Arrogance and the Distortion of Religious Ideals
TALMUDIC AGGADA
By Rav Yitzchak Blau
Shiur #23: Arrogance and the Distortion of
Religious Ideals
R. Yitzchak said: Three things cause a man's sins to
be remembered [by God]: [passing under] a shaky wall,
iyyun tefilla, and calling on heaven to punish ones
neighbor. As R. Chanan said: Whoever
calls on heaven to punish his neighbor is punished first, as it says: And Sara
said to Avraham, My anger is upon you. I gave my handmaid into your bosom, and
when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes. God should
judge between me and you (Bereishit 16:5). And it says: And Avraham
came to eulogize Sara and cry for her (Bereishit 23:2). (Rosh Hashana
16b)
The source above assumes that Sara was punished with an early death,
since she passed away before her husband.
The gemara explains that she was punished for making accusations
against Avraham and calling on God to adjudicate their conflict. Many
commentators question this assumption; after all, ones spouse may die first
even absent any special punishment for transgression. How does the Gemara know
that Saras earlier demise stems from sin? (See Pnei Yehoshua for further
analysis).
Sefat Emet advances a creative alternative suggestion. According
to the simple reading, the gemara refers to the interaction between Sara
and Avraham; Sara calls on God to judge between her and her husband. Sefat
Emet posits that the gemara is actually speaking about the
interaction between Sara and Hagar. Sara judges Hagar guilty and sends her out,
calling on God to judge between them. In a classic example of midda ke-neged
midda (quid pro quo) punishment, she passes away before her husband, who
then takes back Hagar as a wife (assuming the identification of Ketura with
Hagar). Sara chases out another wife to have her husband for herself;
ironically, her husband eventually remains alone with her rival.
This poetic justice helps justify the Talmudic assumption that Saras
death is a story of sin and punishment. Otherwise, notes Sefat Emet, the
mere fact that she died earlier proves nothing. Although Sefat Emets
approach is quite clever, the biblical verse cited to illustrate Saras calling
on heaven: God should judge between me and you, clearly refers to Avraham,
making Sefat Emets innovative reading somewhat difficult.
A gemara in Bava Kama (93a)
limits the scope of R. Chanans comment. We fault a person who turns to heaven
for judgment only when that person could have turned to a human court, and yet
still calls upon Divine wrath. If there is no human recourse, it is legitimate
to ask for Divine intervention. Individuals have a right to express their
grievances and demand redress for the wrongs done to them; yet they should not
do so in a way that is overly vindictive. Asking for Divine punishment when
human intervention suffices reflects such a problematic approach.
As Tosafot point out, this limitation forces
us to assume that Sara could have turned to a human authority in her dispute
with Avraham; otherwise, she could not receive punishment for beseeching God to
judge between them. They posit that she could have taken her case to the court
of Shem. Ran (Rosh Hashana 3b in Rif pagination) offers an alternative
answer; Sara should have asked Avraham to address her complaint before she
turned to God. Even when no relevant human court exists, asking God to punish
should remain the last resort. One can do so only after exhausting all other
avenues of solving the problem.
What is this iyyun tefilla that brings
about Divine judgment? Rashi
explains that the phrase refers to a person so confident about the quality of
his prayer that he assumes God will invariably grant his requests. Tosafot cite
Rabbenu Tam that this phrase means praying without kavana (proper
intent). They cite support for this idea from a gemara (Bava Batra 164b)
that lists iyyun tefilla as a sin we commit each day. Surely, lack of
proper intent plagues us on a more regular basis that an overconfidence about
the efficacy of our prayers. (For further discussion of this debate, see my
Fresh Fruit and Vintage Wine: The Ethics and Wisdom of the Aggada, pp.
140-141).
Tosafot cite a remarkable Yerushalmi to support
their argument.
R. Chiyya the elder said: In all my days I never
had kavana. One day, I wanted to pray with intent. I said: Who comes
first before the king, a dignitary or the exilarch? [In other words, R. Chiyya
was distracted from the prayers by an unrelated question.] Shmuel said: I count
the birds. R. Bun the son of Chiyya said: I count the rows of stones. R.
Matanya said: I give thanks to my head because when I come to modim, it
knows to bow on its own. (Yerushalmi
Berakhot 2:4)
Apparently, immense difficulty in praying in a
heartfelt manner is not just a function of modernity, but a perennial religious
challenge. Indeed, Rabbenu Tam has a strong argument for preferring his
interpretation of iyyun tefilla to that of Rashi.
However, Tosafot also note that R. Yitzchaks
statement supports Rashi. If we accept Rashi, then the three sins enumerated by
R. Yitzchak stem from a common core. A person who stands under a shaky wall
implicitly declares his assurance that God will not let the wall fall upon him.
Such a stance reflects arrogance and self-righteousness. We can say the same
about a person who calls on God to punish a neighbor. Only someone quite
confident about his own righteousness would ask God to enter a punishing mode.
According to Rashi, iyyun tefilla fits right in with the other two items,
since assurance of Divine favor also bespeaks excessive religious pride. In
contrast, endorsing Rabbenu Tams approach leaves us wondering what lack of
intent has to do with the other two sins.
Thus, Rabbenu Tams interpretation works
better in Bava Batra, whereas Rashi fits more easily with the text in
Rosh Hashana. Indeed, several commentators explain that this phrase has
multiple meanings in the Talmud and does not mean the same thing in these two
Talmudic contexts.
R. Kook finds a different common denominator
in R. Yitzchaks list (Ein Aya Berakhot 55a). In all three scenarios, the
erring individual takes a religious institution meant to promote religious
development and distorts it in such away as to subvert growth. Standing under a
rickety wall highlights the place of faith in the religious worldview.
Certainly, trust in God represents a central religious value. It prevents us
from descending to despair in difficult times and gives us strength to withstand
various temptations. On the other hand, R. Kook expresses concern about
potential corruption of this trait:
The trait of faith was never instituted so that a
person would become lazy, and not work and act in every possible endeavor,
whether the matters of the community or of the individual. All the more so, it
was not created so that a person would enter situations dangerous to his body or
soul. (Ein Aya Berakhot Volume 2, p. 118)
Faith was meant to energize, but when
distorted it can lead to laziness and complacency. R. Kook insightfully explains
how the two other sins involve similar corruptions of religious values. The
notion of Divine justice should promote a sense of responsibility and desire to
improve oneself. An individual who calls on heaven to punish his neighbor
distorts Divine justice by using it as a means of addressing personal
grievances. For him, Divine justice goes together with selfassurance, rather
than with desire to improve.
The same applies to prayer. Ideally, prayer
encourages an individual to seriously confront his relationship with God and
think deeply about moral and religious improvement. Someone guilty of iyyun
tefilla inverts this procedure. For him, prayer becomes a moment to bask in
ones righteousness with mighty confidence that God will accede to the request
of such a devout person. Self-serving people can distort religious ideals meant
to foster striving and growth until they promote complacency and arrogance.
In R. Kooks approach, R. Yitzchak reminds us
of the pitfalls inherent in religious practice and ideas. The mere fact that we
speak about prayer, faith in God, or Divine justice does not exempt us from
serious introspection regarding how we apply these ideas in our life. Are they
challenging us to develop or have we converted them into vehicles of
self-aggrandizement?
This website is constantly being improved. We would appreciate hearing from you. Questions and comments on the classes are welcome, as is help in tagging, categorizing, and creating brief summaries of the classes. Thank you for being part of the Torat Har Etzion community!