It is erev Yom Kippur and I have come to clear up a gross misconception.
Every year at this time, we are reminded again and again about the fundamental rules of doing teshuva based on the last Mishna in Masechet Yoma. And we hear that Yom Kippur only atones for the sins between ourselves and HKBH. The sins between us and our fellow man are not atoned unless we placate the injured party. There are those who want to say that if one has not straightened out his issues with his fellow man, Yom Kippur doesn’t even work for sins between man and G-d.
Quite discomforting, don’t you think?
And so, on erev Yom Kippur we are all in a frenzy calling up our parents and in-laws and chavrusas and spouses and coworkers and whoever else and wishing them a last minute “G’mar Chasima Tova” and glibly adding that “In case I have done anything to you that I should not have, please be moichel me.” Whereupon we smugly wait for the confirmation and reciprocate in kind.
That’ll do it. My teshuva is complete.
There is only one problem with all of this. The importance of asking mechila is not meant for friends and relatives – ohavim. It is meant to be done with enemies and rivals – sonim and mechablim.
This is very rarely done. It is definitely not as simple as it looks.
Why is it so rare for enemies to make up?
This is going to surprise you.
The problem does not lie with the offenders. The problem lies with the offendeds!
Let’s look at the gemara in Yoma 87a:
רב הוה ליה מילתא בהדי ההוא טבחא לא אתא לקמיה במעלי יומא דכפורי אמר איהו איזיל אנא לפיוסי ליה פגע ביה רב הונא אמר ליה להיכא קא אזיל מר אמר ליה לפיוסי לפלניא אמר אזיל אבא למיקטל נפשא
Rav had a spat with a certain butcher ( i.e., the butcher offended Rav – Rashi). He (the butcher) did not approach Rav on erev Yom Kippur. Said Rav to himself, “Let me go and placate.” On the way he met up with Rav Huna. Rav Huna asked him, “Where are you going to?” Rav answered to placate this fellow. Rav Huna responded, “Abba (Rav) is setting out to kill a person.”
The story continues that the butcher was not very receptive to Rav and that it did not end well for the butcher. (It ended for the butcher, but not very well.) The butcher exclaimed, “Go away, I have no issue with you.”
This is a very confusing story. The tone indicates that Rav was the injured party and expected the butcher to initiate a reconciliation. When this didn’t happen, Rav went personally to the butcher and we are told that his goal is to placate the butcher.
Was this an act of midas chasiddus (chivalry), or did Rav carry an obligation? Why did Rav say he is out to placate the butcher if he is the injured party?
Far be it from me to have a disparaging view on Rav, the great Tana u’Palig, but I would like to suggest the possibility Rav was not totally blameless in this fiasco. As they say, it takes two to tango. The butcher seemed to have his own grievance and didn’t think he owed any apology to Rav. Perhaps Rav was humble enough to assume that maybe the butcher has a legitimate gripe, and he is no less responsible to initiate a reconciliation as the butcher is to him. (See this post about apologies.)
Hence, Rav took the initiative to extend the olive branch to the butcher. Of course, the butcher should have accepted the gesture and cut his losses. Instead, he cut his own throat. Poor choice.
But this does indeed open up a Pandora’s box. Whose responsibility is it to initiate the act of reconciliation? Is the party who thinks he is the injured party free to sit back and tell himself, “This guy offended me and it’s his business to approach me and ask mechila. If he doesn’t, it’s his problem. His Yom Kippur will go to waste, not mine.”?
I don’t think so. I think it is the job of the injured party to contact the offender and to let him know that he expects to be placated.
Where do I get this from?
The laws of nezikim – damages.
When party A wrongs party B, whether it is personal or financial, party B feels that he was damaged or injured. Hence the term “injured party”. An injury is a damage.
If somebody is cheating me out of money, this is financial damage. If someone embarrassed me or slandered me, it is social damage. When the circumstances are clear-cut, I can sue the offending party for the damages. This is why we have Batei Din and Choshen Mishpat.
So, what are the rules in Choshen Mishpat about being damaged? Says the gemara in Bava Kama (46b):
א"ר שמואל בר נחמני מניין להמוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה שנאמר (שמות כד, יד) מי בעל דברים יגש אליהם יגיש ראיה אליהם. מתקיף לה רב אשי הא למה לי קרא סברא הוא דכאיב ליה כאיבא אזיל לבי אסיא
Says Rav Shmuel bar Nachmeni: From where do we know that if one wants to collect from another, he must bring proof (this includes initiating the claim)? For it states: He who is a litigant should approach them [the substitute judges]. Also to mean, He who is a litigant must present his proofs to them.
Rashi tells us: Litigant – Plaintiff. The gemara continues:
Rav Ashi challenges: Why do we need a verse for this? This is self-evident. One who is in pain (i.e., injured) must go to a doctor.
The “doctor” is a simile for a judge. The gemara is telling us that the claimant is responsible for filing the case in Beis Din to resolve it if it comes to this. Likewise, he carries the burden of proof. This is so elementary that we don’t even need a Torah verse for this. And it is just as elementary that even before this point, the claimant needs to take his grievance to the offending party. If he doesn’t, how should the defendant even know that he has a grievance?
It is possible that the defendant is not even aware that there was any damage inflicted in whatever encounter they may have had. He may also underrate it’s significance. He may also assume that the plaintiff does not feel damaged or is prepared to waive the damage.
Even on the most unequivocal obligation, such as a loan, the obligation to pay without being solicited is only a mitzva. No question, the borrower is obligated by mitzvah to return the money at the appointed time, but if he doesn’t, and the lender doesn’t claim him at least once, he can justify that maybe the lender waived to loan.
More so, when the “debt” is in question or the amount is under dispute, this is precisely the lesson of the gemara in Bava Kama 46b. It is the responsibility of the toveah – claimant – to approach the defendant and stake his claim. If the defendant concedes, all is well, or else they can try to work it out between them or, when all else fails, they can enlist the opinions of dayanim.
But the key here is that the initial motion must be taken by the claimant. Of course, unlike the butcher in the story with Rav, the defendant needs to cooperate. But he can sit at home and enjoy life until the day the toveah rings his bell.
The “debt” of an apology or request for mechila is just like any other debt. If he knows for certain that he is indebted to the “claimant”, he is obligated to settle it up or, at least, to approach the claimant and ask him if he still demands payment – i.e., an apology or request for mechila. And he would be very wise to pay up.
But when the situation is not so clear-cut, like when both sides have grievances against each other, or one or both parties do not think the other’s grievance is legitimate, it is the responsibility of he who wants to “get paid” to justify his claim. Moreover, it is quite likely that the offending party is not even aware of the grievance, may have forgotten all about it, may think it is no big deal, or that the offended party has forgotten or forgiven it already.
The point is that if the expected apology is not forthcoming, the one who feels he was offended has a responsibility to demand it and to clear the air. If he doesn’t do it, he is the “bad guy”, not the "offensive" person he has a gripe with.
We are taught that the prohibition of לא תשנא אחיך בלבבך – do not hate your brother in your heart – means one may not bear a grudge, even if justified, and to neglect to tell the subject that you hold a grudge against him. If you bear a grudge, you must inform him and set the stage for the two of you to reconcile, just like we learn from Rav.
And so, surprisingly enough, anybody who holds a grudge against a person and thinks that it’s that person’s job to set it right but doesn’t claim his “debt”, and then goes into Yom Kippur smug that he is in the clear and the other fellow is going to have a wasted Yom Kippur, is in for a painful surprise.
Most of us have our very short list of people, usually friends and relatives, that we don’t mind asking mechila from and one or two cases where we really need that mechila. And these are the people we contact.
But we have it all wrong. And we are contacting the wrong people.
We all need to have a list, as long as it needs to be, of people that wronged us, that we want them to ask mechila from us and we need to get busy on the phone or email or WhatsApp and contact every single one of these people and let them know that there’s a score to settle. If we don’t, our own Yom Kippur will not be complete.
So, instead of glibly asking mechila from anybody (everybody?), I want to ask anybody who really thinks that I need to ask mechila to contact me and let me know (with all the details).
G’mar Chasima Tova to one and all.
Posts
