Today we are going to look Tisha B'Av through the lens of the current turmoil in Israel. We will hear through ancient texts and writings of the Zionist founders the echo of history and the cautionary cry of those worried about this very moment.
Consider this passage from Second Baruch, likely composed around 100 CE in Judea, in which a character known as Baruch ascends the Temple Mount and laments the destruction of the Second Temple. He looks upon the ruins of Jerusalem and describes what it is like to live in a world without Israel. Place yourself in his sandals, imagine that what he sees is not ancient ruins but the destruction of the Israel you have visited and walked with your own feet.
You, farmers, do not sow again.
And you, earth, why do you give the fruits of your produce?
Hold the sweetness of your sustenance within you.
And you, vine, why do you continue to give your wine?
An offering will no longer be made from it in Zion,
nor will first fruits again be offered.
And you, heaven, hold your dew,
and do not open the reservoirs of rain.
And you, sun, hold the light of your rays,
and you, moon, extinguish the abundance of your light,
for why should light rise again
where the light of Zion is darkened?
And you, bridegrooms, do not enter,
and do not let the virgins adorn themselves with crowns.
And you, women, do not pray that you may bear,
because the barren will rejoice more.
Those who have no children will be glad,
while those who have children will be grieved.
three of many rabbinic explanations
#1 Wanton Hatred / Sinat Hinom
However, considering that the people during the Second Temple period were engaged in Torah study, observance of mitzvot, and acts of kindness, and that they did not perform the sinful acts that were performed in the First Temple, why was the Second Temple destroyed? It was destroyed due to the fact that there was wanton hatred during that period. This comes to teach you that the sin of wanton hatred is equivalent to the three severe transgressions: Idol worship, forbidden sexual relations and bloodshed.
Another approach to our verse is based on the unusual structure of the verse. It should have read: "לא תשנא בלבבך את אחיך, the word "in your heart" which we consider central should not have been written at the end. The source of the hatred, the heart, should have been mentioned before the object of the hatred, a fellow Jew. If the Torah reversed this order there must be a reason for this. I believe that the message is that a person should not think that the Torah only forbids the kind of hatred which is the forerunner of acts of revenge or violence but does not forbid harbouring ill feelings towards someone in one's heart. By mentioning the object of one's hatred immediately next to the prohibition to hate, the Torah made it clear that even the kind of hatred which is not related to acts of retaliation is forbidden. As soon as a person distances himself mentally and emotionally from his fellow Jew he begins to violate the prohibition of hatred as defined by the Torah in this verse.
If we were destroyed, and the world with us, due to baseless hatred, then we shall rebuild ourselves, and the world with us, with baseless love — ahavat chinam.
- What do you think it means "not to go beyond the strict requirements of the law"?
- What is problematic about basing judgments strictly on the letter of the law?
- Is this an attribute that can be applied to people as well as courts?
- What are the positive and negative contributions of such people to the society (or family or organization)?
What’s striking about this tale is that it apportions blames to the people recounting it, namely, the rabbis who did not intervene at the party. The host of the affair, the ostensible culprit, is never even named. While the Talmudic sages could easily have pinned the entire episode on him, they chose instead to share the blame themselves.
National tragedy, in the traditional understanding, is not an opportunity to assert our own sense of superiority, but to foster a spirit of self-critique. As the Mussaf prayer every Rosh Chodesh reminds us, “because of our sins, we were exiled from our land.”
On Tisha B’Av, of all days, we are not meant to point to flaws outside ourselves, however apparent they may be, but rather to examine those within. After all, we can never truly know the minds and motivations of others. The only baseless hatred we can diagnose is our own.
Yair Rosenberg, Other People’s Sin’at Chinam, Tablet Magazine, July 2013
“Some are guilty, but all are responsible.”
Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, January 14, 1963
ליקוטי מוהר"ן תורה ס"ד
וְדַע, כִּי מַחֲלקֶת הִיא בְּחִינוֹת בְּרִיאַת הָעוֹלָם כִּי עִקַּר בְּרִיאַת הָעוֹלָם, עַל יְדֵי חָלָל הַפָּנוּי כַּנַּ"ל כִּי בְּלא זֶה הָיָה הַכּל אֵין סוֹף, וְלא הָיָה מָקוֹם לִבְרִיאַת הָעוֹלָם כַּנַּ"ל וְעַל כֵּן צִמְצֵם הָאוֹר לִצְדָדִין, וְנַעֲשָׂה חָלָל הַפָּנוּי וּבְתוֹכוֹ בָּרָא אֶת כָּל הַבְּרִיאָה, הַיְנוּ הַיָּמִים וְהַמִּדּוֹת, עַל יְדֵי הַדִּבּוּר כַּנַּ"ל "בִּדְבַר ה' שָׁמַיִם נַעֲשׂוּ" וְכוּ'. וְכֵן הוּא בְּחִינַת הַמַּחֲלוֹקוֹת כִּי אִלּוּ הָיוּ כָּל הַתַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים אֶחָד לא הָיָה מָקוֹם לִבְרִיאַת הָעוֹלָם רַק עַל יְדֵי הַמַּחֲלקֶת שֶׁבֵּינֵיהֶם, וְהֵם נֶחֱלָקִים זֶה מִזֶּה וְכָל אֶחָד מוֹשֵׁך עַצְמוֹ לְצַד אַחֵר עַל יְדֵי זֶה נַעֲשֶׂה בֵּינֵיהֶם בְּחִינוֹת חָלָל הַפָּנוּי שֶׁהוּא בְּחִינוֹת צִמְצוּם הָאוֹר לִצְדָדִין, שֶׁבּוֹ הוּא בְּרִיאַת הָעוֹלָם עַל יְדֵי הַדִּבּוּר כַּנַּ"ל כִּי כָּל הַדְּבָרִים שֶׁכָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶם מְדַבֵּר הַכּל הֵם רַק בִּשְׁבִיל בְּרִיאַת הָעוֹלָם שֶׁנַּעֲשֶׂה עַל יָדָם בְּתוֹך הֶחָלָל הַפָּנוּי שֶׁבֵּינֵיהֶם כִּי הַתַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים בּוֹרְאִים אֶת הַכּל עַל יְדֵי דִּבְרֵיהֶם "וְלֵאמר לְצִיּוֹן עַמִּי אַתָּה" 'אַל תִּקְרֵי עַמִּי אֶלָּא עִמִּי, מָה אֲנָא עֲבַדִי שְׁמַיָּא וְאַרְעָא בְּמִלּוּלִי אַף אַתֶּם כֵּן' .
MACHLOKET L'SHEM SHAMAYIM
Disagreements for the sake of bettering society/the world is good
Likutei Moharan I:64
Know this: that disagreement [machloket] is analogous to the creation of the world, which consisted of creating an empty space, as we have shown. For were it not so, everything would be infinitely divine [ein sof], and there would be no space left for the world. Therefore, He contracted the light to the sides, and an empty space was left in which the world could be created, with all its time and spatial dimensions, all done by the act of speech - as it is written: “By the word of God were the heavens made, etc.” [Psalms 33]. So too is the case with disagreement, for if all the scholars were united, there would be no creation of the world. It is only when there is disagreement between them, and they divide and each draws to one side, a space is created between them which is analogous to the empty space and the contraction of the lights, by the which the world itself was created by the act of speech, as we have shown. And all the arguments they each use are only in order to allow the world to be created by them [...] just as [God] created the heaven and the earth with words, so too can [scholars]!
And Abraham rebuked Avimelech: R. Yosi ben R. Hanina said: Rebuke leads to love, as it says, rebuke a wise man and he will love you. Such indeed is R. Yosi ben Hanina’s view, for he said: Love unaccompanied by rebuke is not love. Resh Lakish said: Rebuke leads to peace; hence, ‘And Abrahman reproved Avimelech’. Such is his view, for he said: Peace unaccompanied by rebuke is not peace.
RESOLVING DISPUTES
How do we stop this from happening?
וַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֲלֵיהֶם֙ מֹשֶׁ֔ה אִֽם־תַּעֲשׂ֖וּן אֶת־הַדָּבָ֣ר הַזֶּ֑ה אִם־תֵּחָ֥לְצ֛וּ לִפְנֵ֥י יְהֹוָ֖ה לַמִּלְחָמָֽה׃ וְעָבַ֨ר לָכֶ֧ם כׇּל־חָל֛וּץ אֶת־הַיַּרְדֵּ֖ן לִפְנֵ֣י יְהֹוָ֑ה עַ֧ד הוֹרִישׁ֛וֹ אֶת־אֹיְבָ֖יו מִפָּנָֽיו׃ וְנִכְבְּשָׁ֨ה הָאָ֜רֶץ לִפְנֵ֤י יְהֹוָה֙ וְאַחַ֣ר תָּשֻׁ֔בוּ וִהְיִיתֶ֧ם נְקִיִּ֛ם מֵיְהֹוָ֖ה וּמִיִּשְׂרָאֵ֑ל וְ֠הָיְתָ֠ה הָאָ֨רֶץ הַזֹּ֥את לָכֶ֛ם לַאֲחֻזָּ֖ה לִפְנֵ֥י יְהֹוָֽה׃ וְאִם־לֹ֤א תַעֲשׂוּן֙ כֵּ֔ן הִנֵּ֥ה חֲטָאתֶ֖ם לַיהֹוָ֑ה וּדְעוּ֙ חַטַּאתְכֶ֔ם אֲשֶׁ֥ר תִּמְצָ֖א אֶתְכֶֽם׃
The Reubenites and the Gadites owned cattle in very great numbers. Noting that the lands of Jazer and Gilead were a region suitable for cattle, the Gadite and Reubenite [leaders] came to Moses, Eleazar the priest, and the chieftains of the community, and said, “Ataroth, Dibon, Jazer, Nimrah, Heshbon, Elealeh, Sebam, Nebo, and Beon— the land that יהוה has conquered for the community of Israel—is cattle country, and your servants have cattle. It would be a favor to us,” they continued, “if this land were given to your servants as a holding; do not move us across the Jordan.” Moses replied to the Gadites and the Reubenites, “Are your brothers to go to war while you stay here? Why will you turn the minds of the Israelites from crossing into the land that יהוה has given them? That is what your fathers did when I sent them from Kadesh-barnea to survey the land. After going up to the wadi Eshcol and surveying the land, they turned the minds of the Israelites from invading the land that יהוה had given them. Thereupon יהוה was incensed and swore, ‘None of the men from twenty years up who came out of Egypt shall see the land that I promised on oath to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, for they did not remain loyal to Me— none except Caleb son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite and Joshua son of Nun, for they remained loyal to יהוה.’ יהוה, incensed at Israel, made them wander in the wilderness for forty years, until the whole generation that had provoked יהוה’s displeasure was gone. And now you, a breed of sinful fellows, have replaced your fathers, to add still further to יהוה’s wrath against Israel. If you turn away from [God], who then abandons them once more in the wilderness, you will bring calamity upon all this people.” Then they stepped up to him and said, “We will build here sheepfolds for our flocks and towns for our children. And we will hasten as shock-troops in the van of the Israelites until we have established them in their home, while our children stay in the fortified towns because of the inhabitants of the land. We will not return to our homes until the Israelites—every one of them—are in possession of their portion. But we will not have a share with them in the territory beyond the Jordan, for we have received our share on the east side of the Jordan.” Moses said to them, “If you do this, if you go to battle as shock-troops, at the instance of יהוה, and every shock-fighter among you crosses the Jordan, at the instance of יהוה, until [God] has personally dispossessed the enemies, and the land has been subdued, at the instance of יהוה, and then you return—you shall be clear before יהוה and before Israel; and this land shall be your holding under יהוה. But if you do not do so, you will have sinned against יהוה; and know that your sin will overtake you.
The negotiation between Moses and the two tribes in our Parshah follows closely the principles arrived at by the Harvard Negotiation Project, set out by Roger Fisher and William Ury in their classic text, Getting to Yes. Essentially, they came to the conclusion that a successful negotiation must involve four processes:
- Separate the people from the problem. There are all sorts of personal tensions in any negotiation. It is essential that these be cleared away first, so that the problem can be addressed objectively.
- Focus on interests, not positions. It is easy for any conflict to turn into a zero-sum game: if I win, you lose. If you win, I lose. That is what happens when you focus on positions and the question becomes, “Who wins?” By focusing not on positions but on interests, the question becomes, “Is there a way of achieving what each of us wants?”
- Invent options for mutual gain. This is the idea expressed halakhically as zeh neheneh ve-zeh neheneh, “both sides benefit.” This comes about because the two sides usually have different objectives, neither of which excludes the other.
- Insist on objective criteria. Make sure that both sides agree in advance to the use of objective, impartial criteria to judge whether what has been agreed has been achieved. Otherwise, despite all apparent agreement, the dispute will continue, both sides insisting that the other has not done what was promised.
Nathaniel Branden
BEN-GURION'S GREATEST FEAR
In a letter to one of the founding fathers of the Zionist agricultural settlements in Palestine, Menahem Ussishkin, written on November 11, 1936, Ben-Gurion quoted a British friend who maintained that the Jewish people had shown prophetic capabilities but lacked those needed to maintain a state.
Ben-Gurion painfully accepted this critical historical comment, and then moved on to discuss the historical failure of ancient Judea to preserve its independence. He ascribed this turn of events to a lack of unity, to the failure to identify the approaching signs of danger, and to effectively organize to face them.
Finally, and most critically, he pointed to the absence of political skill and statesmanship that could have prevented the catastrophe - the destruction of the Second Temple and the independent Jewish state.
Ben-Gurion writes in this letter:
During the time of the First Temple we did not conquer the entire country, and we maintained our independence only for a few years because we were always divided and quarreled among our selves, and the nations around "ate us with every mouth." First Israel fell, and then came the turn of Judea, and only a few returned until Ezra and Nehemiah; and even then, we returned only to a small portion of the country and were not independent except for a brief period at the end of the Hasmonean era. Internal strife broke out immediately and the weaker party invited Rome, which has tened to our aid, took over the country and destroyed us all.
When the sword of destruction hung over Jerusalem - the Zealots slaughtered one another and Jerusalem turned into shambles. The legions of Rome would not have destroyed the country if the Jews had not prepared the ground for it. At the time of the gravest danger in our history - before the destruction of the Second Temple - the Jews did not know how to unite, did not identify the external dangers, and did not find in themselves the political talent to prevent the catastrophe, which would have been averted if such a talent had been found in the Jewish people at that time.
Even the few sages who could see into the future - or the one and very special among them - understood the importance of saving "Yavneh and its sages." "Yavneh and its sages" are important, but they do not constitute a Jewish state; and did we come over here, the people of Bilu, the members of the Second Aliyah and the New Aliyah - to build in this country "Yavneh and its sages?" And under the auspices of the Mufti?!
We want to build a state, and we shall not be able to do so without political thought, political talent and political prudence. High-flown phrases, vision and emotion alone are not sufficient to build a state; they may be sufficient for "Netsah Yisrael" or existence in the diaspora, for maintaining a yeshiva, a university and a rabbinical court - but not for the construction of a state.
No external danger, even the worst one, has frightened me, but I am horrified by the internal danger - the danger of political blindness, the light-heartedness with which we relate to dangers that threaten us; the naivete with which we attempt to solve complicated questions,...the lack of talent to understand each other and appreciate each other's difficulties; and lack of talent to act as one entity in which a single member bends his will to that of the majority.
We always behaved this way in difficult crises in our history. We did not disappear from the face of the earth as other nations did, but we failed to remain independent in our homeland we failed to save our state. This time our task is not to maintain a state but to build it; this constitutes a much more difficult political skill, and I do not see that we know it....
In the conflict of orientation symbolized by two historic Jewish leaders, Raban Yochanan Ben Zakai, who gave up hope in the great rebellion against the Romans in 70 AD, left the walls of besieged Jerusalem and established a religious center in Yavneh, and Bar Kochba, who led the second, futile, Jewish rebellion against the Roman Empire 62 years after the great rebellion, Ben-Gurion's heart was with a third leader, Rabbi Akiba, whom he described as "the greatest Jew after the destruction of the Temple/'
Raban Ben Zakai personified in Ben-Gurion's eyes the exclusive commitment to the spiritual element in Judaism; Bar Kochba personified the commitment to independence even against impossible odds; and Rabbi Akiba - the effort to reconcile between the two commitments. Rabbi Akiba actively supported Bar Kochba's rebellion, but still provided a desirable synthesis between the state-temporal and the religious-spiritual elements in Judaism.
----
The letter was written on the day of arrival of the British Royal Commission to Palestine. Ben-Gurion argued in it that the Zionist movement did not do enough to maintain the friendship of Great Britain. Ben-Gurion Archives, Sde-Boker.
4. David Ben-Gurion, Netsah Yisrael (The Eternity of Israel) (Tel Aviv:
Ayanot, 1956), p. 126.
See:
BEN-GURION'S CONCEPT OF "MAMLAHTIUT" AND THE FORMING REALITY OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL
Nathan Yanai, Jewish Political Studies Review, Vol. 1, No. 1/2 (Spring 1989), pp. 151-177 (27 pages), Published By: Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs