In this article, I begin a discussion on the relationship between ethical character and Jewish religious commitment, noting that traditional sources accept that those who define themselves by Torah commitment may often fail in their ethical conduct.
Does being a religious Jew lead to higher standards of ethical conduct?
Whilst Jewish law undeniably incorporates many commandments relating to interpersonal interaction, it is less clear what proportion of religious Jews are punctilious about their observance of those mitzvot.
One of the problems in addressing the topic is that much of what is said or written on the subject is not grounded in and often not consistent with the available sociological research. Hence, an eloquent and generally thoughtful Jewish author writes that ‘it is difficult to quarrel with [the] empirical reality’ that ‘the closer one lives to the religious core of Judaism, the further one is likely to be from the Jewish values so many of us cherish most’. [1]
One is left wondering, not only about the basis for such an assertion, but also how it squares with research indicating that strong adherence to Judaism leads people to embrace principle goals such as being respectful, helpful, and polite and that religious Jews appear to value positive social relationships and social harmony more, and individualistic and hedonistic pursuits less, than do nonreligious people, that resistance to alcoholism is weakened when Jews cut loose from their moorings in traditional Jewish life and that the more religious British Jews are, the more money they tend to give to charity and the more generous they tend to be relative to their means.
Given this (non-exhaustive) list of academic studies indicating a positive relationship between religious Jewish commitment and various facets of ethical conduct, one might expect that I answer the opening question in the affirmative and close up shop.
Unfortunately, it is difficult to accept such a simple response. Anecdotal accounts from writers of impeccable Orthodoxy – for example here, here, and here – express concern about, inter alia, indifference to global suffering and injustice, absorption of secular social values and hedonism within the Orthodox community.
But here we turn to something quite remarkable: Quite aside from the testimony of contemporary writers, the failure to excel in the ethical sphere is acknowledged within Torah literature itself.
It is in this vein that the gemara in Bava Batra 164b-165a quotes the view of Rav that most people are involved in theft[2] and everyone speaks avak lashon hara.[3]
Similarly, the Taz (1586-1667) writes with regard to taking revenge that it is commonplace for Jews to stumble in this matter and transgress the prohibition.[4] It is recognised by the Sages of the gemara and by the Taz that Jews can regard themselves as bound by Torah law but, nevertheless, find some of those laws difficult to observe. And some of the commandments identified in these sources are those relevant to the ethics of human interaction.
The failings highlighted in Bava Batra and by the Taz may be due to greatness of temptation[5]. Elsewhere in the gemara, however, we learn of ethical transgressions which are committed due to an egregious distortion of Torah values. For example, the gemara in Yoma 23a relates the story of one young Kohen stabbing another who was competing with him to perform the Temple service! The religious passion for Temple service led this perpetrator to commit the cardinal sin of murder! Whilst the killer’s behaviour might be explained in terms of an excessive rage rather than a distorted value system, the gemara relates that all present, including the wounded Kohen’s father were more concerned with extracting the knife before the boy died so as to prevent it becoming contaminated that they were with the act of murder! The Tosafot commentary to the gemara (Pesachim 85a) makes reference to this anecdote in support of the claim that even wicked people who would gladly harm another human being still take seriously the laws of ritual purity.
A similar phenomenon is indicated in Nedarim 27b where the Mishnah permits lying to thieves, including those who will murder in order to facilitate their theft, by saying that the produce they wish to seize is terumah (which is only permitted to be eaten by Kohanim). The Rosh explains (in his first interpretation) that this ruling assumes that there are people who will be prepared to kill and steal but would not eat from forbidden foods! In this instance, it can hardly be understood that the perpetrator’s weakness lies in his susceptibility to temptation as it is assumed that he can refrain from taking the produce if it is forbidden food. Rather, on the Rosh’s interpretation, the Mishnah envisages people whose commitment to Torah will not allow them to partake of forbidden food but who have no qualms about theft and murder!
Accordingly, the Chatam Sofer (1762-1839) refers to those who are meticulous with regard to their observance of mitzvot bein adam le-Makom but take extreme leniencies in bein adam Lechavero[6] whilst Rabbi Yisrael Salanter (1809-1883) lauds the prevalent aversion of his contemporaries to eating non-Kosher food whilst deploring the lack of corresponding sensitivity to the prohibitions of thievery and extortion.[7]
The reason for the distorted value system of the people discussed in these texts is not clear but it is remarkable that the Sages declare that, given certain conditions, Torah itself can have a negative impact. In Shabbat 88b, Rabbi Channanel bar Papa asserts that ‘the words of the Torah [have potential for] life and death’ and Rava maintains that the Torah can be a medicine for life or an elixir of death. The Vilna Gaon, is quoted in Even Shelemah (1:11) as elucidating these claims. Drawing on the Rabbinic comparison of the relationship of Torah and the soul with that of rain and earth, the Gaon explains that Torah causes the growth of whatever is in a person’s heart. Hence, a person’s study of Torah can lead to an increase in greatness or to an intensification of negative character traits, all depending on his general character.
In this article, we have shown that our Sages were well aware that those committed to Torah can often fail in their ethical responsibilities. We have argued that the failings recounted and anticipated by the Sages are to be explained, not only in terms of natural temptation, but also as the product of a value system which is inconsistent with Torah principles. Finally, we have referred to the view of the Vilna Gaon who, drawing on Talmudic sources, argues that, in the absence of general character refinement, learning Torah can actually have a corrosive effect on a person’s character.
In future articles, I intend to explore this important topic further using both rabbinic and social science literature with a view to better understanding the relationship between Torah commitment and the ethical life. These explanations will facilitate educational and communal recommendations for promoting a Torah life of the highest ethical standards.
[1] Alan Dershowitz, The Vanishing American Jew: In Search of Jewish Identity for the Next Century (Boston: Little Brown, 1997) 15
[2] Rashbam explains that this refers to people making decisions in business which prevent one’s fellow from getting the profits due to him. Similarly, whilst not referring explicitly to this gemara, Rabbi Moshe Chayim Luzzatto explains that most people are not outright thieves but most do experience a taste of theft in their business dealings by permitting themselves to profit from their fellow’s loss (Mesillat Yesharim, ch.11).
[3] Avak lashon hara is a subsidiary derivative of the lashon hara prohibition. In Hilkhot De’ot 7:4, the Rambam gives examples including saying, ‘Don’t talk about so and so, I don’t want to say what happened’ as well as speaking favourably about someone in the presence of their enemies; Bava Batra 164b also identifies sinful thoughts and lack of proper concentration in prayer (according to the reading of Tosafot and Ramban) as sins from which ‘no one is saved, each day’. This highlights the fact that the propensity for spiritual failing is not limited to mitzvot bein adam lechavero – an important insight which will be considered in future articles.
[4] YD, 228:13
[5] Indeed, the gemara in Chagigah 11b says that theft is a sin which a person’s soul desires and lusts for. This is also said about forbidden relations.
[6] Derashot, p.245
[7] Israel Salanter: Text, Structure, Idea. By Hillel Goldberg. , New York, Ktav, 1981, Pp. 78-9