Outside The Lines

By: Jonathan Seidel

Sin as the Lacanian object                   

 

The brisker heftza-gavra does not only work to distinguish between typified laws but also a model of religious execution. It is through this vein that the subject-object meets sin.

Sin is a wrongful act. It is acting against God yet the what causes such action? Why act adversely? Instead of sin occupying a status it instead occupies an object. Sin in Judaism is not the result of an action but the action itself. An aveira is an entity of itself. As there are mitzvot there are aveirot. The object across from the subject is either a deed or a sin.  Sin is a violation of a divine command. A misgiving of the divine. The word aveira is not mentioned in Tanakh. ‘Chet’, avon and pesha all come up but not aveira. The former are related to erring and God forgiving. 

Sin in the biblical mind is different than the rabbinic mind. The use of a term like aveira is a teleological shift. Philo like the Mishnah uses the word but it is not found any earlier. The use of the term to denote a fact instead of a status. Chet means to sin but aveira means to surpass. Its meaning intentionally ratifies the extreme. It transforms sin from a result to an entity. Aveira is to pass over to exceed. One sins when they go beyond the reach of the divine bounds. The use of this term is instrumental in understanding the philosophy of sin. Firstly, it argues that a person has willed themselves to do so. You chose to do exceed the bounds. There is even a case of doing so for God called aveira lishma. Secondly, it redefines the nature of sinning. Sinning is not particularly outside the bounds. There is a framework to follow. To stay in between the lines. This is the metaphysical network of the divine order. Sinning is stepping outside the divine frame for a personal purpose. 

Sin is not embedded at brith but human expression. Everyone sins because everyone has an ego. Everyone wishes for personal success. Aveira reminds that one isn’t merely breaking a law but choosing the self over others. Forgoing the divine instruction for personal pleasure. The rabbinic impulse to alter is profound. The rabbinic mind sought to educate the masses. Using a metaphor about an illegal action. Instead saying illegal is excess. The two are different words with different purposes. Excess is not sin in the colloquial sense but in the rabbinic sense it is. There are cases were excess is permitted but the euphemism is different namely drinking wine on Purim until one cannot differentiate. Excess is specifically a negative connotation. Excess is an aesthetic ideal but the Sages harmonised asceticism. Excess is not in the substance but in the order. Within the system excess is permitted. Overdoing it whether with prayer or drinking is praiseworthy but taking a step outside the system is demonised.

Aveira has a Lacanian transmission. The idea of aveira fits the description over the name itself. While this is also relevant with the rabbinic view using hakodesh baruch hu instead of ykvk used throughout Tanakh, chet is used outside of quotations. The rabbinic mind was intent on euphemistic language but there is a difference between not writing God’s name and not writing sin. Though there may be where to dig into these metaphorical patterns. Yet the shift with aveira is intentional to reckon with the product of sin. This isn’t just some defilement but exceeding the bounds of God and the Jewish nation. Especially with an intention to demonstrate the halakhic corpus that governs Israel, such a word is key to the fundamental principle. The will of God manifested in the halakhic corpus is to be not exceeded. It is to be accepted and followed. The euphemistic term is to solidify the halakha as the core of religious expression by calling out all the limits. They aren’t just blemishes on the soul but beyond the boundaries. The fence around Torah is the complementing metaphor where the fence is all that is inside and outside the fence is sinful. 

In a Lacanian sense it attempts to psychologise the desire for sin. The subject desires the object. The object is just any other object but the subject elevates it. Providing sublimity to a plain entity for the desire to grow. It is by chance that this object has received such adornment. Potentially from pressure or jealousy. It is pedestaled by the subject from a place of passion. The subject signifies this object as something prestigious while others may gasp at such a proposal. It is a personal moniker, a personal preference. The subject is consumed in an infatuated mania. Feeling coerced to the object as if the object is projecting a magnet to compel him to it. Once the subject sets his eyes on the object he cannot but continue to stare. He cannot but consume its beauty. He is infatuated with its radiance. His neurological frame signals to his body to capture the object to respond ever insistently to the object. It is his to overtake, to grasp. The object is a prize to seek and achieve. An end of itself for the subject’s desire. 

Desire is a lack of the subject. The subject is incomplete. Endless materialism is the carnal aspiration for the object. Even with millions in the bank there is still more to acclaim. There is an eternal loop of duress and missing. Imperfection gnaws at the seeker. There is something out there that he has yet to control. He is helpless in his own incompleteness. He feels empty without the object. The object is elevated to sense completion. An aspired feat to finally achieve peace. The lack can be compensated by quantifiable addition. Since qualitatively this object differs from the rest. This dollar while appearing symmetrical to others is perceived with greedy eyes. This dollar has apparent serenity attached. It is with this dollar or this book that serenity will overwhelm the subject. Yet the sensation never comes. Even if it does for a brief moment the lack overpowers it. The object only becomes desirable due to the lack. Incompleteness persists as long as the object remains outside the grasp. Fulfilment and salvation are the endgame of acquiring this object. 

An object is a sublime object insofar as his lack pounces on his shoulder. The devil poking with his trident to advance toward the object. The sublimity is lost as the object is further attached. From afar all is beautiful. All is perfect. The lack for completion is through sublimity. Wow that can cure the hole in the heart yet the closer and more intimate the arousal slowly dies with no compensation. There is but no completion with the hole remaining evidently for another beauty to take its spot. Never happy with what one has. The lack is no metaphysical feat but a social dissatisfaction of un-stoic bravery. The once sublime object is now a vulgar second to the prized hope. The next object will be the adequate compensation. The lack favours the perception. It corrupts the object persistently. Eroding its sublimity within moments of contact. The expectation is too high and the result underwhelming. The lack is more than an aspired hope but an expected finality. The subject is but lost in an idealist illusion. In a reality devoid of the blessings of fantasy. Aligning fictional imagination with the prospects of dreaming excellence. 

The yetzer hara is this lack. It is the devil incarnate pressuring action and promising ideals. Deceptively encouraging a flawed inevitability. The well known midrash best articulates this trickery. The evil inclination approaches claiming to hold the most beautiful diamond in the palm of his hand. Curious the individual asks to see it. The yetzer hara says you want it you have to catch me. If you do it is yours. Interested the individual accepts and begins to chase the yezter hara endlessly through the fields stomping on the crops and through the park shoving children to catch up. The footrace ends and the individual tackles the yetzer hara. The individual demands the yetzer hara open his hand, the latter concedes and his hand is empty. The individual looks back at his destruction bereft of joy saddened by his mistake. The desire for the apparent diamond becomes the sole purpose doing whatever to attain it. The yetzer hara tricks the individual into committing errors in order to attain nothing. It is the lack that impassions him. That he can have the object that will complete him and provide him peace. A false hope overhauled by desire.

In many respects, this evil inclination is the object objectified. It is an other transformed into potential personal property. Cannot live without. The subject is indoctrinated into his own denial. The atmosphere coerces his devilish behaviour. He sees something that he desires because of preconceived notions of fame, fortune or fulfilment. The object is elevated becoming that which he must have to survive. Even on a normal level the desire for a certain book lest he feel hopeless. Yet it is really not so. He can live without it. It isn’t necessarily for nefarious means. Those cases cultivate a psychosis. The sublime object engulfs the subject in a myriad of poisonous strings. The simple desire for a hamburger or a concert are privy to the latent perpetual awareness. The emotional drift entertains the object more. How much self-esteem and self-worth does the subject have. It is only when the lack consumes that the desire is heightened to extreme ends. Sublimity may reduce as the subject approaches or only after completed. The burger is desired to satiate but second thoughts recoil or gulped down. 

The yetzer hara seeks to fill the void. Beauty is desirable. What is considered beautiful is subjective to each person. The subject varies by interest and confidence. The lack will nag at the subject but the subject may brush it off. Confident in his own ways, precise in his beliefs. He closes his ears and continues along his path. This is the core of the euphemistic aveira. Aveira is the passing beyond the acceptable behaviour. The aveira is scary from afar yet the closer one approaches to the sin the more casual it seems. Eve turned the divine command into a vulgar object. She touched the fruit and didn’t die only encouraging the snake to push her further. After she eats the fruit she lives passing it to Adam to sin as well. Their punishment is delayed. God approaches them and questions them. They lie and then blame one another. The consequence is always immediate. Especially today, sin is not a flash of lightning electrocuting the sinner. Elisha ben Abuya sinned consistently and was not punished by the heavens—at least not explicitly. The fearful factor of the sublime sin is vulgarised by encroaching on its domain. It doesn’t feel wrong. Yet aviera reminds of this overstepping. 

Aveira is not to admit the heavenly punishment but the recognition of limits. For the curious sin to be halted before the individual commits the offence. The fear of God engenders respect for the law and remains afar from the problem. It creates a metaphysic of right and wrong. Impurity is realised even if unverifiable. Faith transforms the metaphysical into an empirical construction. A perception that ensures divine obedience. Yet the object is pedestaled as the ordinary. The metaphysic is unrealistic and thus eating pork or driving is not illegal. There is no practical consequence. The difference is therefore minute. Yet it is a symbolic representation of the spiritual order to perceive the ordinary as extraordinary. The hope of the lack is to question the sanctity of one’s lifestyle. Logically trying to dissuade observance. See it is not all that bad. There is no death penalty. The snake has coiled around the sinner to promise him protection. Sin is but a spiritual blemish yet it is preserved by the conjunction of excess. The philosophy of excess is to remain balanced. Within the system all is good. Be happy with your lot and enjoy it to the maximum. Do not wander outside desperately. 

Aveira is attempting to attain the object. For the object to be his ultimate completion. It is overtaken but yet unfulfilled. It can never be reached since even when the sin is executed despair fills his soul. He has implemented a negative inkling that causes him stress. Reaching for the sin’s promising salvation will only be missed. He will never achieve that which Satan swears to him. He will fall over only failing further. Do not pass this point. It is imminent failure. Do not be prideful nor arrogant that you can achieve that which is promised. It is a trick, a betrayal that will bite you in the butt. A paradox that cannot fulfil the deep-seated desire. A waste of an action. Desire can never be voided. Desire is a part of human aspiration but which desire is necessary. The Rav was correct that the halakha curbed biological wishes. Yet the halakha also balances the zealous spiritualist. Even the lover of God needs balance. Halakha sets an orderly framework to keep man stoic and impassioned for divine servitude. Remaining inside the forcefield of divinity against sinful urge and overt longing. 

The solution is to accept one’s lot. Such an advantage is embedded in the determinist tribal paradigm—the communitarian archetype—in ancient Israel and elaborated in the halakha. Each person is part of a larger organic body. A role to be fulfilled. Whether it is to teach the people, lead them, work in the Temple or farm. The Jewish nation is fragmented into different parts of the overall machine. Understanding the role for the greater purpose of God and peoplehood. Self-restraint resembles those internalising their mission. Focusing on the larger national goal than one’s own enhancement. An idea frequented in non-western nations. The tribalist identity is patriotic in its privileging being over having. Today’s material excess cares more for the individual’s accumulation over the community’s need. The overall need is for the successful to continue to assist the downtrodden. For all to their role. Persist to educate and elevate the Jewish people from all different areas. The nation of Israel is a guarantor for one another just as Judah was for Benjamin. The objects are but a means to end. Excess is opposed to self-service for public need.

In Fromm’s to have or to be the brisker heftza-gavra further displays the experiential duality conceptually. The subject desires the aesthetic excess. To be preoccupied with personal growth at the expense of others. I desire the excess. The sinful behaviour is of personal ambition. The devilish behaviour is not the individualism alone but how it interfaces with the zealous lack desiring to achieve irreconcilable completion. An unachievable aspiration. A mission preoccupied that leads one away from relationships and communal connection. The selfless communalism transitions to a selfish individualism. The halakha models a communal model for Israel to complement one another. Prayers are recited in plural for the sake of the people wishing for the nation to be happy and healthy. To be halakhic rather than to have halakha. It is not an item to hold but an experience to behold. The communal nature reminds the cohesive utility and elaborated hope to mend the denominational division and baseless hatred inherent between. 

Fromm’s being is a way of life. Not just to follow the halakha but to be halakhic. To be a tribal member. To be immersed in the identity. The focus is on the person. To be a certain way and act in such a manner. The subject is focused on. Halakha demands how each person ought to act. Even the brisker cases which focus on the object require the individual to act in order to accomplish. The materialism or even more the deconstruction of halakha is the object of hope. For Fromm, the objectification is of materialism over the stoic balance of the individual. Over meditative capabilities and conversation. Even today with social media posting pictures on instagram is a method of objectifying oneself instead of focusing on self-growth. Outside the bounds of proper sinner manner is the attempt to leave the self-worth for external verification. The object is finally available to the average Joe and he wishes to feel rich. To feel dignified by the objectification of his excess.

Yet in the sinful frame is to desire the other than the current system. The desire for that which resides beyond the system is the lack inherent in the system. The system restricts use. Sometimes it seems arbitrary other times intentional. There is no one on the road why can’t I speed, we have enough money why can’t I have that toy? The lack itself cultivates a desire to break the rules. Itching for that which exists out of his grasp. The inclination is strong. It is a powerful force yet it has little to do with the self and more to do with the preoccupied otherness. The subliminal other that is pedestaled for completion. The desire rarely is just for kicks, there is a subconscious theme underlying this urge. Aveira is to exceed that which is obligated. To break through the wall and act immaturely selfishly. It may sound harsh but such is generally the situational reality—even if it is for a greater purpose—it is a personal wish.   

The object of designation is a sin not because it is necessarily utterly satanic. Is pork mixed with some detestable qualities? Is kindling a fire on Shabbat so abhorrent to breech the angelic fetish of the surreal day? The mystical outlook may indeed imply an inherent flaw in the prohibition. It is deplored as decadence. It causes impurity and destroys the self. Even with tzara’at, is lashon hara a divisive concept corrupting the self into a spotted illness? A pig nor building are problematic in of themselves though gossip is in the inverse with exceptions permitting to assist or save a life. It is entirely situational. A pig is fine to own or to place it in the barn but never to eat it. Building is permitted and even obligated concerning the Temple but Shabbat is a day off, to rest from labour. Sin is negative behaviour. It is action-oriented. The sin is the result of exceeding the permissible requirements. Implementing an acceptable postulate in an unacceptable axiom. The sin is illegality. It is against the order. The law is the cultural layout of divine rules. Illegality is for many reasons other than the work of the devil. It is for safety, security and simplicity even satisfaction. 

Sinning is exceeding the bounds of obligatory permission. It is the desire for jouissance. The halakha is the line of pleasurable sublimity. It is the coercing beauty of overestimated aspired pleasure. There is a line that enchants the socio-linguistic elements of the culture beholden to the halakha. The pain of despair is the pit of the halakhic individual who has sinned. He who has exceeded the limits for personal pleasure is overcome with grief for abandoning his principles. The nature of the subject-object is the predicament of the seeming intent of halakhic man. The brisker model cogently transforms the halakhic model into a surreal experience akin to the mystical spiritualisation. Sin is by no means impinged by rational relatability. The philosophical rationale seeks to undermine the divine integrity of the law. The law is not simple to alter due to some subjective changes in the matrices of science. The halakhic machine must be carefully approached and manually reconstructed. It is a highly sensitive metaphysic that requires caution and passion. Those who wish to impart the rational faculty expunge the sacred perception to mundane marginalisation. 

Heftza-gavra linkage is the same as the subject’s referent to the halakhic order. Perceptual awareness of the valued virtue versus sin. It is the same reason why visiting a foreign country may not feel shabbosdik since the lack of congressional engrossment offers little apprehension of the spirit. Yet the renewed mindset of the observant is the incarnated metaphysic of an elevated existence. It as if he wore new glasses causing the inanimate objects to begin to glow green for virtue and red for sin beeping the closer he came to sin. Sensually he may not feel it unless he is attached to it. The subject-object is real insofar as it is animated in the observant’s mind. It may seem illusionary to others but this is the ‘fictionality’ of the virtue-sin complex of observance. Aveira thus is the object of lack exceeding the system’s standards. The subject’s relation to the object is of irresistible linkage. It is to remain stoic under the divine defence. To accept the fated lot trusting in the system. Recognising the needless exaggeration of the sin. Yet if he mistakenly faults he sobs in fury pleading for forgiveness.

He has transgressed. Went too far whether intentionally or accidentally. Hitting the right side of his chest in acknowledgement of his wrongdoing. He tries to return to his being. To return to his order. The subject remaining content in his lot. The object on the horizon is desirable but can be lived without. It may try to capture the gaze of the observer. It’s job to entice. It only wishes to be observed whether it has feelings or not. The observer ought to look away to recoil from any enticement. The subject’s relation to the object must be one of promising will. To not be coerced nor overwhelmed by its attempts. The subject’s virtue calms his mind against the object’s sin. His eyes can never escape the gaze of sublimity. Otherness will exist beyond him, his self control will help remain inside and cease from crossing over to the wrong side.