The Book of Dvarim is also known as Mishneh Torah, translated as Deuteronomy. The practical explanation for the book's name, and for its raison d'etre, is that at the end of Moshe’s life, before taking leave of his people, Moshe saw fit to teach the generation of Israelites who would soon enter the Land of Israel. This is not the generation that left Egypt, nor are they the same people who stood at Mount Sinai. That generation perished, and soon Moshe would be "gathered in to his people" – Moshe, too, would die in the desert. The Israelites who would enter the Promised Land were of a new generation; they had been children at the time of the Exodus, or were born during the Jews' 40-year sojourn in the desert.[1] This new generation, too, must hear God’s laws. Therefore, we are not surprised to find material from the four earlier Books of the Torah repeated in the fifth book: Mishneh Torah, Deuteronomy, literally means "the repetition of the law."
One particular repetition, found in Parshat Va'etchanan, is of particular interest: The Revelation at Sinai. Parshat Va'etchanan recounts that Revelation, and restates its content, the Decalogue – or the Ten Commandments. This seminal event, and the founding principles of Judaism that were transmitted at that event, were surely worthy of repetition, and we find nothing strange in Moshe's reminder to his young audience:
Only take heed to yourself, and keep your soul diligently, lest you forget the things which your eyes have seen, and lest they depart from your heart all the days of your life; but teach them to your sons, and to your grandsons; The day when you stood before the Almighty, Omnipotent God in Horev, when God said to me, 'Gather the People together, and I will make them hear My words, that they may learn to fear Me all the days that they shall live upon the earth, and that they may teach their children.' And you came near and stood under the mountain; and the mountain burned with fire to the heart of heaven, with darkness, clouds, and thick darkness. And God spoke to you out of the midst of the fire; you heard the sound of the words, but saw no form save a voice. And He declared to you His covenant, which He commanded you to perform, ten commandments; and He wrote them upon two tablets of stone. D’varim 4:9-13
Rather than simply reminding them of the Revelation, Moshe goes one step further; he repeats the words which echoed from Heaven – more or less. A close reading of the Ten Commandments as recorded in Parshat Va'etchanan reveals deviations from the wording of the Ten Commandments in Shmot, Parshat Yitro. Many scholars have offered explanations of these variances, each taking into account one or more of the relevant factors of time, place, experience, purpose and point of view of those hearing the speech and of the speech itself:
Moshe repeated the Ten Commandments on several occasions, the first of which was at Mount Sinai. The people recoiled from the sound of God's voice; the experience of direct communication was overwhelming, terrifying, and Moshe was called upon to transmit the Ten Commandments to the people.[2] The second time Moshe repeats the law to the People is in our present parsha. The Ibn Ezra suggests that the Ten Commandments as found in Yitro are the Words of God, while those found in Va'etchanan are the words of Moshe.[3] As evidence for this position, Ibn Ezra points to the wording of the Fourth and Fifth Commandments in Va'etchanan: “…as the Lord your God has commanded you”.[4]
The Pnei Yehoshua (Yehoshua Yaakov Falk, 1680-1756) raises a different possibility: God said the Ten Commandments twice in Yitro, each time in a different way; First God uttered all Ten Commandments simultaneously,[5] in an act of Divine Speech. Then God uttered each of the Commandments again, in a form of speech more easily recognized by human senses; the first two Commandments were spoken directly to the entire People, and when they recoiled, the rest were said exclusively to Moshe who in turn relayed the teaching to the People. The Pnei Yehoshua goes on to suggest that the two repetitions, both spoken by God, had differences. The first version is reflected in the text of Shmot, and the second, in Dvarim.[6]
Another variable that comes into play is the fact that there were two different sets of Tablets. Do the differences between Shmot and Dvarim stem from God's commandment to record different words on each set of Tablets? In Yitro, God spoke and Moshe repeated the words. While we would expect Moshe to faithfully and precisely transmit the Word of God, is it possible that Moshe, our teacher par excellence, added explanatory comments along the way? The suggestion that Moshe might have changed anything in the Torah is disturbing,[7] even bordering on heretical. Surely, we must be extremely precise: It is a tenet of Jewish faith that the entire Torah is divine, and was dictated by God to Moshe. Nonetheless, Moshe most certainly needed to explain the law in a manner that would make it accessible and understandable. This necessitated the use of different explanatory words, in order to assure that the content was understood, and unchanged. Were these explanatory words included only in the second retelling? Or does each version of the Commandments include different explanatory comments added in by Moshe, tailored to the different audiences?
In other words, what is the correlation between what God said[8], and what Moshe said? Between what God told Moshe to write in the Torah in Exodus and in Dvarim? Between what was written on the first Tablets, which were shattered, and the second Tablets, which were successfully received by the People?[9]
Each of these variables could result in a different explanation for the differences between the two versions of the Ten Commandments. But rather than plumb the depths of the possible causes or reasons for the differences, I propose we examine the differences themselves, for there is so much to be learned from them. Specifically, I would suggest that the first major, substantive difference between the two "versions" is in the Fourth Commandment; up until that point, most of the differences may be considered explanatory, with more words and explanations provided in Dvarim. In the Fourth Commandment, concerning Shabbat, the difference is not a question of details, nor a question of the language used to make the point. Here, the difference represents a new perspective altogether.
Let us compare the Fourth Commandment as it appears in Shmot and in Dvarim. In each instance there is an introductory command:
שמות פרק כ
(ז) זָכוֹר אֶת יוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת לְקַדְּשׁוֹ:
In Shmot 20,8:
Remember (or, commemorate) the Shabbat day, to sanctify it.
Keep (or, guard) the Shabbat day to sanctify it, as the Almighty your God has commanded you.
The word 'remember', zachor, is replaced with 'guard' (or 'keep'), shamor, and the problematic “as the Almighty your God has commanded you” is tacked on. Next comes the body of the law:
Six days shall you labor, and do all your work; But the seventh day is Shabbat of the Almighty your God; on it you shall not do any work, you, nor your son, nor your daughter, your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger that is within your gates;
Six days you shall labor, and do all your work; But the seventh day is Shabbat of the Almighty your God; on it you shall not do any work, you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your ox, nor your ass, nor any of your cattle, nor your stranger who is inside your gates; that your manservant and your maidservant may rest as well as you.
The additional words in Devarim do not contradict the earlier version in any way; they provide more explanation: "that your manservant and your maidservant may rest as well as you."
The final section of the Commandment is the reason for Shabbat, and it is here that we find two divergent rationales for Sabbath observance:
For in six days God made the heavens and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore God blessed the Shabbat day, and sanctified it.
And remember that you were a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Almighty your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and with an outstretched arm; therefore the Almighty your God commanded you to keep the Shabbat day.
In Shmot, the rationale for Shabbat is Creation: Shabbat is a testament to our belief in the Creation and the Creator. On the other hand, in Dvarim the Shabbat is commanded as a reminder of our enslavement in Egypt, and of our liberation by God's Hand. This is no mere explanatory comment; here are two vastly different, potentially contradictory reasons for observance of Shabbat.
To summarize our findings: The introductory statements for each of the versions of this commandment use unique language to describe the active commemoration of Shabbat – "to remember", on the one hand, and "to guard", on the other. In both versions, the main body of the commandment consists of a similar list of laws, albeit more fully developed by presumably explanatory material in Dvarim. The conclusions drawn by each of the two versions seem to offer mutually exclusive philosophical underpinnings for the Shabbat.
Most traditional commentaries focused on the first of these differences, the terms shamor and zachor, 'guard' and 'remember' ('commemorate'), and they refer us to the nature of Divine Speech: zachor and shamor were uttered simultaneously, in a way that human speech is incapable of imitating.
תלמוד בבלי מסכת שבועות דף כ עמוד ב
כדתניא: (שמות כ') זכור (דברים ה') ושמור בדיבור אחד נאמרו, מה שאין יכול הפה לדבר, ומה שאין האוזן יכול לשמוע.
Zachor (Shmot 20) and shamor (Devarim 5) were pronounced in a single utterance, — an utterance which the mouth cannot utter, nor the ear hear. Talmud Bavli - Shevu'ot 20b
One may ask, which of the words “zachor and shamor” was actually spoken by God; the Talmud’s answer is that both are Divine – and were said in a Divine fashion.
These two words represent two different concepts: Technically, remembering is a cerebral act which may beperformed at any time during the week - on Shabbat, before Shabbat, or after Shabbat. Therefore, our Sages considered preparations for Shabbat as part and parcel of the process of "remembering" or "commemoration". Similarly, reciting the Kiddush is, according to some rabbinic opinions, a fulfillment of zachor - “Remember the Shabbat day, to sanctify it”. On the other hand, “guarding the Shabbat” is associated with avoiding prohibited actions.
Upon analysis, each of these aspects of Shabbat is incomplete. We can easily imagine a 24-hour period in which we do no creative activity, a sterile non-working day in which we have indeed fulfilled the commandment of shamor to the letter, without actually having observed Shabbat:
תלמוד בבלי מסכת עבודה זרה דף ג עמוד א
מי שטרח בערב שבת יאכל בשבת, מי שלא טרח בערב שבת מהיכן יאכל בשבת?
He who took trouble [to prepare] on the eve of Shabbat will eat on Shabbat, but he who has not troubled on the eve of Shabbat, what shall he eat on the Shabbat? Talmud Bavli Avoda Zara 3a
Similarly, one may prepare for Shabbat and not keep Shabbat – preparing all his needs before sundown, even reciting Kiddush, yet continuing all his creative workday pursuits on the seventh day itself. The two aspects of Shabbat are two sides of the same coin. Each aspect is incomplete without the other; together they create a complete, sanctified day of rest. God uttered “zachor and shamor” simultaneously.
And yet, this concept of Divine, simultaneous transmission of the two concepts, zachor and shamor, does not provide an all-encompassing answer. We might yet ask why one version was recorded in the Book of Shmot and the other in the book of Dvarim. Furthermore, we have not solved the dissonance between the concluding sections of the Commandment. My teacher and Rebbi, Rabbi Yosef Soloveitchik, addressed these problems, and offered a deep philosophical insight: In reality, the two different rationales for Shabbat do not contradict one another. Rather, they teach the same law from two different vantage points. The formulation in Shmot states: “For in six days God made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore God blessed the Shabbat day, and sanctified it.” There is one thing missing here – namely, man. What does man have to do with this? Why should humankind keep Shabbat? Moreover, if Shabbat exists simply because God created, this law should be universal, and not apply only to members of the Covenant, to Jews alone.[10] This Commandment, Rabbi Soloveitchik pointed out, is theocentric, reflecting God's perspective. The seventh day is holy because God created for six days and then desisted from creating. This is echoed in the verse in Bereishit, uttered at the very dawn of creation:
And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because on it He rested from all His work which God created to make. Bereishit 2:3
The fact that God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it does not necessarily affect man; only when man is commanded to keep that day in a similar or imitative fashion is he brought into the frame, into God's frame of reference, as it were.
On the other hand, the rationale for Shabbat as stated in Dvarim is of a totally different order, drawn from a totally different sphere: We were enslaved, and God rescued us. “And remember that you were a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Almighty your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and with an outstretched arm; therefore the Almighty your God commanded you to keep the Shabbat day.” This formulation is homocentric. The former slaves are addressed in a particularly compelling way: As slaves, they had no freedom. Now, as free men and women, they are free every day. They have been given all seven days of the week to pursue their individuality, and with this Commandment, God asks that they put aside one-seventh of their gift in return. Seen from this perspective, Shabbat becomes a moral imperative for those whose shackles were broken, homage to their liberator.
The two rationales are not contradictory; one speaks from God's perspective, teaching us that the seventh day is holy and unique. The other speaks from the human perspective, requiring man to rest as well. Had it not been for the first rationale, man would be able to choose his own day of rest; each and every day would be an equally valid candidate, and no one day would have religious superiority over the others. On the other hand, with only the first formulation, man would remain outside the picture; man would have no part in the sanctity of the seventh day, just as he was not a party to Creation.
Both of these perspectives were taught by God, simultaneously, at Sinai. Yet each was recorded, emphasized, at different junctures in the history of the Jewish People. The generation that left Egypt would certainly have no trouble embracing the idea that one day each week should be a day of rest. These former slaves may have perceived this Commandment primarily as a social law instituted to protect workers' rights and prevent future enslavement. Therefore, the generation that left Egypt, the generation of liberated slaves that stood at Sinai, was taught about the other reason for Shabbat: This day is hallowed because of Creation, and by emulating God and keeping the Shabbat we forge a powerful, holy relationship with Him.
The generation that stood poised to enter the Land of Israel knew neither work nor slavery. It was this generation that needed to hear about the human side of Shabbat. They had to be taught that the seventh day is not exclusively Divine in nature. The human and social implications of Shabbat would not have been intuitively understood by those who were sustained by miracles for forty years.
And what of us, the generations who read the words of the Torah millennia later? We are privileged to see both aspects transmitted in the text we have received. We have a multi-faceted Written and Oral Tradition which illuminates at least two sides of Shabbat - the human and the Divine. By preparing for Shabbat during the week and sanctifying the seventh day of each week, we can elevate ourselves and enjoy our own rendezvous with God.
(א) אל כל ישראל - להשמיעם עשרת הדברות לנולדים אחר מתן תורה
[2] See Shmot 20:16, which is explained by Dvarim 5:4-6
Shmot 20:16. And they said to Moses, Speak with us, and we will hear; but let not God speak with us, lest we die.
Dvarim 5:4-6 God talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire, 5. I stood between God and you at that time, to tell you the Word of God; for you were afraid because of the fire, and went not up into the mount, saying, 6. I am the Almighty your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery…
[3] Ibn Ezra Shmot 20:1, the Pnei Yehoshua, op cit, also makes this suggestion.
אבן עזרא שמות (הפירוש הארוך) פרק כ פסוק א
לא כאשר אמר הגאון, כי זכור הוא בלוח האחד, ושמור בלוח השני, ועשרת הדברים הכתובים בפ' ואתחנן הם דברי משה. והראיה הגמורה ששם כתוב פעמים כאשר צוך ה' אלהיך.
[4] See Hizkuni, who makes a similar observation, but notes other words as his evidence:
חזקוני על דברים פרק ה פסוק יח
מתחלת אנכי עד ולשומרי מצותי אין בין דברות ראשונות לשניות שום שינוי לפי שהקב"ה חזר ופירשם כמו שמפורש בפרשת יתרו ולא רצה משה אפי' בפרשה זו לשנות בהם שום דבר. אבל השאר שחזר משה ופירשם אין חששא בשנוי המלות אחרי שהם שוות בטעם. וזה הכלל כל דבר שינוי במקרא תמצא בפעם שנית מלות שונות אך הטעם שוה, ומדברת לא תשא שאין בה שינוי אין להקפיד כי כך היה המקרא. ועשרת הדברות שבפרשת יתרו הם דברי הקב"ה בלי תוספת ומגרעת לבד למען ייטב לך כמו שפירש"י והם לבדם הכתובות על לוחות הברית. ואותם שבפרשה זו הם הם דברי משה וכאן סדרן משה אחר סברת הבחורים שתחלה חומדים אשה ואח"כ בית ואח"כ עבד ואמה ואח"כ שדות וחמורים. ובפרשת יתרו סדרם הקב"ה על סברת דעת אנשי חכמה שקונים תחלה בית ואח"כ אשה ואח"כ עבד ואמה ואח"כ שור וחמור.
[6] The Pnie Yehoshua commentary to Baba Kamma 55a.
פני יהושע מסכת בבא קמא דף נה עמוד א
עוד מצאתי שהקב"ה בעצמו הגיד שני פעמים העשרת הדברות בראשונה אמר כל הדברים בדיבור אחד ואח"כ חזר ופרשם ומזה הטעם נאמרו פעמים בתורה בפרשת יתרו ובפרשת ואתחנן והשינוי ג"כ היה באמירת הקב"ה בעצמו
[7] See The Pnie Yehoshua commentary to Baba Kamma 55a
פני יהושע מסכת בבא קמא דף נה עמוד א
אמר לו עד שאתה שואלני למה וכו' שאלני אם נאמר בהם טוב או לאו שאיני יודע אם נאמר וכו'. הנה כל הקורא ישתומם על ככה וכי גברא רבא כר' חייא בר אבא לא היה יודע חלילה מה שהתנוקות של בית רבן יודעים שלא אמר טוב בדברות ראשונות ובאחרונות כתיב ואי משום דלשון טוב ממש לא כתיב אמאי קאמר שאינו יודע ועוד דנראה כפל הלשון שאלני אם נאמר וכו' שאיני יודע אם נאמר.
[8] The Chizkuni says, "That which God repeated (i.e., the first two Commandments) Moshe taught faithfully, for they were explained by God, and that which was explained by Moshe (the remaining eight Commandments) is where Moshe needed to add his own explanations," hence there are no differences between the first two commandments in Shmot and Devarim.
חזקוני על דברים פרק ה פסוק יח
מתחלת אנכי עד ולשומרי מצותי אין בין דברות ראשונות לשניות שום שינוי לפי שהקב"ה חזר ופירשם כמו שמפורש בפרשת יתרו ולא רצה משה אפי' בפרשה זו לשנות בהם שום דבר. אבל השאר שחזר משה ופירשם אין חששא בשנוי המלות אחרי שהם שוות בטעם. וזה הכלל כל דבר שינוי במקרא תמצא בפעם שנית מלות שונות אך הטעם שוה, ומדברת לא תשא שאין בה שינוי אין להקפיד כי כך היה המקרא.
[9] See Rabbenu Bachya, Bereishit, 18:19 whose overall principle is that the Commandments as they were spoken should be identical to what was written.
רבנו בחיי על בראשית פרק יח פסוק יט
כתב רבינו חננאל ז"ל נעשו דברי האבות בקבלה בלא כתיבה בתורה כמו תורה הכתובה, ומכאן אתה למד כי המשנה שהיא סידורה בהגדת אבות לבנים היא קבלה שחייבים לשמור דבריהם כחיוב דברי תורה הכתובים, שזה וזה שוים, שהרי עשרת הדברות נשמעו מפי הגבורה ונכתבו מפי הנביא ע"ה ושאר התורה נכתבה מפי הנביא, וכשם שאין הפרש בין המצוות שהן בשמיעה ובין המצוות שהן בכתיבה, כך אין הפרש בין המצוות שהן בכתיבה ובין המצוות שהן בקבלה שהכל שוין, עד כאן:
[10] The Talmud Sanhedrin 58b sees a non-Jew who keeps Shabbat as breaking a law rather than performing a wonderful deed.
תלמוד בבלי מסכת סנהדרין דף נח עמוד ב
ואמר ריש לקיש: נכרי ששבת - חייב מיתה, שנאמר +בראשית ח'+ ויום ולילה לא ישבתו. ואמר מר: אזהרה שלהן זו היא מיתתן. אמר רבינא: אפילו שני בשבת.
Tradition records that the Ninth of Av, the day both Temples were destroyed, has a biblical antecedent of infamy. On this date, it was decreed that the generation that left Egypt, the "generation of the desert", would not enter the Land of Israel:
And it is further written, 'And the entire congregation lifted up their voice, and cried; and the people wept that night.' Rabbah said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: That night was the night of the Ninth of Av. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to them: 'You have wept without cause, therefore I will set [this day] aside for a weeping throughout the generations to come.' Talmud Bavli Ta’anit 29a
In the words of Rabbi Yochanan, God responded to the unjustified tears shed that night by the Children of Israel as would a parent who sees their child crying for no reason: 'I will give you something to cry about'. With that, their fate was sealed for generations to come.
And yet, Rabbi Yochanan's comments are not as clear as they may seem at first glance: Why were future generations impacted by this particular sin? How are the unjustified tears shed in the desert that night connected with the hurban, the destruction? The generation of the desert did not want to enter a land they were convinced would never be theirs. In what way is this sin related to the destruction of the Temple? Surely, this is a sad, even tragic event, but it seems to have little to do with the generation of the SecondTemple. Why should the impact of this particular sin still reverberate generations later? The Ramban asks this question, and quotes the Book of Psalms as his answer:[1]
They made a calf in Horev, and worshipped the molten image. Thus they changed their glory for the likeness of an ox that eats grass! They forgot God who had saved them, who had done great things in Egypt; Wondrous works in the land of Ham, and awesome things by the Red Sea. Therefore he said that he would destroy them, had not Moshe, his chosen one, stood before him in the breach, to turn away his wrath, lest he should destroy them. And they despised the pleasant land, they did not believe his word; And they murmured in their tents, and did not listen to the voice of God. And he lifted up his hand against them, to make them fall in the wilderness; And to make their seed fall among the nations, and to scatter them in the lands. Tehilim 106, 21-27
The Psalmist understood, before the Temple was ever built, that the sin of the spies would impact the Jewish People in the future, and would result in the exile of a future generation. Rabbi Yochanan's opinion, as recorded in the Talmud, may well have been based on this Psalm. The question that remains unsolved for us is – why? What is it about this sin, above and beyond all the other sins committed by the generation of the desert, that continued to influence the Jewish People hundreds of years later?
Elsewhere, the Talmud teaches that the FirstTemple was destroyed because of three major sins: a breakdown of sexual mores, murder, and idolatry. This same tradition teaches that the SecondTemple was destroyed due to groundless hatred:
תלמוד בבלי מסכת יומא דף ט עמוד ב
מקדש ראשון מפני מה חרב? מפני שלשה דברים שהיו בו: עבודה זרה, וגלוי עריות, ושפיכות דמים. … אבל מקדש שני, שהיו עוסקין בתורה ובמצות וגמילות חסדים מפני מה חרב? מפני שהיתה בו שנאת חנם. ללמדך ששקולה שנאת חנם כנגד שלש עבירות: עבודה זרה, גלוי עריות, ושפיכות דמים.
Why was the FirstTemple destroyed? Because of three [evil] things which prevailed there: idolatry, and immorality, and bloodshed…But why was the SecondTemple destroyed, seeing that in its time they were occupying themselves with Torah, [observance of mitzvot, and the practice of charity? Because therein prevailed hatred without cause. That teaches you that groundless hatred is considered as of equal gravity to three sins, idolatry, immorality, and bloodshed, together . Talmud Bavli Yoma 9b
This Talmudic axiom may, in fact, be reconciled with the Beit Halevi's teaching that the destruction of the FirstTemple is related to the sin of the Golden Calf, and the SecondTemple to the sin of the spies.[2] At face value, the sin of the Golden Calf was an act of idolatry in its most easily-identifiable form. However, the creation and worship of the Golden Calf at the foot of Sinai involved both murder[3] and orgiastic celebration.[4] The Talmudic tradition that these three sins led to the FirstTemple's destruction, is closely mirrored by the behavior of the nation in the Golden Calf incident.
The second half of the Beit Halevi's formulation seems less straightforward: Whereas the Talmud identifies the cause of the second destruction as "baseless hatred", the Beit Halevi points to the sin of the spies. Perhaps the comments of the Maharal[5] and the Chafez Chaim[6], who see the sin of slander at the core of the incident of the spies, can bridge the gap:[7] Slander is a particularly effective method of perpetuating groundless hatred. Slander and groundless hatred, the sin of the spies and the sin of the generation of the SecondTemple, are two sides of the same coin.
Despite this explanation, the connection between the Talmudic reference to groundless hatred and the Beit Halevi's reference to the sin of the spies seems somewhat amorphous, for there does not seem to be any hint of groundless hatred in the story of the spies. This brings us back to our earlier question: From the biblical account of the incident of the spies, we cannot understand why future generations were so forcefully impacted by this particular sin, committed by a particular generation in very particular circumstances. Let us re-examine the verses describing the incident of the spies:
When the twelve scouts returned from their mission, they began their description of the Land of Israel with glowing terms:
And they returned from surveying the Land after forty days. And they went and came to Moshe, and to Aharon, and to all the congregation of the People of Israel, to the wilderness of Paran, to Kadesh; and brought back word to them, and to the entire congregation, and showed them the fruit of the Land. And they told him, and said, 'We came to the land where you sent us, and surely it flows with milk and honey; and this is its fruit.' Bamidbar 13:25-27
Only then did they add their own negative military analysis:
Nevertheless the people who live in the land are strong, and the cities are walled, and very great; and moreover we saw the children of Anak there. The Amalekites live in the land of the Negev; and the Hittites, and the Yevusites, and the Amorites, live in the mountains; and the Canaanites live by the sea, and by the side of the Jordan. Bamidbar 13:28,29
Calev rejects their negative prognosis; he states that the Land is attainable.
30. And Calev quieted the people before Moshe, and said, 'Let us go up at once, and possess it; for we are well able to overcome it.' Bamidbar 13:30
Only after Calev challenges their perspective do the other members of the reconnaissance team change tactics and resort to disparaging, slanderous comments about the Land itself:
But the men who went up with him said, 'We are not able to go up against the people; for they are stronger than we. And they slandered the land which they had surveyed to the People of Israel, saying, 'The land through which we have traveled to survey, is a land that eats up its inhabitants; and all the people that we saw in it are men of great stature. And there we saw the Nefilim, the sons of Anak, who come from the Nefilim; and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so were we in their sight. Bamidbar 13:31-33
It is this evil report which reduces the people to tears. The very next verse describes the fear and crying:
And the entire congregation lifted up their voice, and cried; and the people wept that night. And all the People of Israel murmured against Moshe and against Aharon; and the whole congregation said to them, Would God that we had died in the land of Egypt! or would God we had died in this wilderness! And why has God brought us to this Land, to fall by the sword, that our wives and our children should be prey? Would it not be better for us to return to Egypt?' And they said one to another, Let us choose a chief, and let us return to Egypt. Bamidbar 14:1-4
What is still lacking is any reference to hatred that would connect the Beit Halevi's opinion to the Talmudic understanding of the causes of the destruction.The connection is supplied later, in the book of D’varim, when Moshe retells the story. He adds one critical element not recorded in the first account: Moshe reveals what the people said and how they expressed their feelings on the night the spies returned:
You grumbled in your tents and said, "Because of God's hatred of us, He took us out of the land of Egypt to put us in the hand of the Emorites to destroy us." D'varim 1, 27
Here we find “hatred” in the story of the spies. It is a hatred which the people attribute to God. While they may feel it, this does not necessarily make it real: In this case, "hatred" is in the eye of the beholder, as it were, a product of their collective imagination, existing only in the minds of the Israelites. They think that God hates them. Rashi picks up on this problem and offers an insightful explanation:
רש"י דברים פרק א פסוק כז
(כז) וַתֵּרָגְנוּ - לשון הרע, וכן (משלי יח, ח) דברי נרגן, אדם המוציא דבה
בשנאת ה' אתנו - והוא היה אוהב אתכם, אבל אתם שונאים אותו. משל הדיוט אומר, מה דבלבך על רחמךמה דבלביה עלך:
You grumbled: You spoke slanderous words…
Because of God's hatred of us: In reality, He loved you, but you hated Him. A popular proverb says, "What is in your heart regarding your friend, [you imagine] is in his heart regarding yourself." Rashi on D'varim 1, 27
The phenomenon Rashi describes is known in modern psychological parlance as projection: we ascribe to another the same feelings we have toward them. The Jews' own fear and insecurity cause them to believe that the Land of Israel is unattainable; if this is so, God took them out of Egypt to die in the desert. Ergo, God must hate them. Of course, the opposite is the case: Because of His love for the Children of Israel, God took them from Egypt and would lead them to the Promised Land.In other words, the Jews hated God for no reason; this is what we call sinat chinam – groundless hatred.[8]
Once we realize that the reaction of the people to the report of the spies was a case of projection, we are able to trace their distorted emotional and psychological state back to its source – the specific words used by the spies: While trying to dissuade the Jews from maintaining their course to the Land of Israel, the spies make a remarkable statement. It is this particular statement that immediately precedes the complaining and crying. It is this particular statement that contains dibah, the slander which the commentaries point to as the core of the sin. It is this statement which serves as the source of the Jews' emotional projection:
And they slandered the land which they had surveyed to the People of Israel, saying, 'The land through which we have gone to spy, is a land that eats up its inhabitants; and all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature. And there we saw the Nefilim, the sons of Anak, who come from the Nefilim; and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so were we in their sight. Bamidbar 13:31-33
They tell the assembled crowd that they saw giants – a discouraging but understandable piece of information which may or may not be a factual report of their findings. They then go on to express their own feelings: “We were in our own sight as grasshoppers”, a sad indication of their own insecurity. But the final statement - “and so were we in their sight” - is nothing short of preposterous. While they may have a right to their own feelings of inadequacy, they have absolutely no right to project those feelings on their enemies. The spies, leaders of the Tribes of Israel, felt like grasshoppers, and they assumed that they were seen this way by others. By what right do they presume to know how the inhabitants of the land saw them? Here, then, in the very same verse that records their slander, we find projection on the part of the spies: “and so were we in their sight”!
Ironically, when other nations do speak about the Jews, their descriptions and perceptions are vastly different to that of the spies. For example, Moav speaks to the elders of Midian in very worried tones regarding the approaching Israelite camp. Balak, King of Moav, is intimidated by both the size and the strength of the Children of Israel, and likens them to oxen rather than puny grasshoppers.
2 And Balak the son of Zippor saw all that Israel had done to the Amorites. 3 And Moav was terribly afraid of the People, because they were many; and Moav was overcome with dread because of the Children of Israel. 4 And Moav said unto the elders of Midian: 'Now will this multitude lick up all that is round about us, as the ox licks up the grass of the field.'--And Balak the son of Zippor was King of Moav at that time.-- And he sent messengers unto Balaam the son of Beor, to Petor, which is by the River, to the land of the children of his people, to call him, saying: 'Behold, there is a People come out from Egypt; behold, they cover the face of the earth, and they abide over against me. Bamidbar 22:2-5
Groundless hatred of God, manifested in slander, was caused by projection. These elements are found in another notable passage associated with Tisha B'Av, an episode that has become synonymous with sinat chinam: the story of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza. It is a tale of loathing, jealousy, insecurity and groundless hatred:
The destruction of Jerusalem came through Kamtza and Bar Kamtza ... in this way. A certain man had a friend Kamtza and an enemy Bar Kamtza. He once made a party and said to his servant, 'Go and bring Kamtza.' The man went and brought Bar Kamtza. When the man [who gave the party] found him there he said, 'See, you tell tales about me; what are you doing here? Get out.' Said the other: 'Since I am here, let me stay, and I will pay you for whatever I eat and drink.'[The host] said, 'I won't.' 'Then let me give you half the cost of the party.' 'No,' said the host. 'Then let me pay for the whole party.' [The host] still said, 'No,' and he took him by the hand and put him out. Said the other [i.e., Bar Kamtza], 'Since the Rabbis were sitting there and did not stop him, this shows that they agreed with him. I will go and inform against them to the Government.' He went and said to the Emperor, 'The Jews are rebelling against you.' [The Emperor] said, 'How can I tell?' He said to him: 'Send them an offering and see whether they will offer it [on the altar].' So [the Emperor] sent with [Bar Kamtza] a fine calf. While on the way he made a blemish on its upper lip, or as some say on the white of its eye, in a place where we [Jews] count it a blemish but they [non-Jews] do not. The Rabbis were inclined to offer it in order not to offend the Government. Said R. Zechariah b. Avkulas to them: 'People will say that blemished animals are offered on the altar!' They then proposed to kill Bar Kamtza so that he should not go and inform against them, but R. Zechariah b. Avkulas said to them, 'Is one who makes a blemish on consecrated animals to be put to death?' R. Yochanan remarked: Through the scrupulousness (or modesty) of R. Zechariah b. Avkulas our House has been destroyed, our Temple burnt and we ourselves exiled from our land.
The Talmud provides a concluding note:
…תניא, אמר רבי אלעזר, בא וראה כמה גדולה כחה של בושה, שהרי סיע הקדוש ברוך הוא את בר קמצא, והחריב את ביתו ושרף את היכלו:
It has been taught: Note from this incident how serious a thing it is to put a man to shame, for God espoused the cause of Bar Kamtza and destroyed His own House and burnt His Temple.
If it were not for the tragic consequences, this would sound like a comedy of errors: A confused invitation arrives at the home of a sworn enemy instead of the home of a beloved friend. This private situation deteriorates to the point that it becomes the trigger for destruction and exile for the entire nation. Surely this was not an isolated instance of hatred; there must certainly have been many others who did not get along. This story illuminates the general atmosphere of that society; the Maharsha describes this episode as an example used by the scholars of the Talmud to illustrate the type of hatred that caused the destruction of the Second Temple.[9]
In his comments, the Maharsha adds another dimension to this episode that sharpens the story immeasurably: Kamtza andBar Kamtza were very likely father and son – the word bar means "son of", hence, Kamtza and the son of Kamtza.[10] The anonymous host has a best friend named Kamtza, but he detests his friend’s son. The son is accidentally invited to the party; although he is aware, as is everyone else, that the host despises him, the son arrives at the party, apparently hoping for a rapprochement. He must have assumed that the personal invitation extended to him by the host's servant was a reconciliatory gesture, which he eagerly accepted. Perhaps he imagined that his own father had interceded. When he found himself facing supreme humiliation, did he look to his own father, in vain, to salvage his honor? We are never told that he learned the cause of his mistaken invitation; perhaps he began to suspect that the host's hatred for him is shared by his own father! From here, it is a short distance indeed back to the desert, to the Jews crying in their tents because they believe that God hated them, when in reality he loved them.
The conclusion of this episode offered by the Talmud is not what we would expect: Rather than placing the blame with the truly guilty party - the nameless, implacable host who humiliated the hapless Bar Kamtza and had him bodily thrown out of his home; rather than admonishing the humiliated Bar Kamtza for betraying his People in his desire for revenge, the Talmud concludes that it was the “anvetanut”of Rabbi Zechariah ben Avkulas that destroyed the Temple.
The description of Rabbi Zechariah's character is translated variously as modesty, patience[11], or scrupulousness. In any case, we are somewhat nonplussed by this peculiar, seemingly anti-climactic conclusion. Rabbi Zechariah was presented with two choices, neither of which were true to the letter of the law: he could either rule to bring the blemished offering, which would have been an affront to ritual law, or to kill the man who created the crisis that threatened the entire Jewish community. We might be tempted to say that Rabbi Zechariah was guilty only of taking a myopic view, adhering to the letter of the law while ignoring the larger issues involved in the case. Rabbi Yochanan's summary of the entire Bar Kamtza affair places things in inescapable perspective for us: "Due to the 'modesty' of Rav Zechariah ben Avkulas our House has been destroyed, our Temple burnt and we ourselves exiled from our land."
We began our inquiry with a statement by this same Rabbi Yochanan, drawing a line from the sin of the spies to the destruction of the Second Temple on the Ninth of Av. The same Rabbi Yochanan who points an accusing finger at Rabbi Zechariah also[12] taught that Jerusalem was destroyed because the jurists of that generation judged strictly by the letter of the law:
תלמוד בבלי מסכת בבא מציעא דף ל/ב
דאמר רבי יוחנן לא חרבה ירושלים אלא על שדנו בה דין תורה אלא דיני דמגיזתא לדיינו אלא אימא שהעמידו דיניהם על דין תורה ולא עבדו לפנים משורתהדין.
For Rabbi Yochanan said: Jerusalem was destroyed only because they gave judgments therein in accordance with Biblical law— But say thus: because they based their judgments [strictly] upon Biblical law, and did not go beyond the letter of the law. Talmud Bavli Bava Metzia 30b
The Chatam Sofer reconciles these seemingly divergent ideas: The masses were guilty of groundless hatred, while the rabbinic leadership was guilty of literalism, of judging according to the letter of the law: Bar Kamtza was guilty of groundless hatred, while Rabbi Zechariah was guilty of judging according to the letter of the law, a type of halachic stringency which led to spiritual paralysis.[13]
The Chatam Sofer points out that Rabbi Zechariah's behavior in the case of the Emperor's offering was not an isolated incident; the same sort of reasoning, the same modus operandi, is evident in the only other instance in which Rabbi Zechariah is mentioned in the Talmud[14]. The other case involved a seemingly mundane point of Shabbat law; the question concerned the proper way to dispose of bones at the Shabbat table.[15]
תוספתא מסכת שבת (ליברמן) פרק טז הלכה ז
בית הלל אומ' מגביהין מעל השלחן עצמות וקלפין בית שמיי אומ' מסלק את הטבלה כולה ומנערה זכריה בן אבקילס לא היה נוהג לא כדברי בית שמיי ולא כדברי בית הלל אלא נוטל ומשליך לאחר המטה אמ' ר' יוסה ענותנותו של ר' זכריה בן אבקילס היא שרפה את ההיכל
Beit Hillel[16] said, lift the bones and shells from the table; Beit Shammai said, remove the entire tray (or tabletop) and shake off the refuse. Zechariah ben Avkulas did not follow the opinion of Beit Shammai or that of Beit Hillel, rather he spat the bones out behind the couch. Rabbi Yosa taught, 'The "modesty" of Rav Zechariah ben Avkulas burnt the Temple.' Tosefta Shabbat 16:7
In the context of this halachic debate, the concluding statement is completely baffling; whereas this same statement was somewhat of a surprise ending to the Kamtza/Bar Kamtza episode, in this halachic passage, it seems completely out of context. And yet, there is a disturbing common denominator between the two cases: Apparently Rav Zechariah, though quite learned, was afraid to state his opinion. He felt inadequate, and was unwilling to take sides in the halachic debate. He seems, in both stories, incapable of making a decisive ruling of his own.
Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Chiyus explains:
מהר"ץ חיות בגיטין דף נ"ו
ואולם מפני גודל ענוותנותו של ר' זכריה בן אבקולס לא הרהיב בנפשו עוז לעשות בזה הלכה למעשה וחשש שיחשדו אותו שעשה שלא כהלכה, ולא החשיב עצמו לגדול ולקבוע בדעתו להיות עושה הלכה למעשה ולתלות בהוראת שעה. וחישב כי הדבר נמסר רק לגדולי הדור. והוא אינו ראוי לזה לעשות גדולות שלא כתורה ולתלות כי עושה למען לגדר גדר ולעמוד בפרץ. ומפני זה אמרו לשון ענוותנותו, היינו, במה שלא רצה לעמוד על דעתו זאת היתה הסיבה לחורבן הבית.
Because of the great "modesty" of Rabbi Zechariah ben Avkulas, he did not presume himself to be spiritually entitled or emboldened enough to rule in practical matters of law.[17] He was afraid that people would suspect him controverting the halacha, and did not see himself as prominent enough to hand down rulings based on his own opinion (even) in these extenuating circumstances (of Bar Kamtza and the Emporer's offering). He thought only the really great Rabbis of the generation could make such decisions…. Therefore the word "modesty" is used, because he did not trust his own opinion. And that was the reason that the Temple was destroyed. Maharatz Chiyus, Commentary to Gittin 56a[18]
Rabbi Zechariah did not trust himself; even worse, he was afraid of what people would say. Therefore, he could not or would not choose between the divergent opinions of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel. Likewise, his handling of the Bar Kamtza fiasco was indecisive: He felt small, inadequate. And this was the very crux of the matter: In telling the story of Bar Kamtza, the Talmud makes it very clear that what bothered Bar Kamtza more than anything else – more than his humiliation, more than his own father's passivity or possible complicity - was the inaction of the Rabbis. In another case of emotional projection, Bar Kamtza began to hate the entire Jewish People, and not just the individual who had disgraced him, because he thought the Rabbis hated him:
Bar Kamtza said: “Since the Rabbis were sitting there and did not stop him, this shows that they agree with him.”
Another version of the Bar Kamtza story, found in Midrash Eicha, reveals one more critical detail:
מדרש רבה איכה פרשה ד פסקה ג
מעשה שהיה באדם אחד בירושלים שעשה סעודה אמר לבן ביתו לך והבא לי קמצא רחמי אזל ואייתי ליה בר קמצא שנאיה עאל וישב בין האורחים עאל אשכחיה ביני אריסטירא אמר לו את שנאי ואת יתיב בגו ביתאי קום פוק לך מיגו ביתאי אמר לו אל תביישני ואנא יהיב לך דמי דסעודתא אמר לו לית את מסובה אמר לו אל תביישני ואנא יתיב ולית אנא אכיל ושתי אמר לו לית את מסובה אמר ליה אנא יהיב דמי כל הדין סעודתא אמר ליה קום לך והיה שם ר' זכריה בן אבקולס והיתה ספק בידו למחות ולא מיחה מיד נפיק ליה אמר בנפשיה אילין מסביין יתבין בשלוותהון אנא איכול קרצהון מה עבד הלך אצל השלטון אמר לו אילין קורבנייא דאת משלח ליהודאי למקרבינהו אינון אכלין להון ומקרבין אוחרנים בחילופייהו נזף ביה אזל לגביה תוב אמר ליה כל אילין קורבניא דאת משלח ליהודאי למקרבינהו אינון אכלין להון ומקרבין אוחרין בחילופייהו ואם לא תאמין לי שלח עמי חד איפרכו וקורבנייא ואת ידע מיד שאיני שקרן עד דאתייא באורחא דמך איפרכו קם הוא בליליא ועשאן כולן בעלי מומין בסתר כיון שראה אותן הכהן הקריב אוחרנין תחתיהון אמר ההוא שליחא דמלכא למה לית את מקריב אילין קורבניא אמר ליה למחר אתא יום תליתאה ולא קרבהון שלח ואמר למלכא ההוא מילתא דיהודאה קאמר קושטא קאמר מיד סליק למקדשה והחריבו הדא דבריאתא אמרין בין קמצא ובין בן קמצא חרב מקדשא אמר ר' יוסי ענותנותו של ר' זכריה בן אבקולס שרפה את ההיכל ד"א מה היתה יקרותן לא היה אחד מהן מוליד חסר ובעל מום:
It happened that a Jerusalemite once gave a dinner and instructed one of his household, 'Go and bring me my friend Kamtza'; but he went and invited Bar Kamtza who was his enemy. The latter entered and sat among the invited guests. When the host came in and found him among the guests, he said to him, ‘You are my enemy, and yet you sit in my house! Get up and leave my house!’ He answered, ‘Do not put me to shame, and I will pay you the cost of what I eat.’ He said to him, ‘You will not recline at the meal!’ He said to him, ‘Do not put me to shame, and I will sit without eating or drinking anything’; but he replied, ‘You will not recline at the meal!’ He pleaded, ‘I will pay the cost of the whole meal’; but the host said, ‘Go away!’ Rav Zechariah ben Avkulas, who was present, could have prevented [the host from treating the man in this manner] but did not intervene. Bar Kamtza at once left the house, and said to himself, ‘They feast and sit in luxury; I will go and inform against them.’…Hence the popular saying: 'Because of the difference between [the names] Kamtza and Bar Kamtza was the Temple destroyed.' Rav Yose said: The "modesty" of Zechariah b. Avkulas burnt the Temple. Midrash Rabbah Eicha 4:3
Rabbi Zechariah was there, at the party, among the invited guests who witnessed Bar Kamtza's disgrace! In keeping with what we already know about his character, Rav Zechariah didn’t feel it was his place to get involved. He did not reprimand his host for treating a fellow Jew so poorly; he did not leave the party in protest. He made no statement, did not declare that he could not participate in the festive meal after witnessing the host's reprehensible behavior. He made no attempt to mediate between the two sides, nor did he attempt to clarify the misunderstanding or to console the humiliated Bar Kamtza. Once again, Rav Zechariah felt it was not his place to make a value judgment. His misplaced "modesty" caused Bar Kamtza to project his own feelings back onto those who had stood idly by as he was shamed, and resulted in Bar Kamtza's sinat chinamtoward the Rabbis in general. Later, this same meekness prevented Rav Zechariah from dealing decisively with the explosive situation which he helped create. He felt too small. He, too, projected his own feelings upon others, worrying that they would think him too small and unimpressive to make a ruling.
Bar Kamtza was devastated by Rabbi Zechariah's inaction. Ironically, the victim-turned-Quisling, Bar Kamtza, saw Zechariah as a great rabbi, a representative of the entire rabbinic establishment – indeed, of the entire nation – in stark contrast to Rabbi Zechariah's too-modest self-image.
The destructive projection of a negative self-image has its antecedents in the sin of the spies: They felt inadequate, they felt as small and insignificant as grasshoppers. This parallel cannot have been foreign to the Talmudic sages who recorded the story of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza and identified it as the axis for the hurban: As the Maharal points out, the Aramaic word for "grasshopper", the word used in the spies' self-description, is kamtza.[19]
The lesson of the Talmudic account of Rabbi Zechariah's inaction in the face of moral and halachic crisis is just this: There is a straight line between the feelings of inadequacy of the spies and the people's sinat hinam towards God in the wake of the spies' discouraging report. That straight line continues directly through Rabbi Zechariah's feelings of inadequacy, and results in the sinat hinam felt by Bar Kamtza that resulted in the destruction of the Second Temple.[20]
The Jewish People should never have felt small – not in the desert, and not during the Second Temple period. They should have known that God was, and would always be, with them. If we ever feel that God hates us – God forbid - we must remind ourselves that in fact He loves us very much. The spies, who were leaders of the tribes, forgot this. The generation that heard the report of the spies forgot this, and they didn’t make it to Israel. The generation of the Second Temple projected their fear and insecurity on others; even their Rabbis felt insecure, afraid of what people would say. Consequently, they were driven into exile.
Especially today, especially in a generation facing the enormous tasks and tremendous challenges that we do, the vocal and unyielding enemies, and the self-doubt and insecurity they may cause - we must be constantly aware of our true stature: We are not small – not individually, and not as a nation. We are not grasshoppers; we should never see ourselves as grasshoppers, nor should we behave like grasshoppers. We must always remember; we must constantly remind ourselves: We are God's Chosen People. He is with us always. His love for the Jewish People is eternal.
(א) וטעם ויבכו העם בלילה ההוא - כי לעת ערב באו המרגלים באהליהם כאשר הלכו מלפני משה, ובבקר השכימו וילינו כלם על משה ואהרן, וכך אמר משה (דברים א כז) ותרגנו באהליכם, כי באהליהם היו אומרים דברי נרגן. ואמרו רבותינו (תענית כט א) הם בכו בכיה של חנם ואני אקבע להם בכיה לדורות.ולא ידעתי מאיזה רמז שבפרשה הוציאו זה. אבל מקרא מלא הוא (תהלים קו כד - כז), וימאסו בארץ חמדה ולא האמינו לדברו וירגנו באהליהם ולא שמעו בקול ה' וישא ידו להם להפיל אותם במדבר ולהפיל זרעם בגוים ולזרותם בארצות.
כי שמענו חרפה זה י"ז בתמוז שנעשה העגל, … זה תשעה באב ששבו המרגלים, כי באו זרים על מקדשי ה' זה חורבן ראשון וחורבן שני, דהני שני חורבנות היו משרשי שני החטאים האלו, בית ראשון היה מניצוץ חטא העגל ובית שני היה מבחינת חטא מרגלים וכמו שנתבאר.
ויאמר חג לה' מחר - ולא היום שמא יבא משה קודם שיעבדוהו זהו פשוטו. ומדרשו בויקרא רבה דברים הרבה ראה אהרן ראה חור בן אחותו שהיה מוכיחם והרגוהו וזהו ויבן (לשון בינה) מזבח לפניו ויבן מזבוח לפניו ועוד ראה ואמר מוטב שיתלה בי הסרחון ולא בהם ועוד ראה ואמר אם הם בונים את המזבח זה מביא צרור וזה מביא אבן ונמצאת מלאכתן עשויה בבת אחת מתוך שאני בונה אותו ומתעצל במלאכתי בין כך ובין כך משה בא:
ועוד נתבאר במסכת ערכין (שם) מה שראוי לבעל לשון הרע הכריתה, ובפרט כאשר הוציאו דבה על הארץ במקום אשר הוא ישיבתם ונטיעתם, והיו בוכים בכיה של חנם שלא לכנוס לארץ בשביל לשון הרע של מרגלים, נקבע להם בכיה לדורות. כי אי אפשר שלא יהיה גורם דבר זה להם כריתה מן הארץ, כאשר היו חוטאים בלשון הרע על הארץ, שכל לשון הרע גורם כריתה ואיך יהיו נטועים בארץ אמרו עליו לשון הרע.
ועוד כל סבת גלותנו עתה הוא העקר רק בשביל מעשה המרגלים, וכמו שכתוב (בתהלים ק"ו כ"ו-כ"ז), "וישא ידו להם להפיל וגו' ולזרותם בארצות" וכמו שפרש רש"י שם, וכן כתב הרמב"ן בחמש בפרשת מרגלים (במדבר י"ד א'). ואמרו בערכין (דף ט"ו.), שעקר חטא מרגלים היה לשון הרע, שהוציאו דבה על הארץ, ועל ידי שבכו אז בכיה של חנם, נגזר עליהם בכיה לדורות.
ספר חפץ חיים - הלכות אסורי לשון הרע - הקדמה
אך לבסוף ימי בית שני גברה שנאת חנם ולשון הרע בינינו, בעונותינו הרבים, ובעבור זה נחרב הבית וגלינו מארצנו כדאיתא ביומא (דף ט' ע"ב) ובירושלמי (פרק א' הלכה ה' דיומא) [הגם שהגמרא נקטה שנאת חנם, הכונה הוא על לשון הרע גם כן, שיוצאת מצד השנאה, דאי לאו הכי לא היו נענשים כל כך, והינו דסים שם ללמדך, שקשה שנאת חנם כנגד עבודה זרה וגלוי עריות ושפיכות דמים, וזה מצינו בערכין (דף ט"ו ע"ב) גבי לשון
תניא א"ר אלעזר בן פרטא בוא וראה כמה גדול כח של לשון הרע מנלן ממרגלים ומה המוציא שם רע על עצים ואבנים כך המוציא שם רע על חבירו על אחת כמה וכמה ממאי דלמא משום דר' חנינא בר פפא דאמר רבי חנינא בר פפא דבר גדול דברו מרגלים באותה שעה דכתיב כי חזק הוא ממנו אל תיקרי כי חזק הוא ממנו אלא ממנו כביכול בעל הבית אין יכול להוציא כליו משם אלא אמר רבה אמר ריש לקיש אמר קרא וימותו האנשים מוציאי דבת הארץ רעה על דבת הארץ שהוציאו
It was taught: R. Eleazar b. Perata said, Come and see how great the power of an evil tongue is! Whence do we know [its power]? From the spies: for if it happens thus to those who bring up an evil report against wood and stones, how much more will it happen to him who brings up an evil report against his neighbour! But whence [follows] that? Perhaps it is as explained by R. Hanina b. Papa; for R. Hanina b. Papa said: A stark thing did the spies say in that hour, as it is written: For they are stronger than we’. Do not read: ‘than we’ but ‘than He’: as it were, even the Master of the house cannot remove his utensils from here! Rather, said Rabbah in the name of Resh Lakish: Scripture said, Even those men that did bring up an evil report against the land, died by the plague against the Lord, i.e., [they died just] because of the evil report which they had brought up.
תלמוד בבלי מסכת ערכין דף טו/ב
תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל כל המספר לשון הרע מגדיל עונות כנגד שלש עבירות עבודת כוכבים וגילוי עריות ושפיכות דמים
The School of R. Ishmael taught: Whoever speaks slander increases his sins even up to [the degree of] the three [cardinal] sins: idolatry, incest, and the shedding of blood.
[8] The Kli Yakar Dvarim 1:1, connects this comment of Rashi with what we call sinat chinam.
כלי יקר דברים פרק א פסוק א
ובתשעה באב היה מעשה המרגלים בו ביום נולדה מדת שנאת חנם בישראל כמו שנאמר (דברים א כז) ותאמרו בשנאת ה' אותנו הוציאנו וגו' פירש רש"י מה דבלבך על רחמך מה דבלביה עליך (ילקוט רמז תתה) כי המה סברו מאחר שכל אחד מהם שונא את חבירו כך מסתמא שונא אותם גם הקב"ה, ועוד מאחר שטעו לומר שהקב"ה שונא אותם בחנם אם כן ודאי טבע הענין מחייב זה שכל אחד ישנא את חבירו, ותהר צרה זו ותלד מדה רעה זו אשר החריבה בית ראשון ושני, כי בבית ראשון היה שנאת חנם בין נשיאי ישראל ובבית שני פשתה הנגע בין כל ישראל כדאיתא ביומא (ט ב) וזה היה בחודש אב שמזלו אריה כי כל אחד דמיונו כאריה יכסוף לטרוף את חבירו ואז איבדו גם ההצלה הטבעית כי אם אין אהבה ביניהם ואין אחד סומך ועוזר לחבירו מי יקום יעקב כי קטן ודל הוא (עמוס ז ב), נמצא שבין גבולים אלו נתפרדה החבילה מכל וכל כי סרו מהר מן ה' וסרו גם איש מעל אחיו, ונמצא ששבעה עשר בתמוז ותשעה באב גדר מזה וגדר מזה ואין דרך לנטות ימין ושמאל לפיכך כל רודפיה השיגוה בין המצרים, כל משמע אפילו רודף כל דהו חלוש יוכל להם כי בזמן אחד נאצו את קדוש ישראל חללו קדושת ישראל התלוי באחדות האומה, ובזמן שני נזורו אחור מן השכינה ואל מי ינוסו לעזרה:
[9] Maharsha commentary to Talmud Bavli Gitten 55b.
מהרש"א על גיטין דף נה/ב
ואמר ובעל דבביה בר קמצא כו'. סיפר בזה שתחלת חורבן היה ע"ד שנאת חנם כמ"ש בפ"ק דיומא במקדש שני שהיו עוסקין בתורה ובמצות מפני מה חרב מפני שהיה בהם שנאת חנם כו'.
ואמר דאזל אייתי ליה בר קמצא כו'. אפשר שהיה זה אב ובנו וטעה השליח ביניהם וגם בר קמצא דאתא גם אחר שידע שהוא שונאו שהיה סבור אחרי שאביו אוהבו ודאי מבקש גם אהבתו לעשות שלום עמו בזה שהוא הזמינו
[12] The Talmud Yoma 9a, reports this in the name of Rabbi Yochanan while the Tosefta Menachot teaches this in the name of Rabbi Yochanon ben Torta. The Chatam Sofer assumes that the Amora Rabbi Yochanan did teach this opinion in Yoma.
מאי דכתיב אשרי אדם וכו'. שמעתי מפי הרב הגדול מו"ה יעקב וירמיז זצ"ל שהיה רב"ד ורב בביהמ"ד הגדול שבק"ק פפד"מ, אהא דאמר ר' יוחנן בשבת לא חרבה ירושלים אלא שהעמידו דיניהם על דין תורה ובפ"ק דיומא אמר ר' יוחנן לא חרבה ירושלים אלא על שנאת חנם אע"ג די"ל הא בבית ראשון והא בבית שני, מ"מ נ"ל עפ"י דברי ר' יוחנן דהכא דהכל אמת, דהא באמת צריך להבין מ"ט שתקו חכמי ישראל ולא מיחו שלא לבייש את בר קמצא, וי"ל בפסחים קי"ג ע"ב אמרי' הרואה דבר ערוה בחברו אסור להעיד עליו יחידי אבל מצוה לשנאתו והעלו שם תוס' מכל מקום לא יראה לפניו שנאה בפרהסיא משום כמים הפנים אל פנים ע"ש ונראה להרב הנ"ל דזהו בכלל לפנים משורת הדין, והנה בשעת כשלונם של ישראל נכשלו ההדיוטים בשנאת חנם, וחכמי ישראל נכשלו בהעמדת דיניהם על דין תורה, וע"כ זה היה לו שנאת חנם על בר קמצא אך חכמי ישראל דנו לזכות מסתמא ראה בו דבר ערוה שמצוה לשנאותו ואסור לו לגלות לנו ע"כ שתקו ולא מיחו, אמנם אי לאו דהעמידו דיניהם על דין תורה היו מוחין מטעם לפנים משורת הדין שלא להראות שנאה בפרהסיא אלא שהעמידו דיניהם על דין תורה ואתי שפיר ושפתים יושק:
עַנְוְתָנוּתוֹ של ר' זכריה וכו'. פירש"י סבלנותו. בתוספתא פי"ז דמס' שבת בית שמאיאומר מגביהים מעל השלחן עצמות וקליפות ובית הללאומרים מגבי' הטבלא כולה ומנורה ר' זכריה בן אבקולס לא היה עושה לא כבית שמאי ולא כבית הלל אלא נוטל ומשליך אחר המטה, אמר ר' יוסי ענותנותו של ר' זכרי' בן אבקולס שרפה ההיכל ע"כ ע"ש, והוא תמוה, גם לפרש פירש"י ענותנותו סבלנותו, נלע"ד הא דאמר ר' זכריה יאמרו מטיל מום בקדשים חייב מיתה או יאמרו בעלי מום קרב לגבי מזבח, עיקר חששתו הי' מפני חילול ה' הלא ידעו כל עולם שאין קריבים בעלי מומין ואין המטיל מום חייב מיתה ..., אך ר' זכריה בן אבקולס היה סבלן גדול והיה לו מעצר ברוחו לסבול על שולחנו כיוצא בזה ע"כ חשב זה לחלול ה' מה ששתקו רבנן ולא מיחו, והנה עיין בשבת קמ"א מגביהים מעל השולחן וריש פ' קמא דמס' ביצה ופני יהושע שם דטעמא דבית שמאי ובית הלל דבמונחים על השולחן הוי גרף של רעי ע"כ מותר לנער הטבלא אך ר' זכריה בן אבקולס יכול לסבול על שולחנו אסור לו לנער הטבלא וכעין זה יכול לסבול בר קמצא על שולחנו ע"כ אמר ר' יוסי ענותנותו של ר' זכריה וכו:
[15] This passage appears as follows in the Talmud, Tractate Shabbat 143a:
תלמוד בבלי מסכת שבת דף קמג/א
רב ששת זריק להו בלישניה רב פפא זריק להו אחורי המטה אמרו עליו על רבי זכריה בן אבקולס שהיה מחזיר פניו אחורי המטה וזורקן:
Rav Sheshet threw them away [spat them out] with his tongue. Rav Papa threw them behind the couch. It was said of Rav Zechariah ben Avkulas that he would turn his face to the back of the couch and spit them out. Talmud Bavli Shabbat 143a. The parallel version preserved in the Tosefta is brought here for reasons of clarity.
[16] There are traditions that reverse the opinions of Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai.
[17] The Shem Mishmuel Vayeshev 5674 uses the same language to describe the cause of the enmity between Yosef and the brothers, a fight which serves as the prototype of sinat chinam.
ספר שם משמואל פרשת וישב - שנת תרע"ד
ויבא יוסף את דבתם רעה אל אביהם. ויש לתמוה צדיק כביר כזה יחטא בלה"ר ח"ו. ... וכל אלה נמשכו מראשית הפגם מחמת ענותנותו היתירה שלא הרהיב עוז בנפשו להוכיח את אחיו הגדולים ממנו. והוא כעין מה שאמרו ז"ל (גיטין נ"ו.) בחורבן בית שני ענותנותו של ר' זכרי' בן אבקולס החריבה את ביתנו והגליתנו מארצנו. כן הי' הענין של מכירת יוסף דוגמא לחורבן בית שני כמ"ש הספורנו:
[18] Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, Iggrot Moshe Yoreh Deah, vol. I, responsa 101, cites this passage, and argues that in our generation as well, rabbis must not display “excessive” modesty. The Torah has not become fossilized, and capable rabbis are obligated to hand down learned opinions.
שו"ת אגרות משה יורה דעה חלק א סימן קא
ומש"כ ידידי איך רשאים אנו לסמוך על חדושים כאלו שבארתי למעשה ובפרט שהוא נגד איזה אחרו' הנה אני אומר וכי כבר נעשה קץ וגבול לתורה ח"ו שנפסוק רק מה שנמצא בספרים וכשיזדמנו שאלות שלא נמצאים בספרים לא נכריע אותם אף כשיש בידנו להכריע, ודאי לע"ד אסור לומר כן דודאי עוד יגדיל תורה גם עתה בזמננו ומחוייב כל מי שבידו להכריע כל דין שיבא לידו כפי האפשר לו בחקירה ודרישה היטב בש"ס ופוסקים בהבנה ישרה ובראיות נכונות אף שהוא דין חדש שלא דברו אודותו /אודותיו/ בספרים. ואף בדין הנמצא בספרים ודאי שצריך המורה ג"כ להבין אותו ולהכריע בדעתו קודם שיורה ולא להורות רק מחמת שנמצא כן דהוי זה כעין מורה מתוך משנתו שע"ז נאמר התנאים מבלי עולם שמורין הלכה מתוך משנתם בסוטה דף כ"ב עיי"ש בפרש"י. ואף אם הכרעתו לפעמים נגד איזה גאונים מרבותינו האחרונים מה בכך הא ודאי שרשאין אף אנו לחלוק על האחרונים וגם לפעמים על איזה ראשונים כשיש ראיות נכונות והעיקר גם בטעמים נכונים ועל כיוצא בזה אמרו אין לדיין אלא מה שעיניו רואות כמפורש בבבא בתרא דף קל"א עיי"ש ברשב"ם, כיון שאינו נגד הפוסקים המפורסמים בעלי הש"ע שנתקבלו בכל מדינותינו ועל כיוצא בזה נאמר מקום הניחו להתגדר בו וכרוב תשובות האחרונים שמכריעין בחדושים כמה דינים למעשה. אך אין להיות גס בהוראה וצריך למנוע כשאפשר אבל במקום צורך גדול וכ"ש במקום עיגון כעובדא זו ודאי מחוייבין גם אנחנו להורות אם רק נראה לנו להתיר ואסור לנו להיות מהענוים ולעגן בת ישראל או לגרום להכשיל באיסורין או אף רק להפסיד ממון ישראל. ועיין בגיטין דף נ"ו ענותנותו של ר' זכריה בן אבקולס החריבה את ביתנו שקשה למה אמר ענותנותו מה שייך זה לענוה ועיין במהר"ץ חיות דבר נכון וג"ז ממש כיוצא ומוכרחין אנו להורות גם למעשה כשנראה לנו בראיות ובהבנה ישרה ובפרט במקום עיגון כזה ולהציל ממכשול כזה.
And there we saw the Nephilim, the sons of Anak, who come of the Nephilim; and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.'
אונקלוס במדבר פרק יג פסוק לג
(לג) ותמן חזינא ית גבריא בני ענק מן גבריא והוינא בעיני נפשנא כקמצין וכן הוינא בעיניהון:
ואמר כי כל אחד חרב על ידי ענין הראוי. כי בשביל שנאת חנם נחרב ירושלים, ודבר זה התבאר בפרק שלפני זה (פרק ד) באריכות. כי על ידי בית המקדש וירושלים נעשה כל ישראל כאיש אחד, לפי שהיה להם מזבח אחד, ולא היו רשאים לבנות כל אחד ואחד במה לעצמו (מגילה י.), עד שעל ידי בית המקדש היו ישראל עם אחד. וכאשר היה חלוק ביניהם, נחרב המקום הזה, שהוא נעשה לאחדות ישראל, ולפיכך על ידי שנאת חנם של קמצא נחרבה העיר והמקדש:
וכאשר תדקדק בלשון 'קמצא', כי השם הזה מורה על חלוק, שקורא 'קמצא' על שם החלוק והפירוד, כי זה הוא לשון קמיצה, כמו (ויקרא ב, ב) "וקמץ משם". ובלשון חכמים (ב"ב קז.) גבי האחים שחלקו, ובא בעל חוב וטרף חלקו של אחד מהם, ואמר שם 'מקמצים', כלומר שגובין מעט מכל אחד. ולפיכך הנפרד והנחלק מהכל נקרא 'קמצא', רוצה לומר קומץ מהכל. ובלשון חכמים (עדיות פ"ח, מ"ד) נקרא החגב 'קמצא', ותרגום אונקלוס (במדבר יג, לג) "ונהי בעינינו כחגבים" - 'כקמצין'. וזה מפני כי יש בהם רבוי גדול, ולכך נקרא 'ארבה' על שם הרבוי. והרבוי הוא מכח חילוק ופירוד, כי הדבר אשר הוא מתאחד אין שייך בו רבוי, כי לא יתרבה רק המחולק והנפרד. לכך נקרא המין אשר הוא מתרבה, כמו הארבה, 'קמצא' שמו, שהוא מחולק.
ועל זה אמר (משלי ל, כז) "מלך אין לארבה", פירוש כי המלך מאחד הכלל עד שהם אחד, ואלו, לגודל רבוי שלהם הם מחולקים, ואין בהם אחדות, הוא המלך, אשר הוא מאחד את הכל. וכן הנמלה כתיב עליה (משלי ו, ו-ז) "לך אל נמלה עצל אשר אין לה קצין ושוטר", כלומר שאין לה קצין אשר הוא מאחד ומקשר הכלל, וכדאיתא בפרק אלו טריפות (חולין נז ע"ב). ונקראת הנמלה 'קמצא' גם כן בהגדה דעוג מלך הבשן (ברכות נד ע"ב) דעקר טורא ואייתי הקב"ה לקמצא, כי הדבר שהוא קטן, כמו הנמלה, נקרא 'קמצא' כמו שאמרנו, כי הקומץ הוא דבר מועט, ולקטנותם נקרא 'קמצא'. ומפני שיש בהם הקטנות יותר, לכך יש בהם החלוק יותר, כמו כל דבר קטן. ומפני כי אלו אנשים היו מחולקים בשנאת חנם, ראוי שיקרא שמם 'קמצא' ו'בר קמצא', כי בית המקדש שני נחרב בשביל שנאת חנם (יומא ט ע"ב), ובודאי היה זה על ידי אנשים שהיו מוכנים לחלוק ופירוד. ולפיכך אמר 'אקמצא ובר קמצא חרב ירושלים', כי אין ספק כי שמם של אלו אנשים היה נקרא על ענין שלהם, שהיו מיוחדים בפירוד ובחלוק, ולכך על ידם חרב הבית, שהוא לאחדות ישראל, ולקשר אותם באחדות:
