Means V. Ends, Truth V. Kindness, Shammai V. Hillel
בס"ד/BS"D, י במר חשון תשס"ז
I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the ideal Vs. reality. Last month in Yeshivah we were studying Ketubot (the Gemarra tract dealing with marriage contracts and such), which went into a long aside about what one sings before the bride at a wedding. In comes one of the famous House of Hillel V. House of Shammai rumbles. Shammai says that you sing “Just as she is.” In other words, if she’s pretty, you sing about how pretty she is. If she’s horribly ugly, you sing about something else good about her (“she’s got a nice personality…”). But in any case you don’t lie. Hillel says that you say she’s beautiful and graceful, no matter what.
This seems like a small issue, but really exemplifies a larger difference in worldview. The Torah says to ‘Distance yourself from lies,’ and in Shammai’s world, nothing gets in the way of that. If the ‘means’ necessary to avoid lying include hurting some poor bride’s feelings, then so be it. Hillel sees the problem, and weighs the issues. In the end, he decides the general principle of treating our fellow human beings well trumps the more precise halachah of not telling a lie. Hillel sees that the means are not always as good as the ends, and so he moderates his commitment to some of the ends in favor of others. Shammai refuses to bend to the exigencies of the situation.
This is a reflection of the situation we find ourselves in ever since creation. In creating the world G!d planted “fruit-trees that will make fruit,” but the earth ‘sinned’ (according to the midrash) and brought forth “trees which make fruit.” In Hebrew the two words ‘fruit-tree’ can be read as one compound word, meaning that the tree itself was supposed to be fruit. The original intention was to create a world where means could have the same qualities as ends. Just like a fruit is sweet, nourishing, etc., the tree that produces it would be sweet, nourishing, etc. Thus, in the Gemara mentioned above, ideally we could have the best of both worlds, where we could tell the truth completely and without compromise, and this would not hurt anyone’s feelings, or cause any problems.
Of course, we poskin (halachically hold as correct for us to do) Hillel’s opinion. We are living in a damaged world and our job is to move in it not as we would move through a perfected world, but as me must IN ORDER TO perfect the world.
Personally I tend to have a dual answer. I think more like Shammai. “Truth is truth, and that is un-bendable,” but when confronted with real situations I tend to melt into the Hillel position. If I am to judge myself favorably, I would say this is a positive trait: that I view the world in it’s ideal form, but am also able to see the current realities and respond to them in a dynamic way when necessary. If I do not judge myself favorably, I should say that I am a hippocrite.
HERE ENDS THE MAIN BODY OF THE POST. :-)
---
WARNING: TANGENT APPROACHING! Brace yerselves, all ye who enter here...
I’ve been having an ongoing, [usually] friendly argument about vegetarianism with a number of vegans and/or vegetarians here at the yeshivah. I’m all for eating meat, and they’re against it. I don’t know how much our arguments are connected to our actual actions, or to what extent we are all merely justifying what we do, but in any case the arguments made are relevant here. It’s been pointed out to me multiple times that the perfected world, in the Garden of Eden and even afterwards until the flood, people didn’t eat meat. It is a symptom of the world’s brokenness that eating meat is even an option, an even remotely conceivable act. Therefore, argue the vegetarians, we should bring the world one step closer to perfection by not eating meat.
My response, in connection with the discussion here, would be that we are not living in a perfected world where we can fully fulfill all that we would wish to do, and in fact, not all positive things we would like to do will have the desired effect. It is granted to us to eat meat, and in several places it has the weight of an obligation (on Shabbat and Yom-Tovim). In an ideal world, the end of living a fulfilling life and everything being raised up to a godly level in human life would happen without the need to kill lower animals such as cows and chickens, but in the world as it is, the requirements of the system are as clear as the necessity of complimenting the young bride, regardless of veracity. Some part of us, which wants to be true to the ultimate, uncompromising reality, may want to say we should not eat meat, but the part of us which lives in this world, and which has compassion for our frail human brethren and recognizes the exigencies of the current situation, must allow the natural order AS IT IS to be fulfilled. I would argue that, given the extensive usage of and discussion of our usage of meat in the Torah (written and oral) it is clear that it’s PROPER usage is part of the tikkun (fixing) we are supposed to be doing on the world. Since eating meat is supposed to be part of the tikkun we are doing, we should advocate that it be done in a way which serves as a tikkun (i.e. treating the animals better, having proper intent when we eat them that we are taking a life for our own, etc.), not that it be halted entirely.
As usual, questions, comments, challenges and approbations are appreciated, and I will attempt to respond (BE"H) in a timely manner.
---
B'ahavat Yisrael,
-Eitan
I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the ideal Vs. reality. Last month in Yeshivah we were studying Ketubot (the Gemarra tract dealing with marriage contracts and such), which went into a long aside about what one sings before the bride at a wedding. In comes one of the famous House of Hillel V. House of Shammai rumbles. Shammai says that you sing “Just as she is.” In other words, if she’s pretty, you sing about how pretty she is. If she’s horribly ugly, you sing about something else good about her (“she’s got a nice personality…”). But in any case you don’t lie. Hillel says that you say she’s beautiful and graceful, no matter what.
This seems like a small issue, but really exemplifies a larger difference in worldview. The Torah says to ‘Distance yourself from lies,’ and in Shammai’s world, nothing gets in the way of that. If the ‘means’ necessary to avoid lying include hurting some poor bride’s feelings, then so be it. Hillel sees the problem, and weighs the issues. In the end, he decides the general principle of treating our fellow human beings well trumps the more precise halachah of not telling a lie. Hillel sees that the means are not always as good as the ends, and so he moderates his commitment to some of the ends in favor of others. Shammai refuses to bend to the exigencies of the situation.
This is a reflection of the situation we find ourselves in ever since creation. In creating the world G!d planted “fruit-trees that will make fruit,” but the earth ‘sinned’ (according to the midrash) and brought forth “trees which make fruit.” In Hebrew the two words ‘fruit-tree’ can be read as one compound word, meaning that the tree itself was supposed to be fruit. The original intention was to create a world where means could have the same qualities as ends. Just like a fruit is sweet, nourishing, etc., the tree that produces it would be sweet, nourishing, etc. Thus, in the Gemara mentioned above, ideally we could have the best of both worlds, where we could tell the truth completely and without compromise, and this would not hurt anyone’s feelings, or cause any problems.
Of course, we poskin (halachically hold as correct for us to do) Hillel’s opinion. We are living in a damaged world and our job is to move in it not as we would move through a perfected world, but as me must IN ORDER TO perfect the world.
Personally I tend to have a dual answer. I think more like Shammai. “Truth is truth, and that is un-bendable,” but when confronted with real situations I tend to melt into the Hillel position. If I am to judge myself favorably, I would say this is a positive trait: that I view the world in it’s ideal form, but am also able to see the current realities and respond to them in a dynamic way when necessary. If I do not judge myself favorably, I should say that I am a hippocrite.
HERE ENDS THE MAIN BODY OF THE POST. :-)
---
WARNING: TANGENT APPROACHING! Brace yerselves, all ye who enter here...
I’ve been having an ongoing, [usually] friendly argument about vegetarianism with a number of vegans and/or vegetarians here at the yeshivah. I’m all for eating meat, and they’re against it. I don’t know how much our arguments are connected to our actual actions, or to what extent we are all merely justifying what we do, but in any case the arguments made are relevant here. It’s been pointed out to me multiple times that the perfected world, in the Garden of Eden and even afterwards until the flood, people didn’t eat meat. It is a symptom of the world’s brokenness that eating meat is even an option, an even remotely conceivable act. Therefore, argue the vegetarians, we should bring the world one step closer to perfection by not eating meat.
My response, in connection with the discussion here, would be that we are not living in a perfected world where we can fully fulfill all that we would wish to do, and in fact, not all positive things we would like to do will have the desired effect. It is granted to us to eat meat, and in several places it has the weight of an obligation (on Shabbat and Yom-Tovim). In an ideal world, the end of living a fulfilling life and everything being raised up to a godly level in human life would happen without the need to kill lower animals such as cows and chickens, but in the world as it is, the requirements of the system are as clear as the necessity of complimenting the young bride, regardless of veracity. Some part of us, which wants to be true to the ultimate, uncompromising reality, may want to say we should not eat meat, but the part of us which lives in this world, and which has compassion for our frail human brethren and recognizes the exigencies of the current situation, must allow the natural order AS IT IS to be fulfilled. I would argue that, given the extensive usage of and discussion of our usage of meat in the Torah (written and oral) it is clear that it’s PROPER usage is part of the tikkun (fixing) we are supposed to be doing on the world. Since eating meat is supposed to be part of the tikkun we are doing, we should advocate that it be done in a way which serves as a tikkun (i.e. treating the animals better, having proper intent when we eat them that we are taking a life for our own, etc.), not that it be halted entirely.
As usual, questions, comments, challenges and approbations are appreciated, and I will attempt to respond (BE"H) in a timely manner.
---
B'ahavat Yisrael,
-Eitan
posted by Eitan at 14:19
7 Comments:
I didn't understand that passage the way which you describe it. In Pirkei Ahava (I think) Rabbi Aviner has a while discourse on this passage which makes much more sense to me. What Beis Shammai is saying is not "don't lie" as much as that the complement should be heartfelt. Complement her on what she should be complemented on- she has yiras Hashem, she has tsniyus- and not on what is obviously not true and might be seen as cynicism. If you say it with your heart, if you're reinforcing strengths, then that's much better than saying some hackneyed cliche.
Beis Hillel thinks of it a different way. Say the cliche, and train yourself to believe it in the right sense. Better to say the cliche than to be tongue-tied trying to find something nice to say and making an offensive faux-pas. All of this connects to a much deeper issue between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel about interpersonal relations.
In general, Beis Shammai is sharper and expects people to be sharper. But the reality is that not everyone is a quick thinker or as sharp as they are, and as far as Hallacha goes maybe it's better to repeat a stupid meaningless cliche... But to me this is sad.
This is amawahibiki BTW. How do I log in?
amawahibiki (Anonymous):
Hey there. You don't have to log in. If you choose 'other' then you can enter whatever name you want and it will appear at the top. If you want to log in you have to sign up for a blogger account.
I see what you're saying as a good drash on this, and one which I don't necessarily disagree with, but it's definitely not apparent from the text. Beit Shammai's explicit reason for his stance is the d'oraitah mitzvah to "distance yourself from sheker," and Hillel's support is what we usually translate as, "treat others as you would like to be treated."
Also, it discusses if the woman is "blind and ugly." Shammai says, "And you're going to say she's beautiful and graceful!" I agree that on another level it's about sensitivity, but white lies can be the better part of valor sometimes. I think the question is why do Shammai and Hillel choose their respective modes of attempting to be sensitive to the bride over other possible modes and declare them as halachah. I agree with you that Shammai chooses un-bending truth because he tends to make more difficult demands on people halachically. My contention in the post is that this sharpness reflects a desire for the world to be perfect, and unwillingness to accept any excuses for failing to acheive that, He's trying to eat the tree, so to speak, and doesn't realize the order of the universe is currently against his psak. From there, I think the drash you site is certainly correct. I'm sure Shammai would have executed this decision in the most complementary way possible. In the end though, Hillel realizes the necessities of social reality. If you DON'T say to a bride that she looks beautiful, you might as well have told her to her face that she's ugly. Sometimes social niceties are the only way to avoid an embarrassing, hurtful situation.
-----
~Daniella:
I'm not really trying to convince anybody to eat or not to eat meat. My situation here at the yeshivah is more one of having to defend my choice to eat meat against a bunch of ideological vegetarians and vegans. It's defensive rhetoric, I promise! :-)
On the other hand, I disagree with what you're saying here. I don't think that eating meat is a bad thing to be avoided if one has 'less of a yetzer.' I think it's part of how we are meant to move through the world at this stage of history. I don't have a problem with people not eating meat, but I don't think it's a sort of 'necessary evil,' the way you're describing it. After all, even Rav Kook ate meat on Shabbat and Yom Tov, and I'm sure it wasn't because he was overcome by his desire for it.
For many of us blunt honesty is a Yetzer in itself. It's so much easier to call it like it is than to consider the impact of your words on your audience. Each of us has a different way in which we need to bring tikkun to the world - some of us need to be more Shammai, and some more Hillel.
Vegetarianism is also an issue of sensativity, as Eitan said, another opportunity for tikkun. I personally don't eat much meat because I've done full human dissection, but everyone has their own level.
Tamara:
" I personally don't eat much meat because I've done full human dissection"
I hear that. Yuck...
This is an e-mail I received from a freind of my mother:
Thanks for the lastest reflections through FeedBlitz. I realize that I am jumping into a very Jewish conversation and I apologize that I cannot use all the proper terminology ... but .... yours is also a very human conversation .... as a Christian I have long struggled with the ethical necessity to judge oneself vs. that of judging another. Why is it necessary to comment on the bride's external beauty / nonbeauty at all? Why is it necessary to comment on another's dietary habits? There is obviously a continuum here. When / where on the continuum might G!d advise silence and acceptance vs. active intervention to "convert" an aberant behavior? Given the broken nature of reality, we must acknowledge that our desire to "convert" or teach another on right behavior is often driven by ego /self-interest more than by G!d interest.
Don't feel that you must respond to my ramblings but I would welcome any dialogue you want to continue. I so appreciate sharing your journey of faith this way and am grateful that my connection to your mother has given
me this connection to you.
-----------
My (Eitan Levy's) response:
In this case it's a case of necessity. You are in a situation, and are expected to say something to the bride (something nice, complimentary), if you say nothing you are considered rude, so when you say something what do you say if the standard compliments that come to mind ('such a pretty dress...you look so beautiful...you look so happy...etc.') are factually not true? As Jews we believe that there is a better and worse way to behave in most situations. The laws of the Torah are not general principles which we apply according to our understanding, but rather general principles which lead to precise logical and sociological conclusions in every area of life. To fulfill G!d's will, we need to understand G!d's will as precisely as possible. I would consider knowing what G!d asks of us a form of knowledge of G!d himself. As I was recently learning in the Rambam (Hilchot Teshuvah, Perek 10), knowledge of G!d is both a prerequisite and a necessary cause of Love of G!d, which is the highest (and truly the only) human purpose, under which all our other 'purposes'--which are ultimately 'true'--are merely subcategories.
In any case, it's clear how we hold halachically (according to Jewish law), so my question is more philosophical than practical, and is about the different implications of both opinions. What is the value of each (because we assume in a discussion between two Torah giants that both sides have value, even if one is wrong or inappropriately applied), and what can we learn from this?
More specifically, to your statement, "When / where on the continuum might G!d advise silence and acceptance vs. active intervention to "convert" an aberant behavior?" If I see a Jew doing an act which is against halachah (Jewish Law), and I do not try to stop him, I am held responsible for his transgression. There are several issues to weigh, however: if the person will become LESS likely, for whatever reason, to follow the rules, then I would be at fault in approaching him. If the act of reproach itself will make the person look down on religious people, or on G!d, then I would be transgressing a commandment in doing so. However, if I can delicately inform a person that they're doing something wrong, in such a way that they may accept it (or at least consider it) I am bound to do so. Caution is called for, but often-times, so is action... (And the halachot (laws) of this get quite complicated.)
This translates, in a more universal sense, to essentially saying, if you think it will do any good you should try. If reproof will only cause more damage then one should obviously refrain. I don't believe whether one is motivated properly or not is so relevant, so long as one can objectively judge what the outcome of his actions will be. There is an order of priorities, and in Judaism generally, though both are important, right actions takes precedence over right thoughts/ideas/feelings.
I wish not approve on it. I regard as precise post. Particularly the title-deed attracted me to read the sound story.
Amiable dispatch and this enter helped me alot in my college assignement. Thank you as your information.
Post a Comment
<< Home