NUM213 The belief that anger is always illegitimate continues to be embraced by many religious people … there are times when anger is an appropriate response to others' cruel or otherwise wrongful behavior, and any lesser response is wrong. Among the instances of morally appropriate anger expressed by God and human beings in the Bible are the following: ● Against those who misuse their talents for evil: God is outraged at the prophet Balaam for taking money from the king of Moab to curse the Israelites (Numbers 22:22). Balaam was a man of immense spiritual and intellectual capabilities. The fact that he used these gifts in this way infuriated God. ● Against those who are ungrateful. Laban prospered from Jacob's twenty-year stewardship over his flocks, yet never thanked him. Instead he tried to lower Jacob's wages. In response, "Jacob became incensed and took up his grievance with Laban." (see Genesis 31:36 – 42). ● Against those who commit slander. Moses was outraged by the rebels Korach, Datan, and Abiram, and their false claim that he used his position to aggrandize himself [this verse]. ● Against those who mistreat the poor: the prophet Isaiah, speaking in God's Name, denounced those who oppressed society's most vulnerable members: "That which was robbed from the poor is in your houses. How dare you crush My people and grind the faces of the poor?" says the Lord, God of Hosts" (Isaiah 3:14–15; see also Amos 5:21–22).● Against those who worship false gods: God is furious at King Solomon, who, in his later years, built idolatrous shrines in Israel. "The Lord was angry with Solomon because his heart turned away from the Lord, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice"(I Kings 11:9).● Against those who make false, and cruel, claims in God's Name: God is angry with Job's friends for telling him that his sufferings were sent by God (Job 42:7). That God, and people such as Jacob, Moses, and Isaiah on the express anger indicates that this emotion, when expressed properly and justly, is a moral one.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

NUM214 (Continued from [[EXOD1008]] Exodus 33:8 gaze SACKS 145-6) Moses issued a detailed reckoning to avoid coming under suspicion that he had personally appropriated some of the donated money. Note the emphasis that the accounting was undertaken not by Moses but "by the Levites under the direction of Itamar," in other words, by independent auditors [Exodus 38:21]. There is no hint of these accusations in the text itself, but the midrash may be based on the remark Moses made during the Korah rebellion [this verse]. Accusations of corruption and personal enrichment have often been leveled against leaders, with or without justification. We might think that since God sees all we do, this is enough to safeguard against wrongdoing. Yet Judaism does not say this. The Talmud records a scene at the deathbed of R. Yohanan b. Zakkai, as the master lay surrounded by his disciples: "They said to him, "Our master, bless us." He said to them, "May it be God's will that the fear of heaven will be as much upon you as the fear of flesh and blood." His disciples asked, "Is that all?" He replied, "Would that you obtained no less than such fear! You can see for yourselves the truth of what I say: when a man is about to commit a transgression, he says, I hope no man will see me." (Berakhot 28b) When humans commit a sin they worry that other people might see them. They forget that God certainly sees them. Temptation befuddles the brain, and no one should believe he is immune to it.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

NUM215 See [[NUM205]] Numbers 16:1 betook SINAI1 65-66

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

NUM216 See [[NUM162]] Numbers 15:30 high hand COHON 276-7

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

NUM217 See [[GEN302]] Genesis 2:18 alone LEHRMAN 197-8

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

NUM218 R. Ashi said: This teaches us that one must not "cling" to a quarrel (Sanhedrin 110a)

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

NUM219 A feeling of guilt for having failed to develop one's potential is a common source of discontent. Those who blame others for their own shortcomings are indeed doomed to a lifetime of discontent. Those who blame themselves may find ultimate contentment after a reassessment of their potential. An individual whose career falls short of his original expectation need not reproach himself if the disappointment is not due to his own neglect. All that we may expect of any individual is that he do his best, no more and no less. Discord, domestic or otherwise, is an irritant as grievous as pain. Fortunately one can do much to remove this cause of discontent. If his manner and character are at fault, he must make amends and change. If another party is at fault and his remonstrances are not heeded, he can physically remove himself from the source of discord. The Bible describes in great detail the discord sowed by Korah due to his jealousy of Moses. When all attempts at reconciliation failed, an order was issued to the people: "Depart from the tents of these wicked man" [this verse]. A physical departure may restore contentment.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

NUM220 The tenth level is the severity of sins whose transgressors have no share in the World to Come. All of Hashem's creations were created to bring Him glory, as the pasuk says (Yeshayahu 43:7), "All who are called by My Name and whom I created for a My glory--I formed, even made [them]." Surely, reason dictates that one who desecrates [the Name of] Hashem and disparages His word has lost all hope [for his future]. Not only has he not fulfilled what is required of him from the beginning of his formation – to honor His Name and sanctify it – – but he has actively replaced it with the opposite and desecrated His Holy Name. The pasuk puts it as follows [this and next verse]: "The person who acts brazenly… He has shown his contempt for Hashem, and that person will be cut off from among his people, for he has disparaged Hashem's word and annulled His commandments; that person will be completely cut off, his sin will remain with him." This means that [even] after the person is cut off, "his sin will remain with him"--for death will not bring him atonement and he has no share in the World to Come. That is why here the pasuk says "his sin will remain with him," which is not mentioned regarding any other prohibition whose penalty is excision. The meaning of "the person who acts brazenly" is, for example, one who commits known sins in full public view, and one who divests himself of the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven, even when in private, for such a person is also acting brazenly. The matter of divesting the yoke of Heaven, concerns, for example, one who denies [the injunction against] eating meat that was not ritually slaughtered, or that of eating [forbidden] animal fats and blood, or the desecration of Yom Tov. Although he is not violating any of the other mitzvos, once he has divested himself of the yoke of one injunction, he has already rebelled against the Almighty. It is true that sometimes even the righteous succumb to a particular sin, but this is entirely the result of chance circumstances, as a result of one's yetzer prevailing over him, and he fills himself with self-acrimony, subsequently becoming very careful in this regard. But one who considers divesting himself of the yoke of any one injunction [with the intent of] transgressing it whenever he so desires is referred to as "an apostate regarding one matter." We have already explained this in the First Gate of The Gates of Repentance.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

NUM221 The Talmud includes many fractious disputes, in which virtually anything could be questioned, but there were some limits to this general picture of uninhibited debate. When the Sanhedrin existed, rabbis could challenge decisions in debate, even vigorously, but in practice they had to conform to the Sanhedrin’s majority ruling. (Compare, for example, M. Rosh Hashanah 2:8-9.) Furthermore, there were rules of propriety concerning how the debates themselves should be held with colleagues, and, all the more so, with teachers or parents. B. Kiddushin 29a-b, 40b; later codified in, for example, Arukh Hashulhan, Yoreh De’ah 240:12.) So, for example, rabbinic sources strive to differentiate the high level of dissent to which the Rabbis were accustomed and which they thought healthy from that of the biblical figure Korah, whose rebellion the Torah condemns. Korah’s dissent the Rabbis said, was not “for the sake of Heaven” but rather for his own power and love her victory, whereas the disputes of Hillel and Shammai were for the sake of Heaven -- that is, to identify God's will. Because that was the case, rabbinic disputes will continue for all time, but Korah’s dispute died with him. (Numbers 16:1-35). Thus disputants must argue for the right reasons while following the practice determined by the majority. These rules were enforced, for rabbinic literature speaks of Jews whose mode of dissent led the community to exclude them. These include the min (sectarian) and the apikoros (heretic). In view of the wide latitude of rabbinic debate, one can understand why there is considerable discussion in classical and contemporary literature about exactly what these people held or did that made their modes of dissent unacceptable. Rashi (1040-1105), for example, said that one feature of admissible debate is that “Neither side of the conflict cites an argument from that or of another god, but only from the Torah of our God.” (Rashi on B. Hagigah 3b, s.v. “kulan.”) In addition to such individuals, there have been groups that splintered off from the Jewish people. These include Christians, Hebrew Christians (who existed from the first through the fifth centuries), Karaites (from the eighth century to the present), and Sabbetaians (in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth). Thus, with all their commitment to pluralism, rabbis throughout the centuries have drawn some clear lines defining acceptable method and content.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

NUM222 See [[NUM205]] Numbers 16:1 betook SINAI1 65-66

SHOW FULL EXCERPT