Without context, you can't answer the simplest questions. Here is an example: Is the earth big? Here is a more subtle example. The mishnah on daf 118a of Bava Kamma makes a seemingly straightforward statement, and then goes on to demonstrate that there are four different ways to read it. Each of which leads to quite different and practical differences in halacha. (The interested reader may see at the end of this for more details.)
I brought this up because I want to take a more wholistic view of a recent TftD regarding the receipt of bad news. Chazal teach us that our response to bad news and our understanding of bad news are distinct and often apparently contradictory. That being said, it is also clear from Chazal that there is, indeed, bad news. This may stem from the nature of good and bad tidings. Good tidings mean we are right now able to experience the goodness of those situations. Bad tidings, on the other hand, require us to do some work to reveal the goodness. When I heard the good tidings, "Your cancer had been cured," I enjoyed having a healthy body. When I heard the bad tidings, "You have cancer," I needed to embark on three months of grueling chemotherapy -- and significant חשבון נפש/soul searching to reveal the goodness. All good, but...
The gemara asked: what does the mishna mean by חייב אדם לברך על הרע כשם שלברך על הטובה/A person is obligated (yes, חייב) to bless on bad <tidings> in the same way that he blesses on good <tidings>? (The Hebrew doesn't say "tidings", clear from the context and the response that not including that word would be a willful mistranslation.) Before learning the answer, one is obligated (yes, חייב) to know the context in which that question was asked. Without knowing what is pressing us to ask this question, one could completely misunderstand the answer and be led to incorrect and even damaging behaviors.
To lighten the mood a bit (and to brag about my Spanish skills), I just heard a wild story -- told completely in Spanish -- about the misfortunes of an albino brown bear who was misidentified as a polar bear far from home. Fortunately the mistake was discovered before the poor bear died from exposure, but not before he suffered being transported three times to the North Pole; and even endured living in a freezer for some time!
The רי''ף tells us that the gemara already knew this Truth: everything that happens is always and only for the good. We also have the well-known tzadik, נחום איש גם זו; so named because of his moniker גם זו לטובה/this, too, is for the good. Given that, the gemara's first try at answering the question, is simply to make the same bracha on both good and bad news -- ברוך ההטוב והמטיב/Blessed is the (One who is) Good and the (One who) bestows good. However -- even though that seems to be the most logical answer -- it can't be the resolution to our confusion, as the mishna itself has already told us that we make a different bracha on bad news. What then is the resolution? How do we fulfill our obligation to bless the Creator for bad news the same we do for good news: Accept the news -- good or bad -- with joy!
But I don't feel joy. Right. Very real feelings can be at odds with reality. So we make a different bracha open receiving bad tidings: ברוך דיין האמת/Blessed is the True Judge. Even that monumental tzadik, נחום איש גם זו, made the bracha of ברוך דיין האמת upon hearing that his father had died; not ברוך ההטוב והמטיב. How do we bring our feelings in sync with reality? R' Akiva -- a devoted and exceptional student of נחום איש גם זו -- tells us: לעולם יהא אדם רגיל לומר כל דעביד רחמנא לתב עביד/a person should always accustom himself to say that everything HaShem does is for the good. Say that over and over and over and... and eventually you will come to feel it as well as believe it.
=============================================================
The promised details regarding the reading of the mishna, Bava Kama 118a:
- one who steals a lamb and returns it, and subsequently that lamb is stolen or dies, the original thief is responsible for that loss
- the owners don't know about the theft or the return
- and and the owner counts the flock and finds it complete, the thief is off the hook
Does statement (3) go with (2)? Maybe (3) goes with (1) and (2). Maybe (3) goes with (1). Also, if the owners don't know about the stealing or the return, is the thief off the hook or is he responsible? (Lack of knowledge might be worse because now one of the sheep has tasted "freedom" and needs extra guarding.) The gemara addresses all four renderings. Take a look; it is fascinating!
Comments