Rava said: “If a scholar is angry, it is the Torah that makes him so as the verse says: ‘Are not my words like fire, says God’” (Yirmiyahu 23:29). R. Ashi said: “Any scholar who is not hard like iron is not a scholar as it says “like the hammer that shatters the rock’” (Yirmiyahu 23:29) …Ravina taught: “Even so, a person should train himself to be pleasant and easygoing.” (Ta’anit 4a)

I translated the word “ratah (boiling)” employed by Rava as anger. R. Yoshiyahu Pinto (Rif in Ein Yaakov) argues that Rava does not admire anger at all but rather the fiery, unyielding tenacity to stand up for Torah goals. Rava actually conveys the same point as does the subsequent quote from R. Ashi. Apparently, R. Pinto was against striking any positive notes about anger. Yet the simplest translation of “ratah” is anger and we shall work with that reading.

Rava opens the discussion with some sympathy for the anger of a scholar. Ravina closes the section by counseling against this anger. Why does Rava exhibit sympathy and why does Ravina ultimately suggest that it would be better to avoid it?

R. Menachem Meiri suggests that scholars become angry upon seeing wrongdoing. Scholars become angrier than others either because their superior knowledge enables them to recognize a greater number of transgressions or because they come to identify more intensely with the Torah’s goals. Understandably, Rava sees this as somewhat positive. Evil should bother us and even make us angry.

Nonetheless, Ravina advises against becoming irate. Meiri explains that anger fails on a pragmatic level and causes significant harm. Scholars who are always flying of the handle can not teach the community effectively. The angry voice soon loses its impact. Moreover, anger often entails a loss of control and engenders poor judgment. Angry people often do or say things that harm themselves and others. Therefore, even justified anger remains highly dangerous.

R. Kook presents an alternate reading in his Middot haRa’ayah (under “Kaas”). For R. Kook, the scholar yearns for exalted horizons and is frustrated by a world of boundaries and limitations. These limitations may be of a personal, societal, or environmental nature. They may even refer to halachic boundaries. Perhaps the religious individual pining for a dialogue with God feels frustrated by halachic rules about how to go about forging that bond. R. Kook shows some admiration for an individual angry about these difficulties.

For R. Kook, Ravina’s rejection of anger reflects not pragmatic counsel but a higher level of understanding. Ultimately, the scholar realizes that limitations and boundaries themselves promote the quest to cleave to God. Achieving this perspective enables a person to retain his equanimity in the face of restrictions. This idea fits with R. Kook’s introductory comments to Middot harRa’ayah. Work on character is not just an issue of applying what we already know but rather includes a strong analytic and intellectual component as well. Sometimes, character growth depends upon a deeper understanding of the difficulties of a human life.

Our Rabbis taught: “Sins that he confessed this Yom Kippur, he does not confess them on another Yom Kippur. If he repeats them, he must confess them on another Yom Kippur. If he does not repeat them and yet confessed them again, scripture says about him ‘Like a dog returns to his vomit, the fool returns to his folly’ (Mishlei 26:11).” R. Eliezer ben Yaakov says: “All the more so, he is praiseworthy as it says ‘For I know my transgressions and my sin is always before me’ (Tehillim 51:3).” (Yoma 86b)

This tannaitic debate continued into the middle ages. Rambam (Hilchot Teshuva 2:8) taught that a person should continue confessing the same sin each Yom Kippur while Rabbenu Yonah (Shaarei Teshuva 4:21) was against this practice. What lies at the root of the argument? We could answer this question in terms of biblical interpretation. Each Rav cites scriptural support for his position and each has to offer an alternative reading of the opponent’s verse. The gemara does explain how R. Eliezer reads the verse from Mishlei but does not explain how the Rabbis read the verse from Tehillim.

Alternatively, we could explain the debate in terms of theology and religious psychology. What are the religious benefits and pitfalls of an annual mention of more youthful transgressions? R. Eliezer might argue that the sinner remains eternally uncertain if he or she has truly achieved forgiveness. Even if assured of atonement, the person may simply still feel guilty about violating the Divine command. Therefore, each Yom Kippur demands a new confession.

How would the Rabbis disagree with the above? Rabbenu Yonah offers three different factors motivating their position. A person who asks for forgiveness every year indicates a lack of belief in the compassionate forgiveness of the Ribbono Shel Olam. Ongoing expressions of guilt seem like extra piety but actually reveal a corrupt conception of divinity. Furthermore, a person may focus on earlier sins as a means of turning attention away from current iniquities needing attention. Finally, returning to old sins can be an arrogant way of asserting the absence of current transgressions.

R. Hanokh Zundel from Salant adds another explanation in his Ez Yosef (found in Ein Yaakov). A person may constantly talk about an old failure because he or she still finds that sin enticing. Indeed, we would find troubling a purportedly reformed individual who relishes talking in great detail about the old dissolute days.

There may be significant practical differences between the various explanations. How do we evaluate someone who confesses previous sins but also focuses attention on current failures? The problem of arrogance falls away but the faulty conception of God and the dangers of lovingly evoking old sins remain quite relevant.

On the other hand, these explanations share an important commonality. Confessing sins appears free of religious dangers and a pious act by definition. Apparently, this is not the case. We must think carefully even about acts that usually reflect piety as those very acts can reveal erroneous religious ideas or problematic character traits. Confronting these questions demands serious thought guided by the wisdom of our sages.

R. Huna bar Manoah, R. Shmuel bar Idi and R. Hiyya from Vastania were often found before Rava (to learn from him). When Rava passed away, they came before R. Papa. Whenever he taught something that they thought incorrect, they gestured to each other. R. Papa became depressed. It was read to him in a dream: “And I cut off the three shepherds” (Zecharya 11:8). When the Rabbis left the next day, he said to them “May the Rabbis go in peace.”

R. Shimi bar Ashi was often found before R. Papa. He would ask many questions. One day, he saw that R. Papa fell on his face and said “May the Merciful One save me from the shame of R. Shimi.” He took it upon himself not to ask more questions.

Both stories relate to the delicate dynamic between teacher and student. In an ideal educational world, students would value the instructor’s teaching, feel comfortable asking tough questions, and succeed in challenging the teacher without creating bad feelings. The complexities of human relations do not always lend themselves to such ideals and each of these stories reveals one potential complication.

In the latter story, R. Shimi’s difficult questions embarrassed R. Papa. R. Papa did not mention this to R. Shimi, perhaps because he understood that a teacher should ideally be able to handle the challenges of talented students. However, he did ask God for help in dealing with this situation. When R. Shimi overhears this prayer, he forgoes his own questioning in order to protect R. Papa’s feelings. In the clash of opposing educational values, R. Shimi ranked not causing his teacher public humiliation a higher priority than the ability to freely ask questions.

The first story reveals a different problem. Here, the students do not treat R. Papa with respect, winking at each other or exhibiting knowing smiles when they disagreed with his Torah. Perhaps these students sorely missed their former teacher, Rava, and would invariably find his substitute lacking. In any case, they are at fault in a way that R. Shimi is not. Students should ask difficult questions but they should not make faces just because they disagree with the teacher. R. Papa’s dream informs us that they deserve serious punishment.

What did R. Papa tell his three students on the following day? Interpretation hinges upon a crucial textual ambiguity. Our printed text says “bi’shlama.” The version cited in Ein Yaakov reads “li’shlama.” A gemara (Berachot 64a) states that the former is said upon leaving the deceased and the latter upon departing from a friend. Our printed version indicates that R. Papa anticipated the demise of the three students. Ein Yaakov’s version suggests that he wished them well and did not want them to receive the full force of the dream’s prediction. A fuller understanding of R. Papa’s personality depends upon this minor textual variant.

Sefat Emet offers a different reading that alters the entire picture. He explains that R. Papa told these students to go learn from a different Rabbi. Whether or not the problem stemmed from the inevitable disappointment in a replacement for Rava, something was off in the dynamic between these three students and R. Papa. In many cases, such problems can be fixed. In other situations, the best solution is for either teachers or student to look elsewhere in the hope that a different setting may generate a teacher - student relationship closer to the ideal.

Educational perfection remains unattainable and we must make the best choice available. At the same time, we can not cease striving for greater learning accomplishments. This includes both improving existing educational structures as well as looking elsewhere when necessary. This gemara incorporates both types of solutions. R. Shimi chooses to stick with R. Papa but curtail his questions. R. Papa instructs the three students to find another teacher where a better educational environment hopefully awaits.