Parashat Aharei Mot constitutes a very significant element in the educational program of Leviticus. It is a program intended to establish the moral uniqueness of Israel as a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation” by setting forth the standards of conduct required for walking in God’s ways, and for obeying His commandments in the Promised Land.
The parasha addresses three stages in an educational process intended to form a central pillar of the program: “You shall be holy, for I, the Lord your God, am Holy” (Leviticus 11:44-45, 19:2, 20:7, 20:26). The first stage in the process is that of distinguishing Israel from other nations: “nor shall you follow their laws” (Lev. 18:3). This is the context of prohibitions upon idolatry, bloodshed and incest. The second stage is expressed in the words: “you shall be pure before the Lord” (Lev. 16:30), which treat of sacrificial rites, purity and Yom Kippur. The third stage sets out the positive aspects of Israelite conduct: “You shall keep My laws and My rules, by the pursuit of which man shall live, I am the Lord” (Lev. 18:5). Further on, it is established that observing God’s commandments constitutes an essential condition for Israel to strike roots in its land so that it not be cast out like the earlier inhabitants.
The program for establishing Israel in its land as a holy nation distinct from all others is clear. Of course, this conception of Israel’s distinctiveness led to serious problems in the course of Jewish history. “Nor shall you follow their laws” angered not only many non-Jews, but also Jews, particularly Western Jews in the modern era. M.J. Berdyczewski wrote: “I see in this principle the greatest oppression of Israel and of the spirit of Israel,” because, in his opinion, “any distinction or limitation curses the life of a nation and of a person, it is the greatest curse” (Writings of M.J. Berdyczewski, vol. 2, p. 378).
Two other modern commentators expressed the opposing view. According to Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, taken in context, the meaning of “nor shall you follow their laws” is a command that Israel abandon the idolatrous ways of the Egyptians and the Canaanites whose notorious conduct deviated from the universally held norms of natural justice that are evident to human intelligence. Moreover, relying upon the Sages, Hirsch emphasized that as far as observing God’s commandments is concerned, any person who kept God’s laws and rules, including the good and righteous among the nations, would live by them just like Israel. According to Hirsch, these laws and rules were “not intended to confer extraordinary qualities over and above those of mankind, but rather to return us to that level of humanity that is the original purpose of man created in God’s image. It began with Jewish society, and it is potentially for all of humanity. This is the purpose of God’s guidance in history” (S.R. Hirsch, Commentary to Leviticus 18:3, 4-5). In other words, Israel is chosen in the name of humanity and for the good of humanity.
A.D. Gordon also addressed this issue. In his speech “Human Nation” (1920), in the midst of the process of the renewal of Jewish life in Israel, Gordon argued that the Jewish nation must play a pioneering role in regard to other nations, bringing the message that “a nation must be created in God’s image. And not because we are better than others, but rather because we have borne and suffered all that demands it upon our shoulders.” In other words, it is not because of any substantive difference among nations, but rather due to a different history. Because of Israel’s history of suffering, it now falls to it to lead the way to realizing the ideal of the “Human Nation,” and to create a society that, by the daily expression of justice in its own country and in its relations with its neighbors, will show that it is possible to improve the human condition (Writings of A.D. Gordon, vol. I, p. 260). Here, too, the nation is established in its national home in the name of and for the good of humanity
In the midst of our moral crisis as individuals and as a nation, and the moral crisis of all of humanity, reading parashat Aharei Mot in the light of the approaches of these two authors raises several questions: Can we still understand Israel’s national uniqueness in such terms, and can we attempt to rectify our lives accordingly – first and foremost amongst ourselves – by walking responsibly in God’s path of truth, righteousness and law? Should we succeed, might we perhaps be able – when the time comes – to try to realize the challenge of our “pioneering” responsibility amongst the nations of the world? Would it not be worthwhile at least to try to walk that path as individuals and as a nation? And finally, in the words of our Sages, “If not now, when?”
You shall keep My laws and My rules, by the pursuit of which man shall live: I am the Lord. (Leviticus 18:5)
When The Holy One told Moses to build the Tabernacle, he said “You shall make”; whereas regarding the ark it says “They shall make.” He commanded that they all be brought, so that no one in Israel would be able to claim that he has no share in the Torah. The Torah was given in the desert, because just as the desert is free to all, so the words of the Torah are free to any who desire them, and so that no one may say I am a disciple of the Torah because it was given to me and to my ancestors, but you and your ancestors are not disciples of the Torah but rather converts. Thus it is written: “Moses charged us with the Torah, as the heritage of the assembly of Jacob” (Deuteronomy 33:4), it is for all who assemble with Jacob, and even if those studying the Torah are converts, they are the equals of the High Priest, for it says: “by doing which a man shall live” (Leviticus 18:5). It does not say Priest, Levite or Israelite, but rather “a man” (Bahya Ibn Paquda, Commentary on Exodus 37:1).
As opposed to this open, inclusive approach, we find a more exclusive one enunciated by Judah Halevi:
If the convert becomes stronger, and assumes this path, he ensures that he and his progeny will be very close to the Lord. But even after he has assumed all that [the mitzvoth], the convert will not be equal to a born Israelite, because only a born Israelite is fit for prophecy, whereas the most that these converts can achieve by receiving the Torah from Israelites is to become pious and learned, but not prophets. (Judah Halevi, The Kuzari, vol. I, 115)
Professor Abraham Joshua Heschel expressed the opposite view, writing:
Holiness is not the monopoly of any particular religion or tradition. Wherever a deed is done in accord with the will of God, where a thought of man is directed toward Him, there is the holy. This is because although God wills that his voice be heard in different ways, this is because He assigns different roles to different nations. (Abraham Joshua Heschel, “No Religion is an Island,” Moral Grandeur and Spiritual Audacity, pp. 244, 247).
1. If Bahya, Judah Halevi and Heschel were to hold a discussion on these issues, what would they say to one another?
2. Would a dialogue among the three be possible?
3. Does the midrash that Bahya presents take the same view as Heschel?
4. If you were the moderator of the discussion, what would you focus upon? Would there be any point to such a discussion? Would it be necessary to invite all three participants?
5. Should Judah Halevi’s position be presented?
6. Why should such a position be suppressed, bearing in mind that we view ourselves to be “holy” because God “chose” us?
7. Does Israel’s “chosenness” mean that there is some substantive difference between Jews and Gentiles?
8. Might denying the view that Israel holds a “monopoly” upon holiness undermine the obligation to remain part of the Jewish people? According to Heschel, it would seem that God is interested in there being a variety of approaches. Yet Heschel is of the opinion that God desires the Jewish people to remain loyal to its special mission. Therefore, God gave different roles to different peoples. What do you think about that approach?
9. Which of the three approaches is most “popular” today? Of course, this is a somewhat simplistic way of asking the question. Would you phrase it differently, or do you think that there is no point in asking it at all?
10. Are we not obliged to clarify such questions?
11. Do our answers to such questions bear practical ramifications? Why? What are they?
