A.D. Gordon: the Man and the Vision
Aaron David Gordon, a controversial spiritual leader, was born in 1855 in Russia, and died in 1922 in the British Mandate of Palestine. Until his death, he wandered the land, worked and wrote, and served as a living symbol to his contemporaries. The poet Rachel, for example, dedicated her first Hebrew song to him, as a typical expression of the admiration that many felt towards him. Gordon made lengthy references to returning to nature, but he didn't see nature as some sort of romantic ideal, but as a condition abundant with cruelty. As a Zionist of that era, Gordon also saw Israel as a "wasteland" that must be made to "flourish" – by using cement and concrete. He warned people of the consequences of technological development, but he also had a lot of faith in it.Gordon, the vegetarian
Although his writings don't discuss it much, vegetarianism was a central aspect of his lifestyle – which was quite unusual in those days. Approximately a year before his death, Gordon was asked to take part in writing an anthology about vegetarianism, edited by the author Nathan Bistritzky. Here are some extracts from Gordon's letters replying to Bistritzky, which, about fifty years before the seminal "Animal Liberation" was published, already includes several claims that even today can be heard during arguments between vegetarians and "meatarians" ("basranim", in Gordon's words). For easier reading, we have added titles to the issues discussed in the letter.Vegetarianism – a serious commitment
"The idea of an anthology on vegetarianism is a beautiful idea, but, naturally, its beauty depends on the spirit of the anthology and its essence, and the spirits of its readers. [...]"
"Currently the view of vegetarianism, even among vegetarians, is that it is not absolutely obligatory and fundamental to humankind, but that it is more of a spiritual luxury or some sort of a characteristic of righteousness that is somehow unnatural – perhaps even ludicrous. Simply put, if one were to say "I am a vegetarian, I do not eat meat", it would be, to most who cannot understand it, as if he had said "I do not eat onion or garlic" and so forth, as if there is little to it other than arrogance and abnormality. [...]"
"And really, the attitude towards vegetarianism, which at the bottom line is the attitude towards animals, is the most reliable touchstone for a clear and plain understanding of all our attitudes towards life and the world, exactly as they are, completely free of pretense. The impartial view of animals, that doesn't eventually supply some sort of reward, or motives (obvious or hidden) of utility, or pride, etc., demonstrates to us through a well-lit mirror, with a perceptible clarity unlike any other, the exact meanings of righteousness, truth, and all the other divine attributes of mercy, which we so much love to say we have achieved: righteousness, truth, and so forth – along with slaughtering and eating animals!"
"Currently the view of vegetarianism, even among vegetarians, is that it is not absolutely obligatory and fundamental to humankind, but that it is more of a spiritual luxury or some sort of a characteristic of righteousness that is somehow unnatural – perhaps even ludicrous. Simply put, if one were to say "I am a vegetarian, I do not eat meat", it would be, to most who cannot understand it, as if he had said "I do not eat onion or garlic" and so forth, as if there is little to it other than arrogance and abnormality. [...]"
"And really, the attitude towards vegetarianism, which at the bottom line is the attitude towards animals, is the most reliable touchstone for a clear and plain understanding of all our attitudes towards life and the world, exactly as they are, completely free of pretense. The impartial view of animals, that doesn't eventually supply some sort of reward, or motives (obvious or hidden) of utility, or pride, etc., demonstrates to us through a well-lit mirror, with a perceptible clarity unlike any other, the exact meanings of righteousness, truth, and all the other divine attributes of mercy, which we so much love to say we have achieved: righteousness, truth, and so forth – along with slaughtering and eating animals!"
Eating meat – of humans and other animals
“And really, what real fundamental, human-cosmic difference is there between eating the meat of an animal, and that of a human? The only difference is that a cannibal only refrains from eating the members of his own tribe (because even cannibals don't eat their tribe members); one who eats cattle meat refrains from eating members of his own species – but no more than that. It is clear to me that a quick-witted cannibal could disregard and ridicule the claims of someone who wants to tell him that his behavior is wrong, using the very same logic and facts that quick-witted meatarians use in order to disregard and ridicule vegetarianism.”
The "plants feel pain too" excuse
"[...] Plants are living beings too, they say. Vegetarians also kill and eat something that's alive. Hence, what do they actually contribute with their lifestyle?”
“There are two small things which they have been so kind as to forget or ignore: First, we can judge by using our own bodies that the sensations felt by a plant, if they exist, are not the same as those felt by an animal: a plant doesn't feel pain like an animal does. Our body grows plants as well: Our hairs, when cut, do not feel pain. Second, we can see that a plant, on its own, produces food suitable for animals: the sweet nectar for the insects that assist with its pollination, and the fruits for the animals who eat fruit, also in order to propagate the plant. The plant's entire reason for producing fruits is for them to be eaten, so that their seeds will somehow fall to the ground in different places. In any case, while we continue to behave with such ferocious cruelty to animals, who we perceive as acting and feeling in ways similar to ourselves, it is still early to demand that we show compassion to plants, which we don't even slightly recognize ourselves in. This type of argument against vegetarianism contains no small amount of facetiousness, if not outright hypocrisy."
“There are two small things which they have been so kind as to forget or ignore: First, we can judge by using our own bodies that the sensations felt by a plant, if they exist, are not the same as those felt by an animal: a plant doesn't feel pain like an animal does. Our body grows plants as well: Our hairs, when cut, do not feel pain. Second, we can see that a plant, on its own, produces food suitable for animals: the sweet nectar for the insects that assist with its pollination, and the fruits for the animals who eat fruit, also in order to propagate the plant. The plant's entire reason for producing fruits is for them to be eaten, so that their seeds will somehow fall to the ground in different places. In any case, while we continue to behave with such ferocious cruelty to animals, who we perceive as acting and feeling in ways similar to ourselves, it is still early to demand that we show compassion to plants, which we don't even slightly recognize ourselves in. This type of argument against vegetarianism contains no small amount of facetiousness, if not outright hypocrisy."
The all too common indifference to the fate of animals
“In general, what righteousness and what truth and what humane sensitivity do you find in people, in their attitude towards animals? I have no need for exhaustive testimony, it's sufficient to just observe closely: Who of our kind, or even of the vegetarians, won't sheepishly grin, just a little, when you point out to him that he's sitting in his home, or in the shade, eating and drinking or just conversing for hours, while his travel or work animal is standing tied up or restrained in the burning sun or in the freezing rain, with an iron tag in its mouth? Or if you point out the cruelty in which he steals the honey from the bees, who worked so hard to produce it? Or if any living soul at leisure walks into a stable in the middle of the night where even after a day of hard work there is no freedom of movement for animals and no natural rest, and hears the animals groan – groans that prove they’re living beings – and sees their faces, their gazes, their hopeless movements, alive just like he is. Maybe then, one can judge. And these are just simple allegories from thousands of possible ones, which include actions much more unjust and cruel. And who will notice? Who will not ridicule it, out of some excess "wit", when you point it out?
The moral: not only for humans!
"What is this attitude toward animals? Actually, every person must honestly ask himself what this is. Is it not impenetrability of the heart? Is it not the lack of the vital capacity to empathize? And that same impenetrability, that same inability to empathize, you find in relations between people as well, except that here it's disguised by politeness, by acceptable and traditional interactions [...]"
"A new attitude, one of righteousness, of truth, of empathy to animals is, according to the truth, from a divine, human-cosmic perspective, a new attitude to all life, to all divine deeds that a person asks for in life: righteousness, truth, love, etc, etc. Why, it actually releases human life from the confines of the human race, just as any divine attribute is first released from the confines of man, of the ego. [...] It really must be clear that there is no tikun [amendment] to human life when it's so confined, whether confined to the ego of a single person or the whole human race. It can only be resolved by permeating all the living beings of the world, and reaching the divine."
"A new attitude, one of righteousness, of truth, of empathy to animals is, according to the truth, from a divine, human-cosmic perspective, a new attitude to all life, to all divine deeds that a person asks for in life: righteousness, truth, love, etc, etc. Why, it actually releases human life from the confines of the human race, just as any divine attribute is first released from the confines of man, of the ego. [...] It really must be clear that there is no tikun [amendment] to human life when it's so confined, whether confined to the ego of a single person or the whole human race. It can only be resolved by permeating all the living beings of the world, and reaching the divine."
Translated by Ayelet Abramson