Teshuva
from Love and Fear
One of the most exalted teachings of Judaism is the concept of teshuva.
The belief that one's present or future need not be devastated by past mistakes
is one of the most important and uplifting ideas in Jewish thought. While it is
certainly true that there are actions whose ramifications are unchangeable[1], teshuva
does provide a cathartic cleansing of the soul which uplifts the penitent and
transforms the sinner into beloved friend of God. The Rambam’s poetic
description of the impact of teshuva is spiritually breathtaking:
Yesterday he was hated, distant, despised by
God, abhorred and loathed and cast far away; and today he is loved and desired
and close at hand; a friend"[2]
(Mishneh Torah, Laws of Teshuva 7:6)
A theological/ philosophical question emerges: What is the precise
effect of teshuva? Does the negative action vanish as if it never
happened, or is the negative behavior somehow retained and transformed?
The Talmud discusses this question:
Resh Lakish said:
Great is repentance, for because of it premeditated sins are accounted as
errors, as it is said: Return, O Israel, unto the Lord, thy God, for thou hast
stumbled in thy iniquity. ‘Iniquity’ is premeditated, and yet he calls it
‘stumbling.’ But that is not so! For Resh Lakish said that repentance is so
great that premeditated sins are accounted as though they were merits, as it is
said: “And when the wicked turneth from his wickedness, and doeth that which is
lawful and right, he shall live thereby!” That is no contradiction: One refers
to a case [of repentance] derived from love, the other to one due to fear. (Yoma
86b[3])
Here both sides of the "argument" are opinions of Rav Shimon
ben Lakish, better known as Resh Lakish. We are told that there is more than
one type of teshuva; one type is motivated by love, and the other by
fear. One type of teshuva transforms the sin into an accident, while the
other type transforms the sin into merit. Interestingly, in neither case does
the sinful action simply dissipate or disappear with the advent or completion
of repentance.
A careful reading of the text does not reveal which is which (the
text read: “there is no contradiction: One refers to a case [of repentance]
derived from love, the other to one due to fear”). However, logic would dictate that love is
associated with merit while fear is associated with accident. This logic is
"associative": love is greater than fear[4] and
meritorious behavior is surely greater than any accidental action; ergo,
teshuva motivated by love must render the act in question a merit while teshuva
motivated by fear causes sin to be redefined as accident.
This logic is clear in hindsight, but what brought Resh Lakish to this
understanding initially? More importantly, what is the intrinsic relationship
between love and merit, and fear and accident?[5]
What is the meaning of this relationship for us, as students/readers/potential
penitents? What is the spiritual dynamic which retrospectively turns a
rebellion against God into a meritorious deed? Furthermore, why would a
rebellion against God consequently be considered an accident simply because the
sinner becomes consumed with fear of God? How does this process work?
Of the two, the process
of turning a sin into a merit seems more daring and therefore more difficult to
explain. One would be tempted to say that the merit in question is the merit of
teshuva[6],
but this suggestion is untenable: Teshuva motivated by fear is also teshuva,
albeit of a somewhat less impressive variety, and should therefore yield the same
rewards. The merit of teshuva motivated by love must therefore be
independent of the act of teshuva per se, and must lie in a
different realm.
Rabbi Soloveitchik
posited that the different types if teshuva depend upon the attitude of
the individual – whether he sees his past misdeeds as a source of inspiration
for the future or as a mistake best forgotten. While this distinction seems
accurate – it does not necessarily correlate with fear and love.[7]
There is a teaching cited
in the name of the Chafetz Chaim which may provide a more direct correlation.
In The Path of the Just, Ramch”al points out that without God’s
incredible capacity for forgiveness mere “regret” would have no effect
whatsoever. Logically, remorse should, at most, impact future behavior, but is
powerless to “undo” prior deeds. In the Ramchal’s view, this is where the
Divine aspect of forgiveness comes into play. However, the Talmud also teaches
that a person may forfeit the merit of mitzvot he performed by later
regretting and rejecting these positive deeds:
Shimon
b. Yohai said: Even if he is perfectly righteous all his life but rebels at the
end, he destroys his former [good deeds], for it is said: “The righteousness of
the righteous shall not deliver him in the day of his transgression.”… Said
Resh Lakish: It means that he regretted his former deeds. (Kidushin 40b)
This teaching, codified
in the “Laws of Teshuva” of the Rambam, is what troubled Rav Elchanan
Wasserman: If regret can nullify good deeds, why can’t regret simply expunge
the bad as well? If regret is a spiritual dynamic which erases the past, why is
it selective? Rav Elchanan Wasserman posed this question to his teacher, the
Chafetz Chaim: Why does teshuva necessitate the intervention of Divine
compassion, rather than acting as an automatic mechanism for deleting the past?
The Chafetz Chaim explained that when a person repents, what they actually fear
is punishment. In fact, had they received “inside information” from above that
they will not be punished for this offense, the person would feel no need to
repent. People reject punishment, not sinful actions; the ramifications
of sin are frightening, not sin itself. The penitent (due to fear of
punishment) never really rejected the action – only the punishment. This is the reason that all teshuva
requires some degree of Divine compassion: God rescinds the sentence, repeals
the punishment, but also forgives the sinner for the action for which he should
have been punished. This also explains
the mechanics of repentance, providing the link between teshuva
motivated by fear and accidental transgression: As a result of God’s
compassion, a misdeed goes unpunished; this is also the case in unintentional
sins.
Rav Elchanan did not
accept this answer of his mentor, for it assumes that all teshuva is
motivated by fear.[8]
Rav Elchanan himself suggested that we consider various facets of sin and
adherence, taking into account both action and the impact such action has on
the relationship between man and God. When, for example, a person eats
non-kosher food, they have ignored the word of God and ingested spiritual
poison[9]. Teshuva
– expressing regret and accepting upon oneself not to repeat the action itself–
repairs the relationship but does not remove the spiritual toxins. Here is
where God’s compassion steps in: God eradicates the poison of the sin once the
relationship has been healed.
On the other hand,
fulfilling a positive commandment means fostering a relationship with God as
well as doing a good deed. When a person rejects their good deeds they destroy
the relationship. To give a harsh example: if a husband presents his wife with
flowers and declares that he does not love her, nor has he ever loved her, it
is unlikely that those flowers will end up in a vase. Similarly, Rav Elchanan
concludes that a good deed is of no value in the absence of a relationship[10].
This helps us understand
the first half of Resh Lakish’s dictum: Teshuva motivated by fear turns
the sin into an accident. Teshuva is the effort to mend the
relationship, and God’s compassion tends to the residual effects of the action
itself. However the second part of the dictum remains obscure. Why would teshuva
motivated by love transform a rebellion into a meritorious deed?
Another source may offer
some insight. Resh Lakish's attitude
toward teshuva should be considered in light of the fact that he himself
may have been the most important ba’al teshuva in the annals of
the Talmud and perhaps in all of Jewish history.[11] There is,
to be sure, a certain danger in interpreting an individual’s teachings and
opinions in light of the life and times the subject lived. We assume that our
spiritual heroes had the ability to transcend their subjective experience, and
that their opinions are not merely based on limited scope and experiences but
rather contain existential truths that make them timeless. Nonetheless, Resh
Lakish, being a “ba’al teshuva”, may have had a more profound
understanding of the process of teshuva than other sages. We would be
well-advised to be especially attentive to his expressions regarding teshuva,
and to carefully study his personal metamorphosis.[12]
In order to appreciate
the enormity of his return, we need to understand who Resh Lakish was.
According to the composite that emerges from various primary and secondary
sources, Resh Lakish’s early education was befitting a young Jewish man.[13] Later he
left his study and spent time as a circus performer, a gladiator, and
eventually became a thief and murderer[14] and
apparently leader of his “gang”.[15]
Perhaps the most amazing
tale is told in Pirkei D’Rebbi Eliezer:
Ben Azzai[16] said:
In order to understand the power of teshuva come and see from Rav Shimon
Lakish; he and his two companions [lived] in the hills and robbed and abused
anyone who passed their way. What did Rav Shimon do? He left his companions to
rob [by themselves] and returned to the God of his fathers with a full heart,
with fasting and prayer. He would arrive early every morning and evening
spending his time in the house of prayer in front of the Holy One blessed be
He. And spent all his days involved in learning Torah and gave gifts to the
poor. And he never returned to his previous nefarious ways, and his teshuva was
accepted.
The day he died his two former companions,
the robbers from the hills, died as well. Rav Shimon was placed in the treasure
of life (heaven) while the two companions were placed in the lower recesses of
hell. The two companions said to God; “Master of all worlds, you play
favorites! He who robbed with us was placed in heaven while we were sentenced
to the lower recesses of hell!” He responded, “He did teshuva while alive and
you did not”. [They said,] “Allow us and
we will do incredible teshuva”. He said, “Teshuva is only possible until the
day of death”. (Chapter 42, “Teshuva and Good Deeds”)
The extent of Rav
Shimon’s metamorphosis from gang member to righteous scholar is striking. The
Talmud describes the transitional moment:
One day R. Yochanan was bathing in the
Jordan, when Resh Lakish saw him and leapt into the Jordan after him. Said he
[R. Yochanan] to him, ‘Your strength should be for the Torah.’ — ‘Your beauty,’
he replied, ‘should be for women.’ ‘If you will repent,’ said he, ‘I will give
you my sister [in marriage], who is more beautiful than I.’ He undertook [to
repent]; then he wished to return and collect his utensils[17] but
could not. Subsequently, [R. Yochanan] taught him Bible and Mishnah, and made
him into a great man.
This description, which almost sounds like a comedy of errors, describes
the moment that Rav Shimon returned to the Jewish community. From a distance he
saw a figure bathing in the Jordan River; mistakenly he thought he had spied on
an attractive woman. Accordingly he performed an impressive leap, and landed in
the river right near his prey. Much to his shock, he had actually seen a
good-looking rabbi from afar, not an attractive woman.[18]
The exchange between them seems obscure: Rav Yochanan says, “your
strength[19] should be better employed
for learning Torah”, indicating that he recognizes this wayward member of the
community. Resh Lakish’s retort sounds as if his only regret is that he would
have preferred finding a beautiful woman rather than a sharp- tongued rabbi.
Yet this simple exchange was the beginning of a great relationship, and paved
the way for the emergence of an exemplary scholar, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish.
Something seems missing, though; where is the spiritual upheaval? Where
is the soul searching, introspection, self-analysis? Where is the internal
change? Resh Lakish’s reason for this decision does not seem terribly lofty.
After all, his motivation was an attractive woman, Rav Yochanan’s available
sister. The entire description seems disappointing: A major life change to “get
the girl” doesn’t seem to be the type of teshuva that has the capacity
to reach the very throne of God.
But if we pay careful attention to the words of Rav Yochanan perhaps we
can learn something profound about teshuva. He says (initially) two
words: “chaylech l’oraita”- use your strength for Torah. With great
simplicity Rav Yochanan reveals the highest level of teshuva – the use
of all of one’s capabilities in the service of God. He doesn’t say ‘reject who
you were’ – rather, ‘transform who you were’.
In the aftermath of this meeting we are told that Resh Lakish attempted
to return to the other side of the river, but he could not, as if he no longer
had the strength and dexterity to perform the sort of feat which he performed
moments before. Perhaps teshuva motivated by ulterior motives creates an
individual who sees Teshuva as a total rejection of who he once
was. Rashi explains that merely
accepting upon himself Torah rendered him unable to make impressive leaps
anymore. At this point, he is not yet described as a learned or great man. He
has only gone so far as to merely accept upon himself a plan of action.
We may conclude that this is a description of an inferior type of teshuva
– motivated by mundane desires, coupled with a rejection of personality. Yet
Rav Yochanan gave him the key to elevated teshuva: “Use your strength
for Torah”.
The continuation of the Talmud’s narrative is tragic; it illustrates the power of words and the
capacity we have to hurt one another:
Now, one day there was a dispute in the
schoolhouse [with respect to] a sword, knife, dagger, spear, hand-saw and a
scythe — at what stage [of their manufacture] can they become unclean? When
their manufacture is finished. And when is their manufacture finished? R.
Yochanan ruled: When they are tempered in a furnace. Resh Lakish maintained:
When they have been furbished in water. Said he to him: ‘A robber knows his
trade.’ Said he to him, ‘And wherewith have you benefited me: there [as a
robber] I was called Master, and here I am called Master.’ ‘By bringing you
under the wings of the Shechinah,’ he retorted. R. Yochanan therefore felt
himself deeply hurt, [as a result of which] Resh Lakish fell ill. His sister
[sc. R. Yochanan's, the wife of Resh Lakish] came and wept before him: ‘Forgive
him for the sake of my son,’ she pleaded. He replied: ‘Leave thy fatherless
children. I will preserve them alive.’ ‘For the sake of my widowhood then!’
‘And let thy widows trust in Me,’ he assured her. Resh Lakish died, and R.
Yochanan was plunged into deep grief.[20] Said
the Rabbis, ‘Who shall go to ease his mind? Let R. Elazar b. Pedat go, whose
disquisitions are very subtle.’ So he went and sat before him; and on every
dictum uttered by R. Yochanan he observed: ‘There is a Baraitha which Supports
you.’ ‘Are you as the son of Lakisha?’ he complained: ‘when I stated a law, the
son of Lakisha used to raise twenty-four objections[21], to
which I gave twenty-four answers, which consequently led to a fuller
comprehension of the law; whilst you say, "A Baraitha has been taught
which supports you:" do I not know myself that my dicta are right?’ Thus
he went on rending his garments and weeping, ‘Where are you, O son of Lakisha,
where are you, O son of Lakisha;’ and he cried thus until his mind was turned.
Thereupon the Rabbis prayed for him, and he died.[22]
Bava Metziah 84a
It is overwhelming
how three (in Aramaic five in English) words could destroy two lives and leave
many more victims. Rav Yochanan surely did not intend to insult or harm is
friend and colleague – indeed as soon as he understands that Resh Lakish was
hurt by his words Rav Yochanan became depressed and ill.[23]
Despite all these years as a committed Jew and scholar – the pain of Rav
Yochanan dredging up his sordid past was overwhelming for Resh Lakish. Rav
Yochanan most likely wanted to impress on the other students that when it comes
to the area of weapons, Resh Lakish was the expert.[24]
However his choice of words[25],
which may have been said in a humorous or ironic manner were devastating.[26]
It is
however a passing comment which a depressed Rav Yochanan makes, which may clarify
for us the power of Teshuva. When the
other scholars see the condition that Rav Yochanan is in, they correctly
observe that they need to replace Resh Lakish.[27]
They bring an able scholar who is ridiculed by Rav Yochanan for being a
sycophant. When the competent Rav Elazer ben Padat supported the teachings of
Rav Yochanan, he was dismissed as being unnecessary. But more than unnecessary,
he was told that he could not compare to Resh Lakish[28].
For Resh Lakish attacked every idea that Rav Yochanan put forward. This is why
he was loved. Rav Yochanan did not need students who agreed with everything he
said – rather the student who could generate an attack was cherished. For when
thesis and antithesis collide an enriched synthesis is the result.
An
incredible observation emerges, the reason Rav Yochanan loved Resh Lakish was
for his attacking, aggressive style. It was the ruffian in Resh Lakish that he
loved, the ruffian with one caveat, that he channel his attacking style for the
use of Torah not for the sake of money, intimidation or fear. “Use your
strength for Torah “chaylech loraita”. Moreover the word chaylech doesn’t merely mean
strength – the connotation is from the realm of soldiering, use your attacking
skills in a Beit Midrash and not on an abandoned dark road. Rav Yochanan
encourages the wayward Shimon ben Lakish not to abandon who he was – rather to
channel his gifts in the service of Torah – to become a soldier in the army of
God.[29]
We noted
that initially, that before Resh Lakish had learned and became “a great man” he
rejected who he was, perhaps embarrassed by his previous exploits he rejects
that part of his personality. He can no longer leap to the “other side” – he
has lost the agility and strength to leap and the other side is a place rejected,
a place which represents the person he no longer wishes to be. However we now
know that over the years Rav Yochanan brought out and nurtured the perceived
darker side of Resh Lakish’s character and taught him to use them in the
service of God. This is what Teshuva
motivated by love of God is about – not a rejection of the past rather an
elevation of the past motivated and punctuated by deep love of God.
There is an
obscure passage in the Jersualem Talmud which bears out this idea in remarkable
fashion.
Rav Isi[30]
was captured by a gang. Rav Yochanan[31]
said, “Wrap the dead in his shrouds” {i.e., there is no hope for him). Rav
Shimon ben Lakish said, “I will or be killed[32](for
his release), I will go and return him with my strength.” He went and
negotiated [his release] and brought him back. (Yerushalmi Terumot 8:4 page
46b)
In this remarkable passage we witness the
fusion of the former highwayman and present sage: Rather than rejecting his
past, he uses it-- not to take life but to preserve life. This heroic action is
undertaken by Rav Shimon ben Lakish the Rabbi – who held human life with great
esteem; Shimon the robber never would have been interested in a mission with no
payoff. But Shimon the Rabbi never would have succeeded at this mission had his
youthful years not been spent honing his skills of sword and mayhem.[33]
This life-saving act transpired because the
robber became a rabbi. Such is teshuva motivated by love of God: It
allows the sinner to transform himself, the sinful behavior of the past becoming
something positive when seen through the prism of new context and purpose. When
Rav Shimon underwent a metamorphosis, and now served God exclusively through
love, his former transactions became transposed well into meritorious action.[34]
Had Rav Shimon never learned to use a sword, had he not known how robbers think
and act, Rav Isi never would have been liberated. Rav Isi was saved due to Rav
Shimon’s misspent youth, which in retrospect, became the foundation for future
meritorious action.
Whether or not his own experiences changed or
enhanced Resh Lakish’s perspective on the laws of teshuva is a question
we cannot answer.[35]
But his personal experience certainly serves as a model of the possibilities of
teshuva, one where mistakes of the past become reinterpreted as a
foundation for mitzvot in the future. We can certainly imagine Resh Lakish,
sitting alone in the Beit Midrash the night after Rav Isi was liberated. The
celebration of the improbable rescue had ended, and now Resh Lakish is alone
with his thoughts. The greatest Rabbi of the age had given up the prisoner for
dead, because the greatest Rabbi did not himself know how to handle a weapon.
On the other hand the former bandit- circus performer- gladiator did know how
to use a weapon and how to speak with some degree of intimidation in
negotiations for the release of his colleague. Such is teshuva motivated
by love; the use of all of ones skills and experience in the single-minded
attempt to serve God. Such teshuva turns sins into merits.
[1] The Sages
described this concept with the verse from Kohelet (1:15): “That which is
crooked cannot be made straight; and that which is wanting cannot be numbered”.
See Mishna Sukka 2:6, Chagiga 1:6, 9b, Yevamot 22b.
[2] See
Maharal, Netivot Olam, Netiv HaTeshuva Chapter 2
[3] See Midrash Rabbah – Bamidbar 10:1.
[4] See
Rambam, “Laws of Teshuva” 10th Chapter - Rabbi Soloveitchik notes that the
Rambam does not mention the teaching of Resh Lakish regarding the two types of teshuva,
although he does speak of relating to God via love as the culmination of the
ten-chapter discussion of teshuva. Rabbi Soloveitchik therefore posited
that the Rambam’s entire book of teshuva should be studied along these
lines– the earlier chapters as a discussion of teshuva by fear and the
later ones of Teshuva by love. See Michel Shurkin, Harare Kedem section
37, pp. 78-80
[6] This would assume that teshuva is a mitzvah,
which is a thesis not universally accepted. See Rambam’s Laws of Teshuva
1:1, and commentaries, notably the Avodat Hamelech by Rabbi Menachem Krakowsky,
and the Minchat Chinuch Mitzvah Section 364.
[9]According to tradition, eating non-kosher food causes timtum
halev--spiritual confusion. See Rabbenu Bachya on Shmot 23:19.
[10] See Rav
Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin in Ha’amek Davar, Bamidbar 15:39, and Rav
Yitzchak Hutner, Pachad Yitzchak-Pesach, Ma’amar 7, section 3 and Ma’amar 53,
section 5. Presumably the non-believer who performs a good deed is rewarded –
not for doing a “mitzvah” but for doing a good deed. The difference may be if
the reward is received in this world or the next. Mitzvot are generally
rewarded in the world to come (see Kiddushin 39b), while good deeds may be
rewarded in this world. See Brachot 7a, Seforno on Dvarim 7:9
[11] Generally everyone’s first choice for most celebrated
ba’al teshuva is Rabbi Akiva, although according to Rabbenu Tam
technically the term ba’al teshuva would be inappropriate for Rabbi
Akiva who, though ignorant, was always a practicing Jew. See Tosfot on Ketuvot
62b (“D’hava”). For more on Rabbi Akiva see my comments below on page ??
Chapter 18.
[12] In a
lecture given on Parshat Bo -January
10, 1976 Rabbi Soloveitchik made a similar point, as recorded in notes persevered
from that lecture: “We find one important thing lacking with Rabbi Yochanan. He
never had the experience of sin and teshuvah. He had always lived a
saintly life. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, on the other hand, originally was a
sinner, rather an underworld personality, who fortunately came under the
influence of Rabbi Yochanan and rose to great heights. Rabbi Yochanan could not
understand Resh Lakish's position, much as we may not be able to understand why
a person turns to drugs or to alcohol.”
[13] This is Rabbenu Tam’s understanding. See Tosfot Bava
Metziah 84a (“Iy Hadart”). Rabbenu Tam writes that Resh Lakish had studied and
then rejected Judaism, becoming a robber, before beginning his studies with Rav
Yochanan. His early education would account for the occasions when Resh Lakish
has different traditions from his mentor Rav Yochanan. See Tosfot Yevamot 57a
Tosfot Eruvin 65b.
[14] Gittin 47a : “Resh Lakish once sold himself to the Lydians. He
took with him a bag with a stone in it, because, he said, it is a known fact
that on the last day they grant any request [of the man they are about to kill]
in order that he may forgive them his murder. On the last day they said to him,
‘What would you like?’ He replied: ‘I want you to let me tie your arms and seat
you in a row and give each one of you a blow and a half with my bottle.’ He
bound them and seated them, and gave each of them a blow with his bag which
stunned them. [One of them] ground his teeth at him. ‘Are you laughing at me?’ He
said. ‘I have still half a bag left for you.’ So he killed them all and made
off.”
[16] This tradition, reported in the name of Ben Azzai,
creates an historical problem: According to our understanding, Ben Azzai died
long before Resh Lakish was born. One of the two figures in question is
mistakenly placed in this story. Being that we know from other sources that
Resh Lakish was a criminal, we may safely assume that that part of the
tradition is accurate, and it must have been reported in the name of Ben Azzai erroneously.
See comments of Rav Dovid Luria to Pirkei D’rebbi Eliezer.
[17] The Aramaic
word is maney, literally meaning utensils, but the contextual meaning is
most likely “clothing”, which is the translation found in the Artscroll
Shottenstein edition. Steinzaltz also renders it “clothing”; indeed, this word
is used later on in the same passage where is says that Rav Yochanan tore his maney
– there in context it certainly means clothing. The Soncino translation
renders it “weapons”.
[18] The attractiveness of Rav Yochanan was legendary. The
Talmud a few lines before this story tells us that he did not have a beard –
yet he would stand in front of the mikva and bless the woman that their
children should be as attractive as him.
[20] Subsequently Rav
Yochanan apparently entertained the idea of learning with the son of Resh
Lakaish but was rebuffed by his sister - On another occasion R. Yochanan met the young son
of Resh Lakish sitting and reciting the verse, … R.
Yochanan lifted up his eyes and stared at him, whereupon the boy's mother came
and took him away, Saying to him, (the boy) ‘Go away from him, lest he do unto
you as he did unto your father’ (Taanit 9a)
[22] The Rabbis
prayed for mercy, which God in His infinite wisdom interpreted as death.
Regarding the permissibility of prayer for someone’s death see Kethubot 104a, Nedarim 40a and the comments of the Ran. The Oruch
Hashulchan rules like the Ran, while Rav Moshe Feinstein limits the scope
of the Ran’s ruling see Igret Moshe Choshen Mishpat volume 2
section 74.
[23] The Talmud reports that on another occasion Rav
Yochanan caused the demise of a scholar due to his perceived slight – see Bava
Kamma117a. in that instance Rav Yochanan did pray and Rav Kahana returned to
the living.
[24] Rav Yochanan
may have been a smith, he is called on occasion bar Napcha which means
smith, alternatively his father was a smith or the term is a euphemism for his
beauty. See Rashi Sanhedrin 96a
[25] One is not permitted to remind a Baal Teshuva of
their previous nefarious deeds see Bava Metziah 58b. Perhaps Rav Yochanan was
focusing on the positive aspects of the former thief utilizing his knowledge to
teach Torah.
[26] We do
find the emphasis Rav Yochanan put on the crime of robbery in his lessons with
Resh Lakish, see Midrash Rabbah -
Ecclesiastes III:12
R.
Yochanan said: It refers to the peculiarity of robbery; because R. Simeon b.
Lakish said in the name of R. Yochanan: For instance when the measure of
iniquities is full, which accuses first of all [before the
judgment-throne
of God]? Robbery
[28] See
Yevamot 72b After he went out, R.
Yochanan said to Resh Lakish: I observed that the son of Pedat was sitting and
making expositions like Moses in the name of the Almighty. ‘Was this his’? Resh
Lakish replied.’It is really a Baraitha’. ‘Where’, the first asked ‘was it
taught’? — ‘In Torath Kohanim’. He went out and learned it in three days; and
was engaged in making deductions and drawing conclusions from it for a period
of three months.
[32] Skoloff, in A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian
Aramaic (Bar Ilan University Press, 1990, page 487) translates this phrase
“before I kill and am killed”. A modern English colloquial usage would be “over
my dead body.” See page 386 and footnotes regarding the description of Rav
Isi’s captors: בספנוסהas “an act of treachery”.
[33] In the same
section a second tale relates how Resh Lakish once interceded and liberated
some money which had been stolen from Rav Yochanan.
[34] The Talmud in Bava Metziah 85b reports that Resh
Lakish made marks by the cemetery of graves of the righteous – in order to
insure that Kohanim not become defiled. One wonders if this was some sort of
rectification for previous behavior.
[35] In San. 58b Resh Lakish teaches that even to lift
one’s hand to strike a neighbor is criminal. Is this motivated pronouncement
somehow motivated by his past?
