Parashat Chayei Sarah (5760)

With God’s help, on the eve of the holy Sabbath of Parashat Chayei Sarah, 5760

‘And our toil’—these are the children[1]

Our portion opens with Sarah’s death at the age of one hundred and twenty-seven. Afterward Abraham purchases the

Cave of Machpelah as a family burial plot. This is also the first tract in the Land of Israel to pass into

Jewish ownership. The next passage opens with the words, “And Abraham was old, advanced in days,” and moves to the instruction

given to his servant Eliezer to find a wife for his son Isaac. At the end of the portion, Abraham’s death is described,

his burial by his sons, and the transfer of all that he had to Isaac. One may say that the portion deals with the departure

of Abraham and Sarah, the first Jewish generation, from the stage of history, with the last task in which

they engage being the securing of a healthy continuation (a family burial place, a decent and suitable match,

land for an inheritance, etc.) for the family and the people in the generations to come.

In Parashat Lech-Lecha (at the beginning of Genesis chapter 15), Abraham sets forth a motto that accompanies him throughout the portions

that deal with him: “And Abram said, ‘O Lord God, what will You give me, seeing that I go childless…’; And Abram said,

‘Behold, You have given me no offspring…’” Abraham sees his entire essence in transmitting the heritage to his children; without continuity

his life is worth nothing, and the Holy One, blessed be He, has nothing to give him. God too describes Abraham (Genesis 18

verse 19): “For I have known him, so that he may command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do

righteousness and justice…” Abraham’s essence is continuity into future generations.

It seems that each of us feels something similar. A considerable part of a person’s activity in life, and perhaps

the main part of it, is to care for his children and their future.

At first glance, there is no logic at all in such a worldview. Abraham lives in order to transmit the heritage to Isaac.

Isaac lives to transmit it to Jacob. Jacob to Reuben, and so on. What, or who, is

the ultimate purpose of this chain? How can it be that the primary aim of life is to pass something on to the next generation,

which itself lives in order to pass it on to the following generation, and so on? If human life as such has no

intrinsic purpose, it does not seem reasonable to generate one by viewing transmission onward as an

alternative purpose. Transmission can be part of life’s purpose only if life itself has

a purpose. Passing things onward is not an alternative to my own life.

In the modern age, it seems that the world is indeed moving more and more in this ‘logical’ direction. People

focus more on an independent career. There are even those who do not bring children into the world, or

at least ‘plan’ the family, in order to allow themselves sufficient time to attend to their own lives.

This is especially prominent among women, who are often no longer willing to see themselves as those

whose purpose is to care for the next generation, as was accepted in earlier generations.

This difference in outlook has several causes. In my opinion, the principal one is viewing the human being as an

independent unit rather than as part of an intergenerational chain. Here the difference apparently lies in a different perception of

reality. The individual is the basic entity that makes up the world, whereas the people across the generations are

merely a combination of those individuals.

This finds expression in a different conception of the individual as against the collective, even in the present. That is, one who

sees the nation as the fundamental entity will also see, in the present, the collective rather than the individual as the

basic entity.

We see that the concept of the ‘collective’ has dimensions of space (the various individuals and society in the present) and of time

(earlier and future generations). Placing the individual at the center has implications for one’s relation to others

and to society today (the spatial dimensions of the concept of the ‘collective’), as well as for one’s relation to the past and to future generations

(its temporal dimensions). For one in whose world the individual stands at the center, there will generally be a diminished connection

to the past, a reduced willingness to concern himself with the future, and in the present a reduced tendency

to give society priority over private interest.

It is worth noting that even in the spatial implications of a collective orientation (seeing the community at the center)

there are paradoxes similar to those above. If everyone cares for others, what is the purpose of this chain?

Who is the ultimate end? Here too there must ostensibly be an Archimedean point that serves as the goal

for this entire altruistic chain. A rational grounding for altruism (= concern for others and society)

is a separate matter, and this is not the place to discuss it. I merely wish to point to the connection between

the temporal conception of the collective and the individual and its spatial counterpart.

It often seems that these two approaches characterize different sectors of society. These are criticized for

their preoccupation with the present and their lack of regard for the future and the past (for heritage and tradition), as well as for their preoccupation with themselves

and their lack of regard for others (= an individualistic orientation). And those, for their part, argue against preoccupation with the past

and with passing it onward, without any addition of their own (the absence of creativity, the fossilization of tradition, and adherence

to the past), as well as against concern only for others and not for themselves (= a collective orientation).

Both sides need to learn from one another. It is clear that even if one views the collective as standing at the center,

there is no logic in a total conception of ‘transmission.’ It is true that the world cannot be conducted properly

and healthily with a total conception of the present, but it is also clear that there must be a purpose to the values

being transmitted in themselves, and not merely to their being passed onward. It is impossible to care for others (in space

and in time) when the values being transmitted themselves have no present value, and do not develop in the course of

their transmission across the generations. There certainly must be Archimedean points that provide a stable support

both in space and in time.

One way to solve such paradoxes is by functioning as a society. There are those whose role is

to engage in the implementation and development of values in the present, and there are those whose role is to transmit them onward. Also

within the microcosm of each individual there is a division whereby he engages both in transmission and in creativity. Even

on the personal plane, a person who lives entirely only in order to care for his descendants—there is, in my opinion, something paradoxical

and flawed in that. A healthy structure of an individual, family, or society is created when one part is engaged in transmission,

and another in the present (in creativity). When an entire society is occupied with the present, or all of it with some other

space-time horizon, something is flawed.

It seems that each of us should examine his contribution, directly or indirectly, on both

planes. One must engage in creativity in the present, but also out of a connection to the past and a view toward the future. There is not,

nor can there be, a culture wholly detached from the axis of time—a culture without context. On the other hand, there cannot be

a culture consisting entirely of the sanctification of the past and of a fundamentalist attempt to return and live it again. The whole meaning

of history is rectification and progress, and not merely a Sisyphean attempt to return to the point of departure.

Our father Abraham seemingly appears, and is often presented, as one who holds a total collective conception.

We have seen that he is occupied with transmitting the heritage to the future, that he performs acts of kindness for others, and that, essentially, without continuity

he says that the present has no meaning at all. In my humble opinion, this is only a partial understanding of this figure.

Abraham was also the greatest creator, the greatest influence on the present. He created

monotheism in that generation, and of course also took care to pass it onward. Part of the meaning of

creativity lies precisely in the breadth of its relevance. Abraham did not see a life of creativity in the present as

in any way contradictory to the commitment to transmission onward and to concern for others. On the contrary, there is no meaning

to creativity in the present unless it is transmitted onward (unless it has trans-temporal and trans-spatial significance,

eternal). Abraham represents a proper balance between the two approaches.

The Sages explain that Abraham is called “Abraham the Hebrew” because he stood on one side of the world, while all

the rest stood on the other side. He, the lone Jew, constituted an entire society in miniature, with all

its functions. Today we have the privilege, which our father Abraham created for us, of dividing

the burden and the various tasks among the different parts of society.

It is important to note that a necessary condition for such a social structure is that the values with which the ‘people of the present’

(those who hold the individualistic conception) occupy themselves be the very same ones transmitted onward by the ‘people of the past and the future’

(those who hold the collective conception). If this is not the case, then this is not a division of labor but rather

a colossal failure of all parts of society. On the one hand, ‘detached’ creativity will prove meaningless a moment after

it is created. On the other hand, transmission without engagement with the content being transmitted is likewise irrational. Cohesion

(not necessarily uniformity) of society, in space and in time, is a necessary condition for proper transmission, and also

for healthy creativity. It is worth noting that such a model is not merely a combination of the two conceptions; it is

simply a healthy and non-paradoxical collective conception.

Have a peaceful Sabbath.

It may be left for respectful disposal in any yeshiva or synagogue. Comments are welcome.

———————–

[1] From the Passover Haggadah. In the Bible, ‘toil’ generally does not mean ‘work,’ but rather ‘suffering.’

Bitton10.doc