“Doing no evil is not the same as doing good”
In the midst of listening to a recorded teaching on parashah Emor this past week, I found myself struck by this quote. How often we equate doing no evil with doing good and consider the two as equivalent. If I’m not doing evil then surely I must be doing good? Remarkably such is not the case.
In rabbinic thought, “good” in its most basic sense means to function as intended. Everything in creation was intended to play a contributory role in the world as we know it and was designated as “good” in the Genesis 1 account. Therefore, doing good is active, it is contributory and creative. It is living life and performing mitzvot in a way that benefits others by providing an environment in which learning, growth and improvement takes place. On the other hand, doing no evil is passive; it is walking the straight and narrow path. Although doing no evil is more difficult, as it receives little or no recognition compared to doing good, in the eyes of the rabbis doing good is superior to doing no evil –it is the mark of a truly righteous person (tzaddik). [1]
This distinction between doing no evil and doing good is seen in 1 Peter 3:10-11;
For “Whoever desires to love life and see good days, let him keep his tongue from evil and his lips from speaking deceit; let him turn away from evil and do good; let him seek peace and pursue it. (ESV)
Here, Peter, quoting Psalm 34:12-14, distinguishes between turning away from evil versus doing good. The former requires personal abstinence (keeping one’s tongue from evil and lips from deceit) while the latter involves personal involvement with others (seeking peace and pursuing it).
With this concept in mind, one of the most controversial teachings from parashah Emor can be considered;
If anyone injures his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him, fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him. (Leviticus 24:19-20, ESV)
Although skeptics often used these verses to disprove or ridicule the inspiration of Scripture, the “eye for an eye” passage also finds controversy among believers of Yeshua who spoke of this mitzvah in his Sermon on the Mount;
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matthew 5:38-39, ESV)
This teaching is commonly understood in Christianity to promote pacifism. Interpretations range from a strict refusal to engage in warfare, to personal non-resistance which patiently accepts every form of abuse and persecution from others. I remember a former female Sunday School teacher and Christian missionary, explaining to a group of us women that “although it is difficult” we must all “be doormats for Jesus”, based on this verse. Modern scholars, however, who consider the Apostolic Writings in historical context, find difficulty in this common pacifist/non-resistance view due to its inconsistency with Yeshua as a practicing, Torah-observant Jew. In the Torah such pacifistic and/or self-abnegating concepts are never taught, commanded, or considered virtuous. How then could Yeshua demand such of his own disciples?
In order to reconcile this inconsistency scholars such as David Bivin and Brad Young offer an alternative understanding of Matthew 5:39, in which the word resist is translated as fret or compete. This is acheived by translating v. 39 into its Hebrew equivalent. The Hebrew word for “resist” is titchar whose shoresh (root word) is charah. Charah is found in Psalm 37:1 and Proverbs 24:19 which admonish the faithful to not “fret” (charah) over evildoers. Charah carries the meaning of “anger” or “frustration” which leads to jealousy or rivalry. Therefore, Yeshua’s “turn the other cheek” teaching is understood as a warning not to compete with or fret over evildoers by desiring revenge, but instead to seek to overcome evil with good. [2]
D.T. Lancaster, commenting in Torah Club Volume 4, concurs with this alternative translation of Matthew 5:39, and from it understands that Yeshua is teaching his disciples to be “an entirely different breed of people”. Such people; “don’t press charges”, “don’t demand their measure”, “don’t litigate” or “demand their rights”, but instead they; “remember that there is a judge in a higher court of law, a court which will one day settle all accounts”. [3]
Yet, putting this all together doesn’t seem to make much sense. If Yeshua is warning his disciples not to fret or compete with evildoers by desiring revenge why does he command them to endure a situation in which their anger is likely to grow hot? To receive two strikes on the cheek instead of one would only add to the temptation toward anger and revenge. The Torah commandment of “eye for an eye” results in fair monetary compensation that fits the crime, and is also a means of evoking repentance and atonement for the evil-doer. A “new breed of people” who forgo this Torah commandment, by not holding the evil-doer responsible for “their measure”, in reality rob their enemy of a means of repentance and atonement and subject him to harsher judgment before G-d on the day when all accounts are settled. Is there any greater form of revenge than this?
Interestingly, Brad Young relates, that Yeshua in Matthew 5:39 is referring to a back-handed slap with the right hand, as described in BT Baba Kama 8:6. This kind of slap was considered a serious public insult resulting in a heavy fine. [4] However, the public shaming or humiliating of others in the teaching of the Sages takes on a much more serious tone than Young alludes to. Babylonian Talmud Baba Metzia 58b and 59a contain grave statements regarding public insult including;
“Whoever shames his neighbor in public is as if he shed his blood”
“one who publicly humiliates another forfeits his place in the Word to Come”
“it is better that a person throw himself into a fiery furnace rather than shame his neighbor”.
Genesis Rabbah 24:7 explains that public shaming of a person is to publicly shame HaShem because such humiliation mocks G-d in Whose image the person was created. So serious is this offense that even ardent study of Torah and performance of many good deeds does not provide forgiveness for it (cf. The Ethics of the Fathers 3:15). Ma’asei Torah teaches that it is better for a person not to be born at all than to experience seven things; one of which is “publicly shaming his fellow man”. [5]
With these historic teachings in mind it is incredible to consider Yeshua’s words in Matthew 5:38-39. By being struck in the face a person was subjected to public humiliation which placed his enemy under the severest condemnation, one likened to bloodshed according to the Sages. Yet, the disciple of Yeshua is instructed not only to endure one strike to the cheek, but to turn his face and invite a second serious infraction by his enemy! In the most literal context Yeshua is indeed teaching his disciples not to resist the evil leveled against them, but instead to encourage or welcome it.
Because public humiliation was considered such a serious offense the evil doer would be taken aback when his victim offered the other cheek. In this way the disciple of Yeshua contributed to his enemy’s welfare, through a creative means of making him stop and think about what he was doing. Any man might lose his temper, succumb to temptation and humiliate his fellow publicly with a slap to the face, but to do so twice in one occurrence would be to cross the line of common decency and humanity. By offering the other cheek the disciple of Yeshua challenged his enemy regarding crossing the line of seriously unreasonable sin and prompted him toward repentance. If he would not strike him the second time, why would he strike him initially? Surely the victim had every right and responsibility per Torah, to bring the offense of public humiliation before the religious leaders and expect just compensation, which would require a heavy fine to the enemy. Yet, if the enemy were to strike the other cheek and repeat an infraction of such gravity a second time, not only would the responsibility and compensation be overwhelming, but the guilt of committing such a severe offense twice, would be unbearable.
Yeshua’s teachings of Matthew 5 are summed up in the final verse of the chapter; “therefore you shall be perfect just as your Father in heaven is perfect”. Yeshua desired righteous disciples, tzaddikim, who by definition “do good”. Pacifism, non-resistance, and/or self-control of anger and abstaining from revenge, are all passive activities of “doing no evil”. Such activities benefit and strengthen the individual personally and spiritually, but contribute little if anything creative to the growth or learning of others. In Matthew 5:44 Yeshua says; “do good to those who hate you”. Be disciples who contribute creatively to others and to our world through observance of the mitzvot.
Rabbi Chaim Volozhin relates the following story from Shabbat 152b which helps illustrate the difference between doing good and doing no evil;
A king distributed royal raiments to his servants. The intelligent ones folded the cloaks and stored them in a safe place. The foolish ones wore the clothing while going about their work. After a while, the king ordered that the cloaks be returned. The intelligent ones returned clean and pressed clothing, while the foolish ones returned soiled clothing. The king placed the clean clothing in a safe place and washed the dirty clothing.
The significance of the tale is that the intelligent servants did not merely return clean, unworn clothing to the King; they also improved the garments by pressing them. In the same way we have a dual responsibility for our royal raiment, our soul. We must avoid staining it with sin (by doing no evil), and we must also improve it by performing positive mitzvot (doing good). [6]
……………………………………..
[1] Based on thoughts presented in; Rabbi David Lapin, Sfirat HaOmer; Progression in Creativity (1989), audio recording available here.
[2] David Bivin, New Light on the Difficult Words of Jesus, En Gedi Resource Center, Holland, MI, 2005 pp. 104-107. Brad H. Young, Meet the Rabbis, Hendrickson Publishers,Peabody,MA, 2007, pp. 208-209.
[3] D.T. Lancaster, Torah Club Volume 4, B’sorat HaMashiach, First Fruits of Zion, Littleton, CO, 2002, pp. 46-47.
[4] Brad H. Young, ibid, pp. 209-210.
[5] Various teachings of the Sages as presented in; Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, A Code of Jewish Ethics, Volume I, You Shall Be Holy,Bell Tower,New York, 2006, pp. 276-279.
[6] Rabbi Chaim Volozhin, Ruach Chaim, (rendered into English by Chanoch Levi), Targum Press,Southfield,MI, 2002 p. 128.
