Rambam: On the Three Types of Ra

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

Rambam: On the Three Types of Ra

It is difficult to choose which chapters of the Rambam's Guide for the Perplexed (Moreh ha'Nevuchim) are the most important, from an objective standpoint. I can, however, say that this chapter (Section 3 Chapter 12) is one that has had the greatest impact on me, personally, in my day-to-day life. 

I teach this text as part of my Iyov curriculum. Truthfully, this chapter ought to be read within the context of the several chapters that precede and follow it. However, it can be read as a standalone text. I decided to present a full translation of this single chapter here, without commentary, so that I can more easily make reference to it in future blog posts. 

One important note on translation. The term "ra" (רע) in Hebrew is multifaceted, and is therefore difficult to render into a single English equivalent. Depending on the context, "ra" can be translated as the following nouns and adjectives:

• bad / badness
• (morally) evil
• displeasing / detestable
• detriment / detrimental
• harm / harmful
• loss / destruction / non-existence
• corruption / deterioration
• pain / suffering
• deficiency / lack / privation
• unhealthy
• inferior

Each usage must be inferred from its context. For example, when a pasuk describes Haman as "ra," it clearly means "evil," but when Hashem is described as "bringing ra upon Bnei Yisrael," it means "harm" or "loss" or "destruction." In Paroh's dream, the adjective "raos" used to describe the cows means "unhealthy" or "inferior." When Mishlei speaks of "ra" as a consequence, it means "detrimental" or "painful." 

In an attempt to preserve this omni-comprehensive use of the term "ra," I will keep it as a transliteration throughout this excerpt. The word "ra" will be used for the adjective or singular form of the noun, and "raos" will be used for the plural form of the noun. Accordingly, the transliterations "tov" and "tovos" will be used as a stand-in for "good" and "goods," and should be understood as the opposite of "ra" and "raos." 

The translation below is a fusion of the Friedlander, Pines, and Qafih translations, along with some of my own. The paragraph divisions and headings are my own as well. 

Rambam: Moreh ha'Nevuchim 3:12

The Mistaken Assessment of the Ratio of Ra to Tov

Men frequently think that the raos in the world are more numerous than the tovos; many non-Jewish sayings and songs dwell on this idea. They say that tovos are found only exceptionally, whilst raos are numerous and lasting. Not only common people make this mistake, but even many who believe that they are wise. 

Al-Razi wrote a well-known book: On Metaphysics [or Theology]. Among other mad and foolish things, it contains also the idea, discovered by him, that there exists more ra than tov. For if the happiness of man and his pleasure in the times of prosperity be compared with the mishaps that befall him – such as grief, acute pain, defects, paralysis of the limbs, fears, anxieties, and troubles – it would seem as if the existence of man is a punishment and a great ra for him. This author commenced to verify his opinion by counting all the raos one by one; by this means he opposed those who hold the correct view of the tovos bestowed by God and His evident kindness – namely, that God is absolutely Tov, and that all that comes from Him is absolutely tov without a doubt.

The Cause of this Error and its Remedy

The origin of the error is to be found in the circumstance that this ignorant man – and his party among the common people – judge the whole universe by examining one single person. For an ignorant man believes that the whole universe only exists for him, as if nothing else required any consideration. If, therefore, anything happens to him contrary to his expectation, he at once concludes that the whole universe is ra. 

If, however, he would take into consideration the whole universe, form an idea of it, and comprehend what a small portion he is of the universe, he will find the truth. For it is clear that persons who have fallen into this widespread error as regards the multitude of raos in the world, do not find the raos among the angels, the stars and galaxies, the elements, and that which is formed of them, namely, minerals and plants, or in the various species of living beings, but only in some individual instances of mankind. They wonder that a person, who became leprous in consequence of bad food, should be afflicted with so great an illness and suffer such a misfortune; or that he who indulges so much in sensuality as to weaken his sight, should be struck with blindness, and the like. 

The Correct Perspective of Man's Place in the Universe

What we have, in truth, to consider is this: The whole mankind at present in existence, and likewise every other species of animals, form an infinitesimal portion of the permanent universe, as it is stated: “Man is like nothingness” (Tehilim 144:4); “How much less is man, [who is like] a maggot, and a mortal, [who is like a worm?” (Iyov 25:6); “Surely [He finds fault] with those who dwell in houses of clay” (ibid. 4:19); “Behold, all the nations are as a drop from a bucket” (Yishaya 40:15). There are many other passages in the books of the prophets expressing the same idea. 

It is of great advantage that man should know his station, and not erroneously imagine that the whole universe exists only for him. We hold that the universe exists because the Creator wills it so; that mankind is low in rank as compared with the uppermost portion of the universe, namely, with the planets and the stars. But as regards the angels, there cannot be any real comparison between man and angels, although man is the highest of all beings on earth – that is, of all beings formed of the four elements. 

Man's existence is nevertheless a wonderfully tov situation for him, and his distinction and perfection is a divine gift. The numerous raos to which individual persons are exposed are due to the defects existing in the persons themselves. We complain and seek relief from our own faults. We suffer from the raos which we, by our own free will, inflict on ourselves, and we ascribe them to God, Who is far from being connected with them, as it is stated: “Corruption is not His – the blemish is His children’s, a perverse and crooked generation” (Devarim 32:5). This is explained by King Solomon, who says: “A man’s foolishness corrupts his way, but his heart rages against Hashem” (Mishlei 19:3). 

I explain this theory in the following manner. The raos that befall man are of three kinds: 

Type #1: Inherent in Matter

(1) The first kind of ra is that which is caused to man by the circumstance that he is subject to genesis and destruction, or that he possesses a body. It is on account of the body that some persons happen to have great deformities or paralysis of some of the organs. This ra may be part of the natural constitution of these persons, or may have developed subsequently in consequence of changes in the elements, e.g., through bad air, or thunderstorms or landslips. We have already shown that, in accordance with the divine wisdom, genesis can only take place through destruction, and without the destruction of the individual members of the species the species themselves would not exist permanently. Thus the true kindness, and beneficence, and goodness of God is clear. 

He who thinks that he can have flesh and bones without being subject to any external influence, or any of the accidents of matter, unconsciously wishes to reconcile two opposites, namely, to be at the same time subject and not subject to change. If man were never subject to change there could be no generation: there would be one single being, but no individuals forming a species. Galen, in the third section of his book, The Use of the Limbs, says correctly that it would be in vain to expect to see living beings formed of an egg fertilized with sperm, who will not die, will never feel pain, or will move perpetually, or will shine like the sun. This statement of Galen is part of the following more general proposition: Whatever is formed of any matter receives the most perfect form possible in that species of matter; in each individual case the defects are in accordance with the defects of that individual matter. The best and most perfect being that can be formed of the egg and the sperm is the species of man, for as far as man's nature is known, he is living, rational, and mortal. It is therefore impossible that man should be free from this type of ra. 

You will, nevertheless, find that the raos of the above kind which befall man are very few and rare; for you find countries that have not been flooded or burned for thousands of years; there are thousands of men in perfect health; deformed individuals are a strange and exceptional occurrence; or say few in number if you object to the term exceptional; they are not one-hundredth, not even one-thousandth part of those that are perfectly normal. 

Type #2: Interpersonal 

The second class of raos comprises such raos as people cause to each other, when, for example, some of them use their strength against others. These raos are more numerous than those of the first kind, and their causes are numerous and known. They likewise originate in ourselves, though the sufferer himself cannot avert them. 

This kind of ra is nevertheless not widespread in any country of the whole world. It is of rare occurrence that a man plans to kill his neighbor or to rob him of his property by night. Many persons are, however, afflicted with this kind of ra in great wars, but these are not frequent, if the whole inhabited part of the earth is taken into consideration. 

Type #3: Self-Inflicted 

(3) The third class of raos comprises those which every one causes to himself by his own action. This is the largest class, and is far more numerous than the second class. It is especially of these raos that all men complain, only few men are found that do not sin against themselves by this kind of ra. Those that are afflicted with it are therefore justly blamed in the words of the prophet: “This was brought about by your own hand” (Malachi 1:9); the same is expressed in the following passage: “A destroyer of his own soul will do this” (Mishlei 6:32). In reference to this kind of ra, Solomon says: “A man’s foolishness corrupts his way, but his heart rages against Hashem” (Mishlei 19:3). In the following passage he explains also that this kind of ra is man's own work: “But, see, this I did find: God has made man upright, but they have sought out many scheming calculations” (Koheles 7:29), and these scheming calculations bring the raos upon him. The same subject is referred to in Iyov: “For affliction does not emerge from the dust, nor does misery grow from the earth” (Iyov 5:6). These words are immediately followed by the explanation that man himself is the author of this class of raos: “For man is born to trouble” (Iyov 5:7). 

This class of raos originates in man’s flaws, such as excessive desire for eating, drinking, and sex; indulgence in these things in undue measure, or in improper manner, or partaking of unhealthy food. This course brings diseases and afflictions upon body and soul alike. The sufferings of the body in consequence of these raos are well known. 

Those of the soul are twofold: First, such raos of the soul as are the necessary consequence of changes in the body, insofar as the soul is a force residing in the body; it has therefore been said that the properties of the soul depend on the condition of the body. 

Secondly, the soul, when accustomed to superfluous things, acquires a strong habit of desiring things which are neither necessary for the preservation of the individual nor for that of the species. This desire is without a limit, whilst things which are necessary are few in number and restricted within certain limits; but what is superfluous is without end. 

For example, you desire to have your vessels of silver, but golden vessels are still better; others have even vessels of sapphire, or perhaps they can be made of emerald or rubies, or any other substance that could be suggested. Those who are ignorant and perverse in their thought are constantly in trouble and pain because they cannot get as much of superfluous things as a certain other person possesses. They, as a rule, expose themselves to great dangers, for example, by sea voyage, or service of kings, and all this for the purpose of obtaining that which is superfluous and not necessary. 

Blaming God for Self-Inflicted Harm

When they thus meet with the consequences of the course which they adopt, they complain of the decrees and judgments of God; they begin to blame the time, and wonder at the lack of justice in its changes; that it has not enabled them to acquire great riches, with which they could buy large quantities of wine for the purpose of making themselves drunk, and numerous concubines adorned with various kind of ornaments of gold, embroidery, and jewels, for the purpose of driving themselves to sexual indulgence beyond their capacities – as if the whole universe existed exclusively for the purpose of giving pleasure to these low people. 

The error of the ignorant goes so far as to say that God's power is insufficient, because He has given to this universe the properties which they imagine cause these great ra, and which do not help all ra-disposed persons to obtain the ra which they seek, and to bring their ra souls to the aim of their desires, though these, as we have shown, are really without limit. 

The virtuous and wise, however, see and comprehend the wisdom of God displayed in the universe. Thus David says: “All of the ways of Hashem are kindness and truth, to those who guard His covenant and His testimonies” (Tehilim 25:10). For those who observe the nature of the universe and the commandments of the Torah, and know their purpose, see clearly God's kindness and truth in everything; they seek, therefore, that which the Creator intended to be the aim of man, namely, pursuit of knowledge. Forced by the claims of the body, they seek also that which is necessary for the preservation of the body – “bread to eat and garment to clothe” (Bereishis 28:20), and this is very little; but they seek nothing superfluous. With very slight exertion man can obtain it, so long as he is contented with that which is necessary. 

"You open Your hand and satisfy the desire of every living thing" (Tehilim 145:16)

All the difficulties and troubles we meet in this respect are due to the desire for superfluous things. When we seek unnecessary things, we have difficulty even in finding that which is necessary. For the more we desire to have that which is superfluous, the more we meet with difficulties; our strength and possessions are spent in unnecessary things, and are lacking when required for that which is necessary. 

Observe how nature proves the correctness of this assertion. The more necessary a thing is for living beings, the more easily it is found and the cheaper it is; the less necessary it is, the rarer and dearer it is. For example, air, water, and food are necessary to man. Air is most necessary, for if man is without air a short time he dies, whilst he can be without water a day or two. Air is also undoubtedly found more easily and cheaper [than water]. Water is more necessary than food, for some people can be four or five days without food, provided they have water; water also exists in every country in larger quantities than food, and is also cheaper. The same proportion can be noticed in the different kinds of food; that which is more necessary in a certain place exists there in larger quantities and is cheaper than that which is less necessary. No intelligent person, I think, considers musk, amber, rubies, and emerald as very necessary for man except as medicines – and they, as well as other like substances, can be replaced for this purpose by herbs and minerals. 

This shows the kindness of God to His creatures, even to us weak beings. His righteousness and justice as regards all animals are well known; for in the transient world there is among the various kinds of animals no individual being distinguished from the rest of the same species by a peculiar property or an additional limb. On the contrary – all physical, psychical, and vital forces and organs that are possessed by one individual are found also in the other individuals. If anyone is somehow different, it is by accident, in consequence of some exception, and not by a natural property; it is also a rare occurrence. There is no difference between individuals of a species in the due course of Nature; the difference originates in the various dispositions of their substances. This is the necessary consequence of the nature of the substance of that species: the nature of the species is not more favorable to one individual than to the other. It is no wrong or injustice that one has many bags of finest myrrh and garments embroidered with gold, while another has not those things, which are not necessary for our maintenance; he who has them has not thereby obtained control over anything that could be an essential addition to his nature, but has only obtained something illusory or deceptive. The other, who does not possess that which is not wanted for his maintenance, does not miss anything indispensable. “Whoever took more had nothing extra and whoever took less was not lacking; everyone according to what he eats had they gathered” (Shemos 26:18). This is the rule at all times and in all places; no notice should be taken of exceptional cases, as we have explained. 

In these two ways you will see the mercy of God toward His creatures, how He has provided that which is required, in proper proportions, and treated all individual beings of the same species with perfect equality. In accordance with this correct reflection the chief of the wise men says: “All His ways are justice” (Devarim 32:4). David likewise says: “All of the ways of Hashem are kindness and truth”; he also says explicitly: “Hashem is good to all; His mercies are on all His works” (Tehilim 145:9), for it is an act of great and perfect goodness that He gave us existence; and the creation of the controlling faculty in animals is a proof of His mercy towards them, as has been shown by us.

Mishlei 27:3 - The Weight of a Fool's Anger

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

Artwork: Grindstone, by Greg Simanson

Mishlei 27:3 - The Weight of a Fool's Anger

משלי כז:ג

כֹּבֶד אֶבֶן וְנֵטֶל הַחוֹל וְכַעַס אֱוִיל כָּבֵד מִשְּׁנֵיהֶם:

Mishlei 27:3

The weight of a stone and the heft of sand – the anger of the fool is heavier than both of them.

There are four questions here:

1. What differentiates the anger of a fool from the anger of a non-fool? Clearly, the metaphors will address this in detail, but it's worth asking as its own question.
2. What are these metaphors? In what sense is the fool's anger comparable to both "the weight of stone" and "the heft of sand"? 
3. What does it mean to describe anger as "heavy"? There are a number of adjectives typically used to describe anger - such as "hot," "intense," "strong," "fierce," "unyielding" - but "heavy" isn't one of them.
4. Heavy for whom? Is the pasuk characterizing the fool's anger as heavy for the person who he's angry at, or for the person who is forced to confront the fool in his anger, or for the fool himself? 

Personally, I'm not bothered by the question of why the pasuk uses the word "koved" (weight) for a stone and "neitel" (heft) for sand. Either these are the two terms that are appropriate to use for their respective substances, or the pasuk is just using synonyms for stylistic reasons. 

[Time to think! Read on when ready.]

Here is my four-sentence summary of the main idea:

A stone and a load of sand are both heavy, but for different reasons: the individual stone is an inherently heavy substance, whereas sand is light as a substance but heavy in large quantities. So too, the Mishleic fool, whose expects reality to always work out in his favor, is “weighed down” by his anger in two different ways: (1) since he takes reality personally, he will perceive each individual instance of reality not aligning with his desires as an intolerable hardship; (2) since the fool’s anger stems from his ego, he will experience a high volume of these “anger incidents,” the sheer quantity and frequency of which will be its own source of pain. In other words, the fool is burdened by the fact that he gets very angry, very often. This is one of the many reasons why the Mishleic chacham works on his expectations, striving to make them as realistic as possible. 

This would be a good place to review a methodology point that I've mentioned earlier. Chapter 25 begins a new section of Sefer Mishlei: "These, too, are the Mishlei of Shlomo ha'Melech, which were copied by the men of Chizkiyah, king of Judah" (25:1). This section continues through the end of Chapter 29. 

These pesukim are stylistically different than the "mainstream" Mishlei written by Shlomo ha'Melech in Chapters 10-24. Most of the pesukim are quite straightforward and unequivocal in their wording - as opposed to many of the pesukim in Chapters 10-24, which can be confusing and ambiguous to read and translate. The mashalim (metaphors) in Chapters 25-29 are also very direct, and tend to be stated simply as "X is like Y" or "as X is to Y, so is A to B." 

I was recently asked whether the ideas taught in Chapters 25-29 differ from the ideas taught in Chapters 10-24. I haven't noticed any difference. I would expect the pesukim in Chapters 25-29 to presuppose familiarity with the content of Chapters 10-24, since the latter were composed earlier, but I don't even know whether this is supposition is the case. 

The Month of Av: Unlucky or Misunderstood? (Part 2 of 2)

This is a sequel to The Month of Av: Unlucky or Misunderstood? (Part 1 of 2). I'm going to pick up right where I left off, without reviewing the facts or the questions.

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

Artwork: Behold the Beyond, by Noah Bradley

The Month of Av: Unlucky or Misunderstood? (Part 2 of 2)

Three Disclaimers

Disclaimer #1: I realize now that I really should have written two other posts before tackling this "The Month of Av: Unlucky or Misunderstood?" series, in order to establish certain premises in a more efficient manner. As it stands, I'm too deep into the writing trenches now, so I'll just have to incorporate all of the ideas into this one post. As a result, my explanation is going to be a bit more round-about than my usual style, but I promise it'll come together at the end. 

Disclaimer #2: For the time being, I'm going to ignore the question about the "good mazal" during the month of Adar and focus exclusively on the "bad mazal" during the month of Av. If I succeed in clearly presenting my idea about Av, then you'll see what direction I would take in addressing the question about Adar. I just don't have it clear enough yet to write out. Maybe I'll take it up at Rosh Chodesh Adar later this year.

Disclaimer #3: I said this in Part 1 but it bears repeating here: this article is intended to be theoretical - not normative. Consult your rabbi before making any changes to your halachic practice. 

Diminishing Rejoicing, Avoiding Court Cases, and Bad Mazal

Let's start with the question: What does the Gemara mean when it says that the month of Av has "bad mazal"? The Ritva raises an objection to the premise of this question from the Gemara in Shabbos 156a which states: "there is no mazal for Israel." This would appear to contradict our Gemara in Taanis 29b, which indicates that the mazal of Av is bad for the Jews and the mazal of Adar is good for the Jews. 

The Ritva offers two resolutions to this contradiction: 

Even though "there is no mazal for Israel," that [statement] is only true of other days, but during these two months there is mazal, for such was decreed upon us from Heaven. Moreover, it is possible that [the term] "mazal" [in our Gemara about Av and Adar] is only a reference to the [Divine] decree, which is called "mazal" in common parlance. 

Both of the Ritva's answers explain that the special mazal of Av and Adar have to do with the Divine decree: either the mazal of Israel changes during these months because of the decree, or the decree itself is being called "mazal." 

The Baalei Tosafos on our Gemara agree with the Ritva's approach. They explain:

Rav Pappa said: Therefore, a Jew who has a court case with a non-Jew should avoid it during the month of Av, because its mazal is bad - the meaning of this is what was stated above: "liability is scheduled (lit. "rolled") for the day of liability" (Taanis 29a).

The Gemara cited by Tosafos addresses the question of how we know that both Batei ha'Mikdash (Holy Temples) were destroyed on the same day. After establishing that the first Mikdash was destroyed on the 9th of Av, the Gemara says:

From where do we know that the Second [Temple was also destroyed on the 9th of Av]? It was taught in a braisa: "merit is scheduled for the day of merit, and liability is scheduled for the day of liability."

According to Tosafos, "the mazal of Av is bad" doesn't have anything to do with the month being "unlucky," as we explained earlier. Rather, it means that Hashem decreed that the destruction of the second Mikdash should be scheduled for "the day of liability," the same day that the first Mikdash was destroyed. Thus, the statement "the mazal of Av is bad" simply means "Av was divinely ordained as a period of time designated for punishment." 

The question is: Why? What is the purpose or advantage of "scheduling" Klal Yisrael's punishments for a specific time period? The answer lies in the Rambam's opening remarks in Hilchos Taaniyos:

1:1 - It is a positive mitzvah of the Torah to cry out and to sound the trumpets on every tzarah (catastrophe) that befalls the community, as it is stated, “[When you wage war in your land] against the afflicter who afflicts you, you shall sound the trumpets, [and you shall be remembered before Hashem, your God, and you shall be saved from your enemies]” (Bamidbar 10:9), meaning to say: anything that afflicts you - such as drought, epidemic, locusts, and the like - cry out on them and sound [the trumpets].  

1:2 - This principle is one of the darchei teshuvah (ways of repentance), that at a time of the onset of an affliction, and [people] cry out and sound the trumpets, everyone will know that it was because of their evil conduct that this bad occurrence befell them, as it is written, “Your iniquities have turned away these things [to you], and your sins have withheld good from you” (Yirmiyahu 5:25), and this will cause them to remove the affliction from upon them.  

1:3 - But if they do not cry out and do not sound the trumpets, but instead say, “This is a natural event which befell us, and this affliction is a chance occurrence” - behold, this is a derech achzarius (way of cruelty), and will cause them to cling to their evil conduct, and [this] affliction and others will increase. This is what is written in the Torah, “[And if, with this, you do not listen to Me,] and you walk with me with chance, then I will walk with you in the fury of chance, [and I will also chastise you, seven times for your sins]” (Vayikra 26:26-28), meaning to say, when I bring an affliction upon you to cause you to do teshuvah, if you say that it is chance, then I will increase upon you the fury of that “chance.”

Chazal teach us that five tragedies happened on Tishah b'Av: (1) it was decreed that the generation of the Exodus would die in the Wilderness for their role in the Sin of the Spies, (2) the first Mikdash was destroyed, (3) the second Mikdash was destroyed, (4) the city of Beitar was besieged, and the Bar Kochba revolt led to many Jewish deaths, and (5) Jerusalem was razed to the ground. 

Since then, other terrible events have occurred on Tishah b'Av: the expulsion of Jews from England in 1290; the start of World War I in 1914, which directly led to World War II; the commencement of the Nazi's "Final Solution" in 1941; the start of the mass deportation of the Jews from the Warsaw Ghetto to Treblinka in 1942. If we take into consideration the entire month of Av, more tragedies can be added to the list: the beginning of the crusades on the 24th of Av in 1096; the expulsion of Jews from France on the 10th of Av in 1306; the expulsion of Jews from Spain on the 7th of Av in 1492; and more.

According to the Gemara cited by Tosafos, these misfortunes could have happened at different times of the year. However, if they did, it would be far easier for us to dismiss these catastrophes as "natural events" and "chance occurrences." Therefore, Hashem-Elokim - the One Who is merciful even when executing judgment - decreed that the month of Av should have "bad mazal." According to Tosafos, this means that He "scheduled liability for the day of liability," causing all of these tragedies to happen during the same time period. This is "merciful" because it makes it easier for us to recognize that these events were orchestrated by hashgachah (Divine providence), and this recognition will (ideally) motivate us to do national teshuvah, thereby ending our exile and our suffering.

This explanation sheds a new light on the obligation to "diminish rejoicing at the onset of Av." We are not obligated to diminish our rejoicing as an expression of natural mourning over the effects of these tragedies, but rather, this halacha aims to promote national bemoaning of the causes of those tragedies - namely, the "evil conduct which caused these events to befall us" - as a catalyst for national teshuvah. 

I believe this is where Rav Pappa's halacha comes in. The mishnah said that we should diminish rejoicing at the onset of Av, and Rav Pappa added: "therefore, a Jew who has a court appointment at a non-Jewish court should try to avoid it during the month of Av because it has a bad mazal (i.e. because Hashem scheduled our punishments for Av in order to awaken us to do teshuvah)." Why did he single out this specific activity of avoiding court appointments with non-Jews? Because avoiding court appointments with non-Jews frames our recognition of the month of Av as a time period in which the non-Jews have historically prevailed over the Jews, not because of nature or chance, but because of the midas ha'din shel ha'Kadosh Baruch Hu (the meting out of Divine Justice). 

In other words, without Rav Pappa's halacha, it would be easy for us to enter the month of Av and diminish our rejoicing purely as an expression of national mourning over the losses suffered by the Jewish people at the hands of non-Jews during this month throughout our history. But when Rav Pappa comes along and says, "How should we diminish our rejoicing? By avoiding court cases with non-Jews," he is framing our conception of the interaction between Jew and Gentile, Israel and the Nations of the World, not in terms of chance, not in terms of social or psychological dynamics, not in terms of geopolitical trends and world events, but in terms of midas ha'din. The focus on the theater of the beis din shel mata (earthly court) reminds us of the reality of the beis din shel maalah (heavenly court). Rav Pappa's institution underscores the fact that our fate as a nation is determined by our standing vis a vis God's justice, and our only salvation lies in teshuvah. 

According to this explanation, there is no reason to avoid other "risky" activities specifically during the month of Av. To the contrary - the effort to do so would detract from the framework set up by Rav Pappa's halacha, which highlights the theme of midas ha'din.

Ketev Meriri: the Scourge of the Three Weeks

We will now turn our attention to the second halacha we cited from the Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 551, which cautions us during the Three Weeks not to walk alone between the 4th and 9th hours of the day, and not to strike talmidim, all on account of the "Ketev Meriri." 

There are three questions we must answer: (1) What is the Ketev Meriri? (2) Why does the dominance of the Ketev Meriri during this time period make these specific activities hazardous? (3) Why is the danger of the Ketev Meriri present or increased during the Three Weeks?

The term Ketev Meriri is from Haazinu (Devarim 32:24). Here it is in context:

Hashem will see and be provoked by the anger of His sons and daughters, and He will say: "I shall hide My face from them and see what their end will be - for they are a generation of reversals, children whose upbringing is not in them. They provoked Me with a non-god, angered Me with their vanities; so shall I provoke them with a non-people, with a vile nation shall I anger them. For fire will have been kindled in My nostrils and blazed to the lowest depths. It shall consume the earth and its produce, and set ablaze what is founded on mountains. I shall accumulate evils against them, My arrows shall I use up against them; bloating of famine, battles of Reshef, Ketev Meriri, and the teeth of beasts shall I dispatch against them, with the venom of those that creep upon the earth. On the outside, the sword will bereave, while indoors there will be dread - even a young man, even a virgin, a suckling with the gray-haired man."

The word "ketev" means "cutting," and it is clear from the context that "Ketev Meriri" refers to some harmful and destructive phenomenon, but that's about all that's clear. Since this is the only place in Tanach where this phrase appears, the meforshim (commentators) struggle to understand what it means. Some associate it with a pasuk in Tehilim, which is the only other place in Tanach which uses this form of the word "ketev": "You shall not fear the terror of night, nor the arrow that flies by day, nor the pestilence that walks in gloom, nor the ketev yashud tzaharayim (the destroyer who lays waste at noon)" (91:5-6), but there is no clear indication of what the meriri is, or how it "cuts." 

There are two places in the aggadic midrashim which expound on the Ketev Meriri at length. I'm going to cite both sources in their entirety before commenting on either of them, beginning with the Gemara in Pesachim 111b, which appears within the context of a larger discussion about sheidim (demons). Although I usually translate the Gemara myself, I decided to rely primarily on Artscroll this time, due to the obscure terminology:

"ketev meriri" - There are two ketev demons: one [that lurks] before noontime, and one [that lurks] after noontime. The name of the one that lurks before noontime is Ketev Meriri, and it appears, in a jug of kamcha (or "kutach"- a dipping sauce made of sour milk, moldy bread crusts, and salt), as a whirling mixing spoon. The name of the one [that lurks] after noontime is Ketev Yashud Tzaharaim, and it appears amidst the horns of goats as a whirling sieve.

Abaye was once going along and Rav Pappa went on his right side and Rav Huna the son of Rav Yehoshua on his left side. He saw a Ketev Meriri coming towards his left side. [Abaye] then switched Rav Pappa to his left side and Rav Huna the son of Rav Yehoshua to his right side. Rav Pappa said to [Abaye], "Why am I different such that [you] do not concern yourself with me?" [Abaye] said to him, "For you, the times are propitious (Rashbam: you are wealthy and blessed with good fortune and will not be harmed by the demon)." 

From the time of the first of Tammuz until the 16th, [the ketev demons] are certainly prevalent. From then on, it is uncertain whether or not they are prevalent. And they are found in the shadows of a chatzuva (a type of grass) that did not grow a cubit, and in the shadows of the morning and evening that are not a cubit long. And [they are found] predominantly in the shadows of a lavatory.

The second extensive aggadic treatment is in Midrash Eichah Rabbah 1:29:

Another interpretation of "all her pursuers have overtaken her trapped between the metzarim" is "days of misfortune," which are between the 17th of Tammuz and the 9th of Av, for during that time Ketev Meriri is prevalent, as it is said: "[you shall not fear] the pestilence that goes forth in the dark, nor from the ketev which lays waste at noon." 

Rebbi Abba bar Kahana and Rebbi Levi [discussed ketev meriri]. Rebbi Abba bar Kahana said: "It cuts down (i.e. wreaks havoc) during the passage of the noontime hours, from the beginning of the 6th hour [of daylight] through the end of the 9th hour." Rebbi Levi said: "It cuts down during the passage of the daylight hours, from the end of the 4th hour to the beginning of the 9th hour." It does not travel in the sunlight, nor in the shade, but in the shade that is adjacent to the sunlight.

Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Shimon ben Lakish [also discussed ketev meriri]. Rebbi Yochanan said: "It is full of eyes, made up of layers upon layers, and hair upon hair." Rebbi Shimon ben Lakish said: "One eye is situated on its heart, and if anyone sees it, he dies."

Rebbi Abahu was sitting and teaching in a certain synagogue in his place in Caesarea. He saw a man holding a stick about to hit his fellow man. He saw a demon standing behind him, holding a metal rod. Rebbi Abahu rose up and screamed, saying to the man, "Why do you want to kill your fellow man?" [The man] asked, "With [a stick like] this someone can kill his fellow man?" [Rebbi Abahu explained:] "But there is a demon right behind you holding a metal rod. If you hit your fellow with this [stick,] he (i.e. the demon) will hit him (i.e. you) with that [rod] and he (i.e. you) will die.

Rebbi Yochanan used to demand that the Scripture teachers and Mishnah teachers not hold up the strap to the children [to punish them] during these days [when ketev meriri is rampant]. Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeini used to demand that the Scripture teachers and Mishnah teachers release the youngsters [from school] during the four hours [when the ketev is rampant]. 

Instead of veering off on a lengthy tangent about Judaism's view of demons, I'll just quote the Meiri's commentary on: “A fool will believe anything, but a clever person will understand every step” (Mishlei 14:15). The Meiri writes: 

A fool will believe everything he hears, whether it’s possible or impossible, probable or improbable. But a clever person – one who investigates with his own mind – will understand every step. For example, if he hears something, he will investigate it with his own mind to see whether it is possible or impossible, probable or improbable. The Sages of Musar said: “If the speaker is a fool, then the listener should be clever.” Even though this is common sense advice, nevertheless, it is befitting for every intelligent person to analyze with his mind which ideas are proper to believe in.

The Meiri then goes on to provide examples in matters of Torah and in matters science which we are obligated to investigate in this manner, and not just blindly accept. As one of his examples of "scientific matters which are not contingent on matters of [Torah] belief," the Meiri lists "the existence or non-existence of demons." In other words, there is no "theological obligation" to believe in demons. Rather, each person must "investigate [the subject] with his own mind to see whether it is possible or impossible, probable or improbable." Similarly, Rav Hirsch wrote in his Letters on Aggadah:

In my opinion, the first principle that every student of Chazal's statements must keep before his eyes is the following: Chazal were sages of God's law - the receivers, transmitters, and teachers of His toros, His mitzvos, and His interpersonal laws. They did not especially master the natural sciences, geometry, astronomy, or medicine - except insofar as they needed them for knowing, observing, and fulfilling the Torah. We do not find that this knowledge was transmitted to them from Sinai.

Nowadays too it is enough for the non-specialist to know about any of these areas of knowledge whatever contemporary experts teach that is generally accepted as true. This applies to the lawyer vis-à-vis all other areas, to the mathematician and the astronomer regarding the natural sciences, and to the expert on flora regarding all other areas. We expect none of them to seek out the truth and satisfy his inclinations in any field other than his own specialty.

Moreover, even in the area where one is an expert, it is neither possible for him nor expected of him to know everything through personal investigation and experience. Most of his knowledge rests upon the investigation of others. If they have erred it is not his fault. It is sufficient and praiseworthy if his knowledge encompasses all that is accepted as true at his time and place and generation. The greatness of his wisdom is in no way belittled if in a later generation it is discovered that some of the things he maintained or accepted on the authority of others are unreliable. The same is true for Chazal in these areas. The greatest of them knew all the wisdom and science of all the great non-Jewish scholars whose wisdom and teachings became famous in their generations.

Having said that, there are three ways to understand these aggadic statements about the Ketev Meriri:

Approach #1: These statements of the Sages indicate their belief that the Ketev Meriri was a real physical threat, and they were correct. 

Approach #2: These statements of the Sages indicate their belief that the Ketev Meriri was a real physical threat, but we now know that they were incorrect.

Approach #3: These statements of the Sages were intended to be taken allegorically, and were written to teach us lessons in ethics, philosophy, psychology, metaphysics, etc.; they were never intended by their authors to be taken literally, as statements of scientific fact about a physical threat.

In my opinion, Approach #3 is the least likely. I have yet to see any meforshim who explain the Ketev references in Haazinu or Tehilim 91 allegorically, and I think it would be difficult to take most of the aggadic explanations of the Ketev Meriri in Pesachim and Midrash Eichah as metaphors. The fact that the Shulchan Aruch and Rema codify these precautionary measures as halacha show that they certainly didn't take these statements allegorically.

Approach #1 is also unlikely, but is more plausible than Approach #3. Don't worry: I don't think there's any basis for worrying about a demon "filled with eyes" who will kill you if you look at the eye in its heart, nor do I think there is a single scientist who believes that whirling spoon demons can be seen in sour dipping sauce or whirling sieve demons appear between goat horns.

However, there are grounds for saying that a person should take certain precautions when walking outside during the Three Weeks between the 4th and 9th hours. After all, these are the hottest days of the year, and the hottest times of day. Lest you think I'm being facetious, a number of Rishonim take this approach in their commentary on the reference to Ketev Meriri in Haazinu. The Ibn Ezra explains that Ketev Meriri refers to the damage caused "by the bitterness of the air." Ibn Caspi says that it refers to the severe sickness that comes about on account of "the unusually excessive heat that occurs during the summer days." The Ralbag provides a lengthy meteorological account of Ketev Meriri - one which I can't even claim to translate accurately. He says something about how "meriri" refers to "the lethal air that sometimes comes up from the earth at times of extreme heat." He theorizes how this air is a product of "the heat of the sun and stars combined with the phenomena in the belly of the earth which cause this harmful vapor to ascend." He also repeatedly mentions something about "putrefaction" or "mustiness," but I couldn't follow what he was saying.

Whether or not these proto-scientific explanations of Ketev Meriri are any more accurate than the belief in a literal havoc-wreaking demon, one thing is clear: these Rishonim understood the Ketev Meriri to be a reference to a natural, physical, environmental phenomenon, rather than as a spiritual force or supernatural creature (as most people think of when they hear the word "demon"). Moreover, they had no qualms about rejecting the validity of the Sages' descriptions provided in the aggadic midrashim cited above. One might argue that they weren't rejecting these statements, but merely interpreting them non-literally. Personally, I doubt it. It's a stretch to read those vivid and specific statements as referring to "hot air" or "musty vapor."

To my mind, Approach #2 is the most reasonable of the three. The Sages believed in the physical threat of something they called Ketev Meriri, which they associated with the references in Haazinu and Tehilim 91. Whether they thought it was a spiritual entity or a meteorological phenomenon, they genuinely believed that it could cause harm. They also thought that they had enough of an understanding of the nature of this threat to be able to lay down guidelines for how to avoid this harm. But they were wrong. After all, the Meiri said that we must investigate the question of whether such demons exist and reach our conclusions based on our own understanding. As far as I know, there is no scientific basis for believing in the reality of anything matching the Sages' detailed description of Ketev Meriri today. And, as Rav Hirsch said, this is not an indictment of the Sages' authority or intelligence. They were merely relying on the information that was available to them at the time, just as contemporary rabbis rely on the scientific data available to them today, even though today's science might be regarded as laughably false tomorrow.

Whichever of the three approaches you take, one thing is abundantly clear, and was the most shocking of my findings: the threat of Ketev Meriri has absolutely nothing to do with Tishah b'Av and the Three Weeks! The Gemara in Pesachim says that the threat of the Ketev Meriri is specifically during the first sixteen days of Tammuz, and it is uncertain whether we need to take precautions against the Ketev Meriri during the time period from the 17th of Tammuz until the 9th of Av. There is nothing in that Gemara or Midrash Eichah which makes reference to anything having to do with Tishah b'Av, Three Weeks, the destruction of the Beis ha'Mikdash, the prophecies of Yirmiyahu, or even the halachos of mourning and diminishing our rejoicing. The sole exception to this trend is the phrase "bein ha'metzarim," which is likely just a textual hook in the Midrash. Certainly the Rishonim who understood Ketev Meriri to be an environmental threat that is common during the hottest days of the year would not tie their explanations to the halachic institutions of the Three Weeks and Tishah b'Av. They would caution all people, Jews and non-Jews, to take these precautions against the Ketev Meriri, even before Tishah b'Av was instituted as a halacha. Likewise, they would tell people who live in colder climates not to worry at all about these guidelines.

Another thing is clear: according to the Gemara in Pesachim and Midrash Eichah, no matter which of the three approaches you take, there is no reason to avoid other "risky" behaviors. The Ketev Meriri works in very specific ways. The Sages even go so far as to identify the specific types of shrubbery and shadows in which the Ketev Meriri can be found. There is simply no basis in this original source material for claiming that other dangerous activities should be avoided - except, perhaps, other outdoor activities which might put you at risk for heat exhaustion or dehydration.

Conclusion

We initially set out to answer the question: Is there a basis for the widespread practice to avoid risky endeavors during the Nine Days or the Three Weeks, out of precaution?  The answer to this question is a resounding and unequivocal: NO!

Our findings may be summarized as follows:

At the onset of Av we diminish rejoicing, and the specific activity we avoid is scheduling court appointments with non-Jews. According to our explanation, this reinforces the proper teshuvah-framework (midas ha'din) for reflecting on the causes of the national tragedies which were scheduled to befall us during the month of Av.

Between the 17th of Tammuz and the 9th of Av, we refrain from walking alone outdoors between the halachic hours of 4 and 9, and we also avoid striking students - not because of anything having to do with the Three Weeks, the Nine Days, and Tishah b'Av, but because of the threat of the Ketev Meriri - a physical threat that is either real but limited to very specific parameters, or is not real at all.

Although I have stated in my disclaimer that this post is not intended to be normative, I can tell you that if you are the type of person who determines your halachic practice based on the rulings of the Shulchan Aruch and the Rema, then feel free to schedule your wisdom-teeth surgery during this time period without worrying about increasing your risk for harm. There's no need to further diminish your joy on account of baseless fear. 

The Month of Av: Unlucky or Misunderstood? (Part 1 of 2)

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

Artwork: Drown in Sorrow, by Noah Bradley

The Month of Av: Unlucky or Misunderstood? (Part 1 of 2)

Introduction

There seems to be a fairly prevalent belief that the month of Av is an "unlucky time." People rearrange their plans, pushing off certain "risky" endeavors until after the month of Av (or, at least, until after Tisha b'Av). They avoid things like traveling, surgery, and business ventures because they feel that undertaking these activities during the month of Av is dangerous and ill-fated. I have seen a number of English articles which refer to the month of Av as an "inauspicious" (read: "unlucky") time of the year for Jews. 

The position taken in this article is that the month of Av is not unlucky, but merely misunderstood. Although we will start with the halacha as codified in the Shulchan Aruch, this article is intended to be theoretical - not normative. In other words, always consult your rabbi before making any changes to your halachic practice. 

Why the Misconception is a Misconception

Even before we look at any of the relevant sources, let us first establish why it is halachically inadvisable for the month of Av to be treated as "unlucky." 

One of the 613 mitzvos is a lo taaseh (Biblical prohibition) called "meonein." Since there's no adequate English translation of the term "meonein," we'll stick with the Hebrew. The Sefer Ha'Chinuch (Mitzvah #250) provides the following definition of meonein, based on the words of the Sages: 

The explanation of this subject is as it was given in the Midrash Sifra: [the Hebrew verb, te'oneinu, denotes] the sense of onah, a designated time - i.e. that we should not determine set times, to say that this hour is "good" for doing that activity in it, and whoever does it at that time will succeed, and whoever does it at this other time will not succeed - as the deluding masters of sorcery say. 

The Rambam, in the Mishneh Torah (Laws of Idolatry and the Statutes of the Gentiles 11:9), elaborates on this prohibition of "designating times," and mentions additional examples: one who says that a specific day is a "good" or "bad" day for doing a particular activity, or a particular year, or a particular month. 

In other words, meonein is the prohibition to designate a period of time as "good" or "bad" (i.e. auspicious or inauspicious, lucky or unlucky, blessed or cursed) for certain activities. According to Torah law, a person who does an action in accordance such a designation is liable for the penalty of whiplashes. For example, if a person were to believe that Friday the 13th is unlucky and decided not to take his driver's test on that day, believing that he'd fail, or if a person thought that his birthday was lucky and decided to buy a lottery ticket on that day, believing that he'd win, then he would be in violation of the Torah prohibition of meonein. 

The most well-known form of meonein is astrology. One who consults horoscopes or astrologers and acts on the basis of their counsel transgresses the Torah prohibition of meonein. According to the Sefer Ha’Chinuch’s definition, not only astrology but any designation of a time period as "good" or "bad" for a certain activity for any reason falls within the scope of this prohibition.

Thus, the problem with the popular belief about Av is is clear. If a Jew believes that the month of Av is an “unlucky time,” thinking that this is what the Gemara meant, and avoids certain activities based on this belief, then there are grounds to say that he would be in violation of the Biblical prohibition of meonein according to the Sefer ha'Chinuch and the Rambam.  

Thus, whatever sources we encounter in the course of our investigation, we cannot understand them to be indicating that a certain time period is auspicious or inauspicious. 

The Source of the Misconception

My guess is that the most common source of this widespread misconception is a pair of halachos that are brought down in the Shulchan Aruch: Orach Chayim Siman 551. One of these halachos pertains to the month of Av as a whole, and the other pertains to the period of time known as "the Three Weeks," though the two are often conflated:

551:1 - From the beginning of Av we diminish rejoicing, and a Jew who has a court appointment with a non-Jew should avoid it [during this time], because its mazal is bad.  

551:18 - One must be careful from the 17th of Tammuz until the 9th of Av to not walk alone from four [halachic] hours until nine [halachic] hours - Rema: because Ketev Meriri is prevalent - and they should not strike students during these days. 

It is easy to see how a superficial glance at these halachos might seem to support the popular belief. Why else would we be cautioned to avoid non-Jewish courts during the month of Av if not for the fact that Av is an bad time for the Jews? Even more significant is the explanation "its mazal is bad,” which seems to indicate that the month of Av is "unlucky." The second halacha goes even further, cautioning us to avoid certain dangerous activities during the Three Weeks on account of the Ketev Meriri - which, as we'll see later, is the name of a havoc-wreaking demon.

But as is often the case, things are not so simple when we examine them closely and critically. First of all, "its mazal is bad" cannot mean that the month of Av is unlucky, as we have explained based on the prohibition of meonein. Secondly, these two halachos do not caution us against all hazardous activities. Indeed, there are only three activities mentioned in these halachos, and all of them have specific parameters: (1) all Jews should avoid court appointments with non-Jews during the month of Av, (2) all people should avoid walking alone between the halachic hours of 4 and 9 during the Three Weeks, and (3) teachers should avoid striking their students during the Three Weeks.

In other words, based on the halachos - according to the Shulchan Aruch and the Rema, at least - there is absolutely no basis for avoiding anything during these time periods except for these three specific activities. There are no other activities we are cautioned to avoid for similar reasons as these.

The Original Source of the Misconception About Av

We will begin by looking up the original source of the first halacha cited in the Shulchan Aruch above, leaving aside the second one for later. The mishnah on Taanis 26b states: "at the onset of the month of Av, we diminish our rejoicing." The Gemara (Taanis 29a-b) explains:

At the onset of the month of Av, we diminish our rejoicing: Just as we diminish rejoicing at the onset of the month of Av, so too, at the onset of the month of Adar (Rashi: which were days of miracles for Israel, Purim and Pesach) we increase rejoicing. 

Rav Pappa said: Therefore, a Jew who has a court appointment at a non-Jewish court should try to avoid it during the month of Av because it has a bad mazal, but he should be present in court during the month of Adar because it has a good mazal.

The key term here is: "therefore a Jew who has a court appointment etc." In other words, the Gemara is not saying:"since the month of Av has bad mazal, therefore we diminish rejoicing and avoid court appointments with non-Jews," which is the intuitive way to conceive of this cause-and-effect relationship. Rather, the Gemara is saying: "since we are obligated to diminish rejoicing during the month of Av, therefore we should avoid court appointments with non-Jews during the month of Av, on account of its bad mazal." Stated differently, the month of Av generates a halachic obligation to diminish rejoicing, and it is on account of this obligation that we avoid court appointments with non-Jews.

Questions to Be Answered

There are several basic questions on the Gemara here:

1. What is special about the month of Av, such that we diminish rejoicing? Yes, we know that the first and second Beis ha'Mikdash were destroyed, and a number of other tragedies happened, but is this why we diminish joy? 
2. Why does this requirement to diminish joy express itself in an obligation to avoid court cases with non-Jews? This seems awfully specific, and not directly related to any of the tragedies that happened during the month of Av?
3. What does the Gemara mean when it says that the month of Av has "bad mazal"?
4. How would we answer these same questions with regards to the obligation to increase joy at the onset of the month of Adar? The fact that there isn't a corresponding superstition which regards the month of Adar as "lucky" is telling. Clearly, symmetry of this Av / Adar halacha isn't as intuitive as the Gemara seems to take it. What is the reasoning behind the parallel halacha regarding the onset of the month of Av?

This seems like a good place to end this blog post. Next time we'll attempt to answer these questions, and shed some light on the halacha in the Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim 551:18 regarding our cautionary conduct during the Three Weeks.

Click here for Part 2:

Parashas Masei: Leviim as Role Models of Tolerance

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

Artwork: Answered Prayers, by Seb McKinnon

Parashas Masei: Leviim as Role Models of Tolerance

The United States of America in the year 2019 is a curious place. For all of its "progressive" emphasis on compassion, inclusivity, and acceptance of intentional lifestyle choices, it is shockingly intolerant and unforgiving when it comes to unintentional offenses.

This category of "offenses" is not limited to criminal infractions, but includes any speech or behavior which inadvertently results in emotional pain or personal offense to others. Even the innocent act of expressing an unpopular opinion may be labeled an "attack" or an "act of aggression" by those who feel "victimized" by hearing sentiments with which they disagree.

There is a growing list of public figures - actors, comedians, artists, authors, politicians, celebrities - who have been guilty of such missteps and have been called out for their "crimes." As a result, these people are publicly shamed, boycotted, blacklisted, canceled, and subjected to verbal abuse or even physical threats, usually over social media. In many cases, even when they apologize and express genuine regret, they are not absolved or forgiven by the public. Instead, their transgressions are considered unpardonable and the perpetrators irredeemable. 

There is a mitzvah in this week's parashah which may shed some light on the Torah's view of this phenomenon. Upon entering the Land of Israel, Bnei Yisrael were commanded to establish 48 cities. These cities serve two functions: (1) all 48 cities are to be the residence of the Leviim (Levites), who do not own any other portion in the Land, and (2) six of these are to be designated as cities of refuge for unintentional murderers to flee from the goel ha'dam (blood avenger) where they will remain protected until their release upon the death of the Kohen Gadol.

The Sefer ha'Chinuch refers to this as "the mitzvah upon Israel to provide cities to the Leviim to dwell therein" (Mitzvah #408). In his explanation of "the root of the mitzvah" (i.e. the benefits or objectives of the mitzvah), he addresses the fact that these cities were to be inhabited by two very different groups of people. The distinguished scholar-class of the Leviim are to live side by side with the criminal-class of the unintentional murderers. The Torah could have set up the cities of refuge in the territories of the other tribes. Why send the unintentional murderers to live exclusively with the Leviim?

The Sefer ha'Chinuch provides two answers to this question, the second of which is as follows:

There is another reason for the matter: Since they (i.e. the Leviim) were men of [good] heart, renowned for the eminent worth of their character traits and their noble wisdom, it was evident to all that they would not detest the murderer who took refuge with them, and would not harm him, even if he killed one of their good friends or avenging blood relations (i.e. relatives whose kinship would cause them to avenge the victim's murder), since he killed them suddenly (i.e. unintentionally), without enmity. About this chosen tribe it is stated, "who said of his father and mother, 'I have not seen him'" (Devarim 33:9). In other words, they would do nothing in the world that was not in accordance with the upright path and in line with the truth, and their heart would not be swayed by the love of any person - not even love for a father and mother, brothers and sons, whose love is necessitated and compelled by nature - and all the more certainly not love for any other human beings. I wrote another argument about this subject in the eleventh negative mitzvah in Sidrah Behar.

The Sefer ha'Chinuch's comments in Behar pertain to the mitzvah "not to alter the open land around the cities of the Leviim or their fields" (Mitzvah #342). There he writes:

At the root of this mitzvah lies the reason that the cities of the Leviim were prepared for the needs of all the other tribes. For this was the tribe chosen for avodas Hashem (the service of Hashem), and their entire occupation was with chochmah (wisdom), since they were not burdened with the affairs of agricultural labor like the other tribes of Israel. Of them it was said, "They will teach Yaakov Your ordinances, and Israel Your Torah" (Devarim 33:10). And because of the fact that there was wisdom among them, all the Israelites always had dealings with them, apart from the fact that among their cities were the cities of refuge for an unintentional killer. As a result, the eyes of all Israel were on their cities, "for a man never knows what a day may bring forth" (Mishlei 27:1).

It was therefore only right that those cities, in which all had an equal interest, with which the heart of all was concerned, should have a perfection of beauty and attractiveness. It would be to the praise and advantage of the entire people of Israel. Therefore, the order was given about them that nothing in their arrangement was to be changed. For the Sovereign Ruler of all founded and constructed them and set their boundaries, and He saw that it was good. Then any alteration beyond His words would be nothing but a detraction and a disgrace. 

There are several important lessons to be gleaned from this explanation.

Lesson #1 - Unintentional Murderers Deserve Compassion: By "compassion" I mean that they are to be treated "in accordance with the upright path," like any other Jew or human being, and not "harmed" or even "detested" by their neighbors. Although this level of compassion wouldn't necessarily extend to intentional* murderers, who committed their crimes "with enmity," it should be noted that those who seek refuge in one of these cities are not entirely blameless. If a death came about as a result of a totally freak accident, then the murderer wouldn't be exiled to a city of refuge, since he wouldn't be liable at all. The only murderer who lives in the cities of refuge is one who killed another person as a result of harmful actions on his part which he should have foreseen and prevented. In other words, he is guilty of lethal negligence, and is at fault for the loss of life he caused. Nevertheless, the Torah expects him to be treated in a kind and civil manner, and to not to be stigmatized in any way for his crime. This is true even if he hasn't done teshuvah.

Lesson #2 - The Torah Has High Expectations for Such Compassion: The Sefer ha'Chinuch makes it clear that the Torah expects the inhabitants of the cities of refuge to treat these murderers with this level of compassion no matter what - even if the murder victim was a close friend or relative. This is an exceedingly high level. The Sefer ha'Chinuch even says that one's feelings towards the murderer shouldn't be swayed by the natural love for one's own family. One might think that it would be impossible to achieve this level of personal clemency - and yet, the Torah considers it possible.

Lesson #3 - The Torah Does Not Expect This of All People: Nevertheless, the Torah's expectations are only this high for Leviim, whose lives are devoted to avodas Hashem and chochmah. The Torah does not have such high expectations for average Jews. According to the Sefer ha'Chinuch, this is why there are no cities of refuge in the territories of the other tribes. If there were, the murderers who lived there would be mistreated and resented because of the crimes they committed. Only Leviim can be relied upon to not give in to the natural human inclination to vilify and marginalize those who have committed manslaughter. 

Lesson #4 - The Torah Expects Us to Aspire to This Level: Even though average Jews are not expected to reach the level of the Leviim, we are expected to look up to them as role models. As the Sefer ha'Chinuch stated, "the eyes of all Israel were on their cities," knowing how and with whom the Leviim live, and being inspired by their virtues - including their tolerance and compassion towards the murderers in their midst.

These insights provide a new perspective on the prevalent attitude in America towards public figures who inadvertently cause offense through their words or actions. Bear in mind that we are not talking about terrorists, serial killers, school shooters, rapists, pedophiles, white collar criminals, corrupt politicians, or anyone else who knowingly and intentionally commits wrongful acts. We are talking about those who caused harm or hurt through mistakes - unintentional speech or behavior which could have been seen and prevented, but was not, due to negligence on the part of the perpetrator.

The major take-away from the Sefer ha'Chinuch's explanation of this mitzvah may be stated as follows: If the Torah maintains that a person who mistakenly kills another human being through  negligence deserves compassion and protection from maltreatment, then certainly this would be true of a person who unintentionally caused emotional offense or hurt feelings. 

Does the Torah expect all Jews to be able to rise above the natural tendency to malign the wrongdoers in our midst? No. This is a difficult task and an uphill battle. Yet, the Torah does expect us to recognize "the upright path," and to acknowledge that it is possible for some of us to reach an exceedingly high level of compassion even towards those who committed the worst crime - taking another human life - provided that they didn't intend to cause harm.

Clearly there is a lot more to be discussed on the topic of how we ought to treat and feel about various types of wrongdoers and criminals. The best approach is to learn whatever we can from each Torah law, and strive to incorporate these lessons into the way we live. And even if we can't live up to the lofty ideals conveyed through these mitzvos, we should still take these lessons to heart to the degree that we are able, and continually aspire to better ourselves in accordance with the Torah's value system. 

* There are other mitzvos and other sources in the Torah which enlighten us as to how we should treat and feel about intentional murderers and other reshaim (evildoers). This topic is multifaceted, and is beyond the scope of this blog post. 

My Stubborn and Unpopular Educational Belief

This can be regarded as a follow-up to my educational philosophy statement. It’s the text of an email I recently sent to one of my former students in response to a question she asked about my educational philosophy. Consequently, there is some overlap with what I explicitly stated in my educational philosophy statement, but the main thing I wanted to do here was to articulate one of the premises of my educational philosophy. 

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

My Stubborn and Unpopular Educational Belief

My stubborn and unpopular belief is that every student loves learning. Many of them either don't know it yet, or they've had the love of learning nearly snuffed out by their educational experiences.

The basis of my belief is my premise that every human being is created b'tzelem Elokim. According to my understanding, this means that every human being has the capacity for conceptual understanding and abstract thinking, as well as an innate drive to seek out knowledge of truth for its own sake. 

It is this fundamental belief about human nature which impels me, as a teacher of Torah, to treat every student with respect as a fellow truth-seeking mind, and to treat every question as a potential catalyst of tzelem Elokim development. Although I do care about teaching specific ideas with clarity, and hope that students remember what they learn in my classes, this isn't my main goal. My main goal is to awaken the latent tzelem Elokim in my students, and to equip them with the tools - in the realm of chochmah (intellect) and mussar (middos) - to live as a tzelem Elokim, the ultimate level of which is making good bechirah (free will) decisions on the basis of their tzelem Elokim, reaching ahavas Hashem (love of God) and yiras Hashem (fear of God) and learning lishmah (for its own sake). If a student walked away from my class with an enhanced love of learning, but without remembering a single idea I taught her, then I would still be happy and consider my job well done.

I referred to this belief of mine as "unpopular" because I do not think that this belief is shared by all teachers. Some profess it in speech, but don't believe it in their minds or in their hearts. Others don't even profess it. For example, there are teachers who believe that kids need to be instilled by their parents and teachers with a desire to learn, and that this desire is not natural. Others maintain that students need to be bribed - with praise, with grades, and with other "carrots" - or threatened with punishment in order to "get them to want to learn." Others take a religious angle, attempting to instill their students with a drive to learn as an act of avodas Hashem (divine service). Others believe that some kids do have a natural desire to learn, whereas others just "aren't cut out for learning." These teachers are usually quick to give up on those whom they perceive to be in the latter category.

I maintain that all of these teachers are wrong. I walk into my classroom - whether it's filled with old students or new students - with the assumption that EVERY student has an innate love of learning, an innate enjoyment of thinking, and an innate sense of curiosity. In many cases, these innate potentials are latent, or suppressed, or even crippled by years of educational abuse - but they're there. My job is to awaken the potential thinker in all students, to the extent that I can, and nurture them with good ideas, good thinking, and good, enjoyable learning. I refer to this belief of mine as "stubborn" because I am so convinced it is true that I will be willing to continue operating on this premise even when all evidence points to the fact that a given student is not interested in learning. 

This reminds me of a conversation I had a few years ago with someone I went to high school with, who is currently a rebbi at [insert name of well-known school]. He and I were talking about my educational approach, which he was familiar with from our teachers at [insert name of my high school alma mater]. I will never forget what he told me. He said, "Your whole approach of getting kids into learning by answering their questions and teaching them to think ... maybe that used to work, but it's an outdated approach. Kids these days aren't interested in thinking. They want a kesher (personal connection) with their rebbi. That's the best way to reach them. Not by answering questions." 

I couldn't believe how diametrically opposed our approaches were. This is a rebbi who uses methods like having kumzitzes (singing sessions) during shiur (Torah class), baking cookies for his talmidim (students), putting his arm on their shoulder, artificially attempting to rev up enthusiasm with phrases like, "Isn't this Toisfis geshmack?" and "We're going to learn some heilga TOIRAH!" Those methods in and of themselves aren't inherently problematic, but when "that outdated method" of thinking-based Torah is replaced with such devices, then that is worse than misguided; it's evil. 

I will not deny that this approach "works" for some kids. I say "works" (in quotation marks) because I maintain that this type of approach cannot serve as a foundation that's made to last. Like any emotionally-fueled approach, it will only "work" while the emotional mood is active and kept at a heightened level, and the nature of all emotional moods is that they cannot remain at a constant state forever. Someone who subscribes to such an approach will ride the high until it starts to wear off, and will then desperately try to chase after another high to keep his religiosity going. At "best," he'll spend his life repeatedly chasing such highs, like a drug addict. At worst, the high will wear off, and he'll drop his religiosity, or rebel against it. 

My approach is made to last because it is based on the higher part of our human nature as tzelem Elokim. Moreover, for those students of mine who are inducted into the world of Mishlei and Koheles, my approach is also based on the lower part of our human nature as pleasure-seeking pain-avoiding animals. By showing that Torah has a rational basis which satisfies the intellect, while simultaneously providing a way of life which results in maximum pleasure and minimum pain, I am appealing to the entire human being which, as Aristotle defined, is a "rational animal." Even if a student discontinues learning after high school, the part of the student which I awakened is their essence. I did not merely put them into a certain mood by singing a zemer or making them feel a kesher with their rebbi. I activated their humanity. 

I should mention that I am not trying to dismiss or downplay those whose attachment to Torah and Judaism is purely or largely emotional. That's a good thing, just as any she'lo lishmah is a good thing - at least, in potential. But I am intentionally objecting to Torah educators who believe that such an approach is an ideal, and that the "radical" approach of "appealing to the mind" is an "outdated" method. They are wrong, and their wrongness does harm.

And so I will continue to teach in accordance with my stubborn and unpopular belief, and let the results speak for themselves.