Q&A Tips from Peanuts

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

Q&A Tips from Peanuts

Introduction

My Mishlei rebbi in high school was known for the Q&A sessions which were a regular feature of his classes. Whenever we had extra time left between the end of the lesson and the end of the period, he'd say, "Gentlemen - I'll take a question." We could ask him any question about Judaism, philosophy, or ethics, and he would answer it, or at least try. And if we didn't agree with his answer, we would voice our disagreements, and a passionate discussion would ensue. And if he didn't know the answer, he'd say, "I don't know." 

I have carried on this tradition in my own teaching. At first it was intimidating to open the floor to any question, but the intimidation quickly turned into exhilaration, and now I love doing Q&A! And if the testimony of my students over the years is any indicator, they love it as well. I think it is extremely important for students to have regular access to this type of Q&A learning. Perhaps I'll write another blog post about why at some point.

Hold that thought while we switch gears for a moment. 

Like Rabbi Dr. Abraham Twerski, I have found many an insight in Charles Schulz's Peanuts comic strip. I have been known to incorporate Peanuts comics into several of my classes - especially when teaching Koheles and Iyov. Schulz most definitely had a firm grasp of human nature and psychology, and was talented at conveying this knowledge through his comics in a manner that even a young child could grasp. 

I was in the mood to write a short and informal blog post to write for today and I thought, "Why not share some Q&A tips which are reflected in Peanuts comics?" These tips aren't just for other teachers who hold Q&A sessions. They are just as useful for parents who answer questions from their children, or for any Jew who answers questions from anyone about Judaism.

I've chosen three tips to write about this time around, though I'm sure there are more. 

Tip #1: Know Which Terms to Define

Over the years my students have expressed astonishment at my ability to give clear and cogent answers to every question they throw at me, no matter how perplexing, difficult, or outside-of-the-box they may be. I explain that this ability of mine is something of a trick which came about as a result of the relatively late start of my Jewish education. 

When I first converted to Judaism and began my Jewish education from close to scratch a few months before my 17th birthday, I focused a great deal of attention on asking for definitions of basic terms and concepts. After all, how could I be a Jew without knowing the basics? For example: What is Torah? What is a mitzvah? Why do we keep mitzvos? Who is Hashem? What is a soul? What is Judaism's idea of good and evil? What is tefilah? I didn't naturally ask such questions at first, but thankfully, my Mishlei rebbi got me into this habit at an early point in my first year, and it stuck.

The more I developed in my learning, the more I realized how many of the Jews around me had not bothered to define or even investigate these very basic questions. This discovery caused me to intensify my effort to make sure that I always had at least a working definition, and that I always made it a priority to return to my working definitions to refine them as my own understanding grew. 

Fundamentals are fundamental for a reason. They are the foundations upon which everything else is built. Because these fundamentals occupy such a central place in my own learning and practice of Torah, I tend to (or try to) see all of the myriad particulars of Judaism in relation to these fundamentals. Consequently, whenever a student asks a question about a particular, I often begin my answer by identifying the fundamental on which it is based, and defining it. In many cases, that basic definition leads directly to an answer to the student's question. More importantly, my use of this technique instills within my students the intellectual habit of defining basic terms, which will better equip them to find answers to their own questions.

Unlike Linus in the comic above, always be sure to define the most basic terms, rather than getting caught up in the details from the get go. 

Tip #2: Differentiate Between Intellectual Questions and Emotional Questions

I don't remember the specifics of the event, but it went something like this. One day after class a student approached me after class and asked, "Why do bad things happen to those who are innocent?" My first reaction was excitement about the fact that this student asked such an important question. This was a student who hadn't shown any particular drive for philosophical inquiry, and rarely asked questions outside of class. 

I was about to begin a response using the approach outlined above when my spidey sense stopped me. Perhaps it was the vaguely distraught look in the student's eye, or the strange manner in which she framed her question (rather than the usual, "Why do bad things happen to good people?"). 

Instead, I asked, "Is there something in particular that prompted the question?" Tears started streaming down her face as she explained to me that they recently had to put down one of her pet dogs because it had advanced cancer, and yesterday her other pet dog was hit by a car and killed. These dogs didn't do anything wrong. Why did they have to suffer? 

I decided to shelve whatever answer I had planned to give her, and instead said whatever I thought would best express my sympathy and show that I cared. 

To oversimplify the point I'm making here, there are three basic types of questions students ask:

1. intellectual questions
2. emotional questions (which sometimes manifest as complaints or outbursts)
3. emotional questions that masquerade in intellectual garb (or questions which are driven 5% by intellectual curiosity and 95% by emotional issues)

It's fairly easy to spot types #1 and #2, but you have to be very discerning to pick up on type #3. The question asked by Sally in the comic strip and the question asked by my student in the anecdote fall into category #3. 

The answers to such questions usually involve addressing the intellectual dimension of the student's question by giving the smallest possible kernel of the truth, then making a hard pivot into addressing the underlying emotional issue, as the situation warrants. Sometimes the student just wants to feel heard by an authority figure, or just wants some sympathy, or just wants an emotional outlet. Deliver the kernel of truth to the mind, then talk to the heart.

If this approach is successful, then it will often lead to further questions which are driven by intellectual curiosity. However, this rarely happens in the moment, and usually takes place much later - sometimes months, or even years later. It is precisely because the student was given a meaningful emotional response when she most needed it that the answer left an impression in her mind, and gave her reason to believe that there was more to be gained by resuming her inquiry. 

This is why it's important to deliver a small but potent kernel of truth even when giving what is primarily an emotional response, rather than giving a response which is pure emotional "fluff." I believe that all people can sense the difference between fluff and truth on some level, and if their teacher gives them a fluffy answer, they know that "the well is empty," and there's no point in going back for more water.

So be like Charlie Brown and check to see whether the student is asking the intellectual question she says she's asking, or whether she's really voicing an emotional issue in the form of an intellectual question. 

Tip #3: Praise the Stupid Questions and Answer Them

Students are often taught that "there's no such thing as a stupid question." Although I get what this aphorism is saying, I don't like the way it's phrased. I prefer to tell my students that "there is such a thing as a stupid question, but you should always ask your stupid questions, or you'll never learn the answers."  

This isn't my own original saying. The Mivchar ha'Peninim says the same thing in a pithier manner: "ask the questions of fools." The Rashbatz explains to mean "that [a student] should ask everything and not be ashamed, even if his questions are the questions of fools." The context of the Rashbatz's explanation is his commentary on the statement in Avos 2:5, which says: "ein ha'bayshan lomed" ("one who is embarrassed doesn't learn"). This is the primary reason why students should be encouraged to ask stupid questions: if you don't ask, then you won't learn. And who is the real stupid person: one who asks a stupid question in order to gain more knowledge, or one who refuses to ask a stupid question and remains with his stupidity? I think the answer is clear. 

But there's another reason why students should get into the habit of asking stupid questions: it is often the stupid questions which lead to the greatest insights and innovations. If you look at the major breakthroughs made by the geniuses in any field - whether it be in science, math, technology, music, etc. - you will find that these breakthroughs were often made by asking questions that are so basic that others wouldn't even bother to voice them, because they would be ridiculed as "stupid questions." In this sense, Tip #3 is very much connected to Tip #1: questions are often labeled as "stupid" because they inquire about the fundamentals and first principles of the subject at hand. 

Lastly, it is important to ask stupid questions because this builds intellectual honesty and intellectual courage. It is embarrassing to acknowledge that you don't understand something that seems simple and basic to other people, but in order to become a thinker, you must be willing to suffer that blow to the ego. Similarly, it is scary to admit that you don't know something which other people seem to know, but in order to become a thinker, you have to be willing to confront your own ignorance and uncertainty head on. 

Be like Linus in this cartoon: ask your stupid questions, and don't let anyone stop you.

Conclusion ... for Now

I'm sure there are more pedagogical insights to be gleaned from Peanuts along these lines, but I think this is where I'll end for now. I hope that these tips are helpful for teachers and non-teachers alike. 

Why Do Jews Wear Yarmulkes?

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

Why Do Jews Wear Yarmulkes?

If you are a kippah-wearing Jew, chances are that you've been asked some version of this question. And unless questions like this leave you tongue-tied, chances are that you've managed to give at least some semblance of an accurate answer. 

There are a number of valid answers that can be given to this question. In this blog post I'd like to share the answer that I usually give, though I am well aware that it may not be the most "mainstream" answer. I'm going to share this answer in its fullest form, but I'll conclude with a one-sentence summary, which is probably the version that you'll most frequently use as an answer if asked this question in real life.

I typically begin with an explanation of the etymology of the word "yarmulke." There are two explanations for the origins this strangely spelled word: one pshat (an accurate explanation of the word itself), and the other drash (a homiletic explanation). The pshat explanation is summed up by this article in Tablet Magazine which states:

Yarmulke’s etymological pedigree is undeniably Polish, in which language the word jarmułka (with the stress, though, on the second syllable) still exists, and which originally referred to a skullcap worn by priests.

The drash explanation is that the "yarmulke" is a compound word derived from the Aramaic expression "yarei malka" (ירא מלכא) which means "fear/awe of the king." According to this "folk etymology," the yarmulke is a reminder to be in a state of fear/awe before "the king." Although this explanation is clearly post-facto (i.e. historically, no Aramaic speaker ever used the word "yarmulke"), I find that it serves as an excellent springboard for answering the question at hand. 

Towards the end of the Moreh ha'Nevuchim (3:52) the Rambam depicts the personal conduct of highly perfected individuals using a mashal (metaphor) of how a person conducts himself in the presence of a king:

Man does not sit, move, and occupy himself when he is alone in his house as he sits, moves, and occupies himself when he is in the presence of a great king; nor does he speak and conduct himself when he is with his family and relatives as he speaks in the king’s council. Therefore, he who chooses to achieve human perfection and to be a true man of God must awaken himself and know that the great king who accompanies him and clings to him is greater than any human being, even [King] David and [King] Solomon. 

Now if one were to pause here and ask: "Who is this king?" most people would answer: "God, of course!" The Rambam, however, provides a different answer:

The king who cleaves to [man] and accompanies him is the intellect that overflows towards us and is the bond between us and Him, may He be exalted. Just as we apprehend Him by means of that light which He caused to overflow toward us – as it is stated: “In Your light do we see light” (Tehilim 36:10) – so does He by means of this selfsame light examine us; and because of it, He, may He be exalted, is constantly with us, examining from on high: “Can anyone hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him?” (Yirmiyahu 23:24). Understand this well. 

Let that sink in for a moment: the "great king" in the Rambam's mashal, "who accompanies him and clings to him," is not God. Rather, it is the human intellect, which constitutes the sole connection between man and God. [1]

When we plug this understanding back into the original mashal, we emerge with a significantly different vibe than our initial impression might have left us with:

Man does not sit, move, and occupy himself when he is alone in his house as he sits, moves, and occupies himself when he consciously recognizes that he is an intellectual being; nor does he speak and conduct himself when he is with his family and relatives as he speaks when cognizant of the fact that he possesses an intellect, which constitutes his sole connection to God. [2] 

The Rambam then elaborates on the practical implications of this recognition, one of which is the basis of the minhag (halachic custom) to wear a yarmulke at all times:

Know that when perfect men understand this, they achieve deliberateness, humility, awe and fear of Hashem, and shame before Him, may He be exalted – in genuine ways, not based on imagination [3] – such that their secret conduct with their wives and in the bathhouses is like their public conduct with other people. This, as you will find, was the way of our most renowned Sages with their wives: “One uncovers a handbreadth and covers up a handbreadth” (Talmud Bavli: Nedarim 20a-b). They also said: “Who is modest? Whoever goes to the bathroom at night as he does by day” (Talmud Bavli: Berachos 62a). You know already that they forbade “walking about with an upright posture” (Talmud Bavli: Kiddushin 31a) on account of: “The whole earth is filled with His glory” (Yeshayahu 6:3) – all this being intended to firmly establish the notion that I have mentioned to you, that we are always before Him, may He be exalted, and in the dwelling of His shechinah (i.e. providence). And the greatest among the Sages of blessed memory were averse to uncovering their heads, because the shechinah hovers around man. They also spoke little for this reason. We have already given in [the Commentary on] Avos the explanation that was needed concerning the habit of speaking but little: “for God is in heaven and you are on earth; therefore, let your words be few” (Koheles 5:1).

In other words, the practice of wearing a yarmulke - or, more accurately, not going about with an uncovered head - serves to reinforce and naturally express the recognition that God knows and relates to man, and that "the whole earth is filled with His glory," and our intellect is the link between ourselves and Him. 

When answering the question at hand, I tend not to delve into the halachic intricacies of wearing yarmulke. However, I do underscore the Rambam's view that wearing a yarmulke is not a halacha, but a minhag (halachic custom) - one that was intended specifically for talmidei chachamim (Torah scholars). The Rambam codifies this minhag in the Mishneh Torah in the section of Hilchos Deos (Laws of Character Traits) which pertain specifically to talmidei chachamim:

5:1 – Just as a chacham (wise man) is distinguished in his wisdom and character traits and is differentiated from the rest of the nation, so too, he needs to be differentiated in his actions: in his eating and drinking, in his sexual intercourse and the manner in which he uses the bathroom, in his speech, in his manner of walking, in his clothing, in the content of his words, and in his business dealings. All of these actions must be refined and perfected to a very high degree. 

5:6 – Talmidei chachamim conduct themselves with great tznius (modesty): they do not degrade themselves, nor do they uncover their heads or their bodies. Even when they go to the bathroom, they are modest etc. [the Rambam then goes on to list various ways in which talmidei chachamim practice modesty in the bathroom.]

The Rambam's codification makes sense in light of the passage in the Moreh ha'Nevuchim. The average Jew maintains his awareness of Hashem via the mitzvos that are incorporated into his day to day routine: krias shema, tefilah, tefillin, mezuzah, tzitzis, berachos, etc. These specific mitzvos serve as reminders of specific ideas about Hashem and His relationship with us, and "were commanded in them in order to love God and remember Him constantly" (Introduction to the Mishneh Torah: Division of Books). Only the elite chachamim, whose lives revolve around Torah and chochmah, are on the level to attain the level of "deliberateness, humility, awe and fear of Hashem, and shame before Him, may He be exalted – in genuine ways, not based on imagination" described by the Rambam. Only such highly perfected individuals need the extra reminder of the yarmulke because only they are in a position to live a life with that degree of awareness of God. 

Nevertheless, the minhag has spread to the average Jew, and although we aren't on the level to truly "fear the king" in this manner, we still benefit from our knowledge that such a level of human perfection is possible, and is the ultimate goal towards which we must strive.

I sometimes conclude by mentioning that the yarmulke happens to be a great symbol of Jewish identity because it reflects Judaism's uniqueness as a religion. Whereas other religions preach that the relationship between man and God is based on faith, Judaism teaches that it is based on the intellect. [4] It is therefore fitting that the Jew adorn his head, which houses his brain - the seat of the intellect - with a symbol of his religious identity.

So, to sum it up succinctly:

Q: Why do Jews wear yarmulkes?

A: To remind ourselves to be "in awe of the king" - that is, to live our lives based on our intellect, which is our only connection to God.

[1] In truth, the Rambam's explanation here is predicated upon the Aristotelian notion of the Active Intellect (seichel ha'poal), its relationship with the material intellect, and the relationship of both to Hashem. Based on my limited knowledge of this debatably outdated doctrine, I don't see any point in bringing it up in the context of the answer to the question at hand.

[2] When writing this blog post I associated to a video clip of James Randi (a.k.a. "The Amazing Randi") in which he explains why he doesn't use drugs. Although Randi's statements reflect a purely secular outlook, I think it's still a great exemplification of the type of intellectual awareness that the Rambam describes. Randi says:

I want to be, if I can, as sure of the world - the real world around me - as is possible. Now, you can only attain that to a certain degree, but I want the greatest degree of control. I don't, I've never involved myself in narcotics of any kind, I don't smoke, I don't drink, because that can easily just fuzz the edges of my rationality, fuzz the edges of my reasoning powers, and I want to be as aware as I possibly can. That means giving up a lot of fantasies that might be comforting in some ways, but I'm willing to give that up in order to live in an actually real world - as close as I can get to it.

[3] The distinction between a person who relates to this idea "in genuine ways" as opposed to ways that are "based on imagination" requires its own blog post. Suffice it to say, an excellent example of ways that are "based on imagination" can be found in the Christmas song, "Santa Claus is Comin' to Town" mentality of:

He sees you when you're sleepin'

He knows when you're a wake

He knows if you've been bad or good

So be good for goodness sake!

This represents a rather childish sentiment that, "I shouldn't do anything bad when Daddy is watching!" and is a far cry from the state of mind described by the Rambam here.

[4] See my blog post Parashas Yisro: The Mitzvah of Emunah for a detailed treatment of this concept.

What is Ruach ha'Kodesh? (Rambam)

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

Artwork: Visions of Beyond, by Terese Nielsen

What is Ruach ha'Kodesh? (Rambam)

The Question

My students have, on numerous occasions, asked me questions about ruach ha'kodesh (lit. "the holy spirit"), such as: "Is it true that Rashi had ruach ha'kodesh?" or "Didn't the meforshim get their explanations from ruach ha'kodesh?" or "How can the rabbis be wrong if they had ruach ha'kodesh?" 

On the one hand, it seems as though my students view ruach ha'kodesh and nevuah (prophecy) as interchangeable terms. On the other hand, if I asked them point blank: "Are you under the impression that Rashi was a navi?" or "Is the Ramban's commentary on Chumash an example of nevuah?" they would most certainly say "no." And yet, if I asked them to define or explain the difference between ruach ha'kodesh and nevuah, they would be at a loss.

I do not believe my students are alone in this regard. I suspect that many Jews are unfamiliar with the difference between ruach ha'kodesh and nevuah. I certainly was until I looked into the matter. I also don't blame anyone for their lack of clarity on these topics. Not only are the concepts themselves extremely deep and lofty, but it's even difficult to track down the relevant sources! And, to make things even more difficult, sometimes the term "ruach ha'kodesh" is used to describe nevuah! I can understand why people are confused. 

The purpose of this post is not to provide the answer to the question in the title. I'm not even going to attempt to present a comprehensive digest of all - or even most - of the shitos (views), since I've barely scratched the surface of this subject in my own learning. 

Instead, I'm going to present the answer that I give to my own students, which is based on the writings of the Rambam. My goal is to provide them with enough information about nevuah and ruach ha'kodesh to be able to differentiate the two concepts in their minds.

What is Nevuah?

If I am not mistaken, the first time the Rambam defines nevuah is in his presentation of the Thirteen Ikkarim (fundamental principles) in his Introduction to Perek Chelek: [1] 

The Sixth Fundamental Principle is nevuah, namely, to know that within this human species there exist men who possess highly developed traits and great perfection, whose souls develop the capacity to receive the form of the intellect, and their human intellects join with the Active Intellect, and it emanates over them in abundant emanation - these are the neviim, this is nevuah, and this is its concept. And the explanation of this fundamental principle in complete form is exceedingly lengthy, and our goal is not the explanation of the particulars of each of these fundamental principles and an elucidation of the method of knowing them, for this would encompass all of branches of knowledge. Rather, we shall only mention them for informational purposes. And there are many verses which testify to the prophecy of the prophets.

If your reaction to reading this is, "Say what?" then don't worry. Like I said, our goal here is not to fully understand what nevuah is, but to know enough to be convinced that ruach ha'kodesh and nevuah are not the same thing.

The Rambam's treatment of nevuah in the Mishneh Torah [2] spans four chapters, and is too long to even attempt to summarize here. Instead, I've selected a few halachos from those four chapters which flesh out the concept of nevuah: 

7:1 – One of the fundamentals of the religion is to know that God prophetically communicates to mankind …when the spirit [of nevuah] rests upon him, his soul mingles with the level of angels which are called “ishim” and he becomes another person, and he understands with his mind that he is not as he once was, but that he has ascended above the level of other chachamim …

7:2 – … When [neviim] prophesy, their limbs quake, their bodily power weakens, their thoughts become scrambled, and their mind becomes free to contemplate what they see …

7:3 – The matters that are made known to the navi in a prophetic vision are conveyed to him by way of mashal (allegory), and immediately the interpretation of the mashal becomes engraved in his mind in the prophetic vision, and he knows what it is …

7:7 – It is possible that the navi’s nevuah is for him alone, to expand his mind and increase his knowledge, until he knows things that he didn’t know from those great things (i.e. physics and metaphysics), and it is possible that he is sent to a segment of the population – to the residents of a city or a kingdom – to prepare them and to inform them what to do, or to prevent them [from continuing] the evil actions in their hands – and when [the navi] is sent [for this reason], he is given a sign and wonder in order to make known to the people that God sent him in truth.

10:3 – … all the words of a navi are fulfilled, as it is stated: “for no word of Hashem will fall to the earth” (II Melachim 10:10); likewise it is stated: “The [false] prophet with a dream tells [his] dream, but the one with my word speaks My word of truth. How can the chaff compare to the kernel? – the word of Hashem” (Yirmiyahu 23:28) – in other words, the words of sorcerers and dreamers are like chaff mixed in with a little bit of grain, whereas the word of Hashem has no chaff at all.

The Rambam further elucidates nevuah by differentiating the nevuah of a regular navi from the nevuah of Moshe Rabbeinu. I'll cite his presentation of these differences in the Introduction to Perek Chelek, with all of the details and proofs omitted, for the sake of brevity:

The prophecy of Moshe, our master, differs from the prophecy of the other prophets in four ways:  

The first difference is that each and every navi was only spoken to by Hashem by way of an intermediary, but Moshe was without an intermediary ... 

The second difference is that every navi only receives his nevuah vision while asleep ... or during the day after the prophet falls under a trance into a state in which all of his senses have been suspended and his mind is blank just like in sleep ... but the word came to Moshe in the daytime when he was standing ... 

The third difference is that when a navi receives a nevuah, even though it is through a vision and by means of an angel, his powers weaken and his bodily frame becomes disarranged and an overpowering fear falls upon him as if he were going to die ... but this was not the case with Moshe. Rather, the word came to him and no weakness occurred in him at all ...

The fourth difference is that the vision does not come to all the prophets at their own desire but only at the will of Hashem ... However, Moshe, our master, was able to say at any time that he wished ...

To summarize: nevuah is a type of knowledge conveyed from Hashem to the mind of the navi (via angels) in mashal form. As the Rambam said, "the explanation of this fundamental principle in complete form is exceedingly lengthy" and a full explanation "would encompass all of branches of knowledge." Nevertheless, the basic information here is sufficient for our purposes. 

What is Ruach ha'Kodesh?

Now let's turn to the Rambam's definition of ruach ha'kodesh, as stated in the Moreh ha'Nevuchim.[3] I'm only going to cite the first part of this chapter, with my own paragraph breaks and underlines: 

After the preceding explanation of the true reality of nevuah according to the requirements of philosophical speculation combined with the explanation supplied by our Torah, it behooves me to mention to you the degrees of nevuah according to these two sources. 

Now not everybody who is found in one of the degrees, which I call the degrees of nevuah, is a navi. For the first and second degree are steppingstones toward nevuah, and someone who has attained one of them is not to be considered as a navi belonging to the class of neviim discussed in the preceding chapters. And even though he may sometimes be called a navi, this term is applied to him in a general sort of way, because he is very close to the neviim …

1st Degree – Ruach Hashem: The first of the degrees of nevuah consists in the fact that an individual receives or is accompanied by a divine help that moves and activates him to an exceedingly good and valuable act – such as the saving of a community of virtuous people from a community of evildoers, or the saving of a virtuous and great man, or the conferring of benefits on numerous people. The individual in question finds in himself something that moves and incites him to the action, and that is called “ruach Hashem” (“the spirit of Hashem”). And it is said of the individual who was in such a state that “the spirit of Hashem was upon him” or that “the spirit of Hashem clothed him” or that “the spirit of Hashem rested upon him” or that “Hashem was with him,” or other similar expressions are applied to him. That is the level of all the judges of Israel, of whom it is said in general that: “And when Hashem raised them up as judges, then Hashem was with the judge, and delivered them” (Shoftim 2:18) … 

Know that such a force did not abandon Moshe Rabbeinu from the moment he reached the age of maturity. It was because of this that he was moved to slay the Egyptian and to reprove the one who was in the wrong among the two men that struggled. The strength of this force in him shows in the fact that when – after having been filled with fear and having fled – he came to Midian as a stranger full of fear and saw some wrong that was done, he could not refrain from putting an end to it and was incapable of patience with regard to it … 

Such a ruach Hashem by no means caused one of these people to speak of anything; rather its object was to move the one strengthened by it to a certain action: not to any chance action, but to an action that provides assistance a wronged one – whether it be one great man or a community – or to an action that leads to that result. 

And just as not everyone who has seen a true dream is a navi, not everyone who has received [divine] assistance in some chance matter – such as the acquisition of property or the achievement of an end that concerns him alone – can be said to have been accompanied by ruach Hashem, or that “Hashem is with him,” or to have done what he has done “through ruach ha’kodesh.” We only say this about one who has performed a good action of capital import or an action that leads to that result; as, for instance, the success of Joseph in the house of the Egyptian, which was, as is clear, the first cause for great things that occurred afterwards.

2nd Degree – Ruach ha’Kodesh: It consists in the fact that an individual finds that a certain thing has descended upon him and that another force has come upon him and has made him speak, so that he talks in words of wisdom, or praise, or in beneficial statements of rebuke, or concerning political or divine matters – and all this while he is awake and his senses function as usual. Such an individual is said to speak through ruach ha’kodesh (“holy spirit”). 

It is through this kind of ruach ha’kodesh that David composed Tehilim, and Shlomo composed Mishlei and Koheles and Shir ha’Shirim. Daniel and Iyov and Divrei ha’Yamim and all the other Kesuvim (Writings) have likewise been composed through this kind of ruach ha’kodesh. For this reason people call them Kesuvim, meaning thereby that they are written through ruach ha’kodesh.

As you can see from this source, in light of the other sources, the Rambam is very explicit in differentiating ruach ha'kodesh from nevuah. Here is a list of differences:

• nevuah is nevuah, whereas ruach ha'kodesh is "a steppingstone to nevuah" which is merely called nevuah
• in this sense it may be said that ruach ha'kodesh is "on a lower level" than nevuah
• in nevuah there is actual content conveyed from Hashem to man, whereas ruach ha'kodesh is a force which moves a person to speak profound statements of his own
• nevuah can only be received while asleep or in a trance, whereas a person receives ruach ha'kodesh while awake and in full possession of his sensory faculties
• nevuah comes in the form of mashal, whereas ruach ha'kodesh produces words
• in Nach, the books classified in Neviim contain words of nevuah whereas the books classified in Kesuvim contain words of ruach ha'kodesh

These differences are stark. Ruach ha'kodesh is not nevuah.

Support from the Sefer ha'Ikkarim

While I don't know enough to say that the Sefer ha'Ikkarim's [4] view of ruach ha'kodesh is identical to that of the Rambam, it certainly seems to be in the same vein. He begins with a description of the four levels of intellect. Level 5 is ruach ha'kodesh, and Level 6 is the first degree of nevuah. Again, I will not cite the entire chapter, but only enough to provide context for his treatment of ruach ha'kodesh and nevuah. The paragraph breaks, paragraph titles (including level numbers), and underlines are mine:

We must now explain the existence of prophecy and its various grades, so that believers may find it easier to understand the existence of prophecy and the different degrees thereof.

Level 1 - Senses: At the moment of birth the individual is devoid of all understanding. The first things that are formed in him are the five external senses, touch, taste, smell, hearing, sight. The individual does not get these all at once, but one at a time. At the moment of his appearance in the outer world he perceives only with the coarsest of the senses, that of touch. The objects of his perception at this stage are heat and cold, moisture and dryness, softness and hardness, roughness and smoothness and the like. After a further interval of time after birth, he perceives a finer and more ‘important class of objects, namely tastes, like sweet, bitter, sour, astringent, sharp, and so on. Later on he perceives another class of things still finer, namely the odors, the agreeable and the disagreeable, etc. Later still he perceives with the sense of hearing a class of objects that is still finer than those of the sense of smell, and that may be perceived at a greater distance, such as sounds and tones, and their various kinds, etc. Still later he perceives with the sense of sight another class of existents finer than all the rest, which can be perceived at a greater distance than the others, such as colors and forms according to their various kinds, and so on. One of these five senses cannot perceive the objects of the others. Thus, the sense of sight cannot perceive sounds, or tones or odors; nor can the senses of smell and taste perceive colors and sounds.

Level 2 - Memory: After he has advanced a considerable time and has become habituated to the five senses, he rises to a higher degree than that of perceiving the objects of the various senses. He now has the power of recognizing a thing when it is no longer actually perceived. He recognizes what he has once perceived when he sees it again, and though the thing has disappeared he remembers the knowledge which is impressed on his imagination and recognizes the object. This power of apprehension he acquires through the medium of the first faculty.

Level 3 - Intellectual Apprehension: As he grows older still, he attains to a higher degree by means of the first powers, a new gate opens before him, and he acquires the power of intellectual apprehension. He strips the sensible object of its particular qualities and apprehends the general essence. For example, he takes animality and rationality in a human being and judges that these are common to the whole species and are different from those particular qualities which differ in different individuals.

Level 4 - Intellectual Comprehension: As he advances further in years and acquires information, another gate opens before him which he has not entered hitherto. He now makes a distinction between substance and accident, and between the necessary, the possible and the impossible. He combines rational principles not based upon sense perception with each other, and acquires all the sciences, which he could not have acquired by means of the powers mentioned before.

These four stages form the limit of the human intellect, beyond which it cannot go. Some individuals do not reach the highest stage, but stop with the second or the third. These then are the powers which the generality of men have.

Level 5 - Ruach ha'Kodesh: But it is possible that in addition to these powers, still another gate may open to a person and still another degree may be attainable by him of which he has no idea. For just as, if a person who has never seen them were told about lights and colors, he would not be able to imagine them and would not understand the different colors, as a eunuch cannot imagine the pleasure of sexual intercourse, so it is possible that though by the custom of nature man does not attain a greater degree than the four mentioned, nevertheless the mind may conceive of a higher degree. And experience testifies to this. For we see that beyond the four degrees above mentioned, a new gate opens before a given person which his own nature never imagined, and he speaks words of wisdom or words of song and praise to God in pure and fluent style such as he was incapable of hitherto. Everyone who hears him wonders at his knowledge and the manner of his expression, while he himself does not know whence this power came to him, as a child learns to speak without knowing whence the power came. But everybody recognizes his superiority in this respect. This degree is called ruach ha’kodesh.

Level 6 - Developed Imagination: Now just as the human intellect stops at the four degrees above mentioned and does not pass beyond, so there are persons who stop at the degree of ruach ha’kodesh and do not pass beyond it. There are persons whose imagination is strong by nature or who do certain things to strengthen it, like the practices of the diviners or the woman with the familiar spirit. As a result of this they have imaginative visions. There are others who have true dreams, like Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, the chief butler and the chief baker. By reason of these powers some of them think they are prophets. They are the persons of whom the prophet in Scripture says that they “prophesy out of their own heart.” For though they sometimes speak the truth, they are bound sometimes to speak falsehood. Thus Ezekiel says, “Woe unto the vile prophets, that follow their own spirit, … They have seen vanity and lying divination, that say: The Lord saith; and the Lord hath not sent them, yet they hope that the word would be confirmed.” The intimation is that it is impossible, for though their words may be partly true, they can not but be partly false, for such is the nature of the power of imagination, the source of dreams. Our Rabbis say: As there is no wheat without straw, so there is no dream without foolishness.

Level 7 - 1st Degree of Nevuah: When, however, the rational power prevails over the imagination, then the person sees true dreams without foolishness. The explanation is given by the Rabbis: “Raba asked the question, How reconcile the statement, ‘And the dreams speak falsely,’ with the expression, ‘I do speak with him in a dream?’ His answer is, the two passages are not incompatible. The one passage refers to dreams that come through the medium of an angel, the other to those that come through the medium of a demon.” Angel stands for the rational power, demon for the power of imagination. If the rational power prevails over the power of imagination, the person sees true dreams or visions which communicate to him information he never had before. In the measure in which the rational power prevails over the imagination is the person better or less well prepared for nevuah. There are persons whose rational power is stronger than the imagination, but the superiority is not great, and hence the power of imagination maintains its strength. And therefore though the rational power is prepared to receive the nevuah, yet on account of the strength of the imagination and its opposition to the rational power, the person receives the [prophetic] overflow in trembling and pain. His limbs shake, his sinews tend to dissolve, and a great trembling comes over him, that his soul almost leaves him. And after all that pain the nevuah comes to the rational power in a dream or vision of the night, and the person dreams prophetic dreams and learns things he has never known before — ideas about the separate substances, or particular notions, or universal ideas of existence, and the like. This is the first degree of nevuah.

Similar to the Rambam, ruach ha'kodesh is identified as a level of intellection which is prior to nevuah, and the descriptions of each phenomenon mirror what the Rambam wrote.

Concluding Thoughts

So when my students ask me whether Rashi or the other meforshim had ruach ha'kodesh, I summarize the definitions of ruach ha'kodesh and nevuah presented here, making sure that they at least walk away with an awareness that the two phenomena are distinct. Then I answer their question by saying that it is entirely possible that chachamim (wise people) throughout the ages spoke or wrote with ruach ha'kodesh, even after the time that nevuah ceased. 

However, I do not think this has any ramifications on how we learn. Even if, for example, the Raavad [5] claims that his critique of the Rambam's shitah (view) is backed by ruach ha'kodesh, that doesn't mean that the Rambam needs to abandon his opinion, nor does it necessitate that we side with the Raavad.

Similarly, this does not mean that Chazal - and certainly the Geonim, Rishonim, and Achronim - were infallible. One need look no further than Vayikra Chapter 4 (about the sin-offerings brought by a Sanhedrin that errs) or the story of the Achnai Ovens (Bava Metzia 59b) to see that Chazal can err - despite the fact that they were inevitably moved by ruach ha'kodesh.

That pretty much exhausts my knowledge of ruach ha'kodesh. Perhaps one day we will explore views of ruach ha'kodesh which differ from that of the Rambam. 

[1] Rabbeinu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides), Commentary on the Mishnah: Sanhedrin Chapter 10, Introduction

[2] ibid. Mishneh Torah: Sefer ha'Mada, Hilchos Yesodei ha'Torah Chapters 7-10

[3] ibid. Moreh ha'Nevuchim 2:45; the paragraph breaks are mine

[4] Rabbeinu Yosef Albo, Sefer ha'Ikkarim 3:10; ordinarily I would translate this on my own, but I'm pressed for time, so I've decided to use the translation on www.sefaria.org (Jewish Publication Society of America: 1929)

[5] Rabbeinu Avraham ibn Daud, Critiques on Mishneh Torah: Sefer Zmanim, Hilchos Shofar, v'Sukkah, v'Lulav 8:5

"Is shomer negiah chayav misah?!" or "How to Determine the Severity of an Aveirah"

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

Artwork: Cloistered Youth, by Igor Kieryluk

"Is shomer negiah chayav misah?!" or "How to Determine the Severity of an Aveirah"

Introduction

One of the most common types of questions I'm asked by my students is any variant of: "If I violate such-and-such aveirah (transgression), how is God going to punish me?" Sometimes they ask the question in its generic, panic-stricken form: "Am I going to burn in hell?" Other times, they'll ask about specific punishments they've heard for specific aveiros.

Such a question was posed to me this past Monday in my 10th grade Chumash class. Since it was our last full day of class, I decided to have a "Q&A/discussion day." As it so happened, a student was visiting from another school and her friends told her that she can feel free to ask me any question, and no question is off limits in my class. Right away, she asked - with fear and trepidation in her eyes: "One of my teachers said that I violate 'shomer negiah' then I'm chayav misah (liable for the death penalty). Is that true? Is God going to kill me?"

I couldn't believe what I was hearing. Sure, I was aware that some teachers and parents use scare tactics in an effort to get kids to keep halacha, but would a teacher really go so far as to tell a student that "shomer negiah" is chayav misah? And even if this was a result of the student misunderstanding, I would like to know what went on in the discussion which left the student with such a gross distortion.

Ideally, I would have attempted to address all of the flawed premises. However, given the limited amount of time, I decided to answer her question in two parts: (1) by teaching her a method of determining "how bad" any aveirah is, not just "shomer negiah," and (2) by clarifying precisely what is included in the halacha that has come to be known as "shomer negiah." In this post I will focus exclusively on the first part of my response.

I answered the student by explaining that the "severity" of an aveirah can be assessed in three different frameworks - two which are accessible by us, and one which is not.

Framework #1: The Halachic System

The mishnah in Avos 2:1 says in the name of Rebbi:

You should be as careful with a mitzvah kalah (a "light" mitzvah) as with a chamurah ("severe" mitzvah), for you do not know the rewards of the mitzvos; and you should calculate the cost of a mitzvah against its reward, and the reward of an aveirah against its cost.

In order  to implement this teaching, one would need some way of calculating the "costs" and "rewards" of mitzvos and aveiros. Thankfully, the Rambam provides such a method in his commentary on this mishnah. In this blog post we will focus exclusively on his method of calculating the "costs" of aveiros, since this will help us figure out which aveiros are more "severe" than others. Here are the words of the Rambam:

Throughout the entire Torah, which includes mitzvos aseh (positive commandments) and mitzvos lo taaseh (negative commandments), Scripture explicitly states the punishments for each and every one of the mitzvos lo taaseh except for a few. Some are punishable by misah (death), others by kareis (excision of the soul), misah b'ydei shamayim (death at the hands of heaven), and malkos (whiplashes). From the punishments we can know which of the mitzvos lo taaseh are more severe and which are less so. There are eight levels: 

1. the first level, which is the most stringent of them, are those things that are liable for skilah (death by stoning). 

2. The level below it are transgressions that are liable for sreifah (death by esophageal incineration). 

3. The third level is transgressions that are liable for hereg (death by decapitation). 

4. The fourth is transgressions that are liable for chenek (death by strangulation). 

5. The fifth is transgressions that are liable for kareis. 

6. The sixth is transgressions that are liable for death at the hands of heaven. 

7. The seventh is transgressions that are liable for malkos. 

8. The eighth is transgressions for which we do not administer malkos. 

From this hierarchy the severity and "lightness" of an aveirah can be known. 

There you have it. The Rambam clearly states that the relative severity of an aveirah can be inferred from its punishment. If you want to know "how bad" any given aveirah is - that is to say, any lo taaseh - the first place to look is its penalty. 

It is important to note that there are exceptions to this general rule, which the Rambam spells out in other places. Many of these exceptions have to do with (for lack of a better term) "halachic technicalities," which remove certain aveiros from the Rambam's eight-level hierarchy. For example:

• The prohibitions of rechilus (gossiping) and lashon ha'ra (negative speech) are not punishable by a court of law because they are violated through speech, which is not halachically recognized as a physical action that is punishable by a court of law. Nevertheless, the Rambam says that rechilus "destroys the world" and lashon ha'ra is comparable to the severe transgressions of murder, idolatry, and illicit sexual relations.
• Likewise, the mitzvah of Anochi Hashem Elokechah is the most fundamental mitzvas aseh, and one who violates it is considered  to be a kofer b'ikar (denier of the fundamental principle) and has no portion in the World to Come. Nevertheless, there is no penalty for violating this mitzvah, since purely cognitive transgressions are not punishable by human courts.
• Gezel (armed robbery) is certainly a severe and violent crime. Chazal teach us that the verdict of the Dor ha'Mabul was only sealed because of gezel (Sanhedrin 108a). Nevertheless, gezel falls in at the lowest level on the Rambam's hierarchy, and isn't even chayav malkos, due to the fact that the robber must pay back what he stole. 

It is also important to consider the other factors which determine the Torah's penalties for various transgressions, which the Rambam spells out in the Moreh ha'Nevuchim 3:41:

Preface: You should know that the severity of a punishment and the difficulty of suffering it, or the lightness of the punishment and the [relative] ease of tolerating it, are dependent on four factors:

(1) The severity of the sin. Actions whose consequences are very harmful are punished severely, whereas actions whose consequences are less harmful are punished less severely.

(2) The frequency of its occurrence. A transgression that is frequently violated requires a more severe punishment as a deterrent, whereas transgressions which are relatively infrequent are sufficiently deterred by their infrequency combined with a lighter punishment.

(3) The degree of temptation in the matter. If a person is greatly tempted to do something - either because he is drawn to it by a strong desire or due to the force of habit, or due to the great pain in abstaining from it - then he will only be deterred from it by something very intimidating.

(4) The ease of doing the thing secretly and in private, so that others will not notice. We are only repelled from such acts by the fear of a harsh and severe punishment.

In other words, the severity of the aveirah is only one determinant of the Torah's penalties. There are three others: the frequency of the violation, the degree of temptation, and the ease of transgressing in private. Nevertheless, it would appear from the Rambam's commentary on the mishnah in Avos that the severity of the aveirah is the primary determinant of the penalty - enough so that one can gauge an aveirah's severity based on the penalty alone.

But in spite of the aforementioned exceptions and limitations of the Rambam's principle, the Rambam still advocated his method of determining the severity of an aveirah based on the Torah's penalty. And if this method is good enough for the Rambam, then it is certainly good enough for me to teach my students.

Incidentally, the Rambam's principle provides a good answer for students who ask, "Why do the Torah's punishments even matter nowadays, since we don't even have a Sanhedrin?" The answer is clear from the Rambam: even when there is no court to impose these penalties, they still serve as general indicators of the severity of each aveirah.

Framework #2: Natural Consequences (a.k.a. Mishlei)

Then there is (what I refer to as) the framework of Mishlei: the natural consequences of an aveirah. For example, the Torah's penalty for adultery is chenek, which is the fourth most severe category of aveirah. But what does Shlomo ha'Melech have to say about the fate of an adulterer?

For on account of a harlot [one will lack] even a loaf of bread, and a married woman will entrap the noblest person. If a man stokes a fire in his bosom, will his clothes not burn? If a man walks on embers, will his feet not be scorched? So it is with one who sleeps with his fellow's wife; whoever touches her will not go unpunished. People do not despise a thief because he steals - it is in order to fill himself up, for he is starving. When caught, he pays sevenfold, giving up his entire household. [But] one who commits adultery with a woman lacks all sense; only one who wishes to destroy himself would do such a thing. Pestilence and degradation will befall him, and his disgrace will not be forgotten. For jealousy [awakens] a man's anger, and he (i.e. the husband of the adulteress) will show no mercy on the day of revenge. For he will not look favorably upon any ransom or be placated by your bribe, however great (Mishlei 6:26-35).

Even now, when there is no Sanhedrin to impose the penalty of chenek, the "natural punishments" described here by Shlomo ha'Melech are still in effect. The adulterer risks the wrath and vengeance of the husband, the loss of his own reputation, the numerous social complications and harms that follow, the stress that comes from the secrecy and the loss of secrecy, the shame of being discovered, and more.

This framework isn't limited to physical and psychological consequences, but extends to intellectual consequences as well. Consider, for example, the lo taaseh of "al tifnu el ha'elilim" ("do not turn [your thoughts] to false gods"), which prohibits us from pursuing our curiosity about avodah zarah beliefs and practices. Even though this aveirah falls under level 7 or 8 in the Rambam's scheme - depending on whether the violation involved an action - it clearly can lead to catastrophic intellectual/metaphysical consequences.

Needless to say, these natural consequences are not consistent, nor are they guaranteed. Sometimes the consequences are knowable and predictable, but other times they are not. Also, these consequences will differ in each and every case. In spite of all these variables, these consequences can be understood through the chochmah of Mishlei, and one can assess the severity of a given aveirah by applying that chochmah to the facts at hand.

In general, I try to initiate my students into this framework as soon as possible with the hopes that it will gradually supplant their the childish imagination-based fears they've accumulated over the years. I believe this is in line with what the Rambam wrote in Hilchos Teshuvah 10:5:

Therefore, when we teach the children, women, and general populace of laymen, we should only teach them to serve out of fear and in order to receive reward, until their minds mature and they gain additional wisdom; [then] we should reveal this secret to them little by little, and accustom them to this concept with pleasantness, until they apprehend it and know it and serve out of love. 

I find that high school students tend to have difficulty factoring in both frameworks. Either they latch onto the Halachic System Framework and downplay the natural consequences, or else they seize the Natural Consequences Framework and disregard the halachic one. I guess that's why both frameworks are necessary.

Framework #3: Divine Judgment

Lastly, there is another framework of evaluating aveiros which is unknowable to us, and is therefore worthy of consideration. This is the framework of zechus and avon, as explained in Hilchos Deos 3:2:

The weighing of zechuyos ("merits") and avonos ("iniquities") does not go according to their quantity, but according to their magnitude. One zechus might be equal to many avonos, as it is stated, "Because of the fact that he found something good in him" (Melachim I 14:13), and a single avon might be equal to many zechuyos, as it is stated, "One sinner can destroy much good" (Koheles 9:18). This weighing is only done in the "Mind" of the God of Deios; He is the One Who knows how to evaluate the zechuyos against the avonos.

In other words, even though the Torah assigns its own severity-indicator to each transgression (i.e. the halachic penalty), this is from the standpoint of the system. On an individual level, Hashem "weighs" each and every transgression differently, depending on the circumstances and the individual.

For example, if two people intentionally do melachah on Shabbos, their transgression is equal in the eyes of the system: both are chayav skilah if there are witnesses, and chayav kareis if there aren't witnesses. However, the avon of one person might carry a greater weight than the avon of the other person, and only Hashem can make that determination, since only He knows all of the factors involved in the transgression. 

Summary and Conclusion

Let's summarize what we've learned. The severity of an aveirah can be assessed in three frameworks: (1) the framework of the halachic system, according to which the severity of an aveirah can be determined by its Torah-imposed penalty; (2) the framework of natural consequences, according to which the severity of an aveirah can be discerned - with varying degrees of probability - in light of the wisdom of Mishlei; and (3) the framework of "divine judgment," which is known only to God.

After briefly explaining each of these three frameworks, I answered the student's question about "shomer negiah." I explained that what she refers to as "shomer negiah" falls under the mitzvas lo taaseh of lo tikrevu le'galos ervah (Vayikra 18:6,19) and - at worst - is chayav malkos, which ranks as #7 in the Torah's hierarchy of halachic penalties (with #1 being the most severe and #8 being the least). I then provided a basic explanation of some of the natural consequences of not abiding by this halacha. I concluded by saying that only Hashem knows how each instances of this transgression will be judged. 

In conclusion, it is my opinion that these three frameworks should be taught to high school students - especially the halachic system framework. The Torah does specify the punishments for violating halacha, and - according to the Rambam - those punishments were designed to deter us from transgression. There is no need for "scare tactics" beyond these, and there is a whole lot to gain from learning about each aveirah within these three frameworks.