When to be Critical

Skin off Your Own Back, Please!

When To Judge Favorably And When To Be Critical

By Rabbi Yoseph Kahanov Jax, Fl

“THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.

THEN THEY CAME for me and by that time no one was left to speak up.” (Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984))

– – – — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

It is the custom in our Shul to read a short meditation each morning upon the conclusion of services. It was the following thought in the name of the holy Baal Shemtov that elicited a rather fervent debate:

“Your fellow is your mirror. If your own face is clean, so will be the image you perceive. But should you look upon your fellow and see a blemish, it is your own imperfection that you are encountering – you are being shown what it is that you must correct within yourself.”

“Does this mean that we can never perceive evil or wrongdoing without implicating ourselves,” protested a thoughtful and generally soft-spoken congregant. “I find this disconcerting!”

“What about Osama Binladin, Achmadinidjad, or for that matter, Hitler and his ilk? Is the recognition of their brutal and inhumane conduct reflective of one’s own wickedness and evil propensities? With all due respect, this makes no sense.”

It was only a matter of moments before the entire Shul erupted in passionate discussion. In proverbial Jewish tradition, voices came from all directions, weaving in and out of each other. “What do you think, Rabbi,” came a voice from across the room.

To be honest, I was caught off guard. The man clearly had a valid point. I myself am wont to preach against passivism and the popular ideology of moral relativism – the lack of independent right and wrong.

My mind filled with thoughts of Biblical figures who seemed, at one time or another, to be judgmental. For example, did not Avraham judge Lot when he recommended that their camps separate as a result Lot and his shepherds’ inappropriate conduct? Did not Yitzchak rebuke King Avimelach? Did Yaakov not complain bitterly about his uncle Lavan?

What about the many times that Moshe castigated the Israelites for the numerous rebellions against G-d? Did he not actually pray for the demise of Korach and company? Then there is Pinchas, the archetype of vigilantism who was highly rewarded for his zealotry.

The more thought I gave the matter the greater the paradox seemed to become. The Torah’s position on judgmentalism seems at best confusing, if not outright contradictory.

In Ethics of The Fathers, for example, it is stated in one place: “Do not judge your friend until you have reached his place” – been in his shoes. Yet in another place it says: “Distance yourself from a bad neighbor and do not befriend the wicked.” How can there be a bad neighbor or a wicked one if we’re not supposed to judge?

Seeing no way out, I acknowledged that the man was right. His point could not be ignored. To those who argued that the Baal Shemtov said otherwise, I replied, “You’re right.” When others questioned how both can be right, I exclaimed in good rabbinic tradition, “You too are right!” The issue could obviously not be resolved on one foot. But nor could it be ignored forever.

No part of Torah can be left to contradiction, especially something as fundamental as the issue at hand – a matter with very practical implications in day-to-day life. Indeed, knowing when to judge favorably, when to be critical and when not to judge at all is an ongoing struggle in the life of every conscientious human being.

Before I had a chance to revisit the subject, I received an email from the same congregant. The email included the following essay (shortened somewhat) by a Psychiatrist named Dr. Emanual Tanay, of Ann Arbor, MI. Dr. Tanay bases his essay on the words of a man who was of German aristocracy prior to World War II – a man whose family owned a number of large industries and estates:

“Very few people were true Nazis, but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp, and the Allies destroyed my factories. . .”

“The hard quantifiable fact is that the ‘peaceful majority;’ the ‘silent majority,’ is cowed and extraneous. Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China’s huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.

The average Japanese individual prior to World War ll was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet. And, who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were ‘peace loving’?

History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points:

Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun. Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghanis, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late. . .”

“So, I ask you Rabbi, concludes the congregant, how do you reconcile the flowery notion of nonjudgmentalism with the above stated facts? True, these horrific examples were all national tragedies – resulting from national apathy and gullibility – still, how different is it on the interpersonal level?

I’ve wrestled with this conundrum for quite some time. An answer has only come to me upon reading the commentary on this week’s Parsha.

In prescribing the remedy for Tzara’as – a leprosy-like malady brought-on by spiritual deficiency – the Torah states: The Kohen shall command and for the person being purified there shall be taken. . . עֵץ אֶרֶז – a stick of cedar wood, שְׁנִי תוֹלַעַת – tongue-like strip of wool dyed crimson, and Hyssop (Vayikra 14: 4).

In explaining the significance of these particular objects Rashi states: “Because lesions of Tzara’as manifest itself as a result of haughtiness – symbolized by the tall cedar – he must, as a healing remedy, humble himself from his haughtiness through תּוֹלַעַת””– Tola’as (lit., ‘a worm,’ which infested the berries from which the crimson dye was extracted to color the wool) as well as the lowly hyssop.

According to Rashi, the cedar wood symbolizes the state in which the Leper found himself before the infliction – haughtiness, while the other two objects represent the state of cure – humility.

Other commentaries however, find this view inconsistent. Since the objects are mentioned together, they aught to all represent the same state of being, either the malady – haughtiness, or the state of cure – humility. Their argument is farther reinforced by the notion that the healing Mitzorah would be instructed to take an object symbolizing the complete opposite of where he is meant to be heading.

An alternative interpretation is hence presented which in fact defines the symbolism of the cedar as part of the curing formula. According to this explanation, the cedar signifies the sense of determination and steadfastness that one most develop on behalf of morality, justice and Divine will.

In other words, the Leper most not come away from his traumatic misfortune with the wrong lesson by swinging towards the complete opposite end of the spectrum – humbling himself entirely, like the Tola’as and the hyssop. He must instead retain a part of his backbone and sense of resolve like the cedar.

What is meant by this, assert the commentaries, is that he should understand that there is a balance. Passivism and humility are indeed great virtues when directed toward one’s own will and ego. However, humility and passivism are not the proper response when they come at someone else’s expense.

Passivism that comes at the expense of others is in fact unequivocally wrong. One must, in such instances, resort to the “Cedar” quality within oneself – to stand tall for what is true and just. The latter is certainly the case when it is the Divine will and way of life that is at stake.

In the above light, the Baal Shemtov’s aphorism – regarding the shortcomings of others being the reflection of our own faults – is referring to the type of shortcomings that are directed against our very own selves and ego. However, when the offensive conduct is aimed at another human being, or against the Heavenly creator and His divine code, it is the wrong time for humility and passivism.

Much as in the case of the actual malady of Tzara’as – the affliction discussed in this week’s Parshios of Tazria and Mitzora – one must obviously take proper measures to ensure that his judgment in this matter is not tainted or biased.

The cause of Tzara’as, we are taught, is the indulgence in one or more of seven sins which are directed against fellow human beings: Slander, murder, perjury, debauchery, pride, theft and jealousy (Talmud Arachim 16a). While the violator must be identified and called out, it is the Cohen and the Cohen alone that is permitted to make the call.

While the Cohen may lack the expertise regarding the complex nature of lesions and the multiple accompanying laws of Tzara’as and must hence rely upon the advice of the expert, it is nonetheless the Cohen and not the expert who is empowered to render the final judgment.

The reason for this is that since the Cohen is recognized by the Torah as a “lover and pursuer of peace and maker of peace among the people” (Pirkei Avot 1:12), there is hence no doubt as to the integrity of his ruling. While another person may be tainted somewhat by bias, the Cohen is sure to have the best interest of the subject in mind. Still, despite all the above, there are times when even the Cohen must proclaim an individual to be Mitzorah.

This principle holds true with regards to our individual interactions as well. One must indeed take proper measures to confirm the accuracy of his discovery. This can be done by consulting with a “Teacher,” or “Friend.” However, after having taken the necessary measures to validate the harmful nature of a fellow’s offensive conduct, not only has passiveness lost all virtue, it in fact, becomes dishonorable and even sinful. It runs in complete contrast to the Biblical admonition: “Do not stand by your brother’s blood!” (Vayikra 19:16)

This message is highly apropos in our modern day and age when many, in the name of open mindedness, have a tendency of being extremely flexible and passive with regards to issues of morality and religious values.

Their progressive self is expressed in various forms of leniency regarding the sanctity of human life and other forms of higher Divine principles. They seem to have all the give when the skin, as it were, is off G-d’s back, yet, when the skin is off “their own” back – when someone steps on their toes, or crosses their will – all hell breaks loose. Gone is the generosity, flexibility and open-mindedness. They are as intransigent and unforgiving as can be.

This perhaps explains the mystery as to why our progressive and open-minded society is so permeated with divorce, road rage and abuse of all sorts.

We ought to take to heart the lesson offered to the Mitzorah in our Parsha: Humility begins (and ends) with ourselves. Flexibility and passivism are virtuous when they come at our own expense. They are meaningless and disgraceful when they come at the expense of someone else, especially at the expense of our Heavenly Father and His divine code of morality and holiness.

By our taking to heart the above lesson we will certainly improve our lives and that of the surrounding world both physically and spiritually and hasten thereby the coming of the righteous Moshiach BBA.