In Hilchos Teshuvah (7:5), the Rambam writes that all of the prophets commanded us regarding Teshuvah; and the Jewish people will only be redeemed through Teshuvah. Various Achronim point out that the Rambam is Paskining a dispute that can be found in Sanhedrin (97b - 98a), between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua.
The context of the dispute is as follows:
There is a dispute between Rav and Shmuel as to what will compel the arrival of the final redemption.
Rav says that all the (potential) "set times" for the redemption have come and gone, now its arrival is dependant on Teshuvah and good deeds.
Shmuel responds (with a rather cryptic statement:) that it is enough for the mourner to remain in his mourning. Rashi interprets his statement to mean that there certainly is an endpoint. Regardless of whether or not the Jews do Teshuvah, they will be redeemed.
The Gemara then establishes this dispute to be a Machlokes Tanaim, between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua.
Rabbi Eliezer says that if the Jews do Teshuvah, they will be redeemed, and if they do not, then they won't be redeemed.
Rabbi Yehoshua responds, "If they don't do Teshuvah they won't be redeemed?! *Rather, Hashem will put a King in power whose decrees are as difficult as Haman's, and Yisrael will do Teshuvah and things will be good once again."
They argue back and forth quoting verses that support their respective opinions, and the Gemara concludes by writing, "And Rabbi Eliezer was quiet."
On the surface, it seems that they are arguing as to whether or not the final redemption is dependent on Teshuvah. If that is true, then the Rambam is Paskining like Rabbi Eliezer, that redemption will come only as a result of Teshuvah.
This is difficult for three reasons:
1) Rabbi Yehoshua agrees that the redemption depends on Teshuvah. However, he argues that G-d will make sure that the Jews perform Teshuvah. An evil King will come to power and force the Jews to repent.
2) The Gemara concludes that Rabbi Eliezer was silent. Usually, this means that he was Modeh - he admits that the other opinion was correct.
3) We have a principal in Paskining Halachah that whenever there is a dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua, the Halachah goes according to Rabbi Yehoshua, because Rabbi Eliezer is "Shamuti."
There are two opinions as to what "Shamuti" means. In Niddah (7b) Rashi says that it means he was excommunicated. Tosfos argues and says that it means he was from Bais Shammai. The truth is, Rashi doesn't disagree; in Shabbos (130b), Rashi quotes both opinions. At this point, you might be wondering what the difference is, and what either one has to do with the fact that we don't Paskin like him vs. Rabbi Yehoshua. Well, here is where it gets fun:
In his commentary on Pirkei Avos, the Maharal explains that the Mesorah (tradition) began to be passed down from generation to generation through one person, or one entity. It went from Moshe to Yehoshua to the Elders to the Prophets to the Great Assembly, etc. until Antigonos of Socho (about 260 BCE). Antigonos of Socho passed the tradition on to Yose ben Yoezer and Yose ben Yochanan. All of a sudden, there were two people that embodied the tradition. The Maharal asks why. What happened?
He answers that in the beginning, the complete tradition was passed down, and was embodied by one person or entity. However, there reached a point when one person was not sufficient, and the tradition split between the "right side" and the "left side." One person embodied the "right side"; meaning the Chesed (loving-kindness) side, and one embodied the "left side"; meaning the Din (strict justice) side of the tradition. This is most manifest in Hillel and Shammai.
Hillel was the person who embodied loving-kindness, while Shammai embodied strict justice. One example is the story about a certain person who bet his friend he could upset Hillel and Shammai. He went over to Shammai, and asked him a silly question. Shammai chased him out with a builder's yard (meaning that he measured everything exactly, and he didn't have time for this guy). One down; one to go. The man knocked on Hillel's door while he was in the bath, Shabbos Eve. Hillel came down repeatedly to answer silly questions, and each time answered him in a pleasant voice with no hint of aggravation. The guy lost his bet.
Their students retained these characteristics, and most of the time Bais Hillel is more lenient than Bais Shammai. It is, in part, due to this reason that we almost always Paskin like Bais Hillel when they argue with Bais Shammai. At a certain point, it was decided that the Jewish people had to live lives of the "right side" of the tradition. The Jewish people were no longer on the level to live according to strict justice. Strict justice entails a measure for measure relationship with G-d, in which there is no room for mercy. That is what Bais Shammai embodied (hint: a builders yard). It is for this reason that we Paskin like Bais Hillel, whom embody the loving-kindness side of the tradition, and all of the mercy that entails. When exactly did this decision occur?
The story begins on page 59b of Bava Metzia, where there is a famous incident between the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer, called the Tanur Shel Achnai. There was a certain oven that was problematic. It was unclear if it could make things baked in it Tamei (impure) or not. Rabbi Eliezer said that it could not make other things Tamei, and the Rabbanan said it could. That day, Rabbi Eliezer gave all the answers in the world, but the Rabbanan wouldn't accept them from him.
Rabbi Eliezer said to them, "If the Halachah is like me, this carob tree will prove it." The carob tree was uprooted from its place 150 feet; some say 600 feet.
The Rabbis responded, "We don't bring proofs from carob trees."
So Rabbi Eliezer said, "If the Halachah is like me, the stream of water will prove it." The stream of water began to flow in the opposite direction.
The Rabbis responded, "We don't bring proofs from streams of water."
Rabbi Eliezer responded, "If the Halachah is like me, the walls of the Bais HaMedresh will prove it." The walls of the Bais HaMedresh began to collapse. Rabbi Yehoshua reproached them saying, "If Torah scholars are warring with one another in Halachah, what's it your business!" The walls didn't collapse out of honor for Rabbi Yehoshua, but didn't straighten either, out of honor for Rabbi Eliezer. And they are still in that same position.
Rabbi Eliezer responded, "If the Halachah is like me, they will prove it from Heaven." A Heavenly voice emanated and said, "What do you have against Rabbi Eliezer, whom the Halachah is like in every situation?"
Rabbi Yehoshua stood on his feet and said, "It (Torah) is not in Heaven (Dev. 30:12 - this weeks Parshah!)."
The Gemara goes on to explain that Rabbi Yehoshua meant that the Torah was given to man on Sinai, and therefore we don't follow Heavenly voices anymore - since it says in the Torah that we decide the Halachah based on a majority. Since Rabbi Eliezer refused to acquiesce to the majority, the Rabbis had no choice but to excommunicate him, so that no more disputes would arise in Yisrael. Rabbi Akiva, a student of Rabbi Eliezer, volunteered to be the one to break the news to his Rebbi.
Can you hear what just happened? Rabbi Eliezer refused to acquiesce to the majority, so they excommunicated him. Why didn't he accept the majority opinion?
Rabbi Eliezer was the last to embody the "left side" of the tradition. He represented strict justice. He concluded that his position was the truth, and therefore refused to accept a vote. Strict justice demands that the truth be established. Whether or not others accept it is irrelevant. By virtue of the fact that Rabbi Eliezer embodied Din, he couldn't accept a majority vote. The concept of a majority decision is a merciful one, it is a concept embodied by the "right side" of the tradition. By definition, Rabbi Eliezer couldn't accept it! It was at this point that the Rabbis decided to excommunicate the "left side" of the tradition.
This is the explanation of the Gemara Sanhedrin (58a) when Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis go to visit Rabbi Eliezer on his death bed. Even then, they remain at a distance of 6 feet, since he was still in excommunication. Rabbi Eliezer comments that he is like a "Rolled up Sefer Torah (Rashi)." This is because he embodied an entire half of the tradition that would now die with him. Rabbi Eliezer also says some very cryptic lines that cannot be understood without this explanation. He tells the Rabbis that he would be very surprised if they die natural deaths. Then Rabbi Akiva asks about his death. His former Rebbi tells him that his death will be worse than theirs. Apparently among these Rabbis were the ten martyrs, and we all know how Rabbi Akiva was killed, when the Romans scraped off his flesh with iron combs. Why were the Rabbis deserving of such a death? Especially Rabbi Akiva! Didn't he embody Chesed?
The answer becomes very clear based on what we have said. Since the Rabbis were the ones to excommunicate the side of strict justice, it had to be that they would die a strict, divine-justice-death. Moreover, Rabbi Akiva, was the one who informed Rabbi Eliezer, his own Rebbi, of the excommunication.
What emerges is that we don't Paskin like Rabbi Eliezer: not only because he was excommunicated, but rather, he was excommunicated specifically because he was from the line of Bais Shammai.
So now, back to our original question: How can the Rambam Paskin like Rabbi Eliezer?
To answer this question, we have to figure out what exactly the dispute is between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua. The Maharsha explains that the dispute is not over whether or not the final redemption depends on Teshuvah. Rather, the dispute is over what kind of Teshuvah is necessary to achieve it. Rabbi Eliezer says that the final redemption depends on Teshuvah motivated by love, while Rabbi Yehoshua says that G-d will redeem us even if we do Teshuvah out of fear. If there is some sort of external impetus to our Teshuvah, then we have only accomplished Teshuvah of fear. If an evil King comes to power, and because of that we repent, then our Teshuvah was out of fear. However, if our Teshuvah is internal, and not invoked by any external force, then we have repented out of love. The Rambam (Teshuvah 10:2) writes that a person who serves G-d out of love is one who's service is not motivated by anything in the world. "Not because of fear of evil and not to inherit the good. Rather, he serves G-d because it is the truth."
In his essay On Repentance the Rav explained (and I saw this in Drushei HaTzlach as well) that there is a discussion in Kaballah as to why G-d accepts man's Teshuvah. Is it because of mercy, or justice?
There is a Gemara (Yuma 86b) which reads:
Raish Lakish said that if one does Teshuvah, his intentional sins become like unintentional sins. But, how could that be, when Raish Lakish also said that if one repents, his intentional sins become like Mitzvos!? It is not a contradiction, if he repented out of love, then his intentional sins become like Mitzvos. However, if he only repented out of fear, then his intentional sins only become like unintentional ones. The Rav explained that if a person does Teshuvah out of love, then G-d accepts it out of justice. You did Teshuvah in the best way possible, so it is only fair that you achieve complete forgiveness. However, if a person only does Teshuvah motivated by fear, then G-d accepts it only out of divine mercy. You do not really deserve complete forgiveness, but because G-d is merciful, he treats your intentional sins as unintentional ones.
What emerges from all this, is a fundamental dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua. Rabbi Yehoshua says that the final redemption can be a result of the loving-kindness of Hashem, Chesed (Teshuvah motivated by fear). Rabbi Eliezer argues, saying that the final redemption will only come through strict justice, Din (Teshuvah motivated by love).
We find another dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua in the Gemara Rosh Hashanah (10b-11a). Rabbi Eliezer says that in Tishrei, the world was created and the Avos both were born and died. Rabbi Yehoshua says it was in Nissan. Rabbi Eliezer says that in Nissan our ancestors were redeemed from Egypt, in Tishrei in the future, we will be redeemed. Rabbi Yehoshua says in Nissan our ancestors were redeemed from Egypt, in Nissan, in the future, we will be redeemed.
What in the world are they arguing about? Who cares what month the world was created, or the Avos were born, or the redemption will come? What's the difference?
Based on what we have said, it makes a lot of sense. Tishrei is the month of strict justice, Din. We do Teshuvah (hopefully motivated by love), and earn our forgiveness. However, Nissan is the month of Chesed. Our ancestors did not deserve to be redeemed from Egypt, they were on the lowest levels. Even after all the plagues and the splitting of the Red Sea, the angels see the Egyptians drowning and ask G-d why these idol worshippers (the Egyptians) have to drown and the other idol worshipers (the Jews) get to live! The Jews only achieved redemption out of the Chesed of Hashem.
Of course Rabbi Eliezer says that these things happened in Tishrei, because he embodies Din. He says the future redemption will occur in Tishrei because it depends on Teshuvah motivated by love. That, G-d accepts out of strict justice. Rabbi Yehoshua, on the other hand, embodies Chesed, so he says these things happened in Nissan. He says the final redemption will occur in Nissan, because it can even happen as a result of Teshuvah motivated by fear. That, G-d accepts out of loving-kindness.
If you say this, then the Rambam reads very well.
The Rambam writes, "All of the prophets commanded us regarding Teshuvah; and the Jewish people will only be redeemed through Teshuvah." Then he continues by quoting a verse from this week's Parshah, "And the Torah already promised that in the end the Jews will do Teshuvah at the end of the exile, and be immediately redeemed. As it says, 'And it will be when all of these things occur to you, etc…. And you return to the Lord your G-d…And the Lord your G-d will return to you, etc. (Devarim 30:1-3).
According to what we have said, the Rambam Paskins like Rabbi Yehoshua. It is true, that the final redemption depends on our doing Teshuvah. However, the Rambam Paskins that even if we do Teshuva motivated by fear, which is only accepted because of the Chesed of Hashem, we will still be redeemed.
Why does the Rambam Paskin this way? Because as we have seen, the world cannot live up to the demands of a strict justice lifestyle. We decided long ago that we would live our lives in accordance with the "right side" of the tradition. Therefore, when there is a dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua, we Paskin like Rabbi Yehoshua, because Rabbi Eliezer is "Shamuti," Davka. He not only was excommunicated, but was excommunicated because he was from Bais Shammai.
This seems to be the Rambam's opinion, which would then argue with Rashi's understanding of the Gemara*.
We should all merit to be Chozer BeTeshuvah MeAhavah, and have a Ksiva VeChasima Tovah.
________________________
*There is a different text in the Yerushalmi (Taanis 1:1) and in the Tanchuma (Bechokusai) that apparently is the text that Rashi had. I interpreted the Rambam based on the text in the Bavli to answer the questions raised. However, if the Rambam had the same text as the Yerushalmi, then he, in fact, Paskins like Rabbi Eliezer, and I am stuck as to why.
The text in the Yerushalmi reads:
"Rabbi Yehoshua said, 'If they don't do Teshuvah, they won't be redeemed?!' [Rabbi Eliezer responded,] 'Rather, Hashem will put a King in power whose decrees are as difficult as Haman's, and Yisrael will do Teshuvah and things will be good once again.'"
Get your own Free Home Page