Love: What comes first, expressions or feelings?

I was in CT over Passover and I ran into an old friend of mind, an optometrist. As usual we got in to a fast paced conversation -this time about the holiday.

He was wondering why it was that many of the customs, especially the practice of not mixing unleavened bread (matzo) with liquid, seemed unnecessarily burdensome.

He had a point; after all, practically speaking, it is highly unlikely that unleavened bread would have any remnant of unbaked flour that would then mix with liquid and rise. This is not to say it can't happen, then again one can also win the lottery.

To be clear our dilemma regarded the "extra" observances that stem from the core biblical and rabbinic laws (for more on this please see post "the politics of semantics"). Many Jewish practices that stem from hypothetical contingencies are observed despite their unlikely occurrence, such as the black/fur hat. Why?

Our conversation then turned to potential explanations. I would like to share the one that seemed most compelling.

This response assumes that the observance of extra rules to guard against breaches in core observances shares a relationship analogous to that a parent and a child.

Thus a parent is required by society and core legal practice to act as a guardian of their child. For example on a cold day the parents core obligation is ensure that their child remains warm. However, like many of parents/children can attest, most parents go the extra mile when bundling up their children from the cold; the extra scarf, mittens, or hat, all of which is an expression of love.

It is the same way with the extra observance, which goes beyond the legal obligation and is a reflection of love.

But what if you don't love G-d or, for that matter, believe in him?

This leads directly into the question of why we act lovingly. Do future spouses really love each other on first sight?
Indeed, many of my close acquaintances before and after getting married shared with me their concern that they didn't feel in love -I responded "yet".

The point is that one need not love to express love. On the contrary, as psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover explains, to feel love one should express love. By not dipping matzo in water we are telling G-d I love you OR I hope one day to love you OR to believe in you.

The Unifying Factor-To Not Love Your Neighbor as Yourself!

There is an old Judeo-Christian dictum. It is often offered in “ethical” conversation, as a principle in evaluating our actions. However is it possible? Really, is it humanly possible to love one at the same level as yourself?

Moreover, as it it so obviously impossible, why is it so often thrown around?
Interestingly what makes this principle so outrageous is that the one unifying factor of humanity is that we are separate and different. In other words what makes us human is the same thing that makes us distinct. And because we are distinct we cannot love the other like the self!

That is one perspective.
Another perspective sees our differences as a reflection of our different objectives in life, as manifest by our physical and psychological makeup. The athlete is powerful, the banker savvy, and the teacher patient. Our innate talents cause us to have different objectives. These objectives are so disparate and consuming (think of your career or lack thereof) that they define us; what makes me different is what I do.


(One can go so far and label these departments as social, ethnic, religious, geographic etc. groups,career etc.) Thus each one of these groups is made a group by their larger but most importantly discernible objective, i.e. I am American because I ascribe to certain values, or I am an employee and you are an employer.
Likewise each group defines itself as different or not part of another group because that other group has a completely different and even contradictory objective.

Now let us imagine that each group is actually working on the same objective as the next group but the objective is so large that is almost impossible to imagine. For example GM has multiple subsidiaries that all work on the same objective but never see the final product or even understand how their objective is integral to the next group's objective.

It is almost as if the hand, which uniquely can grasp, understands that it is actually part of the same entity that my foot, with its unique mobility, is. Imagine if it didn't?

Is the only difference between humanity and the body physical proximity?

I wonder, if to love your neighbor like yourself is like loving your hand as you love your foot, understanding the uniqueness of the individual objective and talents but also the larger overarching objective. If, like the body, humanity is one organism working on the same project (do we as individuals ever really know where "WE" are going), then to not love the neighbor is to not love the self!