“Hump Day,” Wednesday, and Yom Revii l’Shabbos

The Torah content for these two weeks has been sponsored by Judah and Naomi Dardik in loving memory of Rabbi Moskowitz zt''l, who taught his students to pursue truth by asking questions, who modeled love of Torah and learning, and who exemplified living a life of the mind.

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this article, and click here for an audio version.

Artwork: Sisyphus (cropped), by Jeffrey Hummel

“Hump Day,” Wednesday, and Yom Revii l’Shabbos

I was sitting in Starbucks when I heard a customer exclaim to the barista, "happy hump day!" For those who aren’t familiar with this American idiom, here’s an explanation from grammarist.com:

Hump day is an idiom that means Wednesday, a day of the week. The term hump day first appeared in the 1960s in North America, most probably in business offices. Hump day is based on the idea that the work week is a mountain one must climb. The general office work week is Monday through Friday, consisting of five days. This puts Wednesday in the middle, or at the peak or hump of the work week. Monday and Tuesday are the “climbing” days of the week, and are therefore psychologically difficult to get through. Wednesday is the highest part of this climb up a proverbial mountain. The thinking goes that if one can make it to hump day, then Thursday and Friday are an easy slide into the weekend.

Upon hearing the exchange in Starbucks, I immediately thought to myself, “Thank God I’m Jewish.” Allow me to explain.

In the Aseres ha’Dibros in Yisro, the mitzvah of Shabbos is introduced with: “Remember the Shabbos day to sanctify it” (Shemos 20:7). Although this is primarily a reference to kiddush, Chazal also say: “Do not count [the days of the week] as others count; rather, count in the name of Shabbos” (Mechilta d’Rebbi Yishmael, Shemos 20:7). In Judaism, we do not refer to the days of the week with proper nouns. Instead, we identify each day by its ordinal relationship to Shabbos. Thus, instead of saying, “Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, etc.” we say, “the 1st day [counting down] to Shabbos, the 2nd day [counting down] to Shabbos, the 3rd day [counting down] to Shabbos, etc.” Ramban (ibid.) provides several rationales for this:

According to the pshat (straightforward meaning), [the Sages] said that it is a mitzvah to remember Shabbos every day so that we neither forget it nor mix it up with other days, for by remembering it continually, we recall the creation every day and gratefully acknowledge that the universe has a Creator, and that He commanded us in this sign, as He said: “for it is a sign between Me and you” (Shemos 31:13), and it is a fundamental principal of our conviction in God.

In other words, this naming convention converts each weekday into a vehicle for remembering Shabbos. According to the Ramban, this accomplishes three things: (a) it reduces the chances of forgetting which day is Shabbos, (b) it reinforces the fundamental truth that Hashem created the universe, and (c) it prompts us to recall, with gratitude, that He commanded us in the institution of Shabbos, which not only preserves the truth of briah yesh me'ayin (creation ex nihilo), but also affords us the many benefits of a day of rest. And while most of us do not actually refer to the days of the week in this manner, we make sure to fulfill this daily recollection at the end of shacharis every morning when we recite the shir shel yom, which is preceded by mentioning the day of the week in accordance with this formula.

How different – and how superior – is our name for this day in comparison to “Wednesday” and “hump day”! According to Wikipedia, “Wednesday” is derived from the Old English Wōdnesdæg and Middle English Wednesdei, meaning “day of Woden,” which is the Anglo-Saxon equivalent of the Norse god Odin. Although “Wednesday” is the term we use most often, its origin is undoubtedly pagan. Even if that isn’t halachically problematic, it’s not ideal from a Torah perspective. Calling Wednesday “hump day” underscores the burden of the workweek without any reference to what we are working towards or why we are working. In truth, “hump day” is actually a veiled complaint: “Finally we’re halfway through the toil of this week!” This idiom elevates our own feelings of annoyance and relief to the level of primacy.

In contrast to both of these, “yom revii l’Shabbos” (“the 4th day [counting down] to Shabbos”) is free from these negative associations. Instead, it brings to mind the halachic system, evokes a fundamental idea with far-reaching philosophical and ethical implications, and awakens feelings of gratitude to Hashem for the world we live in, the nation we belong to, and the mitzvos we have been given. That is why hearing “happy hump day!” made me thank God that I am Jewish. And now my hope is that the next time you hear the term "hump day," it causes you to remember Shabbos.

___________________________________________________________________________________

If you've gained from what you've learned here, please consider contributing to my Patreon at www.patreon.com/rabbischneeweiss. Alternatively, if you would like to make a direct contribution to the "Rabbi Schneeweiss Torah Content Fund," my Venmo is @Matt-Schneeweiss, and my Zelle and PayPal are mattschneeweiss at gmail.com. Even a small contribution goes a long way to covering the costs of my podcasts, and will provide me with the financial freedom to produce even more Torah content for you.

If you would like to sponsor a day's or a week's worth of content, or if you are interested in enlisting my services as a teacher or tutor, you can reach me at rabbischneeweiss at gmail.com. Thank you to my listeners for listening, thank you to my readers for reading, and thank you to my supporters for supporting my efforts to make Torah ideas available and accessible to everyone.

Be sure to check out my YouTube channel and my podcasts: "The Mishlei Podcast", "The Stoic Jew" Podcast, "Rambam Bekius" Podcast, "Machshavah Lab" Podcast, "The Tefilah Podcast"  Email me if you'd like to be added to my WhatsApp group where I share all of my content and public shiur info. 

Purim 5782 – A Theory Connecting Purim to Yom ha’Kipurim Which is NOT Based on Specious Linguistics – Part 1 (Facts and Questions)

The Torah content for the remainder of Adar II has been sponsored by David Campbell, and is dedicated "in honor of Rabbi Schneeweiss and all those who work to produce a grounded and thoughtful Judaism."

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this article, and click here for an audio version.

Purim 5782 – A Theory Connecting Purim to Yom ha’Kipurim Which is NOT Based on Specious Linguistics – Part 1 (Facts and Questions)

One of my “Purim pet peeves” is when someone gives a dvar Torah about the thematic relationship between the holidays of Purim and Yom ha’Kipurim on the sole basis of their similar sounding names. This claim rests on two pillars: (1) that both names contain the transliterated word “purim,” and (2) that the prefix “k-” means “like” in Hebrew. The claimant usually starts off with saying: “Yom ha’Kipurim is a yom (day) which is like Purim!” and then goes on to weave their own tapestry of ideas on that foundation.

This cute play on words can serve as a platform for an idea that stands on its own two feet, but anyone who thinks that this constitutes actual evidence hasn’t carefully read the megilah. The pasuk says:

In the first month, which is the month of Nisan, in the twelfth year of King Achashverosh, he cast a pur, which is a lottery, before Haman, from day to day and from this month to the twelfth month, which is the month of Adar. (Esther 3:7, translated by Neima Novetsky)

Why does the pasuk need to clarify what “pur” means? Ibn Ezra (ibid.) answers: because it’s a Persian word. Neima Novetsky, citing the BDB entry for פור, suggests that “pur” might stem from the Akkadian "puru," meaning “stone” or “lot.” Either way, “Purim” is not a Hebrew word, and therefore has no linguistic relationship to Yom ha’Kipurim – a Hebrew word from the root K.P.R. meaning “atone.”

Folk etymology aside, I was curious about the origins of the claim that there exists any sort of relationship between Purim and Yom ha’Kipurim. Despite the ubiquity of this notion, I barely found any references in the early sources. The Maharal of Prague (16th century) writes about this in his introduction to Ohr Chadash, referencing material from the medieval (11th century) Midrash Mishlei (9:2, Buber). This relationship is also mentioned in Tikkunei Zohar (21, 57b). Still, I wasn’t able to find any direct references in the works of Chazal, the Geonim, or the Rishonim … until yesterday. Rambam (Hilchos Megilah v’Chanukah 2:17) writes:

It is better for a person to be excessive in gifts to the poor than to be excessive in his meal and in sending [gifts] to his fellows, for there exists no greater or more glorious simchah (joy) than to bring simchah to the hearts of the poor, the orphans, the widows, and the converts, for one who brings simchah to the hearts of these downtrodden individuals resembles the shechinah (divine providence), as it is stated: “to bring life to the spirit of the lowly and to bring life to the heart of the oppressed” (Yeshaya 57:15).

Where do we hear this pasuk in Yeshayahu every year? In the haftarah of Yom ha’Kipurim. This makes Rambam the earliest source (to my knowledge) who relates the two holidays, albeit indirectly. Even though the application of this pasuk from Yeshayahu to Purim is a chidush (novel insight) on the Rambam’s part, caring for downtrodden individuals is undeniably one of the major themes of Purim. Moreover, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik (The Rav Thinking Aloud, by David Holzer, p.65) notes that it is always preferable to base a philosophical idea on a halachic (legalistic) source rather than an aggadic (homiletical) one:

With aggada, we are not sure that what we say is correct. We have no tradition as to the interpretation of the maxim, as we do in halachah. When testing philosophical ideas, it is thus preferable to introduce a halachic, rather than aggadic, motif.

Now that we’ve established that there is a thematic relationship between Purim and Yom ha’Kippurim which is reflected in halacha, the question remains: What is that relationship?

___________________________________________________________________________________

If you've gained from what you've learned here, please consider contributing to my Patreon at www.patreon.com/rabbischneeweiss. Alternatively, if you would like to make a direct contribution to the "Rabbi Schneeweiss Torah Content Fund," my Venmo is @Matt-Schneeweiss, and my Zelle and PayPal are mattschneeweiss at gmail.com. Even a small contribution goes a long way to covering the costs of my podcasts, and will provide me with the financial freedom to produce even more Torah content for you.

If you would like to sponsor a day's or a week's worth of content, or if you are interested in enlisting my services as a teacher or tutor, you can reach me at rabbischneeweiss at gmail.com. Thank you to my listeners for listening, thank you to my readers for reading, and thank you to my supporters for supporting my efforts to make Torah ideas available and accessible to everyone.

Be sure to check out my YouTube channel and my podcasts: "The Mishlei Podcast", "The Stoic Jew" Podcast, "Rambam Bekius" Podcast, "Machshavah Lab" Podcast, "The Tefilah Podcast"  For the full guide to all of my Torah content, click here. 

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.