New... New... New

Something new for each blog:

Investigation of the three-letter Hebrew “root” of a random word found in the subject matter that we will be discussing. For an example; this week we will begin with the 1-14 ‘item’ from Pirkei Avot, in which Hillel makes a well known comment; He used to say: If I am not for myself… (as we discuss below).

יד הוה אומר– אם אין אני לי, מי לי?

Let’s look at the Etymological Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew (Matityahu Clark):

אומר

The three-letter root is: אמר

“Saying; speech; utterance”

Some of the meanings that we find in the Tanach are:

Speaking…

Informing [Lv 21:1] ויאמר די אל משה אמור

Assimilating speech...

Thinking...

Causing speech...

Arouse/Oppose/Exchange

Sayings...

Tradition…

Command…

dv (derivational ):

Arouse/Oppose/Exchange

cm (cognate): [interesting]

Bring together/ Collect/Heap

So the word Omer carries many shades of saying or telling and perhaps it is best related to “informing” in this context. But we find it interesting that the word will shortly be used as in; Counting the Omer. Certainly we are not counting the speech or promise and so we look to the cognate meaning of “heap”, for the Omer that we count is usually referred to as being a “measure” of our offering(s). In Biblical time we can probably safely assume that everyone did not have access to accurate weights and measures, but certainly everyone could make a “heap”. The three-letter root of words give us great insight into some of the shades of meaning that we encounter in Torah study.

He used to say: If I am not for myself, who will be for me? And if I am for myself, what am I? And if not now, when?

Hillel continues his theme of humility. His is the opinion that we should not consider ourselves adequately accomplished in spiritual growth or as Torah Scholars. If we do not push ourselves and make an effort to improve ourselves in understanding Torah and in performing the mitzvot we will not grow. Study, study, study; only study will make a miracle. That is an ancient Japanese saying. [Did any of the “Lost Tribes” make their way to Japan?] If your father, grandfather, and his father learned Torah - that does not mean anything about our growth in Torah scholarship. We do not inherit it. We do not learn through osmosis or sleeping with our head on the Bible.

Hillel meant, when he asked [...if I am for myself, what am I?], “Even if I fulfill my obligation to perform mitzvot, I am only human and I cannot put in the amount of effort that the soul requires!” Or; we can only grow a little at a time and we never reach a plateau that is “good enough” for eternity.

And if not now, when?

Life is short.

If we do not act now… when?

Or: if we don’t wake up and smell the coffee…

you know the rest.

There is no one lest that can achieve our spiritual

goals for us.

Even our best efforts (at doing the mitzvot) will certainly

fall short of our goal. Our needs to improve our soul.

Ars longa,

vita brevis,

occasio praeceps,

experimentum periculosum,

iudicium difficile.

[The] art is long,

life is short,

opportunity fleeting,

experiment dangerous,

judgment difficult.

Art [is] long,

vitality [is] brief,

occasion precipitous,

experiment perilous,

judgment difficult.

Shammai says: Make your Torah study a fixed practice;

say little and do much; and receive everyone with a

cheerful face.

Hillel and Shammai are frequently of differing opinions.

That is not to say that one is right and the other wrong.

Generally speaking we ‘follow’ the teachings of Hillel.

That, again, is not to say that Shammai and his teaching

was ‘wrong’. The had different life experiences - as do

we - and had differing philosophies on life.

Nu? Let’s consider Shammai and what he says here:

Shammai tells us to guard agains transgression and warns us not to compromise the core issues surrounding Torah study [and Hellel agrees with this - see they do not always have a dispute]. They do, however, disagree on how rigid the practice of Torah should be - is there, or is there not - room for differing practices? One opinion of Shammai’s dictum is that you need to have a strict (or lenient) code which applies to both yourself and to others. Or: do not be lenient yourself and demand that others be strict. Or vice versa. Even so, we find Hillel strict with himself and lenient with others.

...say little and do much…

Shammai warns us agains committing to do too much and then transgress your own word. Hillel agrees. In the context of Torah study “say little” means that you should say only the law -- as you intend to practice it! That is opposite of: saying much and doing little. Shammai is saying that our actions and our words should not differ so - just as Torah is not subject to change, so Torah study should not accommodate variations.

Is that the same as saying that Torah does not change; it is ourselves,

with our needs and desires and understanding and life experiences, that change?

This is, indeed, a point of disagreement between Shammai and Hillel. How do we understand it? How do we come to grips with it? Is it a matter of liberal vs traditional backgrounds - in the Jewish understanding of these terms (not the political usage)? Do we think that the Orthodox follow the school of Shammai and the Reform the school of Hillel? Or is that “profiling”?

...and receive everyone with a cheerful face.

Here we find Shamai’s advice stemming form the ‘fear of G-d’ where it avoids slighting people, and that complements Hillel’s opinion that we need to energetically pursue harmony. Hillel maintains that we do not need to follow this dictum in that the other person should not care if he does not receive a cordial greeting, because he should not be particular whether people’s conduct conforms to his personal preferences. Therefore is is not necessary to ‘receive everyone with a cheerful face’. And while Shammai does agree that the other person should not care… he maintains that the one doing the greeting must be particular to greet each individual in a pleasant manner because that is an absolute standard of conduct (and the recipient’s attitude is irrelevant to our conduct).

Heady stuff and it offers much to think about, consider, and discuss. Is there black are white? Are there differing shades of grey? Is there a Whiter shade of Pale? Beyond the Pale?

Shalom.

For the:

Shabbos Torah Study Group