Читать книгу The Essential Agus - Steven T. Katz - Страница 29

What role does the Law of the Torah play today in the life of the non-Orthodox Jew? It no longer controls his daily life, and the rituals which it prescribes are observed spottily and sporadically by most people. In the absence of universally recognized synods and councils, a tacit consensus allows some sections of the Law to become inoperative and obsolete, except for the ultra-Orthodox. Yet, even today the Law, insofar as it is studied or followed, serves as a symbolic reminder of the duty of obedience to the positive law of the community and of reverence for the moral-spiritual Law of God. In Judaism, the law of the land is sacred, if it is enacted on the basis of equality for all citizens—“The law of the government is law.”⁹ At the same time, we are called upon to be more than law-abiding and to go “beyond the line of the law,” in the quest of that “which is good and right in the eyes of the Lord.” The Absolute Law of right and mercy is not merely a distant ideal; it is a living reality, as firmly fixed in the nature of things as are the physical laws of the universe.

Do we then reaffirm the ancient doctrine of “natural law”?—Yes and no. Yes, insofar as the nature of the spirit in itself is concerned; no, insofar as our total comprehension of these laws is concerned. It is significant that the “Seven Precepts of Noah,” reflecting the universal imperatives of God, were never spelled out in detail.

All the expressions of the human spirit are structured in terms of laws—descriptive and narrative. These are most exact in the domain of knowledge, especially of inanimate matter. Our categories become less accurate in the sciences of life. In the realm of esthetics, we cannot speak of rigid laws, only of norms of design and harmony. There is also a general consensus, if not universal agreement, in some areas of ethical conduct.

Yet, these norms and categories do not encompass the depths of the human situation, which is constantly changing. Even in the case of physical matter, we encounter fresh riddles the moment one or another mystery is solved. The laws that summarize our knowledge are being steadily and subtly transformed by the growth of our understanding. We know that the essence of reality eludes our grasp, even while we employ methods of research which presuppose the iron inexorability of the laws of nature.

We think of God as the source of personality as well as the creator of the cosmos. The affirmation of Divine unity in the “Shema” affirms precisely this mysterious identity of Person and Law in the Divine Being. Every person is a blend of character and freedom, a reliable structure of patterns of feelings, coupled with an unpredictable spontaneity. In the Supreme Being, that we encounter in the glow of love as in the regularities of our existence, spontaneity and invariant law coexist in a mysterious unity.

So, the Will of God is revealed for us in the texture of moral-spiritual laws, as well as in the free and creative flow of empathy, the love of God and man. The two forms of revelation, love and law, must be balanced against each other, with love losing some of its infinite freedom, and the law advancing in its slow and shambling manner toward the new perspectives opened up by the eyes of love.

In the domain of sex and love, we recognize the mystery of Divine creation. We affirm the validity of the command not to abuse God’s greatest gift to us. Our fundamental conviction is that sex belongs preeminently to the whole of our personality; hence, without love and the fullness of self-giving implied in love, it is a travesty and a mockery of our own inmost being. In love, we accord supreme value to the mysterious essence of the person who is the object of our affection. But love is also free and unpredictable; proverbially “blind,” it can be easily abused and delusive. Hence, sex must be fitted within a context defined by law, which safeguards its mystique, its sanctity, fostering the feelings of mutual reverence in the two person’s concerned. Also, since the community is affected by the consequence of sex, no two people can do what they please without affecting society as a whole. The discoveries of modern psychoanalysis have brought fresh evidence to support the belief that the sexual instinct affects the whole of our mental makeup. So, sex cannot be left to the momentary impulse of the individual’s concerned, as exponents of the “new morality” may assert. Too much of the individual and too much of society are involved for any feelings of the moment to be decisive.

But, while the regulation of love belongs within the moral law of God as well as the positive law of the community, the exact specifications of such laws cannot be fixed with finality for all time. Allowance must be made for the changing patterns of social life as well as for the ebb and flow of human sentiments. We find in Scripture a deep awareness of the horror of sexual sins and deviations, but we cannot maintain that the penalties for adultery and sodomy, prescribed in the Bible, are valid today. Yet these are certainly sins; so too, are all extramarital relations—they furtively taint man’s highest expressions with fraud and self-deceit.

In the case of birth-control, we do not concur that “natural law” prohibits the use of contraceptive devices. Here is an example of the failure of man’s imagination to keep pace with the growing complexities of our global problems. We repudiate the notion that the sole function of the sexual act is to produce children. As we interpret the account of man’s creation, the woman was designed to be man’s companion. While it is a Divine injunction “to be fruitful and to multiply,” this command is properly fulfilled, according to the Talmud, when a family possesses two children, according to some, and four children, according to others.

In the Talmud and the Codes, birth-control practices are limited to only a few special cases, those in which the life of the mother might be endangered by pregnancy, or when a community suffers from famine. However, Conservative and Reform Jews have held that a supreme reverence for human life dictates the proper spacing of children. It requires that emphasis be placed on the quality of the mother’s life and on the right atmosphere for the rearing of children. The mere multiplication of human beings is not an end in itself. Society, then, has a positive obligation to further the promotion of birth-control knowledge and the dissemination of whatever aids are available.¹⁰

As to abortion, both Philo and Josephus express the sense of horror felt by Jews at such a flagrant attempt “to destroy God’s structure and His Work.”¹¹ On the other hand, the unborn foetus is regarded as simply a part of the mother’s body, until it has emerged out of the birth-canal. Therapeutic abortion was generally allowed, with the life of the mother taking precedence over that of the unborn child.¹²

With our present knowledge of the slow growth of the embryo, we do not esteem the unborn foetus, especially in the early stages, to be a human being. Hence, there is room for the positive law of the community to determine the cases when abortion be permitted. Since the foetus is part of the mother, she and her husband should have the right to determine whether an abortion should be performed. But, the moment a child is born, it acquires the status and dignity of a human being. For many centuries Judaism protested against the pagan practice of abandoning or killing unwanted children.