Hillel and Shammai received [the tradition] from them. Hillel says: Be of the disciples of Aaron – loving peace, pursuing peace, loving people and bringing them closer to Torah.
EXPLANATIONS (continued):
27:
In our last shiur we read, in passing, what is a very important message in rabbinic theology; so let us now give this matter the consideration that it deserves in its own right. Hillel teaches that we must be disciples of Aaron the peacemaker. But there are biblical verses [Psalm 34:13-15] that elaborate on the mitzvah of peace:
Who is the mean who is eager for life, who desires years of good fortune? Guard your tongue from evil, your lips from deceitful speech. Shun evil and do good, seek out peace and pursue it.
It is not enough to profess a love of peace. Peace is not a desideratum "devoutly to be wished"; it is a situation which must be actively created by the pacific nature of each person's relationships with the surrounding world. For Hillel – indeed for all the sages – 'shalom' is not the mere absence of hostilities: 'shalom' is well-being, doing everything one can to bring about the well-being of the rest of God's creatures. This is emphasized in a midrash [Avot of Rabbi Natan 12:6].
How are we to understand the pursuit of peace? It means that a person should pursue peace among each and every Jew. If a person stays where he is and remains silent how can he pursue peace among all Jews? Rather must one go forth from one's place, scouring the world and pursuing peace among Jews, as it says: seek out peace and pursue it. How is this to be? – seek it out for your own place and pursue it for any other place.
28:
In a previous shiur I mentioned two 'supreme' social values in the Jewish ethic: peace and justice. Of course, sometimes these two values can conflict. What does one do when one seemingly cannot have both peace and justice in given circumstances? There is a beautiful passage in the Talmud [Sanhedrin 6b-7b] which discusses this very question. To begin with the passage presents Moses and his brother Aaron as each representing one of these values:
Moses was wont to say "the law must cleave the mountain", whereas Aaron loved peace, pursued peace and would make peace between one person and the next.
For Moses the ideal is justice: whatever happens the law must take its course, even if that means that a mountain must be rent in two. If there is not 'equal justice for all' decent society cannot long be maintained. Aaron, as we have already seen, sees peace as a value which sometimes must override strict justice. At one point in the discussion in the Gemara a verse is quoted from the Bible [Psalm 10:3]. A literal rendition of this verse is not very helpful for our present discussion because the sages do not interpret the verse according to its plain meaning. Two Hebrew words in the verse have more than one meaning and the sages utilize this for their ethical teaching. The verse is usually translated thus: The grasping man reviles and scorns God, but the word here translated as "reviles" can also mean both "blesses" and the word here translated as "grasping" can also mean "shares" – and in technical rabbinic parlance it specifically means 'judicial compromise'.
In this connection the verse says "the sharing man blesses God". Rabbi Yehoshu'a ben- Korĥah says that it is a mitzvah to effect a compromise [between two litigants in a civil action], for the verse [Zechariah 8:15] says, Judge in your gates truth and the justice of peace.
Rabbi Yehoshu'a ben-Korĥah implies that the demands of justice must be tempered with the requirements of equity and peace. When one party sues another true justice probably lies somewhere between the two claims, but both see their positions as being "absolute". If one strives for strict justice, one party will emerge triumphant, but the other might well feel that they have been wronged. Where a compromise can be effected between the parties, neither will achieve all of their demands, but both may achieve some of their demands – and neither can feel completely wronged.
We can now return to the discussion in the Gemara:
Rav says that the halakhah follows the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshu'a ben-Korĥah. But can this really be correct? Rav Huna was a student of Rav's [and thus must be expected to reflect Rav's teachings], and we find that when litigants appeared before him he would first ask them, "Do you want justice or do you want a compromise?" [The fact that he is offering the litigants an alternative would suggest that reaching a compromise is not a judicial duty, but merely an option.] No, the duty referred to is the duty of the judge to suggest to the litigants the possibility of compromise.
Thus we have arrived at the meaning of 'the justice of peace': effecting a compromise.
To be continued.
DISCUSSION:
Concerning the first of the seven middot of Hillel Al Sporer writes:
I understand that "Gezerah Shavah" is no longer permitted to be used as a principle for Torah reasoning today. Who made that change and why?
I respond:
The Gezerah Shavah was never permitted to be used freely. Its use was always very circumscribed indeed. The sages held that only Moses, who had heard the divine explanations with his own ears, could categorically state that the text of the Torah intended to imply a Gezerah Shavah in any given instance. Be that as it may, the sages held that the middah of Gezerah Shavah could only be quoted from one's teacher who heard it from his teacher, as it were, all the way back to Sinai. In other words, Gezerah Shavah is a middah the sages received from antiquity and never applied it themselves in Talmudic times.
