"Secure attachment provides a sense of security that can serve as a buffer against the effects of negative feedback. A sense of security by itself should be insufficient to foster humility, however, because a highly secure person might become arrogant if not given realistic feedback. In order to become humble, it seems crucial that a child learn that both positive feedback and negative feedback are worth considering. Such lessons could come from parental modeling of humility, or they might come from humbling feedback. Reality-based feedback from a parent or teacher about one’s strengths and weaknesses would probably be especially useful, particularly if conveyed in an atmosphere of caring and respect" (Martin Seligman and Christopher Petersen, Character Strengths and Virtues: A Handbook and Classification, Kindle Edition).
Seligman and Peterson's emphasis on the value of learning how to receive positive and negative feedback reminds us that, when worded properly, nothing is more valuable to a person's development than a well-delivered piece of rebuke. However, the challenge for the giver of rebuke is to understand how to critique an individual aspect of a person's behavior, while also reaffirming the importance of the relationship itself, a model we see in this week's parasha of Behar-Behukotai.
In our parasha, while God makes clear that ignoring the mitzvot will result in harsh punishments, God also makes clear that punishment for ignoring the commandments does not change God's feelings towards the Israelites. The parasha states:
"And yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not despise them, nor will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly, and to break My covenant with them, for I am the Lord their God" (Vayikra 26:44).
While one may be comforted to read that God will not abandon the Israelites when they sin, our rabbinic commentators ask the question as to why God would simultaneously promise punishment and reassure loyalty, and what we can learn from God's decision.
In general, our rabbinic commentators argue that although God may find it necessary to punish the Israelites, punishment for individual or collective failures does not abrogate the covenant between God and the Jewish people. Rashi writes in his commentary that the above verse provides God's reassurance that even if punishment is warranted, punishment does not requiring a severance of the entire relationship:
"And yet for all that- but even though I shall execute on them this punishment which I have mentioned, when they shall be in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them to make an end of them and to make void. My covenant which has been with them" (Rashi on Vayikra 26:44).
According to Rashi, if God did not provide the reassurance in verse 44, one might think that any punishment brought by God would also result in God's abandonment of the covenant. However, Rashi argues that the Torah includes this verse so that one will know that covenant remains even if punishment is required.
Taking a different interpretive approach, Abraham Ibn Ezra argues that verse 44 not only reassures the Israelites that the covenant will not be broken, but also provides an explanation as to how God's punishment is actually a fulfillment of the covenant itself. Ibn Ezra states:
"I will not reject them or spurn them so as to destroy them"- I intend only to discipline them until their heart humbles itself..."Annulling My covenant with them"- For I swore to keep My covenant with them. Even if they have broken, I will not do so, "for I the Lord am their God" (Ibn Ezra on Vayikra 26:44).
According to Ibn Ezra, God's covenant does not exist solely for the purpose of obedience to God's will, as that would assume that God wants us to follow the mitzvot only for the sake of following them. Instead, the covenant exists so that God might form a relationship with the Israelites that results in their improvement as human beings. As such, when God brings punishment upon the Israelites, the punishment is for brought to improve the behavior and moral compass of the Israelites, so that the Israelites might be become better partners in the covenant. Therefore, Ibn Ezra's commentary takes the position that God reassures the Israelites in verse 44 because God wants the Israelites to know that the punishment is brought to strengthen the covenant, rather than weaken it.
Finally, Rabbi Hayyim ibn Attar, the "Or Ha-Hayyim," argues that verse 44 provides God's opportunity to remind the Israelites the he is loyal to them because of the covenant, and punishment for individual acts will not result in God's abandonment of the Israelites, or flirtation with other nations. The Or Ha-Hayyim states:
"In the covenant God promised the children of Israel who were going out to Egypt that He would not change them for another nation. This promise is repeated here- "For I am the Lord your God"- and not of another nation. This was stated also at Mount Sinai- "You shall be My own treasure from among all peoples"" (Or Ha-Hayyim on Vayikra 26:44).
The Or Ha-Hayyim's commentary emphasizes that God's promises to the Israelites are eternal, for the covenant at Mount Sinai marked the beginning of a lifelong relationship, rather than a temporal one. If and when the Israelites are punished, God wants them to understand that their relationship will remain for the long-haul, and that they have nothing to fear.
When I read this week's parasha, I am reminded of God's unique ability in the Torah to simultaneously affirm the need to rebuke the Israelites, yet all reassure them that the covenant remains for eternity. In this sense, we can learn a great deal about education in our parasha, because a forming a lifelong educational relationship requires that teachers and learners have the comfort with one another to offer criticism while still understanding that the relationship will endure. May we challenge ourselves to use our parasha a paradigm of offering feedback and remaining loyal to one another, for it is these two values that ultimately strengthen learning communities in every generation.
Shabbat Shalom!
No comments:
Post a Comment