AARON AND THE PURSUIT OF PEACE

Throughout Jewish traditional and literature, the name of Moses’ big brother Aaron is synonymous with peace. A man of peace, he pursues the objective of establishing peace and is even prepared to sacrifice the absolute value of truth in order to achieve it. No wonder, then, that at Avot 1:12 we learn this from Hillel:

הֱוֵי מִתַּלְמִידָיו שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן, אוֹהֵב שָׁלוֹם וְרוֹדֵף שָׁלוֹם, אוֹהֵב אֶת הַבְּרִיּוֹת, וּמְקָרְבָן לַתּוֹרָה

Be among the disciples of Aaron—love peace, pursue peace, one love people and draw them close to Torah.

Our tradition paints a picture of Aaron’s peace-making capabilities that is too positive by far. It describes ways in which Aaron would achieve peace between, for example, former friends who had fallen out with one another. But in the big scheme of things we see a different side of things. There is no suggestion that he might have been able to make peace between Moses and Dathan and Aviram, Korach or any of the many unnamed complainers who accused Moses of incompetence and mismanagement in his leadership role—and he does not appear to have exercised his talents in drawing Moses closer to Pharaoh.

In the mismatch between the praise and the person I am reminded of my childhood love for Superman. This super-hero could do literally everything; he was invincible, invulnerable to everything but kryptonite—and he was honorable, fighting for justice and supporting the weak and the oppressed against the forces of evil. The comics of my childhood were also filled with war stories, which I read avidly. It was a surprisingly long time before I was awake to the obvious question: if Superman was so great and so strong in all respects, what was he doing between 1939 and 1945? Why was he not fighting the Nazis or the Japanese? Was he exempted from conscription? He didn’t sound like a coward or a conscientious objector.  Eventually I came to accept the reality that, while, the battles and the atrocities of the Second World War were real, Superman was not.

Aaron, I am happy to accept, was real—and I would not challenge his credentials as a man of peace, an epithet that would seem to befit him as well, if not better, as any other hero or heroine from the Tanach. But in his real world, like Superman’s fictional one, peace was something that could be achieved by a peace-making individual only on a micro-level, where one addresses anger and hostility between specific individuals. That is no mean achievement, but one cannot help craving more. If Aaron were alive today, would we have any expectation that—other than through prayer—he had a strategy for establishing peace between Israel and Hamas or (and sadly this might be even harder) between the various factions in the current Israeli government?

Returning to our mishnah, Rabbi Norman Lamm (quoted by Rabbi Mark Dratch in Foundations of Faith) has something provocative to say about Hillel’s teaching. Noting that we should emulate Aaron by both loving and pursuing peace, R’ Lamm raises a question asked and and answered by an unnamed Chasidic master:

“Why both ‘love’ and ‘pursue’? Because…both are necessary. When peace is at one with truth, not in conflict with justice, then you, like Aaron, mut be an ohev shalom, a lover of peace’ but if peace conflicts with truth and detracts from justice, then you must be a rodef shalom, a pursuer of peace, ‘pursuing’ not in the sense of trying to achieve it, but ‘pursuing’ in the sense of driving such peace from before you … [S]ometimes love it, sometimes chase it away”.

Although I cannot recall any instance of Aaron actively chasing peace away, I welcome this approach since it attempts to combine the adoption with a morally justifiable position with a practical means of resolving the imbalance between truth, peace, and justice. That truth, justice and peace should be balanced is itself axiomatic: the axiom is contained in the same chapter of Avot, only a little way on from the teaching of Hillel, where we find his distinguished descendant Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel teaching (at Avot 1:18):

עַל שְׁלֹשָׁה דְבָרִים הָעוֹלָם קַיָּם: עַל הַדִּין, וְעַל הָאֱמֶת, וְעַל הַשָּׁלוֹם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: אֱמֶת וּמִשְׁפַּט שָׁלוֹם שִׁפְטוּ בְּשַׁעֲרֵיכֶם

On three things is the world sustained: justice, truth and peace. As it states: "Truth, and a judgement of peace, you should administer at your [city] gates.''

That seems to say it all.

For comments and discussion of this post on Facebook, click here.

In pursuit of inner peace

When I saw the title of Rebbetzin Shira Smiles’ article in Torah Tidbits 1571 (Parashat Chukkat)—“Cheerful Countenance”—I immediately assumed that she was writing about the teaching of Shammai, who urges us at Avot 1:15 to greet everyone with a cheerful countenance.  I was however quite wrong. The subject of her essay was a teaching by Shammai’s colleague and contemporary, Hillel.

At Avot 1:12 Hillel exhorts us to be talmidim, disciples of the peace-loving Aaron, in our actions as well as our attitude:

הֱוֵי מִתַּלְמִידָיו שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן, אוֹהֵב שָׁלוֹם וְרוֹדֵף שָׁלוֹם, אוֹהֵב אֶת הַבְּרִיּוֹת, וּמְקָרְבָן לַתּוֹרָה

Be among the disciples of Aaron—love peace and pursue peace, love people and draw them close to the Torah.

Unlike many people who write on Aaron’s peace-making proclivities, Rebbetzin Smiles does not recite the well-known stories of his shuttle diplomacy between hostile parties in order to encourage them to make peace. She does however allude to it in the course of her bringing an unusual explanation of Hillel’s teaching by Rabbi Tzvi Meyer Zilberberg. She writes:

“One does [not] have to seek out arguments to make peace. Rather, one should love peace and aspire to develop it within himself. One should do his best to avoid conflict with others and look for the goodness in people around him. To be happy for others and not to be jealous of others’ successes. When we develop feelings of love and peace within ourselves it will radiate peace and goodness to others as well”.

The sentiments expressed here cannot be faulted. Avoidance of conflict with others is inherent within at least two mishnayot of Avot that press us to cultivate humility (4:4, 4:12) and another that emphasises the value of self-control (4:1). Likewise, we learn that it is good to share the happiness of others (the Torah specifically points to Aaron as demonstrating this quality) and not to be jealous of them (4:28).  Developing feelings of love and peace within ourselves is also an important part of our personal growth: this is founded on rejoicing at our lot (4:1, 6:6). Nonetheless I have some reservations about this paragraph and whether it represents Hillel’s intentions.

The classical commentators (including Avot deRabbi Natan, Rambam, Bartenura, Me’iri, Rashi, R’ Chaim Volozhiner) send the student straight to Aaron’s role as an intermediary between disputants. Indeed, Rabbenu Yonah adds that it is not enough to love peace in one’s heart: there has to be action too.

Some modern writers do however connect Hillel’s teaching to the quest for inner peace. Thus R’ Abraham J. Twerski (Visions of the Fathers) contrasts the pursuit of inner peace through fulfilling one’s mission in life with the illusory and transitory inner peace that can be achieved through drug abuse and the quest for money. For R’ Reuven P.Bulka (Chapters of the Sages) the pursuit of physical real-world peace is only a preliminary to a greater ideal: Hillel’s mishnah is depicting a progression from peace merely as a societal norm to a fundamentally more meaningful peace based on “a love of humankind and a concern for its development” in order to give life direction and purpose.  I’m sure that Hillel would have little objection to this fine sentiment, but wonder whether he would have recognised his teaching within R’ Bulka’s words.

Ultimately, nothing can alter the fact that, on a simple reading of Hillel’s teaching, his words do not appear to focus on our inner growth, particularly since they finish with an encouragement to draw other people to the Torah. If Hillel had been addressing the need to acquire inner tranquillity and then radiate it out so that it can be felt by others, he could surely have found a clearer way to express himself. Among modern commentators R’ Yaakov Hillel (Eternal Ethics from Sinai) writes of the importance of attracting others to the Torah through demonstrating humility and contentment with one’s lot—but he does so in the context of a description of Hillel’s qualities rather than as an explanation of his teaching in this mishnah.  

I also have trouble with the statement: “When we develop feelings of love and peace within ourselves it will radiate peace and goodness to others as well”. As an ideal, it is wonderful. However, I respectfully doubt that it is an efficacious means of pursuing peace in empirical terms. However much love and peace I feel within myself and radiate to the best of my ability, it has never once created peace between my quarrelling grandchildren and is certainly less effective than distracting them with a promise of an ice cream. And, outside of family life, I can say much the same about my experiences of dispute resolution in a more adult context.

Ultimately, I believe that Hillel was focusing on real-life disputes that demanded a peaceful solution for the sake of the peace of mind of the disputants, not on the inner growth of the peace-seeker—but I’m prepared to be persuaded that I’m wrong.

For comments and discussion of this post on Facebook, click here.

Judging others favourably: a double-edged sword

 An Avot mishnah for Shabbat: perek 1 (parashat Acharei Mot)

It’s a longstanding tradition to learn one perek of Avot in the afternoon of each Shabbat between Pesach and Shavuot. Possibly because of the popularity of Avot, most communities that observe this custom have extended it from Shavuot to Rosh Hashanah—not just the beginning of the new year but the end of the long summer days in which our sages perceived an increased risk of sin which the study of Avot might reduce.

In recognition of this tradition, Avot Today will try to post a short thought on Avot each Friday, for use on Shabbat as a point to ponder or as a table-top discussion topic.

We start this morning with Perek 1.

Hillel teaches (Avot 1:12):

הֱוֵי מִתַּלְמִידָיו שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן, אוֹהֵב שָׁלוֹם וְרוֹדֵף שָׁלוֹם, אוֹהֵב אֶת הַבְּרִיּוֹת, וּמְקָרְבָן לַתּוֹרָה

Be a disciple of Aaron—love peace, pursue peace, love people and draw them close to the Torah.

Aaron was a holy man, the first Kohen Gadol (High Priest) and, according to midrash, knowledgeable in Jewish law. Yet the way we are taught to emulate him has nothing to do with his holiness or his scholarship: it’s to do with the way we feel about other people and behave towards them. In particular, Aaron would act as a go-between in trying to resolve disputes between his fellow Jews.

R’ Yisroel Miller (The Wisdom of Avos) brings the following story to illustrate how not to do it:

“A Jewish woman who was not mitzvah-observant was befriended by a kiruv-oriented couple who regularly invited her for Shabbos meals. She became close to them and greatly valued their friendship. One day she told them that, after thinking it over, she decided that Orthodoxy was not for her. The Shabbos invitations ceased, the couple drew away from her, and she told me that she felt cheated. The ‘friendship’ was like that of a used-car salesman pushing a product—nothing more”.

R' Miller rightly observes that we should not befriend someone in order to sell them Yiddishkeit. We should befriend them because we are students of Aaron, on the basis of our sincerity.

But Pirkei Avot has another side to it. At Avot 1:6 Yehoshua ben Perachyah teaches us to judge other people favourably where that is possible. Have we done so? We have heard only one side of the story and have not looked at it from the other side. What if the couple understood the woman’s statement as a brush-off? What if they had children who were upset at what she said? What if the couple felt that their hospitality was being cynically exploited? Maybe what was needed here was an ‘Aaron’ to go between them and heal the fractured friendship if that was a possible option.

This miniature case-study illustrates both the complexities of human relationships and the subtle interplay of guidelines by which we are taught to conduct them.

If you enjoyed this post or found it useful, please feel welcome to share it with others. Thank you.

 Comments and discussions of this post are on its Facebook page here.