A.
A passage in this week’s parasha provides an example of how depths of meaning are encoded in the text of the Torah, as well as a timely lesson for this season in which we find ourselves.
בנים אתם לד' אלקיכם, Moshe tells us: “You are sons [banim] of Ha-Shem your G-d,” and then goes on to tell us the ramifications; therefore לא תתגדדו ולא תשימו קרחה בין עיניכם למת: כי עם קדוש אתה לד' אלקיך ובך בחר ד' להיות לו לעם סגלה מכל העמים אשר על פני האדמה: (“do not cut yourselves and do not put a bald-spot between your eyes for the dead. For you are a people holy to Ha-Shem your G-d, and [it is] you [whom] has Ha-Shem chosen to become a people precious to Him from all the peoples who are on the face of the earth”; XIV, 1-2).
As Rashi points out (following Talmudic sources) the simple meaning of the above prohibitions appears to be to forbid certain excessive mourning practices prevalent amongst ancient peoples who engaged in self-mutilation as a sign of grief (עיי' יבמות י"ג:, קידושין ל"ו., מנחות ל"ז: וע"ע ספרי פרשתנו על אתר). However, this is not the only place in the Torah in which self-mutilation is proscribed (cf. e.g. Leviticus XIX, 28 and XXI, 5-6, where the prohibition is similarly posed as a condition of qëdusha, “sanctity”).
The reader with a living sense of the Hebrew language will already have noted the sharp shift from the second-person plural forms of the first verse to the singular forms of the second (which are not readily apparent in the English translation). The shift is very striking, something no one would do in any ordinary narrative, and yet a glance at a sefer Torah shows that the two verses form a paragraph together, set off by blank spaces between the foregoing and following passages.
What is the change in number meant to tell us?
B.
We first take note that one of the Talmudic sources cited supra goes on a bit later to explain the phrase lo’ thithgodëdu, “you will not cut yourselves,” as meaning לא תעשו אגודות אגודות, “you will not make groups and groups” (יבמות י"ד.), in a rabbinic pun of the verb on the related word agudda, “band” or “group” (in the sense of a “faction” “cut out” of the whole), seeing in the verse a call for Jewish unity (with reference to the specific example of a single béyth din in a single city, hopelessly split between competing schools of thought, half agreeing with Béyth Shammai and half with Béyth Hillél).
With this in mind, we turn to the midrash and learn: "אספה לי" זש"ה "הבונה בשמים מעלותיו ואגודתו על ארץ יסדה" למה"ד לפלטין שהיתה בנוי' ע"ג הספינות כ"ז שהספינות מחוברות פלטין שעל גביהן עומדת כך הבונה בשמים מעלותיו כביכול כסאו מבוסס למעלה בזמן שישראל עושין אגודה אחת. לכך נאמר "הבונה בשמים מעלותיו" אימתי בזמן "ואגדתו על ארץ יסדה" כו' שכינוסן של צדיקים הניי' להם והניי' לעולם וגו' (“‘Gather for Me’ [70 men...., i.e. the first Sanhedrin; Numbers XI, 16]; this is what Scripture says: ‘Who builds [Ha-bone] in the heavens His heights, and founds His group [aguddatho] on the earth’ [Amos IX, 6]. To what is the thing similar? To a pavilion built upon ships; so long as the ships are attached [one to the other], the pavilion upon them stands; thus, ‘Who builds in the heavens His heights’, is as though His throne is well founded Above at a time when Israel form one agudda. For this reason it is said, ‘Who builds in the heavens His heights’; when? At a time ‘and founds His agudda on the earth..for the association of tzaddiqim is a benefit to them and a benefit to the world’”; במדבר רבה פט"ו סי' י"ד).
Thus, we see that when Israel and our tzaddiqim, talmidei hachamim are united in their views and their efforts, it makes a tremendous impression Above, performing a necessary tiqqun. a “correction” or “adjustment”, since, as the prophet suggests, G-d’s heavenly throne, that is, His reign upon this earth, is founded upon this show of unity here below, where He established His agudda. Hence, our gëmara’s view of the prohibition lo’ thith-godëdu, that there not be other aguddoth, that we avoid mahloqeth, “controversy” and strive for unity amongst Israel. This, I believe, is why our second verse, with its reference to Israel’s qëdusha, is couched in the second person singular, to emphasize that unity.
But what does it mean that there be “one agudda” here below?
C.
The Mishna famously defines two sorts of mahloqeth: כל מחלוקת שהיא לשם שמים סופה להתקיים ושאינה לשם שמים אין סופה להתקיים. איזו היא מחלוקת שהיא לשם שמים, זו מחלוקת הלל ושמאי. ושאינה לשם שמים, זו מחלוקת קרח ועדתו (“Any mahloqeth for the sake of Heaven [lë-shém shamayim] will end with a continued existence, and one which is not lë-shém sha-mayim will not in the end have continued existence. Which is a mahloqeth lë-shém sha-mayim? This is the mahloqeth of Hillel and Shammai. And which is not lë-shém sha-mayim? This is the mahloqeth of Qorah and his sect [cf. Numbers XVI; אבות פ"ה מי"ז).
In his comment on this mishna, Rabbi ‘Ovadya mi-Bartenura explains the essence of a mahloqeth lë-shém shamayim: התכלית והסוף המבוקש מאותה מחלוקת להשיג האמת כו' מתוך הויכוח יתברר האמת וגו' (“the purpose and end which is sought from this mahloqeth is to grasp the truth...from out of the debate the truth is clarified....”). But surely in most such disputes, there can be only one thing which turns out to be true; so how can there be a mahloqeth which has a qiyyum, a continuous existence?
The Maharal mi-Prag builds on this idea: מחלוקת שהיא לשם שמים יש לה קיום אף כי הם הפכים כי הוא כו' המאחד שני ההפכים כי אף שמחולקים והפכים בעצמם מ"מ מצד השי"ת הם מתאחדים כי הוא ית' שהוא אחד הוא סיבה לשני הפכים דבר זה בעצמו אחדותו ית' שאם לא הי' הוא סיבה רק לדבר אחד כאילו תאמר שהוא סיבה לאש ואם כן ח"ו עוד סיבה להיפך האש הם המים כו' וזה כו' מחלוקת בית שמאי ובית הלל כי אף שאלו פוסלין ואלו מכשירים ואצל האדם הם שני דברים שהם הפכים מכל מקום מצד השי"ת אשר המחלוקת הזו לשמו ית' אשר הוא ית' כולל ההפכים ומן השי"ת יצאו ההפכים מצד זה הם אחד (“A mahloqeth lë-shém shamayim has a qiyyum even if [the sides] are opposites, for He is the One Who unites two opposites. For even if they are divided and opposed in themselves, nonetheless with regard to Ha-Shem they are united, for He, in that He is One, is the Source of the two opposites; this thing in itself is His unity, for if He were the cause of only one thing, it would be as if you were to say that He is the cause of fire, and if so, G-d forbid, there would be another cause for the opposite of fire, i.e. water... and this... is the mahloqeth of the House of Shammai and Hillel, for even though one forbids and the other permits [something], and to a person these are two things which are opposed, nonetheless with regard to Ha-Shem, for Whose sake this mahloqeth [occurs], and Who contains the opposites, and from Whom the opposites proceed, from His point of view they are one”; דרך חיים פ"ד).
If the purpose of the mahloqeth is to arrive at emeth (“truth”), then the fact that emeth for which both sides are striving and which originates with Ha-Shem, arises in this world from the dispute, this means that both parties to the argument will live on and remain valid for ever. As the Talmud tells us concerning the specific example of the mahloqeth béyth Shammai u-véyth Hillél, שלש שנים נחלקו ב"ש וב"ה הללו אומרים הלכה כמותנו והללו אומרים הלכה כמותנו יצאה בת קול ואמרה אלו ואלו דברי אלקים חיים הן והלכה כב"ה וכי מאחר שאלו ואלו דברי אלקים חיים מפני מה זכו ב"ה לקבוע הלכה כמותו מפני שנוחין ועלובין היו ושונין דבריהן ודברי ב"ש ולא עוד אלא שמקדימין דברי ב"ש לדבריהן (“Three years Béyth Shammai and Béyth Hillél argued, one saying, 'The halacha is like us,' and the other saying, 'The halacha is like us'; a heavenly voice came out and said, 'These and these are the living words of G-d, and the halacha is like Béyth Hillél.' And if both are the living words of G-d, why did Béyth Hillél merit that the halacha should be like them? Because they were mild and humble, learning their words and the words of Béyth Shammai; and not only that, but they would give Béyth Shammai’s precedence over theirs”; עירובין י"ג:).
This is the level of mutual respect and love necessary in a mahloqeth lë-shém shamayim.
D.
We see, then, from the Maharal’s words that the Jewish unity implicit in the deeper meaning of our verse and explicit in our midrash can embrace differences, but they must be differences whose purpose is the unambiguous search for Ha-Shem’s truth, and whose acknowledgment is made with true love and respect. In this way, it is possible for many camps to flourish in Israel, hasidim, bënei yëshiva, Sëfardim, Ashkënazim, etc. lë-mineihem.
The mahloqeth against which our verse and the midrash warn us is the destructive sort, not for the sake of heaven; such mahloqoth engender not mutual respect and love but hatred and dissent. These, two, create an impression Above; it was only a short time ago that we were reminded, on the fast of Tish‘a bë-Av, that the second Temple’s destruction was due to sin’ath hinnam, “groundless hatred” (יומא ט.). The months in which the final, des-perate battle in the Holy City took place (both times) were Tammuz and Av, which the Bënei Yisaschar tells us are called ‘éynayim, “eyes,” based on the verse from Eicha: על אלה אני בוכי' עיני עיני יורדה מים (“because of these do I weep; my eye, my eye, drips water...”; Lamentations I, 116).
This, then, is what our verse warns us against: To be in unity with our hachamim and tzaddiqim; not to engage in mahloqeth she-éynah lë-shém shamayim, which is not sanctioned and hallowed by those very tzaddiqim and hachamim, lest we make, through mahloqoth of the wrong sort, a blemish, a “bald-spot” between the ‘éynayim.
By establishing instead the unity of purpose expressed by the Maharal, the unity in diversity which embraces mahloqeth lë-shém shamayim (symbolized by the plural forms of the first verse), we can truly be banim, that is bonim, “builders,” for Ha-Shem, as Hazal tell us: תלמידי חכמים מרבים שלום בעולם שנאמר "כל בניך למודי ד' ורב שלום בניך" אל תקרי בניך אלא בוניך (“talmidei hachamim increase peace in the world, as it is said, ‘All your sons [banayich], learned of Ha-Shem, and great is the peace of your sons’ [Isaiah LIV, 13]; read not banayich, but bonayich [‘your builders’]”; ברכות ס"ד.).
As a result, such mahloqoth lë-shém shamayim become not aguddoth, “factions”, but are united into aguddatho, “His faction”; as the united ships uphold the pavilion, so does the unitary truth emergent from mahloqoth lë-shém shamayim support the Divine throne, as it were, bringing about the infusion of the Shëchina ha-qëdosha in this world, whence Israel becomes the unified ‘am qadosh marked by the singular forms of our second verse.
No comments:
Post a Comment