Dear Teacher,
I’m only in the 5th grade, and you aren’t even my teacher. But you taught me something that I’ll probably remember for a long time.
I don’t think you saw me watching when you fell in the cafeteria. I was eating my lunch with my friends, and some water must have spilled near the sinks, because you slid right across the floor and fell with an embarrassing thud.
All the teachers rushed around to see if you were OK. I looked away, ashamed to see a grown-up fall like a regular kid.
And then, as you got up, I heard you say a phrase I’d never heard before: “It should be a kapparah.”
Now, I knew the word “kapparah.” That means “atonement.” I thought hard about what you said, and realized that you were taking your embarrassment and your hurt, and saying that you hoped, and prayed, sort of, too, that God would take it and use it to erase something wrong that you had once done. Maybe something by mistake. Or maybe something on purpose?
I didn’t know grown-ups did things wrong on purpose. Especially you. You’re such a good person. But my mother told me once that nobody’s perfect. Only God is perfect. So I guess that’s what you meant.
Anyway, I thought that was a really neat way of dealing with what happened to you. Maybe I’ll copy that when something wrong happens to me that I can’t fix or change. And maybe I’ll take it with me for when I become a grown-up.
So I just wanted to say thank you for that. It changed the way I think and really helped me.
Sincerely,
Rochel Indich, 1985
5th grader at the Hebrew Academy of Cleveland
I've heard this approach before and I'm not sure what to think about it. The approving part of me says "Judaism is all about suffusing the mundane (hol) with holiness (kadosh)." This is a way to take an accidental slip and fall and instead of ignoring it, blaming the Janitor, or railing against an uncaring fate I turn it (or at least my reaction to it) into something holy.
The part that disapproves says "This is trying to buy off God the Cosmic Accountant. It says "God, for my sins I know I am supposed to experience pain and suffering in the quantity of X. Please take that amount and reduce it by Y, the amount of pain and suffering I just had."
My teachers taught me that when God sends us suffering because of our sins, the purpose is to draw our attention to those sins and make us repent. (There are other reasons God sends us suffering, but I don't want this comment to be longer than the original post.)
To me, the generic request to take generalized, apparently purposely suffering and apply it against my sin account without trying to link that to teshuvah (repentance) defeats the purpose for which the suffering might have been sent.
(This is related to a general observation about the difference I have experienced between preparing for the High Holidays in heterodox and Orthodox communities. Bli neder (without making any promises) I will try to post an article about that on my blog and link to it here.
Turns out I alread wrote something related to the post I promised above. Also above, the phrase apparently purposely suffering was supposed to be apparently purposeless suffering.
Larry, but why must it be either/or? Can't the thought of atonement spark a process by which one considers where that atonement might get applied?
Also, in your post, which attitude would be more likely to exist within Orthodox circles and which within heterodox circles?
Finally, I think this belief is deeply meaningful in terms of a loving God, with nothing going unnoticed and no pain too insignificant.
OK, here's my part of the original email about my experience of the difference between living among the heterodox and the Orthodox. Some background – a friend had sent me a note asking me to forgive him for any harm he might have done, intentionally or unintentionally, by omission or commision, to me. No examples were given. My first attempt was to deflect the question by pointing him to the Agnostic's Prayer, aka the Possibly Proper Death Litany. He refused to be deflected, so then I wrote him this (lightly edited to conceal personal details):
A number of years ago I used to spend significant
amounts of time during Elul thinking about many of my relationships – with
family, friends, and even co-workers. Where I thought there was a problem
that involved halachic infractions (usually respect related, or speaking
poorly of or about them) I would discuss it with them and try to reach both
forgiveness and accommodation. This was hard work, but it reaped rewards.
My non-Jewish and heterodox friends and coworkers often appreciated it, and
some would also talk about their deficiencies in behavior towards me and
that could change also.
I stopped a couple of years after moving to HP, because the process
completely freaked out every Orthodox person I tried it with. The accepted
norm is the kind of thing you said, which I hear as "If I did anything to
hurt you intentionally or not please forgive me – but don't tell me about
it, don't give me a chance to change it, and for goodness sake don't expect
me to have thought about how I hurt you – that's your job."
This perspective is not entirely fair. When dealing with feelings, I am
more likely to know if my feelings were hurt by you than you are. I have a
friend who issues a blanket statement (via internet) to her friends saying
"If I have hurt you, tell me about it and we'll figure out what to do so
you can forgive me." Sometimes after the discussion she decides that she
actually did nothing wrong, and occasionally this has put stress on a
previously fine relationship. But the intent is plainly to improve her
middot, and avoid repeating the sin in the future – which is after all a
key element in teshuvah.
On the other hand, while I may know best if you hurt my feelings, you know
best if you did things I didn't catch you at – whether speaking lashon
harah about me to others, theft, deceiving me with respect to commercial
matters, or whatever. (As I understand it there is something of a
machlochet with respect to whether one should ask forgiveness for lashon
hara when the victim doesn't know you said it – the risk of causing
emotional injury by revealing what you said has to be balanced against your
own need to be forgiven.)
Larry, but why must it be either/or? Can't the thought of atonement spark a process by which one considers where that atonement might get applied?
It can be both, but in your original post your 5th grade self never thought of it in terms of her teaching improving her middot, or doing teshuva. The thought process you described was entirely in terms of the Cosmic Accountant.
As I stated above, I don't condemn this approach, but I am wary about what lies beneath.
As far as my eye can see your approach is alive and well in the Orthodox world.
Again, I don't see these approaches as mutually exclusive. What my 5th grade self saw was elevating the mundane, retaining spirituality amid indignity, and remembering that God sees and cares about all pain. Repentance can be linked to that process, but even if it isn't, I believe it has great value.
Btw in my opinion saying "do you forgive me if I did anything" is akin to saying "I'm sorry if I hurt you." Bah. The Torah clearly states that one is obligated to appease someone he has hurt. That involves all the steps you mentioned.
I think "please forgive me for anything I may have done" is supposed to be for things I'm not aware of but you may be. Even if it refers to more than that, I don't see a problem with it in a good relationship, as long as both parties know that it comes with a sincere desire to change. In a close relationship we all do little annoying things and we don't want to list them all. If there's a specific issue that has to be worked out, obviously it has to be worked out and a vague apology for "anything" isn't enough (although it's best to work it out immediately and not wait for Rosh Hashanah or Yom Kippur).
Anyway, Larry, I'm impressed with your courage. It takes guts to discuss these things. I wonder if your Orthodox friends simply thought it was better for them to forgive you wholesale and spare you the confession. Of course, that doesn't absolve you of the obligation to correct the fault.
The Rambam says that we have to repent for our sins so that God knows we won't repeat them. Since God knows everything, that means we have to change ourselves so thoroughly that we really won't. A simple "sorry" doesn't suffice.
DG, what about 'little sins', like I regret having spoken sharply to family members, I will TRY to work on that, but I also realistically know it will happen again. Is that 'repentance' or just 'sorry'? Can it be sincere even if I know I can't fully correct the fault?
That's the sort of thing I was referring to. It's commonly said that part of the teshuva (repentance) process is committing to never committing the sin again. I used to have a problem with telling God "I won't do it again" because I knew perfectly well that I would, even if at the moment I didn't want to. Really, who was I kidding? Then I heard that what we have to do is not just make a commitment but actually change ourselves so that we keep the commitment. It makes a lot more sense to me, but I can't honestly say I've changed my ways since then. Nevertheless, that is what we're supposed to do.
As I see it, sincerely trying to work on something is all we can expect of ourselves. It's just that I think I personally could probably succeed a little more than I do if my sincerity level were a bit higher. Let's say (hypothetically) I have a bad habit of being late to work. Would I be as late as often if I were going to lose my job over it? Would I come on time if the first item on my work agenda were a meeting with someone who wanted to offer me a million dollars? I may be sincerely sorry every morning when I'm late, but am I sincere when my alarm goes off and I ignore it? We can push ourselves tremendously for things we care enough about (assuming we expect success as a result of the pushing).
Larry, as I understand it, your objection to God the Cosmic Accountant is to the idea that as long as you do lots of good things you can commit lots of sins and get off scot-free. (Let's ignore for now the detail of not knowing the value God places on each act.) Am I correct?
That's one aspect. There's an old joke about a businessman who is interviewing candidates for CFO. He asks the first one "How much is two plus two" and the guy answers 'four'. The businessman thanks him and asks for the next candidate. Same deal. The third candidate comes in 'How much is two plus two'. The candidate gets up, closes the door, comes around the desk to the businessman and in a low voice asks him "How much do you want it to be?'.
Pirke Avot 4:22 says in part " one hour of spiritual enjoyment of the World to Come is better than the entire life of this world" (*) I hear stories about how God sends the wicked good things in this world so that they won't have a claim on the world to come, or sends suffering to good people so they don't have to pay for their sins in the afterlife, and I think of that third accountant. That's not a good way to think of God, so I avoid accountancy metaphors.
(*) The other part says "one hour of repentance and good deeds in this world is better than the entire life of the World to Come". That isn't directly relevant to the rest of what I have t say.
Why isn't it a good way to think of God?
because it makes God seem devious, tricky, mean.
And I really think that if you really accept this concept, you need to accept it for the really bad things also, not just slipping in the cafeteria, but also becoming paralyzed in a car accident. It's just not the God I want to worship. – MP
I do, but not for a minor offense.
Thats not the God I want to worship either. I worship a God who utilizes both this world and the afterlife to right all wrongs, balance all ledgers, reward every good deed no matter how small, and punish our misdeeds with a healthy measure of compassion.
I see, not deviousness, but incredible justice and love.
I will add that I think this way when good things happen too. Maybe God is proud of me, is there a message here, etc.
Hm, I had only the vaguest idea until now of the idea of 'let it be an atonement'. I do like how the story models a constructive way to view something pointlessly embarrassing. My starting-6th-grader could definitely use some ideas for how to maintain a sense of dignity when silly things happen. Or even better, not to feel that her dignity is so fragile that it could be destroyed by a slip in the cafeteria (If only school HAD a cafeteria! Next week we go back to the dreaded packing of lunches!)
Then again, I would have to agree with Larry's idea that the point of atonement is that you should become conscious of the things you do and reflect on them, so I wouldn't REALLY want my daughter to think that she could 'pay off' some of her poor choices and actions with unrelated, accidental hurts. And I would not want her to think that her hurting herself or embarrassing herself in the cafeteria is tied to some other peccadillo she committed against her brother the day before, for instance.
But I have a big problem with Larry's idea here that God sends us suffering because of our sins. I do try to enforce the idea that actions have consequences, and that growing up means considering short- and long-term consequences. But I wouldn't want to put the onus for that on God.
We certainly can't know what sins any suffering are punishment for. And as Larry said, there are also other reasons for suffering, so we can't even know if something IS punishment. But you seem to be saying that you don't believe in Divine punishment at all, just natural consequences. For instance, if I steal, I may get a bad reputation and no one will trust me, but God will let me off the hook. Am I right?
You are right, I guess I don't believe in Divine punishment. I sometimes wish it existed, though.
"I would not want her to think that her hurting herself or embarrassing herself in the cafeteria is tied to some other peccadillo she committed against her brother the day before, for instance."
SBW: what would be so bad about that?
Also, why do you wish it existed?
DG: I certainly agree with you! Is it possible, do you think, that the bad rep and lack of trust IS God's punishment? (Or maybe part of it?)
What would be so bad about thinking that hurting herself or being embarrassed were a consequence of meanness to her brother the day before? It doesn't make sense in terms of 'real' causality (I know you view causality otherwise, i.e. God doing all of it). That is not so bad, I guess, just to me sort of a shame to get confused about what causes what in the worldly sense.
But more importantly I think it would make for a sense of pervasive guilt and responsibility when bad or BAD things happen. Sometimes bad things happen, and sometimes VERY BAD things happen, I don't want her to think she is responsible for random bad things that happen to her. Or to others. It strikes me as a way to set her up to be judging herself overly harshly, and also others–as in, "hmm, wonder if what just happened to them is a punishment for something they did". Too much punishment in all that.
Do you feel like it is ok if your kids always wonder if they did something wrong that produced whatever random things happen to them? There is a certain ethical vigilance I do try very much to cultivate, to help the kids consider as they do things whether they are good, kind and right things to do. But that's different than retroactively thinking that you had something bad happen because you did something wrong.
Always? No. Sometimes? You bet.
In my experience, when VERY bad things happen, people are not guided to wonder what they did to deserve it. It seems obvious that mostly good people trying to mostly live meaningfully could not possibly be afflicted with terrible suffering as punishment alone.
There we seek "other" reasons that Larry mentioned above.
But when little happen, it's really useful. Plus, since I don't believe anything is random, it makes sense to. I see it as kind of a little alarm clock, saying, "Hey, wake up. Live meaningfully."
I don't think I agree with you about people's reactions to the VERY bad things. I think people do then wonder what they've done. (And, of course, there are some absurd public statements about what other people have done wrong to cause natural disasters.)
Even with little things, I don't believe I can know what particular act of mine led to my slipping on the ice or losing $10. That doesn't mean it wasn't retribution for something. But God the Cosmic Accountant doesn't show us His books.
I know we're supposed to mend our ways when bad things happen, but we're actually supposed to mend our ways anyway. So maybe it'll "work" and maybe we'll just be better people.
I agree with DG. If something VERY bad happens, I get to wondering if it's a punishment for something and feel guilty. I would not want to encourage that in my children. To me it's 'magical thinking' and evokes unnecessary guilt.
Frankly it has never occurred to me that the little-bad things that happen would be any kind of retribution. Rather if I think about it at all, I think they might be the natural consequence of not being careful, or being in a hurry when I should have planned my time better, or not thinking ahead about how something might work out. So certainly the little-bad things that happen are themselves prods to rethink how I'm doing things, but not cosmically.
Without judging, I would have to say that people with a strong, healthy sense of faith do not perceive God as that vengeful.
Also, "atonement" and "punishment" are not necessarily the same thing.
Let me add that maybe the less obvious important thing here is that adults should model a readiness to accept that they have done something wrong, intentionally or not. So the teacher saying 'let it be an atonement' testifies to her recognition that she has done things that she regrets or would herself judge to be wrong.
True. So maybe it would be OK for our kids to have that mindset too? (Back to your example of your kids.)
Certainly I think kids should develop a recognition that they do and have done things that are wrong, and even wrongs they might not have meant to do. I know it's a powerful thing for my daughter when she sees me regret something, say I was wrong, wonder if I did something wrong, or apologize sincerely. But I don't like the idea of giving her the mindset that she can 'make up for' those things in a sort of random way by counting the little hurts she suffers against them.
So it's the idea of causality and Larry's 'cosmic accounting' that puts me off here. Not the idea that kids should think about what they have done wrong.
That's not really the concept. It's not like, if you fall, it's a little victory, because now something totally unrelated gets erased without you ever having to repent.
It's more like I stated above: I hurt myself, but it's not random. God cares about me. Maybe I mistakenly hurt someone else, and I don't even remember about it, and this hurt will somewhat mitigate that mistake.
Because there's another concept of "middah k'neged middah" – the "wake-up call" will be somehow related to what you did wrong, to give you a clue and help you link it to self-improvement.
But, truthfully, I do view God as a cosmic accountant. In a good way. No surprises there, I'm sure.
Ruchi, what would you say to a woman who found out her child has cancer and the woman told you that it was okay, it just means God cares about her and she probably hurt someone else and maybe doesn't remember it and the cancer will mitigate that mistake? Would you really accept that reasoning?
Also, we'd like to see God as a loving caring father. Loving and caring parents, never ever ever smack their kids a month later for something that happened last year in a totally random way. Imagine setting up a trap for your child to fall and scrape a knee and then explaining that this is because she spoke unkindly about someone last week. Is that really what our vision of God should be like? – MP
MP, I would be so horrified that she could correlate such an awful thing with such a minor mistake. I couldn't even imagine having such a bizarre conversation. See above about a healthy sense of faith.
To your second point, where you see a trap, I see a beautiful way out.
Sounds like there are two ways people are looking at it:
1. These things ARE the punishment for our sins.
2. (Ruchi's view) We will be punished for our sins anyway. These things LESSEN the punishment we will be getting later — possibly at a "discounted" rate (e.g., instead of 10 units of punishment in the next world, 5 units there and 3 here).
Yes. I think #2 nicely sums up the way I understand this concept.
I don't see how the two differ. You can't get 8 units of punishment instead of 10 if the other 2 aren't punishment for the sin…- MP
Ruchi- How do you judge what punishment is given to a "minor" mistake? And what if the mistake wasn't minor? Is the logic okay then? – MP
Sure you can. It's like if you get a tax refund for 2011, but you apply it toward 2012.
Thankfully, I'm not in charge of judging any offenses and punishments and atonements. I can only guess, based on what I know about God. One is that He loves us and wants us to succeed and is a fair judge and employs the trait of mercy in judgment.
If the mistake was not a mistake at all, but major and purposeful, then yes, it would be possible that it correlates, although I wouldn't ever make that guess aloud. I don't know God's plan.
Mp, to clarify about the parenting example, obviously that is poor parenting. A *punishment* should always fit the crime. Atonement can be random. Also, God/parent metaphors are useful only to a limited point, because human parents still suffer from frailty and imperfection whereas God doesn't.
If the mistake was not a mistake at all, but major and purposeful, then yes, it would be possible that it correlates, although I wouldn't ever make that guess aloud. I don't know God's plan.
If the premise is true, it is true for both the little things as for the big ones.
Also, why should I pay attention to where I'm going, under this philosophy? The more I fall, the better my Olam Habah will be.- MP
MP: Let me clarify my comment:
Instead of 10 units of punishment in the next world, 5 units of punishment there and 3 units of suffering here, with the 3 units "counting" as 5.
Ruchi: Still agree?
I believe the premise is true, and I believe that small offenses can be correlated with small mishaps, and major offenses can be correlated with major mishaps. But I don't believe that us humans can ever really know conclusively that something correlates. We can just guess.
What I don't believe is that God would repay a minor misdeed with a major tragedy.
Dg: I'm sorry, I didn't follow.
Mp: "God protects the simple" (Psalms) – but not the deliberately stupid.
Re: major tragedies. A person suffering from a crisis is asked by the Torah to search his deeds. If he finds none that make sense to correlate, he may conclude that it is not a punishment.
When I said "instead of 10 units of punishment in the next world, 5 units there and 3 here", MP understood me to mean that the suffering from the accident was the remaining 2. What I really meant was that the suffering from the accident was the "3 here" (not punishment at all) and God treats it as 5 so that the person never does suffer the other 2. (Obviously, all numbers are made up.)
Now is this still what you meant?
Oh. Not exactly.
I'll use an imperfect, but hopefully somewhat useful financial analogy.
Let's say this year you spent $10,000. And you earned $9,000. That's not good. You have a $1,000 shortfall.
Then, your great-aunt dies and leaves you $1,000.
It's painful that she died, but you're grateful that she did this act of kindness.
Would you say your great-aunt paid your mortgage? Your tuition? Bought your food? Not really. It's a generalized gift, applied to the bottom line.
I don't understand the analogy.
Ok. Forget the analogy.
Where I don't agree with your summary is that atonement is NOT necessarily a punishment for a specific sin. It can be like a bonus that you get at the end, for all your blood, sweat and tears.
Just reread the thread and I think I do agree with you.
Excellent post (truth is stranger than fiction).
Thanks Neil!
Did you actually write (and send?) this letter? Just lovely on so many levels.
I not only did so, at his request I printed it out and when my friend and his wife and their kids came over for 2nd day Rosh Hashana dinner we all talked about it.
Robin, welcome to the comment section 🙂
I think your comment referred to the original post, yes? If so, the answer is no. I just wrote it now, but from my childhood perspective. It really did make an impression on me. I think I remember which teacher it was, but I'm not sure. Considering sending it to her, though, just in case.
OK, so I have to work on recognizing that not everything is about me. Good time of year for that. :>)
🙂
Really nice letter, and the simple fact that the teacher didn't yell or seek to blame is a testament to her good middos.
Agreed!
I've been thinking of what my mother shlita has said when she has fallen in the past. As best I remember it has tended to be things like "That should teach me to watch where I'm putting my feet." and similar comments. This meets my desire for mindfulness without requiring God to make the floor slippery for me.
Ever the rationalist 🙂
Again, not mutually exclusive. Be careful where you walk. But if you fell, don't worry. God is with you in your shame and pain.
In other words, God didn't make you fall but given that you fell He'll reduce your future punishment anyway?
Yes. Even if you fell due to your own negligence.
How does falling due to your own negligence comport with the concept of hashgacha pratis, Divine Providence? Doesn't everything happen for a reason? God doesn't make you fall? – MP
"All is foreseen, yet permission [to behave as we wish] is granted us" (Ethics of the Fathers).
Does this doctrine have ramifications for how O Jews make use of the legal system in the US? Like would an O Jew not sue someone because they perceive that the accident was God's will or even a punishment/atonement for some previous sin?
I wonder about ancient Jewish legal systems and whether this was ever a line of defense…
In principle O Jews are not supposed to sue other Jews in secular court unless authorized to do so by a beit din (religious court). The talmud gives extensive laws of damages, and even has the concept of negligent homicide. No one is required to sue by either halacha or civil law,but I find it unlikely very many people would choose not to sue out of a general feeling that the punishment was divinely ordained. After all, the result of the suit is also divinely ordained, so why not let Hashem decide if you get any money for your damages or not.
Even if you sue and win, the aggravation and court costs can be atonement material 🙂
Lucy, Linus and Charlie Brown have this same debate in today's comic strip. Thought of all of you, and had to share 🙂
http://www.gocomics.com/peanuts/2012/09/02
That is awesome!
I always thought Peanuts was so "Jewish" (except when it's not). Lucy, however, would make a terrible rabbi 🙂
To anyone who has trouble with the "it should be a kaparrah" concept:
You're right. We can't tell G-d what to do in the Heavenly account ledger; and framing the concept in that way completely misses the point.
So, let's try adding the implied conclusion, based on everything I've learned about Torah hashkafa.
"It should be a kaparrah, and not another sin, based on my reaction to it!"
I have no control over what happens to me. I can only control what I think about it.
If I am angry at G-d for allowing any given event to happen to me, then I have just committed idol worship. I am worshiping myself; how DARE any other entity get in the way of my expectations!
However, if I can pick myself up, dust myself up, and I can realize that my loyalty to G-d as the only Creator is intact – then, I have transformed myself into a better human being. I have done tshuvah – returned one step closer to the perfection for which I strive.
Now, when I stand in judgement before the One True Judge, I can say "It's true, there were times when I messed up; but look! I've changed!"
The positive change within the faithful soul is what obviates the need for punishment in the Next World. The correct reaction to any given event is merely a a sign of that change.
This is really thoughtful and seems to me to synthesize Ruchi and my perspectives well. Thanks for following Zev's link and commenting.
I made a mistake in the previous comment. The idiom is "dust myself off", and I wrote "dust myself up". Oops. That's embarrassing.
It should be a kapparah!
Thanks, Adam! I really like that!