A Vision of Unity (פרשת ראה)

The Shema--perhaps the most important prayer in Judaism--stresses divine unity. "Hear, O Israel: the Lord is our God, the Lord is One" (Deuteronomy 6:4). The Hebrew word for unity, we should bear in mind, is אחדות, which is related to the word אחד (one). This week's Torah portion, Parshat Re'eh (פרשת ראה, Deuteronomy 11:26–16:17), articulates a manifold unity: one vision or one right perspective, one good, one God, one place of worship, and one people.

The portion begins with the imperative to see: "See [ראה], I set before you today blessing and curse: the blessing, when you heed the instruction [מצות] of the Lord your God with which I instruct (מצוה) you today; the curse, if you heed not the instruction of the Lord your God" (Deuteronomy 11:26-28). The imperative is addressed not to the individual (לפניך), but collectively to the people as a whole (לפניכם).

The people are admonished, "You shall not do after all that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes" (Deuteronomy 12:8). Instead, Moses repeatedly directs the people's gaze to "what is right [הישר]" or "what is good and right [הטוב והישר] in the eyes of the Lord" (Deuteronomy 21:25, 21:28, 13:19). Following the initial imperative to look, the intent is to align the vision of the people with the vision of their God, so that it is a single vision.

Moreover, it is a vision of one good. In the Midrash (Devarim Rabbah 4:3), R. Eliezer links the opening verse of this week's portion ("See, I set before you today blessing and curse") to Lamentations 3:38: "out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?" The Bible scholar and commentator Nehama Leibowitz, following previous commentators, points out that the Hebrew word for evil in Lamentations 3:38 occurs in the plural form (רעות = evils), but the word for good (טוב) is in the singular.

The portion stresses the oneness of God throughout, warning the people to choose their God (it is always "your God") over "other gods" (the gods of other peoples) that they have not known.

Another feature of the portion is the abolition of religious sacrifice at local shrines and its centralization in Jerusalem ("the place that the Lord your God will choose," Deuteronomy 12:5), which occurred historically between the late eighth century BCE (Hezekiah's reform) and the late seventh century (Josiah's reform). This centralization has a number of consequences, including the innovation of what the rabbis called secular slaughter (שחיטת חולין) outside of Jerusalem (Deuteronomy 12:15). More to the point of this drash, centralization of the Israelite cult is another expression of unity. As the first-century CE Jewish priest, scholar, and historian Flavius Josephus argued, centralization of worship teaches that just as there is only one God, there should only be one Temple, and the Temple should be "common to all men because He is the common God of all men" (Against Apion, book II, paragraph 24).

The argument that Josephus makes concerning the centralization of worship brings to mind a similar argument that the French historian and political writer Alexis de Tocqueville would make centuries later. In the second volume (chap. 5) of Democracy in America, first published in 1840, Tocqueville wrote: "Men living in a similar and equal condition in the world readily conceive the idea of the one God, governing every man by the same laws, and granting to every man future happiness on the same conditions. The idea of the unity of mankind constantly leads them back to the idea of the unity of the Creator; while, on the contrary in a state of society, where men are broken up into very unequal ranks, they are apt to devise as many deities as there are nations, castes, classes, or families, and to trace a thousand private roads to Heaven."

Along these lines, we can see that in addition to emphasizing one vision or right perspective, one good, one God, and one place of worship, this week's portion also underscores the oneness of the people. This is evident in the solidaristic provisions for the Levite, who has "no portion or inheritance" (i.e., they did not receive a portion of the land like the other tribes, Deuteronomy 12:12), and the social obligations stipulated in Deuteronomy 15 to one's "fellow man and brother," including the debtor and the pauper. Remission at the end of every seven years is a leveling practice that restores equality between the erstwhile debtor and his creditor. The instruction to "open your hand to your brother, to your poor, and to your pauper, in your land" (Deuteronomy 15:11), may not place the pauper on an equal footing, but at least it ensures that he will not be treated as an outsider to whom one owes nothing. To be sure, these provisions are in one sense inconsistent with Tocqueville's thesis because they presuppose inequality that must then be compensated. Nevertheless, they express an egalitarian ethos and aspiration, and in this sense they are consistent with Tocqueville's point. As the Bible translator and professor of Hebrew Robert Alter puts it, "whatever the social and economic differences, all Israelites should regard each other as brothers." The social ethic of Deuteronomy thus aims to prevent inequalities from deepening and hardening into caste divisions that would break up the nation.

The ideal of אחדות (unity or oneness) runs against the grain of the individualism that prevails today. Taken to an extreme, this ideal surely has its dangers. But this week's portion reminds us that the ideal of אחדות is also closely connected to the Biblical social ethic and may be needed in some measure today to counterbalance individualism and reinvigorate our sense of mutual social obligations.