Monday, July 8, 2013

The Angel of Poverty, Hashem, and other Literary Devices

There's something about learning Gemara that reminds me of the Web. You're looking at one thing, and as if by hyperlink you get referred over to a totally different discussion in another tractate. While reading there you get referred elsewhere again. Before you know it you have a pile of books in front of you, and you've all but forgotten what you were looking up in the first place! It’s a fun way to learn - very much "stream of consciousness" oriented. Anyway...

I was learning something in Mesechet Brachot about breadcrumbs, and got referred elsewhere to a Gemara in Chulin that reads as follows:
ואמר אביי: מריש הוה אמינא, האי דכנשי נשווראה - משום מנקירותא. אמר לי מר: משום דקשי לעניותא. ההוא גברא, דהוה מהדר עליה שרא דעניותא ולא הוה יכיל ליה - דקא זהיר אנשוורא טובא, יומא חד כרך ליפתא איבלי, אמר: השתא ודאי נפל בידאי, בתר דאכיל - אייתי מרא עקרינהו ליבלי שדינהו לנהרא, שמעיה דקאמר: ווי דאפקיה ההוא גברא מביתיה
Abaye said: At first I thought one collects the breadcrumbs [off the floor] because of cleanliness. My Master said to me: It is because [leaving them on the floor] leads to poverty. There was a certain man whom the Angel of Poverty was following, but he could not prevail over him, because the man was very careful about [collecting] breadcrumbs. One day he ate bread over grass. [The Angel of Poverty said,] "Now he will certainly fall into my hand." After he ate, he took a spade, dug up the grass, and threw it into a river [thus disposing of the breadcrumbs properly]. He then heard [the Angel of Poverty] saying, "Alas, this man has driven [me] out of his house."

Just to give a bit of context here - There are a number of halachot which relate to the idea of not wasting food, and not treating food in a disrespectful manner. This especially regards bread, lechem, considered in Jewish tradition to be the "staff of life" as far as food goes. And just like the English word "bread" is slang for "money", so too lechem is associated with money, livelihood, parnasa. So if you trample on your bread, it's as if you've trampled on your parnasa. If you throw it away, it's like throwing away your livelihood.

The question is, when speaking about handling bread and the effect on one's livelihood, are we talking about something psychological or mystical? In terms of the Angel of Poverty, are we talking about a "spiritual being" or a pedagogical device? And what does that mean in general about how we relate to things supernatural?

As far as what Chazal themselves held, we may never know. Certainly angelology was a part of the belief system of the ancient world, including in Jewish tradition. Chazal talk a great deal about angels of various kinds. So it's definitely reasonable to assume they understood these things literally, that there are supernatural beings appointed over various tasks, and the Angel of Poverty is one of them - albeit one of the "darker" angels, like the Angel of Death and the Prosecuting Angel. Rashi explains the Angel of Poverty as "the ministering angel appointed over poverty, who pursues a person to trap him and bring him to poverty". Now, could it be that Chazal were simply using "angel-talk" because it reflected the language and belief system of the day? Possibly. Though of course when we say "Chazal", we're talking about hundreds of people - certainly not a monolithic group. It could be that some believed in angels while others took the idea with a mythical grain of salt.

But the more pressing question of course is: How do we choose to understand these things?

From my experience, the mainstream frum approach is to believe in angels in the literal sense. There's Gavriel, Michael and Co. who protect us while we sleep. There's the Satan, who tries to trip us up. These are all "real" beings which we could see if only we wore the right spiritually-tinted glasses.

The Angel of Poverty however is a lesser-known entity. When people are concerned about throwing away bread and breadcrumbs, I would guess that most aren't envisioning a supernatural being lurking behind the curtain, ready to zap them with "anti-parnasa" rays if they don't clean up the crumbs. BUT... It seems to me that people do have the sense that if they don't dispose of bread properly, they're leaving open the door for "something bad to happen" concerning their parnasa. It's considered a foolhardy thing to do from a "spiritual mechanics" standpoint. You can try to look up the exact how and why in Kabbalah, but at the end of the day we don't really know how it works... In other words, it's the mystical approach.

The more "rationalist" way of looking at it is either symbolic or psychological. In symbolic terms, breadcrumbs "represent" livelihood. And we show respect for our livelihood by not trampling on that which symbolizes livelihood. In psychological terms, it's saying that by caring for bread, which we associate with money, we will come to show greater care and attention in money matters - and if we're wasteful or careless with the "small stuff", this develops the kind of mindset that will come back to haunt us on a larger scale. Either way, in this way of thinking, there is no "Angel of Poverty". It's a pedagogical, literary device used to convey an idea.

But as I mentioned above, for no other reason than the fact that the Angel of Poverty is a rather "obscure" angel, my sense is that even the traditional frum world is more open to looking at it as non-literal, a literary device - albeit a device used to refer to a "mystical" process.

And here's where I want to push the point a bit.

If the Angel of Poverty can be understood in symbolic/psychological/literary terms, why not the rest of the angelic cavalcade? And if other supernatural beings are rendered in those terms - then why not Hashem Himself?

If it's clear that concept of angels in the Torah tradition arose out of a world where that belief was common, and we're ready to let that go... If we feel comfortable speaking about angels as having a literary and pedagogical function in the text we're looking at, and we focus on the message being conveyed rather than the mythical carrier of that message... Then why can't we do the same with Hashem?

Yes, keep Hashem in the tradition, the same way we keep angels in the tradition. Study the messages from the Hashem-narratives the same way we study angel-stories. But understand that Hashem too arose out of a world where belief in gods was ubiquitous. Understand that it would be absurd in ancient times not to have a deity in one's society and stories. Yes, we have the One deity instead of many. And perhaps Israelite monotheism was a chiddush (novelty), or perhaps not. The "quantity" of gods is not the point. Likewise, the fact that Hashem is the "ultimate superbeing" (and not just one of many "sub-superbeings") is not the point. The point is this: The only reason we're reluctant to take a literary/non-literal view of Hashem like we do with the angels, is that the belief in a law-giving, reward & punishment-doling God has not yet gone out of religious fashion.

But for those who want to be on the "cutting edge" (more accurately called the "just-trying-to-catch-up-with-the-rest-of-the-sensible-modern-world-edge"), there's a place to be a Torah Jew who rejects the supernatural-being concept in its entirety. No, that doesn't mean there isn't more to the universe than we've discovered - just that the Biblical portrayal of God is so obviously not that "more".


5 comments:

  1. I think there's is much more than just 'religious fashion' that requires keeping hashem as a real entity. In Judaism, more than any other religion i know of, there are some major restrictions that do not necessarily have a clear moral value in today's society. The laws of kashrus come to mind as an easy example. If not for the fact that there is an entity that can enforce the reward & punishment regime of the torah what will prevent anyone (or better said everyone) from breaking the laws of kashrut, shabbat, etc.?

    ReplyDelete
  2. > The only reason we're reluctant to take a literary/non-literal view of Hashem like we do with the angels, is that the belief in a law-giving, reward & punishment-doling God has not yet gone out of religious fashion.

    That may be a reason, but it’s certainly not the only reason and for many people isn’t one of their reasons for believing on God at all.

    People are more willing to allegorize things like angels because they’re less important. A belief in God does lots of useful things. A belief in angels much less so.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anon & G*3,

    I can see that my saying "the only reason" tripped you up, so clearly that wasn't the best phrasing.

    I know all too well that the belief in Hashem serves other functions - sociological, psychological, etc. - and that for many (most?) people, their observance of the mitzvot is hinged upon it (whereas it's not hinged upon the belief in angels).

    My comment was really geared toward people who already have a more "rational" leaning, who see beauty and inherent value in the mitzvot, for whom the idea of being "commanded" is acknowledged but far from the forefront of their minds, who already "soften" their Hashem-talk, who tend to interpret things symbolically and allegorically - e.g. angels, demons, talking snakes and donkeys, the Creation story, etc. My sense is that what holds those people back from allegorizing Hashem (depicted as speaking to people, punishing the world with a flood, splitting the sea, giving the Torah, etc.) is more than anything else the perceived taboo in doing so.

    ReplyDelete
  4. > you've all but forgotten what you were looking up in the first place!

    Except the Gemara eventually gets back to the "home page".

    > there's a place to be a Torah Jew who rejects the supernatural-being concept in its entirety.

    I have to disagree. One of the things that defines a Torah Jew is the belief in God as the First Cause of Life, The Universe and Everything. It is a sina qua non. After all, our entire mesorah is based on the assumption that God showed up personally at Har Sinai and told us we had to keep it. Take that away and nothing's left.

    I think the confusion comes from the Chrisian perception of angels and how its quietly snuck into our psyche. Nowhere does the Torah describe angels as humans in togas with pretty little wings. The few descriptions we have are pretty supernatural. What's more, we have to remember the word "malacha" doesn't mean angle, it means emissary. So the "angel of poverty" can quite easily be understood to be that force which emanates from God and changes the person's fortunes as a result of how careless he was with food.
    Remember also that Abaye in Chullin (or was it Niddah?) goes through a whole list of things he once thouht were rational but then he discovered the "true" mystical reasons for them. So there's no reason to think he's doing otherwise here only he's using the accepted "loshon" to describe the situation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Garnel,

      One of the things that defines a Torah Jew is the belief in God as the First Cause of Life

      I fully acknowledge that if I want to talk about a Torah without a Law-giving, miracle-making God, the burden of exposition rests on ME. But... If anyone wants to talk about a *real world* with a Law-giving, miracle-making God, then the burden of exposition is very squarely on THEM.

      I see my burden of exposition as far easier to manage than the believer's burden. And even if Judaism proves to be totally incompatible with nonbelief from a classical/traditional perspective, that's OK. Because if we're talking about a purely human enterprise (and I would say we surely are), then Torah is here to serve our needs/betterment, and we are 100% free (I'd even say "obligated") to change it as we deem necessary. And that includes rescinding any "mitzva" to believe in things which - by all reasonable measures - aren't real.

      I can understand how someone may not want to call that "Torah", but to me that's the best Torah we can put together given what we've got.

      our entire mesorah is based on the assumption that God showed up personally at Har Sinai and told us we had to keep it. Take that away and nothing's left.

      Nothing left, that is, except for our entire mesorah!

      we have to remember the word "malacha" doesn't mean angle, it means emissary.

      (I assume you mean "malach".) Yes, that's true - I also feel there's something Christian about the translation "angel". But whatever you wish to call them, if you want to talk about their depiction in the Torah, they sound much less like "forces" than they do actual beings (albeit superbeings) - who appear in the form of men, who speak, who wrestle, whose feet get washed, etc. Now if you want to say that these stories are allegories for what malachim actually are, then that goes back to the whole thesis of my post.

      Thanks for the comments!
      AJ

      Delete