Here are two interesting mahalchim to explain the essential difference between Shammai and Hillel. I don't have much to to add, but usually I learn something from comments and that makes it worth it. The two are the Malbim (beginning of Chukas, Bamidbar 19:1 in the Torah Ohr) and Rav Zevin (Le'or Hahalacha, להסבר מחלוקות בית שמאי ובית הלל, page 304.) I would have posted this in Korach (כל מחלוקת שהיא לשם שמים, סופה להתקים. ושאינה לשם שמים, אין סופה להתקים. איזו היא מחלוקת שהיא לשם שמים, זו מחלוקת הלל ושמאי. ושאינה לשם שמים, זו מחלוקת קרח וכל עדתו) but the Malbim is in Chukas. The explanations are not merely simple, they are intentionally simplistic, in the same way that many fundamental truths can appear to be simple.
Malbim, part 1-
meaning, the fundamental difference between Bais Shammai and Bais Hillel in Avodas Hashem is whether to withdraw from Olam Hazeh into Kedusha or to bring Kedusha into Olam Hazeh. He ties in multiple machloksim, amazingly, as well as the petirah of Rabbah.
Bais Shammai felt that shevach to Hashem is engendered by reducing our influence, and thus our interaction, with umos ha'olam - the parei hachag decreased as we approached the am l'vadad yishkon of Shemini Atzeres. As we withdraw into kedusha, we need be mefarsem less to olam hazeh and focus on our own olam d'kedusha in a private communion with Hashem. Similarly yamim hanichnasim: we are praising Hashem that we only have x number of days to be involved in this interaction with olam Hazeh pirsum.
Bais Hillel says that shevach is davka bringing kedusha into olam Hazeh, and each day adds kedusha to this world. And since the object of this avodah is this olam Hazeh kedusha, ma'alim bakodesh. A classic example is the machlokes about sitting in the sukkah while the table is in the house.
I heard from my brother that his colleague, Rav Shabsi Bulman, said that this particular Malbim was a favorite of his father, Rav Nachman Bulman ZTvK"L, who reviewed it constantly. (What I reproduced above is a small part of it.) I also got a fascinating note from Rabbi Dr NJS as follows-
Rav Zevin gives many examples that show that the difference of perspective is whether to focus on the actual (Beis Hillel) or the potential (Beis Shammai.) This includes increasing the number of candles as Chanuka proceeds, or decreasing the number; Rosh Hashanna for trees when they are blossoming, the fifteenth of Shvat, or when the rain that enables their blossoming has finished falling, the beginning of Shvat; whether the bracha on fire is me'orei ha'esh, or Maor ha'esh, which the Gaon says refers to the original source of fire at bri'as ha'olam. If you read this to mean ma'aseh/kavana, then it explains the story of the Ger as well.
In a good example of eilu v'eilu, the Malbim really ties into Rav Zevin's axiom: Beis Hillel looks at the apparent reality and action, which is to make this world kodesh. Beis Shammai looks at the underlying concept - to drive out tum'a. Basically, it is a before or after the chait approach.
I don't understand Reb Tzadok, but if you do, you might decide that he, too, incorporates both approaches.
Reb Micha Berger commented that with this in mind, it is interesting to see the Maharal on Avos ch. 1. We are told the machloksin multiplied "shelo shimshu es rabosam". Hillel was nasi, his job was to run an orderly society. Shammai was av beis din. Talmidim who don't get to know their rebbes' weltenschaung deeply would confuse how they behave in their roles with their actual approach to Torah. And so, we get to the rachamim vs din divide that R' Tzadoq discusses.
Reb Micha also points out that the Rogotchover says something very similar to Rav Zevin, and that Rav Zevin brings it down in several places. I found it in Rav Zevin's introduction to the Tzafnas Paaneiach, where he quotes it from צפנת פענח, מכתבי תורה, מכתב רפ"ט
For a v e r y t h o r o u g h discussion of the Rav Zevin type of approach, I recommend something Rav Chaim B sent me, compiled from several shiurim by the Lubavitcher- http://www.sichos-in-english.org/books/beacons-on-the-talmud-sea/01.htm
Reb Chaim also sent a link to an interesting vignette involving the Rebbe, where he explained why he did not bring what seemed to be a pretty obvious example. (That website says the kashe was asked by "a Ponovitch graduate!", but first of all, Ponevezh doesn't graduate anyone, unless he means the Bendheim Yeshiva le'Tzeirim division. Second, the answer is pretty obvious, and if he "graduated" from Rav Shach's shiurim, he wouldn't have asked it in the first place. Maybe, like Reb Zeira, he was mispallel that he should forget everything he learned in Ponevezh before he went to the Rebbe.)
By the way, as an example of my having said that this is intentionally simplistic, this is where the Malbim brings the Baal HaAkeida's analysis of the concept of Tumah. עומדים ברום עולם.
If you're interested in a paper that characterizes the machlokes as being "anthropocentric or theocentric," here it is.
Malbim, part 1-
אולם אם יש בכח אדם אחר חוץ ממשה להגיע למדרגה זו שיהיה מופשט מן החומר לגמרי עד שיהי׳ הגוף אל הנפש רק כלבוש שיכול לפשטו וללבשו בכל פעם ושהנפש הפנימית לא תרגיש כלל במכאוב הגוף ובצערו או בענגו וטובו, בזאת נחלקו החכמים בדור ודור ורבים היו שפרשו את עצמם מן הישוב למדבריות והמיתו את חומרם לגמרי כמ״ש שאם ימות יחיה ועזבו אח העולם ומאסו בו והם הנקראים במליצת חז״ל מתי מדבר כמו שית׳ אח״ז, ויש שהי' דעתם שאחר שנתערבו כחות הנפשיות בהחומר אחר חטא אדם הראשון א״א שיתפשט מן החומר לגמרי כל עודו בחיים, וכבר בארתי במקום אחר שהי׳ בזה חלוקי דעות בין ב״ש לב״ה, ששמאי הי׳ אומר על כל בהמה נאה זו לשבת והלל היה אומר ברוך ה׳ יום יום , ששמאי הי׳ פורש א״ע מעניני העולם לגמרי ועסק רק בצרכי השבת שמורה על השבח הגדול שהוא עוה״ב כמ״ש מי שטרח בע״ש יאכל בשבת, ולא נהנה מהעולם רק מה שהוא הנאה רוחניית שהיא ענין השבת, והלל הי׳ דעתו שאין לעזוב את העולם לגמרי והי׳ אומר ברוך ה׳ יום יום, ומי שהיה ראשו ורובו בסוכה ושלחנו בתוך הבית ב״ש פוסלים וב״ה מכשירים, שהסוכה מציין מזיגת העולם ועניניו שיוצא מדירת קבע לדירת עראי, ולשטת ב״ה די אם ראשו ורובו בסוכה הגם ששלחנו בתוך הבית, ר״ל הגם שאוכל ושותה ושלחן ערוך לו בתוך הבית שהוא בחיי עוה״ז ואינו פורש מן העולם לגמרי לענות נפשו ולצער עצמו באכילה ושתיה, וב״ש פוסלים כי הם ס״ל שצריך לפרוש מעניני העולם מכל וכל ושלא ליהנות שום הנאה גשמיית רק לומר זו לשבת
וכבר אמרנו שבענין זה היו מחולקים בית שמאי ובית הלל, ששמאי והנמשכים אחריו היה דרכם למאס בעולם הזה ולעזוב כל עניני החומר, והלל והנמשכים אחריו היו אומרים שאין לעזוב את העולם, וכבר אמרו שבית שמאי ובית הלל נחלקו אם טוב לו לאדם שנברא משלא נברא, כי בית שמאי קצו בעולם הזה ודעותיו ומאסו בו, והשתדלו תמיד להפשיט הנפש מן הגוף... וכבר כתב האריז"ל שמה שאין הלכה כבית שמאי וכרשב"י הוא מפני גודל מעלתם שלא עסקו בתורת העולם הזה כלל רק בתורת עולם האצילות כי התורה מתפשטת בכל עולם ועולם, והם נפרדו מן העולם הזה ועסקו בתורת השכליים הנפרדים, והתורה כפי סודותיה בעולמות העליונים הלכותיה משונים מכפי ענינה בעולם הגופים, ואמרו שבשמים פוסקים כבית שמאי וכרשב"י, ושכן יפסקו ההלכה לעתיד לבא כשיתפשטו הנפשות מן הגופים, שאז תהיה ההלכה למטה כמו שהיא בעולם העליון.שאז תהיה ההלכה למטה כמו שהיא בעולם העליון ועל זה אמרו כי תורה חדשה מאתי תצא, שתהיה התורה למטה כמו שהיא אתי למעלה..
Bais Shammai felt that shevach to Hashem is engendered by reducing our influence, and thus our interaction, with umos ha'olam - the parei hachag decreased as we approached the am l'vadad yishkon of Shemini Atzeres. As we withdraw into kedusha, we need be mefarsem less to olam hazeh and focus on our own olam d'kedusha in a private communion with Hashem. Similarly yamim hanichnasim: we are praising Hashem that we only have x number of days to be involved in this interaction with olam Hazeh pirsum.
Bais Hillel says that shevach is davka bringing kedusha into olam Hazeh, and each day adds kedusha to this world. And since the object of this avodah is this olam Hazeh kedusha, ma'alim bakodesh. A classic example is the machlokes about sitting in the sukkah while the table is in the house.
I heard from my brother that his colleague, Rav Shabsi Bulman, said that this particular Malbim was a favorite of his father, Rav Nachman Bulman ZTvK"L, who reviewed it constantly. (What I reproduced above is a small part of it.) I also got a fascinating note from Rabbi Dr NJS as follows-
absolutely!
40 + years ago Rav Bulman called me into his study for a pre bar mitzva chat. This malbim is what we learned [for parshat teruma]
Rav Zevin gives many examples that show that the difference of perspective is whether to focus on the actual (Beis Hillel) or the potential (Beis Shammai.) This includes increasing the number of candles as Chanuka proceeds, or decreasing the number; Rosh Hashanna for trees when they are blossoming, the fifteenth of Shvat, or when the rain that enables their blossoming has finished falling, the beginning of Shvat; whether the bracha on fire is me'orei ha'esh, or Maor ha'esh, which the Gaon says refers to the original source of fire at bri'as ha'olam. If you read this to mean ma'aseh/kavana, then it explains the story of the Ger as well.
In a good example of eilu v'eilu, the Malbim really ties into Rav Zevin's axiom: Beis Hillel looks at the apparent reality and action, which is to make this world kodesh. Beis Shammai looks at the underlying concept - to drive out tum'a. Basically, it is a before or after the chait approach.
אך הענין, דבית שמאי ובית הלל נקראו במשנה (עדיות פ"א מ"ד) אבות העולם, וכן נקראו בזוהר הקדוש אבהן דעלמא, והיינו דהלל היה מסטרא דרחמי דרגא דאברהם, ושמאי היה מסטרא דדינא גובה דרגה דיצחק, וכן כתב האריז"ל שלעתיד יהיה ההלכה כבית שמאי, והוא על פי מה שאמרו רז"ל שבתחלה עלה במחשבה לברא העולם במדת הדין, ואחר כך שתף הקב"ה מדת הרחמים למדת הדין... ועל כן בעולם הזה שמתנהג על פי ההנהגה שהקדים השי"ת מדת הרחמים למדת הדין הלכה כבית הלל, אבל לעתיד כשיתוקן כל הפגם של הנחש והיה כמו שעלה במחשבה, עשה האלקים את האדם ישר, ויוכל העולם להתנהג במדת הדין יהיה ההלכה כבית שמאי, וכן עם צדיקים הקב"ה מדקדק אפילו כחוט השערה, שהם יוכלו להתנהג כפי המחשבה... (חנוכה ח, וראה שם עוד
ועי' בס' 'אהבת יונתן' בהפטרת אחרון של פסח (בד"ה באופן אחר) שכתב וז"ל: "איזו מחלוקת שסופה להתקיים זו מחלוקת הלל ושמאי, דבזהר איתא לעתיד יפסקו הלכה כבית שמאי דאלו ואלו דברי אלקים חיים כו' וזהו מאמרם (אבות פ"ה מי"ז) איזו מחלוקת שסופה להתקיים מחלוקת בית שמאי ובית הלל דלעתיד יפסקו כמותם", וכן פי' החיד"א בפתח עינים ובזרוע ימין אבות שם,
Reb Micha also points out that the Rogotchover says something very similar to Rav Zevin, and that Rav Zevin brings it down in several places. I found it in Rav Zevin's introduction to the Tzafnas Paaneiach, where he quotes it from צפנת פענח, מכתבי תורה, מכתב רפ"ט
תנו רבנן: ב"ש אומרים שמים נבראו תחלה ואח״כ נבראת. הארץ וב״ה אומרים ארץ נבראת תחלה ואח״כ שמים (חגיגה יב, א.) שמים וארץ הם שני הדברים המבטאים את הצורה ואת החומר. ב״ש סבורים, שהצורה היא המכרעת, על כן היא תחילה — עיקר וב״ה סבורים, שהחומר הוא הקובע, שהוא התגשמות המציאות בפועל
זו שיטת ב״ה דחומר נברא תחילה ואח״כ הצורה היולית, אך ב״ש ס״ל להיפך דצורה היולית נבראת תחילה ואח״כ חומר וזה באמת בכל התורה דעיקר צורת הדבר
Reb Chaim also sent a link to an interesting vignette involving the Rebbe, where he explained why he did not bring what seemed to be a pretty obvious example. (That website says the kashe was asked by "a Ponovitch graduate!", but first of all, Ponevezh doesn't graduate anyone, unless he means the Bendheim Yeshiva le'Tzeirim division. Second, the answer is pretty obvious, and if he "graduated" from Rav Shach's shiurim, he wouldn't have asked it in the first place. Maybe, like Reb Zeira, he was mispallel that he should forget everything he learned in Ponevezh before he went to the Rebbe.)
Update and contrite apology: Reb Chaim says that Reb Yosef Engel does bring a raya from the case I said was obviously not a raya. Outside my brief spells of megalomania, I am certain that I am not a bigger lamdan than Reb Yosef Engel, so I guess it's a case of "obvious only after hearing the pshat."
By the way, as an example of my having said that this is intentionally simplistic, this is where the Malbim brings the Baal HaAkeida's analysis of the concept of Tumah. עומדים ברום עולם.
If you're interested in a paper that characterizes the machlokes as being "anthropocentric or theocentric," here it is.
Does the Malbim connect this to the Kedoshim Tihyu vs. Nazir is a chotei conondrum?
ReplyDeleteI don't remember if he speaks about it, but that's a very interesting tzushtell.
DeleteI just read the first part of the Malbim, and put it into the post, and it's clear that your tzushtell is exactly what he's saying, and that the machlokes chotei/kadosh would be Shammai/Hillel. It could be that the Malbim is like the Mesillas Yeshorim, especially after seeing the Malbim's ראשו ורובו בסוכה ושלחנו בתוך הבית.
DeleteCentral to both theories is the machloqes about whether shamayim or aretz were built first (Chagiga 12a). To the Malbim, it's about the relationship between qodesh and chol. (Note: chol == chal, just as Purim can chal on a Sunday, qedushah can be chal on physical entities.) To R Zevin, it's about ko'ach (shamayim) vs po'el (eretz).
ReplyDeleteR' Zevin's shitah is a minor variant on the Rogochover's tzurah vs chomer. (Tzafnas Panei'ach #50, an essay after teshuvah 255, and I am told elsewhere). R' Zevin cites him (Le'Or haHalakhah "sheleg", fn 11).
Last, I like the Maharal's on Avos ch. 1. We are told the machloqesin multiplied "shelo shimshu es rabosam". Hillel was nasi, his job was to run an orderly society. Shammai was av beis din. Talmidim who don't get to know their rebbes' weltenschaung deeply would confuse how they behave in their roles with their actual approach to Torah. And so, we get to the rachamim vs din divide that R' Tzadoq discusses.
I also think there is a tzad hashaveh to be explored.
Rachamim saves a person because of his potential. Din condemns a person because of how much of that potential was unused. Beis Shammai therefore demand our withdrawal (din / gevurah) more often, because we tend to mess things up. Ashrei mi shelo nivra. Whereas Beis Hilllel focus on the cases where we don't, because using that potential is (leshitasam and therefore leshitaseinu) is what life is all about.
Bli neder, I'm going to put this into the post. I hope you don't mind stylistic changes for purposes of consistency.
DeleteI understood that kind of thing to be the purpose behind this blog. So of course I don't mind. Just double-check my memory first!
Deletehttp://www.sichos-in-english.org/books/beacons-on-the-talmud-sea/01.htm
ReplyDeleteWow, that's thorough. Now I have all the marei mekomos I was missing. And more. Thanks.
Deleteif this mehalaich in the machlokes hillel and shamai was not genius enough, this is genius al gabei genius:
ReplyDeletehttp://mevakeshlev.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-geonus-of-lubavitcher-rebbe.html
I put both into the post. Thanks.
DeleteForgive me, but I'm not nispoeil. I know the Rebbe was a genius, but this is not the rayah. I does seem like geonus at first, but if you think about it for a minute, I think you'll agree that the guy should've realized why his kashe was not a kashe. What it proves, which doesn't need proof, was that the Rebbe didn't pile on rayos without carefully thinking about each one, like some do.
R' Yosef Engel does bring this case as a ra'aya, so I would not dismiss the kashe as not a kashe. Ex post facto, given that the Rebbe did not bring it as a raya'ah, you can come up with a hesber why, but I wouldn't say its obvious that this case doesn't belong on the list. R"Y Engel wasn't a nobody either.
DeleteOuch. I apologize. I certainly am not a bigger lamdan than R Yosef Engel. I guess you're right, it was just a case of "obvious only after seeing the pshat." I'll change my snarky remark in the post soon.
DeleteI was particularly annoyed by the "graduated from Ponovezh" silliness. I know someone in Chicago whose grandfather's matzeiva says that he got Semicha from Slabodkeh. Huh???? Actually, they didn't even let talmidim sit in their beis medrash while they were learning for semicha. You had to leave and go sit in some other dorfel and get semicha from the Rov there.
DeleteI finally had time to look at the LR, and I don't get it. He appears to say 4 things:
ReplyDelete1- The central point of debate between Batei Hillel and Shammai was chesed vs gevurah/din.
2- It was between deeper look and initial impression.
3- It was between actualization and potential.
Around these three different impressions, which not only aren't tied together, the latter two seem inversely correlated, the LR brackets with:
4- We do not pursue the Truth of the Torah, since that's Divine and beyond reason. We pursue that of the truth we can internalize and use to elevate ourselves.
I had no problem with the opening and closing. It's the diverse descriptions of what the LR is apparently saying is all one thing that has me confused.