What Is a Turkey Doing Under the Table: Illness, Coercion, and Sin

The Rabbi’s Opening Post

What Is a Turkey Doing Under the Table: Illness, Coercion, and Sin

Posted on 27/9/2004

Following the discussion about coercion in the neighboring thread on observance of the commandments without faith, let us briefly discuss Rabbi Nachman of Breslov’s well-known tale of the wise man and the turkey (=turkey). Let us begin with a somewhat abbreviated quotation.

A disaster struck the royal household. The king’s son, who until then had been sane and well-mannered, sank into melancholy and began suffering delusions. He rolled about on the floor beneath the dining table, dragging over pieces of bread and bones that he found there, saying that he was a turkey…

Nor was that enough for him; he insisted on no longer wearing his clothes, explaining that a turkey does not wear clothes…

This caused the king great anguish… The king summoned his physicians and sages… but to no avail; the prince persisted: “I am a turkey, and there is nothing strange about my behavior, for all turkeys behave this way…”

One day, long after all the physicians and sages had despaired of curing him, a wise man came from a distant city and claimed that he would undertake to cure him completely…

What did the wise man do? He too took off his clothes and sat down beneath the table beside the prince, and he too began dragging over crumbs and bones, with an innocent expression, as though the matter were perfectly self-evident…

The prince fixed him with a puzzled stare and asked him: “Who are you, and what are you doing here?” The wise man answered him: “And what are you doing here?” “I am a turkey,” the son replied innocently — “I too am a turkey,” the wise man echoed after him…

A few days passed, then even weeks, and the two grew accustomed to one another, eating the same food together, unclothed, and a strong bond formed between them.

The wise man understood that the time had come to begin taking concrete steps. He signaled to those around him to throw two shirts beneath the table, and turning to the prince he said: “Do you really suppose that a turkey cannot wear a shirt and still remain a turkey”… And thus the two of them put on shirts.

After a reasonable time had passed, the wise man signaled again, and trousers were thrown to them to wear, and once again, turning to the prince, he said to him: “Do you think that with trousers one cannot still be a turkey?!”…

So the prince put on one garment after another, without any resistance. Again a considerable time passed, and the wise man signaled to those present to throw them human food from the table, and once again he told the prince: “Do you think that if one eats good foods one ceases to be a turkey? It is possible to eat them and still remain a turkey,” and he ate.

Here one of the final stages toward his complete recovery had arrived. Some time later, the wise man asked the prince to sit with him on a chair at the table, and from then it was not many days before he restored him to the full course of normal life, without the prince sensing that he had become a turkey who did all the things human beings do…

Breslov Hasidim explain that the point of the parable is to explain how to overcome the destructive feeling that the service of God is intended only for people greater than ourselves. In the copyist’s note to this parable it is stated as follows:

It may be said that the person who wishes to draw near to the service of God is himself a “turkey” clothed in materiality, and so forth, and in this way he can gradually draw himself nearer to the service of God, until he enters it completely…

But on the face of it, this interpretation does not seem convincing. Let us begin with a problem that ought to arise here on its own: at the end of the process, was that prince in fact cured? Without a doubt — no. He behaved in a wholly healthy manner, but in reality, in his essence, he was still just as ill as at the beginning.

If so, why is he presented as a healthy person? Seemingly the wise man is the hero of the story, and indeed he succeeded in outwitting the prince. That wise man was certainly cunning, but his cunning did not operate on the medical plane; rather, in the realm of rhetorical persuasion.

In our terminology, we may say that the cunning of that wise man operated in the service of a problematic goal. The goal of the cure was to bring the prince to a state of normal behavior, not necessarily to heal him. If the technical conduct is proper, then it does not bother us that it stems from distorted and corrupt personal motives.

An analogy is the algorithm for dividing a cake between two greedy brothers: one divides it into two parts and the other chooses his part first. The greedier they are, the fairer and more just the division will be. But where is equality as a value? It sinks out of sight. Equality is a state, not a psychological-spiritual value.

And, more generally, the same is true of the bureaucratic-democratic regime. The basic principle is that by means of interests we can bring society and the state to a condition of proper functioning; the “cake” will be divided with complete equality between the brothers. For example, it is clear that a government that wants to be elected must act responsibly and fairly. But this, of course, encourages a situation in which the most corrupt prime minister — the one most willing to behave fairly even where he need not do so — is the one who will be elected. In a democracy there are no demands beyond that. From our perspective, this is a healthy society, or personality.

But in an essential sense it is clear that the society, or the personality, is still sick. Only their technical-formal behavior has changed. This is not a genuine cure.

If we return to the story of the “turkey,” it may be possible to penetrate one step deeper into it, and this time in the opposite direction. Earlier we asked: after all, the prince was never truly cured. Now let us ask: after all, he was never truly ill. Let us return to the story. That prince looks in astonishment at the wise man who comes down under the table, and asks him what a human being has any business seeking there in the nether depths. That is, in the depths of his consciousness he knows that he is in fact a human being and not a turkey, and how a human being ought to behave. But this is a repressed consciousness, which he does not allow to rise to the surface. He lives like a turkey, and also convinces himself that he indeed is one. That is his illness. Yet deep in his heart he knows, even if he does not formulate it to himself in words, and perhaps does not even know that he knows, that he is not such a thing. The illness is that he does not allow his clear intuition to guide him; instead, he formulates alternatives that seem to him more fitting and “rational,” and lives by them.

Moreover, someone who truly thinks he is a turkey, inwardly as well, will not be helped by gradually drawing nearer to the service of God. Such a technique is effective only for someone who, in the depths of his heart, already knows that he is not a turkey. It merely helps him discover and internalize this.

A mentally ill person in whom there is no sound point whatever cannot be cured. We always need an Archimedean point of leverage by means of which, and from within which, we can begin the patient’s process of recovery. Hence the assumption that every patient who is treatable in fact knows, in the depth of his soul, that he is ill. There is some healthy point there.

But if he really knows everything, then what exactly is ill in him? Apparently he represses it. He tries to “sell” himself the idea that he is a turkey, although deep in his heart he knows that he is a person.

Why should he do this? Apparently because, for some reason, it is convenient to be a turkey (=a sinner). There is no obligation, nothing is demanded of him, people treat him indulgently, and the like.

What is the way to heal such a sinner?

Maimonides, in the Laws of Divorce, writes that one who is unwilling to divorce his wife in circumstances where Jewish law requires him to do so, “we coerce him until he says, ‘I am willing.'” The question arises: of what use is this coercion? After all, in the end, without his consent she is not divorced. If we could regard her as divorced even without his agreement, then there would be no point in coercing him. We should simply tell her to leave him. But according to Jewish law, divorce requires the will of the divorcing husband. If so, what use is the coercion that causes him to do something against his will?

Maimonides there establishes a very puzzling principle. He says that every Jew wants, in his heart of hearts, to do the will of his Creator and to keep the commandments. It is the evil inclination that presses him toward transgressions. And when we coerce him to fulfill the commandments, his true will is revealed.

This reasoning seems apologetic and unconvincing. What causes that Jew to change his desires? It is obvious that he does so only because of the coercion.

However, in light of what we said above, it seems that these words of Maimonides can be understood. In fact, Jewish law deals with a world in which there is clear faith, in which the religious idea is prevalent in society, and in which it is clear to everyone that this is the right thing. In such a situation every Jew wants to keep the commandments, and only the evil inclination diverts him from his path. How does the evil inclination operate? It tries to repress inward the awareness of the obligation to keep the commandments and wrap it in thick outer coverings so that its voice will not be heard. How does it succeed in doing this? The immediate convenience found in sin is what helps it do so. Because of that, he manages to “convince himself” that this is not a sin at all (that is, that he really is a turkey).

What is the way to bring him out of such a state? If we coerce him to fulfill the commandments, then the repression will be of no use to him. Even if he makes himself into a turkey, he will still be obliged to fulfill the commandments. Even if he resists divorcing his wife and screams about it at the top of his lungs, we will tell him that she will be divorced in any event, and the resistance will not help him. In such a situation there is no motive to repress the truth. It will not help. In any case the woman will be divorced. If so, the truth that lies within must come out, because there is no mechanism that assists the repression. This repression has no point, since it will not achieve its purpose. In such a situation he truly and sincerely reverts to wanting to fulfill the commandment, and in this case: to divorce his wife.

This is a very interesting legal mechanism, one that sustains itself. Coercion, seemingly, solves nothing. From the standpoint of the core law, the woman is not divorced, since he does not really want it. But the arbitrary legal fact that the woman will be considered divorced despite his unwillingness causes him genuinely to want it. And therefore she is indeed divorced.

A similar mechanism is proposed to that prince as well. The physician compels him to behave like a human being, thereby removing all the motives for continuing to repress his being human. After all, he knows this in the depths of his heart. In such a situation there is no longer any point in continuing to repress the fact that he is a human being.

Perhaps this is the explanation of the principle that “the hearts are drawn after the actions.” After a person performs good deeds, his heart too becomes good. Although according to this it turns out that bad deeds do not draw the heart after them; rather, they only prevent it from being drawn toward the good.

So perhaps Rabbi Nachman was right after all?! It may be that the king’s son knew all along that he was a human being, and therefore the wise man’s method of healing really was the right one. The king’s son truly was healed in the end. If that king’s son now behaves exactly like a human being, and inwardly he always knew he was a human being, then what remains of his illness?!…

Source (forum “Stop Here, Think”): http://www.bhol.co.il/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=1126082&forum_id=1364