The ‘sin’ of giving bad advice – Ya’atznu Ra

Lord: We have sinned, for “We have given bad advice”. A seemingly odd confession, even on the holiest of days when observers sincerely seek to atone for their sins or sinful ways.

      *                  *               *

Each of us gives advice at one time or another. The advice may have been solicited by someone, or not. The advice given may be favorable, or may turn out negatively for the advisee.

Still, no one really extends advice knowing or expecting ab initio that it is bad or will negatively impact the recipient. Sometimes we are flattered by the request, or occasionally burdened by being asked. Whatever the circumstances though, no one says “here’s some bad advice” or intends that it turn out that way – even if, perhaps,  we harbor ill will toward the requestor.

Advice is generally solicited from an individual in whom the soliciting individual has confidence. That, whether the advice is sought in the context of a professional relationship – such as from a physician, an attorney, a clergyman, a financial advisor or a prescribing psychiatrist, etc. Or whether the advice request is sought from a loved one, a friend or even a casual acquaintance.

In the instance of most professional relationships there are direct consequences for having given bad advice, assuming it was objectively inconsistent with applicable professional standards. Typically, this would involve potential civil litigation against the advisor that claims negligence or malpractice, or manifests itself in disciplinary consequences. Put simply, the professional was insufficiently “professional” in addressing the issue presented.

When the advice is given by an individual in a non-professional relationship, however, the law provides no remedy resulting from the negligent advice that insufficiently considered critical facts or didn’t adequately assess the nuanced emotional consequences that might flow.

One can easily understand God, employing here an overtly anthropomorphic term, being “troubled” – or considering as sinful — the intentional giving of bad advice. Or even if the advice-giver accords advice without adequately thinking it through (irrespective of whether the advice was solicited or volunteered). But what if the advisor – especially a non-volunteer — gave it his best shot, but it “turned out” bad?

Despite each of these possibilities, the Yom Kippur prayer protocol ritually instructs that we beat our breast to exhibit repentance for bad advice, with no description of nuance (“Ya’atznu Ra”). No liturgical distinction is made regarding whether the advice was solicited, how serious the quandary presented is or whether the imparted advice had disastrous consequences. Or whether the “bad advice was innocuous – like whether to select a particular cantaloupe, or one that’s riper. Must I really beat my breast over having “advised” a friend, or even a stranger, to select an unripe fruit?

It almost encourages the observant individual fearful of God’s displeasure to never volunteer advice at all, or to simply, albeit pleasantly, decline giving advice when it is requested. No harm, no foul, after all! Indeed, no breast beating seems required of the arguably pusillanimous among us who simply declines to extend advice — i.e., “I’m not really qualified to help you on this issue” — concerned that God would be annoyed if the advice turns out to be bad.

The above may seem overly doctrinaire. Applying modern thinking to according “bad advice” — or, better articulated, “bad counsel” — the challenge is whether we are too quick with our advice without giving it sufficient thought. Or whether we abuse the request by demonstrating insufficient impartiality in giving it. Meaning, is the counsel we give improperly influenced by our own personal stake in the issue? For example, in responding to a request for advice, do we encourage the advisee to pursue a particular course of action because it somehow benefits us, or aligns with an interest that we might have?

In addition, when we give advice do we simply present an answer that mostly seems “right to us”? Or do we actually give counsel that describes the ups and downs of the different ways that the advisee might address what confronts him? And so, in taking this path do we better enable our advisee to arrive at an approach that works best for him? Optimally, does the manner in which we extend advice allow the advisee himself to arrive at his own best counsel?

At bottom, the ritual of beating one’s breast for the various sins we might commit does make sense in some way. But the act is nonetheless largely ritualistic in nature — the individual slams his heart repeatedly to basically “cover” virtually every form of transgression she committed in the preceding year. Still, do the rote recitations and accompanying raw physical act of breast beating really help us to truly examine our wrongs?

Wouldn’t the prayer ritual be far more “meaningful” (to coin a term currently in vogue) if, instead, it required that we meaningfully review the specific instances of our past year’s wrongdoings — e.g., here, specifically, addressing the advice that we poorly or questionably gave — and the deficiencies we exhibited in each instance?

Notably, when Catholics attend confession seeking forgiveness, albeit from an “intermediary” – the parish priest, not directly God – they identify the specific sins for which they seek such absolution. Perhaps that might be a more “meaningful” way to acknowledge one’s wrongdoing.  I’m hardly suggesting that “the other team” has taken a better path in general, but isn’t that particular protocol in expressing repentance something we too might consider?

G’mar Chatima Tova.