Your email is not valid
Recipient's email is not valid
Submit Close

Your email has been sent.

Click here to send another

Judaism’s Central Sacrifice

Yoram Hazony’s new book bases Judaism on a naturalistic reading of the Bible, but it’s a stretch

Print Email
Shepherd, Palestine, c. 1937. (Library of Congress)

As co-founder and now a senior fellow of the Shalem Center, a leading Zionist think tank in Jerusalem, Yoram Hazony has sought a bridge between secular nationalism and Jewish religion. His latest book, The Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture, claims to find it, in a naturalistic reading of the Hebrew Scriptures that allows the sacred texts of the Jewish people to do double duty: They can be read as revelation by the religious, Hazony argues, or by the secular as a guide to personal virtue and national prowess. The question is whether this shidduch between God’s word and natural law is a union of two besherts or a shotgun wedding that leaves both parties miserable.

Hazony seems to think of Mosaic law as an afterthought to natural law—the former “is indeed held to be the key to a just and prosperous life” in the biblical narrative, but that is only because “it is so much in conformity with the natural law that even from the perspective of the shepherd, who examines its strictures from the outside, it can be accepted and obeyed.” Like the late political philosopher Leo Strauss, Hazony draws a bright line between faith and reason. But Hazony abhors Strauss because he is competing for the same side of the street. Faith, he argues, is for the Christians. His book, on the other hand, “is the first direct and sustained argument in favor of approaching the Hebrew Scriptures as works of reason.”

Hazony contends that an ethical philosophy founded in natural law is embedded in the Tanakh’s historical narrative, requiring no recourse to supernatural revelation. This stems from what he calls “shepherd’s ethics”—that is, “the vantage point of an outsider” who “owes nothing and has committed to nothing that cannot be reconsidered in light of one’s own independent judgment as to what is really right.” Inherent in the life the shepherd, he avers, is a virtue that distinguishes nomads from farmers and city-dwellers: Abel from Cain, the Abram of Ur from the nomad Abraham of Canaan, Joseph the shepherd from Joseph the minister of Pharaoh, and so on.

But it seems a stretch to hang the whole of Judaism on shepherd’s ethics. The people of Israel, to be sure, were shepherds before they took possession of the Promised Land, but they were farmers afterward, with three pilgrimage festivals associated with harvests and detailed laws for the use and ownership of land. One could as easily argue that the ascent to the land and the transition from herding to farming elevated the people of Israel. I Kings 4:25, after all, praises Solomon’s reign as a time when each man sat in peace under his own vine and fig tree, not among his own sheep and goats. The circumstances of shepherd life, moreover, do not always elicit good behavior, or we would not need the prohibition of Leviticus 18:23.

***

In April 2012, Hazony dumbfounded the observant Jewish world with an item in Commentary magazine portraying the late Rabbi Joseph Dov Soloveitchik as a naturalist who eschewed such basic tenets of Judaism as personal immortality, a claim that drew swift and sharp rejoinders from Orthodox writers. Rabbi Gil Student argued in the popular Hirhurim blog that Hazony “simply misreads” R. Soloveitchik, which is right: Soloveitchik argued that miracles could be understood within the framework of the “natural” world, but it is a natural world permeated with the divine.

In fact, this misreading of the Rav puts in context the monothematic insistence on naturalism in Hazony’s new volume. In contrast to Soloveitchik, Hazony starts with a long-superseded, deterministic vision of nature and then imposes a reductive, naturalistic reading on the Hebrew Scriptures. His case for pastoral ethics reflects extensive thought and research, to be sure. But his reading will surprise observant Jews, who read daily one segment part of the biblical narrative, the Binding of Isaac, or Akedah, which is often cited as the ultimate reproach to natural law. Kierkegaard observed that no philosophical system of ethics could explain Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son: “The fact is,” he wrote in Fear and Trembling, “the ethical expression for what Abraham did is that he wanted to murder Isaac. … If you simply remove faith as a nix and nought there remains only the raw fact that Abraham was willing to murder Isaac.”

Instead of the Akedah, Hazony’s understanding of Genesis centers on the story of Cain and Abel, which he believes fixes the archetype of farmer and herder. That is not a new idea. Leon Kass, the University of Chicago bioethicist and Pentateuch commentator, argued in 1996 that “Cain’s way of life, like the man himself, is more complex: possessive, artful, potentially harmful, and dangerous, but with the prospect of the higher achievements (and risks) of civilization. Abel’s way, like the man, is simple: open and permissive, harmless, and certainly vulnerable (especially before craft, cunning, and technique) and, besides, incapable of accomplishing much of anything.”

As Hazony sees it:

Cain embodies the virtues associated with the agrarian societies of the ancient Near East; Cain obeys God’s instructions; he perpetuates the order inherited from his father; and he exhibits piety to the Gods who have created this order. His brother Abel, however, resists the fate that God has decreed for him. He ignores God’s decree and becomes a shepherd—a man whose station is elevated in that he lives a life of relative ease, leaving the job of extracting nourishment from the ground to his sheep and goats.

Why, then, is Cain’s sacrifice rejected? Because “God accepts the offering of a man who seeks to improve things, to make them good of himself and his own initiative. That is what God finds in Abel, and the reason he accepts his sacrifice.” There is a difficulty in this reading, though, pointed up in the commentary of Naftali Yehuda Berlin (known by the acronym Netziv), the head of the famed yeshiva at Volozhin during the late 19th century. Sheep and goats could not extract nourishment from the ground for human beings in the context of the Cain and Abel story, because, as the Netziv observed, human beings were still vegetarians at this point in the narrative: Not until Noah did humans consume meat. Farming therefore was the more important occupation. It sustained life, while herding contributed luxury goods. Cain’s work was in fact more important, so he held himself superior to his younger brother (whose Hebrew name “Hevel” literally means “fleeting”).

Cain’s contempt for Abel, not his role as a farmer, displeased God, the Netziv explained. Rabbi Shalom Carmy comments, “The first murderer, as the Netziv resurrects him from the text, is not a one-dimensional figure, wicked from the womb. He is a human being very much like us, possessed of a keen sense of what is fair and what is not, and quick to feel hurt and humiliation when his vision of himself and his position in relation to others is confounded.” Cain’s subsequent city-building, the Netziv adds, fulfills the opportunity that God has given him for redemption. Instead of a formulaic allegory of natural law, the Netziv reconstructs a human tragedy of pride and envy whose protagonist is noble but flawed.

1 2View as single page
Print Email
gwhepner says:

ABEL’S LUXURIOUS
LABEL

Pursuit of a luxurious lifestyle while his brother toiled,

motivated Abel, who loved garments made of wool.

Cain killed his brother, hating him because he was so
spoiled,

and, as his Hebrew name implied, of hevel, meaning nothing, full.

Anticipating later revolutionaries, Cain

was surely proud to be a radical, which was the label

that he deserved to wear on linen clothes, while growing
grain

for both of them till he, fed up, abolished Abel.

gwhepner@yahoo.com

David Sitbon says:

interpretation of the Akeda given by the Midrash and re-cited by Rashi does give way to Haznoy comment.
I have myself noticed that a meticulous observation of the Teamim also gives way to such interpretation. It may be too long to enter in a definition of the Teamim but basically there are two mains categories: mehaberim and mafsikim. ALL the instances of the text of the Akeda where the ram is mentioned together with “ola” the Teamim are mafsikim except the last one where it is actually the sacrifice of the ram which is going to be perpretated by Abraham.
The massoretes who fixed the Teamim seem to want to give us a hint thru the way of traditional chanting of the Thora that there may be a sub reading of what is going on .

This entire Hazony theory is pretty much bogus. Read the scripture and put the true picture together. There was a drought in the land, Abraham had just got done negotiating with the local warlord Avimelech over usage of a water well. And as part of the agreement Abraham had to promise Avimelech to kill off his son so the more productive family members could survive. The Canaanites did this not as a sordid religious practice but as a practical necessity of survival, as in population control. In such societies, the most aggressive and fastest maturing children were more valuable, but Itzchak was the opposite. Like any young Jewish boy he was slow, oblivious and prone to laughing at serious topics like drought and famine. Exactly the type of child Avimelech the warlord would identify as a candidate for sacrifice.

Such societies never develop science or literacy because abstract thought develops late in the maturation process. Itzchak was slow maturing, but had the potential for advanced abstract thought when mature. But since the Canaanites sacrificed all their slow maturing children to Moloch, they were a stagnant society having none of the benefits of abstract thought. In fact, what they were unintentionally practicing was reverse eugenics.

Abraham’s compassion for Itzchak’s slow Jewish growth pattern was a huge breakthrough in the evolution of abstract thought. He was just a better father. And because of his fatherly protection, a society evolved with fully developed powers of abstract thought. Literacy, scientific deduction and morality all came out of Abraham and his abstraction-gifted descendants.

All these observations are not based on religion, but rather known anthropological principles. And it’s all right there in the Bible.

Pam Green says:

If this review is any indication of David Goldman’s knowledge of the ancient Near East, maybe he should stick to music and economics.

Pam Green says:

“….since the Canaanites sacrificed all their slow maturing children to
Moloch, they were a stagnant society having none of the benefits of
abstract thought. In fact, what they were unintentionally practicing was
reverse eugenics….”

Would you care to provide a source for this nonsense of yours?

A beautiful photo.

TeamImm Converted says:

informative

2000

Your comment may be no longer than 2,000 characters, approximately 400 words. HTML tags are not permitted, nor are more than two URLs per comment. We reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments.

Thank You!

Thank you for subscribing to the Tablet Magazine Daily Digest.
Please tell us about you.

Judaism’s Central Sacrifice

Yoram Hazony’s new book bases Judaism on a naturalistic reading of the Bible, but it’s a stretch