INSIGHT
5757 - #22, 23
DEFINING SINAT
CHINUM
PART ONE
T.B.
Yoma 9b informs us that the First Beit HaMikdash
was destroyed because of violations of the three cardinal
sins of Judaism: avoda zara, gilui arayot and shefichat
damim (idolatry, incest/adultery and murder). The
Second Beit HaMikdash, though, is indicated as
being destroyed solely because of one failing: sinat
chinum. As such, the gemara argues that we
must understand the evil of sinat chinum to be
equal to the combined evil of the above three cardinal
sins. In light of the fact that the exile that followed
the destruction of the First Temple lasted only 70 years
while our present exile is still ongoing, the argument
can further be made that sinat chinum is even
worse. What, though, is sinat chinum?
Sinat
chinum is usually translated as causeless or baseless
hatred. Literally the term means "free hatred"
and so the general translation: it is hatred that is
free, that just flows without cause. The Talmud, though,
specifically ties, to this term, the notion of hiding
one's hatred. Indeed, seforim such as Kad
Hakemach1 and Ahavat Yisrael,2 connect sinat
chinum to the transgression of hating a fellow Jew in
one's heart,3 which is understood by many, including Rambam,
Mishneh Torah, Hilchot De'ot 6:5,6, as specifically
applying when one maintains hatred hidden, solely in
one's heart. It would seem to be the hiding of one's
hatred, not the lack of reason for the hatred, that is
the basis of sinat chinum. Yet, the language of
this term, literally "free hatred", would seem
to present no support for this understanding.
The above equation of the Talmud also
demands contemplation. Many simply understand the gemara
as asserting that the concern for the ethical, for the
relationship between man and man, should override the
concern for the ritual, for the relationship between man
and G-d.4 Thus hatred among people is deemed worse
than even the breach of the three cardinal sins.5 Yet included among
these three cardinal sins is the greatest violation of
another human being: murder.6 Clearly, the
violations preceding the destruction of the First Temple
included transgressions bein adam l'chaveiro and
with murder, there must have been hatred and enmity.7 It is not sina,
hatred, that is the reason for the Second Temple's
destruction but specifically sinat chinum, a
certain type of hatred. Furthermore, as the gemara
explains, this is a hatred that can also be accompanied
by good deeds and proper conduct between individuals.8 What is this
unique type of sina and why is it so problematic?
An investigation of the command, lo
tisnah et achicha bilvavecha, "do not hate your
brother in your heart," reveals a disagreement among
the commentators as to the exact definition of this
command. As mentioned, Rambam defines a violation as
occurring when one maintains this hatred hidden, in one's
heart. As such, a violent act against another, while
forbidden for other reasons, since it reveals this hatred
does not involve a violation of this specific mitzvah.
Shiltot D'Rav Achai Gaon, Shilta 27, though
defines the command as meaning "even in one's
heart". As such, a violent act motivated by hatred
would also violate this command. Rambam's view would seem
to represent the majority voice, yet, the sources from Chazal
seem to be contradictory. While clearly there are sources
that stress the specific evil of hidden hatred -- when
one acts as a friend while really being an enemy9 -- there are other
sources that clearly point to a violation of lo tisnah
even when the hate is revealed.10
The difficulty with the approach of the
Shiltot, though, lies in the original verse itself. Vayikra
19:17 continues: hoche'ach tochi'ach et
amitecha, rebuke your neighbour. As Ramban
explains, if all hatred is forbidden, then this second
part of the verse simply constitutes another commandment.
Yet, it is one verse and as such Ramban agrees with
Rambam that the combined command of the verse is: do not
hate your neighbour in your heart but rebuke him
and inform him of your feelings. It is hiding the hatred
that is the verse's focus.
BeDerech Tovim 7:11, note 15, though,
explains that even according to the Shiltot, it is
possible to see the verse as one connected command: do
not simply hate but act correctly upon your hate, inform
your neighbour of your feelings and correct the misdeed.
A close reading of Rambam, Sefer Hamitzvot, Lo Ta'aseh
302 actually indicates that this approach can be
incorporated in Rambam's view as well. The issue is not
whether the hate is hidden or not but rather how the hate
is directed. The violation according to Rambam occurs not
only if someone acts as a friend when really an enemy but
even when it is clear that there is enmity. The problem
of lo tisna is not acting upon the hate: not
informing the other of your feelings. While an act of
violence yields other transgressions, it does not
constitute a violation of lo tisna in that the
hate is communicated. The Shiltot, though, demands not
only communication but correct communication thus an act
of violence still represents a violation of lo tisna.
Sinat chinum, thus, is not causeless
hatred but rather purposeless hatred. The concern is not
why we hate -- its cause -- but rather what we do with
the hate -- our response. It is "free hate"
because it lacks direction. In Part Two, we will
investigate why this is such a great evil.
PART TWO
The
concern of the Torah in the commandment of lo tisna,
not to hate a fellow Jew in one's heart,1 is not the cause
of the hate but rather the response to the hate. As
indicated by the command of hoche'ach tochi'ach,
to rebuke your neighbour,2 one is not allowed to simply hide one's
hate but must communicate this hate to the other person.3 It is how one acts
when feeling hatred that is the essence of this mitzvah.
In connecting the command of lo tisna with the
concept of sinat chinum, we can conclude that the
correct translation of this concept is not "baseless
hatred" but rather "purposeless hatred".
It is not the source of the hatred, its lack of reason,
that marks the extreme evil of sinat chinum but
rather our response to the hatred, its lack of purpose
and direction. Hate ultimately is an emotion arising
within the human being, sometimes with clear cause and
sometimes without; it a natural consequence of human
existence. As with all the lessons of Torah, it is how we
respond to the general existence of mankind that marks
the Jew.
A review of the literal translation of sinat
chinum actually seems to support a translation of
"purposeless hatred". Literally, the term means
"free hatred". What does it mean when something
is free? When receiving something for free, a person
acquires an object without undertaking any
responsibility. Acquisition of an object usually does
mean the acceptance of a responsibility, i.e. one has to
pay. Acquisition for free does not mean that there was no
reason for the acquisition - a gift often has a reason -
but that the acquisition created no responsibility. The mitzvah
of lo tisna ultimately informs us that the feeling
of hatred demands a response; the feeling creates a
responsibility to act, as prescribed by Torah, in
reaction to this feeling of hatred. Sinat chinum
is, thus, a "free hatred", a hatred so vile
that it does not foster in us this Torah-demanded
responsibility to act.
Hatred is ultimately the human emotional
reaction to that which offends us and, as such, in
itself, hatred is neither good nor bad. The nature of the
stimulus which causes us to hate, which offends us,
obviously is a factor in our determination of whether the
hatred is acceptable or not. We are indeed called upon to
hate evil.4 The mitzvot of lo tisna and choche'ach
tochi'ach, though, further inform us that the
determination of hate as positive or negative is also
dependent on how we respond to the hate. To be positive,
our emotion of hate must also demand of us that we
confront evil and attempt to correct the wrong.
Remarkably, in that process, we also gain knowledge of
the true enemy, the true nature of the offensive
stimulus, and the essence of the hate itself also
changes.
Malbim, Vayikra 19:17 points out that
rebuke is only possible when the one rebuking is also
willing to receive rebuke. The process of rebuke is
ultimately a dynamic one; the interchange is not one way
but flows in both directions.5 As we challenge
our neighbour who has offended us, he or she will
respond: perhaps admitting their wrong, perhaps
justifying their actions, perhaps challenging our
critique. Only one who in turn can accept rebuke will
allow the dynamics of this process to unfold to the
greatest extent possible. And the only way that can be
achieved is in recognition that the enemy is not the
person but evil - the evil within others and the evil
within oneself. Choche'ach tochi'ach is not just a
call to confront evil, it is a charge to recognize the
true nature of evil and to accept the commitment to fight
it in all of its manifestations, including within
oneself. The hate is transferred from the person to the
evil itself -- and as the evil is defeated through
knowledge and growth, the hate subsides.
As presented in T.B. Brachot 10a,
Rabbi Meir, in response to attacks by a band of thieves,
prayed for their destruction. His wife Bruria informed
him that he should curse their actions not them. Rabbi
Meir agreed and prayed for them to repent, for their evil
actions to be destroyed, and in the end, the thieves
repented. Maharsha explains that the prayer for
the thieves to repent only worked because Rabbi Meir
included himself in that prayer, he prayed for himself
also to repent. The initial response of hate is usually
directed against another individual. Yet, another
individual is not the true offensive stimulus that we are
encountering; it is the evil action, it is evil itself
that offends. Hate is obviously wrong if it
is caused by good, if we are offended by righteousness
and correct behaviour. Yet, hate can also be problematic
even when initiated by that which is truly offensive. Lo
tisna and choche'ach tochi'ach cause us to
transfer our hate from the person to the evil itself -
and through the process and new joint effort to defeat
evil, the powerful emotion of hate, only positive when it
is temporary and motivating direct action, subsides. Sinat
chinum, though, is a hate that insists on gluing the
focus to the person. It is furthermore a hate that is
stoked, that the individual continues to feed. It is a
hate that challenges lo tisna and choche'ach
tochi'ach themselves. Ultimately, sinat chinum
with its focus on the person to be hated, veers one away
from the true enemy -- evil itself -- because its goal is
not the defeat of evil but the protection of self.
Rabbi Shimshon Raphael Hirsch, Horeb 2:33
categorizes the sins that led to the destruction of the
Second Temple as "self-seeking". One of the
great tragedies of religion is that it can create
self-righteousness as individuals use their observance6 to project
themselves as closer to the Deity. For self-righteousness
to exist, though, there must always be an object of
comparison, the one that I am better than. Maharsha
explains that in the time of the Second Temple, cliques
were formed - there were my friends and there were my
enemies. Evaluation was comparative and so evolved sinat
chinum - to gain value in myself, there had to be the
other that I hated.
Choche'ach tochi'ach ultimately
challenges this concept. In the dynamics of proper tocha'cha,
all individuals join together in fighting the true enemy,
evil - within oneself as well as within the other.
Humanity is joined in fighting this enemy. The one who
cannot receive rebuke and, as such, cannot properly give
it, the one who violates lo tisna, though, wishes
to maintain the other individual as the object of hate.
Humanity is divided. The goal is not to lead the
individual into a confrontation with evil but rather to
maintain the individual's self-perception as better than
the other. In fact, correct action upon the hate is
avoided because it may lead to self-critique. Is it no
wonder why sinat chinum is so vile?
Rabbi Benjamin Hecht e-mail
Notes (Part One)
1 Rabbeinu
Bachya, Kad HaKemach, "Sinat Chinum".
2 Rabbi Yisrael
Meir Kagan (the Chafetz Chaim), Kuntras Ahavat Yisrael
in Kol Kitvei Chafetz Chaim Hashalem, volume 1.
3 Vayikra 19:17.
4 This argument is
deemed to be supported by the stress various commentators
place on idolatry in regard to the destruction of the
first Temple. See, for example, the above noted Kad
HaKemach, including Rabbi Chavel's notes #16
and "Evel", #120.
5 Within this
argument, reference is also made to Maharal,
Chiddushei Aggadot, Gittin 55b. As we shall see, the
reduction of this comparison to the issue of the ethical
versus the ritual, of concern for bein adam l'chaveiro,
the relations between man and man, versus the concern for
bein adam l'Makom, the relation between man and
G-d, is just simplistic.
6 See, further, Rambam,
Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Rotze'ach 4:9.
7 The
argument can also be made, based upon the gemara
in Yoma, that, in fact, it was the positive aspects of
the relationship between the Jewish People and G-d, bein
adam l'Makom, that shielded the nation from greater
tragedy as a result of the destruction of the first
Temple. See, further, Maharsha, T.B. Shabbat 139b.
8 Indeed,
if the problem with sinat chinum is simply that it
leads to incorrect behaviour between individuals, which
in the extreme would include shfichat damim,
murder, then the violations of murder in the first Temple
period, by definition, must compare to the sinat
chinum of the second Temple period.
9 Our gemara
in Yoma clearly supports this view. See also Maharsha.
The classic source for the extreme evil in acting as a
friend to someone when really you feel enmity, is Bereishit
Rabbah 84:9 which praises Yosef's brothers for being
honest about their feelings although it still does
critique the hatred itself.
10 See T.B.
Nedarim 65b; T.B. Sotah 3a.
Notes (Part Two)
1 Vayikra 19:17.
2 In the same verse
of Vayikra 19:17.
3 See Insight
5757 - #22 for a further discussion on this topic.
4 See Mishlei
8:13. See also T.B. Pesachim 113b.
5 See, also, Ramban,
HaEmek Davar, Meshech Chachmah on this verse.
6 Note how T.B.
Yoma 9b states that the people were involved in
Torah, mitzvot and gemilat chassidim.
Return to top
|