The ‘easy’ sin we must avoid

Tishah B’Av, the Ninth Day of Av, the darkest day of every Jewish year, begins on Monday after sundown. Many tragedies befell us on Tishah B’Av throughout history, but two events stand at its heart: the destruction of the First Temple in 586 B.C.E. and the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 C.E.

Jeremiah, in Lamentations 1:5, tells us that God brought about the destruction of the First Temple because of Israel’s many sins, which the Talmud lists as idol worship, rampant sexual immorality, and bloodshed. These sins, however, were not an issue during the Second Temple period. What brought about that catastrophe was the sin of baseless hatred, sinat chinam. According to the Talmud, this sin is equal to all three of those other sins combined. (See the Babylonian Talmud tractate Yoma 9b. Also BT Arachin 15b.)

Baseless hatred, sinat chinam, was the engine that drove the Second Jewish Commonwealth to its disastrous end. Unless we recognize what this sin is and how it operates, and take steps to eliminate it from our world, it could cause the representative democracy that is the United States to crash and burn.

Sinat chinam, in all its forms, requires serious discussions within every community — this year more than ever, because baseless hatred is in overdrive in the current presidential campaign and in so many others.

This sin is much too easy to engage in but very difficult to recognize. It was so commonplace in Second Temple times that no one recognized it for the evil that it was or that they were guilty of it — including some of Jerusalem’s most prominent Sages and others of the city’s elite. (See BT Gittin 55b-56a.)

This sin manifests itself in many ways, with “bad speech” (lashon hara) topping the list.

If someone, for example, said something hurtful to us, that is an act of baseless hatred — even if the person saying that hurtful thing did not mean it to be hurtful. If we tell someone about that hurtful thing, supposedly because we are looking for sympathy, that also is an act of baseless hatred, because, consciously or not, we want that person to think ill of the offender.

A case in point from the current campaign is former President Donald Trump’s comment on July 26 that, if elected, “You won’t have to vote anymore.”

Democrats and pundits quickly pounced on that statement. Jaime Harrison, the Democratic National Committee chair, referred to it as another of Trump’s “crazed ramblings.” Trump, Harrison posted on X, the former Twitter, is threatening to end voting in America. If we like our freedom, he added, we “better be ready to protect it! Get Registered and Vote!”

Trump, however, made no such threat.

He made that statement in a speech he delivered at Turning Point Action’s Believers’ Summit. Because Democrats “want to cheat,” Trump said to this avowedly Christianizing America group, “We have to win this election….We want a landslide that’s too big to rig.”

Then he added this: “Christians, get out and vote just this time. You won’t have to do it anymore. Four more years, you know what? It will be fixed. It will be fine. You won’t have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians.”

In other words, Christians — and only Christians — will not “have to vote anymore,” because he would “fix” the laws regulating elections so that Democrats would never again be able to “cheat.” Once “fixed,” Trump’s “beautiful Christians” can choose to stay home on Election Day without fear that the Christianized America Trump has vowed to bring about would be ripped out from under their feet by the rest of us when all the votes were in.

Trump’s Christianizing America bent is certainly more than enough reason not to vote for him this November (or ever), but it is not the same thing as saying that Trump will use a second term to bring the electoral process crashing down.

All of us — me included — are too often guilty of sinat chinam, even though we may not realize it.

Several commandments found in Leviticus 19 serve as our starting point for understanding this sin. Verse 17 states, “Rebuke, yes rebuke, your colleague, but do not bear sin because of him [or her].” Verse 18 follows with a warning against engaging in acts of revenge.

Verse 17 begins by warning us against allowing grudges to well up internally (verse 18 deals with the external kind). Not only does that extend our hurt, but it could lead to other serious consequences, psychological and otherwise (including the vengeance prohibited in verse 18). There is a catch, however. In rebuking the offender, we must “not bear sin because of him [or her].”

As the late 19th-century founder of modern Orthodoxy, the commentator Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, explained in commenting on that verse, we “may not demonstrate even the slightest hint of superiority” in our rebuke. We must make the offender feel that he or she is “our equal in everything,” while taking great care not to “needlessly humiliate that person,” which itself is “a grave sin,” even if done in private, according to Hirsch and virtually every halachic authority.

That is way easier said than done. Responding to the person, for example, with something like “Are you out of your mind?” “What planet are you on?” or even “You do realize you just committed a sin?” is both condescending and humiliating.

The Talmud (see BT Arachin 16b) has this to say about why it is easier said than done. The word “rebuke” appears twice in verse 17, emphasizing that we are commanded to rebuke the offender. But, says the Talmud, we have to stop doing so “if that person’s face changes [color] because of the humiliation. That is why the verse adds, ‘Do not bear sin because of that person’; the one giving rebuke may not sin by embarrassing the other person.”

Elsewhere in the Talmud, the sage Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak explains why that is. Embarrassing someone is the equivalent of spilling that person’s blood, he says, because the red color drains from the face and turns pale. (See Bava Metzia 58b-59a.)

“Publicly” humiliating someone includes telling just one other person about that offender’s bad behavior. That is where the warning in verse 18 against taking vengeance comes in. The search for validation notwithstanding, why else would we tell a third party about what was said or done to us if not out of revenge, because we want that person to think less of the offender?

As noted by the Chofetz Chayim, Rabbi Yisrael Meir Kagan, the pre-eminent authority on the subject of bad speech, we can turn to a third party for help if we want to help the offender mend his or her ways. We may only do so, however, if we believe that third party is someone from whom the offender would accept criticism — and only if there is not the slightest bit of malicious intent involved. (See the Chofetz Chaim’s Principle 4 5:1.)

Then there is this: Although the Torah, because of the doubling up of the word rebuke, clearly imposes on us the mitzvah to reprimand the offender, we can only do so if we believe that he or she will accept the reprimand. Otherwise, we must not rebuke him or her; we have to say nothing at all. Proverbs 9:8 is cited as the prooftext for this: “Do not rebuke a scorner, for he will hate you; but reprove a wise man, and he will love you.” (See BT Yevamot 65b.)

Clearly, this sin is much too easy to commit and much too difficult to recognize.

Hirsch, in his commentary, says jealousy often motivates those who engage in baseless hatred. These people see those whom they offend as “an impediment to their success,” who must be belittled in order to gain some advantage over them.

Politicians clearly fill that bill. Candidates should address the many problems that face us. They should not spend their time saying nasty things about each other, but that is what they do — and that is baseless hatred.

The Talmud says that there are two sinners, not one, involved in sinat chinam in its lashon hara, bad speech, form: the speaker and the listener who does nothing to stop it. (See BT Arachin 15b.)

We can fight that kind of electioneering and avoid sinning ourselves by not donating to the campaigns of the people who engage in it, signing their petitions, or attending their rallies. We can also sponsor talks at synagogues, libraries, and other venues about the dangers of such campaigning.

Our efforts should also include not voting for such candidates, but not voting is not an option and all candidates engage in sinat chinam to one degree or another. The best we can do, then, is vote for the candidate who engages in it the least. Doing so in this year’s presidential election is a no-brainer.

For the sake of our world, we need to give this effort our best shot — for our own sakes and for the future of our country.

May we all have easy fasts this Tishah B’Av.

Shammai Engelmayer is a rabbi-emeritus of Congregation Beth Israel of the Palisades and an adult education teacher in Bergen County. He is the author of eight books and the winner of 10 awards for his commentaries. His website is www.shammai.org.

opinion

comments