Rabbi David Bashevkin, director of education for NCSY and an instructor at Yeshiva University (and Teaneck resident), has just authored a fascinating book. The creative title is “Sin-a-gogue: Sin and Failure in Jewish Thought” (Cherry Orchard Books, 2019). There is much to be learned from this book. I am going to present a very small sample.
In an early chapter on the origin of sin, he analyzes the Creation story. The story of the sin of Adam and Chava starts in the last verse in Chapter 2, long after the first week of Creation is described. But how does the Talmud understand the timing of the story? According to the Talmud (San. 38b), the sin took place on Erev Shabbat and they were banished from the Garden on Erev Shabbat as well. Bashevkin writes: “The Talmud’s chronology is startling. We are used to thinking about the sin of Adam and Eve as a perversion of God’s pristine creation… Creation is complete; sin destroys the perfect world. The Talmud’s chronology tells a very different story. The story of Adam and Eve’s sin was a part of the seven days of creation.”
What did sin create? Bashevkin explains that sin created Adam’s sense of self. Following the sin, Adam emerged as an autonomous being with free will and capable of choice.
A verse in Mishlei (24:16) reads “the righteous fall seven times and stand up.” Bashevkin cites a famous interpretation of this verse by Rav Hutner. It is not despite their failures that the righteous stand up; it is because of their failures. Greatness does not emerge despite failure; it is a product of failure.
Sin can be viewed as a physical burden that one carries. But another way to look at it is as a debt that one owes to God. In the latter image, being a Rebbe can be viewed as the way the sinner pays off his own debt to God. The Rebbe atones for his own sins by bringing others to repentance!
Just like Eskimos have many words for snow, Judaism has many words for sin. For example: chet, avon and pesha. A mainstream view is that each of these words reflects a different degree of intent. A chet is a sin committed inadvertently. An avon is an intentional sin. A pesha is a sin that is committed intentionally but also meant as an act of rebellion. Bashevkin writes: “An otherwise minor infraction can be classified as a pesha if the sinner committed such an act as a marked act of rebellion against God. Conversely, an egregious sin can be characterized as a chet if the sin was unintentional. If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, the severity of sin, according to the Talmud, is in the mind of the transgressor.” He contrasts this to American law, where the severity of the crime is typically measured by the severity of the punishment.
He has an interesting discussion of the word “aveirah.” This word, frequently used for sin in the Mishna, is not found in the Tanach. The Tanach does have “la-avor” as a verb, indicating that a sin has been committed (i.e., a line has been crossed). He quotes a scholar who explains that “many Biblical verbs later emerged within Mishnaic literature as conceptualized nouns.” (Another example is the noun “shechinah.”)
Why did “aveirah” become such a common term for sin in rabbinic literature? He suggests that rabbinic Judaism was establishing more and more legal borders, so the image of sin being a crossing of a border became more and more appropriate. Then he suggests another answer, which is admittedly more homiletical. The root “ayin-bet-resh” also means “the past.” Sin consists of being mired in your past behavior, while repentance involves changing one’s behavior and taking control of the future.
There is a famous passage in Rambam (based on a passage in the Talmud) that teshuva gemura consists of being in the same situation with the same woman and not sinning again. But the unresolved issue is: should the sinner be putting himself into this situation again? He discusses the varied rabbinic approaches to this issue and postulates a disagreement between two chasidic masters. He also notes that in the secular world a similar problem arises with cured alcoholics. What do they do after recovery? Should they be frequenting the locations again or should they be avoiding them?
The book quotes a wide variety of sources, Jewish and secular. To quote from the review of Rabbi Dr. Tzvi Hersh Weinreb: This is a “book that can be read as a masterful theater production, upon whose stage a wide-ranging variety of characters are in dialogue with each other: Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor with Jonah…; 19th-century chassidic masters with 21st-century thinkers…” To quote from another reviewer, “by weaving together classical Judaic sources…with contemporary discussions from ethicists, scientists, social scientists, literary figures, and philosophers, Bashevkin brings alive material the secular world had no access to, and material the ‘yeshiva’ world did not know existed.”
Even though Bashevkin admits that he often found hagiographic rabbinic stories inspiring, the book makes a strong case against the fantasized depiction of great figures that shield such figures from the sins and failures that helped make them great.
He has a chapter on the tanna Elisha ben Avuya who left our tradition and came to be known as “Acher.” Another chapter is about the mid-20th-century figure, “Brother Daniel.” He was born a Jew, became a monk, and then tried to make aliyah under the law of return. This resulted in a famous case in the Israeli court system that needed to define “Jew” under the law of return. Another chapter is on the difficulties faced by rabbi’s sons. (He points out that long ago, the Talmud, at Ned. 81a, asks an analogous question: why do the children of talmidei chachamim often not end up as talmidei chachamim? The Talmud suggests a few answers.)
The author points out that while he wants his book on your shelf, it should certainly not be the only book on your shelf!
The best part of the book is the last line in his biography on the back cover: He begins his blurb normally: “David Bashevkin is the director of education for NCSY….” Then he concludes: “David has been rejected from several prestigious fellowships and awards.” As he points out throughout the book, failure is a normal part of life. This was his contribution to biography blurb truth-telling!
P.S. I also learned from this book that one of the leaders of the American atheist movement invented a ritual for Christians to reverse their baptism: With a blowdryer, he would symbolically blow-dry the liquid remnants of the baptism out of the supplicant’s hair!
By Mitchell First
Mitchell First is willing to admit his main failure in life: He has spent a lot of time solving historical and etymological problems, but not enough time promoting his personal injury law business!
For more articles by Mitchell First, and information on his books, please visit his website at rootsandrituals.org.
