HOW CAN I BEAR UNAIDED THE TROUBLE OF YOU,

AND THE BURDEN, AND THE BICKERING!

(Devarim 1:12)

 

"The Lord God called to the human and said to him: 'Ayeka' ["Where are you?"] (Bereishit 3:9) - Eicha [Alas], Eicha, Eicha and "Ayeka" ("Ayeka" (where are you) and "eicha" ('alas' and 'how') share the same spelling.)

Said Rabbi Abahu in the name of Rabbi Chanina: It is written (Hoshea 6), "But they, to a man, have transgressed the Covenant. This is where they have been false to Me." - They, like the first man; just as I placed the first man into the Garden of Eden, and I commanded him, and he transgressed my command, and I punished him by sending him away and exiling him, and I lamented him, saying "Ayeka". I placed him the Garden of Eden, as is written "And He placed him in the Garden of Eden"; and I commanded him, as is written, "And God commanded man", and he transgressed the command, as is written, "From the tree about which I command you not to eat, have you eaten?", and I punished him by sending him off, as is written, "And the Lord, God, sent them away from the Garden of Eden", and exiling him, as is written, "and He drove man away", and I lamented him saying "Ayeka", as is written, "And the Lord God called to the man and said to him: "Ayeka" ["Where are you"?]. The word is spelled like "eicha", so did I bring his descendents into Eretz Yisrael, and I commanded them, and they transgressed my command; I punished them by driving them away and exiling them, and I lamented them - "Eicha."

(Bereishit Rabba Parasha 19)

 

 "Eicha yasheva" - three prophecied with the term "Eicha", Moshe, Isaiah, and Yirmiyahu. Moshe said: "How can I bear unaided etc."

Isaiah said: "Alas, she has become a harlot", Yimiyahu said: "Alas! Lonely sits the city".

Said Rabbi Levi: This can be compared to a wealthy woman who had three close companions; one knew her in her tranquility, the second in her wantonness, and third in her shame. So Moshe saw Israel in their time of honor and tranquility, and said, "How can I bear unaided the trouble of you". Isaiah saw them in their time of wantonness, and said, "Alas, she has become a harlot". Yirmiyahu saw them in their time of disgrace, and said, "Alas, lonely sits the city."

(Eicha Rabba, Parasha 1)

 

We find that "Eicha" extends from the promise of settlement in the Land, through the actual dwelling in the Land, up to and including the destruction and subsequent exile from the Land. The deep significance of this is the teaching that the end of a matter is already embedded in its beginning, and the actions of the individual and the group, and the consequences of their actions, all merge into one, or, to phrase it in religious terms, the sin and its punishment are one, the sin itself is also the punishment.

 (Y. Leibowitz, Seven Years Of Discussion Of The Weekly Portion, p. 762)

 

 

 

ON BASELESS HATRED AND GRATUITOUS LOVE

Pinchas Leiser

 

The causes of the destruction of the Second Temple cited by the Talmud (Yoma 9b) are fairly common knowledge:

[During the existence of] The Second Temple, Jews were engaged in Torah study, in mitzvot, and in the doing of good deeds; why, then, was it destroyed? Because there existed groundless hatred.

The Talmud, in Bava Metsia 30b, cites a different reason for the destruction of the temple: Said Rabbi Yochanan: Yerushalayim was destroyed only because they judged according to Torah law... rather say: Because they ruled strictly according to [the letter of] the Torah law, they did not rule beyond the letter of the law. The Tosafists (Bava Metsia 30b) point out the apparent contradiction between the two above sources: "[Here the reason given is]... they judged according etc". Whereas in Yoma 9b it says "because of groundless hatred!" The resolution offered by the Tosafists: "It might be said: Both this one and that one caused the destruction of the Temple."

An in-depth examination of the two causes suggested by the Talmud, establishing the connection between the two, may help us to comprehend the concept of "groundless hatred" - 'sin'at chinam' - which has become a kind of meaningless cliche.

Individuals who hate each other, groups which hate each other, or nations which hate each other, will generally come up with what they consider to be justified reasons for their hating the other. Sometimes the reason is personal, sometimes "ideological", political or religious. They will never define their hatred as "groundless hatred"; if the other is a "heretic" or a "traitor", or simply a rasha", there is complete justification for hating him!

This phenomenon is adroitly described by S. Y. Agnon, in his delightful satiricial tale "Everlasting Peace" (from "Sefer Hamedina, in the volume "Samuch Vnir'eh, p. 261):

The state had to conduct consultations in order to forestall the misfortune. But the citizens of the country were divided into two parties... those who covered their heads, and those who bared their heads, and whatever one party desired, the other blocked, and even each party was divided among itself, each sector hating each other, perhaps even more that the common enemy hates the covered heads and the uncovered heads as one. How did one country come to be divided into two nations which harass each other? The explanation can be determined from past aspects of the nation's history, aspects which continue to influence, even though world realities changed and the conduct of the nation changed, and its sons abandoned all that was dear to their parents. That country had a tradition that its founding fathers were Jews, and the custom of the Jews was to cover their heads, and therefore some of them covered their heads. And the others, why did they bare their heads? It is because they saw themselves as Jews prior to receiving the Torah, who had not yet been commanded to cover their heads, so therefore they bared their heads. And because these covered their heads and those did not cover their heads, they hated each other. And why did the covered-heads hate one another? After all, both these covered their heads and those covered their heads, but these wore yarmulkehs (kippot) and these wore turbans... these were bigger than envy and these were smaller than lice... and there was really no need for a head at all, as long as the covering was conspicuous. Why did the bare-headed hate each other - after all these wore no covering and those wore no covering? The answer is that these grew forelocks and those cut their hair short, these were partially bald and those were completely bald. There was really no need for a head at all, as long as it was bare... They were similar in one thing only: each group contended that all the misfortunes which come upon the country came only becomes of its opponent... And were it not that the author of the Book of the State is wary about superflous entries, he would say that both these and those are words of truth.

This satire - penned by Agnon many years ago but could well have been written today - describes what seems to be a fairly widespread human feature. Sartre, the French philosopher, defined it pithily: "Hell is - the others."

In the literature of Chazal, the controversy between Hillel and Shammai is characterized as 'a controversy for the sake of Heaven', which is destined to endure. Two Talmudic sources depict controversy between the two schools          conducted in a spirit of mutual respect:

Said Rabbi Abba in the the name of Shmuel: Three years did the House of Shammai disagree with the House of Hillel. These say "the law is as we rule" and those say "the law is as we rule." A divine voice declared: "Both these and these are the words of the living God - and the law is in accordance with the House of Hillel." Now, if the words of both houses are the words of the living God, why did the House of Hillel merit having it's rulings accepted? Because they were easy-going, and not arrogant, and they taught their words along with those of the House of Shammai. And not only that - they also preceded their own words with those of the House of Shammai. (Bavli, Eruvin 13b)

Even though the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel were divided on such issues as second wives and sisters, on an old writ of divorce, on questionable adultrous relationships, on one who divorces his wife and then spends the night in the same inn, on actual money and monetary equivalents, on the peruta coin and its equivalent [All issues which involve possible adultry and subsequent bastardry. - Translator], the House of Shammai did not refrain from marrying women from the House of Hillel nor the House of Hillel from the House of Shammai - teaching us that love and companionship are practiced by both, thus fulfilling (Zecharia 8) "Love truth and peace". (Yevamot 14b)

In contrast to the above, the Yerushalmi Talmud offers a description of violent conflict between the two schools:

These are laws which were discussed in the upper storey of Hannanya ben Hizkiya ben Garon when they came to visit him, and a count was taken, and the House of Shammai had a majority over the House of Hillel, and eighteen decrees were passed that day. (Mishnah, Shabbat 1:4)

That day was as difficult for Israel as the day they made the calf - Rabbi Eliezer said: On that day, they overfilled the measure [of laws]. Rabbi Yehoshua said: On that day they made the measure of laws just even. Said to him Rabbi Leiser: If it was lacking, and they filled it up - that is right and proper. To a barrel full of nuts, the more you put in sesame seeds, it becomes stronger.

Said to him Rabbi Yehoshua: If it was full, and they took out some - that is right and proper! To a barrel that was full of oil, the more you add water, it thins out the oil.

Rabbi Yehoshua Onia taught: The disciples of Bet Shammai stood above them, and they killed disciples of Bet Hillel.

It was taught: Six of them went up, and the rest stood against them with swords and daggers. (Yerushalmi, Shabbat, Chap. 1, Halacha 4)

Those same Batei Midrash, those same schools who could treat each other with such respect, who would even intermarry despite disagreement on the most basic principles, could also let the controversy decline onto violent, power-driven tracks.

What, then, differentiates between the tolerant positions of the House of Hillel and the House of Shammai as depicted in the Bavli, and the violent action by the disciples of the House of Shammai in the Yerushalmi?

It seems to me that the key may be found in understanding the concept "controversy for the sake of Heaven is destined to endure" - a controversy in which each side accepts the proposition that the intention of his adversary, is also "for the sake of Heaven", and that it has no monopoly of the divine truth. Such a controversy can continue to endure in mutual respect.

In this kind of controversy, each side holds part of the truth, and does not claim to represent the entire truth. (The root of 'machloket' - controversy - is "chelek", which means 'a part.') In such a case, the arguments can exist, and so can the opponents - one alongside the other. When a decision is required, it is reached according to accepted criteria and in mutual respect; the practical resolution reached does not affect the overall principle of "Both these and these are the words of the living God."

On the other hand, a situation in which each side (or one of the sides) is determined to win at any price, and is convinced that its truth and the divine truth are one and the same, such a situation does not permit co-existence between the two rivals. In such cases, we see cases of social ostracism, isolation, and terms of abuse such as "traitor" and "heretic", and the controversy becomes personal hatred which is liable to deteriorate into violent force.

Sometimes, the tendency to delegitimatize and ostracize derives from a feeling of being threatened. When a person or a group feel threatened by another person, another group, or a different viewpoint, the delegitimization may serve as a substitue for coping directly with the person, the group, or the viewpoint; in such cases, we are witnesses to "hatred distorts the measure".

I don't think there is a need to prove that this sad phenomenon, described in Chazalic literature and Agnon's satire, exists today. It is essential to point out the destructive dangers hidden in this approach.

If we return to the two Talmudic statements quoted above, we can, in line with Tosafot's commentary, describe the two phenomena - groundless hatred and ruling in strict accordance with the letter of law, without any spirit of generosity - as flowing from a single source; a society based only on "din Torah" - the law of Torah - is a society without human compassion, a society sans love. When there is no relating to - and respect for - the human dimension in all its complexity, hatred for all that is different must inevitably develop. "Lifnim meshurat ha-din" - ruling generously beyond the letter of the law is not a superhuman category. No society can continue to exist for a long time if there is no respect for a man because he is a man.

How pleasant and how important the words of Rav Kook (Orot HaKodesh 3, 324):

And if we were destroyed, and the world destroyed along with us, by baseless hatred, we shall return to be rebuilt, and the world rebuilt along with us, by gratuitious love.

The term "Ahavat chinam" (gratuitious love) is not to found in Chazal sources, but perhaps the term "unconditional love" which - like "controversy for the sake of Heaven" is destined to endure - faithfully relects that which is desired in our midst, love of man as man, despite his dissimilarity, despite our disagreement with his positions. May it be His will that we live to experience the realization of:

The fast of the fourth month and the fast of the fifth month and fast of the seventh month, and the fast of the tenth month shall become occasions for joy and gladness, happy festivals for the House of Yehudah; but you must love honesty and peace.

Pinchas Leiser, editor of "Shabbat Shalom", is a psychologist.

 

 

"HEAR OUT YOUR FELLOW MEN" - ON DECENCY IN JUDGEMENT

Furthermore, He desires that the judge not smile and lift his eyes to one party, while lowering his eyes from the other, but that the way of listening to each be equal, as the verse states, "Hear out", meaning that the way of listening be like that between brothers, if you lift your eyes, lift them to both, and if you lower them, lower them to both, or perhaps God is commanding that he not raise his eyes altogether, for it is possible that he mislead one of them with his look, giving the impression that he prefers the other party over him, thus confounding his arguments. And I heard from a great and righteous sage, highly respected in Israel and loved by me as my own breath, Rabbi Moshe Birdugo, of blessed memory, that he would take strict care during judgement that his eyes be lowered, never raising them, for he felt that were he to look to the side, inevitably one party would become confused, and the basis for this is "Hear out your fellow men" - that there be only "hearing", and that the arguments of the parties come before him without any difference in his relation to them, and thus "You shall decide justly".

 (Ohr HaHayyim, Devarim 1:16)

 

TRANSCRIPTION OF THE TORAH INTO 70 LANGUAGES IS AN EXPRESSION OF ITS UNIVERSAL MESSAGE

"On the other side of the Jordan, in the land of Moab, Moshe undertook to expound this Teaching, to say..."

(Devarim 1:5)

 

"To expound this Teaching" - he expounded it to them in 70 languages.

(Rashi, Devarim 1:5)

 

"And you are to write on the stones all the words of this Instruction, explained well."

"Explained well" - In 70 languages.

(Rashi, Devarim 27:8)

 

In Tractate Sotah (32a), Chazal explained "Explained well" according to that written above, "Moshe undertook to expound this Teaching"; "Explained well", then, indicates that the words must be explained and brought close to understanding. And from here we also derive that this copy of the Torah also included translation for the sake of comprehension by the nations of the world, for Israel is far from that particularism atrributed to it by non-Jews. From the very beginning, Israel saw as its mission to bring spiritual and moral salvation to to all humanity, and with the entry of the Torah into Eretz Yisrael, the future salvation of all the nations began. Yet more, on page 35b, we read that this translation included the reason for the expulsion of the Canaanite nations: "So that they do not teach you to do all, etc." - this rationale was also brought to the attention of the nations and repeated and explained in this copy of the Torah, so that all nations of Canaan will know and understand: They stand to be expelled only if they wish to continue holding on to their beliefs and their idolatrous ways of life, but if they return to acceptance of the general commandments given all humanity, there will be nothing to prevent them from dwelling in the land.

 (Rabbi Shimshon Rafael Hirsch, Devarim 27:8)

 

 

 

 

Editorial Board: Pinchas Leiser (Editor), Miriam Fine (Coordinator), Itzhak Frankenthal and Dr. Menachem Klein

Translation: Kadish Goldberg

This weekly publication was made possible by private donors

 

If you enjoy Shabbat Shalom, please consider contributing towards its publication and distribution.

• Hebrew edition distributed in Israel $1000
• English edition distributed via email $ 100

Issues may be dedicated in honor of an event, person, simcha, etc. Requests must be made 3-4 weeks in advance to appear in the Hebrew, 10 days in advance to appear in the English email.

Tax exempt contributions to Oz VeShalom may be made through the New Israel Fund or PEF.

Contributions should be marked as donor-advised to OzVeShalom/Netivot Shalom, Shabbat Shalom project.

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE NEW ISRAEL FUND IS NO LONGER ACCEPTING DONATIONS UNDER $50. FOR DONATIONS BETWEEN $50 AND $999 THEY ARE CHARGING A $50 SERVICE CHARGE. DONATIONS ABOVE $1000 ARE CHARGED A 5% FEE.

New Israel Fund, POB 91588, Washington, DC 20090-1588, USA

New Israel Fund of Great Britain, 26 Enford Street, London W1H 2DD, Great Britain

PEF will also channel donations and provide a tax-exemptions. Donations should be sent to P.E.F. Israel Endowment Funds, Inc., 317 Madison Ave., Suite 607, New York, New York 10017 USA

 

About us:

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom is a movement dedicated to the advancement of a civil society in Israel. It is committed to promoting the ideals of tolerance, pluralism, and justice, concepts which have always been central to Jewish tradition and law.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom shares a deep attachment to the land of Israel and it no less views peace as a central religious value. It believes that Jews have both the religious and the national obligation to support the pursuit of peace. It maintains that Jewish law clearly requires us to create a fair and just society, and that co-existence between Jews and Arabs is not an option but an imperative.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom's programs include both educational and protest activities. Seminars, lectures, workshops, conferences and weekend programs are held for students, educators and families, as well as joint seminars for Jews, Israeli Arabs and Palestinians. Protest activities focus on issues of human rights, co-existence between Jews and Arabs, and responses to issues of particular religious relevance.

9,000 copies of a 4 page peace oriented commentary on the weekly Torah reading are written and published by Oz VeShalom/Netivot Shalom and they are distributed to over 350 synagogues in Israel and are sent overseas via email. Our web site is www.netivot-shalom.org.il

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom's educational forums draw people of different backgrounds, secular and religious, who are keen to deepen their Jewish knowledge and to hear an alternative religious standpoint on the subjects of peace and social issues.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom fills an ideological vacuum in Israel's society. Committed both to Jewish tradition and observance, and to the furthering of peace and coexistence, the movement is in a unique position to engage in dialogue with the secular left and the religious right, with Israeli Arabs and with Palestinians