You Are Your Brother’s Keeper
Parshat Re’eh, 5768
A riddle:
In Deuteronomy 15:4-5, God tells us, through Moses, that if we follow God’s laws, there will be no needy people among us.
Later, in Deuteronomy 15:11, He says that the the poor will never cease out of the land.
What gives?
At first I thought this was a rebuke. If someone says to you, if you do X, I will give you Y, but you will never get Y, what does that mean? That we can’t be trusted to do X?
It’s as if God is telling us straight up that He doesn’t believe we will do as we are told, or even as we have agreed to do by joining the convenant. And would it be the first time we’ve heard this sentiment?
Thanks, Dad.
A closer reading perhaps redeems this apparent dearth of trust. Verse 4 talks about the lack of needy “among you”, whereas verse 11 says that there will always be poor and needy “in the land”.
What this says to me is that even if we keep all the laws, and even if as a result there are no needy among us, that is to say, no needy Jews, or no needy among whatever group of with whom we identify, there will always be people who need help or compassion in the land in which we dwell, whether in ISrael or abroad. If all of our family or community or political party or religion are prosperous, well fed, and well cared for, can we be satisfied that we’ve abided by the laws of the covenant? I think not. God makes it clear here that there will always be those in our land who need our help, and we will always be obliged to help them.
This week I heard a stirring editorial on the radio. A woman was talking about visiting New Orleans and encountering a young couple in a bar in the French Quarter. When she asked the young man what he thought of the fact that so much outside of the tourist area had not been rebuilt, the young man said, those people chose to live in a flood plain, in substandard housing, with inadequate insurance. How much can we be expected to do for people who make bad choices? What is the value of personal responsiblity if people aren’t held accountable for those choices?
God is not telling us that He doesn’t trust us to do His will. He is telling us that even if we follow the law to the letter, and our own communities prosper thereby, we are not done. We are still on the hook to help even those who don’t follow all the rules. Wherever there is suffering that can benefit from compassion, “Thou shalt surely open thy hand unto thy poor and needy brother, in thy land.” (D 15:11)
Tags: 5768, gemilut chasadim, Re'eh, Sefer Devarim, tzedakah
September 1st, 2008 at 1:02 am
John,
Let’s hope I figured out how to post this so we can continue our email discussions on this site and encourage more people to join in.
I like your D’var Torah and appreciate the message that even IF we (as Jews) are “taken care of ” (well fed, etc.) there will always be those who need help. I have two contrasting ideas to offer:
First, are we ever NOT needy? As humans we are never satisfied and always want more. Is it possible that this verse reflects human nature? Torah and Halacha are good at identifying human nature and typically account for it in various ways — perhaps this is saying that even if we were to fulfill all the mitzvoth we may not feel “full” but still feel want. I’m reminded of the line during Bircat Hamazon “I have never seen a righteous man forsaken that his children must beg for bread” — obviously the literal translation isn’t true: many tzadiks have had to beg. The question is what is “forsaken” and what is “bread”?
Second, and this thought is one I usually have on my mind but it contradicts the first. I do not think that we are supposed to fulfill the mitzvoth in exchange for something. Even though it says in this week’s parsha there is a blessing if we obey the laws and also we find the same language in the Shema: if you follow these words I will bless your lands with rain in the proper season, etc. but take care lest you heed other gods…I will withhold the rain, etc.”. I take these statements as a lesson that we should follow the mitzvoth and the specifics of doing x in order to get y strike me as an elementary approach. We should do the mitzvoth because we are supposed to do it — end of story. Doing it in exchange for something weakens the purpose and, worse, I think it threatens Yiddishkite. This type of faith — I do x in order to get y — is a weak one and easily ignored when facing tough times. How many people have looked throughout our history and seeing the pogroms, the forced migrations, the holocaust have said God has forsaken us. He didn’t fulfill his end of the bargain ?
I think the writing of doing x in exchange for y is a teaching mechanism so that we know we are supposed to do it. This is the same approach someone takes with their children when trying to teach them something — eat your dinner and you will get dessert, don’t eat your dinner and you will not get dessert. And perhaps for some people this approach is necessary, good, and there is nothing more.
However, I think there is something more. I think we are charged with keeping the mitzvoth regardless of whether we receive anything in return. As my husband frequently says, we are supposed to sacrifice ourselves for God –we see this with the Akeda. After God had promised Abraham that a great nation would come from him, his children would be as numerous as the stars, Abraham was then asked to sacrifice this son — this promise of a nation ended. And Abraham took his only son to be sacrificed and was stopped at the last minute by an angel.
A key point to be made here: we do not observe the laws in exchange for benefits but because God asked us to observe these laws. Observing the laws in order to “get something” in return sounds like a “what have you done for me lately” kind of religion — again easily lost. Further, it isn’t for God to “do” for us — that strikes me as Christianity where Jesus died for “our” sins. Here we are sacrificing for God.
I look forward to your response and to what anyone else has to say. Shavua Tov!
September 26th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Thanks for the thoughtful comment, Karolyn. I think you’re right that “quid pro quo” doesn’t sound like the basis for an enduring faith; however, it’s hard for me to understand Sefer Devarim as anything other than a contract with two counterparties, God and Israel. Then again, this could just be a contractual restatement of natural law. “If you step off a high cliff, you will fall and be injured or killed.” This is a conditional statement, but in spirit is not the “quid pro quo” of a business exchange. It’s gravity.