Is a Rasha "Evil"?

Originally published in February of 2012. Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

Is a Rasha "Evil"?

Disclaimer: When I began my original blog in 2007, I intended it to be a venue not only to present "finished" ideas, but to explore developing ideas. Over time I became pressured into only posting ideas I had fully polished. Ultimately, this pressure deterred me from blogging altogether. In an attempt to rekindle the spirit of that blog, I am going to try to be more forthcoming in writing about ideas that I am currently in the process of exploring. Please bear that in mind as you read this post. 

If I asked you to translate the root R.SH.A' (ר.ש.ע) you'd probably translate it as "evil" or "wicked." Likewise, if I asked you translate the word rasha, you'd probably translate it as "evildoer" or "wicked person" something like that. I know I would.

Well, it's time to open our minds to a new and radical definition of "rasha."

The first pasuk of the first chapter of Tehilim states: 

תהלים א:א

אַשְׁרֵי הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר לֹא הָלַךְ בַּעֲצַת רְשָׁעִים וּבְדֶרֶךְ חַטָּאִים לֹא עָמָד וּבְמוֹשַׁב לֵצִים לֹא יָשָׁב:

Tehilim 1:1
Happy is the man who does not follow the advice of resha'im (wicked), and who does not stand on the path of chatoim (sinners), and does not sit in a session of leitzim (scoffers).

Ibn Ezra notes that there is a machlokess (disagreement) among the commentaries as to the "badness order" of the three types of people mentioned in the pasuk: 

Our Early Sages of blessed memory said that "standing on the path of chatoim" is a greater transgression than "following the advice of resha'im" and that "sitting in the session of leitzim" is worse than either "standing on the path of chatoim" or "following [the advice of resha'im]." Now if this is so, then leitzim are worse than chatoim. Rabbi Moshe ha'Kohen says the reverse (i.e. the pasuk begins with the most severe offense and concludes with the least severe). 

Ibn Ezra sides with the Sages. On the surface, this presents us with a difficulty: How can rasha be the least bad out of the three? Doesn't the term "rasha" refer to an "evil" person, and isn't "evil" the "baddest" out of all types of badness?

Ibn Ezra answers this question by deploying his bomb of a definition. He writes:

According to my opinion, the word "resha'im" refers to people who are in a constant state of flux, [1] in the sense of: "the reshaim are like the troubled sea, incapable of rest" (Yeshayahu 57:20). Likewise, "wherever he turned himself, he unsettled them (ירשיע)" (Shmuel I 14:47) and "He grants quietude, and who can agitate (ירשיע)?" (Iyov 34:29). For this reason it says "follow" in conjunction with resha'im, referring to a person who is seduced to follow the counsel of the rasha to a path he doesn't know.

Allow me to reiterate that revolutionary definition. According to Ibn Ezra, "rasha" does not mean "evil" but rather "troubled," "unsettled," "agitated," "restless," and "inconsistent" - a definition which he derives this from the etymology of the root R.SH.A'. And remember, if there's one Rishon whose etymological credentials are beyond reproach and whose lexical convictions are strong, it's the Ibn Ezra.

After stumbling upon this definition I wondered: "Maybe Ibn Ezra is only defining rasha this way in this context. Perhaps he uses a more traditional definition elsewhere?" In an effort to find the answer I conducted a search using the Bar-Ilan Responsa database to see if he elaborates on this definition elsewhere. I searched for all instances of the shoresh R.SH.A' in the commentaries of the Ibn Ezra and scanned through all 200+ of them to see all the places where Ibn Ezra explicitly defines the meaning of the term, as he does in Tehilim. [1] I found only three instances in which he gives somewhat of an explicit definition, as he does here:

• "There the resha'im cease from agitation" (Iyov 3:16). Ibn Ezra, commenting on the phrase "there the resha'im," explains that this refers to "those who are restless (הם המתנועעים)." 
• "Do not be overly rasha (אל תרשיע הרבה) nor be a fool. Why die before your time?" (Koheles 7:17). Ibn Ezra explains: "Since too much resha brings a person into danger, he says, 'Why die before your time?' Know that this rish'us (רשעות) refers to involvement in worldly matters. He says: Be involved in what is necessary for you, and do not be a fool at all, since foolishness leads to premature death." 
• "Man is powerless over the spirit - to restrain the spirit; nor is there authority over the day of death; nor discharge in war; and resha cannot save the wrongdoer" (ibid. 8:8). Ibn Ezra explains: "The meaning of 'resha' is 'abundance of restlessness and conflict' (רוב התנועה והניצוח)." 

Unfortunately, Ibn Ezra doesn't give us much to work with. Here are the qualities we have seen so far from the Ibn Ezra's comments and from the pesukim themselves:

1. the rasha is like the stormy sea, incapable of tranquility (Ibn Ezra on Tehilim 1:1, Yeshayahu 57:20, and Iyov 3:16)
2. the rasha does not follow a consistent pattern of behavior (Ibn Ezra on Tehilim 1:1)
3. the rasha's turmoil is related to his preoccupation with worldly matters - specifically, the fact that he is not content with meeting his needs in moderation (Ibn Ezra on Koheles 7:17)
4. the rasha is fraught with restlessness and conflict (Ibn Ezra on Koheles 8:8)
5. the rasha is like chaff, driven away by a gust of wind (rest of Tehilim 1)

Based on these qualities, I would like to propose a hypothesis: according to the Ibn Ezra, "rasha" refers to a person whose actions are primarily determined by his emotional reactions to the circumstances in which he finds himself. 

Yes, I am aware that most people can be described this way - but that's a question on Ibn Ezra, not on me. And yes, I am aware that this broadens the definition of the term "rasha" way beyond the conventional usage - but that, too, is a question on the Ibn Ezra. Besides, neither of these questions poses an actual problem with the Ibn Ezra's definition. They just underscore the fact that this idea is not in line with our prior ideas about reshaim.

I'll end this post by reiterating what I said in my disclaimer. This post is intended to be a first step - not an authoritative proclamation of the Ibn Ezra's view. In order to fully understand the Ibn Ezra's definition of rasha, we would need to learn through each of the 200+ instances in depth and in context. Nevertheless, we have to start somewhere, and the Ibn Ezra's definition in our pasuk in Tehilim is a good lead, especially when combined with the three aforementioned sources in which the Ibn Ezra reiterates a similar definition. Whether this concept of rasha can be developed further remains to be seen.

[1] lit. "those who do not persist in a consistent mode [of behavior]." I've chosen to go with H. Norman Strickman's translation, since I think it better captures the connotation of the Ibn Ezra's definition.

[2] Note that this post was written in 2012. When editing it for republication I didn't go back and search a second time, and although it's possible that newer sources were added, I'm going to rely on my original search for now.