Our Gemara on amud aleph highlights the importance of being sensitive to human nature, even when acting on good intentions. One must always consider how actions will be perceived by others. For example, if the Kohen Gadol suffers a personal loss and is sitting shiva, the Mashuach She-Avar (a former High Priest who temporarily served in the current Kohen Gadol's place, such as during a period of ritual impurity) should not visit him. Despite any good intentions, the visit might be interpreted as schadenfreude—a covert delight in the misfortune of another. Given the natural rivalry between the two, such a visit could easily be misinterpreted.

The Meiri on our Gemara generalizes this idea into a broader principle:

"Anyone who thinks that his fellow believes he rejoices in his downfall, as part of the ways of proper conduct, should avoid appearing before him at the time of his misfortune. Learn this from what is stated here: that an anointed priest who was deposed does not come to the current High Priest at the time of his bereavement. The reason given is, 'Perhaps he will feel low and say: He is rejoicing at my misfortune.' And the same applies to any similar case."

This principle is also codified by the Rama (YD 335:2):

“Some say that an enemy may visit a sick person. However, this does not seem plausible to me; but he should not visit a sick person nor comfort a mourner whom he hates, so that [the latter] should not think that he rejoices at his misfortune, and thereby feel depressed. This seems to me [to be the correct view].”

The Shach (ibid 2) discusses a related scenario of lending money to an enemy. Even a well-intentioned act of kindness might be overshadowed by the perception of gloating, and thus requires careful judgment.

In these cases, the primary concern revolves around perception. Yet we can add another dimension: such behavior might also reflect passive aggressiveness. Consider the dynamic: “What, me gloating over your loss? Chas V’shalom! I only wish to perform a mitzvah and seize the merit of helping you.” While the outward action appears altruistic, the underlying motivation may harbor hostility.

This type of behavior might explain the verse regarding the Chief Butler’s actions toward Yosef:

"Yet the Chief Butler did not remember Yosef AND he forgot him" (Bereishis 40:23).

The redundancy in the verse has sparked various interpretations among the commentaries, but we might propose that his forgetting was not passive but deliberately so—perhaps an example of passive aggression. The Chief Butler didn’t “just” forget Yosef; he made sure to forget him.

Our sages were acutely aware of such subtle but damaging behaviors in human nature. They teach us to navigate and mitigate these dynamics, whether by avoiding actions that could be misconstrued or by reflecting deeply on our own intentions. By following their wisdom, we can defuse potential misunderstandings and guard against unconsciously acting out of hostility.

Translations Courtesy of Sefaria, except when, sometimes, I disagree with the translation

Do you like what you see? Please subscribe and also forward any articles you enjoy to your friends, (enemies too, why not?)