Can a Single Test Determine One's Fitness under any Circumstances

In a rather well known Midrash, Moses is tested by God so that God can discover just what kind of a leader he will be for the Israelite people. In the Midrash the story is told that one day, while tending the flocks of his father-in-law, Jethro, Priest of Midian, a small lamb wanders away from the flock. Moses notices the lamb is missing and he sets out to find the lost one. The disoriented lamb is found near a wadi where it has had a drink of water and is seeking shelter in the shade of a tree or rock. Moses, out of compassion for the lamb, and after engaging the lamb in conversation, decides that the lamb is just too tired to walk back to the flock on his own, so Moses places the lamb on his shoulders and carries it back to the flock and its mother.

The rabbis conclude that Moses met and, of course, passed the test. If Moses paid so close attention to one lost lamb within his flock, then how much more attention might he pay to the entire house of Jacob?

The test, like most of God’s tests, is problematic. While showing compassion for the one lost lamb of his flock, he wanders away from the main body of the flock demonstrating an utter disregard for the whole of the flock. While seeking the lost lamb, Moses exposes the rest of his flock to untold dangers. Thieves could come by and steal some or even the rest of his sheep while he is rescuing the lost one. Wild animals could also come by and feast on several members of the flock while Moses is showing compassion for the lost one. More sheep might wander away while Moses is out saving the lost one. In fact, the very real possibility that even if Moses manages to save the single lamb that wandered away, all, or, perhaps some of the remaining sheep would be lost. The net gain to the flock might be negative rather than merely breaking even.

The question posed here is what is a greater good, serving the many or serving the one? Moses and, simultaneously God, seem to come down on the side of the good being that of serving the one, a value that somehow surpasses the good of the many, at least so far as the sages are concerned. That is simply not good a good enough explanation because it leaves far too much unanswered. Are there occasions where the single life is worth more than the life of say the community, or should the communities interestes outweigh the single life of one individual. It depends on the context, on the complexity of the lived experience. Perhaps Moses had reason to believe that no harm would come to the remainder of the flock as he set out to rescue the lost lamb. Perhaps he knew that there were no thieves in the area, that no wild animals were around to cause harm, and the sheep had settled into an afternoon nap. This gave Moses leave to search the wilderness for the lamb that wandered off. But we aren't told of these possibilities so we are left with the question to ponder. The point is that life is far too complex to be judged by simple tests and singular experiences--especially if the test is imposed on us from some external source..

The question could be put in terms of responsibility, or response-ability. Just what is meant by the word and how can that meaning be applied to God’s test of Moses? Responsibility is generally thought of in terms of accountability, of accepting blame or praise for specific actions. One might also think of the word in terms of dependability, the ability to depend upon another for the right action. But, accountability and dependability have clearly different focui. The former is understood through a lens of exteriority, that which remains external to and apart from the self while the latter is deeply embedded in interiority, that which adheres to and is an intimate part of the self. In the former view, one is responsible for an action while in the latter one acts responsibly.

The difference between the exteriority and interiority of responsibility may be understood in terms of why one must act responsibly in the first instance. From where does the obligation to act responsibly derive? Levinas suggests that it derives from the infinite, from the absolute Other, the unknowable unknown. All meaning derives from the bookends of life, the infinite from which life came and to which it must return. In short, meaning is a function of the absolute Other in its manifest unknowability. Yet, because the Other is outside of human experience, is essentially unknowable, it is naïve to expect the Other to intervene in existential time--the time in which human beings are response-able, or able to respond to the other. The absolute Other sits outside the world unable to issue a meaningful response, unable to be response-able. The Other exists, not in existential time, rather, it exists in historical time--the time in which only the results of one's actions can be judged because one can no longer (if ever) respond for one's self.