Eleh devarim, these are the words…
What are the words? Which words? Whose words? To whom?
This is the very beginning of the Book of Devarim, Deuteronomy. It is Moses’s swan song, his summary of all of the ethics, the history, the rules, the mitzvot that the Israelites are to live by when they inherit the land that Moses himself won’t enter. It is addressed to ALL the Israelites, to ALL of us. Not just to the leaders or the priests, ALL.
My friend Joanne Fink did a lovely piece of art for this week’s parsha. Eleh Devarim.
What words would you pass down to your next generation? We’ll have this very opportunity to talk about this a little later as we begin our preparations for Rosh Hashanah in earnest.
Elu v’elu, Divrey Elohim Chaim. These and these are the words of the living God.
These are the words that are on the ark at the Academy for Jewish Religion which teaches that there are 70 faces of Torah. 70 correct ways to interpret each and every word of Torah
This is not a new concept in Judaism, taking all the way back to the Talmud and other rabbinic literature:
“One thing God has spoken; two things have I heard (Ps. 62:12) and its gloss in the Talmud, “One biblical verse may convey several teachings . . . In R. Ishmael’s School it was taught: And like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces (Jer. 23:29), i.e., just as [the rock] is split into many splinters, so also may one biblical verse convey many teachings” (TB Sanhedrin 34a).”
The earliest reference for the specific term Shivim Panim LaTorah is in an early medieval text, Midrash Bamidbar Rabba 13:15-16. The term was used both by the rationalist Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra (died 1167) in his introduction to his Torah commentary and, a century later by the mystic Rabbi Nachmanides (died 1270) in his Torah commentary on Genesis 8:4.
That this concept was used both by rationalist and mystical Torah commentators indicates how fundamental it is to understanding the meaning of Divine revelation. In fact to where we are as a society today. The concept, though not the exact wording, also appears in a post Talmudic midrash, Otiot d’Rabbi Akiba, as “Torah nilm’dah b’shiv’im panim”- Torah is learned through 70 facets.
So how do we know which interpretation is right?
Let’s remember, the Puritans came to this land to escape religious persecution in Europe, to worship G-d in the manner they felt was right. To interpret scripture on their own and not have someone tell them what the implications are.
The early rabbinic writings are full of these examples:
From Berakhot 58a teaches:
The Rabbis have taught : Who sees crowds of Israelites should say “Blessed… Who art wise in secrets,” because their minds differ and their faces differ.
The midrash expands on that:
Bemidbar Rabbah 21:2
The law is: If one sees many thousands of people, one should say: Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the Universe, Wise One who knows secrets, just as their faces are different from one another’s, so too their understandings are different, for each one has a different understanding…and so too Moses requested from God, when he died. He said: Master of the Universe! Every person’s thoughts are known and revealed before you, and none of your children’s thoughts are similar to another’s. When I die, please appoint a leader who can sustain them all according to their own understanding….
The Talmud teaches us how to have these discussions, debates, arguments:
Eruvin 13b:10-11
For three years, the House of Hillel and the House of Shammai argued. One said, ‘The halakha is like us,’ and the other said, ‘The halakha is like us.’ A heavenly voice (a bat kol) spoke: “These and these are the words of the living God, and the halakha is like the House of Hillel.” A question was raised: Since the heavenly voice declared: “Both these and those are the words of the Living God,” why was the halacha established to follow the opinion of Hillel? It is because the students of Hillel were kind and gracious. They taught their own ideas as well as the ideas from the students of Shammai. Not only for this reason, but they went so far as to teach Shammai’s opinions first.
Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, The Book of Jewish Values: A Day-By-Day Guide to Jewish Living, New York: Random House, 2000, pp. 186-7:
Note the copyright. 2000. These are not new problems. The answers are timeless.
“Significantly, the heavenly voice ruled in favor of Hillel and his disciples, even in areas of ritual dispute, for moral reasons: he and his followers were “kindly and humble.”
The wording of the passage suggests that Shammai’s followers had grown somewhat arrogant. Certain that they possessed the truth, they no longer bothered to listen to, or discuss the arguments of, their opponents. Their overbearing self-confidence led them to become morally less impressive (the language of the Talmud suggests by implication that they were not “kindly and humble”) and probably led them to become intellectually less insightful (after all, how insightful can you be if you are studying only one side of the issue?)
Because the School of Hillel studied their opponent’s arguments, when they issued a ruling, they were fully cognizant of all the arguments to be offered against their own position. Thus, their humility not only led to their being more pleasant people, but also likely caused them to have greater intellectual depth.
We can all learn a lesson from the behavior of Hillel and his followers: Don’t read only books and publications that agree with and reinforce your point of view. If you do so, and many people do, you will never learn what those who disagree with you believe (at best, you will hear a caricature of their position, presented by people who, like you, disagree with it). It would be a good thing in Jewish life if Jews in the different denominations, or in different political camps, started reading newspapers and magazines of the groups with which they disagree, on a regular basis.
If you seldom hear, read, or listen to views that oppose your own, and if almost everyone you talk to sees the world just as your do, your thinking will grow flabby and intolerant. That is often the case with ideologues on the right and left, both in religion and in politics.
As this text teaches us, humble people are not only more pleasant human beings, but in the final analysis, they may well be the only ones who will have something eternally important to teach.”
There is a story often repeated that illustrates this and sometimes it even happens right here: You’ve probably heard one version or another!
A new rabbi became embroiled in a controversy. Every week, when the time came to chant the Shema, half the congregation would stand, the other half would sit. (In our congregation it is more likely to be over various Kaddish prayers.) Those who stood screamed at those who sat, “That’s not our tradition!” And those who sat screamed at those who stood, “That’s not our tradition!” This went on week after week. It was driving everyone crazy. Finally, the new rabbi had a great idea. She (Note, in this version it is a woman rabbi!) brought representatives from each group to visit the shul’s last remaining founding member. They gathered around his bed in the nursing home. First, those who stood for the Shema asked the old man: “Wasn’t it always the tradition in our synagogue to stand for the Shema?” “No,” the old man whispered. “That was definitely not the tradition.” The other delegation jumped up in triumph. “So, we’re right!” they said. “It’s always been our tradition to sit for the Shema!” The old man shook his head: “No,” he whispered. “That wasn’t the tradition either.” The annoyed rabbi screamed: “I can’t take this anymore! Do you know what goes on in shul every week — the people who are standing yell at the people who are sitting, the people who are sitting yell at the people who are standing—” Suddenly, the old man interrupted, almost jumping out of his bed. “Aha!” he said. “That was the tradition!”
You may have heard, even this morning, that there is an election coming. Our mothers had it right. “Think before you speak. If you don’t have anything good to say, don’t say anything at all.”
Another version of that, attributed to many authors from Socretes, to Bernard Meltzer to the Buddhists and available as cute memes and posters to hang in classrooms. Probably because it rings too true: Before you speak, think about whether
If it is, then and only then should the words be uttered. Disagreeing is fine. Arguing is fine. However, be kind and generous in your speech.
I want to leave you with this poem, as we continue to approach Tisha B’av. What a gift the Israeli poet Yehuda Amichai has given us:
The Place Where We Are Right
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.