.jpg)
The Mishlei Podcast
The Mishlei Podcast
Mishlei 17:26 - Not Good Punishing a Tzadik
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
Have any questions, insights, or feedback? Send me a text!
Mishlei 17:26 - Not Good Punishing a Tzadik
גַּם עֲנוֹשׁ לַצַּדִּיק לֹא טוֹב, לְהַכּוֹת נְדִיבִים עַל יֹשֶׁר:
Length: 1 hour 29 minutes
Synopsis: This evening (5/25/26), in our Monday Night Mishlei shiur, we unexpectedly had a skeleton crew, with most of our regulars conspicuously absent. But the shiur must go on! We tackled a pasuk I had never learned before. The syntax was weird and ambiguous - a quality I tried to capture in the title of this shiur. We came up with several good approaches of our own, then learned Metzudas David, and then - huzzah! - the Ibn Kaspi said my approach! We might not have had some of our regulars tonight, but we learned some great Mishlei!
-----
מקורות:
משלי יז:כו
תרגום רס"ג
תרגום כתובים
שמות לה:ה
מצודת דוד
רמב"ם - משנה תורה: ספר המדע, הלכות דעות ב:א
עמנואל הרומי
ר' יוסף אבן כספי פירוש שני
-----
The Torah content for this month has been sponsored by Meir Areman, l'zeicher nishmas Zelda bas Ziesel, his grandmother, whose yahrzeit is on the 21st of Sivan.
-----
If you've gained from what you've learned here, please consider supporting my work via Patreon, Venmo, Zelle, or PayPal — links below. Even a small contribution helps cover production costs and gives me the freedom to create more Torah content. To sponsor a day's or week's worth of content, or to inquire about tutoring or teaching, reach me at rabbischneeweiss at gmail. Thank you for listening, reading, and supporting my efforts to make Torah ideas available and accessible to everyone.
Patreon | [Venmo: @Matt-Schneeweiss] | [Zelle/PayPal: mattschneeweiss at gmail]
Substack | YouTube | YUTorah | Instagram
Podcasts: The Stoic Jew | Machshavah Lab | The Mishlei Podcast | Rambam Bekius | The Tefilah Podcast
Okay, we are up to the third to the last uh husk in the parak, third to the last verse in the chapter. Um, and uh hold on just one second. Okay. Um, it is Mishlay 1726. Okay. Gam annosh Latsadik Lotov Lahakos Nadivim Al Yosher. Uh now let's do a little methodology preface. And I've said this before, but uh this came up in a conversation recently about if someone has no background to Mishlei, uh to learning Mishle, is it a good idea to send them the translation of the verse ahead of time uh so that they could you know prepare? Uh so I said uh in this discussion, I said no. No, so in in our case, in the way we do it uh, you know, in our Monday night uh uh learning, that I said it's not good to send it ahead of time because um there are always many different ways that each uh puzzle can be translated. Uh and part of the analysis is the is exploring all those nuanced ways of translating it. Um and if you only uh use one translation, it's not that it's bad, it's that you are shutting off an entire part of the of the process. Um, but I just wanted to elaborate on why why that is. Like, you know, we again we've we've talked about this from various angles before, but you know, you could you could ask the question like, why didn't Shlomoham, why didn't King Solomon know how to write better? Why didn't he just write in ways that are not ambiguous? So this is one of the differences between uh the his style of proverb and other proverbs, is you know, there's different styles. Like in America, the proverbs are designed to be, you know, one-line bits of wisdom that could be understood immediately, like two wrongs don't make a right, or uh, you know, uh the early bird catches the worm. Like you might need to think about it a little bit, but it's designed to like deliver an idea to spoon feed you an idea. Okay, or let's say you have another kind of proverb, like a zen koan, which is supposed to be like a meditative puzzle that makes the mind go through some sort of journey based on the syntax and then reaching some sort of insight, you know. So the way that Shlomohamel, the way that King Solomon writes his proverbs, is he's delivering ideas, but he's also teaching you how to analyze statements for ideas. And he's also in many cases will encode many different ideas through deliberate ambiguity. Um, and so sometimes that will be using a word that can be read uh or that has two different meanings. Sometimes it's using ambiguous uh syntax in the, you know, in in in uh you know, saying it in a roundabout way. Um and so what you're doing is you know, what he's doing is he's trying to deliver maximal meanings, uh, or I guess not maximal meanings, but like many meanings through few words, and then also to give you like the exercise of trying to work out um what the idea is. And this is really a hallmark of the the of Mishlay chapters one through 24 from 25 and on, it is also the Mishlay of Shlomo, but it was uh transcribed by the men of Khizkiyahu's court, who was uh a couple hundred years later. And that's the one that we're doing in my morning Mishlay class. And we've noticed that those Psukim are much more direct, and there's advantages and disadvantages, but um uh but the ones we've been doing here are uh are are more cryptic and they lend themselves to different readings. So I wanted to give that introduction because this is one where uh there are uh radically different ways to read it, okay, and it might not look that way. Okay, so gam anosh latsadik lotov lahakos nidivim awyosha. Now, usually I start off by asking uh does anyone want to try translating? But our usual volunteers uh are not here. So anyone who is here want to try translating?
SPEAKER_00If not, then I'll tzadik is not good.
SPEAKER_04Okay, uh good. So so you you got one of the one of the sides of the ambiguity, okay. So so uh gum anosh latsadik loto. So uh also or even to punish the um uh the tzadik, who is the righteous person, loto is not good. Okay, so you're you're reading it the way I would have read it, which is as a uh uh an adjective, right? That it is not good to punish the tzadi. Okay. Uh anyone want to try guessing the second half, lahakos nidivim al-yosher? Not that's fine. Okay, to strike, like the word maka, like makos, like the plagues, to strike nidivim. So you have here uh the dictionary, uh BDB dictionary definition. Uh I don't know what inclined is. I don't know if that's like an archaic term. Generous or noble are the two translations I would I would use. So to strike n divim, which are either um, I'm gonna actually do nobles or uh the generous, okay. Um I'll Yosher uh for um uh Yosher literally means straightness, but uprightness is I think uh just a smoother term for uprightness. Okay, so this is one translation, okay. But check out what happens when we look at our oh, so you know, again, our order of operations here is we're gonna go to our um our uh translations into other uh you know languages. Uh so Sadigon says, Gam haanasha satik in batova. So that's kind of like ours. He says, uh, also or even in the punishing of the tzadik, there is no good. Uh, nor I think he's implying, is there any good in striking the nadivim? Again, same ambiguity here, uh, for excuse me, for uprightness. Okay, fine. So this is pretty much what we had, but uh but there is a subtlety here, which he says um the footnote says Tirgum Anosh Garam uh. So he says punishing, so it's literally um excuse me, um uh fining or taxing of the tzadik is no good. Okay, fine. So that's another translation, and then the targum has the simplest translation Lemitach l tzadika lo shapir. So it is not good to punish the tzadik. Um aflo lemhai tzadikaya the amrin tirzusa, uh, and not even to uh strike the tzadik for saying uh uprightness. Okay, so you notice what what is the what is the targum uh what does the targum do in his translation uh that that deviates from the way we translated it? I think these are it's simplifications, but uh it's one person, right? So he's only talking about one person, he's treating the divim and the tadik as the same person, okay? And then he also just deletes a word. What word does he delete? Also or even, which is just an annoying word, you know, like what were we supposed to do with that? Okay, so there you have that translation. All right, now check out what the English translators do.
SPEAKER_06I thought he adds thing.
SPEAKER_04Uh yeah, correct, correct. Yeah, yeah, he adds saying. Uh, for I I forgot to where did I put that? Yeah, yeah, for saying up right, it's correct. Uh okay, that is true. All right, so those are we'll keep these here. Okay, so then we've got art scroll. Okay, now check this out. One who is not good will punish even the righteous. Okay, so unlike my dad and I, uh unlike my dad and me, um, who translated not good as an uh as an adjective describing the punishment of the tariq, art scroll translates it as a description of a of a of a third party that one who is not good, like the low tove, the the non-good person, um, will punish the tariq. Okay, um, so let me just uh take uh let's call this translation A and translation B. Okay, translation A and then um translation B will be um the the low Tov Okay, the not good person will even punish the Tsadiq, okay. Um yeah, so one who's not good with punishing the Tsadi and will smite uh generous people. Sorry, smite uh nadivim for uh uprightness or integrity. They say uh uh integrity, okay. Hirsch says to the righteous too, punishment does no good. Okay, so that's another one, right? Uh not that it is, see, well, I don't know. I mean I should have asked you this ahead of time. When you say punishing the Tariq is not good, I thought it's like immoral or it is bad for the punisher to do. This is saying it does no good to punish the Tadi. Okay. Uh striking a noble-minded person goes beyond what is right. Okay, so he's learning, I think, all as goes beyond. All right. Uh, and then Alter says to punish the just is surely not good. Okay. Um, so that's another translation of Gom, surely. Um, striking a noble-minded person goes beyond what is right. Oh, sorry, no, I just read that twice. To punish the just is surely not good, to flog nobles for uprightness. And then our YouTube friend Peskin, who sent me a uh revised translation this morning, he says, it is not good to punish a righteous man nor to strike the noble for uprightness. So, as far as I'm concerned, all of these are candidates for um for translations. I'm not gonna delete any of them, I'm just gonna move them to the chat. Uh okay, so we've got our translations here, and then we've got these six English translations to select them. So you see what I mean? That if you if I were to send this to you uh in advance, first of all, I would have to pick one in advance, and that cuts me off from thinking about certain things. Uh, and then it also like deprives everyone from the uh of the opportunity to like analyze the subtleties and the nuances here. Now, when I teach this in high school, I do usually pick one when students are starting off because it's too confusing to like start it off um you know with just so many options. Uh, but you know, we are a group that is uh uh I think capable of uh of doing this. Okay, so um let's do questions and problems here. And I'm actually going to to um just start us off by uh articulating as question some of our translation uh ambiguities here. So so is not good a description of punishing the tzadik, or is it a description of the person who who who does that? All right. Uh likewise um uh if yeah, actually I think that's the only one uh yeah, I know I know I'll do the one more one also, is that um that actually no, I'll let I'll let you guys ask questions. I don't want to take any away.
SPEAKER_03My allergies hard.
SPEAKER_01Okay, questions. Yeah. Go ahead.
SPEAKER_00Okay. Not good.
SPEAKER_04Okay, so the my dad is using a uh uh uh Gamara term that we imported to Mishlay, which is um what sense uh I guess what what what is the Hava Amina? So Hava Amina is a Talmudic term which means um the flawed um view that the text comes to correct. Okay, so presumably um uh it's that it is good to punish a tzadik. Okay, and by the way, that works out for for both translations, right? In other words, for ours, it says, by the way, even to punish a tzadik is not good. So that means what who has to be told that? Someone who was thinking that it is good for translation B, it's saying the the the the not good guy will punish the will punish even the tzadiq. Um so his thought is clearly that that is good, you know, it's not the havamina of the puzzle, but fine. So presumably uh that you know we would have thought, let's say we would have thought havamina literally means I would have thought, or I would have said, um we would have thought that it is good to punish the tadik.
SPEAKER_03Okay, but why under what circumstances?
SPEAKER_01Okay, other questions. Yeah, Alex.
SPEAKER_06Um in the second half the second half of the verse tells you why you're punishing the um the Nadeev, but it doesn't have the the side.
SPEAKER_04Okay, all right, that's good also. Okay, so um so the second half, I guess let's let's do this. Let's ask you you are correct that the second half tells you why you're punishing the Nadeev, uh, but let's ask about that first, which is what does it mean to punish the Nadevin for uh I'm gonna just go ahead and use the transliteration here, Yoshere uprightness. Okay. Um, and let's uh actually let's make uh well let's ask our primary questions first, okay? What is the definition of Nedevin in this context? Okay, and I'm just gonna give you a little bit of a um uh of a selection here. These are not uh this is not um uh does not exhaust the possibilities, but like is Nadeev a character trait or a societal, I guess a so socioeconomic status? Okay, like for example, in uh in Halel, which we said a couple of times over the weekend, uh in Tahilim in Psalms 116, uh 115, then we say uh uh far dal meyash post you uh uh Yaurion in Nidivimod that God lifts up the poor the uh the poor person from the the dust heap and seats him with nobles. So that there clearly it means people who are are on a certain like high level of of uh in in society, upper echelon of society, uh and not poor. But then Nadeev could also be uh let me just uh doesn't it say that in uh the beginning of Parshas Pikude? Or am I imagining this? Or Vayakal Kol Nedivli Bo? Or am I imagining that? Yeah, there we go. Kahumithem Truma Lar Shem Kol Nedivli Bo. Take from what is uh uh with you a donation offering for Hashem, all whose hearts are willing, or hearts are gener are generous. Okay, so like is it is it generosity or is it socioeconomic status? And then um the next definition question is what is the definition of Yoshere, uprightness, uh, in this context? Okay, then what does it mean to punish the Nivivim the Nedevim for Yosher? Okay, and then we can ask Alex this question, which is uh which is um uh it give you know the the second half gives a cause, I don't know, a reason cause for why the Nadevium are being punished, okay, which we still need to understand. Um, but what what is the impetus for for punishing the tsadik? Or what is the cause, not impetus? Impetus is actually more closer to my my dad's question. So what what what is the tzadik being punished for? Yeah, Stephanie.
SPEAKER_07Um, what context is the Pusuk taking place in? Like is this a court of punishments or just okay, good, good, good.
SPEAKER_04All right. So this is another uh um question that we ask on many Psukim, which is what is the decision-making scenario here? Uh this I guess the decision-making scenario and the context here. Okay, so one possibility, the most localized possibility is is this talking about, you know, uh official, I'm just gonna use quotes, official punishment, uh, you know, for example, like in a court of law or before the king, you know, or is this talking about um, in fact, uh anyone wanna uh who was here last week wanna um guess what else it could be talking about?
SPEAKER_03Is it so last week?
SPEAKER_04Uh let me just look at the puzzle because I also don't remember. Yeah, Lori.
SPEAKER_08Maybe just a parent and child. Right.
SPEAKER_04So the last last week we did this puzzle about a father who does not uh or who raises a kid uh a father and a mother who raise a kid who are uh uh you know fools, right? So perhaps this is talking about uh disciplining a child, you know. Um uh or is this talking about any form of punishment in any case? I guess let's say, or or is this talking about or something else that's specific? Or is this talking about any punishment in any case? Okay, good, good question. And by the way, this is where you see that inside Yuga Own, the fact that he used the word uh collecting money does seem to be, he does seem to be taking a stance here that it's not just talking about um you know any sort of punishment. It's talking, you know, I mean, maybe it is, but the but it's literally referring to a specific kind of uh of penalty. Okay, other questions? In fact, that you know, Stephanie's question, I think, deserved to be asked on its own, but I think we can extend that into a question of what kind of punishment are we talking about? That does overlap Stephanie's question. The reason I want to ask it on its own is because even if you identify the decision-making scenario, like let's say, for example, you say um uh, you know, a parent disciplining a child, right? So is the punishment referring to the you know, the striking? You know, is it referring to the uh expression of of disapproval or like the consequence or the law? Like what what's the scope of the punishment? Yeah, Stephanie?
SPEAKER_07Did we ask what the relationship is between the two um halves of it?
SPEAKER_04Okay, so let's ask that. What is the relationship between the two halves? Okay, are these um so so just uh more more uh methodology here? Mostukim and Mishle um work in opposites, okay? And there's usually the the good side and the bad side, or the the righteous person and the wicked person, or the wise person and the fool, or the good decision and the bad decision. Here it doesn't seem like that, okay. Here it doesn't seem um it seems like two examples of something, right? So are these two two you know two examples along the same lines? Uh or are they two levels of this mistake? Or are they opposites? Seemingly not, but we've got to ask it anyway. Um yeah, okay. You know what? I'm gonna copy and paste this back into the chat for Seth. Uh in case you missed it. And then also all we're we're keeping all the English ones this time because they all have uh possibilities. Okay. Um yeah, okay, good question. Yeah, Lori.
SPEAKER_08So when I first looked at this, like I looked at it as both sides are good. The the the the um the righteous person and then the uh Nediving, um um, which is maybe um one word I looked up, it was like an official or somebody maybe politics. I took it very as politics, but even somebody in a higher socioeconomic um position.
SPEAKER_04Right, yeah, I can say politics also, by the way, uh, or political. Yeah.
SPEAKER_08And and so I took both both sides are are good people, they're honest people.
SPEAKER_03Okay, yeah.
SPEAKER_08And who is judging them? Um who is who is why are they being punished for being good? Yeah, I guess that's my question.
SPEAKER_04Okay, good. Yeah, yeah.
SPEAKER_08Why are they being punished for being good?
SPEAKER_04Okay, so I'm going to split that into two questions. One is I'm gonna add to Stephanie's question, which Is why are these uh you know good or or in good standing, right? People being punished uh in this scenario. Okay, so that's that'll be a scenario-wide question. And then the other question I was gonna ask is hold on, I had another question that I was gonna derive from there.
SPEAKER_03Good people are they being punished?
SPEAKER_04Oh, yeah, the other one is um uh I mean maybe this is not what you were not part of what you were asking. Maybe this is just something that came to my mind as you were asking it, which is hold on. Uh yeah, let's say like who is doing this punishing? Okay, so punishment doesn't just happen, right? Uh so arguably you could put both of these, you know, you could put both of these into into question one, uh uh as sub-questions. Um uh yeah, these are all sub-questions here. Um, there's the what is the general scenario, and then and then uh why, what, and who? Okay. Um where is part of that also. Yeah, Stephanie.
SPEAKER_07Um, could Sadiq and Nadeevim be talking about the same person or could it apply? Can the Nadiv also be like a tzadik?
SPEAKER_04Yeah, so that we see for sure. You know, that's one of those things where like I would not have said that, but you see, Sadig, or not Sadi, the the Targum just made both of them tsadi. Okay, so let's ask the question. Uh, we asked what is the definition of nadivim? So let's first ask what is the definition of tsadiq in this context, and then we asked what's the definition of nadivim, and then let's ask also um uh what is the relationship between sadikim and nadivim? Okay. Um are they, I guess, how are they the same and different? And then, like, um, how would we learn this if they are exactly the same? Okay.
SPEAKER_07So the reason what makes me think that they overlap in some way is because there's no like verb ending for the end of it. Um, if we're translating it as um, it's not good to punish the tzadik, and then it says to strike at the noble for the sake of like right uprightness, but then it doesn't say like, you know, right.
SPEAKER_04So that's a good linguistic uh deduction. Um and it is debated in the commentaries. Okay, so some say that uh so I think the easiest and probably the most common way that they solve that is they say, I think I don't know what you call it in English, but uh in Hebrew it's called Moshech Atmov Acher emo, that you have a uh you have a uh uh a sentence with one predicate and two subjects. So you have like you know, a predicate for this subject, and you just have a subject. And what it'll do sometimes in Hebrew is you'll just apply the predicate to both of them. So that's what most people say here is uh the way you're supposed to read is also to punish the tzadik is not good, and to uh oh sorry, yeah, and to strike the Nedivian for their uprightness is not good. And then you have other people who say the not good person punishes the tzadik, and and then they insert that into the second half, and the not good person strikes the the uh nobles for righteous for uprightness. So there they're in other words, people the the fact that the Mufarshim are saying this, that the commentators say this means that they're responding to the thing you picked up on. Um, so yeah, but uh good, good, good either. Yeah. Um you are your your father's daughter for nuances in Hebrew. Um, okay. Uh anything else? Yeah. Uh Gam Anash Lasadik Lato, Lahakos in the Divim Omsha. Yeah, let's just let's uh ask a very basic question. Um where do we put this here? Uh let's say why uh actually, yeah, uh let's put this here. Okay. Um uh what does not good mean either way? Okay, um, what is not good about punishing the tzadik? Okay, and again, like uh, you know, and does this mean morally not good or ineffective uh slash redundant, you know, um, like Rehearse wanted to say. And then likewise, if not good is the description, uh actually I'm gonna make this a separate question. Okay, if alternate, I'll say alternatively, uh alternatively, if not good is a description of the of a person, um what is the definition of this Lotov person in this context? Okay, and it's like uh uh why such a blunt uh yeah, why such a yeah, blunt and generic uh descriptor as opposed to a typical misleic? I don't know if typical mishlayic archetype is uh is bad form there, uh archetype, but yeah. Okay, yes, next is my dad.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, I think this is one of the situations where it's really important. Who's the intended audience?
SPEAKER_04Right. Okay, good. Who uh is the intended audience? So the most direct intended audience would be is it the would-be punisher or striker or is it the tsadiq and nadiv and nadivim or someone else? Um, and a stylistic question, you know, I don't like this question so much. Uh it's not that I don't like it, it's that that I don't find it useful, which is uh why is tsadiq singular and nadivim is plural? Okay. Um the reason why I don't like this question is it's highly speculative, and many times in Michlay, then one of the people will be singular and the other ones will be plural. And we always ask the question, and and the the standard of answer we'd be looking for here is like if your whole idea hinges on this distinction, then I'm less inclined to accept it. But if it's a nice nuance that adds to it, then I'm I'm open to that. Uh, but I've not seen any patterns about when it's singular and plural, so but I'll ask it anyway. So, why is Sadiq uh singular and nadivim plural? Okay, I think we're getting near to the end of the question. Um, you know, we wouldn't ask um for punish. We asked what punishment meant, I think, right? Yeah, uh likewise. Uh wait, no, no, who yeah, what kind of punishment? What is the scope of the punishment? Uh ditto for striking. You know, uh it's more obvious what striking is, but um, should it be asked anyway?
SPEAKER_05Yeah, Seth did anybody try reading it um surely to punish for itsadik, it is not a good thing. Like for its sad to do the punishing. Oh, okay.
SPEAKER_04That's also good. That's also good. No, no, no one said that. Uh, I don't think. Uh yeah, okay, good. Yeah, all right. Uh so let's do translation C. Um okay. Translation C is oh, that's actually really good. I I like that. Uh for a uh uh also even surely, and now that you think now that I think about it, there are commentators that say that. It's just I didn't see any translations, but uh yeah, all surely for a tsodik to do punishing is not good. Okay, that's that's that's very good. Okay, all right. I'm gonna start importing this into the uh into the chat. But if anyone has more questions, feel free to ask. Let's see if this is gonna go.
SPEAKER_02Nope, this did not go. Okay, so let's start off. First set of questions.
SPEAKER_04And then oh man, this is my apologies for what is gonna be a very big messed up font size and style. Seven, eight, and nine. Okay, and then ten, eleven, twelve, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, and fourteen. Okay, so uh let us take our thinking minute, and if anyone does have um an additional question, then just interrupt, okay? But we will take our minutes to think about you are up first because you're the only one raising your hand.
SPEAKER_06Um I interpreted it as um like ref speaking to like a political body.
SPEAKER_04Yeah, oh sorry. I'm sorry, I'm gonna interrupt you. Uh, whenever anyone uh gives an interpretation, if you can state which translation you're using first, because uh uh it'll uh help us to receive your words in a way that is clear. Yeah.
SPEAKER_06Yeah, I'm using translation A.
SPEAKER_04Okay.
SPEAKER_06That it's it's it's it's speaking to like a political body that don't don't ever think that it's justifiable to to to pervert justice and to sometimes punish like the the right people. Like it's never it's it's it's never like the right thing to do. And we never say like there's no like it ends justify the means type of thing. It's never okay, it's never gonna work out well.
SPEAKER_04Okay. Uh okay, you know what you're raising a possibility here that I forgot to to deal with. Okay, you know what? Hold on. Okay, just give me one second here. Okay, I'm gonna I'm gonna let's develop your idea, then I actually want to go back and give an elementary uh or give a basic definition to tzadik here. Okay, so um actually I'm gonna do that first. Okay, so put your idea on the side, burner, okay. Um let's just do um three basic uh definitions of of tzadik, okay, uh in Mishlay. All right, and these are just these are not the only three, but these are the three that are the most common. So the one is I'm gonna call it the the technical definition, okay, uh, which is um which is a a person characterized by um by tsedek, okay, which we loosely translate as uh righteousness, or um uh the way that Rabbi Jonathan Sachs says it is he he he distinguishes between uh tsadi, sorry, between tsedek and mishpat. He says mishpat is retributive justice, and tsadi is distributive justice, okay. Distributive justice I'll explain what I mean in a second, justice. Okay, so this is uh someone who um who not only thinks uh in terms of in in uh in uh about the long-term consequences for the individual, but but also thinks about the welfare of the entire system. Okay, the tzadik will will interact with every part of the system, you know, whether those are like human beings or or just you know parts of something, in a manner that that uh brings it in line with with its good, uh, thereby ensuring the function uh of I guess the harmonious function of the entire system. Okay, that's my working definition of a tzadix. So the examples I give here are um, yeah, I always give the same examples because I think it's easier here, is like let's say in a school, you know, I I actually won't hold on. Maybe uh maybe I wrote this. Uh I have a diagram. All right, we're going a little bit on a little bit of a it's not a tangent, but just a um, oh, they I should I should advertise my own article. I just published this article. Can a religious Jew believe in genuine artificial intelligence superior to man's? Uh that's uh that's a paid subscriber article that I was very excited to write. Um just kind of all poured out today. That was what I was doing all day and and and and uh not preparing my e of curriculum. Um uh mishlaik spectrum. I have a diagram here. That's what I'm gonna check here. Okay, so yeah, here's my Tadiq and Chacham diagram. Okay, so you have that's not exactly okay. Yeah, so you have um the Aveel, who's the the Mishleic fool, the Chacham who's the Mishlaik wise person, and then the Tzadiq. So the Ave, and then you have short term down here, and you have linear view versus systemic view. So the Aveel, the Mishlaik fool, only thinks in the short term, okay, and he is only thinking linearly. Like if I do this, then then uh then this will happen, or I'll get this. The Chacham thinks linearly in terms of the long-term view. So if I do this, this will happen to me, and this, you know, or I'll get this benefit. So so that allows him to see beyond so the evil is caught up in immediate pleasure, uh, like the fool of last week, even though we didn't use that term for fool. Um, immediate pleasure and avoiding immediate pain. He's not thinking about the long-term consequences of the pleasure or the long-term benefits of the pain. The chaom is thinking in the long run. So he might be willing to endure short-term pain to get a long-term benefit. Um, and uh, and he will avoid short-term benefit in order to avoid long-term pain. Okay. But the tzadik is looking at the entire system, not just A causes B, but A affects the entire system, which causes B, C, D, E, et cetera. So it affects everything. So the examples I like using are uh let's say you are in a uh a high school, okay, and someone finds a lost object that doesn't have identification on it, but but but they know who who's it who it belongs to. So the fool would just steal the object, you know, because I can get this. All right. And I can get away with it. The person who thinks long-term, will think about consequences. So for example, uh and long-term, meaning the short-term benefit is I could just steal this thing. Long-term benefit is that if I return this to the person who uh lost it, then that will increase their their um what's the word, their goodwill towards me, you know, and maybe they will benefit me and do me a favor sometime, or maybe this will start a relationship that is good for us, you know, um, or uh, or I'll get a reward, you know, or maybe if I keep this thing, someone will have seen me and I'm I won't be careful and I'll get in trouble for that, or the security cameras will catch it, or or maybe like I'll get addicted to, you know, starts off with keeping lost objects and then gets to stealing lost objects and microlooting, and then you become those and New York Times guys who uh justify crime and murder. Um it's a slippery slope. Um, the Hassan Pikers of the world. Um but the tsadiq will not only see those consequences, he'll say, I want to contribute to a system where people care about each other's possessions. So the tsadik will return the object, even if there's no immediate or long-term personal benefit to him. He'll do it because it's going to contribute to the system as a whole. And being in the system where people care about other people's objects is beneficial for everybody. You know, uh what uh what helps the hive helps the bees. You know, what's good for the hive is what's good for the bees, you know. So that's the uh that is my working mishla uh technical definition of a mishlaycati. Okay. The next two definitions are very short. Okay. Next one is the generic definition, okay, which is a mishlayc good actor, okay, or good, good, good decision maker. Um, meaning someone who does the right decision. And then third definition is the legal definition, okay, which is someone who is Sadiq Bedin, which means uh that they were legally found to be uh innocent, I guess acquitted, right? Legally acquitted, um acquitted, or you know, won their case or or something like that. Okay. So what brought this to mind is Alex's definition or Alex's explanation of the process, I think, is relying on this definition. You could say it's the other one, so I think it's the cleanest to say it's talking about about someone who is um a uh who is actually not guilty of any wrongdoing, um, or or they were found to be uh to to be uh innocent. Maybe acquitted is the wrong word here, but legally like legally, you know, there's gotta be a legal term for this, right? Not crime-free, but like is there a way to say innocent that does not mean that you were put on trial and then found innocent?
SPEAKER_03There's gotta be a word for that, right? I don't know, but you got you get my meaning, right?
SPEAKER_04So so Alex is addressing the havamina. So the havamina is sometimes a leader will make an example out of someone and punish them either to instill a fear or to exercise his authority or to maybe obtain a uh a benefit, like maybe maybe this is a corrupt person. Again, this has to do with uh my dad's question about uh who's the audience here? Are we talking about like a good a good leader or a uh a bad leader, you know? Um, and so so either way, let's say. So, in other words, like this. Um, I'm gonna add this here, regardless of why you think it's this is a good idea. Okay, for example, um obtaining a uh uh a benefit, uh solidifying your authority, instilling fear, etc. Don't say the means the ends justify the means. Uh it will not turn out well. Uh okay, now let's just uh ask the question, why not? But yeah, Lori.
SPEAKER_08Um, I just wanted to add to what Alex said, um maybe it answers the question why um the Sadiq is singular and the Nadvim is plural.
SPEAKER_03Okay.
SPEAKER_08The Sadiq is just an individual person, you know, um a constituent. Okay. And the Nadavim is either, you know, is the government, the authority, um you know, I'll just put it that way, uh people.
SPEAKER_04Right. Okay, good. So um, so this is Lori's um uh textual support, which is um perhaps this is why Sadiq is singular, um uh you know, as an individual, and Nadevin uh is talking about a certain you know class or or or group. Yeah, all right, that's good. Uh yeah, Seth. Uh you are sorry, this is uh you have uh answer to the question.
SPEAKER_05Um no, I just want to add on to oh sure to Alex, if I may.
SPEAKER_04Yeah.
SPEAKER_05Um just something I noticed about uh Anosh in Tanakh is mostly monetary fines and lacot is you get makot. So it sounds almost like it's someone is giving a justice level type of punishment, a fine, and it's even worse to get a um a beating. Why? I haven't thought out why each yet, but I just within that uh scenario, yeah.
SPEAKER_04Uh uh to smite to strike refers to uh bodily punishment. Yeah, right. That might be why the side you go and translated it as collecting money um or uh fining or taxing. Yeah, Stephanie.
SPEAKER_07So I'm using the third translation.
SPEAKER_04Yeah, sorry, are you giving your own interpretation right now?
SPEAKER_07Oh, yeah.
SPEAKER_04So sorry, so we're answering this question right now. Is why that's fine. Yeah, why will it I think this is all we need in order to uh to answer Alex's question. So, in other words, why is this not going to be good if um if you punish a tsodik, even if you think it's gonna be good, okay. Look, I can think of many, many reasons. Like, like um, again, I I think it is very I don't when I say to uh to solidify your power authority or to instill fear, like I don't think that is always a corrupt thing. Like I think sometimes that is a useful thing. Yeah, Lori.
SPEAKER_08I think just in general, by Punishing a good person, you're setting a very bad example for society. Even in a family situation, if you know, if one child gets you know punished and you know they they shouldn't have your you're just setting a bad example.
SPEAKER_04Okay. So one thing is that that the leader, uh, or the person in authority, I should say, it doesn't have to be a leader. Person in authority is setting a bad example. Um, and that bad example might cause further corruption, right? Um uh okay, anyone else have any other I think that I think there's gonna be several answers here. Yeah, Seth?
SPEAKER_05Well, I just believe that people will lose faith in the system in justice.
SPEAKER_04Right. People will lose faith in the system uh because uh they they'll see that that even if they keep all the rules, uh that doesn't guarantee they'll they'll fare well. Okay. Uh and this is like to me, the the bus biggest example of this is in accounts that I've read from um North Korea and from the Soviet Union, you know, there is this sense where like there are all these unwritten rules, and if the government just wants your money, they'll concoct some sort of charge that'll charge you with it and then they'll they'll they'll take your money. So like there is just no there's no credibility in in the system at all, you know. Um, and it's bad, and you know, and then what that does is um uh is and that causes people to not be loyal to the to to the system, uh right? Is like why why should I obey you if I'm going if if that's not gonna guarantee my uh my my protection. Um I had a third one, but if anyone has any other uh answers, I mean this is sufficient for for Alex's idea, but I I feel like there's a third possibility. Oh, well this is kind of related to Lori's, which is that that uh this is like the reverse of Lori's. I'm gonna actually change the order of this. Um so I can use the word likewise. Uh likewise, um likewise, it might diminish the good example of the tzadik, right? So in other words, people will ordinarily look up to someone who is exhibiting good qualities or who's a an upstanding citizen. And if you knock that guy off his pedestal and penalize him, it's going to tarnish that image in people's eyes, and people are not going to want to be like that, you know, and uh uh to look up to this person, you know. Um, so I I think that that's also bad for the society. Okay. There are I'm sure there are more reasons, but I I did want to take that one more step and fill out the idea. Okay, Stephanie, you're up now. Which uh translation are you using?
SPEAKER_07I'm using the third one where it's talking about the tzadik doing the punishing, that it's bad for them to do it.
SPEAKER_03Yeah.
SPEAKER_07Um, so I think it's talking to the individual person who might think that they're at Tsadik for metting out punishment when it's not their place to do that. It's the place of like the court body, because a true tzadik would not like give individual punishment. Maybe they'll give rebuke or advice. Because if everyone starts thinking that they're at tzadik and they're right, then there's going to be a lot of conflicting like punishments and the society won't be able to like function without with like a clear understanding of what is right and what is wrong.
SPEAKER_03Okay.
SPEAKER_07And to add on to that, like I don't know if it's a stretch, but you asked why like it was such a general word saying, like, oh, it's it was good or it's not good.
SPEAKER_03Yeah.
SPEAKER_07Um in Voraciate when God created the world is like there is light and it was good. So like there are two oppositions to that happening in here. First is um that was with creation, and you're destroying, you're breaking down another person. So this is something that is bad. And also it was the God doing the the creation or doing the action in that case, and you are the individual person putting yourself in a position of God when it okay.
SPEAKER_04Yeah, that that's uh that's a nice uh nice.
SPEAKER_07Yeah, that's a that's just a nice idea.
SPEAKER_04It's not really I thought you're gonna go in a different direction when you said braces because uh the the you know Tove is used a bunch of times, but low Tove is only used once uh in the in the creation account, and that's low tobe heosadum and levado. That's it's not good for man to be alone, or man's being alone is not good, you know.
SPEAKER_07That that works too. Yeah, yeah, right, right.
SPEAKER_04I mean, is it yeah, but you have to weave weave an idea into that, but yeah, okay. But I I like this idea. I had an example of this. Uh give me one second and see if I'm imagining this or not. Hold on, just one second. Okay, I'm not imagining this, but my head has been in Lord of the Flies for a while now because I I watched that the new uh the BBC version of uh TV adaptation on um on Netflix, and then I'm rereading the novel and reading all the essays on it. So I don't remember if I'm actually remembering a very, very, very small allusion to this, but just imagine a desert island filled with uh with you know immature you know uh uh kids who are trying to set up a society, you know. So they might realize that they need uh a system of punishment. I mean, let's say that that's you know, you or consequences, right? But if you if everyone is deputized, or I shouldn't say deputiz, that's too official. Everyone feels that they have the right to punish wrongdoing, everything's just gonna break down. Everyone, it's gonna be anarchy. You're gonna set yourself up as the the judge and the jury and the uh the executioner. The whole thing's gonna break down. Uh, an example of this um is also in the fifth Harry Potter book, when Umbridge appoints Malfoy and his goons to be like the uh, you know, the uh I forgot what their position was, but like the high inquisitors, you know, uh or the systems or whatever. And they would go around and they would like implement punishments and uh you know for for everyone uh based on their whims, you know, like it's just it's not good for the society to put people in that position. Um, so I think that's a that's a creative interpretation. Let me just think about one more time. Compens the tzadik lotov. So it's not good for the tzadik to punish Lahakos Nadivim al-Yosher. Yeah, do you have a uh a um any idea that comes from the second half other than just fleshing out the um like as an example? Like, is there is it like all Yosher on uprightness? Is there is there it'd be nice if we could give you a nuance out of that, yeah.
SPEAKER_07Yeah, so I would say that it's on the basis of uprightness that you're doing it like you think you're carrying out justice.
SPEAKER_03I see, okay.
SPEAKER_07And it's I guess it's just an expanded example is to strike at nobles or like you're just striking at any people that and it can also be like a little bit of a power play because you're striking at nobles or people that's more than you um just for the sake of uprightness, which would be good, but you're punishing them and you're right, you can like talk to them or you can rebuke them, but giving punishment as an individual person does not lend itself to a society of like everyone agreeing on what to do, like about people.
SPEAKER_04There's a power dynamic uh factor going on. Uh, and then in reality, you know, if you f if you find yourself in this position, you know, use your words, you know, you know, guide people, sorry, guide people to what is right, but uh punishing is not necessarily uh your place, you know. Another example of this, by the way, uh just while I was thinking about kids, is like, you know, I do feel like there are two categories of tattlers, you know, on like a playground. There's like if a kid is doing something dangerous, like like like running down the slide, and the kid informs the teacher out of concern for safety, that's like at the one end of the spectrum. The other end of the spectrum is kids who really just want the power of the authority figure and will go around tattling to get their friends in trouble, and like they are, or they're goody two-shoes and they get people in trouble that way. Like, there are nefarious motives for for for this as well, which I think is a good idea, a good example of what you're saying. Yeah. Okay, good. Uh, anyone have another approach? I have a half-baked approach, but uh yeah, if anyone has a half-baked approach, also. We don't have we don't have our usual uh our usuals tonight. I mean, we have some of our usuals, but we're missing a bunch of usuals. Okay. Um uh I will give a half-baked idea, okay? And mine is it's similar to uh Alex's, but it it's in some ways it's the opposite, okay? Uh I'm gonna try saying it first and then I will um and then I will uh what do you call? Um uh I'll see if it actually works out, okay? Just give me one second. Okay. The way I want to translate it is there is also not good in punishing a Todic to strike uh Nedevian um for their for for for uprightness. Okay, so what I want to say is like this. Um so uh let me let me see if I want to start off with this example here. Okay. Um start off with this example. Okay, let's start off with this example. The the reason why I'm hesitant is this is actually an example that is not my idea. Okay, that there's the it's like the the reverse of my idea. Okay, so this is like a counterexample. Okay, I'm gonna start with a counterexample and then and then back up into the into the uh idea. So when I was in yeshiva, they had a system which I guess used to be uh prevalent in other yeshivas, I don't know nowadays, uh called a KNAS system, a penalty system that if you did not show up to your morning Davening uh in time, you know, if you I think there was a a uh penalty for being late and then a penalty for missing it, okay. Um and it'd be a monetary penalty, all right. So um I was always I always showed up and I was always on time. Okay, that's the that's the type of person I am. But one day, my alarm clock and my roommate's alarm clock either went out of batteries or broke or something like that, you know? And I um and I was late. So I talked to the dorm counselor and I explained to him what happened. And this was late in the year. I said, like, you know that I never, you know, am late for minion. I never miss Minion. And like our alarm clocks were both set and they both they both broke. And like, like it's just, you know, and he he said, I'm sorry, this is the rule, you know, and he gave me the uh the penalty anyway. Now, at the time, I and still now I admired him for that. Okay, I was like, okay, good. This is someone who like has a sense of of systems and and justice or whatever, okay. Um, and uh, and someone who is just making all these exceptions for whatever that that's not gonna work out, okay. So, but here's the thing, okay. So that's the counterexample. In reality, I do think that even if the ruler is right to punish someone for um uh to punish someone who is generally a tzadik, again, a tzadik within the system, there's also a uh a not good in it. There's also a harm in it because especially if it is perceived that way. In other words, if someone is perceived as very good and you punish them, you do have to be aware that you are also risking tarnishing the influence of the good or the reputation of the good. In many of the ways that we talked about for Alex's, for Alex's thing, you know. So for example, um uh I'll give an example. Like I run a very uh tight ship in my classrooms in high school, and I have very clear policies uh and uh and you know, and students know exactly what to expect, you know. So one of the one of the policies is that I make all my assignments, you know, there are teachers who make their assignments due like on, you know, on they'll give the calendar date, but then like they just won't be clear about when it's due. Is it due at midnight? Is it so my my rule is if it's due on the say if it's an assignment due on Tuesday, it's due at sunrise. Okay, and I know that there are kids who like work like late at night or whatever, you know, it's due at sunrise. Okay, and I put the time, the timestamp for when it's due, you know. Now, sometimes I'll get a kid who will turn the assignment in one minute late, you know. Um, so the thing is is that I I realize on the one hand, as much as I enforce my my my rules and I'm very rule oriented, I do not take off points when they do that. And I'll say, like, you know, you you usually you know turn it on time and uh I'll assume that your clock was a little slow or something like that, you know. So the thing is, is like because I there there is a for the tsadi and for the people who witness this going on, there is a feeling of I'm such a good person, it's wrong that I'm getting punished for this, you know. So, and there's even if they deserve it, you have to be judicious in how you do this. And there is a time for for freebies or for for exceptions. Now, again, you can't do that willy-nilly, and there are many times when when it's us or it's prohibited to make exceptions, you know. So that's why I like translating is that there is also not good in punishing a tzadi. In other words, so just to to uh yeah, Alex, you tell me, and I'll write it out once we're done talking about it. Go ahead.
SPEAKER_06No, I I like your interpretation a lot, and I think it also works with the previous passive, the previous verse that it's saying, like, if your the previous verse was saying that if your kid is a fool, so this is saying if your kid, if your kid is righteous, ah, like like that's good.
SPEAKER_04Yeah, okay, that that's that that's that that's very good. Okay, good. And that actually springs to mind a couple of other examples in my mind. Okay, so so the idea is like this is even though um it is generally good to follow through in meaning out consequences for uh for you know violations, um uh one should recognize that there is also a risk or a harm in punishing someone who is in good standing, okay, whether for that person's sake or for the sake of those who witness it, um it might cause resentment, um it uh or diminish that person's stature, or oh, I have a good example of this or create other problems. Okay, actually, this is this is another counterexample. It's much easier to think of examples that fit into into uh Alex's definition, but I'll I'll give you an example of this. Is um as a reverse example, I can't even give that example. Never mind. Give me one second. Yeah, okay. I'm gonna give an example. No, this is an example of Alex's. What am I saying? Okay, I'm gonna go back and give an example of Alex's after this. Okay, I got a good example. Anyway, so Alex's contribution to this idea is um uh is perhaps this is connected to the previous PUSOK um about having a son who is a fool. Okay. Um in in a case where your son is good, then it could backfire if you punish him for a slight infraction. That's actually a very good example. In other words, there are these cases where whether it's like you're you know you're raised in a military family or you know, the you know, the stereotype of the parents who like are slave drivers with their kids in grades, and they get like an A minus, and then the parent goes crazy, and then or they're they're they're an athlete and then they don't get first place or whatever, and the parent like punishes them, and then that turns them off to the entire thing, you know. I think that's like a good example in parenting uh to avoid that's along with this idea. Like, no, like ignor like in other words, in other words, um practical um what's the word? Uh heuristic here, and I guess all heuristics are practical, is if punishing a tsadik will will jeopardize the tsedek in him or in the society, then think twice. Okay. Um and so I I think that is the so in most cases, you know, it's in most cases carrying out a deserved punishment is going to raise the level of justice uh and uh TEDC in the society. Um in the society. Uh but if it doesn't, then uh then there there's a risk. Okay. Now let me jump back to uh uh to Alex's idea here of um uh thinking it is good. Oh no, no, sorry, no, this doesn't quite fit in. Hold on a second. No, that is why I thought it was mine. Give me one second. No, all right, fine. I'm gonna I'm gonna confuse myself by thinking about this. Okay, anyone have another approach? If not, we'll look at we'll start looking in the commentaries. These are all good though Okay, I actually want to start off and read what my YouTube friend Peskin said in his YouTube comments, or sorry, in his uh thing he sent me. Says this verse speaks of kings and how it is not good for them to punish someone they know to be righteous, especially when that person's righteousness occasionally opposes the king's reign. It further elaborates that it is not good to hit nobles for their honesty, specifically is wrong to punish generals for speaking honestly and not showing favoritism to the king. Does that make any sense?
SPEAKER_02Especially when that person's righteousness occasionally opposes his reign.
SPEAKER_04Something is not clicking for me. The second half again. In other words, let's just talk about the second half for a second, is like okay, you know, there's a phenomenon we call it nowadays of being a whistle whistleblower, right? That um in in certain cases, someone who's a high-ranking individual um will will reveal something, even maybe against the law, but will reveal something that exposes a tremendous breach in the entire system or tremendous injustice, and then that leads to a betterment of the system. Um and um and the way I'm reading this, you you know, the Peskin's uh interpretation here is that that you don't want to disdeincentivize, disincentivize that by punishing for honesty. In other words, if you really, you know, who punishes for that? Someone who just wants to hold power and they don't want accountability, right? But if you want people to come forward with um with honesty to for the sake of the system, then you should not punish them for it. And a good example of this is uh one of the best TV miniseries that I've seen. Uh, I mean, it's up there, it's not top top, but uh very, very good as Chernobyl. Um, and that's what happened in Chernobyl is that there were people who saw like the errors that led to the entire thing, or who knew that something was going wrong, and they didn't want to speak up because they would be they knew they'd be punished for it, and that ended up being bad for everyone. Um, so that that's a good example of this. What about this first part? The verse speaks of kings and how it is not good for them to punish someone they know to be righteous. See, what I'm what I'm getting, what I'm not getting is especially when that person's righteousness occasionally opposes the king's reign. I mean, what I'm getting for this maybe is like like, you know, you want someone, the at the end of the day, the king is not the system, the king is meant to uphold the system. So if you have a righteous person who will do what's good for the system, even if it means going against the king's personal decisions, let's say, right? Then the king should be careful to not punish that person for it. Maybe that's maybe I got I'm getting confused by the king's reign. So maybe that's that's so this is my my formulation of the idea here, is uh my restatement. Again, I don't know if this is his or not, is like like a a good leader will will recognize that the important, the most important thing, um is the the welfare of the system, okay, not whether something makes him look look good. Okay. Um therefore uh if a tsadik um acts in a manner that uh is uh uh contrary to his personal wishes or even his personal um you know reign, okay, but good for the system. Or if if a if if uh nobles uh tell the truth uh uh you know like a whistleblower um in a manner Whistleblower, not a power. Whistleblower in a manner that uh that ultimately will benefit the society uh or the kingdom, I should say they should not be punished for it. Uh a ruler should not is it dis disincentivize? That sounds wrong. Well, I'm typing it wrong anyway. Sentivize. Yeah, that's a word. Should not disincentivize uh people coming forward uh independently uh to do what is right. Um uh out of out uh yeah, okay, good. Yes, Lori.
SPEAKER_08I just wanted to say, Rabbi, that um I totally agree with uh the the restatement. It's you know that's it it just it that makes a lot of sense to me. And it just makes me think about um in modern days, you know, back then too, uh freedom of speech, to be able to say what we need to say. And if the authorities, the king, whoever it may be, um, allows people to speak, then they're showing respect for you know their people. And I think that brings um sometimes it could bring division, but it also could bring um you know unity as well.
SPEAKER_04Right. That's uh that is a great, that is a great point. Yeah. Um yeah, someone, I'm not gonna get into particulars here, but but uh someone was talking about uh another country, let's just say, uh, and uh and try and talk about how much better it is there than in America. And I was saying, like, you know what, like even if it's better in certain periods, like America has enshrined the for you know the the the right to free speech. And as long as we keep to that, I'm I'm more confident in America's ability to correct itself than in a society that does not guarantee free speech. You know, like if that society goes bad, it's a lot harder to get out. But uh, and there's a lot of track record to show that. Yeah, but yeah, that's good, that's a great point. Okay, let's do um some of the mufarsim here. Uh, let's start with the Mitsu's David. I'm uh I usually save translating him for first year. So Gamar Rosalomar, another oops, sorry, that's not the right place. In other words, Mishihulotov, someone who is not good, Yimas Kol Kah Bitsedek, um will despise righteousness so much, I'll titko, uh, to the point where he will punish a tsadik for his righteousness, uh Vyasmi Lahakos Nidivim Al Miceha Yosher, and will constantly um uh strike Nidivim, uh, we don't know how he's translating Nidivim for their good, their upright deeds. Um for in his eyes, um they intend for evil. Okay, so let's summarize and then get the main idea here, right? So the summary is um this is talking about a person who is extremely corrupt, uh, to the point where he considers the doing of good to be bad and will punish doers of good for their righteousness uh and uprightness, righteousness and uprightness. Okay, so the question is so the over the major question here is what is the main idea, right? What is the insight? Um what insight is he giving us? Um and then I'd also like to find examples if we have examples of this either before or after to work with. Lori, I assume your hand is left up from before, and that's not a new hand raise. Yeah, all right. Just checking to make sure I'm not I'm not that I'm not not calling on you. Yeah, so I think if we get an example, yeah, but go ahead, Alex. Either example or I mean idea.
SPEAKER_06It's like a warning to the reader.
SPEAKER_04Like, don't think the people people can be so bad that like Ah, yeah, okay, that is a good point. Okay, so uh one possibility is this is a warning to the reader. Okay, don't think that people can be so bad that they completely reverse the uh you know, uh reverse good and bad uh in their in their governance. Okay. Uh sadly, that's that's not the case. Yeah, I really I really want to find examples of this. I mean these should there unfortunately should be many good examples of this, either in small scale or in large scale.
SPEAKER_06Yeah, I think I meant that. I meant that people don't think people could be like don't think people could be like that they're somewhat good. It's really they they could they could be like so bad that they'll even do like the crazy stuff I'm saying.
SPEAKER_04Uh I thought that's what I'm writing. What I'm gonna say, don't think that people could be so let me see what I wrote, it could be so bad. Oh, sorry, yeah, no. Yeah, I didn't write what I said. They could be so bad. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Um, don't think the people can be so bad that they uh okay, let me just restate this. Okay. Um you might think a person can be bad, okay, but not so bad that they reverse the good that they that they will punish you for being good, right? Is that what you're saying?
SPEAKER_03Yeah.
SPEAKER_04Okay, good, all right, right. So in other words, in truth, that is a level of corruption uh that can that that that can happen, and doers of good need to to be cautious, especially when faced with an enforcer uh or leader prone to this. Um yeah, uh, I mean, um I again first example that comes to my mind. Uh I think this is based on a true story, but the movie American Gangster with Denzel Washington and Russell Crowe, the opening scene, I think, is Russell Crowe finds uh he's a cop and he finds like this huge thing of uh of illegal drugs. It was either illegal drugs or money for drugs, drug money, and he turns it in, you know, and all the other cops hate him uh because they would just take it for themselves because of in a crime-ridden place, you know. And so they they they they hate him for doing uh for doing the right thing and for being good. Um uh, but I mean I feel like there's there's gotta be other examples of this um that are uh that are that our intuition could be rooted in. I mean, you know, the Raman warns about this, by the way. I mean, I'll I'll just read this because it's relevant in the Rambaum. Um in Hilgos Deus and the Laws of Character Traits, uh he says, you know, there's there's two extremes of each character trait, and the middle path is the good path. But then in oops sorry, in one two in chapter two, he says, diseases of the soul. Uh, people who are sick in their bodies, toamin hamar matokva matok mar, they taste the the uh the bitter as sweet and the sweet as bitter. Veshmina kolim, mish mis avevitavalish in and ruyal lachila. There are some sick people who crave and yearn for foods that are not fit for consumption, could go in offer of a peram, like dirt and coal, the sonihama sotovim, and they hate good uh foods, could go in a pas of a basa, like uh bread and meat, ha kolafi robaholi, all according to the severity of the illness. So too with people shanaf sho sehim cholos, whose souls are sick, they lust for and love bad character traits. The sonim hadovah, and they hate the good path, means at limak, and they're lazy in following it. And they are uh the heavy the good path is is weighs heavily upon them according to their uh their uh illness. Uh Isaiah says about these people, hoi ha umrim l'artov la tovra. Woe unto those who say about evil that it is good, and about the good evil. Samim Khoshekla or the Khoshak. They make darkness light and light darkness. Samim Marlamatogamat Lamar. Um they make bitter, sweet, and sweet bitter. About them it says, Yosha Lukas Brahka Khoshak. They abandon the ways of uprightness, uh, uprightness to walk in the paths of darkness, you know. So, you know, again, like uh, I mean, uh, you know, not that I mean this is a kind of a trivial example because uh because Mishley is presumably talking about like, you know, things that are like you know, good character traits and bad character traits, but like there are people who will be so vehemently anti-religious, like vehemently, that they will like like they will interfere with someone else's ability to practice their own religion, you know, like and this is in all religion, not just in Judaism, you know, and like like it is like they they just cannot stand the sight of uh of someone doing that, you know. Um, or or again, Lord of the Flies. I mean, you know, the voice of reason is piggy, and he is trying to bring to the attention of the other boys what they need to do to survive. And he is so hated for bringing reason into into in into the conversation that they uh you know they uh antagonize him for that. Yeah. Okay, that is a good application. I just want to think if there's another application of this or another main insight. I mean, I I I I like I Alex's idea independently. I'm just trying to see if there's another angle we could take. I mean, maybe this is just uh one other possibility here is um is when you choose a leader, okay. Um you choose a leader, and this is too this is too remote. It's still a good idea, though, so I'm gonna say it. You need to no never mind, too remote. Okay, let's go on to another possibility here. I don't want to do the Biniona. Um who did I see that was intriguing here? Oh, I want to read Emmanuel Harome because uh uh our YouTube friend Peskin said that he was following his reading, but I don't know if he was following his idea. Says, umr Bapasuk Zed says in this verse, Kiha onesh umine ha hazak ye osula reshaim. Uh it says that uh punishment and types of harm are befitting for the evil, for those who are evil. Umnam la anosha tzadik ha usitik lanafia uluzulaso ino dovertov, but to punish it who's doing righteousness for himself and for another is not good. To strike them for for uh um for the the uprightness that they do, that's also not good. So according to this, there's no reason for the word gum. Okay, fine. Hold on his hand. Let's just explain the words. Oh, this is interesting. Let's just focus on this part. He says, uh where did it start? Okay, the Fshar Shakivan Lomar. It's possible that this intends to say, Mirucha move a filibashi uh ne and nashim leafnehad din. So it that it is proper to be merciful to the righteous and to the nadivim, even when it they are being punished based on law. And it's saying that punishing the righteous is also not a good thing. So that's not the same as my idea, but it is similar. It's saying that that there is a not good when you punish the righteous, but it's taking a different practical idea. I'm actually gonna write this in under my idea here, which is like this. Um I put my idea. Oh yeah, um, is Emmanuel Haromi. Uh Emmanuel Haromi. Um uh there is also a not good in punishing the tzadik, um and therefore it is appropriate to be merciful when punishing them even when they deserve the punishment itself. So that is another interesting thing here, and this this might relate to um uh uh to what we said before, but like if someone is a tzadik, they might take the punishment harshly, and you need to be sensitive to that fact. And as someone who is a by constitution rule follower, uh then I can tell you that like in time times that I've like, I don't know, violated something, there is a intense guilt and shame that comes from violating a rule. And like if the person who were punishing me were to be mean about it, it would just totally be bad. Like, especially if I was a little kid when that happened, you know. So that is something to um to bear in mind. Okay, let's do one more and then we'll call it uh night. Uh, who else do we want to do? Um let's do Rubin Yona and see what happens. Rubin Yona makes a funny statement in the beginning here, and you'll see why I want to avoid him. Let me just look at Eri. Hold on. I still someone connected it to the previous puzzle. Oh, let's read this one. Let's do Ibn Kaspi. Okay, so Ibn Kaspi says, the matter is described is characterized from the perspective of what is predominant in a person. Because uh tzadik, oh for for the tzadi, I don't know if this is a good good uh uh punctuation here. If a tzadik sins one time, Yomurhat Tzadikata, people will say, this person will say, Oh, the tzadik sinned. And if he's not a tzadik, as boso in if he's not a tzadik at that time, he may roy le showfit shianosh bamamon viak beshoti in barak, yeah, similar to iman huromi. The the judge should punish monetarily or should strike him gently with the uh with a stick or with the uh the uh whip. Vyasur l'hulhote kafi rushasa, and then punish each sinner according to his his wickedness. Or sorry, each yeah. Ah, that's what I was saying. She roy lahalim ain al-tadi. Uh shlomo says it's it's uh proper to uh to turn your a blind eye to the tzadiq, imder zarus yikral avon, if he occasionally like uh has an anomalous sin. Same thing for the nindivim. Indian apostle gazette, kilanosh gam la tariqase l'araim inotov. It's saying to punish the tzadik as if uh in the same way that you punish the rush, is not good. Oh, to do it in the manner of Yosher and Din, Kommoshi Yas al Navalim, like you do for the scoundrels, Inotov, that's not good. Okay, great. That's vindicates me. Okay, good. Um, so let me um let me uh just write this out because he's reading the puzzle in a better way, also. So this is uh Yosef ibn Kaspi'um second approach, second commentary. So he's saying, um it is not good to punish a tzadik. Um to punish a tzadik uh and to strike the hold on, I just missed what it was. What did he say? Oyosher? Oh, in the way of uprightness and law. Um uh and to s or to strike, let me see here. Uh and to strike the I'm gonna say or to strike the Nedevian to s to to strike the Nedevian for for uh even for lawful uh for for law. Okay, so the idea here is like this is that um uh if someone is usually righteous or good and they violate the law, the the punisher should either go easy or turn a blind eye. Um uh uh rather than punish them in the same way that they'd punish uh a habitual um uh violator or a wicked person. You know, so again, this is a this is a very interesting thing. Okay, so let me let me put on my uh used to teach AP English language, let me put my AP English language cap here and say that in communication, you know, Aristotle uh uh pioneered the art of rhetoric, and rhetoric is um takes into, you know, when you're speak is art persuasion, and when you're speaking to someone, you have to take into account the the words, the speaker, and the uh the audience, you know, um, and and factor that accordingly, you know, um that's a very basic principle of communication, the rhetorical triangles. So the thing is, is that that the punishment is a form of communication, you know. So if you're if you let's say you're in a society where like you get flogged, right? If you're beating this person who never violates the law and they slipped up once, and you're beating them with the same intensity that you would beat someone who is violating the rule every day, what message are you conveying to this, to the to the to the to the Sadik? Like, are you know that that you're just as bad as this other guy? Like, you need to think about what message you're conveying and deliver that. You need to make sure that the that the the the point of punishment, we don't hold by punishment in Judaism that is for its own sake. We hold all punishment is uh, I know you should probably say educative. Educative, I don't know. That that it's for the sake of improving the other person or the society. So you need to take that into account and make sure that the message is going to get across, you know. So uh the the bottom line is punishment is a form of communication, and you need to make sure that the message actually gets across and not jeopardize it. Okay, good. I am so happy that it's I'm always on one half-baked idea, certainly when a full idea, yes, but when a half-baked idea that we bake uh uh you know uh live is actually said by uh by the commentator. So I think that in this case uh it actually is true. Okay, very good. So let's uh just quickly review. So we had Alex's idea, which is that um that this is addressing someone who thinks that it is sometimes right to punish someone who didn't do anything wrong. And he might have very good reasons for doing so, but it's gonna ultimately come back to get him, either because it's gonna diminish his own credibility or the or the credibility of the system, or diminish the tzadik in people's eyes, or serve as a bad role model. It's gonna be bad. So he should not do that. Um then we had uh Stephanie's idea that this is talking about someone who is like who fancies themselves righteous enough to meet out their own punishment to people who they see violating laws. And it's saying that that's not gonna end up being good, uh, because either they might not be that righteous or they might go trigger happy, or it'll lead to anarchy and chaos in society. Um and there's really a power dynamic uh uh uh going on here, uh, from as evidenced by the fact that they strike the NDVIM. Uh and then there's my idea, which is that um that usually you should carry out justice according to the letter of the law. But when you're dealing with a Sadiq, someone has a good track record or who is good, and then just slips up, then, or even not, even if they even if it's like a bad violation, you do need to think about how that Sadiq's punishment will be received by him or how it'll be perceived by others. And there are times when you should go easy or you should make an exception, you should do a freebie. Um, oh, that I forgot to say the moral of the story. So when I became dorm counselor, I instituted a policy for people like me, but it was also universal, which is you get one freebie, you know? Um, and that Way it would allow, it would not undermine the entire system of the of the penalties for being for missing Daviding. And everyone would get this freebie, but then the people who are showing up on time most of the time will have the freebie, you know. Um, and then lastly, we had the Mistudis David's idea, which is that it's talking about people who are so corrupt that they punish people for doing good. Um and uh and this either is just a warning that there are people who can be that bad, uh, and you need to be wary of those people, or maybe there's some other idea as well. But I think this is a good place to stop for tonight. Okay, so as I mentioned at the beginning of shear, we have two more weeks of schedule Michelay, and then we're breaking for the summer. And by the summer, uh I don't know exactly when we'll return, but um, but you know, I there are times when the beginning of the school year is very busy for me, so I I might not start up until after the beginning of the school year, uh, but we'll see. Okay. And if I give a special Michel during the summer, then uh, you know, you're uh hopefully you either are in my WhatsApp group or uh or you can know someone who is. Okay. All right. Have a good night, everyone. Thanks for coming. Have a good night.
SPEAKER_08Good night, everyone.