Parashas Masei: Leviim as Role Models of Tolerance

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

Artwork: Answered Prayers, by Seb McKinnon

Parashas Masei: Leviim as Role Models of Tolerance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Stubborn and Unpopular Educational Belief

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

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

My Stubborn and Unpopular Educational Belief

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mishlei 17:12 - Hell Hath No Fury Like a Fool Scorned

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

Artwork: Awaken the Bear, by Svetlin Velinov

Mishlei 17:12 - Hell Hath No Fury Like a Fool Scorned

משלי יז:יב

פָּגוֹשׁ דֹּב שַׁכּוּל בְּאִישׁ וְאַל כְּסִיל בְּאִוַּלְתּוֹ:

Mishlei 17:12

Better to for a man to confront a mother bear bereft of its cubs than a ksil (fool) in his eeveles (foolish rage).

This translation is based on R' Moshe Kimch (printed in the standard Mikraos Gedolos under the name "Ibn Ezra"), who explains that "shakool" means "deprived of its cubs." The Meiri, among others, adds that "shakool" implies a female bear. Although the second half of the pasuk says "than a fool in his foolishness," Rabbeinu Yonah explains it to mean "than a fool in his foolishness and his anger." Presumably, he gets this from the first half of the pasuk: a bear bereft of its cubs is "crazy enraged" rather than merely "crazy."

There are a few basic questions here:

1. How? Whenever Mishlei compares one thing to another, the question is: in what framework? "Better" in what sense? 
2. Really?! This pasuk seems to be an exaggeration. The Wikipedia article on bear attacks makes them seem pretty bad. 
3. What is unique about the eeveles (foolish rage) of a ksil (Mishleic fool)? All rage is destructive. What makes the rage of a ksil unique enough to single out in this pasuk?

[Time to think! Read on when ready.]

Here's my MORE than four-sentence summary of the main idea:

A mother bear bereft of its cubs is in the grips of a powerful, unthinking, animalistic rage; the same is true of a fool whose ego (or false sense of security) has been threatened and whose anger has been awakened. However, the fool is much more dangerous than the bear for a number of reasons: 

(1) the bear has a very narrow range of activity, making it relatively easy to anticipate its attack and to take the necessary precautions; the fool, on the other hand, has a wide variety of retaliatory actions at his disposal and is willing to go to any lengths to get his revenge, making him unpredictable and difficult to guard against 

(2) the bear’s anger subsides within a short period of time, whereas the fool might harbor a grudge for days, months, years, or decades 

(3) the danger level of the bear is apparent to all, whereas the fool might appear to be totally harmless, when – in truth – he is just waiting for the right moment 

(4) no one in his right mind deludes himself into thinking that he can control an enraged bear, but when dealing with a fool, it is easy to fall prey to the illusion that one has more control than one actually has.  

For these reasons (and more), one should avoid provoking fools, and steer clear of fools who have already been provoked.

The reason why I allowed myself to summarize the main idea in more than four sentences is because this pasuk falls into the category of "list pesukim." I've already explained this methodological point elsewhere, but I'll repeat my explanation here for the sake of convenience.

Many pesukim in Mishlei state a specific consequence for a specific foolish behavior or bad decision. In contrast, "list-pesukim" simply identify the actions of the fool/rasha and leave it to the reader to figure out the consequences, of which there are many. "List pesukim," such as our pasuk, will typically make general reference to the consequences in vague or categorical terms, so as not to lead the reader to focus on a narrow set of consequences.

The phenomenon of "list pesukim" exemplifies one of the many differences between Shlomo ha'Melech's proverbs and (for lack of a better term) "English proverbs." English proverbs are essentially spoon-fed truths which are instantly understandable: "the early bird catches the worm," "no pain no gain," "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." In contrast, the vast majority of Shlomo ha'Melech's proverbs are not readily understandable; their ideas can only be accessed after thought and analysis.

I believe that the main reason for this is because Shlomo ha'Melech is trying to do more than just deliver content. His goal is for his students to train their minds and acquire a different way of thinking about life. By stating these ideas in cryptic language, he forces the student to explore the subject matter of each pasuk in-depth and try out different ways of learning. In the end, the students gains more from the analysis of the pasuk than a single idea.

"List pesukim" fit into this paradigm because there isn't even a specific idea that he's conveying. Instead, these pesukim are like Shlomo pointing to a certain behavior and saying, "Hey - check that guy out. What do you think is going to happen to him? What mistake(s) is he making?" The "lesson" of the pasuk ultimately comes from the student's own analysis, with zero spoon-feeding.

"List pesukim" are also consistent with Shlomo ha'Melech's brand of "mussar without 'should's and 'shouldn't's," which I wrote about here.

My Educational Philosophy

The most useful assignment I had in graduate school was to write a one-page summary of my educational philosophy. The original version was written in the third person, but I rewrote it in the second person - addressed to my students - because this helps remind me that this isn't some abstract theoretical formulation, but an actual framework which ought to guide my day-to-day teaching.

At least once a year I revisit this educational philosophy statement, both in order to remind myself of my personal mission as a teacher, an to assess whether I still agree with my own educational philosophy, or whether I need to modify it. Here is the current incarnation. 

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

Artwork: Talisman of Curiosity, by Lindesy Look

My Educational Philosophy

My role as a teacher is to facilitate bechirah ba'Tov – the capacity to make free-will decisions to live as a human being, in accordance with the will and wisdom of the Creator. [1] My goal is to guide you on our mutual journey towards yiras Hashem (self-governance by wisdom [2]) and ahavas Hashem (the yearning to know Hashem – the One Source of all wisdom and reality [3]). This journey will proceed in four stages, which are sequential by nature, but tend to overlap: 

(1) Reishis Daas (The Beginning of Knowledge): My first task as your teacher is to awaken you from the mindless slumber of the unexamined life and to bring you to a state of mindfulness, self-awareness, and the recognition that we live in a world governed by rational lawfulness. This is the reishis daas (beginning of knowledge [4]) – the foundation of real learning.  

(2) Chochmah (Wisdom): After you have been awakened, the true development of your tzelem Elokim (truth-seeking intellect) can commence. I will train you in the art of precise, logical, analytical thinking; I will help you to acquire intellectual virtues and beneficial habits of mind; I will do everything in my ability to encourage your curiosity, creativity, and independent thinking; and I will strive to impart to you a clear knowledge and understanding of Torah, firmly grounded in the yesodei ha'Torah.  

(3) Mussar (Self-Governance): Since chochmah is only valuable insofar as it is real to our minds and emotions, and affects the way we live, I will do what I can to help you align and harmonize your emotions, your personality, and your decision-making with your chochmah.  

(4) Bechirah (Free Will): Lastly, I will do my best to provide you with the knowledge, resources, and support you need for a life of bechirah. However, I will leave that bechirah entirely up to you. I will never attempt to force you to feel, think, or live in any particular way. Instead, I will do what I can to help you to recognize and understand the choices that lie before you. I will do what I can to serve as role model of bechirah and I will try to provide you with the opportunity to learn from my own struggles to be bocher ba'Tov (to choose good). 

This is the current incarnation of my continually evolving educational philosophy. If I am shown that any element of my approach is not in the best interests of my students, I will retract and change my ways – for, as a teacher, I am bound by the physician's rule of primum non nocere: “first do no harm.” 

These are my terms and my values. I do not care to teach on any others. 

[1] This approach follows directly from the derech Hashem: "Behold, I have placed before you today the life and the Good, and the death and the bad ... Choose life, that you and your offspring may live" (Devarim 30:15,19). 

[2] Sefer Mishlei 15:33, as explained by Saadia Gaon 

[3] Rambam: Mishneh Torah, Sefer ha'Mada, Hilchos Yesodei ha'Torah 2:2 

[4] Sefer Mishlei 1:7

Parashas Pinchas: Overcoming Psychological Obstacles to Asking Your Rabbi

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

Artwork: Azor's Elocutors, by Johannes Voss

Parashas Pinchas: Overcoming Psychological Obstacles to Asking Your Rabbi

Introduction

I will preface and contextualize this blog post with a rather vague claim supported by anecdotal evidence. My vague claim is that some women refrain from asking shailos (halachic questions) to their rabbis due to a variety of social, practical, and/or psychological hurdles. 

My anecdotal evidence is drawn from ten years of teaching high school girls, and encountering numerous instances in which my suggestion to "just ask your posek (halachic decisor)" is met with reluctance, anxiety, and even fear. 

Further evidence is drawn from an informal poll I took on various social media platforms in which I asked Orthodox women whether they think it's more difficult for women than men to ask their rabbi halachic questions due to various social, practical, and/or psychological obstacles. The overwhelming majority of women who responded concurred. 

It is in this specific context that I would like to examine the story of the Daughters of Tzelofchad. Let's review the relevant pesukim: 

The daughters of Tzelofchad, son of Chefer, son of Gilad, son of Machir, son of Menashe, of the families of Menasheh son of Yaakov drew near - and these were the names of his daughters: Machlah, Noah, Choglah, Milcah, and Tirzah - and they stood before Moshe, before Elazar ha'Kohen, and before the Leaders and the entire assembly at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, saying: "Our father died in the Wilderness, but he was not among the assembly that was gathered against Hashem in the assembly of Korach, but he died of his own sin, and he had no sons. Why should the name of our father be omitted from among his family because he had no son? Give us a possession among our father's brothers." And Moshe brought their claim before Hashem.

Hashem said to Moshe, saying: "The daughters of Tzelofchad speak properly. You shall surely give them a possession of inheritance among the brothers of their father, and you shall cause the inheritance of their father to pass over to them." 

I believe that there are several lessons we can learn from the fact that the Daughters of Tzelofchad asked this question, and from the manner in which they asked it. These lessons may not help remove the social and practical barriers which Jewish women face, but my  hope is that they provide some chizuk (encouragement) for overcoming some of these psychological difficulties. 

I will examine four psychological obstacles to shailah-asking. The first one applies specifically to women, and the others apply women and men alike. These certainly aren't the only such obstacles, but they are the only ones I managed to identify with corresponding insights from this parashah. 

Psychological Obstacle #1: Gender

When learning Torah it is often instructive to take note of what the Torah doesn't say, in addition to what it actually says. It is easy to overlook the simple fact that the Daughters of Tzelofchad did not hesitate to approach Moshe, Elazar, and the Leaders of the nation on account of their gender. They didn't say, "we're women, and it wouldn't be appropriate for us to appear before these distinguished men" or "we're women, so these men wouldn't listen to us" or "we're women - of what value is our opinion?" or anything having to do with their gender. 

Likewise, they weren't criticized by these men or by the Torah in any way for asking their question. They received an answer just the same as anyone else, without any fanfare - positive or negative - as the asking of a shailah should be.

There has been an uproar in recent years about certain ultra-religious communities which refuse to feature pictures of women - even modestly dressed women - in magazines or illustrations of women in children's books in order to avoid any form of "gazing at women." In stark contrast, the Daughters of Tzelofchad took center stage, "before Moshe, before Elazar, before the Leaders and the entire assembly at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting." They didn't send their message through an intermediary, nor did they stand behind a mechitzah (partition), nor did they opt to appoint only one of their party to present their case. They all stood there and spoke in public in front of all these men. 

There is something compelling about the stark contrast between the way that these ultra-religious communities would react to the prospect of women appearing in front of their rabbinic council, and the matter-of-fact way that the Torah recounts the case of the Daughters of Tzelofchad. 

But the essential point is simple: when it comes to asking shailos, the Torah is egalitarian, even though the real world (unfortunately) isn't. 

Psychological Obstacle #2: Embarrassment 

The Ralbag derives a lesson for all Jews from the fact that the Daughters of Tzelofchad asked their question. He writes:

[This story] informs us that it is not proper for a person to refrain from bringing his case in front of the authorities on account of boshes (shame); rather it is proper for him to strive to do this (i.e. to present his case) with enthusiasm and diligence in order to get what he deserves. We see that the daughters of Tzelofchad were not embarrassed to bring their case before Moshe and before Elazar ha'Kohen and before the leaders and the entire assembly in order to attain what they sought in regards to the matter of inheritance, which they asked about correctly, as we explained. 

There is no indication from the Ralbag that this "shame" and "embarrassment" - or rather, the lack thereof - had anything to do with gender. It is reasonable to assume that he was talking about the general feeling of self-consciousness which prevents both men and women from asking their rabbi questions. 

Chazal identify this problematic type of boshes in the famous statement in Avos 2:5: "lo ha'bayshan lomeid" ("one who is ashamed / embarrassed will not learn"). Although that mishnah is about learning Torah in general rather than asking shailos, the nature of the boshes is often the same in any case. The intrepid student worries: "What if my question is dumb?" "What if they laugh at me?" "What if they get angry at me for asking it?" The rationalizations generated by such boshes are innumerable. 

The fact that the Daughters of Tzelofchad didn't succumb to this boshes is noteworthy enough for the Ralbag to point it out as a lesson for the rest of us. 

Psychological Obstacle #3: "Never mind. It's Not Worth It"

It is interesting how the Ralbag formulates his praise of the Daughters of Tzelofchad. He says that they "were not embarrassed to bring their case before Moshe and before Elazar ha'Kohen and before the leaders and the entire assembly in order to attain what they sought in regards to the matter of inheritance." He doesn't laud their chochmah (wisdom), or their legal reasoning, or even their devotion to the proper observance of halacha. He praises them for the fact that they went this far in order to get what they wanted. 

This sounds like a trivial point, but I think it's worth mentioning. I've had many students who have wanted to do some enjoyable activity or partake in a pleasure or even obtain a real benefit which they think might assur (prohibited). I tell them to ask their rabbi, in case there's a heter (reason to permit) or a kula (leniency) which they're unaware of. When I check in with them a few days later and ask, "So, what did your rav say?" they answer: "Oh, I decided not to ask him." When I hear this, I want to exclaim: "What? Why! This is something you looked forward to doing! The worst he can say is, 'No,' in which case you'd be right where you are now, but the best case scenario is that he says, 'Yes' and you'll get to enjoy yourself!" And yet, I sympathize with how easy it is to just say, "It's not worth it," and give up on the matter without asking. It's easy to give up long-term pleasure on account of immediate anxiety. 

When I think of the Ralbag's emphasis on the Bnos Tzelofchad asking a shailah to obtain what they want, I am reminded of my Rosh Yeshiva's explanation of an obscure midrash on the pasuk: "When you eat the labor of your hands, you are praiseworthy, and it is good for you" (Tehilim 128:2). The midrash applies our pasuk to a talmid chacham (Torah scholar) who is confronted with the meat of an animal which is a safek treifah (i.e. the carcass of properly slaughtered kosher animal which might nevertheless turn out to be prohibited, depending on whether it exhibits certain physical defects). Rather than just throw out the meat, this talmid chacham applies his halachic knowledge to it an attempt to find a basis for permitting it:

Mar Zutra expounded in the name of Rav Chisda: any talmid chacham who reads [Written Torah], learns [Oral Torah], and is meshamesh talmidei chachamim (i.e. is skilled in the methods of abstract halachic analysis) and assesses a treifah on his own, the pasuk says about him: "you are praiseworthy, and it is good for you."

My Rosh Yeshiva pointed out that this is diametrically opposed to the "frum" (religious) mentality. The frum person would "play it safe" and discard the treifah rather than rely on his own halachic knowledge and run the risk of possibly violating a prohibition. This midrash advocates the opposite approach: as long as a person makes recourse to the halachic system in a responsible and objective manner - in this case, relying on his expert application of halachic analysis and psak (halachic adjudication) - then there is nothing wrong with trying to maximize personal enjoyment from Olam ha'Zeh (This World), even when a halachic doubt is involved. To the contrary, not only is "it good" for him, since he gets to enjoy the meat, but he is even considered to be "praiseworthy" by the Torah. 

Although the Daughters of Tzelofchad were not relying on their own halachic analysis in this case - which would have been an exceedingly arrogant move, given the fact that Moshe Rabbeinu was still alive - the "moral of the midrash" as explained by my Rosh Yeshiva applies. They could have been frum and said, "never mind, I don't need to ask; everyone else is probably right about their application of the halacha anyway" and forfeiting their inheritance, they strove "to attain what they sought," and believed to be rightfully theirs. 

One might object to this line of reasoning, saying: "Of course the Daughters of Tzelofchad asked their shailah! It's their inheritance! Do you really think they ever considered not asking Moshe?" My answer is: you'd be surprised by the cases I've heard in which people have refrained from asking their posek potentially life-changing shailos based on the types of excuses we've been talking about. I don't want to go into detail about these examples (out of respect for privacy), but it's not that hard for me to imagine a person refusing to ask a shailah even when there's a lot at stake. A person's anxiety doesn't care whether or not she's being rational. 

The willingness to strive to obtain what we want doesn't seem like it should be noteworthy, but the fact that many people don't means that those who do should be recognized for their success in overcoming their inner impediments. 

Psychological Obstacle #4: Bureaucratic Barriers

The last obstacle I'd like to discuss is based on the Abravanel's interpretation. He writes:

The statement "and they stood before Moshe, before Elazar ha'Kohen, and before the Leaders and the entire assembly" indicates that these Daughters first went before Moshe and said to him: "Our master, we have come for judgment." He responded: "Did I not give Israel officers of thousands, officers of hundreds, officers of fifties, and officers of tens? Go before them! Why are you asking me about a matter of law?" And they went before Elazar ha'Kohen, for Aharon had died, and he responded similarly. And they went before the leaders and the officers of the people and told them their argument. They responded: "This matters in included in 'a difficult matter [of judgment]' and we have not heard its law. Go to Moshe, for it is written: 'the difficult matter they would bring to Moshe [and the minor thing they themselves would judge]' (Shemos 18:26). 

Once the Daughters saw that no one would listen to them, this one saying go to the officers, and [the officers] saying to go to Moshe, they acted strategically and waited until all of them - namely, Moshe, Elazar, the leaders, and the officers of the assembly - were gathered together at the entrance of the Tent of meeting: "and they stood before Moshe, before Elazar ha'Kohen, and before the Leaders" and they stated their argument in front of all of them, saying, "Look, now! Whoever is fit to judge this, come and judge it!" 

I find it somewhat odd that the Abravanel explains this pasuk in a manner which paints such a negative picture of the ordeal experienced by the Daughters of Tzelofchad, but if we accept his interpretation, then we see another quality that these women had: fortitude and cunning when dealing with bureaucracy. 

Nobody likes to deal with bureaucracy. It is easy to give up, especially when sent in circles, as the Abravanel described. But not only did the Daughters of Tzelofchad not give up. They cut right through the bureaucratic red tape and set up a situation in which the authorities were forced to respond, on their terms. 

This might not always be possible in real life. Sometimes there's just no way. But we see from the Daughters of Tzelofchad that even when it seems like there's no way, you have to at least try to make a way. 

Conclusion

My heart goes out to everyone - both women and men - who face these psychological obstacles which make it difficult for them to ask their shailos. I hope that these lessons from the Daughters of Tzelofchad can provide some inspiration and encouragement for those who struggle. 

Bruce Lee: Self-Actualization vs. Self-Image Actualization

The following is an excerpt from Bruce Lee's handwritten notes entitled "The Top Dog and the Underdog." The italics and bold are his (though he used capital letters instead of bold).

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

Bruce Lee: Self-Actualization vs. Self-Image Actualization

If we examine the two clowns – the top dog and the underdog – that perform the self-torture game on the stage of our fantasy, then we usually find the two characters to be like this:

The Top Dog

The top dog usually is righteous and authoritarian; he knows best. He is sometimes right, but always righteous. The top dog is a bully and works with “you should” and “you should not.” The top dog manipulates with demands and threats of catastrophe, such as, “If you don’t ... then – you won’t be loved, you won’t get to heaven, you will die,” and so on.

The Underdog

The underdog manipulates with being defensive, apologetic, wheedling, playing the crybaby, and such. The underdog has no power. The underdog is Mickey Mouse. The top dog is the super-mouse. And the underdog works like this: “I try my best,” “Look, I try again and again. I can’t help it if I fail.” “I have such good intentions.” So you see the underdog is cunning, and he usually gets the better of the top dog because the underdog is not as primitive as the top dog. So the top dog and underdog strive for control. Like every parent and child, they strive with each other for control. The person is fragmented into controller and controlled. This inner conflict, the struggle between the top dog and underdog, is never complete, because the top dog as well as the underdog fights for his life.

This is the basis for the famous self-torture game. We usually take for granted that the top dog is right, and in many cases, the top dog makes impossible perfectionistic demands. So if you are cursed with perfectionism, then you’re absolutely sunk. This ideal is a yardstick which always gives you the opportunity to browbeat yourself, to berate yourself and others. Since this ideal is an impossibility, you can never live up to it. You are merely in love with this ideal, and there is no end to the self-torture, to the self-nagging, self-castigating. It hides under the mask of “self-improvement.” It never works.

If the person tries to meet the top dog’s demands of perfectionism, the result is a “nervous breakdown,” or flight into insanity. This is one of the tools of the underdog. Once we recognize the structure of our behavior, which in the case of self-improvement is the split between the top dog and the underdog, and understand how, by listening, we can bring about a reconciliation of these two fighting clowns, then we realize that we cannot deliberately bring about the changes in ourselves or in others.

This is a very decisive point: many people dedicate their lives to actualizing a concept of what they should be like, rather than actualizing themselves. This difference between self-actualizing and self-image actualizing is very important. Most people only live for their image.

Where some people have a self, most people have a void, because they are so busy projecting themselves as this or that. This is again the curse of the ideal. The curse is that you should not be what you are. Every external control, even internalized external control – “you should” – interferes with the healthy working of the organism. There is only one thing that should control the situation. If you understand the situation that you are in, and let the situation that you are in control your actions, then you learn how to cope with life. For example, you don’t drive according to the program, you drive according to the situation (same thing in combat). You drive a different speed when you are tired, when it’s raining, and so forth.

The less confident we are in ourselves, the less we are in touch with ourselves and the world, the more we want to control.

Mishlei 11:2 - Mishleic Tznius 1.0

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

Mishlei 11:2 - Mishleic Tznius 1.0

משלי יא:ב

בָּא זָדוֹן וַיָּבֹא קָלוֹן וְאֶת צְנוּעִים חָכְמָה:

Mishlei 11:2

When zadon comes, disgrace will come, but wisdom is with those who are tzenua.

There are plenty of questions on this pasuk: 

1. What is "zadon" in this context? Even on a simple level, the term is difficult to translate. Common translations include "willfulness," "aggression," "malice," "wantonness," "brazenness," but it's difficult to know which of these applies here, or if it means something else entirely.
2. What is "tznius" in this context? This term is also tricky. It is often translated as "modesty," with an emphasis on physical modesty - usually in terms of attire. Some prefer to translate it as "humility," but then again, we have another word for humility: anavah. 
3. What is "kalon" (disgrace) in this context? Specifically, what type of disgrace, shame, or infamy is this talking about?
4. What is "chochmah" (wisdom) in this context? Although chochmah is a basic term in Mishlei, it can mean different things in different contexts.
5. What is the cause and effect relationship between zadon and disgrace? How is disgrace an inevitable result of zadon? And if, as many of the meforshim explain, the pasuk means that the ish zadon causes others to be disgraced, why not say so directly? Why phrase so awkwardly: "when zadon comes, disgrace will come"? 
6. What is the relationship between tznius and chochmah? On the surface, it would seem that a person could have tznius without chochmah, but the pasuk makes it sound like they go hand in hand. Why? 

[Time to think! Read on when ready.]

Here's my four-sentence summary of the main idea, which I will follow with some thoughts on Mishlei's take on tznius:

“Zadon,” in this context, refers to self-assertive, domineering, kavod-seeking behavior; an “ish zadon” is a person who aggressively seeks gratification by putting others down in order to boost his own self-image. The ish zadon fails to realize that by embracing a competitive, relative, image-based value system, in which his own happiness is contingent on the approbation of other people, he has ipso facto subjected himself to the fate of regularly suffering social disgrace. In contrast, an ish tzenua’s value system is objective insofar as it is based on chochmah (wisdom), and his happiness is not dependent on his image in the eyes of others. Therefore, he is immune to social disgrace, since he relates to any social “failures” as inconsequential, or as opportunities for wisdom and growth, rather than as “disgraceful” losses of kavod.

You may have noticed that the title of this post is followed by a "1.0." That's because I consider my concept of Mishleic tznius to still be "in the works." Still, I felt confident enough in my approach to share my findings thus far. I'd like to further clarify the ideas in my four-sentence summary by giving a play-by-play of how I arrived at my current understanding. 

This post began with a "Yom Iyun" ("Day of Study" = "Special Program") held at the high school where I teach. Every other year or so we have a school-wide program on tznius. In planning that year's event we expressed dismay over how easy it is for a girl to shut down during such tznius programs, saying, "Ugh! Another program where we're lectured on how long our sleeves and skirts can be!" 

This led to an epiphany: What if we designed a tznius program which has nothing to do with how people dress? We realized that many girls probably aren't aware that tznius a middah (character trait), and not merely a dress code. If we could craft a program which explored what the middah of tznius is, and we didn't mention dress codes at all, then even the most close-minded girl wouldn't walk away thinking that the program was about telling her how she can and can't dress. And if the only message she left with was, "Tznius is not just about the length of sleeves and skirts," then we would have accomplished something. 

Each of the teachers involved in the program chose one aspect of tznius to focus on. I volunteered to take on the topic of "tznius and chochmah" because I wanted to focus on Mishlei, and I recalled this pasuk. I was intrigued by two non-intuitive features of the pasuk: (1) the fact that it identifies "zadon" as the opposite of tznius, as opposed to something like "immodesty" or even "arrogance," and (2) the assertion that tznius and chochmah go together. 

In preparing my lesson I found four clues which ultimately led me to the idea summarized above. The first was Saadia Gaon's Arabic translation of the pasuk as: "If azus (brazenness / assertiveness) comes, disgrace comes, and with anavim (humble people) is wisdom." This provided me with my first clue: according to Saadia Gaon, the tznius in our pasuk is synonymous with anavah (humility), and is the opposite of brazenness / assertiveness. 

Rabbeinu Yonah provided a second and third clue by expanding on the definition of zadon, and by commenting on the relationship between tznius and chochmah. Here is a translation of his commentary on our pasuk: 

when zadon comes, disgrace will come - It is the nature of [an ish] zadon to mock and insult people, because he will deride and degrade his fellow for the temporary pleasure of taking pride in [the latter's] shame, or he will not be willing to tolerate the immediate pain of controlling his anger; is there a greater or more powerful zadon than that which culminates in words of shame and insult? 

but wisdom is with those who are tzenua - Tznius prevents a person from [speaking] words of disgrace and obscenity, and minimization of speech is one of the characteristics of those who are tzenua. And tznius causes wisdom for those who possess it, for it is a trait of the wise on account of which they are called wise, for they listen and pay close attention and do not desire to reveal their hearts, as it is stated: “Even a fool who is quiet will be considered wise,[and] one who seals his lips is understanding” (Mishlei 17:28). 

This is a difficult Rabbeinu Yonah, and I'll admit up front that I don't fully grasp what he is saying. Nevertheless, I took away several important points about zadon from his commentary:

• Whatever zadon is, its fullest expression is derision, mockery, and rejoicing in the shame of one's fellow. 
• The unwillingness to restrain one's anger at another person is also symptomatic of zadon. 
• A third feature of zadon is the inability to listen to other people, due to the need "to reveal one's heart" (i.e. to express one's own thoughts and feelings). 

At this point my picture of zadon started to come into focus. What type of person feels compelled to mock others for his own ego-gratification, is unable to hold back from retaliating when he's angry, and is so intent on expressing his own thoughts and feelings that his mind is closed to chochmah? Someone who operates in a competitive, relative, image-based value system, in which the most efficient way to boost your own standing is to put other people down. Bullying is a common form of zadon behavior. 

And what, then, is tznius if the term is being used as the opposite of zadon? Tznius must refer to the type of humility exhibited by a person who operates in an objective value system, whose self-image is based on chochmah rather than the opinions of other people. 

The fourth and final clue supported this conclusion. I looked up the chapter on tznius in Mivchar ha'Peninim - a collection of Jewish and Arabic ethical teachings widely quoted by the meforshim on Mishlei and Pirkei Avos - and I found the following three proverbs: [Full disclosure - there were more proverbs about tznius than these, and even these weren't presented in this order, but since they're proverbs, I feel that it's okay to pick and choose and rearrange.]

They asked the wise man: “What is tznius?”
He answered: “Chochmah.” 

They asked the wise man: “What is tznius?”
He answered: “That a person feels shame from himself.” 

They asked the wise man. “What is the tznius?”
He answered: “That a person shouldn’t do in secret what he is ashamed to do in public.”

The first proverb goes even further than our pasuk. Whereas Mishlei merely asserts that chochmah is found with tznius, Mivchar ha'Peninim says that chochmah is synonymous with tznius, or is at least an essential component of what tznius is. This is what planted the notion in my head that when Mishlei says, "chochmah is with those who are tzenua," it means that tznius cannot exist without chochmah.  

The other two proverbs fill in a missing piece of our pasuk in Mishlei by explaining the relationship between tznius and shame. In contrast to the ish zadon, who feels shame from other people (which he perceives as "disgrace," since views it as a negative thing), the ish tzenua "feels shame from himself," to the extent that his personal conduct will not change based on whether is being observed by others. In other words, the ish zadon might refrain from doing something wrong if it would cause others to look down on him, but he would act differently if nobody were watching. The ish tzenua, whose value system is based on chochmah, which is objective, would refrain from doing the wrong thing even if nobody saw him do it. 

At this point I was able to answer all six questions on the pasuk. Although Rabbeinu Yonah played a major role in helping me to understand the pasuk, I deviated from his approach in one major way. He explains "When zadon comes, disgrace will come" to mean that the ish zadon brings disgrace to other people by putting them down, whereas I explain that not only does he bring disgrace to other people, but he subjects himself to disgrace by pledging allegiance to a relative value system which ascribes importance to how other people view him. Likewise, Rabbeinu Yonah explains "wisdom is with those who are tzenua" to mean that the ish tzenua will acquire chochmah by listening to others, whereas I understand it to mean that chochmah is what makes him tzenua in the first place, as the Mivchar ha'Peninim implies. I think this is a more satisfactory explanation of the awkward phrasing in the pasuk: "When zadon comes, disgrace will come." 

So that's my basic understanding of tznius according to Mishlei. As we emphasized in our Yom Iyun, Mishlei teaches that tznius is about more than the way we dress. And yet, it is easy to see how the importance we place on clothing and appearances can be either consonant with or antithetical to the middah of tznius. A person who lacks tznius will relate to her clothing and appearance as a barometer for her own self-worth, and will make fashion choices designed to garner maximum admiration from other people in order to achieve "success" in the arena of public opinion. A person who has the quality of tznius will base her sense of self-worth on that which is objectively good (i.e. her knowledge, her middos, her mitzvos), and will not attach any real value to how much people admire her external beauty. To the contrary, she will recognize how easy it is to get caught up in such a relative value system, and will take measures to safeguard herself from its allure, and she will find that her dress code is a good method for such safeguarding.

How TO and How NOT To Apply Tehilim to Your Life

This is a Tehilim methodology post. Although it can be read on its own, you will gain more out of it if you have read my guide on How to Learn Tehilim.

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

How TO and How NOT To Apply Tehilim to Your Life

A former student of mine recently attended a class on Tehilim (Psalms). The source sheet for this class included a short paragraph of advice for "how to say Tehilim with more meaning" based on the writings of a certain well-known rabbi. I'm not going to name the source because I don't want anyone to be biased on account of the author's identity. The source sheet said:

Regarding the saying of Tehillim, [Rabbi Ploni] told a student that the main thing is to say the verses directed to one's own life, to apply the messages of the verses to one's own experiences. He further explained that in all the wars which Dovid HaMelech asked Hashem to grant him success, a person should interpret it as relating to his own wars with the yetzer ha'ra (evil inclination).

My student wanted to know what I thought of this rabbi's advice.

Before I share my response, I think it would behoove us to review the Sefer ha'Chinuch's explanation of the practice of "saying Tehilim," as he writes in his explanation of Mitzvah #512, and which I referenced in my post How to Say Tehilim for the Sick Without Violating Halacha. In my learning experience I have found this to be the most eloquent Rishonic statement on what Tehilim is for, and how it ought to be used. The Sefer ha'Chinuch writes:

[These] psalms contain words that inspire the soul that knows them to shelter in Hashem, to take security in Him, to establish a reverent fear of Him firmly in his heart, and to rely on His kindness and goodness; as a result of this inspiration, he will be protected from every harm, without a doubt.

In other words, the process involves three steps: (1) learn the pesukim with the goal of understanding their ideational content, (2) read them and recite them with these ideas in mind in order to inspire yourself and strengthen your relationship with Hashem, (3) as a result, you will be protected from harm, in accordance with your level of closeness to Hashem.

Now that we've reviewed the basic idea of what it means to say Tehilim, here is my response to my student's question about Rabbi Ploni's advice.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have mixed thoughts about the methodology cited in [source text]. On the one hand, I agree that if a person learns Tehilim without applying it to his or her life, then he or she is missing out on the essential purpose of the sefer, which is to improve our relationship with Hashem. 

On the other hand, I am wary of the advice "to say the verses directed to one's own life, to apply the messages of the verses to one's own experiences." If this is done after a person learns the perek - or at least those specific pesukim - then that's great, but if a person merely reads through the pesukim and selects those which feel like they apply to their own life, then they run the risk of merely projecting their own emotions and psychological issues onto the words of David ha'Melech, without actually accessing the ideas that David intended to convey.

For instance, let's say someone is feeling dejected or in a state of suffering. She takes Sefer Tehilim and flips through the pages trying to find something that she feels applies to her own situation. She finds Tehilim 22, which famously opens with the line, “My God, my God – why have You abandoned me? You are far from my salvation at the word of my cry!” This pasuk resonates with her. She recites it with passion, pouring out her heart in crying out to a God that she feels has abandoned her in her time of need.

But unless she has learned through the perek as a whole, in a comprehensive and intellectually honest manner, how does she know whether this pasuk has anything to do with her personal situation? Maybe God hasn’t abandoned her. Maybe she’s just seeking Him incorrectly. Even worse: maybe by “blaming” God for something that’s her fault and not His, she is only distancing Him from herself even more. And what is her understanding of God being “close” or “far,” in general? Maybe the metric she’s using to assess God’s "distance" from her is totally incorrect. Maybe, in her mind, if she davens for something and doesn't get what she wants, then that means God has abandoned her - a view which we know to be false. And how does she even know that this perek is about a person such as herself? Maybe this is David ha’Melech who was making reference to the specific hashgachic  (providential) relationship that Hashem had with him, and to tzadikim who are on his level. Maybe, as Chazal suggest, this is Esther, who was reaching out to Hashem from her position of leadership and responsibility in saving Klal Yisrael (the Jewish People) from Haman’s plot. Maybe, as some of the meforshim (commentators) suggest, this perek isn’t even about an individual being abandoned by God, but it’s about Klal Yisrael as a whole in galus (exile). 

But if our hypothetical Tehilim reciter doesn’t bother to search for true answers to these questions – or doesn’t even ask them in the first place – then all she’ll be doing is using David ha’Melech’s words as an echo-chamber for her own emotional issues. If that's all she's doing, then perhaps she’d be better off reciting poetry or song lyrics, rather than distorting words of ruach ha’kodesh (divine inspiration) through the prism of her own subjective psyche.

I also have problems with the second part of [Rabbi Ploni's] advice. Yes, a person should view the struggle with the yetzer ha’ra as a war. Chazal used this mashal (metaphor), and it’s a good one, since the yetzer ha’ra is a cunning foe, and constant vigilance is a necessity if one hopes to avoid defeat. But to read all of David ha’Melech’s requests as relating to your own battles with your yetzer ha’ra seems to be intellectually irresponsible, and can easily lend itself to just making up our own "ideas" and treating them as David ha’Melech’s wisdom.

Consider, for example, the following pesukim from Tehilim Perek 3:

Hashem, how numerous are my enemies! There are many who rise up against me. Many are those who say of my soul, “There is no help for him in God,” Selah. But You, Hashem, are a shield for me; my glory, and the one who raises up my head. I will cry out to Hashem with my voice and He will answer me from His holy mountain, Selah. I laid down and slept; I awoke, for Hashem sustained me. I will not be afraid of ten thousands of people who have set themselves around me. Arise, Hashem! Save me, my God, for You have struck all my enemies on the cheek bone; you have broken the teeth of the wicked. Salvation belongs to Hashem; Your blessing is upon Your people, Selah.

On the surface, it would seem feasible to read the yetzer ha’ra mashal into these pesukim. "Hashem, how numerous are my enemies! There are many who rise up against me" can be interpreted as: "There are numerous yetzer ha’ra temptations all around." "Many are those who say of my soul, 'There is no help for him in God,' Selah" can be read as: "The yetzer ha’ra causes us to doubt that Hashem can help us." "But You, Hashem, are a shield for me; my glory, and the one who raises up my head" can be taken to mean: "Hashem acts as a shield against the yetzer ha’ra." And so on. 

But take note of the introductory pasuk of this perek:

A psalm of David, when he fled from Avshalom, his son.

This perek was written by David about a specific conflict he faced with his son Avshalom, which is spelled out in Shmuel II, and he intended the words of this perek to be understood within that specific context. Sure, the insights one gains from this perek can be applied to a broader set of situations – otherwise, David wouldn’t have recorded these words for us – but his introductory pasuk clearly indicates that he held that the content of the perek should be interpreted in light of the specific situation for which he wrote it.

So if [Rabbi Ploni] wants to takes those words out of the author’s specified context, advising us to “treat this as being about your own battle with your yetzer ha’ra,” is that really an intellectually honest approach? Is it any different than, say, taking a chemistry textbook and interpreting the various statements about chemical reactions a mashal for how our yetzer ha’ra reacts when we do aveiros (transgressions), or taking a cookbook and treating the recipes as a mashal for “the ingredients” of a successful avodas Hashem? 

You might find these examples laughable, but I’ve chosen them for a reason. Apparently, there were groups of Chasidim or Baalei Mussar who held that the masechtos (tractates) in Nezikin which deal with the laws of damages should be interpreted as a mashal for how to handle the “damage” of the yetzer ha’ra. For example, the laws governing the case of an ox goring a cow should be treated as a mashal for the strategies that the yetzer ha'ra uses to cause damage to the neshamah. To my mind, this is worse than intellectual dishonesty. It’s just foolishness.

So, to sum it up: Tehilim will definitely be more meaningful if you apply it to your own life, but only after doing your due diligence as a student of Torah by attempting to learn and understand the Tehilim you recite before you recite them. If you skip this critical step and simply choose pesukim that resonate with you on a purely emotional level, you run the risk of projecting your own flawed understanding and psychological baggage onto the text, which will stunt the development of your relationship with Hashem. As for the metaphorical readings of David's wars: my advice is to stick to the pshat, and learn your strategies for waging war with the yetzer ha'ra from the pesukim in which David ha'Melech explicitly addresses this subject.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I realize that the problems I've outlined here are not unique to Tehilim. They apply in a similar way to the text of tefilah (prayer). In truth, it is possible for a person to read whatever he wants into whatever text he wants, as I pointed out earlier in the example of those who read Nezikin allegorically. But in my opinion, there is a unique danger in making this error with regards to texts which are regularly recited in a "ritual manner" (for lack of a better term) as a means of drawing closer to Hashem.

Nearly 20 years ago, shortly after I converted to Judaism, my brother and I found ourselves at a Chabad house on the island of Oahu. This was back before Chabad had a regular minyan on the island. Sure enough, we were recruited for a minyan. The Chabad administrator who was in charge of coordinating the minyan had a chauffeur who drove us around. She was a native Hawaiian woman in her late fifties or early sixties. I don't know whether she just worked for Chabad, or whether she was in the process of conversion, or whether she was Jewish.

All I remember is that whenever we had downtime, she would pull out a small sefer (or maybe it was even a pamphlet?) and start chanting a single pasuk from Tehilim. If memory serves, the pasuk was "Adonoi hoshia, ha'Melech yaaneinu b'yom kareinu" (Tehilim 20:10). And when I say "chanting" I mean rhythmically and ritualistically, like a mantra - over, and over, and over, and over. Had I asked her what she was doing, I don't know whether she'd say that she's davening, or utilizing a segulah ("folk charm"), or if she even had an idea of what she was doing. It was the single-minded fervor with which she was saying her mantra that struck me.

Let's assume that this woman knew the English translation of what she was saying: "My Lord, save! May the King answer us on the day we call." If this woman had even a basic comprehension of what she was saying - a recognition that Hashem is able to save, or that salvation belongs to Him, or that He responds to our prayers, or that He is our true king - then this woman's recitation might actually strengthen her relationship with Hashem by "inspiring her soul" in a positive direction, as the Sefer ha'Chinuch explained.

But what if this woman harbored a fundamentally distorted understanding? What if she believed that her recitation invoked an emotion of pity in God? What if she believed that she was praying to an angel as an intercessor between herself and God? What if she, like many native Hawaiians, still clung to her polytheistic beliefs, and had somehow amalgamated them into her practice of this new "ritual"? If any of these scenarios were the case, then her fervent devotion to Tehilim would have an equal but opposite effect, propelling her away from Hashem into the grips of avodah zarah. 

My point in sharing this anecdote is this: Tehilim is a powerful tool. When used properly, it can fortify and elevate the soul of the one who recites it. When used improperly, it can hinder our spiritual development, or even lead us astray.