Reflections on the Passing of R. Benjamin David Levi, of Blessed Memory (Column 124)
With God's help
Yesterday our family friend, Benjamin David Levi, known as Benji, passed away. We came to know him when a new immigrant from the United States, Zipporah, arrived in the building where we lived in Petah Tikva. She and Benji cared for one another with great devotion, and from being good neighbors they very quickly became an inseparable part of our family.
Benji had no fewer than four legs (but only one tail). He belonged to the delightful breed known as a Labradoodle (a cross between a Labrador and a poodle), and he truly had the nature of a saint. He was affectionate and friendly, snuggled up to Zipporah and to us like an old friend, and wagged his tail amiably all the time. His good heart became legendary among us, and we grew very attached to him. Little wonder that Zipporah, a woman with an astonishingly developed sense of humor (her surroundings are usually very close to the floor because of bouts of uncontrollable laughter), gave him the grand name Benjamin David Levi (in Yiddishized pronunciation, of course: Benyomin Duvid Leyvi), although as far as I know it was not used when he was called up to the Torah (and as is well known, a learned mamzer takes precedence over a Levite dog—a learned mamzer takes precedence over a Levite dog).
In recent years Benji grew older, and it had already become hard for him to walk and climb stairs. About two days ago, when he had reached roughly fourteen springs, Benji fell ill with his final illness, underwent surgery that did not help (but did cost quite a bit of money), and was finally put to sleep at a veterinary hospital in Em HaMoshavot. The bitter news reached us this morning (Thursday, 28 Adar. Please make a note of the yahrzeit), and the whole family feels deep mourning at his passing (there were tears as well). In memory of dear Benji, the dearest of men (?) and as a modest gesture of participation in Zipporah's mourning (and also as a kind of personal catharsis), I decided to devote this column to a few reflections on the matter. May these reflections ascend to the Throne of Glory in place of the funeral that poor sweet Benji did not merit. Let me say in advance that a zar (=someone who does not own a dog) will not understand this, but as is well known only slaughter is valid when performed by a zar.
The researcher David Blouin of South Bend University in Indiana, who studies the relationship between dogs and their owners through the tools of cultural anthropology, argues that there is a broad spectrum of relationships between dogs and people, but for the most part these relations fall into 3 main categories:
- In the "humanistic" category are dog owners who treat dogs as another member of the family and as though they were human beings, both in terms of the obligations and especially in terms of the rights that this implies.
- The "perfectionists" are those who regard the animal world as superior to that of human beings. They admire their dogs and treat them as a kind of embodiment of nature within the home.
- The "dominionists," by contrast, see animals as creatures of lesser importance than human beings, meant to provide benefit, for example as guard dogs.
It seems to me that the fellow lives in a different world from ours. All the dog owners I know belong to the "humanists".
Blouin also claims that attitudes toward dogs are affected by no social (socio-demographic) parameter: not economic status, not gender and sex, race, age, family status, place of residence, or political opinions. The only parameter that affects them, according to his study, is education. The more educated people are, the less they belong to the "humanists" (the attitude is less warm). The number of children in the family also affects the attitude (the more children there are, the less warm the attitude).
This prompted reflections in me about the "humanistic" attitude toward a dog. What does it mean? Where does it come from? Is there any justification for it?
Human beings have feelings, desires, and intellect, and their character and decisions are the product of all these. My starting point is that esteem is due to a person for deeds, character traits, or thoughts that he chose, and not for those rooted in his inborn nature.[1] Esteem is due to one who invests effort and pays prices for his decision to be nice and friendly, not to one for whom that is simply his nature.
A dog presumably does not choose its path, its character, or its actions, and therefore, however endearing it may be, it does not seem entitled to esteem for any of these. That is its nature. Just as a person with a naturally pleasant and friendly character is not entitled to esteem for that, because it is simply his nature. And yet, despite his belonging to the tribe of Levi, and although priests are known to be hot-tempered, Benji apparently was pleasant by nature, but I assume this was not the result of choice. Therefore it is not plausible that there is any justification for esteeming him for his character and the exalted traits described above. He was simply born that kind of saint (=righteous from the womb). On the other hand, it does not seem that our attitude (=the "humanists") toward a dog is like our attitude toward a beautiful picture or an inspiring musical work. Unlike our attitude toward a work of art, our attitude toward a dog (at least among the "humanists") contains an emotional dimension of connection, love, and the like.
Well, unlike a work of art or any inanimate object, a dog also has a soul (a barking soul rather than a speaking one—a barking soul rather than a speaking one). It is alive and not inanimate. But what is the significance of such a soul? It is not clear whether it has consciousness; it is unlikely that it has free choice, and therefore also values and thoughts of any intellectual worth (if any at all). It probably does have emotions in some crude, instinctive sense, but why does that matter? That is how it is built. It seems that the emotional bond formed between us and it is a purely emotional matter. Some instinct awakens somehow, and that is all. It is not plausible to attribute moral or human value to such emotions. If they exist—fine, and if not—that too is fine.
But as those among us who own dogs know (our family too suffers from this defect, and belongs to the "humanists," despite our splendid education), the bond between the dog and the human family that raises it (and that it raises) is truly a family bond in every respect. There are stirring literary and cinematic depictions of these bonds (who does not know the heart-rending film about the dog Hachiko and his owner—Richard Gere—and many others). It seems that people attribute to these bonds a value akin to love between human beings. The serenades composed about the love of a man and a woman are, in my eyes, parallel to the cinematic serenades about the bonds between a person and a dog.
To tell the truth, on further thought, even love between spouses does not exactly deserve the status of a value. The serenades that glorify it have never been clear to me. Love is a kind of emotion, which is simply a given state. There is no duty or value in romantically loving anyone (there is a commandment to love one's fellow, love your fellow as yourself—"love your fellow as yourself"). Romantic love is in many cases a kind of emotion that arises autonomously and not out of a decision and determination by the partners. In many cases the serenades are sung about the prices lovers are willing to pay for their love or for their beloved, and not about the love as such. Those are already decisions a person makes, and one can understand someone who esteems them. In that sense, perhaps one can also sing about the prices a dog pays for the sake of the master to whom it is attached. But it is still clear that this is not comparable, for the dog does not decide to pay those prices. It does so simply because that is how it is built. Hachiko was no greater saint than any other dog, and apparently Benji, of blessed memory, was not either. They were simply built right from birth. Therefore, in this context there is no room to esteem even self-sacrifice and the bearing of costs.
So what is the meaning of this deep relationship between a person and his dog? Is there any justification for it, or is it merely a spontaneous feeling, a kind of fact of life? If it is merely a feeling pure and simple, then neither it itself nor its absence should be assigned any value. After all, it is a given state and not a value judgment.
An attitude of compassion and concern toward every living creature is certainly worthy of esteem. This is a person's decision to care that other creatures not suffer and that they fare well. Such conduct is of course blessed. But the familial love between a person and his dog is not merely compassion or concern for another creature out of kindness. It resembles (in kind, not necessarily in intensity) a person's attitude toward his children. It is part of our nature. Is such an attitude also worthy of esteem? If a person does not love his children, is he a bad person (in the moral sense)? I am not sure. He is simply built differently from the average person. That is all.
It suddenly seems to me that a person's attitude toward his children is an excellent example for our discussion here. Just like the attitude toward a dog, here too there is no decision or value judgment, but rather a natural emotional response. And yet it is perceived as something of value, worthy of esteem, and its absence worthy of censure. As noted, it is not entirely clear to me why, but if that is so regarding children, then to the best of my judgment the same is appropriate with respect to a dog as well. Not with the same intensity and not with the same order of priority, of course, but in terms of kind it nonetheless seems to me entirely similar. It is the fitting attitude toward family members.
A person's attitude toward his children can be explained evolutionarily. It has obvious survival value (for the survival of the gene, of course). In columns 120 and 122 I dealt with evolutionary explanations for altruistic action. There I qualified the significance of these explanations, since they offer an explanation for the emergence of the altruistic impulse, but alongside that (and independently, because of the naturalistic fallacy) there is also the moral value within it. An altruistic act has value if it is done because of the value within it, and not because of a mere response to an evolutionary impulse. But with regard to the attitude toward dogs, there is neither the value (see above) nor the evolutionary explanation. How does such an attitude help my survival? If I love and become attached to my dog, will I survive better? For me this is a minor enigma (surely an evolutionary explanation can be found for it, but at the moment I cannot think of one)[2].
Well, but Torah study is forbidden, so I shall cut my words short and leave the matter unresolved. In closing, in place of Kaddish, here is a pleasant song by Arik Einstein in memory of our Benji.
How Much I Wanted a DogArik Einstein Oh, how much I wanted a dog! Oh, how much I wanted a dog! |
Oh, how much I wanted a dog! Oh, how much I wanted a dog! |
[1] See more on this in column 22.
[2] Here you can find health benefits of this relationship. But that is not an evolutionary explanation, for that itself is the question: why are we built in such a way that our relationship with our dogs improves our health?
Discussion
That is the value in caring for them. But an emotional bond is something else.
By the way, regarding the evolutionary reason for the warm feeling toward dogs, perhaps it derives from the fact that there is survival value in a person caring more for his immediate surroundings, because that improves his own survival. For example, if a person has an impulse to care for his wife, his children, his livestock, and perhaps even his property and crops, then indirectly that impulse will help the person himself, because his immediate environment supports him. By contrast, a person who lacks these impulses may neglect his immediate surroundings more, and thereby receive less support from them (for example, because his ox will starve to death, or his crop will wither for lack of irrigation).
Or perhaps the opposite. My obligation to fulfill a moral duty toward something (or someone) will usually arouse feelings in me toward it, because as is well known it is not in our nature—certainly not our simple, default nature—to live with internal dissonance. So the value is not derived from the feelings; rather, the feelings are derived from the value, even though they usually come together (the question is which comes first). Therefore, the education we tend to give our children in the *love* of human beings or animals, even though the claim is that this is not moral education, stems from the fact that the moral sense exists and guides us, and we are trying to make things easier for society (as is well known, we have a duty to make things easier for others, not for ourselves) by creating a conditioning between positive feelings and duty. In the end, the assumption is that morality exists and is awake, and all that remains is to ease its realization (and that too has moral value).
“The dog, because the imaginary love between it and its master is strong… and its bond with its master is very strong—the things that served as instruments for recognizing the rule of one to whom they belong should not be made instruments for recognizing dominion with respect to the exalted God” (Ralbag on Deuteronomy 23:19, on the prohibition of offering the price of a dog on the altar)
I didn’t understand. What is the value that causes these feelings? Why is there value here?
Possibly.
How can a young man keep his way pure? By guarding it according to Your word.
With my whole heart I seek You; let me not stray from Your commandments.
I have treasured Your word in my heart, so that I may not sin against You.
Blessed are You, Lord; teach me Your statutes.
With my lips I have recounted all the ordinances of Your mouth.
In the way of Your testimonies I rejoice as much as over all riches.
I will meditate on Your precepts and look upon Your ways.
I will delight myself in Your statutes; I will not forget Your word.
Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.
I have sworn, and I will fulfill it, to keep Your righteous ordinances.
I am greatly afflicted; Lord, preserve my life according to Your word.
Accept, I pray, the freewill offerings of my mouth, O Lord, and teach me Your ordinances.
My life is continually in my hand, yet I do not forget Your law.
The wicked have laid a snare for me, yet I have not strayed from Your precepts.
I have inherited Your testimonies forever, for they are the joy of my heart.
I have inclined my heart to perform Your statutes forever, to the very end.
Your hands made me and established me; give me understanding, that I may learn Your commandments.
Those who fear You shall see me and rejoice, because I have hoped in Your word.
I know, O Lord, that Your ordinances are righteous, and in faithfulness You have afflicted me.
Let Your steadfast love be ready to comfort me, according to Your word to Your servant.
Let Your mercies come to me, that I may live, for Your law is my delight.
Let the insolent be put to shame, because they have wronged me with falsehood; as for me, I will meditate on Your precepts.
Let those who fear You turn to me, those who know Your testimonies.
Let my heart be blameless in Your statutes, that I may not be put to shame.
Oh, how I love Your law! It is my meditation all the day.
Your commandment makes me wiser than my enemies, for it is ever with me.
I have more understanding than all my teachers, for Your testimonies are my meditation.
I understand more than the elders, because I keep Your precepts.
I hold back my feet from every evil way, in order to keep Your word.
I do not turn aside from Your ordinances, for You Yourself have taught me.
How sweet are Your words to my taste, sweeter than honey to my mouth!
From Your precepts I gain understanding; therefore I hate every false way.
Your hands made me and established me; give me understanding, that I may learn Your commandments.
Those who fear You shall see me and rejoice, because I have hoped in Your word.
I know, O Lord, that Your ordinances are righteous, and in faithfulness You have afflicted me.
Let Your steadfast love be ready to comfort me, according to Your word to Your servant.
Let Your mercies come to me, that I may live, for Your law is my delight.
Let the insolent be put to shame, because they have wronged me with falsehood; as for me, I will meditate on Your precepts.
Let those who fear You turn to me, those who know Your testimonies.
Let my heart be blameless in Your statutes, that I may not be put to shame.
Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.
I have sworn, and I will fulfill it, to keep Your righteous ordinances.
I am greatly afflicted; Lord, preserve my life according to Your word.
Accept, I pray, the freewill offerings of my mouth, O Lord, and teach me Your ordinances.
My life is continually in my hand, yet I do not forget Your law.
The wicked have laid a snare for me, yet I have not strayed from Your precepts.
I have inherited Your testimonies forever, for they are the joy of my heart.
I have inclined my heart to perform Your statutes forever, to the very end.
My soul clings to the dust; preserve my life according to Your word.
I have recounted my ways, and You answered me; teach me Your statutes.
Make me understand the way of Your precepts, and I will meditate on Your wondrous works.
My soul melts away for sorrow; strengthen me according to Your word.
Remove from me the way of falsehood, and graciously teach me Your law.
I have chosen the way of faithfulness; I set Your ordinances before me.
I cling to Your testimonies, O Lord; let me not be put to shame.
I will run in the way of Your commandments, for You enlarge my heart.
Let Your steadfast love come to me, O Lord, Your salvation according to Your word.
Then I shall have an answer for the one who taunts me, for I trust in Your word.
And take not utterly from my mouth the word of truth, for I have hoped in Your ordinances.
I will keep Your law continually, forever and ever.
And I shall walk at liberty, for I have sought Your precepts.
I will also speak of Your testimonies before kings, and shall not be ashamed.
I will delight myself in Your commandments, which I love.
I will lift up my hands to Your commandments, which I love, and I will meditate on Your statutes.
My soul clings to the dust; preserve my life according to Your word.
I have recounted my ways, and You answered me; teach me Your statutes.
Make me understand the way of Your precepts, and I will meditate on Your wondrous works.
My soul melts away for sorrow; strengthen me according to Your word.
Remove from me the way of falsehood, and graciously teach me Your law.
I have chosen the way of faithfulness; I set Your ordinances before me.
I cling to Your testimonies, O Lord; let me not be put to shame.
I will run in the way of Your commandments, for You enlarge my heart.
Forever, O Lord, Your word stands firm in the heavens.
Your faithfulness endures to all generations; You established the earth, and it stands.
By Your ordinances they stand this day, for all things are Your servants.
If Your law had not been my delight, I would have perished in my affliction.
I will never forget Your precepts, for by them You have preserved my life.
I am Yours; save me, for I have sought Your precepts.
The wicked wait for me to destroy me, but I consider Your testimonies.
I have seen a limit to all perfection, but Your commandment is exceedingly broad.
Let Your steadfast love come to me, O Lord, Your salvation according to Your word.
Then I shall have an answer for the one who taunts me, for I trust in Your word.
And take not utterly from my mouth the word of truth, for I have hoped in Your ordinances.
I will keep Your law continually, forever and ever.
And I shall walk at liberty, for I have sought Your precepts.
I will also speak of Your testimonies before kings, and shall not be ashamed.
I will delight myself in Your commandments, which I love.
I will lift up my hands to Your commandments, which I love, and I will meditate on Your statutes.
Your hands made me and established me; give me understanding, that I may learn Your commandments.
Those who fear You shall see me and rejoice, because I have hoped in Your word.
I know, O Lord, that Your ordinances are righteous, and in faithfulness You have afflicted me.
Let Your steadfast love be ready to comfort me, according to Your word to Your servant.
Let Your mercies come to me, that I may live, for Your law is my delight.
Let the insolent be put to shame, because they have wronged me with falsehood; as for me, I will meditate on Your precepts.
Let those who fear You turn to me, those who know Your testimonies.
Let my heart be blameless in Your statutes, that I may not be put to shame.
And let us say: Amen!
With God’s help, ערב ראש חודש Nisan 5778
Dogs and Levites merited a shared role: on the one hand, to guard the house and warn against anyone threatening to break into it; and on the other, to accompany the master of the house faithfully and bring pleasantness to him and his household.
Regarding parents’ love for their children—it is of course possible that there is someone with some kind of genetic bug who does not love his children. I think the criticism of such a person comes from two possible branches. First, and less importantly—someone who does not love his children is perceived as defective, and society recoils from defective people. Such a person is perceived as warped. But in my opinion that is the secondary reason—the main reason is that we feel love for children and the need to protect them as something so strong and primal, and at the same time we are also aware that raising children demands that we pay prices. Someone who does not pay those prices is perceived as a person whose selfishness is so strong that it overcomes the basic natural impulse (which is morally justified too, not only biologically, because you brought them into the world so you are responsible for them). In the Gemara it says that if a person does not support his six-year-old children, he is rebuked and publicly humiliated for being worse than a raven. In my view that is the idea—raising children and caring for them are a natural, even animal, impulse—but as stated, the fact that the impulse is animal does not make it “a-moral.” A person uses the power of choice given to him in order to alienate himself from that impulse, even if this is a choice only on the emotional level (or alternatively, that before bringing his children into the world he chose to focus on himself so much that he distorted the natural tendency that is perceived as balanced and healthy). Of course, it may be that this person has a mental defect, but aside from the fact that such a person is expected to overcome his defect, you are asking for an explanation of people’s attitude toward him, and it seems to me that this is what lies behind it. It is a bit similar to the shock we feel in the face of the murder of children, which is greater than our shock at the murder of other innocents, even though in principle there should be no value difference—but there is a difference in the psychological dynamic: because children naturally arouse an impulse to protect, guard, and care for them, in order to harm them one needs far greater determination to commit a cruel act, and therefore the judgment is harsher.
And regarding people loving dogs—I understood that you are looking for some value that stands behind this love, even though in practice, as you said, love is sometimes simply a fact that has explanations and not necessarily value. But in my opinion there actually is value here—in order to love a dog or another animal, you have to be able to overcome the differences and see that behind the fur and tails there is a soul capable of feeling, hurting, and loving. That sounds trivial, but in light of the monstrous death industries alongside which we live with indifference (the meat, dairy, and egg industries), it is not really trivial. There is value, real value, in the ability to see that standing before me is a soul with its own desires and feelings, a living, feeling creature, and even to a certain extent a thinking one (animals are not mindless creatures; they do exercise judgment in many cases, and Hazal also related this way to dogs—see, for example, Taharot 3:8). Precisely because of the human and natural tendency to love what is similar to me and alienate what is different, even slightly, there is, in my opinion, immense value when a person understands that “love” is not something that should be lavished only on whoever looks exactly like me. It is a kind of mirror image of what I described regarding parents and children—when a person hates his children, we criticize him for being capable of hating them, even though they are his own flesh, the closest possible. When a person greatly loves his dog—we value him for the fact that although the natural tendency is to love what is similar, he sees what is different and loves it. In both cases the value judgment rests on the natural biological tendency and on the assumption (whether true or not, it does not matter for the question of why people make a value judgment) that here is a person who chooses to direct this capacity to love according to his desires—either toward himself, in which case he deserves condemnation, or toward what is very different from him, in which case he deserves appreciation.
Dogs’ senses are sharp. Before anyone else, before anyone else, they will detect the ‘Angel of Death’ approaching and begin to cry out with all their might; but also when the bearer of good tidings comes—the dogs will be the first to sense him and respond with jubilation.
And so the Levites. They are zealous with the zeal of the Lord and react sharply to every breach of the fence, yet they know how to sweeten the service of God with song, and to ‘give the people understanding’—to explain to them patiently and pleasantly the words of the Torah: ‘They shall teach Your ordinances to Jacob, and Your Torah to Israel.’
Already at midnight, in the very depth of darkness, the dogs keep watch and look toward morning, and cry out with all their strength, ‘How long?’ And so it is in the generation of the footsteps of the Messiah, which outwardly appears to be full of brazenness, but as Rabbi Kook of blessed memory determined, ‘not in a bad generation.’ The generation demands with boldness of spirit, ‘Give us’—let us see the light and feel the good ‘eye to eye.’
Benjamin has ceased to be in the category of ‘he has a mouth and is silent.’ He takes hold of the trait of David, who demands aloud to see the goodness of the Lord and His salvation! And he is ready also for great deeds, for ‘bungee’ leaps that require great courage! ‘And the face of the generation is like the face of a dog,’ which is unafraid to stand alone מול an antagonistic public opinion, and into old age and gray hairs he stands firm: ‘As my strength was then, so is my strength now’!
Let us all take a sliver of the fortitude of BDL, and may the name of the Lord give us strength like a tower!
With blessing, Shimshon Zvi HaLevi
Akiva, you have comforted me 🙂
Still, the fact that a person loves his dog is natural and usually does not require overcoming anything.
I was not afraid to think and wag my tail, Michi.
Dog <= as heart — all heart
And why should a dog be left out?
Of course it is natural—but you did not ask why it is natural but why it is worthy of appreciation. And if you think about the cases in which a person’s love for animals, among them dogs, is mentioned appreciatively—it is against the background of the fact that he is a loving person who loves every living creature, even animals. It may be that this appreciation is mistaken and stems from confusion, because the reality is that everyone loves dogs naturally—but aside from the fact that this does not change the fact that this is probably where it comes from, even apart from that I doubt it. There are plenty of people who abuse their animals, or treat them like toys for children that can be thrown away, and against that background—those who do love them (or more precisely: those who see them as living creatures worthy of humane treatment, and the love comes automatically) are worthy of moral appreciation. Not necessarily because there is some extraordinary act here that requires effort, but because there is an act here that stems from value considerations and not just natural love.
Of course it is natural—but you did not ask why it is natural but why it is worthy of appreciation. And if you think about the cases in which a person’s love for animals, among them dogs, is mentioned appreciatively—it is against the background of the fact that he is a loving person who loves every living creature, even animals. It may be that this appreciation is mistaken and stems from confusion, because the reality is that everyone loves dogs naturally—but aside from the fact that this does not change the fact that this is probably where it comes from, even apart from that I doubt it. There are plenty of people who abuse their animals, or treat them like toys for children that can be thrown away, and against that background—those who do love them (or more precisely: those who see them as living creatures worthy of humane treatment, and the love comes automatically) are worthy of moral appreciation. Not necessarily because there is some extraordinary act here that requires effort, but because there is an act here that stems from value considerations and not just natural love.
May the Omnipresent comfort you…
Regarding the question of what the survival benefit is in becoming attached to a dog:
As far as I know evolutionary explanations, they do not give specific explanations but general ones.
I mean: when you ask what the evolutionary benefit is in a human being’s attitude toward his dog, the answer is more holistic. By nature, a human being bonds with / values / feels gratitude toward / likes any organism that is loyal to him and helps him, and this behavior is certainly explicable evolutionarily.
One must remember that in the ancient period in which evolution was shaped, prehistoric man’s distinction between human and animal was not so clear; all the more so, he did not distinguish between good done for him by his fellow out of ‘choice’ and what his dog did for him because of its ‘nature.’
The outlook was more holistic, and a person learned to connect with and love whoever was useful, and to distance himself from and hate whoever interfered.
In this respect, the dog was always more than just an animal. It helped in protection and hunting, and behaved like a loyal friend. Not for nothing was it domesticated already more than 15,000 years ago, as you linked to. So the attachment is well explained, isn’t it?
By the way, as an aside, I will mention an interesting remark I heard not long ago on the program ‘Nuclear Family’ on Army Radio. A psychologist was interviewed who specializes in making peace and finding compromises between couples experiencing tension over veganism: one of the partners is vegan and one is a ‘meat-eater,’ and in the home there are arguments and accusations, about morality and about consideration.
The definition of who is vegan and who is not slipped out from the psychologist unintentionally: “The argument between the vegan and the meat-eater centers on the question—whether there is a difference between eating a calf and eating a dog.”
That is to say: eating a dog is agreed by everyone to be cannibalism; that is an axiom. The argument is only whether the calf also belongs in the dog category.
I am not among dog-raisers, and I do not know the bond with them. As an outside observer, that moral definition seemed strange to me.
I completely disagree. But I have already explained, and I see no point in repeating myself.
Rabbi Michi, do you agree?
How can you post an Arik איינשטיין song about a pet that is not Yossi the Parrot?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JNy41IFR4g
Avraham Ḥalfi says more about the matter than I could.
On the face of it, that sounds logical, but I wonder whether you are right. It seems to me that affection for a dog is usually directed toward the dog as a pet and not toward the functional dog (the sheepdog).
Regarding eating calf and dog, it is worth reading Tomer Persico’s post reviewing some anthropologist’s book on morality that also deals with this and indeed wonders why eating a dog is seen as cannibalism. I would further note that some vegans base themselves on preventing suffering and not on the act of eating itself (cannibalism).
Paragraph 1, line 1:
… shared role …
Paragraph 2, line 1:
Dogs’ senses are sharp. …
Did Benjy adopt his master’s “bungee” trait and refrain from eating meat, for vegetarianism is presumably a ‘categorical moral imperative’? Or perhaps ‘perhaps circumstances caused it,’ and he fulfilled ‘Benjamin is a ravenous wolf; in the morning he devours the prey…’?
With blessing, Shatz Lewinger
15,000 years is not “always.” It is less than 10% of the duration of Homo sapiens’ existence and really not a long time in evolutionary terms.
His owner was Tzipora, who is not vegetarian at all. But Benjy the righteous—had he known what his food was made of, one may safely assume he would not have touched it.
And now Benjy can frolic with the singing cat Bento, who passed away on the 21st of Adar of this year. See the article, ‘The Singing Cat Who Burned Up the Internet,’ on the Israel Hayom website.
With blessing, Donald Duck, Trump Pat
A great deal of our Jewish culture and religion is based on appreciation for spontaneous feeling that bursts forth, not understood and lacking in value. For example, what appreciation and love is the Holy One, blessed be He, worthy of? After all, all His good qualities and deeds are done by His complete nature and not through any kind of effort (and I am not speaking about the service that Rabbi Michi, may he live long, bases on obligation and awe, but service based on appreciation of the good and on love of the Holy One, blessed be He, who gave us the Torah and brought us out of Egypt). Where do we get such enormous appreciation for Moses our teacher? After all, he was destined to be a savior and a righteous man, and this did not come from great effort or some supreme exertion. Why do we so admire the martyrs of the Crusades, who were educated to self-sacrifice and whose sacrifice was so natural and obvious both from the national and the religious standpoint? Why do we so admire Rashi? What action do we know of that he did that was so bold and contrary to his nature as an eleventh-century Jew? The Raavad? The author of Leshem? What thing, what religious-intellectual genius came from them that could not have come from Ibn Sina if he had been born a Jew, or from Søren Kierkegaard if he had been born a Jew? Why does the Torah command us, as a religious commandment, specifically to love the apostate Jew who desecrates the Sabbath, marries foreign women, eats forbidden carcasses and torn meat, lends at interest, speaks slander, and commits a host of other severe transgressions? As a son of that people I understand, but why does the Torah command us to appreciate and value that Jew just because he factually entered the same covenant with us? Where does all the enthusiasm of Rabbi Kook, the author of the Tanya, and various other thinkers of Israel’s special virtue come from, who glorify and admire the sinful Jew not for his deeds but for the depth of his soul and for what he may perhaps become in the future?
Shai, although I understand that you are entirely in favor of emotion, enthusiasm is still not a substitute for arguments. That is to say, even when discussing emotion and intellect, it is advisable to use one’s intellect. It is a bit hard for me to comment on so many errors in one passage, but I will try.
1. I do not know the parts of Jewish culture and religion that are based on appreciation for outbursts of emotion. On the contrary, I know the command to sublimate eruptive emotion, as with Aaron’s two sons and the ma’apilim.
2. I do not know whether every Jew has a spontaneous feeling of appreciation and love for the Holy One, blessed be He, as you describe; in any case, I do not. See Hilkhot Teshuvah 10:1 on the proper love of the Holy One, blessed be He (to do the truth because it is truth), and column 22 here on the site. For a more comprehensive article, see here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%90%D7%A4%D7%9C%D7%98%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%AA-%D7%9C%D7%A8%D7%92%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%91%D7%94%D7%9C%D7%9B%D7%94/
3. As for serving out of gratitude, I will add my article on gratitude toward the Holy One, blessed be He, as well:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%9B%D7%A8%D7%AA-%D7%98%D7%95%D7%91%D7%94-%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9F-%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A1%D7%A8-%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%98%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%92%D7%99%D7%94/
4. I wonder from where you drew your absurd yet emphatic assertion that Moses our teacher did not need to exert himself to fulfill his role? Astonishing!
5. Regarding the martyrs of the Crusades, here I am truly left speechless before your holy enthusiasm. The fact that they were educated to self-sacrifice (were they really?) makes their acts trivial? Are you sure you live among us? Are there human beings in your surroundings, or do you dwell among the sefirot and partzufim in the world of Atzilut? Your words remind me of the words of the Rebbe of Gur, cited in Kli Ḥemdah, that there is reason for mourning on Hanukkah because we were victorious and did not merit to sacrifice our lives for the sanctification of God’s name. Well then, you have a tanna who supports you.
6. The same applies to the great Rishonim. For some reason you assume that no effort was required on their part to reach their level. Apparently you read too many of Suraski’s books, and observed human beings too little (perhaps there are none in the world of Atzilut).
7. Indeed, Kant and Kierkegaard also deserve appreciation for what they did, but not for what they could have done had they been born Jews. Since when does one receive appreciation for the potential possibility of doing something?
8. I have not heard that the commandment of love of Israel includes apostates and eaters of forbidden foods. Where did you find that gem? I know of the cancellation of obligations toward someone “who does not act as your fellow,” and of the duty to hate the wicked (“Do I not hate those who hate You, O Lord…”). אמנם the Vizhnitz Rebbe already wrote that it is preferable to fail in gratuitous love than in gratuitous hatred, but I, the small one, cling to the hem of his gartel and take shelter beneath the shtreimel, and add in trembling that the best thing is not to fail in either of them.
9. As for your question about the author of the Tanya and Rabbi Kook, I join it wholeheartedly (assuming they really said something like that). Really, from where can one draw such nonsense?
With God’s help
It seems to me, Rabbi, that it is proper to clarify more the question of the definition of “human nature” as opposed to “overcoming one’s nature.”
That is: does the Rabbi dispute the fact that some people have, beyond certain abilities, also abilities to overcome difficulties they have in that area more than others do relative to their own difficulties? Is it not true to say that there is a person who naturally has, for example, more self-discipline, or a more developed innate ethical code? In my eyes this is no less a major question. This could pull the rug out from under any appreciation you might grant any person.
And in fact, our friend’s name is certainly fittingly Benjamin, “a ravenous wolf,” and the house dog is of the wolf kind, and behold David is the one who said, “the blind and the lame shall not come into the house,” and our Sages said that the blind and the lame were corresponding to Isaac and Jacob our forefathers, and from the positive you may infer the negative: Isaac and Jacob, no—but there is another man who indeed may come into the house. And they further said, “Jacob called Him House,” which implies that Jacob our forefather himself will not come into the House, that is, the mountain of the Lord, but rather it is in Benjamin’s inheritance, as the verse says: “and He dwells between his shoulders.” And by this it is well explained that Benjy is *Benjamin*, that is, a wolf, who comes into the house, meaning the house dog, in accordance with the words of *David*, for from the positive you may infer the negative, as is stated.
And by this it is also understood why he is a Levite, for since he cleaves to the mountain of the Lord it is proven that he is a Levite, as the verse says: “And if the Levite comes… to the place that the Lord shall choose… like all his brother Levites.” And it may further be said that certainly he is a Levite, for the verse says, “but against all the children of Israel not a dog shall sharpen its tongue,” which proves that the dog is not among the children of Israel, and certainly not a gentile, for one verse says “to the dog you shall cast it,” and another verse says “or sell it to a gentile”; and if a dog were included among gentiles, what would this verse “to the dog you shall cast it” come to teach us? (Though perhaps one refers to carrion and the other to a torn animal, or one to casting and one to selling, and this requires further analysis; see Pesaḥim 21–23.) Rather, certainly a dog is neither included among gentiles nor among Israel; it is proven that he is a Levite. And specifically a Levite and not a priest, as Ezekiel says, “No torn flesh… shall the priests eat”; and if he were a priest, why would torn flesh be cast to him? Consider this carefully. [Addition: And one should not raise the difficulty of why a dog comes from Judah, for he married a Levite’s daughter; see Ḥullin 132: Rav Kahana ate on account of his wife, etc., there.]
Indeed, that is a valid remark. Still, the capacities to overcome difficulties are also part of my given character, and one can append them to the difficulties themselves. If in your opinion that is all that determines a person’s conduct, then you are a determinist. I am not among those, and therefore in my estimation there is something beyond all these data, and it does depend on the person’s effort and decision.
With God’s help
If so, how does the Rabbi know how to evaluate a person when he lacks the knowledge of when something is innate and when it is “chosen”? Is the claim intended only to deny appreciation in a case where it is certain that every decision is deterministic (as in the case of a dog, or perhaps also an imbecile, a minor, and the like)?
With regard to a dog, correct. With regard to a person, I can form an impression, but it is always possible that I was mistaken.
Regarding the value in loving your children and your dog, I think it is derived from the value of “the poor of your city take precedence” (which is an extension of “your life takes precedence”). That is, there is value in a person loving and caring more for those in his closer surroundings than for circles more distant from him. You brought something like this in column 51 about moral numbness.