O que podemos fazer e aprender quando o outro tem má vontade?
(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:
(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 man until you have reached his 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.
לא תתגודדו. (יבמות יג) לא תעשו אגודות [אגודות], אלא היו כלכם אגודה אחת. וכן הוא אומר (עמוס ט): ואגודתו על ארץ יסדה.
א"ר אבא אמר שמואל שלש שנים נחלקו ב"ש וב"ה הללו אומרים הלכה כמותנו והללו אומרים הלכה כמותנו יצאה בת קול ואמרה אלו ואלו דברי אלקים חיים הן והלכה כב"ה
וכי מאחר שאלו ואלו דברי אלקים חיים מפני מה זכו ב"ה לקבוע הלכה כמותן מפני שנוחין ועלובין היו ושונין דבריהן ודברי ב"ש ולא עוד אלא שמקדימין דברי ב"ש לדבריהן
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.
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.
ויקרא אלקים לרקיע שמים. לא רצה ה' שיקרא בשם רקיע כי שם זה מורה על הפירוד והמחלוקת מלשון וירקעו פחי הזהב לרוקע הארץ. כי כל רקיע הוא מסך מבדיל בין שני דברים, ומטעם זה לא נאמר כי טוב בשני לפי שבו נברא המחלוקת, כי אין טובה כי אם במקום מציאת האחדות, ולכך נאמר בשלישי שתי פעמים כי טוב אחת למלאכת יום שלישי ואחת לגמר מלאכת המים שיש בו צד אחדות שנאמר יקוו המים אל מקום אחד ובעבור אחדות זה הזכיר כי טוב, אבל ביום ב' אשר ממנו יוצא כל שינוי והוא התחלה לכל שינוי ומחלוקת לא נאמר בו כי טוב ולא רצה ה' שיקרא בשם רקיע המורה על מסך מבדיל ובין אחים יפריד, ונקרא בשם שמים המורה על השלום כי שמים נגזר מלשון אש מים שעשו שלום ביניהם ונתחברו ונעשה מהם שמים והיינו שאמרו רז"ל (אבות ה.יז) כל מחלוקת שהיא לשם שמים כו' ר"ל מחלוקת שתכליתו השלום כהוראת שם שמים וק"ל. ולפי פשוטו לא נאמר כי טוב בשני לפי שלא היה בו בריאה חדשה כי הרקיע כבר נברא ביום ראשון וטעם לדבר לפי שיום שני התחלה לכל שינוי ופירוד על כן לא רצה הקב"ה להטביע טבע השינוי בשום נברא.
*Author: Shlomo Ephraim ben Aaron Luntschitz
נוצר/נערך בלמברג, גליציה (1598 - 1602 לספירה בקירוב)
Composed in Lemberg, Galicia (c.1598 - c.1602 CE). Torah commentary written by Rabbi Shlomo Ephraim ben Aaron Luntschitz and originally published in 1602. The name, Kli Yakar, comes from Proverbs 20:15 where it says that wise speech is a “kli yakar”, a precious object.
And God called the firmament, heaven: God did not want that it should be called with the name, firmament - [rakiya] since that name indicates division and disagreement, as per (Exodus 39:3), "And they flattened (yiraka'au) the gold [into thin plates]" - for that which was to cover the earth. Since any [rakiya] is a covering that separates between two things. And for this reason, it does not state, "that it was good" on the second day, since disagreement was created on it; since there is no good except in a place where we find unity. And therefore on the third day, "that it was good" is stated twice, once for the work of third day and once for the finishing of the water, that has an aspect of unity in it, as it is stated, "let the waters gather to one place," and because of this unity, "that it was good" is mentioned. But on the second day - from which comes out all differences, and which is the beginning of all difference and disagreement - "that it was good" was not said about it. And God did not want that [the sky] should be called firmament, which indicates a cover that separates and divides between brothers; and it was called with the name, heavens [shamayim], which indicates peace, since shamayim is composed of the words, fire [esh] and water [mayim], who made peace between between themselves and joined together, and from them was created skies. And this is what the Rabbis, of blessed memory, state (Avot 5:17), "Any disagreement that is for the sake of the heavens [shamayim], etc.;" which means to say that a disagreement whose purpose is peace, as is the teaching of the name, shamayim; and [this is] easy to understand. And according to its simple meaning, "that it was good" was not stated on the second day, since there was no new creation on it, since the firmament was already created on the first day, and the reason for [no creations happening on the second day] is because the second day is the beginning of all difference and division; hence the Holy One, blessed be He, did not want to implant a nature of difference in any creation.
(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:
A. Every debate that is for the sake of
heaven -- will endure. But if it is not for the sake of heaven -- it will not endure.
B. What is an example of an debate for the sake of heaven? The argument of Hillel and Shammai.
C. What is an example of an debate not for the sake of heaven? The debate of Korach and all of his congregation.
רב יהודה הוה שקיל ואזיל בתריה דמר שמואל בשוקא דבי דיסא א"ל מצא כאן ארנקי מהו אמר ליה הרי אלו שלו בא ישראל ונתן בה סימן מהו א"ל חייב להחזיר תרתי אמר ליה לפנים משורת הדין כי הא דאבוה דשמואל אשכח הנך חמרי במדברא ואהדרינהו למרייהו לבתר תריסר ירחי שתא לפנים משורת הדין
The Gemara relates: Rav Yehuda was once moving along behind Mar Shmuel in the market where pounded grain was being sold. Rav Yehuda said to Shmuel: If one found a wallet here in the market, what is the halakha? Shmuel said to him that the halakha is as the mishna states: These belong to him (there is no need to return this item to its owner, as he likely gave up hope on ever getting it back). Rav Yehuda asked him further: What if a Jew came and provided a distinguishing mark to describe it (and prove that it belongs to him), what is the halakha? Shmuel said to him: Then the finder is obligated to return it. Rav Yehuda asked: You have presented to me two contradictory rulings!? Shmuel said to him: By the letter of the law, it belongs to the finder. When I said the finder is obligated to return it if he learns the identity of the owner, that was beyond the letter of the law. This is similar to another incident where Shmuel’s father once found donkeys in the desert and returned them to their owner even after the passage of twelve months of the year, as he acted lifnim mishurat hadin "beyond the letter of the law."
אשר יעשון זו לפנים משורת הדין דאמר ר' יוחנן לא חרבה ירושלים אלא על שדנו בה דין תורה אלא דיני דמגיזתא לדיינו אלא אימא שהעמידו דיניהם על דין תורה ולא עבדו לפנים משורת הדין:
It was taught in the baraita: “That they must perform”; that is referring to acting beyond the letter of the law, as Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Jerusalem was destroyed due to the fact that they were determining cases on the basis of Torah law in the city. The Gemara asks: Rather, what else should they have done?! Should they rather have adjudicated cases on the basis of arbitrary decisions!? Rather, say: That they established their rulings on the basis of Torah law and did not act lifnim mishurat hadin "go beyond the letter of the law."
יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן פְּרַחְיָה וְנִתַּאי הָאַרְבֵּלִי קִבְּלוּ מֵהֶם. יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן פְּרַחְיָה אוֹמֵר, עֲשֵׂה לְךָ רַב, וּקְנֵה לְךָ חָבֵר, וֶהֱוֵי דָן אֶת כָּל הָאָדָם לְכַף זְכוּת: