I had with him a covenant of life and well-being, which I gave to him, and of reverence, which he showed Me. For he stood in awe of My name. Proper rulings were in his mouth, and nothing perverse was on his lips; he served Me with complete loyalty and held the many back from iniquity. For the lips of a priest guard knowledge, and men seek rulings from his mouth; for he is a messenger of the Lord of Hosts.
Once Aaron went for a walk and a wicked person met up with him. Aaron greeted him with a 'good day'. The following day that person was about to commit some sin or other when he said to himself, "Oh dear, how will I be able to look Aaron in the face? I am ashamed that he greeted me!" Thus that person prevented himself from committing a sin. Again, there were two people who fell out. Aaron went to one of them, sat down and said, "Son, the other guy is eating his heart out and tearing his clothes; he is too ashamed to look you in the face because he thinks that he is the one who is in the wrong." Aaron sat with him until the anger had left him. Then Aaron went to the other person and said to him, "The other guy is eating his heart out and tearing his clothes; he is too ashamed to look you in the face because he thinks that he is the one who is in the wrong." And Aaron sat with him too until the anger had left him. When these two people next met they hugged each other and kissed each other.
Admittedly, this story depicts Aaron as departing from the strict truth, and we shall deal with this issue in the context of making peace when we deal with our next source.
To be continued.
Concerning the seven 'middot' of Hillel
Amnon Ronel has two questions. His first question is, in fact, a summation:
Kelal u-frat – the detail limits the generalization and in fact becomes the generalization; prat u-khelal – the generalization expands the detail and the detail is just a specific example. Kelal u-frat u-khelal – here too the detail is just a specific illustration of the generalization.
I respond:
The first two summations are correct and very nicely put, if I may say so. But the third needs to explain that the details serve as limiting examples: whatever all the details have in common becomes the wider application of the general rule.
I wrote: I shall not illustrate the remaining two middot in order not to tax your patience overduly… The last of the seven middot is called Davar ha-lamed me-inyano, and it refers to an argument adduced from the context. Amnon writes: This is interesting and important: I would love to have an example. Gabrielle Harris also asked for further explanation of this middah.
I respond:
A classic example of the scope of a general law being defined by its immediate context is to be found in the Ten Commandments. Most people assume that the command [ Exodus 20:13, Deuteronomy 5:17] not to steal refers to the theft of property. But the midrash notes the contextvery concisely:the adjacent prohibitions – not to murder and not to commit adultery – are in halakhic jurisprudence crimes that incur the death penalty; this suggests that the theft referred to in these verses too bears the capital penalty. In halakhah the only kind of theft that also involves the death penalty is kidnapping, therefore the conclusion of the midrash is that this must be the intention of the law here. Thus the commandment should be translated 'Thou shalt not kidnap'! We should perhaps point out that the prohibition against stealing property is found in Leviticus 19:11 where too the nature of the commandment is determined by the context:
You shall not steal; you shall not deal deceitfully or falsely with one another.
