私たちは皆、「2人のユダヤ人、3つの意見」という表現を聞いたり、使ったりしています。そして、私たちはそれを冗談めかして、さらには嘲笑的に採用していますが、私たちのほとんどは、それが真実の核を含んでいると信じています。さて、2人のユダヤ人が3つの意見を持っているなら、その2人のユダヤ人のうちの1人は2つの意見を持っています。1人が2つの意見を同時に持つことができますか？どうやら彼はできるし、もし彼がユダヤ人なら、彼はよくそうする！
それは今週の 部分、パラシャット・トルドット、レベッカは息子のヤコブに兄になりすまして、それによって父イサクがもう一人の息子エサウに意図していた祝福を自分のために取るように促します。そして実際、エサウに扮したヤコブは、母親の指示に従い、父親をだまして兄弟に指定された祝福を彼に授けました。レベッカの明確な動機は、アイザックが生まれたばかりのユダヤ人のリーダーシップを、その仕事に最も適さない男の手に移そうとしているという確固たる信念です。彼女は、アブラハムが神によって任され、イサクに受け継がれた神聖な使命が、エサウの指導の下で倒錯し、破産すると信じています。そして、彼女はさらに、そのような災難を防ぐための唯一の手段は、息子のジェイコブの策略と二枚舌を促進することだと確信しています。
それは、彼女が目的が手段を正当化すると信じていることを意味します。ほとんどのコメンテーターはレベッカとジェイコブを賞賛するだけです。他の人は2人がしたことを批判しますが、そうかもしれませんが、ユダヤ人の伝統の中で彼らの行動方針の前提について幅広い支持があります。この場合、それは正しいかもしれないし、そうでないかもしれないが、原則として、正しいことを達成するために間違ったことをするかもしれないし、しなければならない例があります。
これは全く明白ではありません。エマニュエル・カントは、あなたが無実の逃亡者を隠していて、彼の血に飢えた追跡者がナイフを振り回してドアをノックし、その男があなたの家に避難したかどうかを知るように要求した場合、あなたは真実を話す義務があると宣言した。そして多くの人は、戦争や自己防衛であっても、他の人間を殺すことは絶対に不道徳だと考えています。
One Jew, Two Opinions
Did Rebecca have to do wrong in order to do right?
Commentary on Parashat Toldot, Genesis 25:19-28:9
We have all heard – and used – the expression "two Jews, three opinions." And although we employ it jokingly, even mockingly, most of us believe that it contains a kernel of truth. Now if two Jews have three opinions, then one of those two Jews has two opinions. Can one person hold two opinions concurrently? Apparently he can, and if he is a Jew, he often does!
It is in this week's portion, Parashat Toldot, that Rebecca urges her son Jacob to impersonate his brother and thereby take for himself the blessing that father Isaac had intended for Esau his other son. And indeed, Jacob, dressed as Esau, does as his mother directed and dupes his father into bestowing upon him the blessing designated for his sibling. What clearly motivates Rebecca is a steadfast conviction that Isaac is about to transfer the leadership of the nascent Jewish people into the hands of a man who is supremely unfit for the task. She believes that the sacred mission that Abraham was tasked with by God and was then handed down to Isaac, will be perverted and bankrupted under the leadership of Esau. And she is furthermore certain that the only means at her disposal to prevent such a calamity is to facilitate trickery and duplicity on the part of her son Jacob.
That means that she is of the belief that the ends justify the means. Most commentators have nothing but praise for Rebecca and Jacob, others criticize what the two of them did, but be that as it may, there is broad support within the Jewish tradition for the premise of their course of action. Although it may or may not have been right in this case, there are in principle instances – many of them – in which one may and must do wrong in order to achieve right.
This is not obvious at all. Emmanuel Kant famously declared that if you are hiding an innocent fugitive and his bloodthirsty pursuers knock at the door with knives brandished and demand to know if the man has taken refuge in your home, you are obligated to tell the truth. And many believe it categorically immoral to kill another human being – even in war or self defense.
Open more doors to Jewish discovery. Your year-end gift powers endless opportunities for millions of people looking for Jewish connection.
Judaism never even came close to such a way of thinking. The halachic (Jewish legal) system has always recognized almost all values to be relative. Rather than absolutes, we have a panoply of sometimes conflicting and mutually exclusive values that have to be balanced and weighed. The relationships between them are complex and multifaceted. Some of them can be arranged hierarchically, whereas others do not submit to easy and straightforward ordering.
Jewish morality is therefore situational and cannot be reduced to a simple code or diagram of yes and no. What is right in one case may be wrong in another. That is one of the reasons why the Shulchan Aruch (code of Jewish law) is only formally the last word in Jewish law. Practically speaking, it is the foundation for glosses and commentaries and objections and further elaborations. And much of what we call interpersonal ethics, mitzot bein adam lchavero, is omitted from the Shulchan Aruch, not because it is not a central part of Judaism but rather because it cannot be reduced to an abstract list of does and don't. In many instances it is better transmitted as aggadah – stories that convey values. And this is the reason why in so many cases, one must personally ask an expert in Jewish law in order to ascertain what the halacha (Jewish law) would be in a given situation. And this is also why different halachic authorities may proffer different answers. There is often more than one way to weigh the conflicting considerations, such that although halacha is binding, it is not always clear-cut.
The deeper and broader one's appreciation of the dialectic of Jewish law, the more options one can see as vying for legitimacy. And that is why one Jew may and actually ought to, hold two opinions, or even three or four.
Sign Up for Our Newsletter
Get Jewish wisdom & discovery in your inbox
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿