· This Week’s RRR (Relevant Religious Reference): “Do not
judge your fellow until you have arrived at his/her place” – Hillel
in Ethics of the Fathers (Avos), 2:5
· This Week’s SSC (Suitable Secular Citations): “Pay up,
Mortimer... We took a perfectly useless psychopath like Valentine, and
turned him into a successful executive. And during the same time, we
turned an honest, hard-working man into a violently deranged, would-be
killer!”– Randolph Duke, collecting his $1 debt from Brother
Mortimer, as Valentine (Eddie Murphy) listens with wide-eyed shock from
the bathroom stall in TRADING PLACES
THE $1 WAGER
What do you get when you have Eddie Murphy and Dan Aykroyd tricked into
trading societal places? Aside from a continual flow of hysterical lines
and classic Eddie Murphy camera-stares, you also end up with fascinating
food-for-thought. In the hilarious comedy “Trading Places”, the $1 wager
of Randolph and Mortimer Duke gives comedic expression to the age-old
debate of nature vs. nurture (see SSC above). To settle the score
regarding their opposing opinions on the issue, the Duke Brothers cleverly
conspire to orchestrate a “life swap”, callously switching the
environments and lifestyles of Billy Ray Valentine (Murphy) and Louis
Winthorpe III (Aykroyd). Ultimately, the dastardly Duke duo “succeeds” in
transitioning an underprivileged con-man into an upstanding business
leader while turning an honest executive into a common criminal.
With regard to their bet, which of the Duke Brothers is more in line with
Jewish wisdom – Randolph (on the side of nurture) or Mortimer (on the side
of nature)? To some degree, Judaism would agree with each of the
brothers, asserting that nature and nurture both play a large role in
determining a person’s position in life. But let’s up the ante on their
wager: if nature and nurture forces are so powerful, must we bet against
freewill – a central tenet of Judaism – and concede that there’s no room
for it in the equation of life’s forces?
THE SHIFTING BATTLE LINE OF CHOICE
There’s no need to concede, as Jewish wisdom beautifully resolves this
quandary. Our sages reveal that each person possesses two competing
drives: a positive drive (which lifts us towards constructive, meaningful
endeavors) and a negative drive (which sucks us into seemingly “self-
serving” yet counter-productive behaviors). The clash of these drives
creates a dramatic tension that allows for the challenge of choice. Each
of us, however, has a unique choice-point – our own inner battle line
where the freewill struggles are taking place (i.e. where the competing
drives are at equal strength). But our battle line continually moves,
depending on 1) changing circumstances, and 2) whether our positive or
negative drive has prevailed in the previous battle. Rabbi Eliyahu
Dessler compares this phenomenon to a physical battle, paraphrased as
follows:
When two armies are at battle, fighting takes place only at the
battlefront. Territory behind the lines of each army is under that army's
control, so little or no resistance is needed there. If one side gains a
victory at the front and pushes the enemy back, the position of the
battlefront will change. At that point, fighting takes place only at the
new battle line. We now see how there is always potential for
freewill in the equation: true, our Creator sets the stage for us,
endowing us with “innate influences” and with frequently changing “nurture
influences”, all of which are beyond our control. But wherever those
forces may place us – and in whichever direction our battle might move –
there will always remain a battlefront location where our drives can be at
equal strength.
FREEWILL AND JACOB’S LADDER ♪♫ (INCIDENTALLY, 2 SONG TITLES BY THE ROCK
POWER TRIO “RUSH”)
Another vivid metaphor is used to illustrate the shifting battle line of
choice: the up-and-down movement on a ladder that spans from the earth to
the heavens (as per Jacob’s dream in this week’s Portion). As with the
shifting battle line, each time we climb to a higher rung on this
ladder of moral mobility, we actually “raise the bar” of our moral
maturity – leaving behind challenges that are now beneath the zone of our
temptation. Conversely, each time we drop to a lower rung, we enter a
zone of lower-level temptations. In doing so, we leave ourselves
vulnerable to the frightening phenomenon of the slippery slope: before we
know it, we might find ourselves three or four rungs down, engaged in
behaviors that were previously unthinkable.
Now let’s run our own quasi “trading places” experiment in the “laboratory
of Jacob’s ladder” (and let’s get back at Randolph and Mortimer by calling
our Jewish “guinea pigs” Randy and Mordechai). Randy is a Jewish thief,
who has grown up in a den of thieves – glorifying “survival of the
fittest” and comfortably convinced that stealing represents
acceptable, “way-of-the-world” behavior. Mordechai comes from a long line
of rabbis and lives in a nurturing household: conducive to moral
advancement and spiritual growth. For Randy, the notion of “thou shalt
not steal” is so foreign that it sounds funny when he first hears it. In
other words, resisting the temptation to steal is on a rung that is above
his battle line of moral struggles (in fact, one of his moral struggles is
whether or not to shoot someone who catches him in the act of a
robbery!). For Mordechai, the temptation to steal flies way beneath his
radar, many rungs down on the ladder of moral mobility.
WHO IS GREATER: THE THIEF OR THE RABBI’S SON?
Now let’s say that Randy becomes further exposed to ethical ideals,
gradually refining himself to where he consistently resists temptations to
steal. Sure, he still gets into occasional street fights, etc. – but
let’s say that he manages to climb up five rungs from where he started
(which now leaves him five rungs beneath Mordechai). And let’s say that
Mordechai refines his character as well, making strides in his commitments
to Torah study, etc. Sure, he still could pray with more fervor, and he
occasionally looks down on people with lesser knowledge – but let’s say
that he manages to climb up two rungs from where he started. Question:
who is greater in the eyes of G-d? To the naked eye, Mordechai may
compare favorably to Randy in every empirical measure of morality. But
from a Divine perspective – at least according to one formula of
calculation – look who did more with what he had! Similarly, assume
an investor were to invest $10,000 with one broker and $110,000 with
another; if the first broker returns $60,000 and the second returns
$130,000, which one might the investor be more impressed with?
While I certainly do not presume to understand the infinite intricacies of
Divine calculations, I think that we can arrive at certain conclusions
with conviction: first of all, let us be clear that we should never
despair about where we may be on the ladder. We all have our tailor-made
battle lines, and the direction we are heading in is far more important
than which rung we currently occupy. Moreover, we can now heed the words
of Hillel with greater appreciation: “Do not judge your fellow until you
have arrived at his/her place!” Not only is judging someone
unfavorably an undesirable, elitist thing to do – but even more, it
doesn’t make sense from a logical perspective. Why? Because we have
never truly arrived at another person’s place – we have never experienced
the precise combination of forces that make up another person’s battle
lines. While it is reasonable to evaluate and condemn inappropriate
actions, it is unreasonable and illogical to judge the people behind those
actions. May we all climb life’s ladder in the direction of our positive
purpose, and may we judge others favorably as they attempt to do the same!
