Let us look more deeply
into the diametrically opposed views of Torah and modern society regarding the
idea of obligation. In order to do this, we shall need to understand an idea
which is presented classically in the writings of Rabbi Dessler ztz'l, the idea
of giving and taking. This idea is well-known in Torah thinking; let us
summarize it briefly in order to understand its relevance to our subject of the
centrality of obligation in the Torah view of life.
All relationships between
people involve giving and taking. In some aspects of a relationship one party
is the giver and the other receives, and in some aspects the direction of
giving is the reverse. Any particular individual relates to others, and in fact
to the world in general, on a continuum of giving or taking - some people are
givers, some are takers.
In their depth, these two
polarities represent the higher, spiritual world and the lower, material world.
Giving is an attribute of the Divine; in fact, it is the primary quality of the
Divine to which we can relate. Taking is foreign to the Divine; taking implies
some lack, some need which is fulfilled by that which is given - obviously this
is not relevant to Hashem Who lacks nothing. One who gives resembles the Divine;
one who takes distances himself from his Divine image.
"Soneh matanos yichye
- One who hates gifts shall live." One who loves to give is living in
parallel with the Divine attributes; one who loves to receive is in conflict
with that ideal. Giving is an aspect of goodness and self-sufficiency; taking
is a symptom of lack and deficiency. One who loves taking, who is in the habit
of taking, is training himself to live in a vacuum of lack and dependency.
Of course, sometimes
receiving is actually giving - the gracious acceptance of the gift of an
admirer by a great person is in fact an act of giving; in such a case it is the
giver who needs to give, the receiver does not need the gift intrinsically but
accepts it only as a favor to the giver. At root, the receiver of the gift is
the real giver; what is important is the essence of the transaction and the
relationship, not the transfer of a physical object. In an ideal relationship,
for example an ideal marriage, both parties know how to give and also how to receive
graciously; one of the deepest gifts in marriage is the opportunity one gives
one's partner to be a giver!
So giving is Divine;
taking is, at best, human. Now the application of this fundamental subject
which sheds light on modern society (and the Jew's place in it) is as follows.
In human relationships, the polarities of giving and taking can be expressed as
obligations and rights. My rights are your obligations: my right to my property
can be expressed as your obligation not to steal. My right to free speech is
your obligation to allow me to speak freely. A worker's right to a living wage
is his employer's obligation to pay that wage. It is your obligation to see to
it that my rights remain intact. Every right implies an obligation; the rights
of individuals are the obligations of society at large.
The important point to
grasp here is that rights and obligations are interlocked; neither is
meaningful without the other. Just as there can be no receiver without a giver,
there can be no rights without obligations.
Now rights are parallel to
taking, and obligations are parallel to giving. After all, my rights are due to
me, I can demand them if necessary, they are mine. Obligations are those things
which I have to do for you, I have to limit myself, to give up some of my
freedom and desires in order to accommodate your rights. In guarding my rights
I am a taker; in honoring my obligations I am a giver.
Of course, both rights and
obligations are true and necessary. Each individual has a right to expect that
which is due to him and an obligation to provide others with all that is due to
them. But the essential question is: Where is your focus? What concerns you
more - your rights or your obligations? A person who is concerned with his
rights is a taker; one who is concerned with his obligations is a giver.
Focusing on one's rights is focusing on the self - a constant awareness of
one's needs and the desire to satisfy them. Focusing on one's obligations is
focusing on others and the function of giving.
This difference of focus
has far-reaching practical consequences. The Midrash describes the ideal
relationship between a Jewish master and slave: the slave must work for his
master as best he is able, and the master must treat his slave as a brother.
Obviously, if both live up to their obligations the relationship will be
productive and peaceful. But when the master focuses on the slave's obligation
to work hard, and the slave keeps demanding that the master treat him better
instead of working as he should - when each one forgets his obligations and
thinks only of his rights - the result is war. And both are quoting the Torah!
When the master reminds the slave that he is supposed to work single-mindedly
and the slave reminds the master that he is supposed to treat him like a
brother, both are absolutely correct - but they are focusing on the wrong end
of the deal, and that is where the problems begin.
Two people in marriage,
each trying to give to the other - the result is an idyllic relationship. Two
people, each focusing on what the other owes - the result is marital strife.
And paradoxically, the surest way to lose one's personal happiness is to demand
it as a right from one's spouse.
Applications of this
principle are to be found everywhere. In an industrial society, when employers
treat employees fairly and the workers serve loyally, all is well. But when
workers are concerned about their rights primarily, the natural result is that
in order to protect and enforce their rights they band together in a union. The
union has the power to paralyze an industry, so the employers form a national
association of employers to fight the stranglehold of the union, and the result
is battle.
* * *
Modern society is largely
concerned with rights. The wording of the Constitutions of Western democracies
is very revealing - they unfailingly focus on rights; in fact, they are often
little more than a detailed enumeration of the rights of the individuals in
that particular society. The highest code of such societies is their Bill of
Rights.
In striking contrast is
the Torah, the Jewish Constitution. The Torah never mentions rights, only
obligations! Nowhere does the Torah speak of an individual's right to his
property; only his obligation not to steal. No mention of a right to life or
liberty; only stringent admonitions not to kill or interfere with the liberty
of one's fellow. Not even a cursory mention of one's right to happiness,
dignity, physical well-being or sustenance; only strong reminders of the duty
to provide others with these. And so on.
Of course rights exist; of
course they are important. The Oral Law is full of discussions of individual's
rights. But the point is that the focus is everything. In a perfect society,
which is the inevitable result of meticulous Torah observance, individuals
consider and live up to their obligations. When each person watches his
obligations carefully, the rights take care of themselves. If no-one steals,
everyone's right to property is assured automatically. If no-one interferes
with anyone, everyone's freedom is the result. When people are givers,
happiness results. When everyone is giving, everyone receives.
A society which enshrines
rights is a society which develops takers. A society which focuses on
obligations develops givers. The specific details of a political system are far
less important than this basic idea; in fact, no political system will work
when the individuals who comprise that system are inherently takers - they will
always be trying to take what they can from the system, and usually feel that
they are not getting enough. Conversely, almost any political system will work
admirably when its members are careful to contribute at least as much as they
receive.
The great secret of
political and social stability is that the individuals within a system must
inherently be givers. The Torah insists on this; a child raised in a Torah
environment is a child who is trained to be conscious of his obligations. Such
a member of society can be relied upon, even when no-one is watching!
Of course, there is a very
important condition which must apply before any individual can give fully and
unconditionally in society: everyone else must be so disposed too! If an
individual tries to live up to his obligations with no regard to his rights in
a society of takers, that individual will be swallowed alive. It is therefore
the aim of Torah education to produce an individual who is intrinsically a
giver, but who knows how to protect himself from the unscrupulous when that is
necessary.
Being a full-hearted giver
does not mean being na?ve about the realities of modern society; Torah openly
discusses the wiles and duplicity of the evil and teaches appropriate
self-defence. When Yaakov lives with Lavan who is a swindler and a cheat,
Yaakov has to subdue his inner core of pure giving and deal with Lavan on his
own terms in order to survive and succeed; his greatness, however, is that it
leaves him inwardly untainted. In the privacy of the Jewish heart and family,
pure giving is the appropriate mode; in a murderous and perverse environment,
self-defence is necessary - but it must never affect the core.
