The Unity of the Human Race (1)

 

            Rabbi Yehuda Halevi believed in a single origin for all humanity, and he attempted to prove it [I:53ff.].  Despite the vast differences separating nations and languages, races and ethnic groups the world over, Rihal believed in the unity of the human race, and was convinced of the presence of traces of this unity.  We can in fact point out three examples of these hints: the structure of language, the seven day week, and the decimal system.  These three cases can be divided into two components: a natural element, necessary for all of humanity, and an arbitrarily determined element, which could just as easily have been different.  The natural element must be general and universal, but the determined element is completely random, and therefore should reasonably differ from nation to nation.  However, this is not the case; the arbitrary element is universal as well.  This is a coincidence which is impossible to understand unless we assume that humanity shares a common origin.  We will illustrate this through the example of the decimal system.

 

The Cycle of Ten and the Cycle of Seven

 

            Our elementary school teacher taught us that although we use the decimal system, this fact is completely coincidental.  What do we mean when we speak of the decimal system?  We count from one to ten, and when we reach ten, we stop adding new symbols or names, and instead use the former ones in a cyclical fashion.  We count by starting from one once again: we use the symbols for the number one to signify the number eleven, we use one and two to express the number twelve, etc.  And when we reach one hundred, we begin again from one.  In other words, this is a cycle built on the decimal, or ten, system, and it allows us to express any possible number with the use of ten symbols, ten figures.  It is remarkable that language employed the decimal system before symbols for numbers were created.  Actually, there is a very slight difference between the system used in spoken language and the decimal system.  This is because our written system needed a zero to allow the writing of any number.

 

            It is very easy to understand that our use of the decimal system is coincidental.  We can imagine a person counting until eight, and beginning a new cycle.  Thus, for example, in computers we count to two, or sixteen, and begin a new cycle.  Rabbi Yehuda Halevi writes:

 

            "...and such is the case also with decimal computation;  people agreed upon it from the east to the west, and what   nature caused them to stop counting specifically at the  number ten?  The fact is that this [form of ] counting is  a legacy..." [1:59]

 

            In other words: people could have created various cycles, and yet the entire world agreed upon the decimal system.  This fact, in Rihal's opinion, bears witness to the basic unity of all of humanity.  The second example is the use of the number seven for the division of the week.  The third example is taken from the structure of language. 

 

The Essence of Language

 

            Classical philosophy abounds in disputes regarding the essence of language, and many different positions on this question were expressed.  Most approaches maintained that language was a convention, meaning that it was the result of an arbitrary decision.  This forms a sharp contrast to the language of animals, which is natural; animals express sounds naturally as a result of certain events.  We know, for example, that in order to avoid collisions between airplanes and birds, there are airports in which the sound of birds in distress are played.  The birds who near the airplanes hear the sounds and are frightened, because whatever their origin, they naturally understand these sounds specific to their species.

 

            In contrast, human language is a convention.  We can clearly differentiate between a cry of pain and the statement, "I am in pain."  The cry of pain is a natural response, while the statement, "I am in pain" is a convention.  It is not a direct expression of a feeling, but rather a symbolic response, which is formed in accordance with a certain structure.  Thus classical philosophy divided language into three parts: nouns, verbs, and prepositions.  The other difference between the cry of pain and the statement, "I am in pain," is based on the fact that language can be divided into atomic parts, both structural and phonological; these parts are called morphemes and phonemes.  What the king of the Khazars teaches us here is that language is built like a assembly toy, in which we build a structure using basic building blocks.  Thus we construct language from the letters taken from the utterances of human speech.

 

            The existence of a structure proves, in Rihal's view, that all languages "came into being during a certain period and were established by general consent" [1:54].  This fact proves, in his opinion, that language is not a response such as a scream or tears; rather it is constructed, artificial and functional, comparable to a vessel.  The general consent regarding language finds expression through the fact that many different languages exist.  In other words, a particular thing is referred to in different languages using different words, when in actuality there is no reason for us to use these particular words with regard to these certain things.  However, chaos does not rule absolutely.  If we pay attention, we will discern that there are families of languages.  This teaches us that there are a number of source languages which later developed into the other languages.  The fact that there are a few such basic languages is shown in the Torah, in the story of the Tower of Babel.  The Torah teaches us that although humanity is one, it is divided into languages and therefore into nations, as the result of a sort of recreation, or to be precise, a re-confusion, and beyond those basic languages one cannot discover other links between languages. 

 

            Human speech is characterized by many languages.  However, Rabbi Yehuda Halevi draws our attention to the fact that despite their many differences, the various languages share a common structure.  The Chaver inquires of the Kuzari whether he thinks that the current division of languages always existed [1:54].  The Kuzari responds according to what common sense teaches him, and his response is absolutely opposed to the philosophical approach which claims that the world has always existed.  There is no doubt, claims the Chaver, that an intuitive view shows us that languages had a beginning.  Languages are not eternal; they have a history and a birth certificate.

 

            Here the Chaver presents one of the most difficult riddles facing man: how was language formed?  The Chaver asks the Kuzari whether he had ever heard of a person who had made up a language.  The Kuzari answers: "I do not believe so, neither have I heard of it, however there is no doubt that human language came into being at a particular time, and before that there was no language in the world that was agreed upon by any nation" [1:56].  This is odd indeed.  We can certainly provide examples of artificial languages that were created by man, the classic example being Esperanto.  However, such an answer is irrelevant.  Zamenhoff created Esperanto, but only thanks to the fact that he worked in another language.  He produced tongs, but to forge them in the fire he used another set of tongs which he already possessed.  How is it possible to make the first set of tongs?  There are a number of turning points in cosmic history which contain a miraculous element, a creation of "something from nothing" which cannot be understood in simple rational terms, which leaves us amazed.  These are the appearance of matter and energy, the appearance of life, the appearance of man and the appearance of language.  And those who refuse to see the wonders of creation, and use the word evolution to explain away all questions, cannot give even a fig's leaf of coverage to these questions.  One can speak of the development of the first seed, but the appearance of that seed cannot be explained by evolution.  Prior to the evolution of natural phenomena, something came into being which was absolutely different, the creation of something from nothing.  Before us are two remarkable wonders: the enigma of the beginning, and the existence of a uniform structure to all languages despite their vast number.  This is a very strange phenomenon indeed, and it points to the unity of the human race.

 

            Philosophy plays a significant role here.  We are used to a particular world and demand an explanation for the extraordinary.  However, philosophy teaches us that at times the opposite of what we are used to is in fact the more logical conclusion.  Things which seem to us to be completely normal, simple and obvious, are in fact very difficult riddles.  The existence of language is a wonder.  However as we shall soon see, the fact that children are capable of acquiring language is in itself a wonder.  A look at this wonder opens the door to understanding the essence of the human experience.

 

            Does the existence of a common structure to all languages prove the unity of the human race?  In modern thought there is an alternative to the Kuzari's approach, however it solves one riddle by creating an even greater one.  A cursory comparison between languages seems to show them fundamentally different from each other.  However recent studies have demonstrated that underneath the difference a very basic similarity exists, and it is this that was hinted at by Rabbi Yehuda Halevi in the philosophical terms of his period, when he pointed to a fundamental similarity between the structures of all languages: nouns, verbs and prepositions.  These modern studies are connected with the name of Noam Chomsky.  In order to understand his central claim we must be conscious of an additional wonder: the way that a child acquires language.  With astounding ease a child conquers any spoken language that he was  born into, be it the most difficult and complex of tongues.  The accepted position was that the child did this according to the method of trial and error.  The theory was that the child gains experience in the world of objects, and learns through beginning to connect between the names he hears and the objects he sees.  However, recent theories have revealed (until we hear otherwise) that the child acquires language because he has a mental structure which is appropriate for any human language that he may learn. 

 

            This means that despite the differences between languages, all languages share a common structure.  Let us assume that the unity of the human race is a principle which cannot be historically proven.  And let us assume this, despite the fact that in our generation scientists have reiterated various claims and speculations which may prove that genetically there is only one source to the human race.  However, here we have found, through the wonder of language, a different claim.  All of humanity constitutes one species, not only genetically, but also from the perspective of language.  Humanity is of one structure, a structure that God placed within us from the start of creation, and which remains unified even after the formation of a multitude of languages.  Despite the large number of languages, they share a common unified structure and form.

 

            The question of the unity of the human race is important from another perspective as well.  In the Mishna (Tractate Sanhedrin 4:5), we read that we were all created in the image of God, from one man, and "therefore man was created singly."  The sages explain the reason for this unity from various perspectives.  One of the answers is of paramount importance: "So that a man should not say to his friend, my father is greater than your father."  And indeed we must take note of the fact that certain racist doctrines were based on the opinion that such human unity does not exist.  In the nineteenth century even the Darwinist theory was used to claim that different monkeys developed into different races, and we are not connected by blood ties, and thus are also exempt from any moral obligation towards a different type of person, in other words another race.  This is of course absurd, and the simple proof of it is that two people from any two races can have common descendants.  The Mishna in Sanhedrin says, in effect, that we are all brothers, and despite the fact that Cain killed Abel, he was his brother.

 

            The new approach teaches us, then, that despite the fact that the historical conclusions will always remain unclear and surrounded by question marks, we can reach one other important conclusion.  Man carries within him an elementary programming which he employs to acquire language.  To use a simple example, we could compare this to the use of a computer.  We buy a computer, and write various programs on it.  However, a little intelligence and humility will soon teach us that the computer did not get to us only as hardware but rather came with a basic operating system, which we use when we start to work on the computer.  Such is the case with man as well; God "planted" a basic program in him which he uses when he acquires language.  It is interesting to note that although we cannot historically prove the unity of the human race, we can prove that there is a basic program common to all of the human race.  Not only the hardware that the geneticist works on is common; the program which allows us to grasp and learn language is shared as well.

 

(This lecture was translated by Gila Weinberg.)

 

Copyright (c)1997 Prof.  Shalom Rosenberg, Yeshivat Har Etzion.  All rights reserved.