Post by Rabbi Neil on Mar 6, 2019 16:52:14 GMT
In Tractate Eruvin (13b) of Talmud, we learn that the schools of Hillel and Shammai disagreed for three years. When discussing matters of halakhah, law, one school said “The halakhah is in accordance with our opinion” and the other said “The halakhah is in accordance with our opinion.” A heavenly Voice comes forth and proclaims “eilu v’eilu divrei Elohim chayyim – both these and these are the words of the living God.” And it adds, “But the halakhah is in accordance with the school of Hillel.”
This is quite an extraordinary answer. Two totally differing opinions are both seen as words of the living God. This extraordinary pluralistic statement shows that there’s no one right way to view things, that differing perspectives – even radically differing perspectives – can be authentic expressions of Judaism.
This is why it’s surprising to find further down the same page of Talmud another discussion between the houses of Hillel and Shammai. Bear in mind that these schools disagreed for three years, and that in this excerpt, we learn that for most of that time they were disagreeing about one really important question. It says, “For two and a half years, the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel disagreed. One said “It would have been better for humanity not to have been created than to have been created.” The other said, “It is better that humanity was created rather than have not been created.” Ultimately, they concluded that it would have been better had humanity not been created, but since it has been created, we should examine our actions.”
For two and a half years out of a three-year disagreement, they fixate on this one question. Where Hillel wins out in matters of law, Shammai essentially wins out in matters of philosophy, albeit with a concessionary clause added to their opinion. And what they agree is quite extraordinary. It would have been better had we never existed! The “we” here isn’t all of creation, it’s humanity, as made evident in the last clause suggesting that since we have been created, we should at least reflect on our behavior. The two greatest schools of ancient Jewish thought concluded that it would have been better had humanity never existed. This is in direct contrast to the usual reading of the opening lines of Genesis, in which God notes that everything that is created is good, but when humanity is created, when the world order is finished, God says that it is not just good, but very good. Traditional commentaries explain that only once the human race is on the earth is the whole of creation very good. And yet, Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai conclude that it would, in fact, have been better had we never been created.
I started thinking about this as I was reading an extraordinary news article this week. A 27-year old Indian lawyer, Raphael Samuel, is suing his parents for giving birth to him without his consent. He says that it’s morally wrong to bring children into the world because they have to endure a lifetime of suffering. His lawyer parents, by the way, are rather amused by the case – his mother has said that if he could explain how she might have asked for his consent prior to birth then she would happily accept blame! That’s a smart mother.
Samuel’s position is apparently called anti-natalism, which is a philosophy that says that life is so miserable that humans should stop procreating immediately. The end of human procreation would eventually lead to an end of human suffering, and moreover an increase in the quality of life for the rest of the species on earth. The first of these two points is rather challenging. Although it’s different, it’s not a leap from saying that “human beings should not exist so that there would not be human suffering” to saying that “all humans should be killed so that there would be no more human suffering.” Of course, that’s not what he’s saying – he wants to decrease human suffering, not add to it. Nonetheless, it’s easy to see how an anti-natalist position could be taken up by the most disturbed individuals in society. When your philosophical position could easily be used to justify mass murder, it doesn’t bode well!
There are, of course, innumerable acts of human kindness throughout the world at every moment. But are they enough to balance out the suffering either caused by humans or to humans? It seems that to Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai, the answer is no. But shouldn’t we all view life as a precious gift? It depends – a gift to whom? We live in a globalized world now – our food is usually sprayed with pesticides that cause suffering to farmers, usually comes from monoculture crops that wipe out biodiversity on a massive scale and is usually transported in massively polluting ships from half way across the world,. And that’s just food that’s grown! Food that is killed obviously brings suffering to the animal – it brings death, and that’s to say nothing of the suffering that factory-farmed animals experience before death. And that’s just food. That’s not including our clothes, which are often produced in slave labor conditions. Our electronics, almost certainly so, usually using rare metals that are also mined under slave labor conditions and that are mined in ecologically fragile areas without any concern for biodiversity. Our methods of transportation invariably pollute, our very existence creates enormous amounts of waste that likes of which no other species has come close to creating. More than that, our economic system is set up to bring rewards and joy to some, but only as a result of enormous suffering for most of the rest of humanity. We not only bring extraordinary suffering to other human beings, but also to the rest of the world. We have become a geological force for the first time in history. According to most biologists, we are the cause of a current mass extinction event, radically and irrevocably altering biodiversity so that it will forever be impoverished because of our presence.
So, I could easily understand why someone looking at today’s society might say that it would have been better for the planet had we never existed. Despite the kind deeds we might do to each other, I think it would be very hard to defend the position that homo sapiens has had a net positive effect on planet Earth. But Hillel and Shammai didn’t know all this. In their day, humanity was not an ecological phenomenon in any meaningful way. Of course, they witnessed much human suffering, but not to the global extent that we see today. So, would they agree with Raphael Samuel? I would say certainly not. They at no point say that humanity should voluntarily become extinct. Indeed, for them they saw the mitzvah p’ru ur’vu u’milu et ha’aretz – go forth and multiply and fill the Earth (Gen. 1:28) – as a specific Divine command. The idea of human extinction would have been abhorrent to them. They saw humanity is the sine qua non of Earth existing. What they suggest is that even though on balance it may not be good that we exist, we should pay attention to what we do and at the least try to make humanity as good as possible.
But, is this because they had no idea what extinction was? The Sefer HaChinuch (a 13th century text which therefore came over a thousand years after Hillel and Shammai) clearly says that “the continual existence of the species in the world – of which not one has become extinct and lost, from lice eggs to buffalo horns, since the day they were created – it is all by God’s word and desire concerning this.” Ancient, and indeed medieval Judaism, had no concept of evolution or of extinction. Ancient Jews thought that everything that was always was, and always would be. Had Hillel and Shammai known of extinction, would they have thought that because it would have been better that we had not been created, that we should instead work towards extinction? I would say definitely not, because to them everything had a purpose. As we learn elsewhere in Talmud, “Of all that the Holy Blessed One created in the world, not one thing did God create in vain.” That would mean that there is a reason for humanity to exist. We are part of the plan. Had they known of extinction, might they have thought we were part of the early plan but didn’t need to continue to be part of the plan later? I strongly doubt it, and this is why.
To Hillel and Shammai, the whole world is very good, and it also would have been better that we were never created. But we had to be created. Why? Because God exists in relationship. God needs us as much as we need God. God calls to us constantly – ayekka¬ – where are you? (Gen 3:9). God is not separate from the world, God exists in relationship to the world. So, as dreadful as human beings may be, we are an essential part of creation. Could it be the position of Hillel and Shammai that God needs us dreadful human beings in order to reveal the Divine plan? As dreadful as we are, could it be that God had to create us, which means that it was very good that we were created, even though on balance we have not had a positive effect on the world? As tidy as that might be, I don’t think that works. If the purpose of creation is Divine revelation, that would make revelation the supreme good. That, in turn, would cancel out any negative effects of suffering. As dreadful as we may be, then, the goodness of revelation would outweigh the evil of human existence and Hillel and Shammai would see that and not say that it would be better had we never been created.
Perhaps, then, this isn’t about the amount of human suffering, but the purpose of it. Did they perhaps see suffering as something beyond our comprehension? If they held that perspective, maybe they saw the suffering as Job learns about it in the Bible – that suffering is beyond our comprehension, and therefore impossible to weigh as good or bad. Or maybe they thought that suffering was a good thing – that while it felt terrible in the moment, it ultimately served a good purpose? As Jewish perspectives on the afterlife developed from Hellenism, the Rabbis certainly did give a positive moral value to suffering. They suggested that suffering on Earth was essentially the necessary soul-cleansing that we had to endure so that we had an afterlife free from suffering. Conversely, those who didn’t suffer on earth – oppressors, the miserly, and so on – didn’t suffer now because they were going to suffer in the world to come. That position certainly explains away suffering in the face of a supposedly moral God – it certainly answers the question posed by Abraham to God – “Shall not the Judge of the Earth act justly?” (Gen. 18:25). But this position risks being particularly callous toward suffering. It’s like the abuser hitting someone saying, “This is for your own good,” and that’s not a position most modern thinkers like to hold on. It could be Hillel and Shammai’s position, but that would be profoundly uncomfortable.
Maybe they’re taking the perspective of the Book of Ecclesiastes, which says that there is an evil under the sun, and one event that happens to us all. Ecclesiastes believes that the hearts of human beings are evil, and madness is in our hearts while we live, and after that we die. However, it then says that there is hope, because it is better to be a live dog than a dead lion! (Ecc. 9:3-4) Certainly, Ecclesiastes doesn’t approve of human extinction, voluntary or otherwise, then. Human life, for Ecclesiastes, means evil, but it also correspondingly means hope. For Ecclesiastes, hope cannot exist without evil. The conclusion that Hillel and Shammai come to is ultimately extremely hopeful – that human beings may not be good in our hearts, and that sin may crouch at the door (Gen. 4:7), so that is why we should examine our deeds and do the best that we can. What is very good is not humanity, but the fact that we can make the best of ourselves, that we can improve. What is good is that we can choose to be good, to transcend any negative inclination we may have. In this line of thinking, then, when God creates humanity, it is very good not because God is blind to suffering, but because we can choose to minimize suffering. What is good in God’s eyes in Genesis is not that creation is topped off with human beings, but that it is topped off with beings who have free will. What separates us from any other species according to classical Judaism is our ability to make moral decisions. Contemporary biologists may disagree with that, but that’s where Hillel and Shammai are coming from. We are not good, but we could be better.
I don’t think that Hillel and Shammai were thinking about salvation. I don’t think they were blind to suffering or thought that all suffering was a good things. I believe that they saw suffering as being essential to human existence. I believe that they acknowledged that we human beings are naturally inclined to cause more suffering than good and that because of that it would have been better for us not to have existed. At the same time, though, they acknowledge that we can cause less suffering. We can choose to be sensitive to the suffering we cause and try to minimize it. That choice is the good that we can glean from the necessary bad.
In this sermon, I have only scratched the surface of a discussion that apparently took two and a half years to originally conclude. For every text that I have quoted, there are surely many counter-quotations from the Bible or from Rabbinic literature. I hope that the words in this brief introduction to the topic might at least also be divrei Elohim chayyim – words of the living God.
I understand where Raphael Samuel’s response to the enormity of human suffering comes from, but I do not believe it would be a Jewish response. Instead of saying, “We’re terrible and we always suffer, so we should just end it all,” I believe that one authentic Jewish response would be, “We’re inclined to suffer and to cause others to suffer, so since we’re here, we should work extra hard to reduce the amount of suffering in the world.”
Let us, then, not give in to despair at the enormity of global suffering. Let it inspire us, humble us and motivate us to be better. Let us accept the suffering that is inevitable in human existence, and let us recognize which suffering is not inevitable, and how we can help alleviate it. Let us not be callous to the suffering of others. Let us honestly reflect on our actions, and work to bring as much joy to creation as possible. And let us say, Amen.
This is quite an extraordinary answer. Two totally differing opinions are both seen as words of the living God. This extraordinary pluralistic statement shows that there’s no one right way to view things, that differing perspectives – even radically differing perspectives – can be authentic expressions of Judaism.
This is why it’s surprising to find further down the same page of Talmud another discussion between the houses of Hillel and Shammai. Bear in mind that these schools disagreed for three years, and that in this excerpt, we learn that for most of that time they were disagreeing about one really important question. It says, “For two and a half years, the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel disagreed. One said “It would have been better for humanity not to have been created than to have been created.” The other said, “It is better that humanity was created rather than have not been created.” Ultimately, they concluded that it would have been better had humanity not been created, but since it has been created, we should examine our actions.”
For two and a half years out of a three-year disagreement, they fixate on this one question. Where Hillel wins out in matters of law, Shammai essentially wins out in matters of philosophy, albeit with a concessionary clause added to their opinion. And what they agree is quite extraordinary. It would have been better had we never existed! The “we” here isn’t all of creation, it’s humanity, as made evident in the last clause suggesting that since we have been created, we should at least reflect on our behavior. The two greatest schools of ancient Jewish thought concluded that it would have been better had humanity never existed. This is in direct contrast to the usual reading of the opening lines of Genesis, in which God notes that everything that is created is good, but when humanity is created, when the world order is finished, God says that it is not just good, but very good. Traditional commentaries explain that only once the human race is on the earth is the whole of creation very good. And yet, Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai conclude that it would, in fact, have been better had we never been created.
I started thinking about this as I was reading an extraordinary news article this week. A 27-year old Indian lawyer, Raphael Samuel, is suing his parents for giving birth to him without his consent. He says that it’s morally wrong to bring children into the world because they have to endure a lifetime of suffering. His lawyer parents, by the way, are rather amused by the case – his mother has said that if he could explain how she might have asked for his consent prior to birth then she would happily accept blame! That’s a smart mother.
Samuel’s position is apparently called anti-natalism, which is a philosophy that says that life is so miserable that humans should stop procreating immediately. The end of human procreation would eventually lead to an end of human suffering, and moreover an increase in the quality of life for the rest of the species on earth. The first of these two points is rather challenging. Although it’s different, it’s not a leap from saying that “human beings should not exist so that there would not be human suffering” to saying that “all humans should be killed so that there would be no more human suffering.” Of course, that’s not what he’s saying – he wants to decrease human suffering, not add to it. Nonetheless, it’s easy to see how an anti-natalist position could be taken up by the most disturbed individuals in society. When your philosophical position could easily be used to justify mass murder, it doesn’t bode well!
There are, of course, innumerable acts of human kindness throughout the world at every moment. But are they enough to balance out the suffering either caused by humans or to humans? It seems that to Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai, the answer is no. But shouldn’t we all view life as a precious gift? It depends – a gift to whom? We live in a globalized world now – our food is usually sprayed with pesticides that cause suffering to farmers, usually comes from monoculture crops that wipe out biodiversity on a massive scale and is usually transported in massively polluting ships from half way across the world,. And that’s just food that’s grown! Food that is killed obviously brings suffering to the animal – it brings death, and that’s to say nothing of the suffering that factory-farmed animals experience before death. And that’s just food. That’s not including our clothes, which are often produced in slave labor conditions. Our electronics, almost certainly so, usually using rare metals that are also mined under slave labor conditions and that are mined in ecologically fragile areas without any concern for biodiversity. Our methods of transportation invariably pollute, our very existence creates enormous amounts of waste that likes of which no other species has come close to creating. More than that, our economic system is set up to bring rewards and joy to some, but only as a result of enormous suffering for most of the rest of humanity. We not only bring extraordinary suffering to other human beings, but also to the rest of the world. We have become a geological force for the first time in history. According to most biologists, we are the cause of a current mass extinction event, radically and irrevocably altering biodiversity so that it will forever be impoverished because of our presence.
So, I could easily understand why someone looking at today’s society might say that it would have been better for the planet had we never existed. Despite the kind deeds we might do to each other, I think it would be very hard to defend the position that homo sapiens has had a net positive effect on planet Earth. But Hillel and Shammai didn’t know all this. In their day, humanity was not an ecological phenomenon in any meaningful way. Of course, they witnessed much human suffering, but not to the global extent that we see today. So, would they agree with Raphael Samuel? I would say certainly not. They at no point say that humanity should voluntarily become extinct. Indeed, for them they saw the mitzvah p’ru ur’vu u’milu et ha’aretz – go forth and multiply and fill the Earth (Gen. 1:28) – as a specific Divine command. The idea of human extinction would have been abhorrent to them. They saw humanity is the sine qua non of Earth existing. What they suggest is that even though on balance it may not be good that we exist, we should pay attention to what we do and at the least try to make humanity as good as possible.
But, is this because they had no idea what extinction was? The Sefer HaChinuch (a 13th century text which therefore came over a thousand years after Hillel and Shammai) clearly says that “the continual existence of the species in the world – of which not one has become extinct and lost, from lice eggs to buffalo horns, since the day they were created – it is all by God’s word and desire concerning this.” Ancient, and indeed medieval Judaism, had no concept of evolution or of extinction. Ancient Jews thought that everything that was always was, and always would be. Had Hillel and Shammai known of extinction, would they have thought that because it would have been better that we had not been created, that we should instead work towards extinction? I would say definitely not, because to them everything had a purpose. As we learn elsewhere in Talmud, “Of all that the Holy Blessed One created in the world, not one thing did God create in vain.” That would mean that there is a reason for humanity to exist. We are part of the plan. Had they known of extinction, might they have thought we were part of the early plan but didn’t need to continue to be part of the plan later? I strongly doubt it, and this is why.
To Hillel and Shammai, the whole world is very good, and it also would have been better that we were never created. But we had to be created. Why? Because God exists in relationship. God needs us as much as we need God. God calls to us constantly – ayekka¬ – where are you? (Gen 3:9). God is not separate from the world, God exists in relationship to the world. So, as dreadful as human beings may be, we are an essential part of creation. Could it be the position of Hillel and Shammai that God needs us dreadful human beings in order to reveal the Divine plan? As dreadful as we are, could it be that God had to create us, which means that it was very good that we were created, even though on balance we have not had a positive effect on the world? As tidy as that might be, I don’t think that works. If the purpose of creation is Divine revelation, that would make revelation the supreme good. That, in turn, would cancel out any negative effects of suffering. As dreadful as we may be, then, the goodness of revelation would outweigh the evil of human existence and Hillel and Shammai would see that and not say that it would be better had we never been created.
Perhaps, then, this isn’t about the amount of human suffering, but the purpose of it. Did they perhaps see suffering as something beyond our comprehension? If they held that perspective, maybe they saw the suffering as Job learns about it in the Bible – that suffering is beyond our comprehension, and therefore impossible to weigh as good or bad. Or maybe they thought that suffering was a good thing – that while it felt terrible in the moment, it ultimately served a good purpose? As Jewish perspectives on the afterlife developed from Hellenism, the Rabbis certainly did give a positive moral value to suffering. They suggested that suffering on Earth was essentially the necessary soul-cleansing that we had to endure so that we had an afterlife free from suffering. Conversely, those who didn’t suffer on earth – oppressors, the miserly, and so on – didn’t suffer now because they were going to suffer in the world to come. That position certainly explains away suffering in the face of a supposedly moral God – it certainly answers the question posed by Abraham to God – “Shall not the Judge of the Earth act justly?” (Gen. 18:25). But this position risks being particularly callous toward suffering. It’s like the abuser hitting someone saying, “This is for your own good,” and that’s not a position most modern thinkers like to hold on. It could be Hillel and Shammai’s position, but that would be profoundly uncomfortable.
Maybe they’re taking the perspective of the Book of Ecclesiastes, which says that there is an evil under the sun, and one event that happens to us all. Ecclesiastes believes that the hearts of human beings are evil, and madness is in our hearts while we live, and after that we die. However, it then says that there is hope, because it is better to be a live dog than a dead lion! (Ecc. 9:3-4) Certainly, Ecclesiastes doesn’t approve of human extinction, voluntary or otherwise, then. Human life, for Ecclesiastes, means evil, but it also correspondingly means hope. For Ecclesiastes, hope cannot exist without evil. The conclusion that Hillel and Shammai come to is ultimately extremely hopeful – that human beings may not be good in our hearts, and that sin may crouch at the door (Gen. 4:7), so that is why we should examine our deeds and do the best that we can. What is very good is not humanity, but the fact that we can make the best of ourselves, that we can improve. What is good is that we can choose to be good, to transcend any negative inclination we may have. In this line of thinking, then, when God creates humanity, it is very good not because God is blind to suffering, but because we can choose to minimize suffering. What is good in God’s eyes in Genesis is not that creation is topped off with human beings, but that it is topped off with beings who have free will. What separates us from any other species according to classical Judaism is our ability to make moral decisions. Contemporary biologists may disagree with that, but that’s where Hillel and Shammai are coming from. We are not good, but we could be better.
I don’t think that Hillel and Shammai were thinking about salvation. I don’t think they were blind to suffering or thought that all suffering was a good things. I believe that they saw suffering as being essential to human existence. I believe that they acknowledged that we human beings are naturally inclined to cause more suffering than good and that because of that it would have been better for us not to have existed. At the same time, though, they acknowledge that we can cause less suffering. We can choose to be sensitive to the suffering we cause and try to minimize it. That choice is the good that we can glean from the necessary bad.
In this sermon, I have only scratched the surface of a discussion that apparently took two and a half years to originally conclude. For every text that I have quoted, there are surely many counter-quotations from the Bible or from Rabbinic literature. I hope that the words in this brief introduction to the topic might at least also be divrei Elohim chayyim – words of the living God.
I understand where Raphael Samuel’s response to the enormity of human suffering comes from, but I do not believe it would be a Jewish response. Instead of saying, “We’re terrible and we always suffer, so we should just end it all,” I believe that one authentic Jewish response would be, “We’re inclined to suffer and to cause others to suffer, so since we’re here, we should work extra hard to reduce the amount of suffering in the world.”
Let us, then, not give in to despair at the enormity of global suffering. Let it inspire us, humble us and motivate us to be better. Let us accept the suffering that is inevitable in human existence, and let us recognize which suffering is not inevitable, and how we can help alleviate it. Let us not be callous to the suffering of others. Let us honestly reflect on our actions, and work to bring as much joy to creation as possible. And let us say, Amen.