|
All the laws of this chapter derive from the transcendent
commandment – You shall be holy. They encompass the gamut of human
activities and relations, private, social and spiritual, his attitude
towards the weak and needy and his conduct towards his enemy and
oppressor. These guidelines reach their climax in the verse which
heads this section. The text is puzzling both in content and wording.
Our sages declared that Man is partial to himself. This is fundamental,
as reflected in R. Akiva’s ruling that Your life takes precedence
over your fellowman’s. How then are we to love others as ourselves,
with equal force, irrespective of their conduct?
Rashbam qualifies the requirement, thus:
Love thy neighbor as thyself – only if he is – your neighbor,
i.e., virtuous but not if he is wicked, as it is written, the
fear of the Lord is to hate evil (Prov.8:13).
Thus (according to R. David Rozin’s interpretation
of Rashbam) love him only if he is righteous, but not if he is a
villain, in which case you must follow King Solomon’s dictum: “the
fear of the Lord is to hate evil; avoid him and shun his company.”
Rashbam, the noted exponent of the plain sense, here
seems to deviate from his principle. The text affords no hint of
any such distinction between the righteous and the wicked. Rather,
it employs the neutral, comprehensive term – fellow. The identification
of this term with an “Israelite” is conclusively refuted by its
use in “Let every man ask of his neighbor and every woman of her
neighbor, jewels of silver and jewels of gold…” (Ex. 11:2), where
it evidently refers to the Egyptians.
Nahmanides qualifies the subject of the commandment
“love thy neighbor as thyself,” rather than the object, thereby
also addressing himself to the unusual form of to your neighbor
rather than thy neighbor.
The phrase “love thy neighbor as thyself” is not meant
literally, since man cannot be expected to love his neighbor as
his own self. Moreover, R. Akiva has ruled that your life takes
precedence over your fellowman’s. The Torah here enjoins that we
should wish upon our neighbor the same benefits that we wish upon
ourselves. Perhaps this is the reason for the dative instead of
the accusative form of the verb phrase, as also in “And thou shalt
love him (the stranger) as thyself” (19:34). Indeed, sometimes a
person may wish upon his neighbor certain benefits only, e.g., wealth,
but not wisdom, and the like. But even if he wishes his cherished
friend well in everything e.g., wealth honor, learning and wisdom,
he will not do so unstintingly, but will still insist on a larger
share of the benefits. It was this shortcoming that the Torah condemned.
Rather, a man should wish his fellow well in all things, just as
he does in his own case, and place no limitations upon his love.
Thus, in the case of Jonathan and David, it says that Jonathan loved
him as his own soul (I Sam. 20:17), since he had removed all jealousy
from his heart, declaring “And thou shalt rule over Israel” (ib.
23:17).
This view underlies Hillel’s negative formulation
moving the golden rule of Judaism from the realm of abstract sentiment
into that of concrete action:
“ what is hateful to you do not do to your fellow”
(Shabbat 31a). This removes the problem posed in the Biur:
If the text means that a man must love his fellow
as himself, it is hardly conceivable that the Almighty should command
something which is beyond human capacity. Moreover, feelings such
as hate and love are hardly the object of commands, since they are
not under human control. To fulfill such a command to the letter,
man would have to grieve for his fellow’s sorrows just as he grieves
for his own. This would be intolerable, since scarcely a moment
passes without hearing of some fellow Jew’s misfortune…Hillel therefore
correctly interpreted this passage in a negative manner: What is
hateful to you do not do to your fellow – at least do nothing to
your neighbor which you would not like to be done to yourself. It
is obvious that we must never insult or cause hurt to any man, whether
wicked or righteous, except through the proper judicial procedure
or by way of loving admonition in order to correct his behavior.
Just as the Torah ordained the death penalty for the shedder of
the blood of any man, saint or sinner, scholar or simpleton so does
the command to respect our neighbor’s feelings and interests apply
to every human being without distinction.
More plausible, however, is the view that takes the
phrase as thyself not as qualifying the degree of love, but
as motivating the principle embodied in the text – he is as thyself,
a human being like yourself. This is the view R. N.H. Weisel offers
after analyzing the other views:
The word as thyself is not usually used adverbially,
but rather adjectivally, meaning similar to you, cf. Gen. 44:18,
For thou art as Pharaoh, i.e., your position is similar to Pharaoh;
or There is none so discerning and wise as thou art (ib. 41:39).
Likewise here the meaning is: Love thy neighbor who is as thyself
– like you, created in the image of God, a human being like yourself.
This encompasses all of humanity created in the image
of God. R. Akiva was referring to this in his comment, This is a
fundamental principle in the Torah, restated by him thus in the
Mishna, “Beloved is man, for he was created in the image of God”
(Avot 3, 14). Even if he sinned, he can reform his conduct for he
was created in the image of God and was endowed with free will and
is able to control action...The correct translation of this phrase
is, Love thy neighbor for he is like yourself…If meant as thyself,
i.e., you should love him as you love yourself, then we could dispense
with Hillel’s interpretation, which would actually diminish the
scope of this maxim. Furthermore the Torah would not be indicating
the extent of this love, for the usual Hebrew expression for such
ideal love is as he loves his own soul, as Scripture states in the
case of David and Jonathan, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul
(ib. 20:17). Accordingly, the text here should have read And love
thy neighbor as you own soul. If every Jew must love his fellow
as his own soul, there would be nothing extraordinary about the
love of David and Jonathan, yet David declared in his elegy on Jonathan,
Thy love to me was wonderful, more than the love of women (2 Sam.
1:26). Thus as thyself means because he is as thou and the verse
is to be understood in its literal meaning, contrary to Nahmanides’
explanantion.
This view gains further support from v. 34 of our
chapter:
The stranger who resides with you shall be treated the same as
the native-born, and thou shalt love him as thyself, for you were
strangers in the land of Egypt.
Were thyself to indicate the extent of the love, then
an association with slavery would be irrelevant. Not so if thyself
denotes one who is like yourself, who needs your love. Thus we read
further, for you know the heart of a stranger, seeing that you were
strangers in the land of Egypt (Ex. 23:9). This elucidates our own
verse: Treat your neighbor lovingly, for he is a human being like
yourself, and therefore you know his quest for love.
In conclusion, let us quote Ben Azai, who challenged
R. Akiva’s above dictum. Here is the full record of the dispute
in Sifra Kedoshim 45:
Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: R. Akiva
said: This is the fundamental principle of the Torah. Ben Azai said:
This is the book of the generations of man (Gen. 5:1) transcends
the weight of that.
Bereshit Rabba 24, 7 elaborates:
Do not say, since I was shamed let my neighbor be
similarly shamed, since I was cursed. Said R. Tanhuma: If you act
thus, know whom you are shaming—in the likeness of God made He him
(Gen. 5:1).
However, there are different kinds of love. One does
not love one’s animal as one loves one’s child, nor love one’s chattel
as one’s spouse, nor money as one’s vine or fig tree. And even within
a particular category of love there exist differences of intensity.
Thus a father may love his youngest son more than his eldest, or
one may prefer one’shorse to one’s donkey. Whenever a choice has
to be made, the more or better loved will gain preference.
Accordingly, the Torah commands us to love our neighbor
with the highest quality of the love we reserve for ourselves. Whenever
the two loves do not actually clash, we must confer upon our neighbor
whatever we would confer upon ourselves. However, there remains
a difference in intensity. Thus, love for oneself may precede that
of neighbor if it is detrimental to one’s own legitimate interests,
as formulated in the Rabbinic dictum, your life takes precedence
over that of you neighbor.
Thus love of one’s fellow man is not measured by the
love of oneself. He, indifferent to his own lot, must not ignore
the plight of his neighbor, whose Divine image commands consideration
and respect. Hence, Ben Azzai did not single out “And love thy neighbor
as thyself, with its emphasis on human equality, “but the text testifying
to the origin of mankind, as fearing the Divine image. Here lay
the fundamental principle of Judaism:
This is the book of the generations of Man,
In the day that God created mankind,
In the likeness of God He made him.
Gen. 5:1
Questions for Further Study
|
|
When editing the Biur, Moses Mendelssohn added
this comment to that of N.H Weisel’s:
Though his (Weisel’s) commentary is incisive and plausible,
it does not reflect the plain sense of the text. In my view, this
passage is to be understood as follows: The commandment not to hate
applies not only to cursing or perpetrating hostile acts but also
hatred in one’s heart.
Indeed, several commandments of the Torah are addressed
to our dispositions, for they too can be controlled by the mind.
Thus we are commanded not to covet (see Ibn Ezra ad.loc.) and to
love, e.g., to love him (the stranger) as thyself, not to take vengeance,
not to bear a grudge, neither verbally nor in thought. We are enjoined
to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. This does not refer to
quantity but to quality. Let us explain these terms in the realm
of emotion. Let us take the example of love which can extend even
to inanimate objects.
In sum, the Torah here does not refer to the scope
but to the quality of love. Provided there is no conflict of interests,
you must love your neighbor as yourself in every way, i.e., not
for selfish motives as you love your property, but for the sake
of the loved one – as you love yourself.
- Explain the difference between Mendelssohn’s and Weisel’s explanation.
- Whose interpretation is borne out by the reading accents?
- What is the difference between the dative and the accusative
form in the very phrase according to Mendelssohn’s interpretation?
Insights on the Parasha: The
Companion Web site to the Parasha Gilyonot
|