Made famous by The Beatles’ song, the slogan “All you need is love” became an anthem of the Swinging Sixties. But for students of Pirkei Avot there is much more behind these words.
At Avot 3:15 R’ Elazar
HaModa’i teaches:
הַמְחַלֵּל אֶת
הַקֳּדָשִׁים, וְהַמְבַזֶּה אֶת הַמּוֹעֲדוֹת, וְהַמַּלְבִּין פְּנֵי חֲבֵרוֹ
בָּרַבִּים, וְהַמֵּפֵר בְּרִיתוֹ שֶׁל אַבְרָהָם אָבִֽינוּ, וְהַמְגַלֶּה פָנִים
בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁלֹּא כַהֲלָכָה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּיָדוֹ תּוֹרָה
וּמַעֲשִׂים טוֹבִים, אֵין לוֹ חֵֽלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא
[Translation] Anyone who (i) profanes the holy things, (ii) degrades the
Festivals, (iii) humiliates his friend in public, (iv) abrogates the covenant
of our father Abraham (i.e., circumcision), or (v) who interprets the Torah otherwise
than in accordance with halachah---even though that person may possess
Torah knowledge and good deeds, that person has no share in the World to Come.
There are many good reasons for separately justifying or explaining each of these five things, as commentators over the ages have tended to do. But is a detailed explanation of each of them required? Maharal Shik cuts to the chase and favours a general approach. It is accepted that, if you fall foul of any of these things you are crossing a significant boundary. In crossing these boundaries you are demonstrating the wrong attitude. On this basis a person can forfeit his share in the World to Come—even if he ticks the boxes, as it were, by going through the motions of performing all the (other) mitzvot in the Torah—if he has no love of the mitzvot and is unable to summon up a positive attitude towards them. This shows the importance of cultivating the right attitude to how we serve God.
The explanation of the
Maharam Shik is apparently at odds with the message of R’ Chaim Volozhiner in
his Nefesh HaChaim. There R’ Chaim emphasises the importance of actually
performing a mitzvah even with no positive intention or thoughts at all,
rather than having all the best intentions and attitudes but not performing
them as required. The question before us is this: can these approaches be
reconciled? Suggestions, anyone?
For comments and discussion of this post on Facebook, click here.