One thing that I've noticed over the past few days is that there is a definite trend among the Rabbis to define the grayness of human action. Throughout chapter 11, the Rabbis take the most ambiguous characters and label them as either evil or righteous. We can read Jill's post to see how the Rabbis make excuses for David in order to show how many of his actions were righteous (for example, they prove that David did not commit auditory). On the flip side, the Rabbis go to great length to prove that everything Balaam does is for evil (even though the plain meaning of the text does not suggest this).
There is little gray. The Rabbis have a system of reward and punishment and it seems that they will go to great lengths to keep this system intact. The system is simple, if you do something wrong you are punished (the debate really centers around whether it will happen in this world or the world to come).
For the most part I'm not bothered by this rabbinic theology. However, I found myself really questioning this methodology when it came to defining the character of Job. For those who don't know Job's story the premise is that Job is a righteous person who gets punished by God at the request of Satan. Job's friends then come over and "comfort" Job, telling him he must have done something to deserve his affliction. Job demands that he has done nothing wrong. In the end God appears but does not resolve the question of Job's guilt. Instead he says essentially, "I'm God, you're not!"
The thing I love about this book is that it is so "gray." We don't know if Job actually did deserve his affliction. We can't understand God's rationale. In fact, it serves as an almost anti-theology, leaving the reader scratching their head. That's why for generations of people have fought about the theological implications of this story. And it's for this reason that I had so much trouble digesting the Rabbinic interpretation of Job's character.
The rabbis explain that Job was a member of Pharoah's council. When he heard that Pharoah wanted to throw all the Jewish children into the sea, he remained silent. Because he failed to speak out for justice, he was punished and was afflicted with suffering. While I like the notion that those who can speak out against injustice and remain silent should be held accountable, I am troubled by the rabbi's decision to "take sides" in the Job narrative and claim that Job deserved his punishment.
Luckily, we live in a very different time. Although it's nice to have things in black and white, I encourage everyone to see and love the grayness in the book of Job and in all other biblical stories, for it is in this grayness that we might see ourselves in the narrative. Only here might the text be a mirror into our souls.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1) we the omniscient reader know that Job did not do wrong
ReplyDelete2) to see where Job may have lacked in his relationship with others see Job 42:10. Where he prays for someone else (see Rav Soloveitchik: Kol Dodo Dofek)
Hmm. The rabbis implicitly take the part of Job's "friends," who asserted he did do wrong and who were very strongly rebuked by God. In a word, the rabbis don't put themselves on the same side as God when it comes to Job.
ReplyDeleteI also find myself thinking about the Bavli's description here of the fates of the three characters who were in Pharaoh's court (Job, Jethro, and Balaam) together with B. Shabbat 54b-55a (one who doesn't protest a wrong is caught up in the punishment of those who commit it) and the story of Qetiah bar Shalom on B. Avodah Zarah 10b. There is what to reflect on about how the rabbis viewed bystanders who witness evil or lesser wrongdoing (a topic that is of course the subject of halakhah as well). Someone who shall remain nameless touched on this issue in writing on B. AZ 10a-11a, but I won't afflict you with it; it's findable if you want to see it.