wealthy should be made economically equal. Quite the opposite – the existence of such inequalities has a deeper meaning; for example, it can be a source of knowledge and of a deeper understanding of human fate – verse 29:13 can certainly be read this way.
The correct answer to the question as to what kind of approach we should take with regards to possessing things and to other financial matters in the context of our mortality can be also found in today’s Torah portion:
When the Lord your God brings you into the land that He swore to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, to assign to you – great and flourishing cities that you did not build; houses full of all good things that you did not fill, hewn cisterns that you did not hew, vineyards and olive groves that you did not plant – and you eat your fill; take heed that you do not forget the Lord who freed you from the land of Egypt, the house of bondage (Devarim 6:10-12.)
To put it shortly, we are tenants, and not the owners of things found in the world we live in, and we should be grateful for that. Which absolutely doesn’t mean that renting a one-room apartment in a basement is the same as renting a palace.
And hence the paradigm of economic equality can by no means be seen as a necessary consequence of the fact that we are equal in the face of death (and God). I would argue that actually it’s quite the opposite. Are there any other kinds of equality that could stem from that fundamental “existential equality”? Before we answer this question, let’s try to explain what human equality in the face of death actually means.
Actually, one direct logical conclusion that can be derived from this equality is the fact that the time-frame of every person’s life is limited. This means more or less that each one of us receives a notebook with a different, limited number of pages, in which we are obliged to write the story of our life. For that story to have any sense at all we must assume, at least in theory, that we know how many pages there are in our notebook. Then we can plan and write subsequent chapters of the book of our life. What is helpful in this whole activity is also the awareness that the number of pages available in our notebooks depends – to a greater or lesser extent – on our behavior. The very fact that their number is finite can frighten people, but it can also be, and often is, a positive incentive to write the best story possible. The way people look at that limit depends on the psychological state of a given person in a given moment; that psychological state depends on a large number of different factors, and the number of pages in someone’s notebook is often not such a crucial element.
And here we reach two instances of equality which in my opinion stem from that fundamental equality in the face of death – namely equality in the face of law and equality of chances. By equality in the face of law I understand that all people must necessarily have the same responsibility to abide by a certain system of generally accepted rules of common life which guarantee everyone peace, safety and the possibility for development – which is exactly what is meant by equality of chances. Only then can we find support in an objective structure assuring that every one of us has the possibility, the chance to write the story of our life consciously, responsibly and according to our own will and to the means which we have either inherited or acquired by ourselves. The lack of such a structure increases the role played by random factors in everyone’s life story, which leads to many problems. That is why an irresponsible “fiddling” with that structure is always dangerous and can sometimes lead to many human tragedies.
All is futile and pursuit of wind (Ecclesiastes 1:14.)
In my opinion these words do not describe the objective state of affairs in the world, but they are rather the expression of a certain existential experience which involves looking at our life from an extended time perspective which reaches far beyond our own life’s time frame. We can intellectually extend that perspective in such a way that as a consequence everything that exists will no longer make any sense. But this is not about reaching empty intellectual extremes. If we approach all this with moderation, it turns out that this experience which sends shivers down our spines is ultimately very valuable – because that extended, time-related context changes our perception of the world and in such a state of consciousness we find out what our true values are. In other words, we learn how to distinguish between that which is always worth pursuing and worth implementing and that which is fleeting, ephemeral and worthless and which is nothing more than that pursuit of wind.
Shabbat Shalom!
Menachem
