Creativity v. Obedience: Competing Values in Jewish Thought
Shira Hecht-Koller
Limmud NY 2017
- Amy Chua, The Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother v. Marjorie Ingall, Mamaleh Knows Best
- Tension within the individual: R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, The Lonely Man of Faith (New York: Doubleday, 1965), 23:
“Adam the first is aggressive, bold, and victory-minded…He engaged in creative work, trying to imitate his Maker. The most characteristic representative of Adam the first is the mathematical scientist, who whisks us away from the array of tangible things, from color and sound, from heat, touch and smell which are the only phenomena accessible to our senses, into a formal relational world of thought constructs, the product of his “arbitrary postulating” and spontaneous positing and deducing…
…Adam the second does not apply the functional method invented by Adam the first. He does not create a world of his own. Instead, he wants to understand the living, “given” world into which he has been cast. Therefore, he does not mathematize phenomena or conceptualize things. He encounters the universe in all its colorfulness, splendor, and grandeur, and studies it with the naivete, awe and admiration of the child who seeks the unusual and wonderful in every ordinary thing and event. While Adam the first is dynamic and creative, transforming sense data into thought constructs, Adam the second is receptive and beholds the world in its original dimensions. He looks for the image of God not in the mathematical formula or the natural relational law, but in every beam of light, in every bud and blossom, in the morning breeze and the stillness of a starlit evening.”
- Qayin and Hevel , Shepherd v. Farmer:
בראשית פרק ד
א וְהָאָדָם, יָדַע אֶת-חַוָּה אִשְׁתּוֹ; וַתַּהַר, וַתֵּלֶד אֶת-קַיִן, וַתֹּאמֶר, קָנִיתִי אִישׁ אֶת-יְהוָה. ב וַתֹּסֶף לָלֶדֶת, אֶת-אָחִיו אֶת-הָבֶל; וַיְהִי-הֶבֶל, רֹעֵה צֹאן, וְקַיִן, הָיָה עֹבֵד אֲדָמָה. ג וַיְהִי, מִקֵּץ יָמִים; וַיָּבֵא קַיִן מִפְּרִי הָאֲדָמָה, מִנְחָה--לַיהוָה. ד וְהֶבֶל הֵבִיא גַם-הוּא מִבְּכֹרוֹת צֹאנוֹ, וּמֵחֶלְבֵהֶן; וַיִּשַׁע יְהוָה, אֶל-הֶבֶל וְאֶל-מִנְחָתוֹ. ה וְאֶל-קַיִן וְאֶל-מִנְחָתוֹ, לֹא שָׁעָה; וַיִּחַר לְקַיִן מְאֹד, וַיִּפְּלוּ פָּנָיו. ו וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה, אֶל-קָיִן: לָמָּה חָרָה לָךְ, וְלָמָּה נָפְלוּ פָנֶיךָ. ז הֲלוֹא אִם-תֵּיטִיב, שְׂאֵת, וְאִם לֹא תֵיטִיב, לַפֶּתַח חַטָּאת רֹבֵץ; וְאֵלֶיךָ, תְּשׁוּקָתוֹ, וְאַתָּה, תִּמְשָׁל-בּוֹ. ח וַיֹּאמֶר קַיִן, אֶל-הֶבֶל אָחִיו; וַיְהִי בִּהְיוֹתָם בַּשָּׂדֶה, וַיָּקָם קַיִן אֶל-הֶבֶל אָחִיו וַיַּהַרְגֵהוּ.
Leon R. Kass, The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis. (p.133)
The two occupations of the brothers echo two earlier remarks about the human work. Herding sheep reminds us of having dominion – ruling over the animals, the work announced in Genesis 1 (verses 26, 28), the majestic story in which man is god-like, the world harmonious, and all is seen to be very good. Tilling or serving the earth is the way anticipated and forecast in the so-called second creation story (2:5; 3:23), the story that shows why badness and hardship enter and complicate human existence…
Farming requires intellectual sophistication and psychic discipline: wit is necessary to foresee the possibility of bread from grain, to develop tools, to protect crops; self-control – indeed, a massive change in the psychodynamics of need and satisfaction – is needed before anyone will work today so that he might eat months later. In addition, agriculture comes with a new relation to the earth (and also towards the heavens): farming means possession of land and settled habitat; it represents a giant step toward human self-sufficiency; yet it is also precarious and very dependent on rain (2:5). Because he mixes his labor with the earth, the farmer claims possession not only to the crops but also to the land itself. For the same reason, he is even inclined to regard himself as responsible – creatively as maker – for the produce itself. On this view, the farmer is an audacious and self-assertive character.
The shepherd, in contrast, lives a simple and by and large artless life. His work is mild and gentle; his rule requires no violence. The sheep graze as they roam and produce wool and milk and out of their own substance, the shepherd contributing nothing but also harming nothing. Though he wanders the earth as he pleases, the shepherd has no illusions of self-sufficiency; indeed he is likely to feel acutely the dependence of his entire life on powers not under his control and processes not of his own creation. The settled farmer seeks to design his life, the wandering shepherd allows his life to be designed by the world.
In sum, on this understanding of the two occupations, Cain’s way of life, like the man, 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 and besides, incapable of accomplishing much of anything. Abel’s way is fragile, not to say impossible; Cain’s way is problematic, not to say indecent – unless it can be educated and restrained.
- Preservation and Innovation in Torah:
הוריות יד.
פליגו בה רבן שמעון בן גמליאל ורבנן חד אמר סיני עדיף וחד אמר עוקר הרים עדיף רב יוסף סיני רבה עוקר הרים שלחו לתמן איזה מהם קודם שלחו להו סיני עדיף דאמר מר הכל צריכין למרי חטיא ואפילו הכי לא קביל רב יוסף עליה מלך רבה עשרין ותרתי שנין והדר מלך רב יוסף
On the following point there is a difference of opinion between R. Simeon b. Gamaliel and the Rabbis. One view is that a well-read scholar [A sinai. A scholar well versed in the Law communicated from Mount Sinai] is superior [to the keen dialectician] and the other view is that the keen dialectician [lit: he who uproots mountains] is superior. R. Joseph was a well-read scholar; Rabbah was a keen dialectician. An enquiry was sent up to Palestine [lit: to there]. Who of these should take precedence? They sent them word in reply: 'A well-read scholar is to take precedence'; for the Master said, 'All are dependent on the owner of the wheat'. [The scholar who is well read and who is, consequently, able to give reliable decisions based on trustworthy tradition.] R. Joseph, nevertheless, did not accept office. Rabbah was head for twenty-two years and only after this period did R. Joseph take up the office.
אבות ב:ח
חֲמִשָּׁה תַלְמִידִים הָיוּ לוֹ לְרַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן הוֹרְקְנוֹס, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן חֲנַנְיָה, וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַכֹּהֵן, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן נְתַנְאֵל, וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲרָךְ. הוּא הָיָה מוֹנֶה שִׁבְחָן. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן הוֹרְקְנוֹס, בּוֹר סוּד שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְאַבֵּד טִפָּה. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן חֲנַנְיָה, אַשְׁרֵי יוֹלַדְתּוֹ. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַכֹּהֵן, חָסִיד. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן נְתַנְאֵל, יְרֵא חֵטְא. וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲרָךְ, מַעְיָן הַמִּתְגַּבֵּר. הוּא הָיָה אוֹמֵר, אִם יִהְיוּ כָל חַכְמֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּכַף מֹאזְנַיִם, וֶאֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן הוֹרְקְנוֹס בְּכַף שְׁנִיָּה, מַכְרִיעַ אֶת כֻּלָּם. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר מִשְּׁמוֹ, אִם יִהְיוּ כָל חַכְמֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּכַף מֹאזְנַיִם וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן הוֹרְקְנוֹס אַף עִמָּהֶם, וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲרָךְ בְּכַף שְׁנִיָּה, מַכְרִיעַ אֶת כֻּלָּם:
Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai had five students: Rabbi Eliezer ben Horkenos, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananya, Rabbi Yosi the Priest, Rabbi Shimon ben Netanel, and Rabbi Elazar ben Arakh. He would recount their praises: Rabbi Eliezer ben Horkenos is a pit covered in plaster that does not lose a drop. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananya--happy is the one who gave birth to him! Rabbi Yosi the Priest is pious. Rabbi Shimon ben Netanel fears sin. And Rabbi Elazar ben Arakh is an ever-strengthening fountain. He [Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai] used to say: If all the sages of Israel were on one side of a balance scale, and Rabbi Eliezer ben Horkenos were on the other side, he [Rabbi Eliezer] would outweigh them all. Abba Shaul said in his name that if all the sages of Israel, including Rabbi Eliezer ben Horkenos, were on one side of a balance scale, and Rabbi Elazar ben Arakh were on the other side, he [Rabbi Elazar] would outweigh them all.
- Transition from the first לוחות to the second:
"In the first tablets there was no gift of Hidush at all but Torah was whatever Moshe heard with its basis in the Written Torah. Moshe did not know how to make his own Hidush except to think analogically but without creative pilpul. But in the second tablets the power of hidush was granted to innovate new halachot in every generation. That is the meaning of the Rabbinic phrase that ‘everything that a veteran student of Torah will in the future innovate is already given at Sinai.’ The power to innovate, not the content, is given. (HaEmek Davar Dt 4:14).
“The reason God ordered Moshe to carve the second tablets was not because they were not worthy of a Divine act but to teach that the ever-renewing power of halacha given in the second tablets involves the active participation of the labor of human beings who with Divine aid, just as the second tablets were carved by Moshe and the writing was by God.” (HaEmek Davar Exodus 34:1).
1