We know that too much hate is not a good thing, but too much love? The Daf Yomi that was studied around the world shortly before the inauguration has something to say about too much love, and not just about too much hate.
Toward the end of daf 27 in Sanhedrin, after going through a checklist of relatives to be disqualified as witnesses because of too much presumed love of a litigant, the Talmud suddenly says “One [– not necessarily a relative –] who loves or one who hates one of the litigants is also disqualified to serve as a witness.” This would seem to be a sensible “no brainer” although the definitions here are incredibly specific and limiting; love is limited here to the relationship of a groom to his groomsman (“shushbino,” or as we would say nowadays, best man) and further limited to the week of the wedding according to one opinion, and the day of the wedding, according to another opinion. Hate is defined here in the Talmud as the state of mind of a person who did not speak with the litigant for three days, a pretty low threshold by today’s standards. Husbands and wives have been known to give each other the silent treatment for longer than that. Be that as it may, and there is surely more to say, too much love and too much hate disqualify a potential witness, and, by extension, the judgment of a potential – and actual – voter.
Too much love and too much hate, however, can have many applications in our times. As we ponder the recent presidential inauguration and wonder what might have been, too much love and too much hate may have sealed America’s fate during the lead up to the election. The recent confessions of the Facebook founder as to his having succumbed to pressure into censoring so much from the American people may now convince many people that too much hate was allowed to percolate and fester there throughout the course of the presidential campaign of 2020, which may have been counter-intuitively counterproductive in causing many people in 2024 to be concerned about becoming the victim of too much hate themselves, thereby identifying with a candidate they might not have otherwise supported.
At the same time, there also may have been too much love – with too many people so enamored of President Biden that they loved him too much to suggest he honor his commitment to be a transitional president and to step aside much sooner than he did, so that the strongest possible successor could have been selected by his political party in a fair and inclusive primary.
Hate also takes on a disqualifying life of its own on daf 29. Every Biblically literate child is familiar with the verse, “You shall not hate your brother in your heart” (Vayikra 19: 17). Yet the Talmud states that “two Torah scholars who hate each other cannot sit in judgment on the same panel” (Sanhedrin 29). The obvious question is whether they should first be defined as evil, not permitted to sit in judgment on any panel. The short answer is that “hate” in Jewish sources is defined in a variety of ways, and the Torah scholars certainly are presumed to have been “hating” at the minimal level; not in violation of the verse cited above; so this article could have concluded right here. But have no fear.
Kinas sofrim (“the envy of scholars”) can actually be a good thing; it’s the Torah phrase for healthy competitiveness in the learning of Torah, to fight for the truth. Of course, if the fight turns into a focus on proving the other person wrong rather than on seeking to know what is right, that would be problematic once again, and we would be back to square one.
Note the discussion in another mesechta, referring to people who hate each other as enemies, a most heart warming and positive discussion on the “enemies in the gate” (Tehillim 127:5) appears in the Talmud referring to such “enemies” as regarding Torah study. Rabbi Chiya bar Abba says even a father and his son, or a rabbi and his student who are studying the Torah in one gate become enemies of each other (due to the intensity of their studies), but they do not leave until they love each other” (Kiddushin 30b).
Nevertheless, we cannot be sure that the hating rabbis here in Sanhedrin seemed to be headed in this direction, especially to those who define hate without the nuances referred to above. There is no getting around the irony here in Sanhedrin in that the focus on their sitting next to each other on the same panel seems to be on their failure to get along with each other rather than on their hating each other. The prohibition of their deliberating together on the same panel has been compared to the prohibition of animals of different species plowing together (a category of kilayim) (an idea I heard from Rabbi Shalom Rosner citing the Sefer HaChinuch, mitzvah 550), except that in the case of the animals the prohibition is, based in part on the prohibition of tzaar baalei chaim, causing physical pain to the weaker or slower animal that has to try to keep up. Had the rabbis who hated each other been permitted to sit on the same bench in the same panel, they would not have felt any physical pain upon deliberating together (assuming the bench was cushioned), but probably only emotional pain, not to mention the pain of the litigants and other onlookers observing first-hand the chilul Hashem created by judges openly expressing hate of each other instead of focusing on rendering justice, and partly at the expense of rendering justice.
According to the Rambam, the inclination to hate for no justified reason (the sin of sinas cheenom) has replaced the sin of idolatry.
We all know that the Temple was destroyed because of the unjustified hatred between one Jew and another. It is good to know that the Talmudic prohibition of two hateful judges judging together is designed to prevent such calamities as well as the calamities of judgments tainted by external and irrelevant personal feelings.
It is not for us to say whether the hatred of the politicians and their supporters in America today – or in Israel for that matter – is justified on either side, but hopefully the citizens of each country can unite around the desire to see decency, good judgment and justice prevail regardless of relatively irrelevant personalities and feelings.
For a major classic detailed discussion and summary of the practical applications of love and hate as manifested in the laws relating to the testimony of witnesses, see the monumental “Halacha Pesuka – Hilchot Edut, Volume 3,” published by the Machon Harry Fischel in Jerusalem.
