Parashat Beshalach, the Sabbath of Song (5760)

With God's help, on the eve of the holy Sabbath, Parashat Beshalach, the Sabbath of Song, 5760

‘Do Not Be Overly Righteous’: Between Angels and Human Beings

In our portion, the rescue of the Israelites through the miracle of the splitting of the Red Sea, and the drowning of the Egyptians

in the sea, are described. The Midrash relates that the ministering angels wished to sing praise, and the Holy One, blessed be He, stopped them, uttering the

well-known statement: “My handiwork is drowning in the sea, and you are singing?!” That is, there is here a moral determination

that one should not sing even over the downfall of enemies and the wicked. Many cite this statement as the basis

for the demand that we relate to our enemies as human beings, and indeed it seems to me that it is certainly possible, and even necessary,

to distinguish between a determined war against a person or any group that endangers us, and hatred of that

group, or joy at its downfall.

In contrast to the position expressed in the above Midrash, the Israelites, in fact, sing the Song at the Sea to the Holy One, blessed be He, and praise

Him for the downfall of Egypt. The question is: what becomes of that moral determination made to the angels, and why

does it not apply to the Israelites? Some resolve the difficulty on the basis of the Midrash that the Song at the Sea

will be sung in the future (‘Then Moses will sing’—‘then’ referring to the future, as in ‘Then our mouths will be filled with

laughter’), but Scripture does not depart from its plain meaning.

The accepted explanation of this contradiction lies in the difference between the standing of the angels in this miracle and that of

the Israelites. The Israelites were the ones saved from that distress; therefore they must sing, give thanks, and praise

the Holy One, blessed be He, for their deliverance. The angels, by contrast, who were not delivered from distress at the splitting of the Red Sea, have no

permission to do so. Seemingly, the difference lies in the purposes of the song: for the Israelites it is thanksgiving for

their deliverance, a legitimate and desirable song, whereas for the angels it is a song about the destruction of the Egyptians,

and that is a negative song. On this basis, the angels too could have sung, had it been about the deliverance of

Israel and not about the destruction of the Egyptians.

It seems, however, that there is a deeper point here. Human beings who try to live on too high a spiritual plane

can in fact fail and fall. If human beings try to live with the consciousness that one must not rejoice

at the downfall of the wicked, they may reach a state in which they will even feel sympathy for their deeds.

Angels, by contrast, can conduct themselves in the ideal way, and there is no concern that they will fail. Therefore,

from angels the Holy One, blessed be He, expects life in the ideal feeling of sorrow over the destruction of the wicked, whereas

from human beings no such unequivocal expectation exists. True, individuals who can live in such a

moral atmosphere will presumably be considered pleasing before God, but in an ordinary human society

such a normative level in public life involves the danger of a fall.

Even in our own day we know people who genuinely and sincerely feel sorrow over the loss of enemies and haters, and over

war as such, but many of them lose their basic identification with their people, and with the good

that fights evil. Today, with respect to the Arab-Israeli conflict, we hear about ‘victims of the hostilities on all

sides,’ and about ‘the tragedy and bereavement of both peoples,’ thereby placing both sides of the conflict on

the same moral plane.

The root of these feelings and statements lies in a lofty moral standpoint, according to which every loss of human life,

without distinction of nationality, religion, or otherwise, is tragic. Yet here we sometimes also see a complete loss of direction,

involving a failure to distinguish between good and evil, and between right and wrong. Clearly there are acts

of cruelty and injustice on our side as well (some of which, regrettably, I myself have witnessed), but these do not suffice

to blur the overall moral judgment that distinguishes between murderers and combatants, between aggressors

and defenders, between the persecuted and the persecutors. This is the danger of living with a sensibility that is indeed lofty

in moral terms, but for human beings (at least as a public norm) is apparently too lofty. King

David as well, undoubtedly a personality of the highest moral and ethical stature, expresses himself in several places in the Book of

Psalms in hair-raising fashion about the persecutors of Israel. For example, in Psalm 137: “O daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction,

happy is the one who repays you what you have done… happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rock.”

Another example of this phenomenon is the use of animals. Eating meat, like other uses

of animals, raises a moral problem that is debated throughout the world. At first glance, one who refrains from using

animals is on a higher moral level than one who uses them, and early and later commentators

have already written as much as well. Yet we see people and groups who fight on behalf of animals

and in doing so trample the dignity and rights of human beings.[1] As in the previous

example, here too there is a relation to a population different from ourselves (animals), whose

roots seemingly lie in a higher moral world, but it may lead to failures in more

basic moral spheres that concern our relation to our own group. Whoever raises animals to the level of

human beings ends by lowering human beings to the level of animals. This is that same phenomenon of an ascent

(moral) with a thorn in it, and concerning this the wise man said: “Do not be overly righteous, lest you be ruined.”

We, as human beings, must fight evil—and evil people as well. On the other hand, the Sages also tell us about the dialogue

between the Holy One, blessed be He, and the angels in order to teach us that this is not an ideal norm. It is a necessary evil

for human beings, but in our consciousness there must also be present the ideal norm that one does not sing praise

over the destruction of the wicked.

In the future, Rabbi Kook and his student Rabbi HaNazir write, the use of animals will cease. ‘Then’

it will be possible for human beings as well to live by the norms of angels. But until ‘then’ we need

to be only (!) ‘human beings.’

Have a peaceful Sabbath

It may be deposited in a repository for sacred texts at any synagogue or religious school. Responses and comments are welcome.

———————–

[1] During the Gulf War, our hearts broke over the birds (the cormorants) that suffered and died in the sea that was flooded

with oil, while at the same time human beings were suffering and dying. Likewise, in the context of the Golan Heights, there are those who point to

the damage that will be caused to wildlife and nature reserves if the Golan is handed over.

Biton21.doc