Moral Decisions
Excerpt from a letter Yeshayahu Leibowitz wrote to Tzvi Yanai in 1966:
"[...] I will try to address the very concept of "morality." This concept does not refer to actions but to desires and intentions. Each act, in and of itself, is morally indifferent. Come and see: in two cases, a person pulls the trigger of a loaded and cocked rifle with another person at the target, and in both cases the other person is killed in what appears to be the same act twice, and yet in one case we say "vile murder," and in the other case "a heroic act by a soldier defending the homeland." This means that it is not the act but the intention and intention of the doer of the act that determines moral judgment. The theory of morality or ethics (Ethica) is not the theory of correct behavior but the theory of correct will.”
Yeshayahu Leibowitz (1903-1994), the Israeli philosopher, scientist and polymath, raises a question we still grapple with today: what is the “correct will?” Is there such a thing as correct will?
By correct will, Leibowitz refers to the question of who or what determines what is right and what is wrong?
Lebowitz claimed that throughout history there were only two general answers to this question. The first answer, put forth by Socrates and the core of Greek philosophy all the way through Stoicism, was that the correct will was determined for a person by their environment.
In other words, a current society or societal order dictates the rules of right and wrong. Right and wrong stem from the truth within reality. One should not follow their own wishes, desires or inner voices, to determine what’s right and wrong but rather adhere to a general, external rule.
The second answer, brought forth by Immanuel Kant, was quite the opposite. The determination of right and wrong should come from within us as a personal judgment, or a type of personal duty. Following the principles of his categorical imperative, one should not consider an external code of ethics which is dictated by the society, regime or environment. Rather, one should personally determine when this imperative (treat people as an end and not a means, for example) has been compromised.
Jewish tradition, according to Leibowitz, rules out both answers. The proof of that, according to him, is in this week’s portion, Shelach.
Shelach is a dramatic portion which tells the story of the twelve spies. Moses sent one representative from each tribe to tour the land of Israel and report back about its readiness to be inhabited. Upon their return, all the spies reported that the land was flourishing and abundant. However, only two of them, Joshua and Caleb, believed that the Israelites could triumph against the local inhabitants in war. The other ten described them as giants that were undefeatable.
Joshua and Caleb maintained their faith. They trusted in God’s continued care and supervision; the others did not. The Israelites heard only the devastating news that the majority of the leaders reported. They, too, lost their faith in God and the thought of trying to enter the land terrified them.
The punishment was severe. That entire generation, the very generation that was liberated from Egypt, would not be allowed to enter the promised land. They would dwell in the desert for forty years and only their children would be allowed to enter.
After this very unfortunate ordeal which changed the fate of an entire generation, the following commandment appears:
“דַּבֵּ֞ר אֶל־בְּנֵ֤י יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ וְאָמַרְתָּ֣ אֲלֵהֶ֔ם וְעָשׂ֨וּ לָהֶ֥ם צִיצִ֛ת עַל־כַּנְפֵ֥י בִגְדֵיהֶ֖ם לְדֹרֹתָ֑ם וְנָ֥תְנ֛וּ עַל־צִיצִ֥ת הַכָּנָ֖ף פְּתִ֥יל תְּכֵֽלֶת׃ “
“Speak to the Israelite people and instruct them to make fringes for themselves on the corners of their garments throughout the ages; let them attach a cord of blue to the fringe at each corner.”
It is the commandment to wear a tzitzit, which we still practice today. Additionally, this entered in our Shema prayer as the third section, known as “Parshat Tzitzit,” and we say it twice a day, during the morning and the evening service. Why was Parashat Tzitzit so important, that it entered our prayer in such a significant way?
The Talmud in Menachot says:
תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״וּרְאִיתֶם אֹתוֹ וּזְכַרְתֶּם אֶת כׇּל מִצְוֹת ה', שְׁקוּלָה מִצְוָה זוֹ כְּנֶגֶד כׇּל הַמִּצְוֹת כּוּלָּן.
It is taught in another baraita: The verse states: “That you may look upon it and remember all the commandments of the Lord”; this teaches that this mitzva of ritual fringes is equivalent to all the mitzvot of the Torah.”
Equivalent to all of the Mitzvot in the Torah is a strong statement. Here is the explanation:
וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״וּרְאִיתֶם אֹתוֹ וּזְכַרְתֶּם... וַעֲשִׂיתֶם״ – רְאִיָּה מְבִיאָה לִידֵי זְכִירָה, זְכִירָה מְבִיאָה לִידֵי עֲשִׂיָּה.
“And it is taught in another baraita: The verse states: “That you may look upon it and remember all the commandments of the Lord and do them.” This teaches that looking at the ritual fringes leads to remembering the mitzvot, and remembering them leads to doing them.“
According to this explanation, the mitzvah of Tzitzit is equivalent to all the other commandments of the Torah because it reminds us to do them.
The Torah states:
וְהָיָ֣ה לָכֶם֮ לְצִיצִת֒ וּרְאִיתֶ֣ם אֹת֗וֹ וּזְכַרְתֶּם֙ אֶת־כׇּל־מִצְוֺ֣ת יְהֹוָ֔ה וַעֲשִׂיתֶ֖ם אֹתָ֑ם וְלֹֽא־תָת֜וּרוּ אַחֲרֵ֤י לְבַבְכֶם֙ וְאַחֲרֵ֣י עֵֽינֵיכֶ֔ם אֲשֶׁר־אַתֶּ֥ם זֹנִ֖ים אַחֲרֵיהֶֽם׃
“That shall be your fringe; look at it and recall all GOD’s commandments and observe them, so that you do not follow your heart and eyes in your urge to stray.”
Leibowitz used this verse to explain why Jewish tradition rejects both Socrates and Kant’s ethical theories.
He writes:
אולם בקריאת שמע נאמר: "ולא תתורו אחרי לבבכם ואחרי עיניכם". "לא תתורו אחרי לבבכם" זוהי השלילה של העקרון של קאנט; "לא תתורו אחרי עינכם זוהי השלילה של העיקרון של סוקראטס. ההנמקה של שתי השלילות הללו ניתנת מיד לאחר מכן: "אני ה' אלהיכם". ההכרעה המוסרית, לפי כל אחת משתי הגישות האפשריות, היא הכרעה לפי התודעה והרגש של האדם; לפיכך יש בה משום עבודה שהאדם עובד את עצמו, וזהו הניגוד להכרעה הדתית, שמשמעותה עבודת ה'.
“However, in the Shema it is said: "And you shall not follow your heart and your eyes." "You shall not follow your heart" is the negation of Kant's principle; "You shall not follow your eyes" is the negation of Socrates' principle. The reasoning for these two negations is given immediately afterward: "I am the Lord your God." The moral decision, according to each of the two possible approaches, is a decision according to the consciousness and emotion of the person; therefore, it involves work in which the person works himself, and this is the opposite of the religious decision, which means the work of God.”
Lo taturu achar eineychen, You shall not follow your eyes, means to say, your moral decisions should not be determined by what you see, meaning by your environment, or the true reality, like Socrates suggested. Lo taturu achar levavchem, you shall not follow your heart. It means your moral decisions should not come from yourselves, or from your inner desires and wishes, like Kant suggested.
So where should the moral decision come from? Leibowitz explains that the answer comes in the next verse, which states: I am Adonai, your God. The decision should be religious and should come from what is external to both us and the world. That which is from God.
This answer solves a very big problem in modern secular theories of ethics. No matter how you flip it, what I or my environment deem ethical would be unethical to another person or another culture. Even Kant could not solve that issue with his principles. Outsourcing authority to the transcendental is not a bad solution.
It has been my personal experience throughout my entire life, both in my upbringing in Israel and living in the U.S., that I have seen so many Jewish people wear a kippah, tzitzit (peaking out from under their shirts), and wrap tefillin daily, but those do nothing to improve their ethical conduct or moral behavior. Sometimes they act in complete opposition to the mitzvot and interpretations.
My wish for us this Shabbat is to find true reminders in our lives that we can carry with us that will help us make ethical/moral decisions.
The Tzitzit should remind us of that. Our sages explain that the Tzitzit commandment is placed right after the story of the spies, because they, just like Socrates and Kant, followed their eyes and their heart and, unfortunately, they had nothing with them to remind them of God.
Shabbat Shalom,
Rabbi Ye’ela Rosenfeld
