I
We read at the seder- "Let all who are hungry enter and eat; let all who are in need come and celebrate the Passover"
Why the repetition? They actually refer to different things. The second (Kol Ditzrich) means all who are in need but not all who are in need of bread. The person may indeed be a millionaire who who doesn't go wanting. They may have plenty of food but no home or family. The invitation for this person is not to come and eat but to spend and celebrate Pesach in the company of others.
It sounds very nice to reach out to people who might be lonely. However, if you think about the invitation, it is a prima facie absurd act. What are you asking the millionaire to come share with you? What are you going to give him? Maybe you should provide the company but ask him to bring the finest champagne and Pesach food. But no! We invite him so he can partake of the lechem oni- The bread of affliction! A bit of matzah!
Maybe an answer can come with an understanding on the nature of hesed- where, on the seder night, we showing loving-kindness to others. Here is how R' Soloveitchik describes Hesed:
Hesed denotes, in practical terms, the vastness of kindness, contributing more than one's capacity, giving away more than one had a chance to store, accommodating more than one's narrowly bounded existential area will permit. In short, hesed means compulsive kindness, spontaneous sympathy... Hesed does not depend on the actual size of one's possessions, upon numbers and figures. It is rather, a spiritual attitude...
We give away more than our capacity! We take a paltry piece of Matzah that hardly nourishes myselfand yet I break it in half to give the rich man! Surely this is irrational. How can we understand this?
II
A nice way to look at this is with the help of the iterated prisoner's dilemma! There are lots of nice ways to dress this experiment up to link it with real life situations and make it realistic, but let's just illustrate it using a simple points version.
People on computers in two rooms have the chance to press 'co-operate' or 'defect', and they don't know what the other person has pressed until the experiment is over. There are various points you can earn depending on what you choose compared to what they choose. The aim of the game is to have as many points as you can- and points mean prizes!
Here is an example table of points for different combinations:
| Player 1 Player 2-> | Cooperate | Defect |
| Cooperate | 3, 3 | 0,5 |
| Defect | 5, 0 | 1,1 |
So what is the rational move to make in the game? One should defect because:
1. You have more opportunities of scoring if you defect. There is only one combination out of four where co-operating wins points.
2. If you defect, you will at least get a point whatever happens.
3. The top prize for defecting is more than the top prize for co-operating.
4. By co-operating you have no means of getting more than your opponent.
This can be seen clearly if the table looks like this:
| Player 1 Player 2-> | Cooperate | Defect |
| Cooperate | win-win | lose much-win much |
| Defect | win much-lose much | lose-lose |
When you look at an individual's benefit in an individual situation, the best thing to do is to look out for number one. That is the bog-standard Prisoner's Dilemma and is indisputable. What then about the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma? As the name suggests, it is the same experiment repeated many times with the same people, where the points are cumulative. What's the rational thing to do there?
I'm no mathematician but it still seems to be to defect. All other things being equal, it is better to defect. As an individual over many cases, you have more chance in the long term of getting points by defecting. However, experiments show that this is not the case. Individuals get more points by co-operating with each other. I don't just mean that there is a more even distribution of points (more people with more points than before). I don't mean that on average individuals get more points by co-operating (but with some making the biggest profit by defecting). No- it is to the benefit of each and every individual to co-operate despite the math saying otherwise.
Why? What the mathematics doesn't take account of is the human issue of 'trust'. Where you suspect your opponent of going to defect, you will yourself defect. Where there are scant points available, and you think you are going to miss out on them, you will do everything to get each and every point you can. You think you are going to lose everything! Some may co-operate because they think it is the right thing to do (at least in a real-life version rather than points version). Most, for good reason, won't; and you end up in a situation where everyone defects and you only get 1 point each time.
What happens if you do trust the opponent? Remember that you have never met the person, don't know their temperament and have no assurance that they will co-operate. And vice versa. But what if you do? You are more likely to co-operate yourself and then they will begin to trust you and so, reciprocate. In this way, you will get 3 points each time and end up, individually and collectively, with more. People think acting for the 'common good' means being 'charitable' and giving up on individual benefit. Yes, if you are focusing on each act as an isolated act. Overall though, the common good is your individual good.
III
How does this bear on the lechem oni?
Slaves don't share! Where you are worried about where your next meal is going to come from, you will grab what you can and when you can. If there are very limited resources available, you want to make sure that you get your fill. You don't have the wherewithall to think about others because the only way to survive is to eat what you have been given. It makes no sense to give away your bread.
The slave is certainly 'hard done by' and has been forced into a situation which was no fault of their own. Yet... they have a defective personality! They are not just a slave by situation but have a slave personality. If you just look after yourself (although perfectly rational to do so), you cannot contribute to wider society. They are disqualified from being witnesses, are unable to marry and are freed from time-bound mitzvot. Slaves are excluded from anything that involves a true relationship or where one has to rely on them for the good of the whole.
Conversely, what of those who do well in a society of competition? The overall rationale is to get more resources than other people and to stay ahead of the game. That is how they got to where they are. Of course, they may sometimes be 'charitable'. They may sometimes give up some their wealth and choose to 'co-operate'. However, the master-slave relationship continues unabated.
The giver is doing something self-consciously 'generous', out of the normal order, and expects to be thanked. The receiver simply gobbles up the food knowing that it may not happen again. They remain 'dependant' on the whims of the more powerful or rich person. If it's not something they can expect, they may as well take the opportunity to 'defect' and take full advantage of the rich person's rare 'co-operation'. There can be no free relationship between these people. The powerful person is lonely and can't have any relationships- everything is about the goods he gets or generously gives. It is not hesed.
Where then can there be hesed? You will find it where there is the biggest sacrifice. The mark of someone who goes from slavery to freedom is their sharing their insufficient amount of bread- their bread of affliction! They "contribut[e] more than one's capacity, giving away more than one had a chance to store". It's an irrational move on their part if one considers the individual act and or even many individual acts over time. They gamble their survival, where there is no expectation that the master will reciprocate. The master may just stamp home his/her advantage and dominate more. It is a risk but only through "compulsive kindness, spontaneous sympathy" can you be free.
"Why you being so hard on the poor slave? Why is all the burden and responsibility on them? Why you being so easy on the big, fat, oppressor?" Let's first make it clear that the richer or more powerful person has to reciprocate and 'give back' to the poorer or weaker person. If not, the process is dead. They have to accept restrictions on their liberty in order to enhance the liberty of others. They can't just think about what is rational for them now but what is good for everyone always. In fact, they have to make the first move. Remember the first line of our text was "Let all who are hungry enter and eat".
However, whilst it is not the fault of the slave that he is under external conditions of oppression, it is only the slave who can lead the way to true freedom. The important point to bear in mind here is that it is the oppressor who is most "in need". It is essential that the poor's physical needs are met and so - let him come eat. But the powerful- despite their wealth or power- has the debilitating spiritual condition of loneliness. Nothing they can do, as I said above, can lead to a true relationship because even giving money away cements the power relationship.
Only through the absurd gesture of the slave sharing his bread of affliction can those "in need" be redeemed from solitude. Only from something as genuine as this can you have a chance of forming free relationships. The restrictions both parties accept upon themselves are not simply altruistic but good for everyone materially and spiritually. Maybe there will be equality after all.
Only through telling a story so absurd and seemingly irrational as the Jews exodus from Egypt, can we learn about a free society. Only through recounting an event so grounded in faith and trust do we have a chance of creating freedom for everyone, everywhere.
No comments:
Post a Comment