Human Dignity without God leads to Immorality and More Bava Basra 154-156

154

Spiritual Debts

Our Gemara on Amud Aleph discusses a legalism in regard to contracts. Ordinarily, a contract needs to be ratified by two witnesses testifying that they recognize the signatures of the witnesses who signed on the document. However, there are certain situations where the debtor in the contract inadvertently ratifies it while actually attempting to discredit it. For example, instead of claiming that the contract is false, he claims something like, the loan was already paid, or “we drafted the contract assuming the loan would be made, but it never took place.“ In such a situation, because he inadvertently granted validity to the actual text of the contract and to the witnesses in the contract, we believe him enough that the contract now becomes valid, and his seemingly unlikely claim is disregarded in the face of a ratified contract.

The Talmudic idiom is modeh beshtar shekasvo eyno tzarich lekaymo.

The Gemara (Kesuvos 19a) has an extended discussion regarding the application of this principle of modeh beshtar, and Noam Elimelech (Shemos Bo 15) interprets the discourse as a meditation on the status of sin and repentance, which are spiritual debts. Let us study the actual text of the Gemara, with the allegorical interpretation interwoven:

The dialogue can be divided into seven sections (marked with numerals), and be read as follows, with the word in CAPS representing the text that serves the allegory.:

1. If one claims that the document is a valid document but that no loan actually took place, and instead the borrower TRUSTED and gave him the document in order to borrow money in the future, HE IS NOT DEEMED CREDIBLE.

The allegory is :

If one sins but asks of God to trust him that he will eventually repent, this is not a credible claim.

1. The Gemara asks, who is making the claim about this loan contract ? If you say that it is the BORROWER who is saying so, it is obvious that he is not deemed CREDIBLE , as why should we believe him when the lender who presents us with a ratified contract?
2. rather, say it is the lender who is claiming that it is a document of trust. In that case, it is also obvious that he is credible, as let a blessing come upon him for admitting that a debt may not be collected with this document. 

The allegory is:

If the sinner is asking God to trust him that he will eventually repent, this is not a credible claim as who knows the future, and he may not live long enough to repent. If God Himself chooses to grant him more time, this is a blessing that he somehow merited this. 

1. Rather, say it is the WITNESSES  who signed the contract who are saying that it is a document of trust. If so, the question arises: If this is the case, we have already learned that when their handwriting can be authenticated separately from ANOTHER SOURCE THAN their own testimony, they cannot invalidate their own contract, as it counts as an independent and prior testimony which cannot be retracted. And if it is a case where their handwriting was not authenticated from ANOTHER SOURCE, and the witnesses themselves testify that it is their signatures on the document and also claim the loan did not occur, why are they not deemed credible? 

The allegory is:

Witnesses are the righteous persons. If they have sins committed due to indiscretions of youth and immaturity (ANOTHER SOURCE), they may not delay and must repent immediately. If they are minor attitudinal sins (such as arrogance) that happen as a result of the limitations of their current nature, of course they should be trusted and allowed time to improve as no human is without sin.

1. Rava said: Actually, it is the borrower who is saying it, and it can be explained in accordance with the statement of Rav Huna, as Rav Huna said that Rav said: In the case of a borrower who ADMITS with regard to a document that he wrote it, the lender NEED NOT RATIFY the document in court, AS THE CLAIM OF THE LENDER IS NOW SUPPORTED BY THE CONTRACT.

The allegory is:

If a person (the borrower) admits his sins he will be forgiven immediately (NEED NOT RATIFY) but must do his penance, fasting and other deprivations promptly to fully pay his debt.

1. Abaye said: Actually, it is the lender who said it, and it is in a case where he causes LOSS TO OTHERS  by invalidating the document and relinquishing his debt. If the lender owes money to others and lacks funds to repay his debt, then his invalidation of the document creates a situation where his creditor is unable to collect the debt. When the debtor of the first who is the creditor of the third invalidates the document, he causes a loss to his own creditor.

The allegory is:

If the person causes harm to others such as a turncoat who betrays a Jew to a hostile government, he will not receive divine patience and he will soon lose everything while the merits will be transferred to his victim. This is similar as paying a creditor from debts owed to the debtor. 

1. Rav Ashi said: Actually, it is the witnesses who are saying it, and it is a case where the contact was not ratified. . And with regard to that which you are saying: Why are they not deemed credible, it is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Kahana, as Rav Kahana said: It is TRUST  for a person to keep a document of TRUST  in his house, as it is stated: “And let not injustice dwell in your tents” (Job 11:14). This false document is likely to engender injustice when the lender seeks to collect payment with it, since the loan may never happen.

The allegory is:

It is forbidden to hold onto such a spiritual contract in your home, that is it is forbidden to ask God to trust you to repent later. Rather you must promptly eliminate the debt, i.e. repent and make amends.

As we have discussed in prior articles, the intense legalistic back-and-forth of Talmudic debate, at times, leaves an opening to understand the dialogue in an allegorical way. Much as when one listens to musical symphony one can imagine and project various narratives and passions, victories, and defeats within the musical score, so too litigation, admissions of guilt, claims of innocence and adjudication, can represent a heavenly court, repentance and judgment. This may seem far-fetched or some strange genre of chassdish derush, but it is important to understand that for the mystic, this is much more than allegory. The physical world is merely a small manifestation and representation of greater spiritual realities. For example, as we have discussed many times, romantic love (the need to be attached and whole) is a physical world manifestation of a deeper truth that all matter yearns to reattach to God. Therefore these legal ideas in the Torah regarding debt are reflections of an invisible spiritual world of litigation and accountability for sins committed and repentance owed. We can look at the rules and regulations of the Torah for its purpose as a legal code but also delve into reflections of greater truths beyond financial responsibility and restitution. 

155

Human Dignity without God leads to Immorality 

Our Gemara on Amud Aleph discusses a legal monetary dispute that could potentially be resolved via evidence gained by exhuming a corpse. The Gemara has to weigh the needs of justice versus the prohibition to disgrace a corpse. 

The Gemara takes it as a given that disinterment is a forbidden desecration of the human body. The Gilyonei Hashas suggests it fits under the category of halanas hames, the prohibition against leaving a body unburied. The verse states (Devarim 21:23):

You must not let the corpse remain on the stake overnight, but must bury it the same day. For it it is a curse of Elokim to have an impaled hanging body.  

What is meant by “a curse of Elokim is hanging”? The derash is that since Man is made in the image of God, disrespecting the human form, even a dead form without life still reflects on God (see Rashi, quoting the Midrash). The idea is extended halachically to all corpses, as the verse can be seen as referring to the extreme case, Kal V’chomer the form of a relatively righteous person who did not suffer the death penalty.

The idea that the human form, even a deceased empty body, must to be respected should be straightforward. It is hard to imagine that any culture or tribe exists that dishonors its dead. It seems to be a basic requirement of civilization. That is not to say that all cultures are equally moral, as they may for example dehumanize their enemies and only consider the corpses of kin or countrymen to be worthy of this regard. Or, who knows, perhaps some group of savages believes eating your relative honors him by incorporating his remains into your continued existence. Regardless of the exact performance of the honor, one might say there need not be an additional reason to honor the human corpse because it represents God, but merely because it is decent and civilized. Do we need to give charity and offer kindness because humans are made in the image of God or because it is just decent and moral?

Yet, this is exactly why we need more than civilization. We need to answer to a higher authority and realize that human dignity is about God’s dignity, not just our own. Otherwise human arrogance leads to a myopic morality. A savage may mutilate the corpse of his enemy believing he is somehow justified as he is not really human. This is how a person who touts human rights and believes he or she is a defender of women and oppressed individuals can begin with the relatively worthy and moral idea of body autonomy and end up massacring a million babies a year (the annual abortion rate). The so-called belief that this respects even the mothers is misguided, as it runs contrary to maternal instinct. Not only does it leave women in danger of a life of loss and grief, it also subtly encourages men to avoid reproductive responsibility and marriage because the burden of contraception and pregnancy falls more on women. Abortion offers the illusion of sexuality without responsibility, yet the basic psychology of human maternal drives must put many women at risk for depression post abortion.    

Of course there are occasions that a woman’s life and situation trump the needs of the unborn, such as grave medical and psychological consequences. Yet based on the quantity and stage of pregnancy that abortions are often performed, a good portion of abortions seem to be merely after-the-fact birth control. Furthermore, many are late term abortions, where with today’s technology, represent viable fetuses (6 months), something that was never supposed to be allowed under Roe V. Wade. 

Once God is removed from the picture,  moral decay continues. I wish this was conspiracy theory but in fact Planned Parenthood supplies thousands of baby body parts, which is technically deemed as donating for research and permitted, as opposed to selling body parts which is illegal. A damning NY Post expose reveals alleged internal emails and undercover videos of what appears to be negotiating large sums for “donating” body parts. Although Planned Parenthood argues that the payments were for medical costs associated with storage, transfer etc and not actual profiteering, it sure looks ugly. The investigation also appears to show systemic racism in how different ethnicities were informed about the fetal tissue donation on the medical releases, depending on the language, with certain minorities receiving no information. Check out these allegations in the original article and draw your own conclusions: (https://nypost.com/2024/11/21/us-news/planned-parenthoods-emails-negotiating-for-fetuses-exposed/?utm_campaign=iphone_nyp&utm_source=pasteboard_app )

Assuming nothing technically illegal was committed it still reeks of repulsive immoral commodification of the human body. This comes about when people talk about human dignity but leave out God.

156

Altruism and Pragmatism in Jewish Thought

Our Gemara on Amud aleph discusses financial protections that the rabbis instituted for young adults, even though past bar mitzvah age:

Rather, the Sages maintain that a child’s inclination is to be attracted to money. And if you say that his sale is a valid sale, there may be times that there are potential buyers who rattle the dinars before him in order to tempt him to sell, and he will go and sell all of his father’s property. That is why the Sages ruled that all of his sales are not valid. But with regard to a gift, if he did not derive benefit from the recipient, he would not give him a gift. The Sagestherefore said: Let the gift of an orphan be a valid gift, so that people will perform beneficial matters for the orphans, as the orphan can reciprocate by giving gifts.

Rashbam and Rabbenu Gershom understand it as if they do favors and give gifts to others (gemilus chassadim, the Hebrew term for acts of kindness and charity), others will be more inclined to reciprocate. 

This is an interesting notion that the altruistic moral idea of being kind can also be pragmatically viewed as part of a quid quo pro and the social contract. It is notable that both commentaries use the term, gemilus chassadim, because using such a catch phrase implies equivalence and that it is not morally inferior.

This brings to mind a famous Rav Yisrael Salanter story (whose origin I cannot locate.) Once he remarked that he envied the inkeeper who able to perform chessed all day long, tending to his guests. A student questioned why this was so laudable, given that the inkeeper charged a fee for room and board. Rav Yisrael answered, “ Nonetheless it is chessed.”

We might say Rav Yisrael meant that there were plenty of opportunities to show kindness by attitude and intentions, as well as the subtle extras not dictated by the strict financial contract. But he might have even meant that it was chessed no matter what, even if just reciprocal, with no extras. The latter is supported by what we saw in our Gemara. Kesuvos (72a) expresses this idea more explicitly, when describing the “pay it forward” nature of attending to the needs of the dead. The dead cannot pay us back, but what we do for others will be done to us:

Rabbi Meir used to say: He who eulogizes others, people will eulogize him; he who buries someone, people will bury him; he who lifts others to bring them to burial, people will similarly lift him to bring him to burial; he who escorts others out for burial, people will similarly escort him; he who carries others, others will carry him. Therefore, one who does not come to a house of mourning to comfort the bereaved will himself not be treated with proper dignity when he dies.

The Ritva (ibid) is explicit in explaining that this is the social contract: “One is treated as he treats others.”

If this is so, we might wonder why the apparent acceptance of the pragmatic exchange of favors without any suggestion that the higher form of morality would be to perform kindness without expectation of reciprocation? You could technically answer that the Gemara was only emphasizing the practical aspects to motivate, but in truth it is better to perform kindness without any assumption or demand for a matching future return. However, it seems to be a glaring omission that somewhere in these discussions this is not mentioned.

I believe the answer is that even though the above is true and all mitzvos should be ideally performed altruistically, the sages also were stressing something beyond the practical aspect of the social contract. The social contract is not merely a calculated exchange but rather a critical concentration of a continuously growing sense of commonality and human bond. In other words, the sense of reciprocity itself becomes a vehicle of a resonance that builds a kinder society over generations. This might be compared to the joys of feasting at a seudas mitzvah (festive meal honoring a holiday or ritual.) The food and merriment are not incidental rewards for the altruistic pure achievement. Instead they are the expression and creation of an ongoing bond between Man and God by celebrating the experience.

I believe this is a subtle but significant and true distinction. Judaism is often practical and transactional in how it describes human morality and relationships, but it’s bigger than merely pragmatism about human nature. Rather, it uses human nature, symbols and experiences to enhance our bonds with our loved ones and God by giving and receiving pleasure and goodness.