Torah Portion: Acharei Mot–Kedoshim (5761)

With God's help, on the eve of the holy Sabbath of the Acharei Mot–Kedoshim Torah portion, 5761

How Does One Establish a Scale of Values?

At the beginning of the Kedoshim portion appears the commandment, 'Every man shall revere his mother and his father, and you shall keep My Sabbaths' (Leviticus 19:3).

Rashi there, citing the Sages' exposition on this verse (Rashi on Leviticus 19:3), says:

'And you shall keep My Sabbaths'—Scripture juxtaposed Sabbath observance to reverence for one's father, to teach that even though I warned you regarding

reverence for one's father, if he tells you, 'Desecrate the Sabbath,' do not obey him. And the same applies to all the other commandments.

This is a case of collision between values: the honor due to the father and that due to the Holy One, blessed be He, and the Torah determines the proper relation

between them. Such a collision is characterized by a situation in which there are two correct and important values,

but in a particular situation it turns out that preserving one stands in opposition to preserving the other. In such a case

we must decide on the structure of the scale of values within which we act, that is, establish an order

of priorities for the case of a collision. The question is how an order of priorities among

values can be established. In order to examine this, we must understand what a 'value' is.

We have seen in the past that the concept of 'value' denotes an ideal that is an end in itself, that is, one that does not

serve a purpose external to it. For example, obeying traffic laws serves the purpose of safe

travel. The preservation of life and social order is the fundamental value in the situation under discussion, and the traffic laws

are an instrument intended to achieve the value mentioned above. Therefore, obeying traffic laws is not a 'value'

according to this definition. By contrast, preserving human life is certainly a value, and therefore it is not

conceived as a means to any goal outside it. For this reason there is no justification for killing a person for any reason,

whether he requests it, whether we think it would be better for him, and certainly when it is convenient for someone else (as in the acts of murder called 'induced abortions').

Let us now return to the problem of determining the relation among different values (a scale of values). Any decision regarding

the relation, or hierarchy, between two values must be based on a system that lies outside them.

The determination that saving a life overrides the Sabbath cannot be reached from within the system, for one cannot assess

the importance of Sabbath observance in terms of preserving human life. These are two independent categories. If so, determining a relation between two values involves

viewing them within the framework of a more comprehensive system that lies outside them, and within which both can be evaluated and compared.

If, in the terms of such a system, we conclude that the value of Sabbath observance is X, and that the value of human life is Y,

then the decision as to which overrides which will be based on comparing those values.

To summarize what has been said so far, we have raised two claims: 1. A 'value' is an ideal that does not constitute

a means to anything. It is an end in itself. 2. A hierarchy among values must be based on a comparison

between them in terms of an axis, or a system, that is external to the two values under discussion, and in fact includes

them in some sense.

The problem is that these two claims do not accord with one another. If indeed there is an external system that includes those two values,

and within whose framework they can be evaluated, then it is clear that they serve the purpose of attaining some goal within that external system. The evaluation of each

of the values will be based on an estimate of how important it is. A thing whose importance derives from itself

and is not based on an external system cannot be evaluated in any way as to how important it is. This is a fundamental

problem that points to an inability to determine a relation and hierarchy among values (in philosophy this phenomenon is called the incommensurability—the lack of a common measure—of values). One should

note that even if a hierarchy among the values under discussion were somehow revealed to us (for example,

a verse in the Torah that teaches this), the meaning of that would be that, at bottom, these are not 'values'. They have

some common measure, that is, some external goal, but it is hidden from us.

At first glance, there are cases in which a hierarchy of values can indeed be determined. For example, in the case above,

the Torah determines that the value of the honor due to the Omnipresent overrides the value of the honor due to one's father. It is possible to understand

this hierarchy as based on the fact that the obligation to honor one's father is itself based on the obligation

to honor the Omnipresent. In such a case, honoring one's father would indeed not be a 'value', since it would be

an expression of the higher value of the honor due to the Omnipresent, and only because of this could such a hierarchical argument be advanced.

Despite this, it is worth seeing that the Sages do not use this rationale in order to ground their determination. The rationale

that the Sages propose appears in the following Rashi in our portion:

'I am the Lord your God' (Leviticus 19:3)—you and your father are both obligated to honor Me; therefore you shall not obey him to annul My words.

This is an argument of a different type. It is based on the fact that not only the son but also the father himself is obligated

in the honor due to the Omnipresent. I shall leave it to the reader to analyze the nature of this type of argument.

There may be two possibilities for solving the problem of establishing a scale of values (and they are probably

nothing but two facets of the same solution): 1. There is a kind of moral 'ether'—using the term in the old physical sense—

that is, a common measure relative to which all values are measured (like the physical 'ether' whose existence people once

believed in). This 'ether' is not a value-system, but rather an intuitive sense that makes it possible

to quantify the importance of values from within themselves (without comparison to something external). 2. In a world-picture

that is complete and true, there is no plurality of values. There is only one supreme value, from which all

the other values are derived. It seems that this is the value of the service of God, or of cleaving to Him.

Have a peaceful Sabbath

It may be placed in the repository for worn sacred texts in any synagogue or religious academy. Comments and responses will be gladly received.

Biton86.doc