Hillel v Shammai: A lesson on the difference between disagreement and disunity, unity and community

(א)משֶׁה קִבֵּל תּוֹרָה מִסִּינַי, וּמְסָרָהּ לִיהוֹשֻׁעַ, וִיהוֹשֻׁעַ לִזְקֵנִים, וּזְקֵנִים לִנְבִיאִים, וּנְבִיאִים מְסָרוּהָ לְאַנְשֵׁי כְנֶסֶת הַגְּדוֹלָה. הֵם אָמְרוּ שְׁלשָׁה דְבָרִים, הֱווּ מְתוּנִים בַּדִּין, וְהַעֲמִידוּ תַלְמִידִים הַרְבֵּה, וַעֲשׂוּ סְיָג לַתּוֹרָה:

Pirkei Avot 1:1

(1)Moses received the Torah at Sinai and transmitted it to Joshua, Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the prophets, and the prophets to the Men of the Great Assembly. They said three things: Be patient in [the administration of] justice, raise many disciples and make a fence round the Torah.

משנה אבות א׳:י״ב-ט״ו

(יב)הִלֵּל וְשַׁמַּאי קִבְּלוּ מֵהֶם. הִלֵּל אוֹמֵר, הֱוֵי מִתַּלְמִידָיו שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן, אוֹהֵב שָׁלוֹם וְרוֹדֵף שָׁלוֹם, אוֹהֵב אֶת הַבְּרִיּוֹת וּמְקָרְבָן לַתּוֹרָה:
(יג) הוּא הָיָה אוֹמֵר, נָגֵד שְׁמָא, אָבֵד שְׁמֵהּ. וּדְלֹא מוֹסִיף, יָסֵף. וּדְלֹא יָלֵיף, קְטָלָא חַיָּב. וּדְאִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בְּתָגָא, חָלֵף:
(יד) הוּא הָיָה אוֹמֵר, אִם אֵין אֲנִי לִי, מִי לִי. וּכְשֶׁאֲנִי לְעַצְמִי, מָה אֲנִי. וְאִם לֹא עַכְשָׁיו, אֵימָתָי:
(טו)שַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר, עֲשֵׂה תוֹרָתְךָ קֶבַע. אֱמֹר מְעַט וַעֲשֵׂה הַרְבֵּה, וֶהֱוֵי מְקַבֵּל אֶת כָּל הָאָדָם בְּסֵבֶר פָּנִים יָפוֹת:

Pirkei Avot 1:12-15

(12)Hillel and Shammai received [the oral tradition] from them. Hillel used to say: be of the disciples of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving humankind and drawing them close to the Torah.
(13) He [also] used to say: one who makes their name great causes their name to be destroyed; one who does not add [to their knowledge] causes [it] to cease; one who does not study [the Torah] deserves death; one who makes [unworthy] use of the crown [of learning] shall pass away.
(14) He [also] used to say: If I am not for myself, who is for me? But if I am for my own self [only], what am I? And if not now, when?
(15)Shammai used to say: make your [study of the] Torah a fixed practice; speak little, but do much; and receive all people with a pleasant countenance.

עירובין י״ג ב:י׳

אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים נֶחְלְקוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל, הַלָּלוּ אוֹמְרִים: הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתֵנוּ, וְהַלָּלוּ אוֹמְרִים: הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתֵנוּ. יָצְאָה בַּת קוֹל וְאָמְרָה: אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ דִּבְרֵי אֱלֹהִים חַיִּים הֵן, וַהֲלָכָה כְּבֵית הִלֵּל.

Eruvin 13b:10

Rabbi Abba said that Shmuel said: For three years Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed. These said: The halakha is in accordance with our opinion, and these said: The halakha is in accordance with our opinion. Ultimately, a Divine Voice emerged and proclaimed: Both these and those are the words of the living God. However, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.

שבת י״ז א:ו׳

אָמַר לוֹ: אִם תַּקְנִיטֵנִי, גּוֹזְרַנִי טוּמְאָה אַף עַל הַמְּסִיקָה. נָעֲצוּ חֶרֶב בְּבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ, אָמְרוּ: הַנִּכְנָס — יִכָּנֵס, וְהַיּוֹצֵא — אַל יֵצֵא. וְאוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם הָיָה הִלֵּל כָּפוּף וְיוֹשֵׁב לִפְנֵי שַׁמַּאי כְּאֶחָד מִן הַתַּלְמִידִים. וְהָיָה קָשֶׁה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל כַּיּוֹם שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה בּוֹ הָעֵגֶל. וּגְזוּר שַׁמַּאי וְהִלֵּל וְלָא קַבִּלוּ מִינַּיְיהוּ, וַאֲתוֹ תַּלְמִידַיְיהוּ גְּזוּר וְקַבִּלוּ מִינַּיְיהוּ.

Shabbat 17a:6

Shammai said to him: If you provoke me and insist that there is no difference between gathering olives and grapes, then, in order not to contradict this, I will decree impurity on the gathering of olives as well. They related that since the dispute was so intense, they stuck a sword in the study hall, and they said: One who seeks to enter the study hall, let him enter, and one who seeks to leave may not leave, so that all of the Sages will be assembled to determine the halakha. That day Hillel was bowed and was sitting before Shammai like one of the students. The Gemara said: And that day was as difficult for Israel as the day the Golden Calf was made, as Hillel, who was the Nasi, was forced to sit in submission before Shammai, and the opinion of Beit Shammai prevailed in the vote conducted that day. And Shammai and Hillel issued the decree, and the people did not accept it from them. And their students came and issued the decree, and the people accepted it from them.

Excerpt from "A Sword at the Entrance: Pluralism, Polarization, and the Future of Jewish Community" by Rabbi Ben Berger

Lately, this story feels all too familiar. No sword may be visible in our sanctuaries or our houses of learning, but all too often we can sense it hovering at the entrances of too many of our communal spaces. The mood is tense, the lines are drawn, and the consequences of saying the wrong thing or of trying to enter, exit, or simply stay in the room can feel dire. Even the most sacred Jewish spaces are increasingly challenged by ideological division as we wrestle with the question of who belongs and who does not.

Across American Jewish life, we are facing crises of belonging and trust. Institutions that once held diverse constituencies together are straining under the weight of polarization. Generational, ideological, and communal divides are widening. Conversations that once felt difficult now feel nearly impossible. The impulse to retreat into aligned spaces, to sort into camps, has grown stronger. Disagreements over what kinds of criticism of Israel are legitimate; how much attention should be given to Palestinian suffering; how best to confront antisemitism; or whether government actions, like those of the Trump administration, reflect support for Jews or opportunistic punishment of universities have deepened our divides. These are not abstract debates; they cut to the core of identity, values, and belonging. And in the current climate, they too easily turn disagreements into ruptures.

יבמות י״ד ב

לֹא נִמְנְעוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי מִלִּישָּׂא נָשִׁים מִבֵּית הִלֵּל, וְלֹא בֵּית הִלֵּל מִבֵּית שַׁמַּאי. לְלַמֶּדְךָ שֶׁחִיבָּה וְרֵיעוּת נוֹהֲגִים זֶה בָּזֶה, לְקַיֵּים מַה שֶּׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הָאֱמֶת וְהַשָּׁלוֹם אֱהָבוּ״.

Yevamot 14b

Despite the fact that these halakhot entail important ramifications depending on whether or not these women were married or fit for marriage, or whether their offspring are fit for marriage, Beit Shammai did not refrain from marrying women from Beit Hillel, nor did Beit Hillel refrain from marrying women from Beit Shammai. This serves to teach you that they practiced affection and camaraderie between them, to fulfill that which is stated: “Love truth and peace” (Zechariah 8:19).

עירובין י״ג ב:י״א

וְכִי מֵאַחַר שֶׁאֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ דִּבְרֵי אֱלֹהִים חַיִּים, מִפְּנֵי מָה זָכוּ בֵּית הִלֵּל לִקְבּוֹעַ הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתָן? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנּוֹחִין וַעֲלוּבִין הָיוּ, וְשׁוֹנִין דִּבְרֵיהֶן וְדִבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא שֶׁמַּקְדִּימִין דִּבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי לְדִבְרֵיהֶן.

Eruvin 13b:11

The Gemara asks: Since both these and those are the words of the living God, why were Beit Hillel privileged to have the halakha established in accordance with their opinion? The reason is that they were agreeable and forbearing, showing restraint when affronted, and when they taught the halakha they would teach both their own statements and the statements of Beit Shammai. Moreover, when they formulated their teachings and cited a dispute, they prioritized the statements of Beit Shammai to their own statements, in deference to Beit Shammai.

משנה אבות ב׳:ד׳

(ד) הוּא הָיָה אוֹמֵר, עֲשֵׂה רְצוֹנוֹ כִרְצוֹנְךָ, כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה רְצוֹנְךָ כִרְצוֹנוֹ. בַּטֵּל רְצוֹנְךָ מִפְּנֵי רְצוֹנוֹ, כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּבַטֵּל רְצוֹן אֲחֵרִים מִפְּנֵי רְצוֹנֶךָ. הִלֵּל אוֹמֵר, אַל תִּפְרֹשׁ מִן הַצִּבּוּר, וְאַל תַּאֲמִין בְּעַצְמְךָ עַד יוֹם מוֹתְךָ, וְאַל תָּדִין אֶת חֲבֵרְךָ עַד שֶׁתַּגִּיעַ לִמְקוֹמוֹ, וְאַל תֹּאמַר דָּבָר שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לִשְׁמֹעַ, שֶׁסּוֹפוֹ לְהִשָּׁמַע. וְאַל תֹּאמַר לִכְשֶׁאִפָּנֶה אֶשְׁנֶה, שֶׁמָּא לֹא תִפָּנֶה:

Pirkei Avot 2:4

(4) He used to say: do His* will as though it were your will, so that He* will do your will as though it were His.* Set aside your will in the face of His* will, so that He* may set aside the will of others for the sake of your will. Hillel said: do not separate yourself from the community, Do not trust in yourself until the day of your death, Do not judge your fellow until you have reached their place. Do not say something that cannot be understood [trusting] that in the end it will be understood. Say not: ‘when I shall have leisure I shall study;’ perhaps you will not have leisure.

תענית י״א א

דְּיָתֵיב בְּאַרְבָּא. אִי נָמֵי, דְּקָאָזֵיל מֵאַוּוֹנָא לְאַוּוֹנָא. רַב פָּפָּא — כׇּל פַּרְסָה וּפַרְסָה אָכֵיל חֲדָא רִיפְתָּא. קָסָבַר, מִשּׁוּם מַעְיָינָא. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: כׇּל הַמַּרְעִיב עַצְמוֹ בִּשְׁנֵי רְעָבוֹן, — נִיצָּל מִמִּיתָה מְשׁוּנָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בָּרָעָב פָּדְךָ מִמָּוֶת״. ״מֵרָעָב״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ, אֶלָּא הָכִי קָאָמַר: בִּשְׂכַר שֶׁמַּרְעִיב עַצְמוֹ בִּשְׁנֵי רְעָבוֹן — נִיצּוֹל מִמִּיתָה מְשׁוּנָּה. אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: אָסוּר לְאָדָם לְשַׁמֵּשׁ מִטָּתוֹ בִּשְׁנֵי רְעָבוֹן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּלְיוֹסֵף יֻלַּד שְׁנֵי בָנִים בְּטֶרֶם תָּבוֹא שְׁנַת הָרָעָב״. תָּנָא: חֲסוּכֵי בָּנִים מְשַׁמְּשִׁין מִטּוֹתֵיהֶן בִּשְׁנֵי רְעָבוֹן. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: בִּזְמַן שֶׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל שְׁרוּיִין בְּצַעַר וּפֵירַשׁ אֶחָד מֵהֶן, בָּאִין שְׁנֵי מַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת שֶׁמְּלַוִּין לוֹ לָאָדָם, וּמַנִּיחִין לוֹ יְדֵיהֶן עַל רֹאשׁוֹ, וְאוֹמְרִים: פְּלוֹנִי זֶה שֶׁפֵּירַשׁ מִן הַצִּבּוּר אַל יִרְאֶה בְּנֶחָמַת צִבּוּר. תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַצִּבּוּר שָׁרוּי בְּצַעַר, אַל יֹאמַר אָדָם: אֵלֵךְ לְבֵיתִי, וְאוֹכַל וְאֶשְׁתֶּה, וְשָׁלוֹם עָלַיִךְ נַפְשִׁי. וְאִם עוֹשֶׂה כֵּן — עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר: ״וְהִנֵּה שָׂשׂוֹן וְשִׂמְחָה הָרֹג בָּקָר וְשָׁחֹט צֹאן אָכֹל בָּשָׂר וְשָׁתוֹת יָיִן אָכוֹל וְשָׁתוֹ כִּי מָחָר נָמוּת״, מָה כְּתִיב בָּתְרֵיהּ — ״וְנִגְלָה בְאׇזְנָי יהוה צְבָאוֹת אִם יְכֻפַּר הֶעָוֹן הַזֶּה לָכֶם עַד תְּמֻתוּן״. עַד כָּאן מִידַּת בֵּינוֹנִים. אֲבָל בְּמִדַּת רְשָׁעִים, מָה כְּתִיב? ״אֵתָיוּ אֶקְחָה יַיִן וְנִסְבְּאָה שֵׁכָר וְהָיָה כָזֶה יוֹם מָחָר״, מָה כְּתִיב בָּתְרֵיהּ: ״הַצַּדִּיק אָבָד וְאֵין אִישׁ שָׂם עַל לֵב כִּי מִפְּנֵי הָרָעָה נֶאֱסַף הַצַּדִּיק״. אֶלָּא, יְצַעֵר אָדָם עִם הַצִּבּוּר, שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בְּמֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ שֶׁצִּיעֵר עַצְמוֹ עִם הַצִּבּוּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וִידֵי מֹשֶׁה כְּבֵדִים וַיִּקְחוּ אֶבֶן וַיָּשִׂימוּ תַחְתָּיו וַיֵּשֶׁב עָלֶיהָ״, וְכִי לֹא הָיָה לוֹ לְמֹשֶׁה כַּר אֶחָד אוֹ כֶּסֶת אַחַת לֵישֵׁב עָלֶיהָ? אֶלָּא כָּךְ אָמַר מֹשֶׁה: הוֹאִיל וְיִשְׂרָאֵל שְׁרוּיִין בְּצַעַר — אַף אֲנִי אֶהְיֶה עִמָּהֶם בְּצַעַר. וְכׇל הַמְצַעֵר עַצְמוֹ עִם הַצִּבּוּר — זוֹכֶה וְרוֹאֶה בְּנֶחָמַת צִבּוּר. וְשֶׁמָּא יֹאמַר אָדָם: מִי מֵעִיד בִּי? אַבְנֵי בֵיתוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם וְקוֹרוֹת בֵּיתוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם מְעִידִים בּוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי אֶבֶן מִקִּיר תִּזְעָק וְכָפִיס מֵעֵץ יַעֲנֶנָּה״. דְּבֵי רַבִּי שֵׁילָא אָמְרִי: שְׁנֵי מַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת הַמְלַוִּין לוֹ לָאָדָם, הֵן מְעִידִין עָלָיו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי מַלְאָכָיו יְצַוֶּה לָּךְ״. רַבִּי חִידְקָא אוֹמֵר: נִשְׁמָתוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם הִיא מְעִידָה עָלָיו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״מִשֹּׁכֶבֶת חֵיקֶךָ שְׁמֹר פִּתְחֵי פִיךָ״. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: אֵבָרָיו שֶׁל אָדָם מְעִידִים בּוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אַתֶּם עֵדַי נְאֻם ה׳״. ״אֵל אֱמוּנָה וְאֵין עָוֶל״. ״אֵל אֱמוּנָה״, כְּשֵׁם שֶׁנִּפְרָעִין מִן הָרְשָׁעִים לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא אֲפִילּוּ עַל עֲבֵירָה קַלָּה שֶׁעוֹשִׂין, כָּךְ נִפְרָעִין מִן הַצַּדִּיקִים בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה עַל עֲבֵירָה קַלָּה שֶׁעוֹשִׂין. ״וְאֵין עָוֶל״, כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמְּשַׁלְּמִין שָׂכָר לַצַּדִּיקִים לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא אֲפִילּוּ עַל מִצְוָה קַלָּה שֶׁעוֹשִׂין, כָּךְ מְשַׁלְּמִין שָׂכָר לָרְשָׁעִים בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה אֲפִילּוּ עַל מִצְוָה קַלָּה שֶׁעוֹשִׂין. ״צַדִּיק וְיָשָׁר הוּא״, אָמְרוּ: בִּשְׁעַת פְּטִירָתוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם לְבֵית עוֹלָמוֹ כׇּל מַעֲשָׂיו נִפְרָטִין לְפָנָיו, וְאוֹמְרִים לוֹ: כָּךְ וְכָךְ עָשִׂיתָ בְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי בְּיוֹם פְּלוֹנִי, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר: הֵן, וְאוֹמְרִים לוֹ: חֲתוֹם! וְחוֹתֵם. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בְּיַד כׇּל אָדָם יַחְתּוֹם״. וְלֹא עוֹד, אֶלָּא שֶׁמַּצְדִּיק עָלָיו אֶת הַדִּין, וְאוֹמֵר לָהֶם: יָפֶה דַּנְתּוּנִי, לְקַיֵּים מַה שֶּׁנֶּאֱמַר ״לְמַעַן תִּצְדַּק בְּדׇבְרֶךָ״. אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כׇּל הַיּוֹשֵׁב בְּתַעֲנִית נִקְרָא חוֹטֵא. סָבַר כִּי הַאי תַּנָּא, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הַקַּפָּר בְּרַבִּי אוֹמֵר, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו מֵאֲשֶׁר חָטָא עַל הַנָּפֶשׁ״, וְכִי בְּאֵיזֶה נֶפֶשׁ חָטָא זֶה? אֶלָּא שֶׁצִּיעֵר עַצְמוֹ מִן הַיַּיִן. וַהֲלֹא דְּבָרִים קַל וְחוֹמֶר: וּמָה זֶה, שֶׁלֹּא צִיעֵר עַצְמוֹ אֶלָּא מִן הַיַּיִן — נִקְרָא חוֹטֵא, הַמְצַעֵר עַצְמוֹ מִכׇּל דָּבָר וְדָבָר — עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: נִקְרָא קָדוֹשׁ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״קָדוֹשׁ יִהְיֶה גַּדֵּל פֶּרַע שְׂעַר רֹאשׁוֹ״. וּמָה זֶה, שֶׁלֹּא צִיעֵר עַצְמוֹ אֶלָּא מִדָּבָר אֶחָד — נִקְרָא קָדוֹשׁ, הַמְצַעֵר עַצְמוֹ מִכׇּל דָּבָר — עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה. וְלִשְׁמוּאֵל, הָא אִיקְּרִי קָדוֹשׁ! הָהוּא, אַגִּידּוּל פֶּרַע קָאֵי. וּלְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, הָא נִקְרָא חוֹטֵא! הָהוּא דְּסַאֵיב נַפְשֵׁיהּ. וּמִי אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: לְעוֹלָם יָמוֹד אָדָם עַצְמוֹ

Taanit 11a

is in a case where he is sitting in a boat. The traveler must be concerned about his food supply, but he need not worry that the jostling of the road might force him to exert himself, which has a tendency to cause digestive problems. Alternatively, the practical difference is in a case where he is traveling from station [avna] to station. Here the exertion of the road might cause digestive problems, but one need not be concerned about running out of food, as he can resupply along the way. The Gemara relates that when Rav Pappa traveled, along each and every parasang he would eat one loaf of bread.Rav Pappa did so because he maintained that the prohibition was due to the bowels, and as he was healthy he was not concerned that travel by road would irritate his digestion. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Anyone who has food for himself but nevertheless starves himself in years of famine will be saved from an unusual death, as it is stated: “In famine, He will redeem you from death” (Job 5:20). This is derived from the precise wording of the verse. According to its straightforward meaning, instead of “in famine,” it should have said: From famine, as one is delivered from famine. Rather, this is what the verse is saying: As a reward for starving himself in years of famine,Jobwill be saved from an unusual death.Similarly, Reish Lakish said: It is prohibited for a person to have conjugal relations in years of famine, so that children not be born during these difficult years. As it is stated: “And to Joseph were born two sons before the year of famine came” (Genesis 41:50). It was taught in a baraita: Nevertheless, those without children may have marital relations in years of famine, as they must strive to fulfill the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply. Likewise, the Sages taught in a baraita: When the Jewish people is immersed in distress, and one of them separates himself from the community and does not share their suffering, the two ministering angels who accompany a person come and place their hands on his head, as though he was an offering, and say: This man, so-and-so, who has separated himself from the community, let him not see the consolation of the community.A similar idea is taught in anotherbaraita: When the community is immersed in suffering, a person may not say: I will go to my home and I will eat and drink, and peace be upon you, my soul. And if he does so, the verse says about him: “And behold joy and gladness, slaying oxen and killing sheep, eating flesh and drinking wine; let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we shall die” (Isaiah 22:13). And the prophecy continues with what is written afterward, in the following verse: “And the Lord of hosts revealed Himself in my ears: Surely this iniquity shall not be expiated by you until you die” (Isaiah 22:14). The baraita comments: Up to this point is the attribute of middling people, who merely exclude themselves from the suffering of the community. However, with regard to the attribute of wicked people, what is written about those who hope for more of these days? “Come, I will fetch wine, and we will fill ourselves with strong drink; and tomorrow shall be as this day, and much more abundant” (Isaiah 56:12). And what is written afterward? “The righteous perishes, and no man lays it to heart, and godly men are taken away, none considering that the righteous is taken away from the evil to come” (Isaiah 57:1). This verse teaches that righteous people suffer early death to prevent them from witnessing the harm that will befall these evil people. The baraita continues: Rather, a person should be distressed together with the community. As we found with Moses our teacher that he was distressed together with the community, as it is stated during the war with Amalek: “But Moses’ hands were heavy; and they took a stone, and put it under him, and he sat upon it” (Exodus 17:12). But didn’t Moses have one pillow or one cushion to sit upon; why was he forced to sit on a rock? Rather, Moses said as follows: Since the Jewish people are immersed in suffering, I too will be with them in suffering, as much as I am able, although I am not participating in the fighting. The baraita adds: And anyone who is distressed together with the community will merit seeing the consolation of the community.The baraita further states: And lest a person say, I have acted in secret; who will testify against me on the Day of Judgment? The tanna explains that the stones of a person’s house and the beams of a person’s house will testify against him, as it is stated: “For a stone shall cry out from the wall, and a beam out of the timber shall answer it” (Habakkuk 2:11). In the school of Rabbi Sheila they say: The two ministering angels who accompany a person will testify against him, as it is stated: “For He will give His angels charge over you, to keep you in all your ways” (Psalms 91:11). Rabbi Ḥidka said: A person’s soul will testify against him, as it is stated: “Keep the doors of your mouth from her who lies in your bosom” (Micah 7:5). And some say: A man’s limbs will testify against him, as it is stated: “You are My witnesses, says the Lord” (Isaiah 43:10). The baraita cites another verse that deals with judgment. “A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, He is just and righteous” (Deuteronomy 32:4). The baraita interprets “a God of faithfulness” to mean that just as punishment is exacted from the wicked in the World-to-Come even for a light transgression that they commit, so too, punishment is exacted from the righteous in this world for a light transgression that they commit. The righteous suffer their punishment in this world to purify them so they can enjoy the World-to-Come. The baraita turns to the second section of the verse: “And without iniquity.” This teaches that just as reward is paid to the righteous in the World-to-Come even for a minor mitzva that they fulfill, so too, reward is paid to the wicked in this world for even a minor mitzva that they fulfill, to give the wicked all the reward they deserve for the performance of mitzvot in this world, and deprive them of any share in the World-to-Come. With regard to the third section of the verse: “He is just and righteous,” the Sages said: At the hour of a person’s departure to his eternal home, all his deeds are enumerated before him and are rendered visible to him once again, and the deeds themselves say to him: You did such and such, in such and such a place, on such and such a day, and he says: Yes, that is exactly what happened. And they say to him: Sign a statement that this is correct, and he signs it, as it is stated: “He makes the hand of every man sign” (Job 37:7). And not only that, but after one has been shown all his deeds, he justifies the judgment upon himself, and says to them: You have judged me well. This response serves to fulfill that which is stated: “That You may be justified when You speak and be right when You judge” (Psalms 51:6). § The Gemara returns to the primary topic of the tractate, the issue of fasts. Shmuel said: Whoever sits in observance of a fast is called a sinner, as it is inappropriate to take unnecessary suffering upon oneself. The Gemara comments: Shmuelholds in accordance with the opinion of the following tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Elazar HaKappar the Great says: What is the meaning when the verse states, with regard to a nazirite: “And he will atone for him for that he sinned by the soul [nefesh]” (Numbers 6:11). But with what soul did this nazirite sin? Rather, the nazirite sinned by the distress he caused himself when he abstained from wine, in accordance with the terms of his vow. And are these matters not inferred a fortiori? And if this nazirite, who distressed himself by abstaining only from wine, is nevertheless called a sinner and requires atonement, then with regard to one who distresses himself by abstaining from each and every matter of food and drink when he fasts, all the more so should he be considered a sinner. Conversely, Rabbi Elazar says: One who accepts a fast upon himself is called sacred, as it is stated with regard to the nazirite: “He shall be sacred, he shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow long” (Numbers 6:5). Here too, one can apply an a fortiori inference: And if this nazirite, who distressed himself by abstaining from only one matter, wine, is nevertheless called sacred, then with regard to one who distresses himself by abstaining from every matter, all the more so should he be considered sacred. The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Shmuel, the nazirite is indeed called sacred, as stated by Rabbi Elazar. The Gemara answers: That verse is referring to the sanctity of the growth of the locks, as the nazirite’s hair does possess an element of sanctity, but it does not refer to the nazirite himself. The Gemara reverses the question: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, the nazirite is called a sinner. The Gemara answers: That verse refers specifically to a nazirite who rendered himself ritually impure by coming into contact with a dead body, an act that is prohibited for him. This particular nazirite must bring an offering to atone “for that he sinned by the soul.” The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Elazar actually say this, that fasting is a virtuous act? But didn’t Rabbi Elazar say: A person should always consider himself

משנה אבות ה׳:י״ז

(יז) כָּל מַחֲלֹקֶת שֶׁהִיא לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, סוֹפָהּ לְהִתְקַיֵּם. וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, אֵין סוֹפָהּ לְהִתְקַיֵּם. אֵיזוֹ הִיא מַחֲלֹקֶת שֶׁהִיא לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, זוֹ מַחֲלֹקֶת הִלֵּל וְשַׁמַּאי. וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, זוֹ מַחֲלֹקֶת קֹרַח וְכָל עֲדָתוֹ:

Pirkei Avot 5:17

(17) Every dispute that is for the sake of Heaven, will in the end endure; But one that is not for the sake of Heaven, will not endure. Which is the controversy that is for the sake of Heaven? Such was the controversy of Hillel and Shammai. And which is the controversy that is not for the sake of Heaven? Such was the controversy of Korah and all his congregation.

"The Place Where We Are Right" by Yehuda Amichai

From the place where we are right
Flowers will never grow
In the spring.

The place where we are right
Is hard and trampled
Like a yard.

But doubts and loves
Dig up the world
Like a mole, a plow.
And a whisper will be heard in the place
Where the ruined
House once stood.

Breaking the Fence Around TorahBy Devon Spier
(via Ritualwell)
This fence around Torah
Can women and children peak through?
Is there a door for doubters and strangers?
A way in for the serially abused?
Is its wood beige and blended in?
Or from trees with roots of many different accents and hints?

True, the fence was first meant to keep us in.
The People who fell easily to idols.
Whose stiff-neck led us into wilderness and sin.
And yet, the fence was broken
To invite the poor into the sukkah
Servants into the field.
And G-d, out, into the world.

The gulf between judgment and protection is best filled by human beings
Who paint the fence,
Take up the fence.
And through their work and being, renew Torah.

Joshua Jeffreys