10/17/2021 - Mercy

 Are humans capable of mercy? Or rather, is it within our power to grant mercy?

I believe there is a very, very fine line between leniency and mercy. We are more than able, if not obligated, to show compassion to our neighbors when it's referred to as the acknowledgment and concern of those suffering. I believe we are also able to practice leniency by not inflicting harsh punishment. But what of mercy? The withholding of severe punishment to those that deserve it?

It took quite a bit of research because all of the below are nearly synonymous, but this is how I see it:

Compassion- "I feel bad that that animal is suffering, I'm going to go help it."
Forgiveness- "You did something harmful to me but you apologized. I accept."
Leniency- "You are going to be disciplined, but not severely."
Mercy- "You deserve to be severely punished by me, but I won't."

We practice all of the above, but I wonder if it is within our right to practice mercy. To show mercy is for someone in a position of power to voluntarily choose not to harm or punish the other. When broken down, it means that one person is allowed to purposely cause harm and/or punish another, with punishment being severe and irreversible. But are we as mankind within the right to inflict harmful and harsh punishment to another?

I think that leniency is the most that mankind can (or should) practice when it comes to punishment. We can ground a child for breaking the rules but we should not strike the child. To ground the child will teach them not to repeat their wrongful actions as there will be consequences. Not disciplining the child will result in depravity. But instilling fear or terrorizing the child is irrevocable. Leniency is the balance between depravity and mercy, but I think the difference between leniency and mercy is the outcome of the decision; did we teach a lesson or did we cause permanent damage? For a human to show mercy is to admit the power to severely punish another, but shouldn't that only be within the power of God?

One might consider imprisonment a severe punishment, but what about in comparison to the death sentence? Should mankind be allowed to choose who lives and who dies, ultimately assuming the position of God? I see imprisonment as lenient in the grand scheme of things; they are being disciplined but still allowed to live, the worst of whom are put in solitary confinement. I do believe that there are heinous acts that are deserving of severe punishment, but are we as humans sanctioned to deliver that punishment? In all, we practice mercy but do we have the authority to do so as it insinuates that we are allowed to instill irrevocable punishment? If mankind is allowed to make those decisions, would we rejoice or regret that the situation escalated to the point of grave punishment? Are we happy that we expunged physical evil from our world, or are we sorrowful that we had to do so? 

Of course, there are situations of defense that are exempt from this but my argument isn't necessarily about death, but about whether or not He wishes us to practice the same punishments He instills. For us to show mercy is to imply that we are empowered to make those God-like punishments.

I would not punish a child that is not mine. So who would I be to irrevecably punish a child of God?

I'm about to use an example that I am unsure if I am qualified to use, so bear with me and feel free to counter.

"He turned this way and that, seeing no one about, he struck down the Egyptian and hid him in the sand. When he went the next day, he found two Hebrews fighting; so he said to the offender, 'Why do you strike your fellow?' He retorted, 'Who made you chief and ruler over us? Do you mean to kill me as you killed the Egyptian'?"

Moses killed a man. He did not show mercy but he punished him with death for beating his kinsmen. But let's say he did not kill the Egyptian but punched him instead and said, "I should kill you, but I won't," would that not imply he had the right to take a life? Should Moses have shown mercy or killed the Egyptian? One is not worse than the other; God had not instructed Moses to do so.

The response of the Hebrews fighting is interesting too, "Who made you chief and ruler over us? Do you mean to kill me as you killed the Egyptian?" Moses was raised as an Egyptian and the Hebrews knew it, so when Moses killed the Egyptian he likely saw it as an act of justice, yet the Hebrews did not see it as so. I imagine in that moment that the Hebrews were skeptical and fearful of Moses. If an Egyptian killed his own kind, what is that Egyptian capable of doing to the Hebrews?

The slaves of Egypt were held for hundreds of years and still knew that despite their suffering, that God would deliver them. They knew that for a fact, yet did not rejoice when Moses punished the Egyptian. I believe Moses had good intentions and I do not believe he was driven by evil, but Moses was not instructed by God to do so. So why did he take upon himself to assume God's power? Perhaps that what the Hebrews thought as well. God promised to deliver them, and who was Moses (at that point) to imitate the power of God?

Much later when Moses, after fleeing Egypt, is before the burning bush does God say,

"You shall speak to him [Aaron] and put the words in his mouth-I will be with you and with him as you speak, and tell both of you what to do and he shall speak for you to the people. Thus he shall serve as your spokesman, with you playing the role of God to him, and take with you this rod, with which you shall perform the signs."

It is at that moment that God gives Moses the power to carry out His duties. However, with each plague and each miracle of the rod, God was the one who actioned it, not Moses. Moses delivered it, but only with the instruction of God. I often wonder if God was upset with Moses for killing the Egyptian or if He saw it as proof that Moses was ready for the task He was going to give him.

Clarity is later brought through the lines that say, "--with you playing the role of God to him [Aaron]." God later says to Moses, "See, I place you in the role of God to Pharoah, with your brother Aaron as your prophet." God then gives Moses the power of Himself over Aaron and Pharoah, but not the Israelites, God still maintains that power. Perhaps I'm looking too far into this and confusing myself, but I wonder why Moses' actions toward the Egyptian was never brought up again. Was that a catalyst for the task God gave him?

Maybe the bigger question is, does one immoral act that benefits the greater good become a moral act? If so, who is qualified to sanction it or withhold it? Who can assume a power so high that they can withhold punishment as a sign of mercy? Do they rejoice when the immoral act is committed? Sure, justice is satisfying because it disciplines evil, but do we rejoice when justice is served or do we feel remorse that it got to that point?

Everyman's Talmud specifically discusses God's mercy: 

"When, however, He is compelled by justice to exact punishment from evil-doers, He does so with regret and pain. Noble expression is given to this thought in the legend that at the overthrow of the Egyptians by the Red Sea, the ministering angels wished to offer a song of triumph to God; but He checked them, saying, 'The work of My hands is drowned in the sea, and you would offer Me a song!'"

In one of the most cruel treatment of Israelites in history, God still felt pain at the punishment He administered to the Egyptians. But I believe God also showed undeserving mercy on the Egyptians during the plagues. Before the plagues started, Egypt was already deserving of punishment. But God decides to give them warnings, as a signs of mercy in my opinion, while "hardening Pharoah's heart," before delivering justice.

I remember reviewing the phrase during one of the classes in 12JQ. Rabbi Miller opened the discussion with something along the lines of why would God remove Pharoah's free will and harden his heart? Toward the end, we discussed that Pharoah's heart was already hardened by himself, which I think is a great explanation; Pharoah was already prone to malice and pride. God hardened his heart by giving Pharoah 10 chances (plagues) to release His people.

If my friends place a cup of tea and a cup of coffee in front of me, they already know I'm going to drink the coffee because that's what I almost always choose. So they already know I'm more inclined to choose coffee. If they give me this option 10 times in a row and I choose coffee every single time, they'll likely stop offering tea altogether. They could have just given me coffee from the beginning, but they gave me 10 chances to choose tea until they decided I would probably never choose it.

That's kind of how I view that story. It's even mentioned that God said He could have, "---stretched forth My hand and stricken you and your people with pestilence, and you would have been effaced from the Earth." Instead, He not only gives Pharoah multiple chances to free the Israelites, but also shows the Egyptians and Israelites His power. It would have been a much shorter story if God had just struck Pharoah in the beginning and freed His people, but He delivers 10 plagues instead. 10 chances for a pharoah, who is already inclined to harden his own heart, to choose to obey God and free His people. Each plague showed not only His capability of wrath and power, but mercy as well:

"I shoud strike you, but instead I will turn your water into blood."
"I should strike you, but instead I will infest your land with locusts."

And so forth.

Each plague is not even directed just to Pharoah but to the Egyptians as well. Pharoah continues to harden his own heart at the expense of his Egyptians. 

I don't think God removed Pharoah's free will at all, I think He showed mercy upon Pharoah 10 times as a warning. But because Pharoah was already inclined to hardening his own heart, God solidified it. God presented Pharoah the choice of coffee or tea 10 times and Pharoah, who generally always chooses coffee, declines tea each time. So God stopped offering tea altogether.

Leniency and mercy are almost synonymous and we are capable of both, but I don't think mercy is ours to show, I think that is only within God's right. To me, for us to show mercy is for us to assume the decision-making of God and for us to withhold mercy, is for us to assume the power of God.

When Osama Bin Laden was killed, I was a junior in high school and his death was being celebrated all over the media and at school too. During 1st period, our morning announcements broadcast played the National Anthem in celebration. In 7th period English, where we started every class with writing in our journals, my teacher gave us the prompt for the day, "Should we celebrate the death of an enemy?"

And I think that's the ultimate difference. God doesn't rejoice when He has to withhold mercy and instill fatal punishment, but mandkind does.