Q&A: Harsh Language
Harsh Language
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I saw a document with a collection of very harsh expressions used by medieval authorities (Rishonim) against other medieval authorities. Extremely, extremely harsh—attacking the person, not just the statement. And there are also examples of Amoraim speaking that way about other Amoraim. How do you explain that? Did the writer not see the greatness and stature of his colleague from the writings that we all study with holy awe? Or was his intention ultimately directed only at the opinion, while he knew that his colleague too was holy and a genius? And how is it possible that one Rishon would hold an opinion that, in the eyes of another, is literally foolish? Did one of them simply say crushing nonsense, and the attacker saw no logic at all in the view being attacked?
So people tell us, “The Torah made him heated,” but that only answers the question of how the attacker failed to control his anger—after all, anyone who gets angry is as if he worships idols—and the answer is: “The Torah made him heated”; because of his intense passion for Torah and wisdom he had an uncontrollable urge to get angry, and he was, as it were, compelled. But I’m not asking about the personal temperament of that Rishon, or how prone he was to anger. I’m asking what caused him to get angry in the first place. Did he truly understand his colleague’s view, or did he simply attribute foolishness to him and therefore accuse him? And if he didn’t understand, then why didn’t he consider the possibility that his colleague’s position was reasonable? Is every harsh criticism simply the result of the attacker’s misunderstanding? And if he did understand his colleague’s view correctly, then why did he see fit to criticize him so sharply, when we can see that it has logic and substance? And even if he disagrees with him on some deep underlying assumption in the reasoning, where exactly is the stupidity, and why the harshness? In matters this subtle, it’s obvious that the decision is not unequivocal; there are valid sides both ways.
Thank you.
Answer
I think that unlike us, the medieval authorities felt at home, and felt they could speak freely. And when they felt the need to take someone down, they did it without too much calculation. Among the guys, people talk freely and don’t preserve museum manners. See column 63.
Beyond that, they were all human beings just like you and me, with weaknesses, outbursts, and emotions. And in general, all these varieties of holy awe are our policy, not theirs. I also don’t think the regard they had for one another was anything like the sense of holy awe you’re describing, the kind they tried to educate us into.
Kfir, I’d appreciate a link to the article…