Truman: On Kavod ha'Torah and Kavod ha'Briyos

Today is July 4th. As such, I thought it would be fitting to recognize the occasion with an appropriate blog post. In light of recent remarks made by our current president - and by "recent" I mean since January 20th, 2017 - I decided to re-post another tidbit of wisdom from President Truman. 

Note: The term "Kavod ha'Torah" (honor/dignity/respect of Torah) is being used analogously, as will be explained in the post. The term "Kavod ha'Brios" (honor/dignity/respect of human beings) is being used literally. 

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

Truman: On Kavod ha'Torah and Kavod ha'Briyos

The mishnah in Avos 2:10 (or 2:14) says: 

Rabbi Eliezer says: (a) Let your fellow's honor be as dear to you as your own and do not anger easily; (b) repent one day before your death; and (c) warm yourself by the fire of the chachamim (wise men), but beware of their glowing coal lest you be burnt - for their bite is the bite of a fox, their sting is the sting of a scorpion, their hiss is the hiss of a serpent, and all their words are like fiery coals.

The meforshim (commentators) interpret the last clause as a warning not to behave too casually with the chachamim, lest you overstep your boundaries and neglect to treat them with the honor and respect they deserve. If you make this mistake, do not be surprised if you incur their wrath.

I recently finished my periodic re-reading of Merle Miller's Plain Speaking: An Oral Biography of Harry S. Truman (1974), which I highly recommend. Towards the end (pp. 384-385) the author recounts an anecdote which illustrates this last point quite nicely, though the context is obviously different:

In 1964 Eric Sevareid in a conversation with Mr. Truman got on the same subject, and he quoted him as saying, "What you don't understand is the power of a President to hurt." 

Sevareid added, "An American President has the power to build, to set fateful events in motion, to destroy an enemy civilization, to win or lose a vast personal following. But the power of a President to hurt the feelings of another human being - this, I think, had scarcely occurred to me, and still less had it occurred to me that a President in office would have the time and the need to be aware of this particular power among so many others. 

"Mr. Truman went on to observe that a word, a harsh glance, a peremptory motion by a President of the United States, could so injure another man's pride that it would remain a scar on his emotional system all his life."  

Then Sevareid recalled an episode that the President had also told me, shortly after it happened, in the late winter or spring of 1962. He had given a lecture at, I believe, the University of Southern California, in any case at a college or university in Southern California; the lecture was on the subject he loved best, the Constitution and the Presidency. 

During the question period a boy got up and said, "Mr. President, what do you think of our local yokel?" He meant Pat Brown, then governor.  

Mr. Truman told the boy that he should be ashamed of himself, that to speak of the governor of a state in such a disrespectful way, even if he disagreed with him, was a shameful thing. The boy, close to tears, sat down. 

When the question period was over, Mr. Truman went to the boy and said that he hoped he would understand that what he had said had to do with the principle involved and that he meant nothing personal. The boy said that he did understand, and the two shook hands.  

Afterward Mr. Truman went to see the dean to ask him to send reports from time to time on the boy's progress in school. The dean said he would and had. 

I asked Mr. Truman if he had ever heard from the boy himself, and he said, "He's written me two or three times, and I've written him back. He's doing well."  

Sevareid said of the incident, "The simple point here is that Mr. Truman had instantly realized how a public scolding by a former President could mark and mar the boy's inner life and his standing in the community.

"I feel gratified to have heard this story. It has given me an insight into the responsibilities of a President that I did not have, and it has immeasurably added to my own residue of memories about the man from Missouri."

Aside from illustrating the consequence mentioned in the mishnah in Avos, this anecdote also provides a valuable lesson in the sensitivity a leader should have.

Now that I think about it, this story also exemplifies an interesting halacha. The last chapter of the Rambam's Hilchos Talmud Torah (Laws of Torah Study) is devoted to the laws of kavod talmidei chachamim (honoring Torah sages):

Even though a chacham may place a person under a ban of ostracism [to preserve] his honor, it is not praiseworthy for a chacham to accustom himself to this practice. Instead, he should turn his ears from the words of the ignoramuses and not pay attention to them, as Shlomo said in his wisdom: “Also, do not pay heed to all the words that are spoken” (Koheles 7:21). 

This was the practice of the Chasidim ha'Rishonim (pious of the early generations). They would hear their shame and not answer. Furthermore, they would pardon and forgive the person who insulted them. The great sages would take pride in their pleasant deeds, relating that they never issued a ban of ostracism or excommunication [to protect] their honor. This is the path of the talmidei chachamim which is worthy of being followed. 

When does the above apply? When [the person] spurned or embarrassed [the sage] in private. However, if one spurns or embarrasses a sage in public, it is forbidden for the sage to forgo his honor. Indeed, if he does so, he is punished, because the disrespect of the Torah is involved. Instead, he should seek vengeance and carry enmity over the matter like a snake until the offender requests to be pardoned. Then, he should forgive him.

The halacha differentiates between the talmid chacham's personal feelings and the Torah that he represents. The chacham has the right to forego his own honor and it is considered praiseworthy if he is able to do so, but if he is insulted in public, then the kavod ha'Torah (honor of Torah) is at stake, and it is forbidden for him to forgive the offender until the latter asks for forgiveness.

Truman took this very approach (albeit with the honor of the United States of America, rather than Torah). When the young man disrespected the governor, Truman reprimanded him harshly in order to preserve the honor of the nation as represented by the governor. But afterwards, Truman took care to make sure the offender understood "that what he had said had to do with the principle involved and that he meant nothing personal."

The talmid chacham must be also be able to distinguish between his personal feelings, on the one hand, and the kavod ha'Torah which he embodies, on the other. To equate the two in either direction would be a distortion.

ת"ח stands for _____

Originally published in July 2013.

When you see the abbreviation ת"ח, how do you read it? I’d venture to guess that most people read it as "תלמיד חכם". And if asked to translate the term "תלמיד חכם" literally, I think most people would translate it as “a wise student” or “a learned student.” 

Well, it appears that the Rambam might differ.

If you've ever learned with me in person, you'll know I'm a big fan of the critical editions of the Rambam’s Mishneh Torah. Although I am happy to use the Qafih and Mechon Mamre editions and have been known to occasionally use the Frankel, my personal favorite is the one-volume edition printed by Or Vishua.

One day I noticed something peculiar: none of these critical editions of the Mishneh Torah render ת"ח as"תלמיד חכם". Instead, all of them render it as "תלמיד חכמים". Apparently, that is what the Rambam held.

How should we translate "תלמיד חכמים"? Unlike the common translation of "תלמיד חכם", in which "חכם" is read as an adjective, the "חכמים" in "תלמיד חכמים" cannot be read as an adjective, since "תלמיד" is singular and "חכמים" is plural. The only viable translation of "תלמיד חכמים" is “a student of the wise.”

Personally, I prefer תלמיד חכמים over תלמיד חכם for a number of reasons. First of all, "תלמיד חכם" places the emphasis on the degree of intellectual perfection possessed by the individual (i.e. he is a “wise student,” as opposed to an “average student,” “simple student,” “foolish student,” etc.), whereas "תלמיד חכמים" emphasizes the activity which characterizes him. Who is a תלמיד חכמים? – Not a person who has attained a particular level of intellectual achievement, but one who is drawn to all חכמים in search of חכמה.

Secondly, "תלמיד חכם" refers explicitly to a single individual, but only alludes to that individual’s teacher (i.e. since "תלמיד" is a relative term which implies the existence of a "מלמד" - a teacher). On the other hand, the phrase "תלמיד חכמים" makes explicit reference to the student and his many teachers. I like this because it underscores the nature of the מסורה: each of us is a single student, drawing wisdom from generations of חכמים. I also like it because it highlights the mechanism of מסורה, namely, the teacher-student relationship in which each party broadens the mind of the other.

Thirdly, unlike "תלמיד חכם", the phrase "תלמיד חכמים" is reminiscent of the מצות עשה to cling to חכמים. Here is the Rambam’s formulation of this מצוה in the ספר המצוות:

We are commanded to cling to חכמים, to devote time to being with them, to continually sit with them, and to collaborate with them in any joint venture – whether eating, drinking, or doing business – in order that we may be influenced by them and emulate their actions and to become convinced of the true ideas contained in their words. This is the meaning of the statement, “You shall cling to Him (i.e. to Hashem)” (Devarim 10:20). This commandment was repeated in the statement “to cling to Him” (ibid. 11:22). [The Oral Torah] explains this to mean, “cling to חכמים and their תלמידים,” as was expressed in Sifre. Likewise, they brought a proof from “You shall cling to Him” that a person is obligated to marry the daughter of a תלמיד חכמים and to marry off his own daughter to a תלמיד חכמים, and to feed תלמידי חכמים, and to provide business for them. They said: “Is it possible for a person to cling to the shechinah? Isn’t it written, ‘For Hashem, your God, is a consuming fire’ (ibid. 4:24)? Rather, [this means that] if a person marries the daughter of a תלמיד חכמים, or marries his daughter to a תלמיד חכמים, or benefits him financially, it is as if he clings to the shechinah” (Kesubos 111b).

Similarly, the phrase "תלמיד חכמים" brings to mind many other teachings which emphasize the virtue of cultivating relationships with חכמים, such as “One who walks with חכמים will become wise, but one who befriends fools will be broken” (Mishlei 13:20) and “Let your house be a gathering-place for חכמים; sit in the dust of their feet and drink in their words with thirst” (Avos 1:4).

The אוצר ראשי תבות kind of covered its bases.

Does this mean that the "תלמיד חכמים" is the only correct phrase, or that something is wrong with "תלמיד חכם"? Of course not. Clearly, the phrase "תלמיד חכם" is more prevalent in Torah literature than "תלמיד חכמים". I also don’t know why I've only encountered this phrase in the Rambam’s writings and nowhere else. Perhaps the Rambam got the phrase "תלמיד חכמים" from the תלמיד ירושלמי, since it appears there, but doesn't seem to appear anywhere in the בבלי? If anyone has any explanations here, I'd be interested to hear them.

In any event, my intent in this post is to point out why, if I had to choose which phrase to use, I would choose the "תלמיד חכמים." The connotations of "תלמיד חכמים" carry more meaning for me than those associated with "תלמיד חכם". But to each his own!

On Aging: With (and Without) Torah

Originally posted in May, 2009

Artwork: Touch of the Eternal, by Christopher Moeller

On Aging: With (and Without) Torah

In the 10th derashah (sermon) of Derashos ha'Ran, the Ran cites a mishnah in Kinnim 3:6:

Rebbi Shimon ben Akashya says: Elderly unlearned men, as long as they continue to age, their daas become even more agitated (mitarefes), as it is stated: "He removes the speech of the capable and takes away the reasoning of the elderly" (Iyov 12:20). But Torah-elders are not like that; rather, as long as they continue to age, their daas become even more settled (misyasheves), as it is stated: "In the aged is wisdom and in length of days, understanding" (ibid. 12:12). 

There are two major questions on this mishnah: 

1. What is meant by the opposite terms "yishuv ha'daas" and "tiruf ha'daas"? The term "daas" has many meanings - what does it mean here? What are "yishuv" (settling) and "tiruf" (agitation) in relation to daas, in this context?
   
2. What is the difference between the unlearned elders and the Torah-elders? Why does the daas of an unlearned elder become more agitated as he ages, whereas the daas of a Torah elder becomes more settled? 

Here is the Ran's explanation of the mishnah: 

This does not mean that as long as the Torah-elders continue to age the more their wisdom increases, for it is possible that this won't happen. Since the intellect is dependent upon the physical faculties [e.g. senses, imagination, memory - all of which function through the brain, which is a physical organ], it is possible that when these men become exceedingly old, and these faculties weaken, the intellect will also become weakened ...

Rather, when the mishnah said, "their daas become even more settled," its meaning is as follows. In their youth, the Torah-elders gave up their addictions to the pleasures of the physical world and chose the path of the Good; therefore, as they continue to age, their daas become more settled. This means that they became more reconciled with themselves and their daas became at ease with the decision of their youth. In other words, even though they decided in their youth to abandon their addictions to the pleasures of the physical world and its excesses, it is impossible that they were not occasionally drawn to them. Even though their intellect opposed this, and prevented them from being seduced by the physical pleasures, it is impossible that they did not desire them to some degree. Therefore, their daas was not completely settled [in their youth, for they were caught between two opposing forces.

But the more they continue to age, these more these desires weaken. Their imaginative faculty sees that everything it once fantasized about in the matters of the physical world was pointless, transient, and utterly finite. At that point, it is no longer necessary for their intellect to oppose the imaginative faculty and to dissent. Therefore, their daas is settled, for they clearly see that they had chosen the Good and resolved to follow it, and everything they had forfeited in the matters of the physical world was worthless, and that there is no cause for feeling anxiety over its forfeiture.

The opposite befalls the unlearned elders. In their youth they were seduced by their addictions to the pleasures of the physical world; their daas was at ease and reconciled with this, and they didn't care about their intellect's opposition. But as they continue to age, the physical world withdraws from them and they withdraw from it. They see that everything they once desired and chose in their youth was but nothingness, vanity, and "that they only inherited falsehood" (cf. Yirmiyahu 16:19). Because of this, their daas is not settled with the decision of their youth. Nevertheless, since "they did not learn righteousness" (cf. Yishaya 26:10), and they had become habituated and sunken in their bad habits, their intellect lacks the ability to turn completely away from the path which they have taken until now. Therefore, as they continue to age, they will be caught between two paths, and "the path will not be theirs" (cf. Iyov 23:10).

This is what the Rabbis of blessed memory intended by the expression "their daas is agitated (mitarefes)," as in the expression, "a ship that is mitarefes" (Taanis 19a). This expression refers to a ship in the middle of the ocean with oppressive waves thrusting the ship from one side to the other, and its sailors are unable to guide it on a single path; instead, the wind pushes, sometimes to one side and sometimes to the opposite. Likewise are those who are seduced by their addictions to the physical pleasures of this world, as they continue to age: for in their youth their daas was settled, but in their old age, their daas is agitated. 

We can now answer both of our questions. According to the Ran, yishuv ha'daas means "peaceful state of mind." Daas, in this context, does not refer to the intellect - which the Ran repeatedly calls "seichel."  Rather, "daas" refers to what we commonly refer to as one's "state of mind." Yishuv ha'daas is a state of mind in which one feels at ease, due to the absence of conflict between one's intellect and one's inner psychological forces. Likewise, tiruf ha'daas means "troubled state of mind." As the Ran explains, the expression "tiruf" refers to a state of being pushed and pulled between two opposing forces. Tiruf ha'daas is a conflicted state of mind in which one feels agitated, frustrated, and unsettled, due to the clash between one's intellect and one's inner psychological forces.

Thus, the meaning of the mishnah is as follows: The Torah-elders, in their youth, decided to trade the life of physical and psychological pleasure for the life of chochmah. However, the draw towards physical and psychological pleasure was still present and continued to generate conflict and anxiety, leaving them in a state of partial tiruf ha'daas. But as they become older, and their instinctual forces weaken, their intellect - which they had nourished since youth - sees that they chose correctly, and that everything they gave up was nothingness and vanity. Thus, in their old age, they will no longer be in a state of conflict. They will have achieved yishuv ha'daas; their minds will be at ease. Thus, they will now be free to invest all of their energy into the inherently pleasurable pursuit of chochmah, and their wisdom and understanding will increase.

The unlearned elders, on the other hand, chose to embrace their addictions of the life of pleasure in their youth. The Ran states that they were able to achieve a great measure of yishuv ha'daas in their youth by ignoring the dissenting voice of their intellect, but this yishuv ha'daas was destined to be short-lived. As they age, they too realize that the life of pleasure was vain and futile, and that they should have spent their life in pursuit of something lasting and permanent - but by the time they reach old age, it is too late for them. They will spend their final years in a state of tiruf ha'daas, torn between their insatiable longing for the now unattainable pleasures of their youth, and the opposite longing for something real and lasting (i.e. chochmah), which they are also unable to attain.