Simon the Righteous was one of the last members of the Great Assembly. He was wont to say: The world stands on three things: on the Torah, on the Ritual, and on Acts of Kindness.
6:
The third pillar upon which Simon the Righteous rests the world is "acts of kindness". We dealt with this matter at some length when we studied Tractate Pe'ah, but here is the gist of what we said:
The Hebrew term Gemilut Ĥasadim, which I have translated as 'acts of kindness' is very difficult to render into another language. It does not refer to charity in the monetary sense of the word – that kind of charity is represented by the Hebrew word Tzedakah. (Gemilut Ĥasadim includes Tzedakah, but Tzedakah does not include Gemilut Ĥasadim.) It refers rather to the kind of disposition towards others that prompts one to want to do things for them that will be to their benefit. Rambam [Hilkhot Evel 14:1] links the duty to perform acts of kindness with the biblical command to "love your fellow as yourself" [Leviticus 19:18]. Ĥesed [a kindly disposition] is not manifested in something that one gives to another, but something that one does for another – and in the manner in which it is done. There is a baraita [Shabbat 127a] that gives some obvious examples of Ĥesed: loving behaviour towards parents, making sure that an indigent couple can get married in style, burying the dead…
The Talmud of Eretz-Israel [Pe'ah 3a] (basing itself on Tosefta Pe'ah 4:19) teaches that Gemilut Ĥasadim is far more embracing in its compass than Tzedakah, and therefore of greater merit:
The past few shiurim have generated a very large amount of post. I shall do my best to present most of it before Pesach, though some of the messages are rather long. The topic of 'sacrifices' has been the cause of several messages.
David Baird writes:
A general question, from one who doesn't know a lot about halakhah concerning sacrifices. What restrictions were placed on non-Kohanim from partaking in the sacrificial process? It seems interesting that one leg of the three would be forbidden by most Jews. Yes, prayer falls under the category of Ritual, but I don't think it was viewed as an absolute substitute for sacrifice until sometime after the destruction of the Temple. In the Torah we read that all the Children of Israel in Egypt were required to make the Pesah offering, and eat it by day break. In my own interpretation, the Hebrews needed to feel close to HaShem during the terrible night of the plague of death. This week we read the first part of V'yikra, and the Eitz Haim humash goes into great length the importance of intention of change and choosing a holy way of life behind the ritual of sacrifice. Such is the explanation of the "pleasant odor." I connected this to the Pesah sacrifice as the Children of Israel's choice towards HaShem and away from Egypt. So, with the many beiti midrash built after Ezra placed the study of Torah in the hands of any that chose to, why would the sacrificial system also not be made more participatory? Was the act of giving the offering to the kohen the end of the observer's participation? Would he watch the preparation and act of sacrifice? Would sacrifices be conducted outside of Jerusalem?
I respond:
My response here will be as brief as possible because we covered this topic at great length when we studied Tractate Tamid. (Those interested in greater detail may want to refer to those shiurim in our web archive.)
There were two kinds of sacrifice: public and private. The priests offered the public sacrifices on behalf of all Israel, and the people participated in three ways: they had defrayed the cost of these sacrifices by paying the annual tax of one half-shekel; they were represented by delegations of laymen from the whole country who attended the offering of the sacrifice; they could assemble in the great "Women's Court" while the sacrifice was being offered in the much smaller "Priests' Court" and join in the singing of the levitical choir and orchestra which took place in the Women's Court. The private sacrifices were completely participatory: the individual would bring his or her offering into the Priests' Court, would place his or her hand on the head of the animal and stand by while it was slaughtered and offered by the officiating priest.
Prayer was concomitant with sacrifice: within the Bet Mikdash itself there was a synagogue in which services were held daily in addition to the regular daily sacrifices.
The example of the Paschal lamb is also illustrative of another aspect of individual participation in the sacrificial system: many of the animals after being slaughtered were returned in whole or in part to the person making the offering so that he or she with their invited friends and family could consume the meat in a festive meal.
No sacrifices were permitted outside the precincts of the Bet Mikdash itself, not even in Jerusalem, let alone the rest of the country. I hope this very brief response has gone some way towards answering the points raised by David.
Mark Lautman writes:
In Avot011 you pointed out that the more students there are the more discussion there will be, and the more discussion there is will give the truth a greater chance of becoming apparent. It seems to me that greater discussion is no guarantee of "truth". When the whole of society atrophies the religious leadership atrophies with it – not always, but there are occasions when this has happened. If I remember correctly the institution of marriage was corrupt in the time of Rabbenu Gershom. It would seem that Jewish society, together with its rabbis, had accepted the idea of fictitious marriage, bastardy, and other aspects of marriage. Rabbenu Gershom put an end to this corruption, mainly by his prohibition of bigamy. Did this benefit from widespread debate? Thus it seems that sometimes widespread debate and social 'truths' can obfuscate the truth.
I respond:
I do not think that Rabbenu Gershom's measures in regard to marriage were prompted by the kind of ills that Mark mentions, but in any case they were accompanied by widespread public debate and accorded formal public acceptance. However, none of this vitiates Mark's general drift that not always is widespread debate a guarantee of reaching the truth.
More of your messages next time.
