English translation — וירא א

Talk 1<pg>61</pg>

A.

It is stated in the Gemara<sup>1</sup>

: Three signs are in this nation: the merciful, and the bashful,<sup>2</sup>

and the doers of kindness,

merciful, as it is written<sup>3</sup>

And He will give you mercy and have mercy on you and multiply you,

bashful, as it is written<sup>4</sup>

So that His fear will be upon your faces

[as they said<sup>5</sup>

in Nedarim<sup>6</sup>

So that His fear will be upon your faces etc. — this is shame, etc.,

for the fear that is recognizable in the face is shame"],

doers of kindness, as it is written<sup>7</sup>

In order that he will command his children and his household etc.,

Whoever has these three signs is fit to cleave to this nation<sup>8</sup>.

And so it is ruled as halacha in the Rambam regarding families of fitness

(as below section 2).

And behold, this teaching is also brought in the Yerushalmi⁹,

but there

(and in several midrashim¹⁰)

the sign of "doers of kindness" is not learned from the verse

(regarding Avraham)

"for the sake that he will command his children and his household etc.",

but from what is said¹¹

"and Hashem your G-d will keep for you the covenant and the kindness"¹².

And it can be said,

that this difference is connected with another distinction between the teaching of the Bavli and the teaching of the Yerushalmi: in the Bavli it is said "three signs there are in this nation",

but in the Yerushalmi

(and likewise in several of the aforementioned midrashim¹³)

the wording is "three good gifts the Holy One, blessed be He, gave to Israel":

To the Babylonian,

the main emphasis is that these attributes are "signs" of the essential character of the members of "this nation",

and therefore he brings a proof from what is said about Abraham

("in order that he may command etc."),

that Abraham

(from his own side)

was a bestower of kindness and also commanded his household after him¹⁴,

from which it is proven that Abraham was a kind person from the very essence of his soul's nature¹⁵,

and consequently,

that kindness is a sign of the essential nature of the soul of the members of this nation¹⁶

;<pg>62</pg>

But in the Jerusalem Talmud it is precise,

that these attributes are "good gifts

(that)

the Holy One, blessed be He, gave to Israel",

and if so, it is not discussing the attribute of kindness ingrained in the soul of Abraham

(and his seed after him)

in its own right,

but rather an attribute of kindness that is a special gift from the Holy One, blessed be He, to Israel,

and therefore the verse brings "and the L-rd your G-d will keep for you the covenant and the kindness".

And it requires explanation:

a)

What is the content of the difference between the Bavli and the Yerushalmi,

if the discussion is about the natural attribute of kindness of Avraham,

or about the attribute of kindness that was given as a gift from Above — what is the practical difference?

b)

Regarding mercy and shame,

behold, also in the Bavli verses are brought that indicate that they are a gift from the Holy One, blessed be He, to Israel: regarding mercy — "and He will give you mercy",

and likewise regarding shame "so that His fear may be upon your faces",

which refers to the Giving of the Torah,

that the voices and torches etc. of the Giving of the Torah caused that "His fear may be upon your faces etc."

It is understandable regarding shame,

according to the explanation in Maharsha¹⁷

that the nature of shame was indeed fixed in the soul of the children of Israel only through the Giving of the Torah,

for the children of Israel by themselves are,

on the contrary,

"brazen" among the nations¹⁸

[therefore our Sages precisely stated¹⁹

"Whoever does not have a shameful face, it is known that his ancestors did not stand on Mount Sinai"]

:

But regarding mercy,

this is the nature of the soul of the members of this nation,

that they inherited from Avraham Avinu,

and as explained in Chazal²⁰

"Whoever has mercy on the creations is certainly from the seed of Avraham Avinu",

that simply it states "his seed of Avraham Avinu" because Avraham Avinu was merciful by his nature,

and as explained in the Maharsha²¹

that "he stated in his words 'his seed of Avraham'..

for regarding Avraham the attribute of charity is explicit, 'for I have known him, in order that he may command his children etc.'"²²

— and the Bavli brought the verse of "and He will give you mercy etc."

(which implies that the discussion is about the attribute of mercy which is a gift from above).

B.

And behold, another difference we find between the Bavli and the Yerushalmi:

In the Bavli it concludes "anyone who has these three signs is fit to cleave to this nation",

but not so in the Yerushalmi²³

it concludes "and these

(the Gibeonites)

do not have any one of them, immediately he stood and distanced them",

and this is that in the Yerushalmi it is explicit that the Gibeonites did not have even one of these three signs²⁴.

And according to this, one can say seemingly a practical difference in halacha between the Bavli and the Yerushalmi,

that according to the Yerushalmi one does not distance a person unless he does not have even one of these three qualities

(but if only one is lacking by him

(or two)

of them, one does not distance him²⁵)

; but not so the plain language of the Bavli "anyone who has these three signs is fit<pg>63</pg>

to cleave to this nation",

means,

that he must have all three signs²⁶.

But it can be said that these things are not necessary,

because:

a)

The version in Ein Yaakov is "

(Whoever has in him..

is fit etc.')

does not have these three signs in him is not fit to cling to him"²⁷

— in this there is to explain

(like the Yerushalmi)

that only if he does not have all three signs is he not fit to cling to him,

and there is no need to increase dispute between the Bavli and the Yerushalmi,

as is known the rule about this²⁸.

b)

In the Rambam²⁹

it is written that "The signs of Israel the holy nation are bashful, merciful, and doers of kindness, and about the Gibeonites it says³⁰

and the Gibeonites are not from the children of Israel because they were brazen-faced..

and they did not have mercy on the sons of Saul and did not do kindness to Israel etc.'",

behold that the Rambam infers

(like the Yerushalmi)

that there was not by the Gibeonites "any one of them",

that from this it implies,

that we distance only if all three these qualities are lacking

[And as the language of the Rambam there&lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt;

— according to precise manuscripts&lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt;

: "Anyone who has brazenness and cruelty

(not "or cruelty",

as in the common books of the Rambam)

and hates people and does not bestow kindness upon them, we suspect him greatly that perhaps he is a Gibeonite"

(and so is the version of the Tur and Shulchan Aruch&lt;sup&gt;32&lt;/sup&gt;)

— because we suspect him only if he does not have even one of the three traits&lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt;],

And thus,

if you say that this is a dispute between the Bavli and the Yerushalmi — why did the Rambam decide like the Yerushalmi against the Bavli

(and especially that he used the language of the Bavli "signs of Israel")?

And therefore it is logical to say,

that also the Bavli holds that the reason David distanced the Gibeonites is because "there are not among them

(even)

one of them".

And based on this, it is difficult,

why do we not find in the Bavli this emphasis explicitly, only in the Yerushalmi?

Also, one should be precise in the language of the aforementioned Rambam — "that the signs of Israel..

bashful, merciful etc." — that he changed the order of the attributes from the Talmud

(both Bavli and Yerushalmi)²³,

and he prefaced "bashful" to "merciful"³⁴.

And even though we find such a version in one place in the Midrash³⁵

— it is difficult,

why did the Rambam not adopt the prevalent version in the Talmud

(and Midrashim)?

3.

And one can say the explanation in all this:

The point of difference between the Bavli and the Yerushalmi is: In the Bavli it is precise "three signs there are<pg>64</pg>

In this nation"

(and not "three attributes"³⁶

and the like),

and this means that it is not discussing the virtues of these attributes in themselves,

but rather that they serve as "signs"

(regarding another matter)

; and since all of them are a sign of one thing,

it is understood from this,

that all three attributes stem from one particular quality; unlike in the Yerushalmi which says "three good gifts the Holy One, blessed be He, gave to Israel",

meaning that it is discussing these three attributes in themselves,

and if so, it can be said that each one is a virtue in itself

(for otherwise,

it is one thing except that it is divided into three gifts).

And it can be said,

that this is also a difference in the manner of conduct regarding these three attributes,

that it can be explained in two ways

(and as we see simply)

:

a)

Regarding the usual,

the three attributes are dependent on each other,

in a way that one attribute brings automatically the second,

such as that one who has shame and tenderness of soul, he is merciful,

and from the attribute of mercy in him, he is a bestower of kindness to those in need.

b)

Sometimes these three attributes are not dependent on each other,

that he bestows kindness to the other because he wants to benefit him and not because he has mercy on him

(and likewise regarding the rest)

— because after all,

shame,

mercy and kindness are three different attributes from each other,

and therefore one attribute can exist without the second.

And this is the difference between the Bavli and the Yerushalmi: In the Yerushalmi it emphasizes that each of the three attributes is a virtue

(and a gift)

in itself,

for it speaks about the essence of the attributes, each one being distinct from its counterpart; but in the Bavli they are "three signs" of one quality,

so then the attributes come

(generally)

all together in a manner of cause and effect one with another³⁷.

4.

And it can be said that this is the reason that the Bavli brought the verse "in order that He may command etc."

(regarding Abraham)

only concerning those who perform acts of kindness and not regarding the merciful:

The relationship of "performers of kindnesses" to the attributes of mercy and shame

(when they come together in a manner of cause and effect)

It is in a way that gemilut chasadim is the result of mercy and shame,

That is: the intention in "performers of kindnesses" is not the feeling of kindness in the heart,

but rather the act of kindness³⁸

that one does with his fellow

(as the simple interpretation of "performers of kindnesses"),

that the cause of doing kindness is the feeling of mercy in the heart and the nature of shame in the soul

(as will be explained below in section 5 at length)

; and therefore one cannot bring the verse of "for the sake of which He commanded his children and his household etc." except regarding performers of kindnesses

(which is the act of kindness as above)

and not regarding mercy and shame

(which are the feeling in the heart and the nature of the soul³⁹),

because simply,

Abraham's command to his household after him was that they conduct themselves with kindness and mercy etc.

(and not regarding the feeling in the heart and the nature in the soul, which a command does not apply to)⁴⁰.

<pg>65</pg>

[And it works out well why the Yerushalmi did not bring the verse of "for the sake of which He commanded etc." as a proof for "performers of kindnesses",

because in the Yerushalmi the intention in performers of kindnesses is the attribute of kindness in the heart,

that this that there is in every Jew a feeling of kindness in the heart is not because of Abraham's command to his children and his household after him, but because the Holy One, blessed be He, implanted thus in the heart of every Jewish man,

"and the Lord your God will keep for you the covenant and the kindness"].

And according to the above distinction between the Bavli and the Yerushalmi, it is also understood the reason that specifically in the Yerushalmi it was necessary to explain that the Gibeonites "there is not in them even one",

but not so in the Bavli, there is no such emphasis:

Also according to the Bavli, there were not among the Gibeonites even "one of them",

but because it is precise that they are "three signs",

that is, as above, that all of them are the result of one point

[and the distinction between the three signs is only in their "place" in the soul of man,

that bestowers of kindness is in action; merciful ones — the feeling in the heart,

and shame — the nature of the soul],

so it is understood of itself that they are one reality that cannot be separated from each other.

For when there is a point

(trait)

this,

there will come automatically all three "signs" — the attributes

(in all parts of the soul),

and if it is lacking — the opposite will come,

that the brazenness in him will produce a feeling of cruelty in the heart,

which will cause hatred of creatures and lack of doing kindness⁴¹.

And consequently there is no need to emphasize that among the Gibeonites "there is not in them

(even)

one of them" because all of them are one entity.

Not so in the Yerushalmi, which speaks of these traits as each one of them is

(quality 6)

a separate gift — then it is necessary to emphasize that regarding the Gibeonites, not one of the three traits existed,

because it is possible that one may be found without the other two.

5.

Based on all the above, it can be said,

that this is the intent of the Rambam in that he changed the order of the traits and placed bashful before merciful — in order to emphasize,

that what is discussed here

(in the "signs of Israel")

are the three traits as they come in a manner of cause and effect one with the other,

in which case their order is — bashful, merciful, and doers of kindness,

and as above,

that doers of kindness means the act of kindness,

the cause of which is — the feeling of mercy in the heart,

and the thing that causes the heart to be aroused in mercy upon another is the very nature of softness in the soul — bashful.

And it can be explained that this order also pertains to the content of the matter of the "signs",

that when are these three attributes signs for Israel,

only when the acts of kindness are a result of mercy,

and mercy is a product of shame:

The concept of acts of kindness is possible

(not from the aspect of compassion and bashfulness,

but the opposite)

from the aspect of selfhood and pride,

like the kindness of Ishmael⁴²,

and as our sages, of blessed memory, said⁴³

that all charity and kindness that the nations of the world do are only to aggrandize themselves with it and to pride themselves with it; and similarly there is mercy that comes specifically from the aspect of pride,

for since he considers himself great and elevated above the people,

he sees the other as a lowly person who must be pitied⁴⁴.

And this is what the Rambam informs us,

that the signs<pg>66</pg>

of "the holy nation" depend on this,

that the cause of kindness is mercy,

and mercy originates in the nature of shame and softness of the person⁴⁵.

And in a deeper way it can be said: as explained above,

that the three attributes are "signs" of one point — which is the point of the essence of a Jewish person,

and this point is the matter of self-nullification,

that he is not an existence for himself, but his entire purpose is to serve his Master,

and as our father Abraham said⁴⁶

"And I am dust and ashes."

And this is that the Rambam prefaced the attribute of shame before mercy and kindness — because the feeling of shame

(which indicates the nature of softness and the negation of brazenness etc.)

expresses the point of self-nullification in a revealed manner,

and therefore this is the first and primary sign of Israel,

and the perfection of the sign is when the point of self-nullification penetrates his entire existence,

so that even his mercy and kindness are not from pride but only from self-nullification,

"And I am dust and ashes"⁴⁷.

6.

But according to this it is difficult from the other side — why does the Gemara precede "merciful" to "bashful"?

Simply, one can say,

for the main injustice of the Gibeonites, because of which David the King distanced them, was their cruelty,

that they were not merciful,

and they killed the sons of Saul⁴⁸.

But one can say another reason

(on the way of ethics)⁴⁹

— that in this the Gemara negates a feeling of pride that can come as a result of compassion

(true)

: when a person is aroused with a feeling of true compassion for another

(to the extent that he does kindness with him)

— then,

from the contemplation of the other's situation,

he can come to a feeling of selfhood,

because through this contemplation he sees and recognizes the distance of worth of the other; and therefore,

specifically after the compassion he needs to arouse in himself a feeling of shame and self-nullification.

And more deeply one can say — that there is "shame" that is a result and comes in a way of cause and effect from the compassion itself.

And it is according to what is explained in the Midrash⁵⁰

that the reason that the Holy One, blessed be He, created poor people in the world is because "He who guards mercy and truth"⁵¹,

<pg>67</pg>

"If everyone would be rich..

who could perform acts of kindness".

And it follows,

that this that the other is in a situation where he needs mercy is only in order to give merit to the rich man that he can fulfill the commandment of charity⁵²,

thus,

that he himself is the cause that his fellow finds himself in a state of distress and pressure! And when he contemplates this well,

then immediately he will be aroused with a measure of true shame — because in order to give him merit with the commandment of gemilus chasadim they distress his fellow that he should be in a situation and state that they will need to have mercy on him!...

— I heard from the Rebbe, my father-in-law, the Rebbe,

that when he was on a ship on his way from his visit to the Holy Land

(in the year 1929),

and the news reached him about the riots that occurred then in Chevron, may the Merciful One save us,

he became ill from the greatness of the distress etc.

On the ship there was with him a G-d-fearing doctor who treated him with medicines etc. until he returned to his strength⁵³.

After some time the doctor came to the Rebbe, my father-in-law, the Rebbe, in order to ask for a correction,

and to the question of the Rebbe, my father-in-law, the Rebbe, about what and why,

he answered: It is a clear thing,

that the Rebbe,

being a leader of Israel that many need him,

must be healthy,

and if so,

had I not been on the ship together with the Rebbe,

so that then there would not have been the possibility of healing through natural means,

the Rebbe would not have become ill in the first place,

and it follows,

that the fact that I was on the ship caused that the Rebbe suffered for a period of time,

and for this

(he concluded his words)

I came to ask for a correction...

And this is the order of "merciful ones" and afterwards "bashful ones" — that when a Jewish person has self-nullification,

the mercies themselves generate in him a feeling of shame and true self-nullification.

(From the talk of Shabbos Parshas Vayikra-Purim 5747)