This last bit is one of those ones that is tricky to translate. We’ll begin, as we have been using it, with Herford:
Nittai the Arbelite said: Keep far from the evil neighbor, and consort not with the wicked, and be not doubtful of retribution.
Hertz gives this as abandon not the belief in retribution, which is similar, Goldin has do not shrug off all thought of calamity, which isn’t. Neusner agrees largely with Hertz, giving don’t give up hope of retribution. There’s Rodkinson, who makes the Divine explicit, with never consider thyself exempt from God’s chastisement. So, the question is whether the calamity is retribution or not, and it’s an important one. Another important question is whether the warning whether one should avoid doubting, that is, whether one’s belief should be steadfast against doubt, or whether one should avoid giving up altogether, in which case a shaky belief, tinged with doubt, is OK. In other words, is certainty (positive) a good thing and doubt a bad one, or is doubt a reasonable thing, but certainty (negative) a bad one?
Let’s take the two options and the four combinations, and see where they lead us. First, let’s take Herford, who says be not doubtful of retribution. There, it’s certainty that’s good, and the event is clearly (if implicitly) Divine. Take it, then, in conjunction with the evil neighbor and the wicked consortium, that in avoiding them, one should always keep in mind that they will get their comeuppance. Even if they appear to be temporarily prospering, do not doubt retribution, not so much because retribution will in fact come, but because doubting retribution weakens your defense against the temptation.
Or, let’s take Hertz, who says that you should not abandon belief in retribution. That is, one can take empirical evidence and state that, yes, sometimes the wicked prosper, but there is always a chance of retribution. Perhaps your evil neighbor will get away with it, but that doesn’t mean that you will.
The third option is not well represented by our translators, but would warn against doubting calamity. I think it’s fair to leave this one out, although the Buddhists among us may want to mention that life is suffering, that calamity will come, in some shape or form, because it is in the nature of desire to be thwarted. We can make this fit our verse as well, as the evil neighbor does not expect calamity to come to him, but expects all the damage to fall elsewhere. The hallmark of the wicked is the lack of thought for consequences.
Or again, with Goldin, don’t shrug off all thought of calamity, whether retributive or not. And how is this connected with the first two legs of Nittai’s saying? Here is the lesson: if your neighbors are virtuous, and calamity comes to you, they will help you, because they are virtuous, and that is what virtuous people do. If your neighbors are evil, and calamity comes to you, they will exploit it, because that is what evil people do. Furthermore, if you consort with the wicked, and calamity comes, they will think only of themselves, and be unable to work constructively as a community. You will be unprepared, both as a group and (therefore) as an individual.
I rather like this one, myself. Perhaps I’m just hung up on Hurricane Katrina. Or on the climate change that is coming. Or I’m just inclined to view things communally rather than individually, and prefer to think of communal catastrophe than individual retribution. But the warning that we prepare ourselves (for good or ill) for the calamities of life by choosing our friends and neighbors is a powerful one.
Tolerabimus quod tolerare debemus,
-Vardibidian.