Pesach: A Symbol of Freedom - Rabbi Dr. David Gottlieb

[Music] Today I I'd like to talk a little bit about the idea of freedom. Since uh Pesach is called the holiday of freedom. Um just to hint at where some complexity lies, there are several words in Hebrew for freedom. And the word that's used for Pesach is specifically herut. Uh not hofesh. Which as we'll see is a different concept altogether. Even if people agree that freedom is very important. Um it would be interesting to discover what kind of importance freedom has. In particular, when we talk about things being valuable we distinguish between intrinsically valuable and extrinsically valuable. That means some things are valuable for themselves. And other things are means to things of value, but it's only because they're connected to other things that they're valuable. If they weren't connected, they wouldn't be valuable. That's called extrinsic. For example, $100 bills. There's very little you can do that you can do with that rectangular piece of paper other than buy things with it. Otherwise, it's really pretty useless. You can do put them up on your bulletin board and contemplate them. Right? So, dollars for most people have extrinsic value. They're good as a tool to get other things that you value. Intrinsic value? Now, I should just make a remark I'm talking now not philosophically or logically but psychologically. How do people value value things? What do they want them for? Normal people want $100 bills because they can get other things with it. Pleasure? Sometimes, not always. Not for all people always, but sometimes a person wants a pleasure for itself, not for any other consequence. Why are you eating a candy bar? Cuz I enjoy it. Why are you eating something that you enjoy? Don't ask stupid questions. Why do you do something I enjoy? Because I enjoy it. That's it, you know? And now some people do things they enjoy to lower their blood pressure. Some people do do things they enjoy so as to treat their family in a more comfortable mood. That can be, but it doesn't have to be. And by the way, I'm going to avoid a prejudice here. Uh many people are familiar with the idea that pleasure is something that sometimes often people value for itself. But that's the only thing that people value for itself. Normal people though, normal psychology now. For example, fulfilling a responsibility normal people often desire to fulfill a responsibility because it's fulfilling a responsibility. Not because they're going to get anything else out of it. Not because it'll increase their reputation or reward in the world to come or simply if I borrowed money, I pay it back. That's what I do. And why am I paying it back? Because I borrowed. End of story. For the efficient autos, that's exactly where the Torah says the application comes from. You borrowed it, pay it back. Period. So, there are two different categories of value. Intrinsic where you valuable value the thing for itself and extrinsic as a means to something else. That gives you three categories. Some things are only extrinsic. Some things are only intrinsic and some things are both. You hear me listening to Mozart's Jupiter Symphony. You ask me, "Why are you doing that?" And I'll tell you I have two reasons. First of all, I love classical music. I love Mozart. I love the Jupiter Symphony. It's a great pleasure for me to listen to it. Number two, I'm taking a symphony course at the university and next week we're going to have an exam on the Jupiter Symphony. So, I'm listening to it to make sure I remember the order of the themes and the structure and everything else. So, this listening of to the Jupiter Symphony has a double reason. It's both intrinsic and extrinsic. That can happen. So, if we're going to talk about the value of freedom we should raise the question whether the value is intrinsic or extrinsic or both. What kind of value does freedom have? So, I want to do that uh and then um I'll comment on the topic as I'm back from America less than 24 hours so I can I can I it's possible I'll get mixed up. What I'd like to do is is uh I talk about that for a little bit. Then then comment on the term herut and then talk about the propaganda use that some Jews make of Pesach and Hanukkah and point out that it's utterly unfaithful to the tradition. So, let's think about this. Um what kind of value does freedom have? I believe, and I want to try to show you why, that freedom has only extrinsic value. Only extrinsic value. Freedom is valuable because it's a means to get other things that are very valuable. It has no intrinsic value at all. It's just extrinsically valuable. Let me give you a couple of examples of what I mean and then I'll give you what I think of as a general argument that that should establish this. Um up until I think even till today, although it probably will change very quickly, for decades the United States of America had an embargo on travel to Cuba. That's a restriction of my freedom. I as an American citizen cannot go to Cuba. I'd be violating American law if I go to Cuba. Did that hurt me in any way? Did that make my life poorer? Um less rich, less happy, less fruitful in any way? I don't want to go to Cuba. I wouldn't care if Cuba fell off the edge of the earth. It could disappear. I have no desire whatsoever to ever go to Cuba. You can pass any laws you want about going to Cuba. Makes no absolutely no difference to me whatsoever. That loss of freedom cost me nothing. The freedom to go to Cuba would only be valuable to me if I wanted to go to Cuba. If I had some reason to go. If I had some benefit in going. So long as Cuba travel to Cuba means nothing to me the freedom to go to Cuba is worthless. If someone said to me uh how much would you pay to change the law? You pay the money and the law will miraculously be changed and I'll be permissible to go to Cuba. Would you pay a quarter? No, I would not pay a quarter. Cuz I don't want to go. That's an illustration of the idea that just having a freedom it isn't by itself valuable. The freedom is valuable because of what you can do with it. My point is it's a restriction. The question is whether that restriction whether that restriction costs you anything of value. That's the question. I'm not arguing that it's not a restriction. On the contrary, I'm acknowledging that it is a restriction and I'm asking whether that hurts me in any way. Since I don't want to go and it makes no difference to my life that I that I go. So, I don't think that it does. I'll give you another example. Someone's locked up in prison. And he's told they get a secret message to him that there's an effort to free him from prison. And it's going to take place on such and such a night such and such an hour. In between he gets a doctor's report. And the doctor's report is that you are going to die at a certain hour which is 10 minutes after they're going to set him free. I I think perhaps the prisoner will send the report to his confederates on the outside and say, "Listen, don't put yourselves to the trouble. Don't don't endanger your your operation, you know, and your safety and everything else because I can't use that freedom. So, I'll be free for 10 minutes before I die. But I can't do anything with it. I can't go anywhere. I can't accomplish anything with it. It's not worth making the effort for my freedom if I can't do anything with it. I think these are natural thoughts. These are natural thoughts. And natural thoughts don't prove anything, but they are at least suggestive of the kind of value that freedom has. Now, I want to give you a kind of general consideration which is close to an argument that this is true. That the value that freedom has is only as a means to get something else. It's extrinsic, not intrinsic. How can you test whether something has intrinsic value? How can you test that? Whether it has value in and of itself. Well, here's a here's a way. I wouldn't say it's the only way and I wouldn't say that it always works, but it's a way to test whether something has intrinsic value. Call it Q. Imagine a situation which could either have Q or lack Q without changing anything else. Now, just imagine a situation, describe it, and then put Q in and take Q out and see if the whole situation becomes better or worse. If it doesn't affect anything else, but when you put Q in, the situation gets better. When you take Q out, situation gets worse, then I think you have a reason to say that Q itself has intrinsic value. Let's take that death scenario that I gave you before. It seems to me, if I use that that that criterion, I'm I'm I'm doing this once, but I'm going to do it again in general terms. And I say, "Well, here he is. He's dying. 12:15 a.m., he's going to be dead." The question is whether I should stick into this scenario that 12:05 he becomes free, or I don't stick it in. It seems to me that if you stick it in or don't stick it in, it makes absolutely no difference to the value of the whole. Whereas, suppose I could provide him with a pleasure in his last 10 minutes. So, his last 10 minutes will be more pleasurable than otherwise. Then I think people will say, "Well, on the whole, he's better off." Doesn't change anything else, because in 10 minutes he's going to be dead anyhow. But for those 10 minutes, he has a pleasure. So then, that according to the way I'm arguing, that would be a reason to think that pleasure has intrinsic value. And freedom doesn't have intrinsic value, because putting it in and taking it out doesn't make any difference with with respect to freedom, whereas with respect to pleasure it does. Now, I want to give this give you this idea in a more general fashion. I think a fashion that's sort of like a paradigm of all cases. And uh I hope this will be enough to uh to sell the idea. And but I'm happy to hear if it if it isn't convincing to you, or you have some other thoughts on the subject, I'll be happy to hear them. I want you to picture a person, I guess what would be called colloquially in English a hobo. Uh this is a guy who lives at the city dump. And um Now, this is America, so at the city dump you have reasonably good quality food that people throw out, and reasonably good quality clothes that people throw out. Um he doesn't know anybody, nobody knows him. And he lives at the city dump. And then when he gets bored at the city dump, he jumps a freight train and rides to the next city, where he takes up residence at the city dump, and he's and he lives there, and that's how he lives. If you were asked this fellow, "How is your life? You have a good life, you know, a happy life?" Um his answer is, "Not really." "You have a sad life, a painful life, a difficult life?" His answer is, "Not really." "How's your life?" Sort of. Humdrum. Ho-hum, you know. Not good, not bad. It's a life. Fine. Now, just to forestall, but people are going to make the mistake anyway, I'm creating the example, so I get to define it my way. So, it's my example. It's my my point, right? Okay. Now, let's imagine that there are kidnappers who are convinced that this must be some eccentric relative of Bill Gates or something. And they're going to they're going to kidnap him, and they're going to get money out of Bill Gates to get his freedom. So, they kidnap him, and they put him in a hut in the forest, where he's locked in. And while they're texting Gates, you know, demanding money. And Gates is saying, "Who are these weirdos?" And like and he's sending out private helicopters to shoot them or something. Um while this is going on, of course they got to keep him alive, because otherwise there's nobody to sell. So, they're feeding him their one- or two-day-old leftover food. And he's out there in the forest, and it happens to be springtime, so you know, not too cold and not too hot. Now, imagine that you interview this guy in the hut, you know, where he's being held captive by the by the kidnappers, and you ask him, "Tell me something, how are you doing in the hut?" He says, "Okay." "Are you in terrible pain?" "Not really." "Are you really happy?" "Not really." "How's your life?" "Sort of humdrum." "Are you pining away for the dump?" "Not really." "You want to get back to the dump?" "Not really." You know, it's just 50 61 half a dozen of the other. You know, like he's here. Now, there's a campaign for his freedom. And they're raising money, right? How much money would you contribute to buy his freedom? I'll make this very dramatic. They're coming around with the campaign, they're asking each person for a minimal donation, a dollar. And as they're asking you for this donation, a child falls off his bicycle, skins his knee, and is crying. And you know, I don't know maybe this is out of date, a dollar will buy an ice cream cone, well, it still does, or maybe three to three dollars now, I don't know. A dollar will buy an ice cream cone and make the kid feel better. So, now you have a choice, pay a dollar for his freedom, or pay a dollar to give an ice cream cone to the child. Which would you do? It seems to me obvious, buy the ice cream cone for the child. Because spending the dollar for his freedom does no good at all. It doesn't make the world a better place at all. That's my example of how being free, when it doesn't change anything else, is of no value. Yes. Um but contributing the dollar to the child does seem to be a more logical choice, also because the child is in close proximity, and you are more personally familiar with the child who skinned his knee, and you can maybe more personally relate. Okay, try to discount that. Or I'll say you know the guy himself, you know you know the hobo. Or you're anonymous to him, so he doesn't know you. And you can overcome those. That's obviously not the point I'm trying to make. So, so try to discount those those factors, and just do it in terms of what good Or take it as a as a as a child who you don't know. Right? Somebody tells you around the corner there's a child, you know, and then when we need a dollar for an ice cream cone, and everybody is poor, you know, I mean you didn't see it, you don't know the child, it's not in front of you. Equalize those points and try to make the decision in terms of principle. Seems to me that when you send the dollar to the child's ice cream cone, you're really making the world a better place. There's a child who's crying, is upset, is in pain, and you're relieving that. Whereas, you spend a dollar for the guy's freedom, even if your dollar will will do it. He'll For one dollar they'll set him free. Even so, seems like there you're not you're not accomplishing anything at all. Okay, if you're all with me, then let me raise the objection that's often raised. Um this is what I was trying to forestall before, maybe you're just smarter than that. The objection that's often raised, "But look, if he's held in cap- captive by the by the um by the the kidnappers, he has no opportunities." He has no opportunities. If he's at the city dump, maybe he'll meet somebody, and this person will take pity on him, and this person will inspire him to do something more for himself, and he'll have a better life. So, really the freedom is valuable to him. That's a bad objection. It's a bad objection for two reasons. Number one, as I told you, it's my example, so I get to describe it my way. I told you he doesn't know anybody, nobody knows him. And you're changing the conditions of my example. But even without that, the point of my example was to show that freedom has no intrinsic value. Now, if you say, "But look, if he's free at the dump, he might meet somebody and then do something to improve his life." Are you showing that freedom has intrinsic value? Not at all. You're showing that if he's free at the dump, the freedom might get him something else that's valuable. You're adding in extrinsic value, not intrinsic value. So, you're confirming my point by changing my example, which is wrong, and and calling upon further consequences that freedom might have, you're just reinforcing the idea that it has extrinsic value, which I agree to. I think that's quite right. So, I think this sort of argument demonstrates that freedom has no intrinsic value. It has only extrinsic value. Now, you may say, "So what?" The answer is that in practical terms it makes no gigantic difference. There are a lot of unfree people. There are a lot of relatively unfree people. Should I work to make them free? How shall I set my priorities? Whose freedom is worth more? Answer, ask yourself what he will do with his freedom. The more valuable thing he will do with his freedom, the more his freedom is worth. It's simply not true that every person's freedom is equally valuable just because he's a person, he should be free. It's simply not true. You have two people who are kidnapped, one of whom is a gifted neurosurgeon who saves lives and re- brings restores people's functionality. And the other person is a driftwood specialist, spends his time wandering alone on the shore, picking up interesting-looking driftwood and selling it and making a living. And you have the opportunity to free one of them, don't flip a coin. That's the wrong way to decide whose whose whom to free. The one who's a gifted neurosurgeon is going to help people in significant ways. His freedom is worth more, because what he will do with his freedom is worth more. Now, um the The "herut" in Hebrew, which does mean freedom, is very different from the word chofshi, which also means freedom. Chofshi means having no restrictions. Having no restrictions. There's a famous verse which uses that word, b'meisim chofshi. The word chofshi is associated with people who are dead. Because the dead have no restrictions. Every living person has restrictions. Certainly the restrictions of morality. And there are other types of restrictions, which maybe if I have time at the end I'll I'll elaborate for you. Chofshi is a negative concept. Free of restrictions. Freedom from. Freedom from something that restricts you. Cherus is a positive concept. It's freedom for. Freedom to. The word cherus is spelled the same as the word charus. Charus means engraved. And chazal say cherus means to be associated with what was engraved on the tablets. The ten pronouncements of the Sinai were engraved on the tablets. And when you talk about cherus, you're thinking in terms of charus al aluchos, what was engraved on the tablets, which means the commandments that God gave. So, cherus is a positive concept, concept of being free to, free for, particularly free to and free for that which is of ultimate value, which is um which is the mitzvahs that Hashem gave. We have a mitzvah to remember the exodus from Egypt twice a day, mention it verbally. We perform that mitzvah by saying the third paragraph of the Shema. I don't know if if I wanted to create a way to mention and remember the exodus from Egypt, somebody asked me to choose a text that everyone every Jew shall say twice a day, I don't think I would latch onto a paragraph in towards the end of the book of Numbers, Bamidbar. I would take the book of Exodus to remember the exodus. Isn't the book of Exodus about the exodus? Pick some chapter from the book of Exodus and talk about and say that. Why would you pick the parsha of tzitzis, whose last sentence happens to be about the exodus? Why does that leap to mind? Okay, there's a lot of torah in this, there's brisket torah in this, but the simple answer, I think, is that the last sentence in the in the parsha of tzitzis says, "I am Hashem your God who took you out of the land of Egypt to be your God." Explains the reason for the exodus. And that's what the tradition wants us to be aware of, not just the fact that he took us out, but that he took us out for a particular reason, to be our God. Just as Moses at Mount at at um at the burning bush asked God, "Who are the Jewish people that I should take them out of Egypt? What merits do they have? What did they do to deserve your freeing them?" And God's answer to him, see Rashi, God's answer to him is, "What did they do to deserve it? Nothing. Nothing. I promised the the patriarchs and they're going to serve me on this mountain, Mount Sinai, when they come out. I'm taking them out not because of what they did in the past, not because of their merits, their virtue. I'm taking them out as an investment in their future. That is to say, their freedom is important because it'll be used to do something extremely valuable in the future. Not just freedom for freedom's sake. There's freedom for the sake of what you'll do with it. So, this is definitely the Jewish point of view, and for me, as a philosopher, it's comforting and and pleasant that chazal's position can be defended philosophically straightforwardly without without difficulty. Now, I'm sure you're aware that a certain segment of the Jewish people uses Pesach and also Chanukah in what I would call straightforward propaganda to say that in the modern world rights are so important, and rights are rights to freedom, we got there first. We got there first. Jewish tradition has been stressing rights for thousands of years. Pesach was this holiday of freedom, celebrating the idea of freedom. And Chanukah was a reaffirmation of the idea of freedom where we fought to throw over foreign power that was depriving us of our freedom. I think this is a deep mistake. I think it's a deep mistake. First of all, if you imagine the Jewish tradition believes in universal human freedom, you ought to ask, "Why is it that God freed only one group in all of history?" Ancient world, freedom was very very common. The Greeks and the later on the Muslims, who to this day still have have slaves in various Muslim countries. Um freedom is a very widespread in the world. If God's in favor of universal human freedom, why is it that he only freed one group at one time in history? And more than that, the majority of our history we haven't been free. If freedom means having your own country, your own state, your own piece of geography that you control, your own army, for the majority of Jewish history we have not been free. So, God isn't even totally committed to our freedom. It's simply not true. On the contrary, God's commitment to freedom is, as we said, as a means to doing other things that are important. God says, "I'm willing to invest in your freedom when you're going to use it to do the things that are important. But if you're not going to use it to do things that are important, then I'm not going to defend it. I'll let the rest of the world take control, and you won't be free." So, this reinforces the idea that freedom is really only a means, has only has the the value of a means to to do things that are valuable. Other than that, it has no value. Are we together so far? What they say is this. The idea of freedom, in particular rights for freedom, is an idea which has become popular in the world. Maybe you can trace a lot of it to the Reformation. Um you have the United Nations has the doctrine of universal human rights. And uh in Western democracies it's become a very important issue. And the idea is every human being should be free to do as he pleases. That's a matter of ultimate importance, intrinsic value. Don't push people around. Don't dictate to them. Don't uh force them. Such as freedom of speech and stuff. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of of assembly, right? Uh well, no. Political correctness is an assault on freedom. That's the opposite. There you can't say what you think, and you can't can't do what you believe in, and you can't uh No, no. I'm talking about real freedom. Classical liberal freedom, not the modern radical fascists. I'm talking about people who really believe in freedom. So, now um these people look at the exodus from Egypt. Well, we were slaves in Egypt. And God took us out. If you look at it superficially, you know, on the level of a four-year-old, uh it looks like they were slaves and now they're not slaves. So, no slavery. Cheeseburgers, football on Saturdays, you know, uh gambling, whatever you like. You're free to do as you please. Isn't that freedom? So, look, Jews celebrate Passover, and Passover is a celebration of getting out of slavery and being free to do as you like. So, Judaism got there long before the modern world. We're the ones who great brought to the world the idea that people should be free. Who says that? The Reform, the Conservative, the non non-affiliated, right? Those who have a Jewish cultural identity and want to be proud of the fact that they're Jewish. They say this in order to show how modern how advanced we were thousands of years ago, right? But as I'm pointing out, this is absolute shtuyot. Nowhere does the Torah value simply the freedom to do as you please, do whatever you want, whenever you feel like it. No one should tell you what to do. How about the creator? Can he tell you what to do? And if he's telling you what to do, are you really free to do as you please? Not really. And historically, God did not invest in making other peoples free, ever. And he didn't invest in making us free for the majority of our of our history. So, the painting the Jewish tradition as if it's in favor of what they call freedom is a gigantic mistake. Now, they do it in order to be acceptable and modern and seem to be advanced, you know, and and win social points. But if you're interested in the truth of the tradition, it's just a non-starter. People associate freedom with less rules. Less rules, less laws, less restrictions. I think it's a two-edged sword. I think sometimes certain rules increase freedom. Um I'll give you two examples, two type two examples of which are two different types, two different categories, but they have the same effect. In all civilized countries, when you want to go someplace and there are roads, highways, thoroughfares, right? You are absolutely forbidden to use 50% of the road. Cuz if you're you must drive on the right-hand side of the road if you're in an advanced country or left-hand side or if you're in a what backward country. Right? But you only get half of the road. I get out there in my car and I'm going in a particular direction, half the road is off-limits. Half the road, 50%. I can't drive on 50%. Well, what's the alternative? No rules. Anybody can Then no one will get anywhere. So, the rule that takes away 50% makes it possible for me to get anywhere at all. So, am I losing out? Is that making me less free? I don't think so because I can get wherever I want. I can get there much better than I can get if the if the rule wouldn't be there. So, I'm not losing out in any respect at all. Not even really losing out in my sum total of freedom. Because now I have the ability to get where I want to go. That's what I wanted to use my freedom for anyway. So, a lot of rules are like that where you restrict freedom in order to promote the value of other freedoms that you have. And in the end, you didn't lose anything. That's one thing. But then there's another thing which is more subtle. Let's take the rules of chess. So, yeah, fine. The guy's sitting playing chess and at one point he thinks his knight and he moves it three steps straight forward and takes off your queen. And you say, "Excuse me. You can't do that." And he says, "What do you mean I can't do it? Watch, I'll do it again. 1 2 3, bang, off with your queen." I say, "Wait a minute. Wait a minute. I know you can physically move that whatever that's not chess. You know, you just that's not according to the rules of chess." Okay, so that means you can't play a game of chess unless you follow the rules. It means the rules of chess are what make the game possible. Here, following the rules gives you a freedom. Following the rules gives you a freedom. You're not free to play chess unless you follow the rules. So, here following the rules adds to your freedom. Yes, it you have less freedom to pick up the pieces and move them, but the freedom to play chess is created by the rules of chess. That's one example. Here's another example. How about the rules of grammar? Rules of language. You know, sometimes you get a boisterous independent minded American who says, "Don't push me around. Don't tell me what to do. I speak as I like. For example, and and and plus blue. See? I say what I please." You could do that. You could do that. No one will stop you. But you can't communicate doing that. You can't communicate cuz it has no meaning. The rules of language dictate what combinations of words have meaning and what combinations don't have meaning. And if you ignore the rules, you can't communicate. So, the rules of language make it possible to communicate. They give you the freedom of communicating. Now, a lot of rules are like that. Certain moral rules are like that because certain moral rules are what give you the possibility and therefore the freedom to have certain types of relationships. If you don't keep your promises, people are not going to relate to you in a certain way. They're not going to trust you. They're not going to invite you into into agreements. Not going to invite you into into cooperative ventures because they feel they can't trust you. So, you don't have the freedom to have that kind of of a relationship with someone unless you follow the rule of keeping your promises. So, often rules create freedoms. I think that when a person looks to throw off all his rules because he wants to be free, that can be a very short-sighted idea. And he should consider very carefully what freedoms rules create for for a person. This is one of the reasons why people don't just uh um indiscriminately reject rules and and and throw off rules because these rules are what make certain valuable parts of of life possible. They give you the freedom to pursue those valuable parts of life. Um Every significant human achievement, I think I could say this without qualification. I'll talk about a couple of possible counter-examples in a moment. Is the result of of cooperative effort. Nothing's achieved alone. And cooperative effort, as I said, depends upon following certain rules. So, a mathematician Mathematicians, you know, they're burning the midnight oil and they're dreaming up ideas and proving theorems. That's solo. But it isn't solo. First of all, when they produce a proof, the whole mathematical community has to approve it. If they can't convince the other mathematicians that it's a good proof, then it isn't a good proof and it's not going to sell. When they're thinking up their proof, they have in mind, "What will my colleagues say? How will my colleagues try to criticize this?" What he wants to do is please them so that it will be established in the mathematical community that it is correct. So, it's not really solo. He may be working solo, but the criterion for success is not solo. It's because he's part of a community. And even today, they don't work solo. Either they trade results or half results or counter-examples, there's a lot of joint work that goes on. Um Even Robinson Crusoe, at least the story where he's shipwrecked and he creates functional life for himself on the island, there are two qualifications that story. First of all, he uses the implements from the ship to create his life there. And all he achieves is staying alive. He doesn't discover any new mathematical theorems or any new scientific laws or doesn't chart the seas or write sonnets or poetry or all he does is stay alive. Now, that's an achievement. But that's not the kind of thing that I'm talking about. This is going to be a progress in in the sciences, in the arts, in [Music] um in the industry, these things are all done by cooperative effort and the cooperative effort has rules. If you don't play by those rules, you can't be part of that cooperative effort. So, I think that the opposition to rules as a as a way of get of of increasing freedom is very superficial. It's very superficial. And in the end, the rules that we have are the they create the possibility, the freedom to draw close to God, which is the greatest thing for any human being ever. And that being the case, we have to be very thankful for the rules that we have. [Music]