C ENTRO P RO U NIONE Semi-Annual Bulletin A publication about the activities of the Centro Pro Unione “UT OMNES UNUM SINT” Digital Edition Web https://bulletin.prounione.it E-mail bulletin@prounione.it 2532-4144 Digital Edition ISSN N. 96 - Fall 2019 E-book ` Centro Conferences Jack Bemporad The Philosophy of the Midrash `Centro Conferences James F. Puglisi, SA `Letter from the Director 3 2 Tim Macquiban 10 "God's Sovereign grace, immense and unconfined". Our Common Baptism and Call to Holiness Gordon Lathrop `Centro Conferences 14 Reading the Gospels toward the Unity of the Churches Gail Ramshaw `Centro Conferences 19 The Ecumenical Gift of the Three-Year Lectionaries Jack Bemporad `Centro Conferences 23 Saint John Paul II’s Outreach to the Jewish Community `Centro Conferenze Davide Bracale 28 Patrizi di Bellegra. Presbiteri al servizio della Curia Romana dal XVIII al XX secolo A Ministry of the Franciscan Friars of the Atonement Centro Pro Unione In this issueCentro Pro Unione Bulletin 2 Centro Pro Unione Bulletin A semi-annual publication about the activities of the Centro Pro Unione The Centro Pro Unione in Rome, founded and directed by the Franciscan Friars of the Atonement, - www.atonementfriars.org - is an ecumenical research and action center. Its purpose is to give space for dialogue, to be a place for study, research and formation in ecumenism: theological, pastoral, social and spiritual. The Bulletin has been pubblished since 1968 and is released in Spring and Fall. IN THIS ISSUE Letter from the Director EDITORIAL STAFF bulletin@prounione.it Contact Information Via Santa Maria dell'Anima, 30 I-00186 Rome (+39) 06 687 9552 pro@prounione.it Website, Social media www.prounione.it @EcumenUnity CENTRO PRO UNIONE A Ministry of the Franciscan Friars of the Atonement DIRECTOR'S DESK N. 96 - Fall 2019 Fr. James Puglisi, SA – Director Centro Pro Unione James F. Puglisi, SA Director Centro Pro Unione Fall 2019, n. 96 / Digital Edition (Web) ›Jack Bemporad ›Tim Macquiban ›Gordon Lathrop ›Gail Ramshaw ›Davide Bracale ›Editorial News ›Logotype of the Centro in 50 years ›Week of Prayer for Christian Unity his issue of the Bulletin – Centro Pro Unione opens with a very important conference given by Rabbi Jack Bemporad on “The Philosophy of the Midrash”. The subject as Rabbi Bemporad has indicated is very complex that may be explained as “primarily an attempt to explain, to interpret, to get at the very heart of biblical teachings and religious teachings in Judaism”. After an engaging presentation of the philosophy, our author ends with this observation: “Rational inquiry and ethical action and continuing questioning, as represented in the Midrash, will lead us to seeking and finding God, holiness, purpose and meaning. But if one persists in this endeavor, one discovers oneself.” The next three articles are the product of “MAD for ecumenism” - a project of the Centro Pro Unione created and coordinated by Teresa Francesca Rossi, Associate Director, that establishes a desk for Mutual Accountability revolving around study, charitable activity, and worship. It invites all Christian confessions willing to journey together in mutual understanding, respect, trust, and accountability. The first Module focused on preaching with a particular attention to Catholic-Pentecostal relations. The theme of the second Module, now in progress, is “[…] by baptism […] we walk in newness of life” (Rm 6:4). Its focus is on the moral life and liturgy flowing out on Baptism. It is a joint venture among Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists and Waldensians. Rev. Tim Macquiban, Pastor of Ponte Sant’Angelo Methodist Church introduced the theme with his lecture: “‘God’s Sovereign grace, immense and unconfined’. Our Common Baptism and Call to Holiness”. Our author concludes his lecture by making reference to Pope Francis’ Letter to Young People : “for holiness is ‘the most attractive face of the Church’. And that is because all of us who are baptized Christians share in this common baptism which unites us in the universal call to holiness”. The continuation of the theme was offered by two Lutherans, a ‘husband and wife team of theologians and liturgists. Prof. Gordon Lathrop and Prof. Gail Ramshaw. The first introduces us to the very meaning of the reading of the Gospels as a call to Christian unity. Our assemblies will continually be invited to the critique and reforming of our ritual and religion, to become again and again the biblically rooted, biblically imaged “assembly of God.” The second presentation dealt with the gift of common ecumenical Lectionaries. The development of a lectionary in Protestantism is something new and a welcomed gift of the Spirit. Knowing that all Christians in a geographic area will hear and preach on the same readings on any given Sunday unites us in the Word proclaimed, celebrated and lived. This issue opens with a lecture of Rabbi Bemporad and closes with one: on St John Paul II’s outreach to the Jewish Community. This touching and personal lecture illustrates how much the Pope knew his Jewish brothers and sisters through encounters with them and sharing in their suffering. The Pope’s outreach was always in the direction of reconciliation and the healing of memories. This issue concludes with a brief text of our Secretary, Dr. Davide Bracale on the occasion of the presentation of his latest research into the presbyters of the Patrizi family and their service to the Roman Curia from the XVIII to XX centuries. Our program for the coming year includes such topics as Sinodalità, una cum capite suo, the “Holy Spirit” in Medieval Jewish Philosophy and Spirituality, the ecumenism of Pope Francis, St. Pius X’s contribution to the modern church, and an ecumenical reading of Laudato Si’ . We invite our readers to always check our web site for dates and events as well as the up-dating of our data base on the international theological dialogues and of course our two libraries: pro and dialogo. January 18-25 is the annual celebration of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity (in the Northern hemisphere) and the week between Ascension and Pentecost (in the Southern hemisphere). Encourage your parishes and organizations to engage in this intense prayer of Jesus for the unity of all Christians. Lastly our annual Summer course Introduction to the Ecumenical and Interreligious Movements (June 22- July 10, 2020) is now available for registration on our web site. This Bulletin is indexed in the ATLA Religion Database, published by the American Theological Library Association, 250 S. Wacker Drive, 16 th Floor, Chicago, IL 60606 (www.atla.com). TCentro Pro Unione Bulletin CENTRO CONFERENCES 3 N. 96 - Fall 2019 The topic “The Philosophy of the Midrash,” which I will speak about this evening, was not my first choice. The Midrash is such a vast, such a difficult topic. There are literally hundreds of books that can be described as Midrashic. A large section of the Talmud consists of Agaddah, or Midrash. The rabbinic Bible, which is the Bible as presented in its rabbinic format, has dozens of commentaries and even commentaries on commentaries. There’s no way of exhausting it, so for anyone to say that this is THE philosophy of the Midrash, or this is the teaching of the Midrash, seems to me to be something difficult to support. The word Midrash comes from the Hebrew root DaRaSH, meaning to seek, read repeatedly, study, search out a meaning in its Biblical use. 1 In late Biblical usage, Midrash is used to mean 2 “Imaginative exposition, didactic story. These meanings were taken over and expanded in later Rabbinic and other Jewish and non-Jewish writings. However, there are passages in the Midrash itself that can give us a clue as to its essential meaning. One of the most important things it says about itself is that “If you want to know who it was that spoke and the world came into being, study Midrash,” (Sifre 85a); that is, if you want to know something about God, creation, revelation, and the fundamental religious truths, study Midrash. Midrash, or Aggadah, is usually contrasted with Halacha. Halacha, (Jewish Law) is concerned primarily with legal material. Its Biblical meaning is manifold but it’s essential definition is to walk, or go forward. Now what is the difference between Midrash and halacha? Midrash is primarily an attempt to explain, to interpret, to get at the very heart of biblical teachings and religious teachings in Judaism. Halacha is different. And it’s legal in that it gives you the sense of the right way to walk (act). But there’s no real agreement in halacha either. In fact, it took the late Middle Ages before there was any clarity as to how to put the legal material together and the one who did that better than anyone else was Maimonides in his monumental 14-volume work of Jewish law called the Mishnah Torah. It took the genius of Maimonides to get a unified, systematic, organized presentation of the totality of Jewish law. 1 See F rancis B rown ,Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon to the Old Testament, p. 205. Hereafter cited BDB. 2 According to BDB, Ibid. So, returning to Midrash, the first thing is, if you want to know who God is, you want to know the one who spoke and the world came to be, that is religious truth study Midrash. Another wonderful passage in the Midrash presents a clue about itself; it states, “In the days when people had a lot of change in their pockets, people would study Talmud (Halacha, or Jewish Law). Life was easy, people were well off, so one wanted to get at something really demanding, interesting, and difficult. But when adversities came, persecutions, suffering, and things of that nature, then the Talmud wasn’t that appealing. They wanted something that fed the soul, not only the intellect. It was something that had to appeal to the heart. And so what the Midrash does is give you the opportunity to read biblical and Jewish texts in a way that enables you to begin to ask fundamental questions about life and its meaning, the nature of God and the soul. (Pesikta 101b,) Now while some of it is very far-fetched and some highly speculative, some of it, on the other hand, while THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE MIDRASH Rabbi Jack Bemporad - Director, The Center for Interreligious Understanding Teaneck, New Jersey, USA5 Conference given at the Centro Pro Unione, Thursday, 3 May 2018 `Rabbi Jack Bemporad Rabbi Jack Bemporad – Director, The Center for Interreligious UnderstandingCentro Pro Unione Bulletin CENTRO CONFERENCES 4 N. 96 - Fall 2019 relatively simple, nevertheless still has a significant point to make. For example, when it says in the 22nd chapter of Genesis verse 1: “And it was after these things that God tested Abraham.” And he said to him … “Take your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac and offer him up as a burnt offering.” It’s interesting that the Midrash to this passage immediately asks “after what things?” And there’s a discussion as to what were the conditions that preceded this particular test. The Midrashic discussion, so different from the straight forward Biblical passage, is truly touching. When the texts says, “Take your son...” Abraham responds, “I have two sons.” And then God says, “ your only son.” And Abraham answers “Yes, but each is the only son of his mother.” Whom you love. “I love both of them.” And then God says, “Isaac.” And when he hears Isaac, Abraham loses his breath. And then the statement “The one you love takes a profound and significant meaning,” (Midrash Rabbah to Gen 22 and all standard Jewish commentaries). Now this gives one a sense of the Midrash. It’s not legally what one should do or shouldn’t do, which is essentially what halacha tries to teach us, but to get at the very heart, the very soul, at the very feeling, the essential meaning of the text. Let me give you another example. There are a number of midrashim having to deal with Moses, of course, because Moses is so all-pervasive, in the books from Exodus to Deuteronomy, and then throughout the Bible. Here again there is extensive discussion. The Midrash asks why is it that when Moses is told that he is to empower Joshua to lead the children of Israel into the promised land, The Midrash asks, shouldn’t Moses not only take them out but bring them in too.” Shouldn’t Moses have brought them in? What was the whole point of the commission at the burning bush, forcing him as the unique one to take the children of Israel out of Egypt? Why at the end the best he can do is look from afar at the Promised Land and not enter it? The Midrash itself asks this question and gives a very moving and religiously significant answer. It’s a long conversation but in summary, Moses says to God, “It’s not right, it’s really not right for me to see this land and not taste it, not have a sense of it, not to be a part of it. It’s not fair.” And God says the following: “You know, I could have you go and you could go into the Promised Land. But then the children of Israel will remain children. You want them to remain dependent children? Do you want to be the one who is always in charge, always making decisions, always giving orders? Don’t you really think that they should grow up?” And when Moses hears that, he’s reconciled. (Midrash Rabbah to Deuteronomy Chapter 11 has a variety of interpretations of Moses’s death, all extremely interesting and touching.) Let me give you another example, this one a story of biblical irony. Balaam, the great seer, is hired curse the Israelites. He is on his donkey, but the donkey sees an angel with a sword blocking the path, so instead of walking straight, he turns to one side and then to the other, and then sits down. And Balaam, not seeing the angel, beats his donkey, exclaiming if he had a sword he would kill him. But then Balaam’s eyes are opened and he sees the angel on the path. So the Midrash asks the following: Why is it that a donkey can see what a supposedly great seer, (who with a word could curse a people but needs a sword to kill a donkey) cannot see? And then, of course, they ask how a donkey could speak? And I would add, “It’s harder for God to change a human being from his evil ways than it is to get a donkey to speak.” So here, an example of irony in the Bible, is expanded in the Midrash. (see Midrash Rabbah to Numbers chapter22 ff) The Midrash is the investigation and the discovery of the essential meanings of Scripture and therefore has numerous levels of significance. Let me try to indicate to you what that means. There are different ways of getting at the numerous levels of meaning. One of them is through the acronym pardes. Pardes in Hebrew means a garden. Each of these letters stand for something. Peh stands for pshat, which means the literal interpretation, Remes means a hint, for someone who knows how to take a hint, Drash is an elaborate explanation, commentary, discussion-- could even be a sermon or a talk or a statement--and then the last letter samach, which is sod--a secret, there’s a secret there. And according to the rabbinic interpretation, according to the Midrash, every single text can be seen on `Diverse make-up of the audience: scholars, theologians, academics, students Rabbi Jack Bemporad – Director, The Center for Interreligious UnderstandingCentro Pro Unione Bulletin CENTRO CONFERENCES 5 N. 96 - Fall 2019 any one of these four letters--either literal, or a hint, or an elaborate explanation, or a secret. The task is to decipher it. A good hint would be the following: My brilliant teacher Prof. Atlas once asked me Where is Moses in the Torah? Where is Moses in the Pentateuch? If I were to ask you, wouldn’t you answer except for the book of Genesis, where is Moses not in the Pentateuch? But then, that’s a hint. Where is Moses not in the Pentateuch? Think about it. Where is Moses in the literary Prophets. He’s not in Amos. He’s not in Hosea. Yes, he is in Michah, but how does Moses appear in Michah? It says Moses, Aaron and Miriam. What about Moses giving the Torah, the revelation. Yes, you have him in Jeremiah, where it says that Moses and Samuel would pray for the city, but all they could do was save themselves. Hello, that’s a hint. You have to begin now to ask yourself, why is that the case? Why is it that the only literary prophet that refers to Moses as basically having any relationship with the Law is Malachi, which is really late. … I’ll give you another hint. You have for example it says in the fifth chapter of Amos, “I hate, I despise your festivals and loathe your solemn assemblies, but let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream!” And then it says, “Did you offer up sacrifices unto me, children of Israel?” And the implication is, of course not. But that’s not true, if you look at Exodus. In Jeremiah, in the seventh chapter in the 21st verse, it specifically says, “I didn’t command you to offer sacrifice.” So what do you do with that? These are contradictions the Midrash has to confront. How do you deal with these? A fundamental principle that is basic to all rabbinic interpretation of what is stated in the Torah, the Bible, is that the text speaks in the language of man--because if it didn’t use the language of human beings, no individual would have any sense as to what it is saying. But this language, each successive generation has to wrestle with it, it has to develop the kind of language that each generation is able to deal with. And if it didn’t develop a language, then it actually wouldn’t be able to interpret it properly. The Rabbis were fully aware of the changes in the generations, in the environment and especially in the different contexts and levels of knowledge. For example the affirmation of God as creator even given the great insight of Second Isaiah in Chapter 40:12-31 proclaiming the transcendence of God was still seen in the context of the cosmology of the ancient world. Imagine what creator would mean in our contemporary context with billions perhaps trillions of heavenly bodies. The problem is, if we talk about a philosophy, which is my topic , the philosophy of the Midrash; when we talk about philosophy we’re talking about system, we’re talking about integration and about how things are connected. It is the search for the true and the real. But everything we’ve talked about so far has not given you any indication that there is any connection. Yes, there are many comments; statements on different subject matters. But what is its unity? I think what brings about this unity is that they deal with the most fundamental issues of both Jewish and human existence. It’s an attempt to deal with the most basic, fundamental problems of human existence. It is the unity of concern of ultimate meaning and not the unity of system. But even then what we find is that the Midrash is often disconcerting since it continually cites differing opinions. And this becomes the problem when it comes to trying to understand the Midrash philosophically. Let me now quote some controversies citing different opinions In Pirke Avot 5:17 it speaks of controversies for the sake of heaven, that is for a divine cause, and controversies not for the sake of heaven. Now, what are controversies for the sake of heaven? The answer is that controversies for the sake of heaven are the controversies between Hillel and Shammai. And what are the controversies not for the sake of heaven? Those are the controversies of Korah and his assembly. Now what makes a controversy for the sake of heaven? It is a controversy that is striving to seek the truth. And what is a controversy not for the sake of heaven? Korah and his assembly because all they want to do is get power and self-glorification. That’s the difference. So there are controversies. But genuine controversies concerns what makes something true? `Students delighted to meet Rabbi Jack Rabbi Jack Bemporad – Director, The Center for Interreligious UnderstandingCentro Pro Unione Bulletin CENTRO CONFERENCES 6 N. 96 - Fall 2019 Let me give you yet another controversy. In tractate Erubim 13b it says that the words of the school of Hillel and the words of the school of Shammai are both words of the living God. But how can they both be the words of the living God when they are constantly contradicting each other? The rabbis themselves are somewhat embarrassed by that. And they don’t quite know what to do. As it turns out, the rabbis favor the words of Hillel according to Jewish teaching, because the Hillelites always offered the words and the position the Shammai first before offering their own. The reality is this - it is very difficult to speak about a philosophy of something that is constantly espousing differences of opinion, not to mention opposing ones - a philosophy that requires that all of these differences be understood. Not surprisingly, even the halacha, the law, gives differing as well as opposing opinions. This is because the Mishnah clearly affirms that we should give minority viewpoints, since there is always the possibility that the majority opinion may change over time. Let me just give you some further examples of the Midrash: When it comes to the issue of imitatio dei, the imitation of God, there are some very original statements about it. It says “ I the Lord your God am Holy.” According to Leon Roth, this means, “I am holy, meaning, if you make yourself holy, I will consider it as if you have declared me holy. But if you do not make yourselves Holy then I shall consider it as if you have failed to declare me holy. There is no question that God’s holiness inheres in God irrespective of whether or not individuals declare God to be holy. Nevertheless there is a sense in which God’s holiness is dependent to the extent to which we try to manifest the holiness of God in our lives.” So here what you have is something very interesting about holiness. A very beautiful Midrash on the concept of holiness in Leviticus 19, is by Leon Roth, a philosopher, “Be holy because I, the LORD your God, am holy.” He says, interestingly, that whenever we are talking about holiness, we are not talking about anything positive but something negative. And here’s how Roth explains that: In Leviticus 19 it says, “When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest [gleanings must be left for the poor]. Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the alien. Do not steal. Do not lie. Do not deceive one another. Do not swear falsely by my name and so profane the name of your God. Do not defraud your neighbor or rob him. Do not hold back the wages of a hired man overnight. Do not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block in front of the blind, but fear your God. Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly. Do not go about spreading slander among your people. Do not do anything that endangers your neighbor’s life. Do not hate your brother in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in his guilt. Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. In other words, what Roth is saying is that every time we try to designate something as being holy, we’re really trying to eliminate things that make us unholy. Well, then what makes something holy? It’s left right there. In other words, you’re going to have to create your own Midrash, and with the Midrash you create, perhaps you can then try to have a sense of what it is that’s holy in one’s own life. 3 3 The entire essay by L eon r oth , entitled “Imitatio Dei and the Idea of Holiness,” in Is there a Jewish Philosophy?(London: Littman Library of Jewish Philosophy, 1999) 15-29. His very important book is worth reading. `From left: Profs. Teresa Francesca, Teodora and Margherita Rossi meet Rabbi Jack after his lecture Rabbi Jack Bemporad – Director, The Center for Interreligious UnderstandingCentro Pro Unione Bulletin CENTRO CONFERENCES 7 N. 96 - Fall 2019 And what you have in the Midrash here is the complete moralization of the idea of power. In Deuteronomy 3:24, “Oh Lord, God, Thou hast begun to show Thy servant Thy greatness and Thy mighty hand.” And the Sifrei says, “ ‘Thy greatness,’ this means thy goodness, as in verse 14, “And now I pray thee let the power of the Lord be great.” ‘Thy hand’ this means the hand which is stretched out in mercy and pardon to all who come into the world. ‘Thy might,’ this refers to the might that Thou showest when Thou dost in mercy repress the attribute of justice, as it is written, “Who is a God like unto Thee, forgiving sin and passing over transgression.” 4 Now the Sifrei, which is a commentary on Numbers and Deuteronomy, says this is the universal meaning of the word rightness when applied to God in the Midrash. It always refers to goodness; it always refers to moral attributes. (ibid)And lo and behold, is it any surprise that when Moses asks God, “Show me Your glory, God says that you cannot see my face and live, but I will show you My attributes;” every single one of those attributes are moral: compassion, graciousness, patience, full of steadfast love and truth. My own understanding of this is that the ethical must have a dimension of the Holy, while nothing can be Holy if it is not ethical. In Jewish thinking they are so intertwined that one is deficient without the other. It is this interconnectedness between the ethical and the Holy that permeates Midrashic texts and gives them a certain coherence. This concern for the ethical is also expressed in Halacha, that is in legal texts which often are so completely intertwined with the moral aspect that it’s impossible to separate the two. And here I’ll quote from a legal text, not a midrashic one. The Mishna, which is primarily a legal code states: “In a capital case these are the ways in which witnesses are given notification as to how they are to testify ‘You are not to speak from guesswork or from gossip or from reliance on a third party, however trustworthy in your eye. You must understand that a case involving the death penalty is not like those involving only money. In money cases a false witness can atone for the damage he has caused by a money payment. In capital cases there rests on his head the blood of the condemned man and the blood of the descendants which have yet to be born to the end of days.’” Now here is the interesting thing: That is strictly a halachic statement. But then, here is how it continues in a Midrashic manner: “It is for this that man was created. It is for this that a single man was created in the world to teach that if anyone has caused a single soul to perish, scripture imputes in him as if he had caused the entire world to perish. And if any man saves the life of a single 4 quoted from L. r oth ,Ibid., 140. soul, scripture imputes in him as though he had saved the lives of the whole world. Again, a single man was created for the sake of peace among mankind that none should say to his fellow, ‘My father was greater than thy father.’ Also, that the heretic [the Gnostics] should not say there are many ruling powers in heaven. Again, a single man was created to proclaim the greatness of the Holy One, blessed be he.” And here’s the final point: “For when a king stamps many coin, they are all alike. But when the King of Kings, blessed be he, creates men, they are all created in the divine image and each one is separate; no one is like anyone else.” (The Mishna, Sanhedrin 4:5) This then is a definite joining of halachic statements with aggadic, or Midrashic statements. So it is very hard to extract the halachic part, which gives guidance to judges as to what they should do, from the Midrashic, or to try to separate the legal from the moral. Similarly, it is a halachic statement that you should love your fellow human being, or neighbor, because he is equal to you. I know that the translations usually are “love your neighbor as yourself,” but that is not an accurate translation of the Hebrew, since “kamocha” means equal to you. 5 Now, loving your neighbor is a halachic statement, that is, a legal statement. But every time you try to analyze it, you end up in Midrash. If I say I should love my fellow human being, and I use the Septuagint translation, “as yourself,” and not the Hebrew one, then I could rationalize: well, I behave like a man, I behave like a person who has dignity. But if there is someone who isn’t like me and doesn’t behave like a man, someone who doesn’t have dignity, why should I treat him as I treat myself? He is not behaving as I behave, so why should I treat him as myself. Thus, there seems to be some limitation to saying ‘love thy neighbor as yourself.’ Again, because I ‘put on airs,’ and giving myself airs, therefore I can say, “I’m better than you.” At the same time, how can you love your neighbor in the way you love yourself? It doesn’t make any sense. So, I can’t say that I love you to the same degree that I love myself, in the sense that I love you in a way that is equal to the love for myself. Love has to have a kind of differentiation, more or less. How then, is this resolved? It is resolved by saying what Akiba said [this is one of the great passages in the whole of rabbinic literature] that the single greatest commandment is that you should love your fellow human being because he is equal to you. Of course, Ben Azzai, expands on and establishes the basis for Akiba’s statement. As it is, he says, it is not enough. You have to say that the greatest commandment is “this is the generation of man in the day that God created man ‘because he created man in the Divine image.’ “ If you 5See the penetrating discussion of this verse on pages 276-278 in e dward U LLendorFF ’s essay, “Thought Categories in the Hebrew Bible” published in r aphaeL L oewe , ed., Rationalism, Judaism, Universalism (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1966). Rabbi Jack Bemporad – Director, The Center for Interreligious UnderstandingCentro Pro Unione Bulletin CENTRO CONFERENCES 8 N. 96 - Fall 2019 don’t have the added sense that human beings are made in the Divine image, and thus have the intrinsic dignity that makes them equal, you can’t say that you should love your neighbor because he is equal to you. It’s not that I happen to love them more or less, or that I consider them to have the same status that I have but it is because they all are part of humanity So, what you have here is a very profound discussion in the aggadah, or Midrash and the halacha on the question of love of neighbor and the foundation for the ideal of humanity. There are two things I’d like to discuss with you now. The first has to do with both the good and evil inclination. I consider the concepts of the yetzer hara and the yetzer tov to be some of the most important doctrines in the Midrash. What is the yetzer hara and what is the yetzer tov? The yetzer hara is the formative power for more, for excess, for ambition. And what is the yetzer tov? The yetzer tov is the innate power for integration, for unity, for connectedness and goodness. Now, the formative power for excess is not something that should simply be discarded as totally destructive because, according to one rabbi, without ambition no one would do anything. The answer is that if one didn’t have the formative power for excess and for achievement, one wouldn’t build a house, marry, rear a child, or engage in business because, after all, it comes from competitiveness. And without that, you don’t have any achievement. But if all you have is competitiveness, you cannot achieve anything, nor would you have any relationships. Hillel puts it in a different way. “If I’m not for myself, who will be for me? But if I am only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when?” Thus, “if I am not for myself, who will be for me?” means, basically, that if I don’t stand up for myself, who will stand up for me? Who is going to do it for me? A mother would try to protect a child, but even a mother, after a while, says, “You’ve got to stand on your own two feet.” But then Hillel says something more profound. He says you have to be for yourself so that you can be depended upon by others. Why do you have to perfect yourself? You have to be able to perfect yourself so you have enough capacity to be able to ‘do.’ So, you have to stand for yourself so you can achieve your full realization. But if that’s all, if I’m only for myself and I exclude others, then what am I? He finally says, “And if not now, when?” When - the element of time. And I consider the element of time to be critical, and so does Hillel, because, in reality, in another statement, he says, “When I have time I will study.” But you may not have time, so study every day. These are all Midrashic statements. And they are wise statements. But second, in the elaboration of evil inclination, the rabbis, I think, become very profound. Rabbi Akiba said of this formatory power for evil, at first it’s like a spider’s thread, and at last it’s like a rope of a ship that enslaves you. Rabbi Isaac said that at first it is a wayfarer, and then a lodger, and at last it becomes the master of the house. Rabbi Ami said of the evil inclination, that it does not walk at the side but in the middle of the street, and when it sees a man who winks with his eyes and dresses his hair elegantly, and lifts up his heel, it says, “This man is mine.” In other words, it’s that element of ourselves that wants to indulge that part of ourselves that is self-centered, that is egotistical, that gives one a false sense of self, that makes us feel good at the expense of someone else. From a Jewish midrashic and halachic point of view, there are few things that are worse than striving to feel good at the expense of somebody else. (These and other statements on the good and evil inclination can be found in Montefiore and Loewe A Rabbinic Anthology 6 , as well in the footnote. 7 I would like to deal with those Midrashic passages that deal with the suffering of human beings in general and the people of Israel in particular, especially the suffering of the pure, the just, and the righteous. Rabbi Alba ben Yudan said, “Whatever God has declared as unfit in the case of an animal, he has declared desirable in the case of a man. In animals he has declared unfit the blind, or broken or maimed, or having a wen, But in man he has declared the broken and the contrite heart to be desirable.” R. Alexandri said, “If an ordinary man makes use of a broken vessel, it is a disgrace for him. But the vessels used by God are precisely broken ones, as it is said, ‘the Lord is nigh unto the broken-hearted.’ “And, “Who healeth the broken in heart. I dwell in the high and holy place with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit.” Further, “The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart O God thou wilt not despise.” And the Midrash deals, perhaps best, with the paradox as to why the righteous suffer while the evil seem to thrive. Rabbi Yochanan says, “A potter does not cast defective vessels because he cannot give them a single blow without breaking them. Similarly, God does not test the wicked but only the righteous. Thus the Lord tries the righteous.” Rabbi Josef ben Hanina says, “ When a flax worker knows that his flax is of good quality, the more he pounds it the more it improves and the more it glistens. But if it is of inferior quality he cannot beat it at all without its splitting.” Rabbi Eleazer says, “When a man possesses two cattle, one strong and the other feeble, upon which does he put the yoke? Surely, upon the strong.” Similarly, the Lord tests the righteous, none but the righteous. Hence, the Lord tries the righteous.” 6 NY: Schocken Books, 1974. 7 The following rabbinic statements until the paragraph starting with “And so Slonimsky…” quoted and adapted from h enry s Lonimsky , Essays. The Philosophy Implicit in the Midrash (NY/ Chicago: Hebrew Union College Press/Cincinnati Quadrangle Books, 1967) 36. Rabbi Jack Bemporad – Director, The Center for Interreligious UnderstandingCentro Pro Unione Bulletin CENTRO CONFERENCES 9 N. 96 - Fall 2019 And so Slonimsky, my great teacher, and one of the supreme masters of the Midrash, summarized all this with these words: “The sentiment gradually established itself that it is the mark of the grandeur of human beings to be asked to bear more than their share of the burden. And by the same token, the supreme degradation of the low and the base is to be thought not worthy of being ennobled to bearing the sins and sorrows of others.” 8 In spite of these explanations, and statements by great rabbis, you can say, “Well, what kind of a world is this? To make things even more paradoxical, the rabbis teach us that it’s not just that human beings suffer, but when human beings suffer, God suffers. It is even said that God is in exile. And the reason He is in exile is because of those who are also in exile. Perhaps the best way of putting it is to ask, “but what about justice?” And the answer the Midrash gives is profound. R. Levi said, “If it is the world thou seekest, there can be no justice. And if it is justice thou seekest, there can be no world. Why does one grasp the rope by both ends seeking both the world and justice? Let one of them go, for if thou dost not relent a little the world cannot endure.” 9 8s Lonimsky Essays, op. cit., 38. 9s Lonimsky Essays, op. cit., 76. From the preceding one can glean that the Midrash is a continuous ethical inquiry and investigation to get to the heart and human quality of Jewish law and practice, using reason as an essential element. This use of reason makes the inquiry philosophical, since philosophy can be described as the self-conscious uses of reason, and religion as the self-conscious uses of faith. How important the ethical and the rational are in Judaism was profoundly expressed by Hermann Cohen in his Religion of Reason: Out of the Sources of Judaism. 10 “A very noteworthy document of this share of religion in knowledge is found in the Talmud, and indeed with an unsurpassed application: ‘In that hour, in which man is led to judgement, it is said to him: did you execute your business (livelihood) in good faith? Did you appoint times for the study of the Torah?...Did you pursue your studies with wisdom (method)? Did you make inferences on the basis of one sentence to another?’ (Sabbath 31a) Rashi gives an explanation of the last question: ‘The inference of one sentence on the basis of another, that is knowledge.’ According to this passage one has to consider how much the Talmud must have esteemed methodical knowledge if it made it into a question that the highest judge puts to a man’s soul. It is not enough that times were appointed for the study of the Torah, so that the study should be pursued regularly; it was also necessary to show that the study had been performed in a methodical way and with logical method. The method, however, consists in the deduction of one sentence from another, which is set down as its foundation.” Rational inquiry and ethical action and continuing questioning, as represented in the Midrash, will lead us to seeking and finding God, holiness, purpose and meaning. But if one persists in this endeavor, one discovers oneself. 10 Translated by Simon Kaplan (NY: Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., 1972) 91. Rabbi Jack Bemporad – Director, The Center for Interreligious Understanding `Gathering of students and Sisters listen attentively to the lectureNext >