Toward the Outside: Concepts and Themes in Emmanuel Levinas

18. DIFFICULT FREEDOM (1963, 1976)

18. DIFFICULT FREEDOM (1963, 1976) This collection of essays and articles, devoted either to Judaism or to Jewish themes (Jewish life in France, the relations between Jews and non-Jews, anti-Semitism, a commentary on the concept of Messianism, current events as they relate to the Jewish community , and a short autobiographical piece titled “Signature”), was originally published in 1963. References here are to the second edition (1976). I have chosen two texts representative of the broad spectrum of themes gathered in this collection. “Messianic Texts” This piece, the longest by far in Difficult Freedom, is a commentary on four passages from the last chapter of the talmudic tractate Sanhedrin. (Since the Talmud is itself commentary, the present text is commentary on [Levinas’s] commentary on a commentary . Clearly, “intertextuality” is not a postmodern invention!) It was originally presented by Levinas in the form of two papers, delivered at the third and fourth Colloquia of Jewish Intellectuals organized by the French section of the Congrès Juif Mondial in 1960 and 1961. In his first footnote to this piece, Levinas explains the overall intent of his commentary. He compliments Gershon Sholem1 for the historical accuracy he shows in distinguishing carefully between the apocalyptic notion of Messianism, which is mainly a popular one, and the rabbinic conception. But Sholem limits the rationalism of the rabbinic concept to a refutation of 216 the miraculous, “as if, in the world of ideas, it were possible to rid oneself of some questionable values without becoming engaged in others. It is the positive meaning of the Messianism of the rabbis that I would like to bring out in my commentary.”2 This essay, which demonstrates great respect for and understanding of the philosophical significance of the Talmud, is followed by an essay on Spinoza that is highly critical of the latter’s condemnation of the Talmud in the name of enlightened reason. Rabbi Chiya ben Abba, in the name of Rabbi Yohanan, first maintains the thesis that there is a difference between the future world and the Messianic Age. The latter is the age referred to by the prophets and, in the fulfillment of their promise of a better humanity, it is characterized by the end of political violence and social injustice. The former appears to be situated at a different level, and is for “him that waiteth for Him” (Isaiah 64:3). “It concerns a personal and intimate order, lying outside the achievements of history. . . .”3 But Shmuel disagrees with the view that the Messianic era will be one of both political and social justice. He says that the only difference between then and now is that the domination of foreign nations will cease, for it is said in the Bible (Deuteronomy 15:11) that there will always be the poor. But, Levinas points out, this is not far from the text (Deuteronomy 15:4) which exhorts Israel that there be no needy among them, a text that Shmuel could not have been unaware of. Therefore we must interpret Shmuel’s statement differently. He has a very different view of the nature of the Messianic age. While Rabbi Yohanan envisages the Messianic age as a time of spirituality without the contradictions connected with political and economic life, in which time will be spent in friendship, contemplation, and perhaps artistic activity, Shmuel’s view of that age to come is that it cannot be devoid of economic life because spirituality is connected with giving, with not going to the other (person) empty-handed. Levinas takes Shmuel’s thought a step further: “The Other is always the Difficult Freedom 217 poor one; poverty defines the poor person as the Other, and the relation with the Other will always be an offering and a gift. . . . Spiritual life is essentially moral life, and its place of predilection is the economic sphere.”4 The difference between Shmuel’s and Rabbi Yohanan’s view of the Messianic era is strikingly similar to what Levinas considers to differentiate his view from that of Martin Buber. For Shmuel and Levinas, spirituality is essentially ethical, while Rabbi Yohanan and Buber believe in the ideal of a disincarnated spirit of total grace and harmony. These two contrasting views of the Messianic age are presented in the Talmud as “two positions between which every thought somehow oscillates eternally.”5 The positions of Shmuel and Rabbi Yohanan are further differentiated...