Transgressions for a Noble Cause

On Shavuos night I spoke in our synagogue on the topic of Aveira Lishma, violating a transgression (an aveira) for a noble purpose. In the class, we discussed some of the parameters of this concept and its philosophical underpinnings. We analyzed a few examples of how and when it has been used in practice by various halakhic decisors and philosophically by the Chassidic masters.

Not surprisingly, this concept is fraught with spiritual danger. R' Naftali Zvi Yehuda Berlin, for example, insists on two rules before transgressing even for an apparently noble purpose. First, the person can have no pleasure whatsoever from the transgression. Second, a sober calculation must be made as to the consequences, the benefits and losses, of this transgression. For example, though it is certainly wrong to start a communal argument, doing so may fall under the rubric of aveira lishma, if done with no malice or hope of gain, and after an analysis reveals that the argument will cause more good than harm (in fact, in a case brought before the R' Moshe Isserles, he allows publicly speaking ill of someone for the greater good of the community).

While I cannot think of a clear example of an aveirah lishma in the Chronicles of Narnia, it is one of C.S. Lewis’ main arguments used by the Devil in Perelandra, the second book of the Space Trilogy, to seduce the Queen to sleep overnight on Fixed Land  Interestingly, this same argument is put into the mouth of the serpent in the Garden of Eden by R' Meir Simcha of Dvinsk (the Devil, played by Weston in Perelandra, is of course, Lewis’ parallel to the serpent who seduces Eve to eat from the Tree of Knowledge).

Let us go step by step. Ransom, the protagonist of the first of Lewis’ Space Trilogy, “Out of the Silent Planet,” is sent to the young world of Perelandra (what we call Venus) by the Oyarsa (guardian angel) of Malacandra (Mars). There he finds the Queen, the native Eve (Tinidril) living a blissful life on a water planet of floating islands. This Eve awaits her reunion with the King, the native Adam (Tor) and has been commanded by Maledil (God) not to sleep on any fixed land.

It is not long before another Earth native lands on Perelandra. This is Weston, the antagonist of Ransom now clearly under the control of the Devil. Weston attempts to persuade Eve that she should violate the command of Maledil and sleep on the Fixed Land. He argues that though Maledil did command that Eve not sleep on Fixed Land, He did so secretly hoping that Eve would break the command. To sleep on Fixed Land would demonstrate “walking in your own way” and fully growing up:

If He told you to break what He commanded, it would be no true command, as you have seen. For you are right, He makes no jests. A real disobeying, a real branching out, this is what He secretly longs for: secretly, because to tell you would spoil all.

R’ Meir Simcha of Dvinsk (1843 - 1926) interprets the serpent’s argument to the (Earthly) Eve in this exact way:

The desire of the Creator is not to refrain from eating from [the Tree]. Rather, His desire is that you should eat from it and in this way come closer to being God-like such that you can overpower evil and destroy it… You should sacrifice both worlds (this and the World-to-Come) in order to achieve the honor of God and become close to Him. This is the path of a transgression for a noble purpose and, your doing so, is the true desire of God.

Of course, on Perelandra Ransom is able to counter the arguments of the Devil and the woman is saved. No such savior appeared in our world.

Reepicheep the Zealot

In our last post we demonstrated the parallels between Reepicheep’s entry into Aslan’s country, as portrayed in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, with the ascendance of Elijah the prophet in a whirlwind to Heaven. However, this final parallel serves only to emphasize that Lewis modeled Reepicheep (at least partly) after the great prophet. Along with valiance, it is Reepicheep’s similarity to Elijah that provides insight into his character and actions throughout the Chronicles of Narnia.

What trait characterizes Elijah? Elijah himself answers that question when he asserts (Kings 1 19:10), “I have acted zealously for the Lord.” Elijah the Zealot is unafraid of taking on the 200 prophets of Ba’al on Mount Carmel. Elijah the Zealot doesn’t blink when threatened with arrest and imprisonment (or worse) by a phalanx of 50 soldiers, and it is Elijah the Zealot who can be, as it were, more zealous than God, appropriating for himself the power to withhold rain from the Kingdom of Israel (Kings 1 17:1).

Is Reepicheep a zealot? Merriam-Webster defines ‘zealous’ as, “fervent partisanship for a person, a cause, or an ideal,” and a ‘zealot’ as a “zealous person, especially a fanatical partisan.” While no form of the word zeal appears anywhere in the Chronicles, the description seems appropriate for Reepicheep. Reepicheep is a fanatical partisan for Narnia, the country of Aslan. Our first glimpses already demonstrate this zeal loyalty to his king and his people. He is immediately at Caspian’s disposal, and, by suggesting storming Miraz’s castle as soon as possible, demonstrates his zeal of reviving Old Narnia. At the Battle of Beruna he and his mice storm into the heart of the battle. Reepicheep’s need to crush pirates, defeat dragons, battle unknown mermen, experience adventure, and achieve glory come not only from bravery or even valiance. Rather, because is a Narnian zealot.

How dare Terebinthian pirates attack the ship of the King of Narnia, such is a blasphemous act! A merman offers a challenge, how could the representative of Aslan turn away, it would suggest Aslan is weak! A taunt of a Telmarine dares to question Aslan’s assertion, Reepicheep will march his mice into another world to stand for the truth. Turn away from a Dark Island? Not explore all that could be explored? That would brand Narnia, and Aslan, as fearful and scared.

Zealots however, sometimes receive undue criticism for lack of mercy and an inability to connect with the common man. Perhaps there is truth to that, but both Elijah and Reepicheep show mercy and understanding to those in need. 

More in our next post.

Reepicheep and Elijah

I’ve often wondered whether the characters in the Chronicles are modeled after biblical personalities. Of course, they might be modeled after Christian New Testament characters of whom I know little about. So, reformulating, are Narnian characters modeled after any biblical characters found in the Jewish bible. Can we identify King Caspian the 10th with King David, who started the Judean dynasty? Or maybe with King Josiah, who found a book of the law after apparent loss of the essence of Judaism for so many years?

Usually I find the answer to be no. There are too many fundamental differences to really compare Peter, or even a repentant like Eustace, to anyone specific. Perhaps with one exception: Reepicheep. To me Lewis based Reepicheep after none other than Elijah the Prophet, both in terms or his role in Narnia proper, and his role in death and the afterlife. For now let’s start with the latter.

The Voyage of the Dawn Treader tells how Reepicheep achieves his ultimate, destined goal: to reach the Utter East. He does this by sailing in the Dawn Treader as far east as she can go. When she can go no further he goes into the boat with Edmund, Lucy, and Eustace. When that too runs aground, he sails in his coracle high over a standing wave separating the Narnian world and Aslan’s country, with only his three final companions watching, From that point on, no one again sees Reepicheep.

Let’s compare this to the death of Elijah (Kings 2 2). Elijah, accompanied by his faithful student Elisha, starts his journey in Gilgal (likely near Nablus) and travels down to Bethel. From there he travels east to Jericho, and then further east to the Jordan river. At each stop apprentice prophets alert Elisha that his master will be taken away from him. Elisha acknowledges this and continues to accompany Elijah. At the Jordan the apprentice prophets stand afar while Elijah splits the Jordan allowing himself and Elisha to pass through. On the eastern bank of the Jordan they continue to walk until reaching a chariot and horses of fire. Elijah enters the chariot and goes up to the heavens in a great storm.

Note the parallels: (1) Elijah (who retraces the steps of Joshua’s conquest of what was then the land of Canaan) and Reepicheep continuously travel east. (2) While there are those who accompany Elijah and Elisha, they run aground at the Jordan River leaving on Elisha to see Elijah’s ascension to heaven. (3) Elijah and Reepicheep both travel upwards in a vehicle traversing the separation between the human inhabited world and some sort of Godly abode. (4) Neither Reepicheep nor Elijah (at least not in the bible) are seen again though it is never stated that either of them die.

The next time we do see Reepicheep is in the “Last Battle” after the end of time. For it is Reepicheep who welcomes those who have recently died into the walled garden. So to Elijah is the one who will announce the coming of the Messiah who will transform the world into one of peace and prosperity for all of its inhabitants.

Why does Lewis parallel Reepicheep’s death and ‘life after death’ on the prophet Elijah? No doubt because of their respective actions and roles during their lifetimes. We’ll explore that more closely in our next post.

Valiance: Who is the Intended Audience for the Chronicles?

Our discussion of valiance had led me to think (again) about Lewis' decision to write a series of stories for children. In a previous post I implied that Lewis did this to convey basic religious truths, themes, and principles to children. I further suggested that a Jewish Narnia should follow this path. 

Maybe that's not correct. Perhaps Lewis' goal was not to write a book for children, but a book for adults about children. 

Lewis comments on this directly in his dedication of Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe. Writing to his god-daughter Lucy Barfield, he notes that girls grow more quickly than books, and that, by the time the book is in print, she will be too old for fairy tales. Nevertheless, he predicts, "some day you will be old enough to start reading fairy tales again. You can then take it down from some upper shelf, dust it, and tell me what you think of it." 

Why do adults read fairy tales? And, more to the point, why would they read fairy tales about pre-teen children?    

In an effort to become, or remain, valiant. 

Children naturally display the necessary traits we have used to define valiance: enthusiasm, idealism, curiosity, trust, belief in a better future. Everything that adults have beaten out of themselves due to "real-life" prudence and planning. Why would an adult turn to a fairy tale if not to rekindle some of that spirit? Why would an adult read children's literature if not to revive in themselves idealism and hope for a brighter future?

Prof. Ward has eminently demonstrated that the theological messages of the Chronicles are already found in the Space Trilogy. Still one thing appears to me to be lacking (though I admit I need to think about this more): valiance.

Ransom is a fine character who overcomes spiritual and physical challenges to learn the truth about the universe. He is able to teach others and eventually saves the country/world from terrible evil. Is Ransom valiant? He shows persistence, perhaps even idealism and some bravery. But would he ever be confused with Reepicheep?

Does Ransom inspire in readers a renewal of spirit or simply an education of faith?

I think the answer is the latter, and that's why the Chronicles are necessary. 

Valiance: Lucy and Reepicheep

Over the last few posts we have analyzed what makes Lucy valiant. Two themes, likely coupled themes, emerged. The first is Lucy’s ability to retain the positive aspects of childhood: all-encompassing faith, fiery enthusiasm, and tireless curiosity, even as a mature adult. The second is gaiety as reflected in her positive outlook and enthusiasm for the future.

Yet, in our last post, we saw that gaiety on its own does not encompass valiance. In fact, Lewis contrasts gaiety with that which is “clear, sharp, and valiant.” Thus, while valiance does appear to incorporate many aspects of gaiety it also reflects a sense of clarity and perhaps even urgency

With this in hand we can now turn back to Reepicheep, the most valiant of all the beasts in Narnia. We have already noted Reepicheep’s complete lack of fear and we can perhaps now suggest where it comes from. Lack of fear is not a function of bravery, or even of strength. As R’ Soloveitchik said, “Only the child with his simple faith and fiery enthusiasm can make the miraculous leap into the bosom of God…” And once in the bosom of God, what is there to fear?

Furthermore, Reepicheep’s all encompassing faith enables his complete identification with God. A sign of cowardice, such as not sailing to the Dark Island, or betrayal, such as not searching for Eustace, would suggest that these characteristics reflect God. Reepicheep is assured of protection because God is the Great Protector. He will single-handedly take on a dragon or a sea serpent for nothing is too powerful for God. He is assured of success for even in a lost battle he adheres to the will of God.

Some final thoughts on this next time.

Passover Break

Apologies for my lack of recent posts which has been due to the need to concentrate of Passover preparations. Now that Passover has a arrived I hope to return to regular posting soon. 

In the meantime please check out the following older post which speak to the singular nature of Passover which allows it to be pre-commemorated by Abraham. By attesting to this pre-commemoration, our Sages affirm that God has a plan. for history. Though man has free will, God's ultimate plan is, to at least some extent, pre-programmed and neither Pharaoh nor any other world power can alter what He has decreed. 

As emphasized in the Haggadah (and expanded on here with respect to the enemies of Narnia), in every generation the enemies of morality, goodness, and mercy try to destroy the Jewish people and, indeed, all that is modest and wholesome. God will always foil such plans and the destruction they cause is in fact their own, just as He had planned. 

Wishing everyone a Happy Passover! 

Gaiety and Valiance

Lucy, though grownup at the end of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, remains “gay and goldenhaired,” and is thus called Queen Lucy the Valiant. Therefore, if are to understand valiance in the character of Lucy, we must first define “gay.” 

Lewis uses the word “gay” 16 times in the Chronicles (and the word "gaiety" once). Six of those times are in The Silver Chair upon Puddleglum, Eustace, and Jill's discovery that the giants plan to eat them. Puddleglum directs the children to act “gay,” and gives us something of a definition: “Gay. As if we hadn't a care in the world.” Of course, as Lewis notes, Puddleglum, and Marsh-wiggles in general, are absolutely horrid at acting gay. In fact, they may be the exact opposite of "gay" given that Marsh-wiggles always expect the worst and act in direct opposition of carefree. 

Three times gay is used in the context of clothes. Perhaps clothes can also be carefree, but it’s difficult to imagine that Aravis, for example, when trying to trick her father into thinking how happy she was being engaged to Ahoshta, put on “her most carefree clothes.” Rather gay in this context presumably means the brightest, fanciest, and most merry clothes. This definition does not contradict the previous one, rather it explains that forces us to redefine carefree. Carefree does not mean not caring, but it means having an affectation of not caring because one is cheerful and optimistic. 

In Prince Caspian, the word gay is twice used with respect to flora: the rowans surrounding Aslan when he awakens the trees are called gay, and the hedges that Bacchus causes to sprout moments before they take down the bridge in Beruna are "gay with hawthorns." Both of these flora are colorful and bright and it would appear that “gay” here is used in the same way as with respect to clothes. 

Lewis also uses the word gay to describe wind (The Voyage of the Dawn Treader) and sound (The Horse and His Boy). The ship in the picture on the wall of Aunt Alberta’s back room (which becomes the Dawn Treader) runs before a “gay wind,” and King Lune’s hunting horn is “gay and merry.” In both of these cases the items in question presumably cause gaiety: the ship appears joyful as it sails along the waves, and the hunt is done with festivities and merriment. 

The final two occasions of the use of the description “gay” are connected with two of Narnia’s most important characters. Reepicheep, the most valiant of all beasts, is introduced as “a gay and martial mouse.” Finally, when Aslan reveals himself to Shasta in the Horse and His Boy he says “Myself,” in a voice that is “loud and clear and gay.” 

As a whole these examples suggest that “gay,” as used by Lewis in the Chronicles, means joyous, optimistic, and ready to face the future. Yet, this should not be conflated with frivolous or without seriousness (though Puddlieglum and the children likely tried to behave that in that way before the giants). After all, one would certainly not characterize Reepicheep, let alone Aslan himself, as frivolous. 

Lucy’s gaiety is what makes her so attractive to princes who value joy over graciousness, and optimism over courtliness. It is what made her so charming in the eyes of the people who saw gold in her hair. And it is what made her so beloved to Aslan in whom she placed the complete faith and devotion of a young child for a parent. 

However, “gay” alone is insufficient to characterize valiant. We see this because the two terms are also contrasted. The sound of the trumpets before King Edmund’s army on their its way to defend King Lune was “not huge and solemn like the horns of Tashbaan nor gay and merry like King Lune's hunting horn, but clear and sharp and valiant.” From this it appears that valiance has an aspect of sharpness, perhaps immediacy, that is lacking in gaiety. 

We will examine this further in our next post.