Q&A: Its Ways Are Ways of Pleasantness
Its Ways Are Ways of Pleasantness
Question
Hello Rabbi,
How many Jewish laws are derived from the verse, “Its ways are ways of pleasantness” —
for example, the question of what counts as hadas,
and the ruling that a wife’s sister does not fall to levirate marriage
after her sister’s death.
What puzzles me is that there are things in the Torah that are not pleasant at all, such as a mamzer, who did not sin and did nothing wrong,
or the wife of a kohen who was raped, etc.
Thank you very much, Rabbi, for all your extensive activity.
Answer
I think “its ways are ways of pleasantness” can be applied only where there are several interpretive possibilities. In such a case, I choose from among them the one that is most “pleasant.” But this principle cannot uproot a verse or attach to it an unreasonable or impossible interpretation. The Torah says that a mamzer may not enter the congregation of the Lord. There are not several possible interpretations here. In order to cancel that verse by force of “its ways are ways of pleasantness,” you would simply have to delete the verse. That is not done.
Discussion on Answer
Not נכון. It’s like “Love your neighbor as yourself” — obviously, “choose for him a pleasant death.” Given that he is being put to death, you choose for him the least painful death. Why are you putting him to death if you love him so much? Because there is an obligation to execute him. Within that limitation, you try to make it as easy on him as possible. The same is true לגבי “its ways are ways of pleasantness.” The Torah has various goals, and Jewish law strives toward them. Under those constraints, we try to act in ways of pleasantness as much as possible. Therefore, mamzer status cannot be canceled, but hadas is chosen according to this principle. So the verse is indeed valid and true.
I understand, thank you very much for the answer.
I had another thought and would be glad to hear the Rabbi’s opinion on it:
that the Torah’s ways are ways of pleasantness,
but a mamzer comes into being because someone committed a transgression, so there are victims who are also innocent.
Why? If its ways are ways of pleasantness, then it should harm only the sinner. I didn’t understand what explanation you’re offering here.
That happens in our world too.
There’s no expectation that there should be more pleasantness than reality itself.
Even a person who acts pleasantly is forced to cause harm,
like in Gaza, where innocent civilians are harmed.
So the constraint somehow creates a mamzer.
This explanation actually fits with what the Rabbi said
regarding spiritual constraints.
Spiritual constraints do not require harming others. That’s what I wrote at the beginning.
Spiritual constraints apparently do require harming others.
In any case, according to your explanation, even if the Torah had in fact said to take prickly hadas, its ways would still be ways of pleasantness, because for the most part its ways are pleasantness; so when there is an interpretive question, the assumption is pleasantness.
I would suggest that it is always pleasantness, and if it had said to take prickly hadas, that would already have been a refutation
of the verse about pleasantness.
Now the very laws of mamzer status are pleasantness in terms of our world too, because even in our world there are punishments that cause harm to innocent people.
So taking a legal system that punishes innocent people can still be considered ways of pleasantness,
because that exists in every legal system.
But if there is an instruction to take something prickly, that is already not pleasantness.
Thank you very much.
I wasn’t asking to delete the verse about a mamzer,
but rather wondering about the verse “its ways are ways of pleasantness.”
If we see that it is not pleasant,
then apparently the meaning of the verse should be pleasantness in the World to Come or something along those lines, and it can’t lead us to halakhic interpretation.