Prepared by Ilana Aisen

הַחַיִּים יוֹדְעִים שֶׁיָּמֻתוּ / The Living Know They Will Die[1]

Guiding Questions[2]

·  What are the implications of knowing that we will die? How do we respond to this knowledge?

·  In the face of mortality, how do we navigate between futility and meaning?

Texts

1.  The Denial of Death by Ernest Becker

2.  Kohelet 1:1-4

3.  Tehilim 8:4-7

4.  Kohelet 3:10-22

5.  Excerpts from “The Wreck of Time: Taking Our Century’s Measure” by Annie Dillard

6.  The Denial of Death by Ernest Becker

The Denial of Death by Ernest Becker

We might call this existential paradox the condition of individuality within finitude. Man has a symbolic identity that brings him sharply out of nature. He is a symbolic self, a creature with a name, a life, a history. He is a creator with a mind that soars out to speculate about atoms and infinity, who can place himself imaginatively at a point in space and contemplate bemusedly his own planet. This immense expansion, this dexterity, this ethereality, this self-consciousness gives to man literally the status of a small god in nature, as the Renaissance thinkers knew.

Yet, at the same time, as the Eastern sages also knew, man is a worm and food for worms. This is the paradox: he is out of nature and hopelessly in it; he is dual, up in the stars and yet housed in a heart-pumping, breath-grasping body that once belonged to a fish and still carries the gill-marks to prove it. His body is a material fleshy casing that is alien to him in many ways— the strangest and most repugnant way being that it aches and bleeds and will decay and die. Man is literally split in two: he has an awareness of his own splendid uniqueness in that he sticks out of nature with a towering majesty, and yet he goes back into the ground in a few feet in order blindly and dumbly to rot and disappear forever. It is a terrifying dilemma to be in and to have to live with. (p. 26)

·  What is “individuality within finitude?”

·  What are some of the implications and tensions of being “split in two?”

·  Do you agree with the way Becker views this dilemma? Is it indeed terrifying?


Kohelet 1[3]

אדִּבְרֵי קהֶלֶת בֶּן-דָּוִד, מֶלֶךְ בִּירוּשָׁלִָם. / 1 The words of Kohelet, the son of David, king in Jerusalem.
בהֲבֵל הֲבָלִים אָמַר קהֶלֶת, הֲבֵל הֲבָלִים הַכּל הָבֶל. / 2 Utter futility!–said Kohelet–Utter futility! All is futile!
גמַה-יִּתְרוֹן, לָאָדָם: בְּכָל-עֲמָלוֹ--שֶׁיַּעֲמל, תַּחַת הַשָּׁמֶשׁ. / 3 What real value is there for a man in all the gains he makes beneath the sun?
דדּוֹר הלֵךְ וְדוֹר בָּא, וְהָאָרֶץ לְעוֹלָם עמָדֶת. / 4 One generation goes, another comes, but the earth remains the same forever.

·  How do you read this text in light of the Becker text above?

·  What is futility?

Tehilim 8

דכִּי-אֶרְאֶה שָׁמֶיךָ, מַעֲשֵׂה אֶצְבְּעתֶיךָ-יָרֵחַ וְכוֹכָבִים, אֲשֶׁר כּוֹנָנְתָּה. / 4 When I behold Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and stars that You set in place,
המָה-אֱנוֹשׁ כִּי-תִזְכְּרֶנּוּ; וּבֶן-אָדָם, כִּי תִפְקְדֶנּוּ. / 5 what is man that you have been mindful of him, mortal man that You have taken note of him,
ווַתְּחַסְּרֵהוּ מְּעַט, מֵאֱלהִים; וְכָבוֹד וְהָדָר תְּעַטְּרֵהוּ. / 6 that You have made him little less than divine, and adorned him with glory and majesty;
זתַּמְשִׁילֵהוּ, בְּמַעֲשֵׂי יָדֶיךָ; כּל, שַׁתָּה תַחַת-רַגְלָיו. / 7 You have made him master over Your handiwork, laying the world at his feet

·  How do you read this text in light of the Becker text above?

·  How would you characterize the speaker, intended audience and their implied relationship in this text? For Kohelet 1:1-4?

·  How can we hold this text and Kohelet 1:1-4 at the same time? When, if ever, do you wrestle with the tensions that exist between these two texts?


Kohelet 3

ירָאִיתִי אֶת-הָעִנְיָן, אֲשֶׁר נָתַן אֱלהִים לִבְנֵי הָאָדָם--לַעֲנוֹת בּוֹ. / 10 I have observed the business that God gave man to be concerned with:
יאאֶת-הַכּל עָשָׂה, יָפֶה בְעִתּוֹ; גַּם אֶת-הָעלָם, נָתַן בְּלִבָּם--מִבְּלִי אֲשֶׁר לא-יִמְצָא הָאָדָם אֶת-הַמַּעֲשֶׂה אֲשֶׁר-עָשָׂה הָאֱלהִים, מֵראשׁ וְעַד-סוֹף. / 11 He brings everything to pass precisely at its time; He also puts eternity in their mind, but without man ever guessing, from first to last, all the things that God brings to pass.
יביָדַעְתִּי, כִּי אֵין טוֹב בָּם--כִּי אִם-לִשְׂמוֹחַ, וְלַעֲשׂוֹת טוֹב בְּחַיָּיו. / 12 I Thus I realized that the only worthwhile thing there is for them is to enjoy themselves and do what is good in their lifetime;
יגוְגַם כָּל-הָאָדָם שֶׁיאכַל וְשָׁתָה, וְרָאָה טוֹב בְּכָל-עֲמָלוֹ--מַתַּת אֱלֹהִים, הִיא. / 13 also, that whenever a man does eat and drink and get enjoyment out of all his wealth; it is a gift of God.
ידיָדַעְתִּי, כִּי כָּל-אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה הָאֱלהִים הוּא יִהְיֶה לְעוֹלָם--עָלָיו אֵין לְהוֹסִיף, וּמִמֶּנּוּ אֵין לִגְרעַ; וְהָאֱלֹהִים עָשָׂה, שֶׁיִּרְאוּ מִלְּפָנָיו. / 14 I realized, too, that whatever God has brought to pass will recur evermore: Nothing can be added to it And nothing taken from it – and God has brought to pass that men revere Him.
טומַה-שֶּׁהָיָה כְּבָר הוּא, וַאֲשֶׁר לִהְיוֹת כְּבָר הָיָה; וְהָאֱלֹהִים, יְבַקֵּשׁ אֶת-נִרְדָּף. / 15 What is occurring occurred long since, And what is to occur occurred long since: and God seeks the pursued.
טזוְעוֹד רָאִיתִי, תַּחַת הַשָּׁמֶשׁ: מְקוֹם הַמִּשְׁפָּט שָׁמָּה הָרֶשַׁע, וּמְקוֹם הַצֶּדֶק שָׁמָּה הָרָשַׁע. / 16 And, indeed, I have observed under the sun: Alongside justice there is wickedness, Alongside righteousness there is wickedness.
יזאָמַרְתִּי אֲנִי, בְּלִבִּי--אֶת-הַצַּדִּיק וְאֶת-הָרָשָׁע, יִשְׁפּט הָאֱלֹהִים: כִּי-עֵת לְכָל-חֵפֶץ, וְעַל כָּל-הַמַּעֲשֶׂה שָׁם. / 17 I mused: “God will doom both righteous and wicked, for there is a time for every experience and for every happening.”
יחאָמַרְתִּי אֲנִי, בְּלִבִּי--עַל-דִּבְרַת בְּנֵי הָאָדָם, לְבָרָם הָאֱלהִים; וְלִרְאוֹת, שְׁהֶם-בְּהֵמָה הֵמָּה לָהֶם. / 18 So I decided, as regards men, to dissociate them [from] the divine being and to face the fact that they are beasts.
יטכִּי מִקְרֶה בְנֵי-הָאָדָם וּמִקְרֶה הַבְּהֵמָה, וּמִקְרֶה אֶחָד לָהֶם--כְּמוֹת זֶה כֵּן מוֹת זֶה, וְרוּחַ אֶחָד לַכל; וּמוֹתַר הָאָדָם מִן-הַבְּהֵמָה אָיִן, כִּי הַכּל הָבֶל. / 19 For in respect of the fate of man and the fate of beast, they have one and the same fate: as the one dies so dies the other, and both have the same lifebreath; man has no superiority over beast, since both amount to nothing.
כהַכּל הוֹלֵךְ, אֶל-מָקוֹם אֶחָד; הַכּל הָיָה מִן-הֶעָפָר, וְהַכּל שָׁב אֶל-הֶעָפָר. / 20 Both go to the same place; both came from dust and both return to dust.
כאמִי יוֹדֵעַ, רוּחַ בְּנֵי הָאָדָם--הָעלָה הִיא, לְמָעְלָה; וְרוּחַ, הַבְּהֵמָה--הַיּרֶדֶת הִיא, לְמַטָּה לָאָרֶץ. / 21 Who knows if a man’s lifebreath does rise upward and if a beast’s breath does sink down into the earth?
כבוְרָאִיתִי, כִּי אֵין טוֹב מֵאֲשֶׁר יִשְׂמַח הָאָדָם בְּמַעֲשָׂיו--כִּי-הוּא, חֶלְקוֹ: כִּי מִי יְבִיאֶנּוּ לִרְאוֹת, בְּמֶה שֶׁיִּהְיֶה אַחֲרָיו. / 22 I saw that there is nothing better for man than to enjoy his possessions, since that is his portion. For who can enable him to see what will happen afterward?

·  How does Kohelet 3:22 relate to Kohelet 1:2? Is enjoying possessions the only thing to do in the face of futility or does it in some way reduce or eliminate the sense of futility?

·  In Kohelet 3:11, JPS translates גַּם אֶת-הָעלָם נָתַן בְּלִבָּם as “He also puts eternity in their mind.” Mechon-mamre.org translates it as “He has set the world in their heart.” How do these two possible meanings of עלָם change your reading of the text? How would you translate עלָם?

·  Kohelet 3:19-20 makes an assertion. Then, 3:21 questions the assertion and leaves the question unresolved. What do you make of this?

·  Does this text claim that it’s not necessary (or even desirable) to behave justly or righteously?

Excerpts from “The Wreck of Time: Taking Our Century’s Measure” by Annie Dillard, Harper’s, January 1998.

I “The dead outnumber the living, in a ratio that could be as high as 20 to 1,” a demographer, Nathan Keyfitz, wrote in a 1991 letter to the historian Justin Kaplan. “Credible estimates of the number of people who have ever lived on the earth run from 70 billion to over 100 billion.” Averaging those figures puts the total persons ever born at about 85 billion. We living people now number 5.8 billion. By these moderate figures, the dead outnumber us about fourteen to one. The dead will always outnumber the living.

II “God speaks succinctly,” said the rabbis.

Is it important if you have yet died your death, or I? Your father? Your child? It is only a matter of time, after all. Why do we find it supremely pertinent, during any moment of any century on earth, which among us is topsides? Why do we concern ourselves over which side of the membrane of topsoil our feet poke?

VI On the dry Laetoli plain of northern Tanzania, Mary Leakey found a trail of hominid footprints. The three barefoot people – likely a short man and woman and child Australopithecus afarensis – walked closely together. They walked on moist volcanic tuff and ash. We have a record of those few seconds from a day about 3.6 million years ago-before hominids even chipped stone tools. More ash covered their footprints and hardened. Ash also preserved the pockmarks of the raindrops that fell beside the three who walked; it was a rainy day. We have almost ninety feet of the three's steady footprints intact.

We do not know where they were going or why. We do not know why the woman paused and turned left, briefly, before continuing. “A remote ancestor,” Leakey said, “experienced a moment of doubt.” Possibly they watched the Sadiman volcano erupt, or they took a last look back before they left. We do know we cannot make anything so lasting as these three barefoot ones did.

After archeologists studied this long strip of record for several years, they buried it again to save it. Along one preserved portion, however, new tree roots are already cracking the footprints, and in another place winds threaten to sand them flat; the preservers did not cover them deeply enough. Now they are burying them again.

Is it not late? A late time to be living? Are not our current generations the important ones? We have changed the world. Are not our heightened times the important ones, the ones since Hiroshima? Perhaps we are the last generation – there is a comfort. Take the bomb threat away and what are we? We are ordinary beads on a never-ending string. Our time is a routine twist of an improbable yarn.

·  What is the problem for Dillard? How, if at all, does it relate to Becker’s “terrifying dilemma?”

·  Based on this text, what might Dillard say about holding Kohelet 1:1-4 and Tehilim 8:4-7 at the same time?


The Denial of Death by Ernest Becker

What is at stake in all this is, of course, the question of freedom, the quality of one’s life and one’s individuality… People need a “beyond,” but they reach first for the nearest one; this gives them the fulfillment they need but at the same time limits and enslaves them. You can look at the whole problem of a human life in this way. You can ask the question: What kind of a beyond does this person try to expand in; and how much individuation does he achieve in it? Most people play it safe: they choose the beyond of standard transference objects like parents, the boss, or the leader; they accept the cultural definition of heroism and try to be a “good provider” or a “solid” citizen. In this way they earn their species immortality as an agent of procreation, or a collective or cultural immortality as part of a social group of some kind. Most people live this way, and I am hardly implying that there is anything false or unheroic about the standard cultural solution to the problems of men. It represents both the truth and the tragedy of man’s condition: the problem of the consecration of one’s life, the meaning of it, the natural surrender to something larger – these driving needs that inevitably are resolved by what is nearest at hand…Almost everyone consents to earn his immortality in the popular ways mapped out by societies everywhere, in the beyonds of others and not their own. (pp. 169-170)

It doesn’t matter whether the cultural hero-system is frankly magical, religious, and primitive or secular, scientific, and civilized. It is still a mythical hero-system in which people serve in order to earn a feeling of primary value, of cosmic specialness, of ultimate usefulness to creation, of unshakable meaning. They earn this feeling by carving out a place in nature, by building an edifice that reflects human value: a temple, a cathedral, a totem pole, a skyscraper, a family that spans three generations. The hope and belief is that the things that man creates in society are of lasting worth and meaning, that they outlive or outshine death and decay, that man and his products count. (p. 5)

·  How do these texts address the “terrifying dilemma” that Becker describes in the opening text?

·  Do “man and his products count?”

·  Why the need for “cosmic specialness?”

·  In the face of mortality, how do we navigate between futility and meaning?

[1] Kohelet 9:5

[2] Questions developed with Sarah Margles and Dana Talmi.

[3] Hebrew: www.mechon-mamre.org. Translation: JPS.