“But why was the second Sanctuary destroyed, seeing that in its time they were occupying themselves with Torah, [observance of] precepts, and the practice of charity? Because therein prevailed hatred without cause. That teaches you that groundless hatred is considered as of even gravity with the three sins of idolatry, immorality, and bloodshed
together . And [during the time of] the first Sanctuary did no groundless hatred prevail? Surely it is written: They are thrust down to the sword with my people; smite therefore upon my thigh,13 and R. Eleazar said: This refers to people who eat and drink together and then thrust each other through with the daggers of their tongue! — That [passage] speaks of the princes in Israel, for it is written , Cry and wail, son of man; for it is upon my people,13 etc. [The text reads] ‘Cry and wail, son of
man’. One might have assumed [it is upon] all [Israel], therefore it goes on, Upon all the princes of Israel.”
Whatever one makes of Yeshua (Jesus; and I myself am unequivocal of what I make of him), he (whether Mashiach, a min, or someone or something else) wisely observed that a divided house will fall. Both the rabbis and Yeshua were correct, and I sadly saw an example of a house divided in one of my previous posts.
Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart; thou shalt surely rebuke thy neighbour, and not bear sin because of him. Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
When Cayin had sinat chinam against Hevel, life quite literally did not end well for either Hevel or Cayin. Even sinat tzadkanim can quickly turn into sinat chinam (because of how wicked the human heart is):
ה רִגְזוּ, וְאַל-תֶּחֱטָאוּ: אִמְרוּ בִלְבַבְכֶם, עַל-מִשְׁכַּבְכֶם; וְדֹמּוּ סֶלָה.
Tremble, and sin not; commune with your own heart upon your bed, and be still. Selah
Meanwhile, I’m not excusing myself, as I often violate the mitzvah to let go of grudges and the mitzvah of not letting my own sinat tzadkanim turn into sinat chinam. By the way, Nazarene/Messianic/Christian translations translate “רִגְזוּ” as “be angry”; so I wanted to both check the differences in translation between the JPS 1917 translation and, e.g., the New King James translation (with, as has been noted by others way before me, different numbering as well).
Also (ironically enough), Nehemiah Gordon recommends (or, when I double checked, I found that he at least used to recommend) Strongs Concordance for learning Hebrew. Here’s the former recommendation (still on his Karaite Korner page, at least at the time that I linked “Nehemiah Gordon recommends” to it) followed by the change in his thinking:
It is a religious imperative to read the Bible in the original Hebrew and Aramaic. Those who can not do so, are encouraged tolearn as much Hebrew as they can. Until this is done we recommend the New JPS Translation of the Tanach. As with any translation, this translation must be used with the utmost caution and should be accompanied by a good Bible Lexicon such as BDB and a good Bible concordance such asMandelkorn (Hebrew) or Even Shoshan (Hebrew), or for those who cannot read Hebrew Strong’s Concordance.
August 31, 2012 [“Public” Indication]If the abbreviated form Yah of God’s name “Yah” produces the full form “Yahweh”, then shouldn’t the abbreviated form HoshEa (Hosea) produce the full form YehoshEa (Joshea)? Why is it YehoshUa (Joshua)? What about Yeshurun (Jeshurun), the poetic form of Yisrael (Israel)? By the Yah/Yahweh-logic, shouldn’t the regular form be Yishurul? Hmmm… maybe Strong’s concordance isn’t the place to learn Hebrew…
Let me disclose, too, that Nehemiah is not a nice guy, as I learned the hard way. So, I would not be surprised if his recommendation has changed or will change again, since I have found that (as I have had a lot of abusive situations in my life) a lack of niceness tends to go with a lack of consistency and/or a lack of stability.
My point is that “rigzu” can be safely translated as either “tremble” or “be angry”, and that Milon, James Strong, and (at least back in time) Nehemia Gordon are all on the same point about that (You’re welcome to check, by the way.).
In conclusion and sum, then, the example that I saw was a case in point about that which even the rabbis and Yeshua (who were usually on different sides of issues), and Milon Dictionary along with the JPS 1917 translators and Nehemia Gordon (who once agreed with James Strong) agreed:
- Sinat chinam in of itself
- Sinat chanim that is wrongly-transformed sinat tzadkanim (that is, wrongly transformed on the part of the person who has sinat tzadkanim and not on the part of Adonai, who can turn hearts as He pleases)